Now that we have concluded the logic favoring a singular original family for everyone, it becomes apparent why most young children of the world tend toward peace with each other, although the spirit of competition remains. Just as we observe in a single family with many children, if material resources and parental attention are equally provided to all, while innocent competition remains, parental encouragement for peaceful competition helps maintain the children's bond to one another when love and resources are shared equally and justly. However, if resources and parental favoritism become merit-based, we can expect an intensification of competition and even jealousy among the siblings that can foster resentment and lead to fights and disagreements.
Now, let's reflect on the various goals, desires, and wants that humans seek, compete for, and even fight over to the point of killing others to protect, defend, or possess. The single most important reward or gain one can achieve points us to the secret discovery to overcome death during life. Anyone reflecting on the ultimate value to gain would agree it is the treatment of overcoming death to live eternally. If one can live eternally, then they can enter into endless battles and sustain endless harm, yet keep pushing forward even against the toughest armies of the world and eventually succeed in destroying them all, even if destroying one at a time when they fall ill, become frail, or die a natural death, thus a win is guaranteed. A win is guaranteed even without fighting a competition as the competition will eventually die and leave all their possessions to the one who possesses eternal life. Even if the competition is unequal, as a human has the ability to print money unlimitedly and possess the entire world and enslave the one who can live eternally and pay them no wage whatsoever, eventually, the greedy owner of the entire world and all their offspring will die, and the one who lives eternally will inherit the entire world regardless of when, as living eternally has no limitation. This is a vital logical point to reflect on to understand why we are designed and why all our lives we seek to delay, postpone, or find a cure for the guaranteed death to live eternally. Thus, when reflected upon this logic and understood in the context of values, wants, desires, and possessions, we can have a clearer view and understanding of situations during life that require us to respond and choose.
However, if it is most logical to seek overcoming death, then everyone should be laboring to gain this eternal life reward, but clearly not everyone does. Since everyone originated from the same original family, we are, albeit very distantly, all relatives. Nevertheless, it would be expected that we assist one another in reaching our mutual goal of permanent life; yet, this is not what we generally observe.
We have concluded that the Creator of all possesses endless life, and thus, let us refer to the Creator as The Creator Divine Life. We should consider whether there is one Creator of everything or multiple separate creators, each specializing in a different aspect. If one creator specializes in creating plants and another in creating animals, then wouldn't this scenario resemble our earlier discussion about whether we had one original parent or multiple separate parents? If multiple separate parents, as we discussed, jealousy and competition would be triggered, as we observe even within a single family environment. Thus, it is expected that multiple creators would also exhibit competitiveness and jealousy among themselves. Furthermore, since humans are the wisest and highest of all observed creations, the creator who designed the original human must be the wisest and most powerful of all creators. If more than one creator is present, it suggests the possibility of one creator disobeying another due to competition, and the most powerful creator might punish the aggressor, stripping them of their eternal life ability and lowering them to a situation similar to the human race, who lost eternal life.
Furthermore, since humans lost the ability of eternal life and we concluded that gaining eternal life is the most significant of all gains; therefore, even if there are multiple separate creators, it is more logical for humans seeking eternal life to show obedience and homage to the Creator who holds the key to granting those qualified humans the most valuable eternal life. In a scenario with multiple separate creators, such creators would compete for human loyalties, potentially triggering jealousy and conflict among them, leading to the elimination of all but one, or even to the punishment of loyal humans who failed to offer sufficient loyalty, stripping them of eternal life and leaving humans caught in a futile battle due to divided loyalties.
Even if humans agreed to offer homage and loyalty to every creator, assuming all were equal, by dedicating to each a day of homage per week, this arrangement would create further challenges. It demands dedicating a separate day each week, or a month depending on how many separate equal creators exist, to offer each equal, fair, and just loyalty and homage. This complicates matters as humans have other responsibilities during their earthly life and cannot help but neglect one or more equal creators, which could trigger those creators' punishment, including death. As a king or authoritative deity has at their disposal all forms of punishment for their inferior subjects when not obeyed, including death.
Again, the possibility of more than one creator introduces numerous issues, including competition and jealousy among themselves, and requires an equal amount of loyalty and homage from humans. Even when a human tries to fulfill proper homage to all of them, the increased chances of forgetting, neglecting, or due to limited time or attention to detail, ending up neglecting at least one creator, triggers a never-ending battle of chasing an unobtainable eternal life.
Thus, a wise logic would conclude that everything was created by one Creator, and everything else is inferior to this one Divine Life Creator. Therefore, all created beings are required to show loyalty and homage to this one Divine Life Creator.
We conclude that there are two separate and distinct sets of rewards, goals, desires, possessions, needs, and wants. One is the ultimate goal of overcoming death to gain eternal life, which we can refer to as the Ultimate Goal of Life. Observing life, we also need to deal with and properly evaluate all the other intriguing rewards, which are interesting, addictive, joyful, enticing, desirable, pleasing, important, and necessary; these we can summarize as Living Life Goals.
We observe that once a person dies, regardless of all the possessions they accumulated, sought, fought for, labored for, built, purchased, stole, robbed, hid, guarded, enjoyed, loved, became accustomed to, cared for, adored, lobbied for, negotiated for, marketed, wrote about, designed, mourned, celebrated, saw, heard, touched, smelled, ate, grew, wore, declared as laws, authored, signed, or even enacted as law and order, all these become left behind and offer no gain at all to the deceased. This is an important reflection, yet astonishing.
The real reward, if we consider the One Divine Life Creator’s inheritance to His beloved children, would be the possession of eternal life, while all the aforementioned Living Life Goals would be akin to children living with their King parents. During life, they enjoy various possessions, food, clothing, bodyguards, money, stories, entertainments, parties, and toys in their parents' castle, akin to all the skills learned until graduating from school. Then, after observing the children's performances during the schooling years, the parents decide to hand the entire inheritance of the "Divine Life" to the children they find most suitable for the responsibilities required. Thereafter, the children who lost the inheritance of eternal life know that while they can continue to enjoy the castle and all its treasures, it is limited to the years they remain alive.
What might we expect the behaviors of the King's children to be after they complete their schooling years, only to suddenly realize that their parents have given the inheritance to their siblings, while allowing them to continue living in the castle and enjoying their favorite treasures until their death? Obviously, we can expect that the children who were not granted the permanent life of the entire castle would feel extremely jealous, hurt, outraged, envious, angry, and fume with contempt, hatred, and rage against their siblings who received the eternal inheritance. Certainly, quarrels would be triggered among the two sets of siblings.
Although it may seem unfair, unjust, and unequal for the parents to withhold part of their inheritance from some of their children, this decision is based on observing the children during their school years. The children who became too distracted with parties, greed, addictions, harmful behaviors, offensive behaviors, and disobedience would indeed make it unjust, unequal, unfair, and would diminish the value of the father's command if they were rewarded equally to the disciplined children. We observe this principle in school where students who studied diligently and showed discipline should not be rewarded equally as those who never respected the teacher, their fellow students, and did not study, assuming the teacher possesses ultimate fairness, justice, and ethical standards in evaluating the students.
Additionally, even though some of the children received no inheritance, their initial anger and rage against the siblings who inherited the castle of eternal life might eventually give way to sorrow. They may come to rejoice with their sibling who received the inheritance and make necessary amends, working on their offensive habits towards their siblings, servants, outsiders, and their parents. By overcoming the influence of the enraged siblings and any negative retaliations, it is logical to conclude that the parents and the inheritance they oversee might volunteer with open arms to welcome them and share the inheritance with them, provided these amends take place before they reach death.
Nevertheless, the enraged siblings who have indulged in destructive addictive pleasures within the castle—such as unchecked sexuality, substance abuse, greed for money, robbery, theft, power-seeking, harm, abuse, scamming, and killing—may become numb and blind, convinced that they are the most powerful children. They may believe they can bribe whoever they desire to achieve whatever they like, confident that their power can secure them the rewards they desire. Certainly, these enraged siblings may entice others with bribes, living life desires, sexual desires, and living indulgences, using illogical and false interpretations that may lead to their permanent harm if they resist the Creator's Design to overcome death and gain eternal life.
As we have discussed, logic seems to indicate that the original parent was designed to live eternally, and a disobedience with the Creator must have merited the inherited death. Yet, we still possess the desire and seek a solution to live permanently. Therefore, what the original parent must have contemplated is how to meet the requirements to break this cycle of death and merit eternal life for themselves and their descendants. Reflecting further on what solutions were possible for the original parents upon losing their original eternal life, we now see that the original parent, facing a life that would end with death, needed to qualify for eternal life. This necessitates not only for the original parent to abide by the requirements but also for all their descendants, as any parent desires the best inheritance for their descendants.
Although the desire to overcome death and to live eternally remains within everyone, when someone reflects on how to overcome death as we are doing now, they may reach a similar logical conclusion. However, it requires dedicating time and good observation to recognize that while we all desire to overcome death, most of the life goals we pursue and dedicate time and effort to are limited to living life. This should prompt us to take the time to reflect on a more logical solution to overcome death. Furthermore, those who figure it out are encouraged, or even required under duties to their sibling bond, love, respect, and honor to guide others and make it easier to understand, and most importantly, to honor the Creator by teaching His Design to others, just as when a King makes a Decree or an Order, his close team ensures that everyone knows, understands, and desires to please the King by learning the order and decree.
That is another important reason why censoring or constraining one another from discussing and sharing our opinions, faith, and views is not a desire for peace, but an act of aggression and disobedience against the Creator and His adherent followers. Additionally, we have concluded that logically all humans are siblings and should be allowed to share views, opinions, and faith among one another, to be done peacefully via respectful discussions. Refraining from sharing certain opinions and faith by silence conflicts with the logical expectation, respect, and duties to one another as siblings and to the Creator, just as when the King's team avoids sharing the King's Decree and Order with the population, knowing that the population will be judged by the King's decree even if they excuse their lack of knowledge of the decree.
Nevertheless, it would be optimal for the original parents if they could meet the requirement to satisfy the punishment of death themselves, without risking that each of their descendants must do the same, which raises the potential that many will fail and receive permanent death. In other words, as soon as the original parents became aware that they were punished with death, they could choose to be extremely remorseful, spending all their time fasting and offering homage, crying and begging for mercy. Alternatively, as it is a capital punishment, they could offer themselves to die, sparing all their descendants. They could choose to live in extreme mourning and refrain from conjugal relationships, dying barren in a very short time, thus forcing the Creator to solve the problem or create new original parents who did not disobey. This would be the logical solution for any parent to spare their descendants from permanent death.
Additionally, the original parents are best positioned to understand the value of permanent life and recognize that whether their earthly life lasts a few hundred years or just a few weeks, achieving any earthly goals is short-lived and does not compare to the goal of inheriting eternal life. Therefore, if the solution to fulfilling the Creator’s requirement to overcome death can be achieved by any human being, the best and most logical solution is for the original parents to focus solely on meeting the conditions without conceiving any descendants until after they have inherited eternal life. The original parents are the most suitable to fulfill the requirement to overcome death, especially since they are the ones who committed the disobedience and should be more than willing to meet the capital punishment requirement and spare their entire descendants.
In other words, if the requirement is a sacrificial offering, praying 10 times a day, fasting, abstaining from meat, circumcision, not stealing, not hurting others, not killing, forgiving, making a pilgrimage to a site, building a place of worship and homage to the Creator, or praising the Creator thousands of times a day—whatever the requirement may be—it is best, most ethical, fair, and just for them to serve the punishment themselves for their own disobedience without conceiving any child until after eternal life is obtained.
However, this most logical solution was not carried out, necessitating humans to continue the cycle of death, which points to the fact that the solution to overcome death cannot be satisfied merely by obeying certain rules, offerings, or homages. Therefore, it appears that it is the Creator who must overcome death, and not dependent on any human, including the original parents, to subscribe to any rules, sacrifices, or certain duties to avoid or practice. Because no matter how difficult the requirement, the original parents are best suited to overcome it and spare all their descendants, and if any of the original parents or a descendant were to meet the requirement, the choice for the original parents to do so, sparing their descendants, is the best outcome. As such, reflection leads us to conclude that the original parents cannot overcome permanent death nor fulfill the requirement, as the solution rests with and depends on the Creator Himself.
Even with our conclusion that the requirement to overcome permanent death is governed solely by the Creator Himself, there remains the issue that the original parents could and should have spared all their descendants the consequence of death by avoiding having any descendants until permanent life was achieved. From our discussion, it appears that the Creator must have demanded and required the original parents to raise faithful offspring who abide by the Creator's plan to overcome death, thereby fulfilling the requirement for permanent life. In other words, although our reflection leads us to believe that no human being, including the original parents, can qualify to overcome death through any act of obedience alone, and that it requires the Creator Himself, conceiving children and abiding by all the conditional requirements potentially set by the Creator forms part of this incredible design to overcome the punishment of death. Once the design is fulfilled, all those who met the prerequisites will qualify to gain the inheritance of permanent life.
If the solution to overcome death rests solely on the Creator, then neither disobedience nor obedience would carry any consequences or benefits, as the Creator would fulfill the requirement and award everyone equally. This contradicts our earlier conclusion that fairness, equality, ethical behavior, and justice are inherent within our human design and, as such, must also be present at the highest level within the Creator’s essence. Therefore, a merit-based reward system for eternal life must be established not as a means for saving oneself to gain eternal life—as we concluded that is not the case, or the original parents could have fulfilled it before conceiving any children—but rather, the requirements or demands placed on humans are established as part of a rewarding design to ensure fairness, ethics, equality, and justice for everyone from the moment of conception, with the award or loss of permanent life determined after earthly death.
This is another important logical point to note when evaluating opinions, explanations, or interpretations of faith that claim to offer the Creator’s Design and Truthful answer in overcoming permanent death. While our reflections on this important subject leave the details of how things could be unfolded by the Creator, if we are able to identify certain important logical points and observed evidence, we assert that the Creator, who created everything with the highest wisdom, will surely design the solution to overcome death in a manner that is wise and adheres to fairness, equality, ethical behavior, and logic to the highest levels—ensuring that even our humble reflections would not be overlooked by our Eternal Creator.
Now, what sort of teachings and possible human requirements might contribute to the meritorious evaluation by the Creator, the Judge of each one, even though we already assert and know that no human action by itself can overcome death? Certainly, some of the expected conditions should involve the individual's relationship with the Creator, offering Him the homage and thanks rightfully due as a deity, which includes the offering of sacrifices as discussed. Furthermore, these conditions should also concern the individual's relationships with others, fostering the maintenance of peace, equality, justice, cooperation, and concern for the well-being of one another since we are siblings on the same journey to overcome death—a journey that is made easier, less painful, and more enjoyable by assisting one another.
Additionally, we observe from environmental and weather challenges, obstacles, vicious animal and human attacks, as well as various stages in life from the weakest to the sickest, that we need and depend on our siblings' assistance to overcome such obstacles so that each one may have the opportunity sufficient to meet the conditions to qualify for eternal life. Even meeting the required homage, offering sacrifices, and worship to the Creator necessitates one another's assistance to perform beautifully. For example, if the place of homage requires building, or the worship involves certain tools or singing, the cooperation of the siblings is important. Those gifted with more beautiful musical and singing talents are vital to enhance the worship and homage of all the participating siblings. Likewise, building, cleaning, and preparing the building for worship requires the siblings to cooperate.
As such, it is logical to expect that part of the conditions placed on humans to meet the Creator's requirements—although by themselves they cannot overcome death—are important and would be expected to relate to the relationships among the siblings and each one's relationship with the Creator. This fulfills the need to offer worship, homage, and sacrifice, which a deity like the Creator requires, just as a King demands of those under his order who owe him the gift of eternal life he made available to them.
Furthermore, we can logically expect that there would be a set of distinct groups. The first group, from the original parent until the fulfillment of the Creator's Design to overcome death offering the chance to gain eternal life, and those born after the condition of overcoming death has been fulfilled by the Creator. The first group would be living and abiding by the first set of rules and commands related to one another's relationship and the individual and the Creator as conditional pre-fulfillment sets of rules and conditions in the hope and longing for the Creator's Design. It is important to remember that this first group's set of rules and pre-conditions, by themselves, cannot overcome death to gain eternal life as long as the Creator has not fulfilled the vital part to fulfill the death requirement and replace it with eternal life. In other words, when the original parents die and all those die before the Creator fulfills the requirement to overcome death, they will remain in a state of death or a prolonged sleep or awaiting period regardless of the length as they themselves or the actions and rules they abided by during life cannot overcome death; otherwise, as we discussed, the original parents would have fulfilled it to gain eternal life before conceiving any child to avoid any sibling not meeting the eternal life condition.
The second group of people would have rules and conditions related to one another and the Creator as after the pre-conditions are fulfilled or completed. In other words, while the first group of people live in great hope that the Creator would eventually fulfill His promise and make gaining eternal life a reality inheritance, the second group of people, after the Creator fulfills and completes the pre-requirement, are living in celebration, rejoice and assurance that a promise made is already fulfilled and that some of their faithful siblings who already died are ecstatic and may have already started enjoying eternal life with the Creator.
Therefore, do we expect that all the pre-conditions of rules and commands related to our relationship with our siblings and the Creator should be completely thrown away? Not necessarily as thrown away or dismissed, since we still, as long as we live on earth, require a set of rules for our relationship with our siblings on our journey as well as every creature is required to offer homage, worship, and gratitude to the Creator especially after the inheritance of eternal life became reality. Furthermore, if the pre-conditions were vital to the Creator to teach them and part of our design, they cannot become unimportant to be thrown away, but to show them as fulfilled or renewed and presented as completed. In other words, if the pre-conditions are considered weak or limited in their power of length of life in themselves, the fulfillment makes them alive or empowered with eternal life as the fulfillment draws on the inherited gift of eternal life which is the main purpose of the remedy offering eternal life. Likewise, the requirement of practicing and abiding by the fulfillment requirement after the condition of death is fulfilled by themselves would not offer eternal life except that the Creator fulfilled them and elevated them by His gift of eternal life. As such, after the fulfillment of the pre-conditions, they may take a replacement shape rather than standing for future fulfillment by the Creator, becoming or replaced by standing and empowered as fulfilled. For example, a person may offer a fiancé a ring to be worn on the fourth finger of the right (or left) hand, and after the wedding, the same ring and/or an additional wedding band is now worn on the fifth finger of the other hand or the same hand depending on tradition as the engagement promise is now empowered and fulfilled. Therefore, fulfillment of the pre-condition does not necessarily throw away the pre-condition, but empower and elevate it from a hope awaiting a future promise of marriage to a completion and fulfillment as marriage reminded and celebrated daily by the special designated rings for example. However, regardless of the engagement period, the engagement ring remains a sign of a promise but not of the completion of that promise for marriage. Certainly, the pre-conditions are expected to carry many of the expected completions of the pre-conditions for example an engaged couple are expected to be faithful, truthful, not to be engaged to other partners at the same time until the engagement is null. However, after marriage the spouses are expected to continue to be faithful, truthful, and avoid defying the marital vow as well as other more empowered gains and responsibilities offered by the marriage fulfillment.
Furthermore, let's consider the relationship of the Creator with the original parents and their descendants. As we reflect on the potential nature of this relationship, we must acknowledge that it is dominated by the primary and obvious differences in roles and abilities: the Creator is all-powerful, superior, and possesses eternal life, whereas the original parents and their descendants are created beings who have disobeyed and face the capital punishment of death, making them inferiors with limitations.
This relationship, in addition to its obvious disparity— an Eternal Creator compared to an inferior creature—can take various forms such as friends, a business-like partnership, an employer-employee dynamic, children of the Creator, or even a fiancé with the Creator until the promise of marriage is fulfilled. It could also be likened to a marital bond or encompass multiple forms of relationships. We can anticipate that the relationship includes elements of friendship or a teacher-student dynamic since it necessitates communication, spending time together, and offering homage.
Additionally, the relationship could be viewed as that between an employer and an employee, given that rules are set and there is a primary reward linked to eternal life. A fiancé relationship is likely in addition to the other relationships since there exists a plan, a condition, or a promise by the Creator to fulfill the demand imposed by death. While all these relationships might be present, the higher form of relationship as a fiancé, although still a promise, carries the expectation that a Creator's promise is to be fulfilled comprehensively.
Therefore, while the relationship might take the form of being betrothed, given that we are considering an eternal living Creator, we expect a promise from the Creator to be assuredly fulfilled. As such, the relationship is expected to carry a strong promise with certainty of fulfillment, positioning the dominant relationship between the Creator and the original parents and their descendants as strong as a marital relationship. However, it is essential to maintain that the Creator is all-powerful and has eternal life, whereas humans are inferior and mortal, hoping for eternal life that can only be achieved through the Creator fulfilling His promise.
The most critical issue for humans is to await the Creator's fulfillment of the precondition that makes eternal life available to them. Additionally, fulfilling the condition of the disobedience that entailed the capital punishment of death is a strong promise that similarly resembles a marital covenant, akin to the traditional and ideal marital relationship carrying the expectation of "until death do us part."
Thus, from the beginning, after the disobedience of the original parents, it was understood that neither they nor their descendants could overcome death until the Creator fulfilled His promise. Therefore, the original parents and their siblings, though punished by the capital punishment of death, were simultaneously loved by a Creator who committed to fulfilling the requirements for humans who lost eternal life due to deserving capital punishment. This situation presents an irony: despite the dominant relationship of a superior, eternal Creator and inferior, disobedient humans who lost the privilege of eternal life, there exists a loving relationship. The one who is eternal, serving both as judge and redeemer, can alone overcome death and grant eternal life, which reflects the ultimate form of an inheritance relationship akin to that between parent and child, and a faithful, fulfilled promise akin to a marital-like loving relationship that is unconditional "until death."
Since the original parents could not spare their descendants the potential that a certain percentage would fail to meet the pre-requirement, and considering that the best action for the original parents would have been to fulfill any pre-requirement before conceiving children—which as we concluded, is not the case since only the Creator can overcome the capital punishment of death—the part of the precondition involving the desire to conceive and raise faithful children becomes evident. Note, it is not sufficient to think that the Creator desires faithful children from the original parents and adherence to certain rules, demands, homage, worship, and sacrifice offerings. Nevertheless, the original parents would still need to meet the pre-conditions, possibly fasting, praying, and mourning night and day to bring about their own death before any offspring are born, to gain eternal life and prevent any offspring from facing the possible eternal death punishment.
The requirement that only the Creator can fulfill the disobedience of the original parents and their siblings at the future proper timing necessitates and compels the original parents to fulfill any demanded or required pre-conditions and produce offspring awaiting the proper timing for the Creator to fulfill and complete the pre-condition, thus replacing death with eternal life.
Even the possibility that, after earthly death and having abided by all the pre-requirements, sacrifices, offerings, and homage, one would be judged by the Creator and a decision rendered to inherit eternal life is also not a logical solution. This is because the original parents could have spared creating any descendants and fulfilled all pre-requirements, and due to severe continuous sorrow, mourning, and fasting following their disobedience, they could have reached death and been judged by the Creator, expecting that their firsthand understanding and fulfilling of the pre-requirements, combined with excessive mourning and fasting, would result in a hastened and expected death before any offspring were born, thus sparing all their future offspring the struggle and a significant percentage the risk of failing and deserving permanent death.
Logic dictates the best option for the situation: the original parents knew they were the ones who disobeyed, and sparing their offspring and all of humanity the possibility that a percentage would deserve permanent death gave them the duty and courage to mourn non-stop, fast non-stop, offer homage and sacrifices non-stop, and abide by all the pre-requirements at the easiest time in history since they were alone and could mourn together or apart without committing any further disobedience that would trigger the gain of eternal life for them and any future descendants they might have had. However, the only possible explanation for continuing life and dealing with all the difficulties, and the risk that most of the descendants could lose eternal life, is that the fulfillment of the punishment of capital death, possible only by the Creator, is the promise to be fulfilled during our earthly life by the Creator.
This is an incredible conclusion we have reached by reflecting on the Design of life and the innate desire of everyone to overcome death—an astonishing conclusion thus far—and it has prompted us to elevate the relationship to resemble a marital love relationship while maintaining the Creator as the Eternal Living Creator and humans as created beings inferior, deserving of capital death yet desiring and seeking eternal life.
Furthermore, we have concluded that the disobedience merited the limited earthly life and death, which is the capital punishment requiring the life sacrifice of the offenders—whom we concluded are the original parents—forced to will this fate to all their descendants, as we observe. What possible replacement payment or fulfillment of the capital punishment by the death of the original man could be remains a mystery. We can logically conclude that capital punishment resulting in the original parents' death could be fulfilled either by the original offending parents, their offspring, or possibly by sub-creatures like plants or animals, or higher forms of life. The original parents are living creatures and the highest form of creatures observed on Earth, in a manner easily observable to our senses, if we are to understand and judge fairly that the debt of capital death is fulfilled.
In other words, if the sacrifice is purely spiritual and lacks an easily observable form or shape by our senses, it would be difficult for humans to be convinced that the original capital punishment is completely fulfilled, and we need to move from pre-fulfillment and hope into fulfillment, completion, and assured celebration. Furthermore, if the disobedience was committed by the original parents, there is no need for any substitute offspring to die for all offspring and the original parents, as such a solution would best be fulfilled by the original parents, more deserving and compliant with fairness, ethical, and justice requirements. Any of the earthly offspring did not directly commit the original disobedience and it would be contrary to fairness, ethics, and justice for the Creator to designate another offspring, or many offspring, to take the place for the original offending parents and all siblings.
Besides, the original parents are the parents of all siblings throughout history and, as such, no other sibling, regardless of their powerful titles—whether kings, priests, teachers, presidents, high-priests, or prophets—would possess a more prestigious role than the original and first human parents of the entire humanity and most closely connected to the original issue of disobedience, who most likely enjoyed eternal life before the disobedience, which places them above all humans in their roles and surely qualifies them to fulfill any punishment of death as much, if not more than, any other human sibling.
Furthermore, we can dismiss all creatures—whether animals, plants, fish, birds, insects, or fungi—as they are less complex and inferior to human beings, for whom everything including the moon, stars, rain, clouds, and water appears created to aid the human being in their living needs and requirements from air, drink, food, enjoyment, needs, assistance, worship, sacrifices (pre-conditioned or any needs after the pre-conditions are completed and fulfilled), and homage requirements. However, any creatures other than humans can be used as pre-condition sacrifice offerings. We have already concluded that a powerful deity that can gift eternal life is worthy and deserving of offerings and sacrifices as a homage, especially the offering of a living creature, as it symbolizes the author of everything, including life itself.
However, a human being being sacrificed for a deity, as they contain life and the Creator of life requires a sacrifice including life, is not suitable as a living sacrifice on behalf of another human at all. The reason is that the one offering the sacrifice is offering it to stand for their own disobedience. However, since humans are created with free will to make choices and responses, which is the reason the Creator gifted them with such a high level of essence, to make choices and respond freely, they deserved the punishment by capital death and the stripping of eternal life from them. If the original parent lacked free will to make choices and responses and was only limited to acting by instinct, then they could not deserve capital punishment, as the disobedience would be by instinct and without comprehending choices and thinking logically about consequences to be held accountable and responsible for any choice that was triggered by instinct, lacking any ability to study and reflect on its consequences and the various logical scenarios.
Why can less than human creatures or created matters be used as pre-conditioned sacrifices to atone for faults and offer homage and due sacrifices, when humans with higher intelligence and free will exist? Given that humans possess free will, it requires personal consent to be offered as a sacrifice. As such, each person can only offer themselves as a sacrifice and lacks any legitimate power to offer another human being as a sacrificial offering, as the second person must offer themselves on their own behalf for their own sacrificial offering. If one person offers another as a sacrifice for oneself, it neglects that the offered human also needs to make a sacrifice to the Creator on their behalf. Thus, their offer of themselves would be limited to their own sacrificial offer, which cannot be offered again for another human being, invalidating the concept that one can offer another human as a sacrifice for oneself, regardless of consent or lack thereof, including if the offered person is too young, too frail, in a coma, or even an aborted pre-born human.
Even if we assume that an aborted unborn human lacks any ability to consent, each life can only be offered for themselves, as each person is required to offer the Creator a sacrifice. Furthermore, if such a human sacrifice could fulfill the pre-requirement to offer the Creator a sacrifice of life, the original parents logically should rush to the thought and offer themselves as a sacrifice and homage, halting any possibility for any human being to lose eternal life. Additionally, if offering one human for another were possible, even if the original human had to wait for the Creator to fulfill the capital punishment promise, one of the original parents could ask the other parent to offer themselves as a living sacrifice for the other parent and live singly, waiting on the Creator to overcome the capital punishment without the ability of the surviving original parent to have children under the reasonable choice that a life was offered as a sacrifice to the Creator. This would force the Creator to fulfill the promise of granting eternal life to the surviving original parent and the sacrificed parent during their earthly life while preventing the possibility of any offspring losing eternal life.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that no human sacrifice can be acceptable or permissible on behalf of others. For example, a scenario where a vicious ruler or a criminal could force the sacrifice of a weaker human, or even the aborted pre-born, or the sick and frail for their own sacrifice to any deity, whether the Creator Eternal Living or any other deity or human, is wholly rejected. This is also one important expected rule and demand that the Creator is expected to make as one of the pre-requirements during life, as it is crucial for justice, fairness, peace, ethics, and to honor and treat one another as siblings to prevent the strong from sacrificing any of the weak, as all are siblings.
In the scenario where sacrifices involving beings lower than humans are considered, shouldn't we treat these beings with respect rather than exploiting them simply because humans are more powerful and these creatures have not made a conscious response or choice? Firstly, we must acknowledge that a deity, such as the Creator who offers eternal life, requires a sacrificial offering that symbolizes their might and authorship of everything, including life. We are reflecting on what possibilities of life-inclusive offerings the Creator Eternal Living might accept or stipulate as a pre-requirement, and we have logically dismissed the possibility of offering human life, including the lives of the unborn, sick, or frail humans.
In the case of offering the life of an animal, bird, or plant, these may be pre-options that the Creator could accept or permit. All living creatures on earth eventually die, including humans. Since the Creator requires a sacrifice that includes life, and offering human life is not an acceptable option and is even punished by the Creator—since all humans are siblings and it contradicts the principle of equality to kill one sibling for another's required offering while the killed sibling also requires a sacrifice for themselves and is more deserving to make the offering for themselves, if it is acceptable and permissible only for oneself.
In the case of animals, birds, fish, or plants, we do not observe that an animal would worship and offer homage to the Creator and offer another sub-creature, for example, an animal offering a bird in a ceremonial sacrificial act of worship. Furthermore, what we typically observe when a stronger animal kills its prey is mainly for consumption, not as a worshiping requirement or offering.
Therefore, since humans are required to offer sacrifices, worship, and homage to the Creator and author of life, an offering involving an animal or bird can be a viable choice or pre-requirement as it does not represent itself and is not required to offer a sacrifice, thus it can stand in on behalf of humans during the pre-required conditions or commands. Moreover, animals and other lower creatures can be utilized for food for humans, whether as a sacrificial offering pre-condition or as nourishment for themselves and other creatures. While animals can be consumed by hunting animals and fall as prey, this is not an act of offering sacrifices, as no deity should receive sacrifices except the Almighty Creator, who is the author of life and eternal life itself. No other creatures should receive a sacrificial offering as a sacrifice to signify their authority over eternal life itself, except for the Creator who authors eternal life or takes it away.
Humans have the desire and need, yet lack the ability to grant eternal life to themselves or to anyone else, whether human, animal, bird, fish, or plant. Only the author of life is warranted to receive sacrifices, even of life, to symbolically affirm that they deserve and are the author of life itself. Certainly, controlling and dominant humans may demand their subordinates to sacrifice their lives or the lives of others for them, but it is illogical to sacrifice one sibling for another who cannot grant eternal life, as such a sacrifice would falsely indicate that the mortal, who lacks eternal life, is an author of eternal life.
In a way, earthly parents provide their children with life as an aid to the Creator's need for faithful descendants, yet they lack the ability to grant their children eternal life. While parents, on a very limited level and only minimally comparable to the Creator who offers both life and eternal life, still play a significant role in the creation of their children. They do deserve sacrifices, homage, and honor, but not the offer of human life, as no human can overcome death and grant eternal life on their own merit. Thus, the children’s offering of sacrifice and honor to their parents is an expression of deep appreciation and recognition that if their parents, who assisted in giving life, deserve sacrifices and homage, then how much more does the Creator, the author of life and eternal life, deserve each one's sacrifices, worship, and homage, including the sacrifice of life.
Therefore, any offering of capital punishment involving animals is only limited as a pre-conditional sacrifice standing for and on our behalf and is temporary until the hope that the Creator will overcome permanent death. Humans do not qualify. Animals and other creatures can only qualify as pre-condition sacrifices of life standing for us as a bond until the real sacrifice of the capital punishment is fulfilled. Furthermore, animals and all creatures lower than humans do not qualify as a permanent substitute as they are less than a human and cannot be equal as the sacrifice for a higher being with higher consciousness and free choice. It is akin to if a human committed a crime warranting capital punishment, it would not be equivalent for the criminal to offer a sheep's life in place of his own and be released, or in the context we are discussing, to earn eternal life by offering the animal.
If offering an animal or any created thing could substitute for the capital punishment of the original parent, they would have fulfilled it at once, as they had the entire earth from which to select a suitable offering. Thus, the logic stands that no offering of lesser beings can equate to or replace the need for fulfillment by the original parent or by the Creator Himself, as dictated by the laws of justice and the intrinsic value of life and eternal life.
Furthermore, the offering of wealth, money, lands, possessions, gold, materials, arts, buildings, or anything similar does not qualify at all to meet the requirements for eternal life. If such offerings were sufficient, the original parents, who had the entire earth at their disposal, would have quickly utilized these resources to secure eternal life for themselves and all their descendants. This highlights an important point: while tithing can be part of the pre-requirements to assist in covering the expenses of those who help, care for, and build the places of worship and sacrifice, it serves only as a means to support the needs of worship, homage, and sacrifice, and not as a means to fulfill the capital punishment requirement or earn eternal life.
The scenario where a wealthy criminal could offer a significant sum of money to escape capital punishment, while a poor individual could not, underscores the unfairness, unethical nature, and injustice of such a practice in earthly terms against another sibling human. It certainly contradicts fairness and justice to suggest that material wealth could pay for the original parental capital punishment. Moreover, considering that the Creator of humanity created everything, it becomes evident that offering materials that He created as a substitute for the capital punishment of humans is fundamentally inadequate and inappropriate.
Such offerings reduce the profound and necessary acts of justice and redemption to mere transactions, which fail to recognize the intrinsic value and significance of life and eternal life. These acts are meant to reflect deeper spiritual and moral truths, not just the transfer of earthly goods, thus highlighting the inadequacy of material offerings in addressing spiritual and eternal debts.
How about the offer of desires, addictions, and temptations that humans possess as a substitute to meet the original capital punishment? Although it is expected that sensations, desires, temptations, and habits should be part of the pre-requirements, as they significantly affect our relationships with our human siblings and our Creator, there are complexities to consider. We anticipate that offensive desires, temptations, and sensations that harm our human siblings or distract us from our relationship with the Creator should be controlled and included in the pre-requirements. These tend to divert us from principles of fairness, ethics, equality, and justice and include wrath, envy, hatred, power-seeking, abuse of others, magnifying the value of earthly gains and desires, deception, lying, killing, sexual abuse, controlling others' thoughts, opinions and expressions of faith, manipulations, and the offering of life sacrifices to anything and anyone as worship. These are expected to be part of the prerequisites.
However, merely letting go of or avoiding such vices, while vital, will not by themselves overcome death and secure permanent life. Committing such vices adds to the potential reasons for losing the Creator's eternal life reward, as they not only affect and harm our relationship with the Creator but also damage our relationships with our human siblings, treating them unjustly and unethically, not as equals on the journey to gain eternal life.
Thus, while addressing and reforming these negative behaviors and desires are crucial steps in fulfilling the prerequisites for eternal life, they are part of a broader array of conditions that must be met. These conditions are not merely about abstaining from harmful actions but also involve actively cultivating virtues that align us more closely with the Creator's design and intentions for humanity. This dual approach of avoiding vice and promoting virtue helps ensure that our behavior and choices reflect the dignity and respect due to all beings as we pursue the ultimate goal of eternal life, underscored by a commitment to fairness, equality, ethical behavior, and justice among all siblings in humanity.
Exploring the notion of offering as a sacrifice a higher creature or a newly created parallel human as a substitute for the original offense and to grant us eternal life raises complex ethical and theological questions. If we consider a higher creature with the ability to make conscious choices and possessing eternal life, there are significant implications. Such a creature cannot grant eternal life independently, and for them to be sacrificed, the Creator of Life would need to strip them of their eternal life. This act of stripping eternal life would essentially be a punishment, and logically, for a higher creature to lose such an inheritance from the Creator—such as vital eternal life—would require some form of disobedience that justifies this severe action. Additionally, it is fundamentally against principles of justice, fairness, and ethics for the Creator to sacrifice a higher being for a lower one when the one who promised to overcome human death is the Creator of eternal life, not any created being.
Considering the creation of a new parallel human specifically for this sacrificial purpose also presents profound ethical challenges. Such a human would need to be created initially with eternal life, equivalent to the original parents before their offense, and endowed with the freedom of choice to offer themselves for another’s capital crime, potentially losing their own eternal life. This scenario would require the Creator to explain the situation without influencing or coercing the new human’s decision, allowing them to freely choose to accept or reject the sacrifice. If the new human freely rejected the offer, they could potentially become an offender against the Creator’s wishes, meriting the same capital punishment, which introduces further issues of fairness, equality, and ethics. Moreover, if they accepted, concerns arise about whether the Creator might have influenced the outcome, thereby jeopardizing their freedom of choice.
The idea that a newly created human or a higher being could consent to accept capital punishment and relinquish their eternal life is deeply troubling. It involves a sacrifice that fundamentally alters their inherent rights and destiny, a choice fraught with ethical concerns. Furthermore, since the Creator is the only entity who can promise and restore eternal life and also impose punishment by taking it away, it contradicts the essence of fairness, equality, justice, and ethics for the Creator to seek another being to fulfill a promise He made. It implies that the Creator cannot independently fulfill His own promise without involving others, which undermines the Creator’s omnipotence and the trust placed in His divine capabilities.
Thus, the idea of involving a higher creature or a newly created parallel human to bear the burden of original sin and its consequent punishment challenges our understanding of divine justice and the Creator’s role in the restoration of eternal life. It suggests a scenario that conflicts with the fundamental attributes we attribute to a just and omnipotent Creator, making it an untenable solution within a framework that values ethical consistency and divine sovereignty.
We are thus left with the only feasible possibilities: that the personal rules and conditions themselves are not the complete and total requirement to overcome capital death and offer the possibility to gain eternal life after earthly death, or that the Creator must make a self-sacrifice to meet the capital death requirement, which would involve so profound and extreme justifiable circumstances. As we have discussed, if there were a possibility for any rules, requirements, and conditions to be judged by following them to the utmost letter, then judged after earthly death to determine whether eternal life is gained or not, the original offending human beings would surely meet and fulfill them to the utmost perfection. They would add mourning night and days, fasting night and days, until their speedy death due to extreme fasting, mourning, and total dedication to worshipping, offering sacrifices, and paying homage, which would gain them an honorable speedy death before any offspring are born and surely would merit them eternal life, sparing all their descendants the trouble.
Therefore, the only logical option, while it is the strangest and most extreme, is that the Creator—who created life and eternal life and who is the judge—somehow offers to serve the human capital death penalty and, as an Eternal Creator, rises and restores eternal life to those humans who abided by the pre-conditions. This would fulfill the pre-condition and complete it by offering a completed requirement that injects in them eternal life as the promises are fulfilled and completed. This is the only logical possibility, though the details of how such an extreme solution could be an option the Creator selects to do, and the specifics of how the Creator would teach and fulfill it to the siblings, remain elusive.
This concept aligns with theological interpretations that see divine intervention—specifically, an act of grace or redemption from the Creator—as the only means to restore what was lost through human failing. It underscores a profound theological truth: that salvation or eternal life, according to many belief systems, is not something that can be earned through human effort alone but is a gift bestowed by the divine, underscoring the Creator's role not only as a judge but as a redeemer.
Furthermore, we anticipate that those who may doubt the Creator's design for the truthful way to gain eternal life will undoubtedly become more focused on living life goals and gains, and if dogmas or opinions are false and distorted. Therefore, traits such as greed and indulgence in power, material possessions, pleasure-seeking, pride, and the pursuit of winning such rewards at all costs—including bribery, scams, cheating, deceptions, theft, robberies, human enslavement, and vainglory—are typically characterized and logically expected as a temporary alternate mirage to blind, deafen, waste time, and distract from the real pursuit of the eternal life treasure.
These diversions serve as a profound distraction from the deeper, more enduring values that guide one towards eternal significance. Thus, it is essential to recognize these behaviors as likely forms of attack against the truth. By understanding this, we can better guard against being swayed by the ephemeral pleasures and gains of earthly life, which, while potentially fulfilling in the short term, do not address the deeper spiritual need for eternal life as outlined by the Creator's design. This awareness is crucial for those seeking to align with the truthful path that leads to eternal life, emphasizing the importance of discernment and spiritual vigilance in the face of worldly distractions.
We can conclude that freedom of choice and response is crucial to preserve for every sibling, even those who rage and risk losing their inheritance. As we acknowledge that all children of the world originate from a single family and are siblings, albeit remotely, they should be treated as such. Moreover, the prospect of inheriting eternal life is so significant, so far beyond anything else in value, that it should remain available to everyone until they reach death, because losing it is more devastating than any other loss during their living life.
Additionally, siblings who harbor rage against those who have inherited can provide an opportunity for the inheriting siblings to act as voices of justice, logic, and truth, communicating the remedy to overcome death that the Creator has established. Just as when parents hand down the inheritance of their farm or business, engaging in the daily tasks, challenges, and difficulties helps the inheriting children to refine the required skills to manage the inheritance, while the parents remain in the background in consulting and supervisory roles. Viewed in such a spirit, it is logical not to harm or give up on the children who may seem likely to lose the inheritance of eternal life, as long as their lives on earth and those of their loved ones are not threatened, as this would curtail the tasks, services, and assistance the inheriting children can offer to the frail, young, and others who can benefit from their interventions, choices, and responses.
This point is crucial as views, opinions, dogmas, or faith that claim to represent the truth yet encourage harming or killing those who disagree—or even outsiders—are likely flawed. Even if such a dogma or faith originates from what is presumed to be a true doctrine from the Creator, it can result in lost opportunities and permanently harm the chances of attaining the most valued eternal life. Therefore, such dogmas, views, opinions, or faith should be closely examined and questioned if they call for harm to others who dissent. Moreover, opinions, dogmas, faith, and views that prohibit peaceful discussions and sharing of opinions and ideas among people are harmful, even when presented under the pretense of seeking peace. Since we are siblings, without the freedom to share, discuss, and examine our thoughts and interpretations, the discovery of genuine logic, observed evidence is hindered, and we may be controlled to only permit messages that may be mere opinions lacking in logic and truth, leading to a permanent loss of eternal life.
It is expected that children who lead a life filled with half-truths or are limited to living life gains and rewards may become enraged and may go to extreme measures to deceive the siblings who have found favor with the Creator and know the Creator’s Design, in an attempt to draw them into falsehood as a testament that they are following truth. Or, if one is deprived of eternal life, they might feel that everyone else should be denied likewise. Certainly, self-defense to preserve one’s life, even temporarily, is logically justifiable against aggressors who seek to harm others, because protecting their lives and those of loved ones, even though they know they will eventually die, ensures that they can fulfill the tasks the Creator may desire of them.