|
Post by Leo on Nov 22, 2017 11:03:43 GMT
Is the wish to become the president or leader of some sorts; to leave a mark on history, also considered as “bad”/instincts thinking?
What about wish to create jobs new industries? Make the world a better place to live in , for the other human beings ?
What about, could I create a YouTube Channel and talk about the teachings talked about here?
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 22, 2017 13:24:58 GMT
I think you already know the answer but you wanted to check the ideas of this forum to see if they pursue some hidden political agenda. You know, some spiritual or religious movements seem very distinct at first but from closer look they are the same organization created to eventually impose rules or extort money from their followers. That is not the case here.
The world is ran by instinctive desires/Satan/the ruler of Earth [how some call it]/delusion. So even if your political ideas seem worthy, you will not be able to achive it without some sort of intrigues, financial intermediation/usury, authority and so on. Any political project is created for people but also by the people, each with different mentality, attitude, ideas, aims and motivations. You will sooner or later come to the point when certain political projects or systems are imposed upon others who do no agree with them, and this is what the state or a state-based institution or even a 'private' organization backed by the state is.
This is, however, not a call to anarchy. Anarchy is another lie some people in the 19th century invented. When Jesus spoke about the Kingdom of God he did not mean to establish a political regime on Earth, since worldly regimes for him were essentially 'dead' (let the dead bury their dead). There are two possible interpretations of what is meant by "Kingdom Come":
1) Finding Spirit of God within inner-self and uniting with the Creator/Father, i.e. through mystic tradition and practices;
2) Living a humble yet purposeful life based on the Law (10 Commandments, Yeshua's principles and other teachings which do not contradict the first two), where dying is your ultimate purpose in the end of your journey.
Life on Earth is pretty much your test of how are you going to learn through all the hardships and desires this world and your own self (bodily) reflects. Of course no one is born with al-zakat, except people that were prophecised. Traditional Qur'an says Yeshua was born with zakat, hence he was initially enjoined with purity and chastity from the day of his birth. Other people are not and thus they are constantly driven by their desires, which lead them away from knowing the goodly/spiritual side of life. Therefore it is of upmost importance to learn of what is Good and Evil, as I see it. And once you know what is Good, then follow it.
I believe a second approach/interpretation is closer to truth than the first, mystic/pantheistic approach. Many people experience quite strange and often dangerous paranormal activities if they go too deep into this mindset and practices (such as meditation etc.). I belive the reason for this is because they are essentially not ready for it, but once they see certain Gnostic/Pantheistic/Mystic/Christ-consciousness or similar New Age movement ideas, they start agressively practicing these (lucid dreaming and meditation are two of the most widely practiced methods of achieving the experience beyond material). But the result is often quite pity.
As for the Youtube channel, you should realize there are already endles amount of textual/audio/video information out there. So unless you really want to teach people you should make sure that you have mastered the ideas you wish to spread and your information is genuine. Teaching itself is nothing bad, as long as you yourself possess the knowledge and as long as you do not become arrogant to others.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 11:01:28 GMT
Is the wish to become the president or leader of some sorts; to leave a mark on history, also considered as “bad”/instincts thinking? It is about what drives a person towards certain behavior and not the actual being as a person of standing. You can become a leader for as long as the progress towards the standing is not pleasure-driven and based on instinctive hierarchical positioning. Being a leader is that you guide people in their lives, but most leaders on Earth take advantage of their position, because they succumb to the instinct. The logic says it is difficult to be a leader without thus succumbing to the instinct, because most leaders fall for instinctive desires, but impossibility belongs to people without faith; it is possible to be a leader without succumbing to the instinct, however it takes some effort on combating the instinct, but it is a good mental exercise to try to be a leader without being driven by the instinct. It is therefore no problem in trying to act as a leader, but if it is "to leave a mark on history" as in entering a sort of "hall of fame" then one is deluded instinctively. I hope you understand I am implying that the propelling force to become a person of hierarchical standing is wrong, but the actual leadership including guiding people in their lives is not bad. No matter if we like to think about it or not, people are at different stages of mental progress and people do require guidance of sorts, but we must be certain we do not misguide people. In some cases we have to act as outright healers of minds. What a spiritual leader is mostly, or rather exclusively, concerned about is psychology because it is the science of the psyche (mind). What about wish to create jobs new industries? Make the world a better place to live in , for the other human beings ? Not leaving people to disaster in a harsh world is commendable, but there is more to it. The way the Earth looks and its system with jobs and all that is just an illusion created by a hierarchical system with a group of elitist people who through their wealth control it. As much as mankind has evolved technologically, the Earth would not be required to have such a system, but because humans are instinctively driven towards their own, another system becomes an impossibility unless they change their way of thinking. Mankind is deluded by a false impression of need and the currently required jobs mirrors what humanity needs at the moment and if it was not because of a monetary system, the hunt for a job would not be needed and the work contribution is only needed to uphold the community services and if there was no strict ownership on businesses then its produce would be split evenly in society. Yes, these are communistic ideas, but few people really know what communism is and only refer to failed attempts as establishing communism which never were communism to begin with but only a false illusion of communism, they were prevented by their own instincts and the rallying towards communism was just a hidden political game own the propagators. In fact Red China, Russia, Cuba etc, have nothing to do with communism and that does not reflect communism and the social ideas of Karl Marx in creating a Utopian society. If to return to the subject, if there was no monetary system of tradition then you would not need to provide people with jobs to sustain themselves but only provide people with jobs to contribute to society and evenly use the various talents of people to "Make the world a better place to live in". The concept taught on this forum does not propagate a miserable living where one has to distance themselves from "the functionality of the features of this visual reality", but if there can be measures which will improve people's lives then this is commendable. However, the concept teaches that mankind's body "is the weakest link in the chain" and it prevents people from excelling mentally and so to pursue that which the instinct calls one to do is mentally detrimental, because the stimuli for the mind to develop is neglected because it requires usage in order to evolve and the will to use the mind in resisting the body does stimulate the mind to grow. But without decisive determination to consider the body a challenge, this will simply not happen to the required level. Many humans on Earth do to a limited level practice the required control over body in that they adhere to moral values and so they see various actions as wrong and they would for example not murder a person. If man was just an animal without a mind, then killing someone would not be a problem given the suitable situation, but as it was an animal it would also not pursue murder because it has no cognitive propulsion to pursue murder. The reason why people on Earth restrain themselves in various situations is because they have to some level a developed mind and they believe in restraining themselves in order to safeguard their well-being, but because they do not know the truth behind existence they only limit their restraining to what they perceive their nature to be, i.e. a Homo sapiens, an evolved species of primate, and they do not consider whether they are a mind inserted into an intentionally biologically engineered species through a naturally occurring sequence of guided evolution, because who would think something evolve without any kind of innate intellectual guidance? A person with a superior sense of logic understands that the universe requires some "background intelligence" to be behind it and which guides the direction of evolution or there would have been no "big bang" or whatever phenomenon initiated our world, logic itself reveals the contemporary belief of no supernatural existence to be highly improbable, or actually it is an impossibility if we go through with the calculation of all parameters, even if we cannot pursue any "physical evidence" because it is beyond our grasp and humans are often cognitively limited by what they can see because they do not let themselves reflect on a sufficiently high level and something which they cannot see does not exist, in their thinking. However, this thinking and logic is flawed, just because something is not visible does not mean it does not exist, and one comes very far by utilizing logic in order to make a calculation including the deductive reasoning involved in figuring out there has to be some underlying supernatural phenomenon behind our existence, so through logic is becomes inevitable that we originate from some supernatural origin and therefore our elevated minds have some mystery associated with it, and through further logic we can tell that the body has a dependent will of its own while our mind can think independently, just as long we do cut the body out from the thinking. Logic immediately tells there is a high probability there is something more to our minds than meets the eye and that our minds seem unnatural to the body and we often rebel against the body, but we often also succumb to its will against our own or we let ourselves be in a deluded consensus with it. The power of logic is that you can find out the truth without even having the absolute facts at hand, such as an immediate experience of the supernatural, because you can reason yourself to it through deduction and as there is no other sound alternative explanation which is plausible after the reflection and logical analysis. That is also the power of the mind and our higher level of thinking. It is important to be able to think abstractly and not limited to the physical, because what lies beyond this world isn't physical in nature, and it must be reflected in your ability to think. If you can think only in the scope of what you can see, you are not "thinking outside of the box" and our reality is just projected as a kind of illusion and charade of what the true nature is, but you can find the truth within your own mind with sufficient liberation. What about, could I create a YouTube Channel and talk about the teachings talked about here? "Everything is possible, nothing is impossible", but it is important that you have not hasted to judgment, not properly understood the teachings of this forum and consequentially misrepresent them and so they misguide people and hurt the credibility of their origin. Exactly that has happened throughout history whenever teachings have been presented but people misinterpreted what had been said, because people hasted to conclusions and they furthermore became tainted by instinct, such as the hierarchical positioning of Jesus into something unattainable by others and exclusive to Jesus and a ridiculous religious worship of the man. The image of Jesus stems from severe hasted judgment based upon what he said without listening sufficiently to what he said, and later worsened because his words were translated based on the hasted judgment. Logic can expose this because if you carefully read the Gospels you find contradictory statements because Jesus says if you do like him you will be "children of God" (as the translation puts it), but in other parts it calls him the only "begotten" son. The best guidance is when Jesus says: "(The) I is in the Father (origin) and the Father (origin) is in (the) I", he metaphorically says that "God" is in who someone is and it is highly related to when Muse (Moses) asks about the name/nature of God in Exodus as the voice answers: "I am... who I am" or rather "The I is being in the I", basically identical to what Jesus is saying. You do not have to look for the God anywhere because the God (phenomenon) is in you, is the rounded up summary of those sayings, "if you know yourself, you know the Father" as Jesus said. People are looking for something which is an innate feature of yourself and so evidently is a part of your self. This is a reason why God is called Khoda in Persian as once upon a time certain people were not as misguided and when you refer to Khoda you refer to "the self". The Semitic word "allah" (including Elohim) bears a similar meaning, more or less identical to the Persian word "Khoda" as it speaks of "ones Being", that the translations project a dictatorial god in ancient scriptures is because people have gravely and utterly mistranslated them. Just because the majority of a certain group says something does not mean it is true, one must not forget humans are subjected to the instinctive driving and thus follow each other like sheep, even when there is often no logic in the adhered to arguments and the strong instinct of hierarchical positioning makes a powerful, dictator God which is marked by instinctive traits possible because it is projected by a tainted mental thinking based on what the subject itself is expecting the God to be by looking at themselves. The traditional God is just an image of an instinctive man instead of its own superior image, and has thus been reduced to a primitive being alike a lowly Homo sapiens. Man is supposed to be like God and not the reverse, i.e. the God is not supposed to be like man. Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by cerulean on Nov 23, 2017 15:28:52 GMT
I think the right way to go about becoming someone "in the eye of the public" is by first becoming someone behind closed doors. You cannot go all out seeking your fortune somewhere elsewhere while very close to you, within you, there is total chaos.
It is very instinctive to wish for the "end result" and seek it for the sole reason that it seems nice, everyone likes fame and everyone likes to be rich and sound superior to others. Everyone want to shine forth. But I think like the stars at night, they do not shine in the midst of the day but they do shine when the night falls. So I believe that just like the stars you need to shine in your dark times before anything else.
By doing so, we shall become successful living beings. We shall also become good investors by learning to invest our time and energy appropriately and avoiding distractions. Good choice makers by not just following whatever tempt us and not reacting impulsively. etc. We can be the king of our very own self.
Being successful as a living being creates inner-peace and brings as a consequence outer-prosperity.
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 23, 2017 17:25:00 GMT
So, are you saying it is perfectly okay for a woman to make money by prostitution/sell drugs/do pornography in case her only wish is to feed her child, i.e. she pursues altruistic purpose [as an example]?
He also said explicitly that one cannot reach Father except through him/me (Jesus). There is no indication on patheism or mysticism of any sort if you take whole Gospels and not just few lines of quotes that you personally see as backing up your worldview.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 19:41:46 GMT
Excuse me, but from where is your analogy? Because I cannot find any relationship between what I wrote and your reply.
I am barely going to answer your question, but in case the ONLY way for a woman to keep her child alive would be selling sex, this would be a logical course of action, but I am by no means in support of the idea and it is about when nothing else matters.
Still I cannot see the connection between what I wrote about and this.
What I was talking about was the motivation to become a leader of people and that being a leader is no problem as long the motivation is not instinct-driven.
It depends on what he meant by "reach the Father except through me" and whether that is a translation issue. What he probably said was "You will not reach the Father (origin) except through the I (self)". It is as such connected to what I just wrote of "The I (the phenomenon of I AM) is in the Father and the Father is in the I". Jesus also says "If you know yourself you know the Father" and he says "If you do like me you will all be children of the Father" kind of ruling out his exclusive condition as "son of God". The exclusive "sonhood" of his is projected through poor translation and not supposed to be part of his taught concept.
The Gospels are pantheistic in origin and even support reincarnation, but the poor translation causes a problem. Jesus is not speaking about himself exclusively but the linguistic aspect of the grammatical formulation causes translation issues. He is speaking of first person in general, but the translation appears to be speaking of him alone.
It is related to the famous utterance when Moses asks about the name/nature of God and answer is "Is Who Is" (I am who I am). Jesus follows up on the same concept and revives the "I AM" teaching among deluded religious clergymen who had made God into an idol rather than the symbiotic phenomenon of existence it is.
The phrase "son of God" is also an inaccurate formulation in English from the original language due to the descriptive nature of Semitic languages. What is wishes to say is "resemblance of God of traits" and the word "ibn" has an ILM of [Is With Integrity (of)] and refers to something similar to the same "Sunnah" if speaking of the Islam religion, which I am actually hesitant to. If you act and live alike someone you are a son or ibn in Semitic linguistics. Furthermore, for a similar reason Abraham is called Father too despite him not being the biological father of people and the word has the meaning that this person has fostered their worldview, so that is the meaning of "Father Abraham" and if someone calls themselves "the children of Abraham" in general.
During Jesus' time no one dared to call themselves "son/ibn of God", but then Jesus came and did so because he was confident he acted like God and he encouraged people that if they did like him they would also be such children. Alike Pagans, the opponents of Jesus held to their belief no one can be like God and that only showed their lack of faith.
But the pure principle is that the phenomenon of God is "Who Is" or enable/realize themselves to be. This was the concept Jesus taught beneath the blurred rendition you read in the Bible. Yet the Biblical Gospels are in a way better shape than both the Old Testament and Quran and that is because they were early translated into Greek before the knowledge of the Semitic languages had grown worse and so they retained some of the integrity. Actually, both the Quran and the Old Testament are supposed to sound along the lines of the Gospels you know about, but because of the perversion of Aramaic and Arabic this is not the case, they are basically forgotten and forsaken languages, or at least until I started this project of mine which has brought their revival.
Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 19:50:36 GMT
I think the right way to go about becoming someone "in the eye of the public" is by first becoming someone behind closed doors. You cannot go all out seeking your fortune somewhere elsewhere while very close to you, within you, there is total chaos. It is very instinctive to wish for the "end result" and seek it for the sole reason that it seems nice, everyone likes fame and everyone likes to be rich and sound superior to others. Everyone want to shine forth. But I think like the stars at night, they do not shine in the midst of the day but they do shine when the night falls. So I believe that just like the stars you need to shine in your dark times before anything else. By doing so, we shall become successful living beings. We shall also become good investors by learning to invest our time and energy appropriately and avoiding distractions. Good choice makers by not just following whatever tempt us and not reacting impulsively. etc. We can be the king of our very own self. Being successful as a living being creates inner-peace and brings as a consequence outer-prosperity. The simple question is, what is merely propelled by the instinct? It is the only thing to keep in mind basically when choosing the course of action and judging in life. Apart from that distancing, focus heavily on your willpower to withstand such, and hold unto sound judgement and logic with emphasis on very deep analytical thinking. The concept of mine is not particularly complicated on the surface, but I only seek to explain things below the surface, and perhaps make it seem harder in theory than it is. Perhaps I should make a "developmental living for dummies" too (joke). Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 20:55:56 GMT
Just to clarify, in the Manifest (Quran) it avoids using the term "ibn" in relationship altogether with the "divine" just because of the misconception which emerged in old times, with weird biological offspring of God. Therefore it emphasizes on Ibn Miryem for Eysua whenever Eysua is addressed in reference, but it is also to indicate Eysua has no biological father as in Semitic tradition, the father's family (union with wife) name is always used, but not in the case of Miryem. In fact, the Manifest seldom refers to a specifically addressed person as Ibn + someone, but with Eysua it happens very frequently to highlight previous problems with the origin of Eysua in belief.
Eysua did miraculously come into existence with only a mother as the sole parent and the auto-fertilization of the egg from her ovaries is the phenomenon. It is not a hard phenomenon for a source of authority which can simply manipulate the atoms very slightly to make the egg fertilized by itself. It should be impossible even with today's technology to accomplish that, i.e. fertilize an egg in a woman's uterus without a foreign agent (the sperm from a male Homo sapiens). And according to how Eysua's name is written with Miryem, he simply has no biological father.
Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 23, 2017 21:43:24 GMT
I did not use analogy, I merely asked based on what you wrote earlier. You wrote:
So I asked based on what you said. And yes, like it or not, most women make living of sex, it is pure statistics. Selling sex is not merely selling sexual act, it could be images (modelling, fashion, advertisement etc) or some sort of similar stuff. In poorer countries like India or Afganistan some women have no other ways than sell their bodies.
No, they don't, unless you take quotes that you personally agree with out of their context but not the whole four canonical Gospels. Unless you have original Aramaic script you cant be that sure. You merely try to make it look like it is Gnostic, when in fact many things hint otherwise. So you give it your own interpretation by adding 'he probably meant...' in every other sentence of yours.
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 23, 2017 21:45:53 GMT
Either provide compehensive linguistic, pan-textual and factological evidence of the Gospels supporting the idea of God-consciousness and reincarnation or stop forcing your interpretation.
I doubt you even read whole Gospels though. It is a short book, read it through Man of Faith (your name is not Immanuel by birth, I am sure you know it, right?).
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 23, 2017 22:19:38 GMT
Before I forget let me mention chapter three of the book of Genesis. The narrative goes like this: the serpent decieves Eve to 'become like Gods' after which the man and woman are cursed and are thrown out of the garden of Eden. Now I do not take the book literally, of course, but the narrative is quite clear nonetheless. I believe the Torah was composed of ancient Sumerian texts, so the language of the Torah is not native to Hebrew. The symbol of serpent could in fact be the ancient famous symbol of Ouroboros i.e. the cycle of life, death and reincarnation.
So you can say that after knowing Good and Evil the person ceases his/her personal Ouroboros, HOWEVER, there is a big 'BUT' in the narrative. Thing is, they have been sent out of Eden AFTER they acquired knowledge of Good and Evil, not before. Another improtant thing is the fact that there was another 'tree' which was called a tree of Life, which according to the traditional translation would give a person eternal life, and God said he moved them away from this tree because they partly became like gods but yet did not acquire eternal life. This all happened AFTER they 'ate' from the 'tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' not before.
Therefore, the narrative is quite clear and I have read and heard personally many reports about people practicing such philosophy that they end up with dreadful events in their lives after practicsing the so called 'spiricism'. Therefore, my apporach which I offered in earlier in this therad makes more sense, i.e. pursuing a humble life based on the teachings of Jesus and the Law and not thinking about yourself as god or trying to become one by pursuing the idea of being a part of God.
There are many sects and philosophies that advocate such movements. One example is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints i.e. the Mormons. Their belief is basically based on the idea that each of us is an Angel controlled by Elohim (the High Council, which we apparently are a part of), but the war within the Elohim, or between Jesus and Lucifer and the angels which were a part of a respective faction, has made God decide to remove memories of angels and make them inhabit some of the planets in a bodily form, so that they can prove God that they are worthy of joining the Elohim again. Does any of you, who have heard about this sect, have any doubt about how the so called 'prophets' of the Church of Mormon are basically a bunch of charlatans, based on their extortion methods (namely the church tithe) they practice for many decades?
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 22:37:31 GMT
What else do you think the talk is about seeing the topic Jesus delves into?
And where do you get Gnostic from? This is not a Gnostic forum.
And yes, I am saying "probably" because I reason with probability, but it is not a poor tool if you have a high probability with virtually all statements through logic, and reinforced by the deciphering of another ancient scripture which reveals exactly the same concept.
And the Gospels do not at all hint towards a common religious concept of a God where each specimen is a worthless slave and Jesus can be seen getting that point across despite a poor rendering. The traditional way of understanding the Gospels is not objective or logical, it is possible to derive something more truthful without even touching the rendition too.
And for someone who has authority on these matters I am free to say whatever I like if I know something. If I was not confident about something I would not say it as if I knew it and there is absolutely no twisting of texts, the concept is exactly as I am correcting the passages and that is because I know what Jesus is supposed to be saying about the phenomenon of "being in the Father and the Father in you". It is indeed based on fragments of the original concept of "I am who I am" which is the general topic of this forum hence its title, here we learn TO BE BEING as is what Moses taught, what Jesus taught and what I am also going to teach and am already teaching.
Even without the Gospels corrected linguistically, the concept is about realizing one's Being, it is all what life is about and besides it everything is vanity, particularly following the autonomous primitive driving of the body.
It was not at all based on what I wrote and entirely off-topic. I answered as a courtesy. I cannot see the relevance, but perhaps you would care to elaborate on your point. Unfortunately I think you misinterpreted once again what I wrote.
Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 22:51:15 GMT
Either provide compehensive linguistic, pan-textual and factological evidence of the Gospels supporting the idea of God-consciousness and reincarnation or stop forcing your interpretation. I doubt you even read whole Gospels though. It is a short book, read it through Man of Faith (your name is not Immanuel by birth, I am sure you know it, right?). My name is Emanuel by birth, the Swedish spelling. It is in my ID. I have read the Gospels through so many times I have no count of it, and I have even analyzed the ancient Greek through a friend who happens to be Greek. My interpretation is based on what I read in essence. Jesus is saying he is in the Father and the Father is in him, without even changing anything in the rendition. He is implying the God's consciousness is innate in each subject and it only has to be initiated and found. And he is saying that others can be children of God. I am not changing anything of what the concept of the Gospels is already teaching as it is, but I am giving my ideas of how the rendition is likely erroneous in multiple instances, based on an authentic source of conceptual ideas which is the Manifest i.e. Quran. Why would not Jesus say "The I is in the Father and the Father is in the I" instead of explicitly referring to his one being alone? Of course Jesus is referring to the "I", the self, in general, or the text is awfully centered on him as an idol. This is only obvious from a logical point of view. Such things as this is often the source of linguistic problems with Arabic too and I am borrowing common misconceptions from that for logical deductive reasoning even while not having the original Aramaic script. It is safely deductible, to deduct that Jesus is confirming the concept of Quran rather than highlight his own importance in saying the only way to God is through him and the translation sounds like he is a mediator which he obviously is not. Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 23:29:35 GMT
You are incorrectly assuming something based on a lack of knowledge.
The serpent in the story is part of a very ancient parable, which has been misrepresented multiple times over. The "forbidden fruit" is the fruit of life for the body and which we are required to some extent continue to eat from for as long as we confined to bodies, but we should keep the eating from it to a minimum, if we are wise and understanding. This parable is all about that which I am teaching on this forum. The desire to eat from the fruit is equal to what autonomously drives us to do so in our everyday lives and the whispers of the serpent is similar to the reptile equivalent of our brain, i.e. the calls of the instinct.
And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the belief and realization to strive to become spiritually God, it is conceptually correct and according to the truth. This is something you accomplish by doing as God in the story says, do not eat from the forbidden fruit even if the "serpent" calls you to do it and to eat from the fruit is equal to releasing bodily hormones which reinforce the equivalent to a drug addiction and which is spiritually detrimental. It is clear that the more you expose yourself to a substance, the harder it is to be mentally unbiased and the bodily fluids are just like any other chemical substance which can make you addicted. I can use empirical science to discuss my worldview concept and basically none of the usual religious ones can vouche for the same. There are multiple hormonal substances and they all affect the body in different ways, basically making you crave for more of the same and they regulate your instinctive behavior, which you can control if your willpower is stronger than the worst of your hormone rushes and this measures the strength of your mind.
'Tsk'. Not even if this is exactly what Jesus is teaching?
He is actively telling people to be like children of God, like impersonating God.
And he is telling them to shun the bodily instinct, it is this which is his aim and intent with what he is saying.
The humbleness Jesus was talking about was in relationship with not pursuing what the body calls you to, e.g. pursue fame and social status and excel yourself instinctively on a hierarchical ladder. In essence, he refers to the instinct aka Satan.
But you have the absolute right to pursue becoming part of the Elohem/Allahem unity and so join the "league of angels", this is in your destiny if you enable that for yourself. Then you cannot limit yourself to belittling yourself based on some false perception of the divine and that no one can be like God mentally. I can agree it is hard if you do not put high standards for yourself, but it is surely attainable for the determined individual.
It sounds as if they have acquired fragments of authentic teachings and then twisted it because they could not accurately interpret it or conjectured based on something established.
There has never been an unrest in the higher domain and there are no redemptions to take place. This place is a mere development (breeding) ground of consciousnesses.
Be well Qarael Amenuel
|
|
|
Post by maveli on Nov 23, 2017 23:33:59 GMT
You are incorrectly assuming something based on a lack of knowledge. The serpent in the story is part of a very ancient parable, which has been misrepresented multiple times over. The "forbidden fruit" is the fruit of life for the body and which we are required to some extent continue to eat from for as long as we confined to bodies, but we should keep the eating from it to a minimum, if we are wise and understanding. This parable is all about that which I am teaching on this forum. The desire to eat from the fruit is equal to what autonomously drives us to do so in our everyday lives and the whispers of the serpent is similar to the reptile equivalent of our brain, i.e. the calls of the instinct. And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the belief and realization to strive to become spiritually God, it is conceptually correct and according to the truth. This is something you accomplish by doing as God in the story says, do not eat from the forbidden fruit even if the "serpent" calls you to do it and to eat from the fruit is equal to releasing bodily hormones which reinforce the equivalent to a drug addiction and which is spiritually detrimental. It is clear that the more you expose yourself to a substance, the harder it is to be mentally unbiased and the bodily fluids are just like any other chemical substance which can make you addicted. I can use empirical science to discuss my worldview concept and basically none of the usual religious ones can vouche for the same. There are multiple hormonal substances and they all affect the body in different ways, basically making you crave for more of the same and they regulate your instinctive behavior, which you can control if your willpower is stronger than the worst of your hormone rushes and this measures the strength of your mind. How possibly more inaccurate can this be. First, you ignored most of the Genesis's narrative. There were TWO trees, not just one. The "fall" happened AFTER the act of eating from ONE tree, not before, and there was ANOTHER tree, which they DID NOT eat from. Secondly, there is absoluetely no indication about the first tree of knowledge being "the fruit of life for the body", since it is called the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, and not of balance and excess. Last but not least, they WERE NOT like gods BEFORE they are from a tree, they became like gods partfly AFTER they ate, since they acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and they could not eat from yet another tree to gain another godly feature, which is the eternal life, because God has sent them away from the Garden of Eden. Therefore, they only became like gods AFTER their misconduct, according to the narrative.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 23, 2017 23:45:38 GMT
You are incorrectly assuming something based on a lack of knowledge. The serpent in the story is part of a very ancient parable, which has been misrepresented multiple times over. The "forbidden fruit" is the fruit of life for the body and which we are required to some extent continue to eat from for as long as we confined to bodies, but we should keep the eating from it to a minimum, if we are wise and understanding. This parable is all about that which I am teaching on this forum. The desire to eat from the fruit is equal to what autonomously drives us to do so in our everyday lives and the whispers of the serpent is similar to the reptile equivalent of our brain, i.e. the calls of the instinct. And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the belief and realization to strive to become spiritually God, it is conceptually correct and according to the truth. This is something you accomplish by doing as God in the story says, do not eat from the forbidden fruit even if the "serpent" calls you to do it and to eat from the fruit is equal to releasing bodily hormones which reinforce the equivalent to a drug addiction and which is spiritually detrimental. It is clear that the more you expose yourself to a substance, the harder it is to be mentally unbiased and the bodily fluids are just like any other chemical substance which can make you addicted. I can use empirical science to discuss my worldview concept and basically none of the usual religious ones can vouche for the same. There are multiple hormonal substances and they all affect the body in different ways, basically making you crave for more of the same and they regulate your instinctive behavior, which you can control if your willpower is stronger than the worst of your hormone rushes and this measures the strength of your mind. How possibly more inaccurate can this be. First, you ignored most of the Genesis's narrative. There were TWO trees, not just one. The "fall" happened AFTER the act of eating from ONE tree, not before, and there was ANOTHER tree, which they DID NOT eat from. Secondly, there is absoluetely no indication about the first tree of knowledge being "the fruit of life for the body", since it is called the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, and not of balance and excess. Last but not least, they WERE NOT like gods BEFORE they are from a tree, they became like gods partfly AFTER they ate, since they acquired the knowledge of good and evil, and they could not eat from yet another tree to gain another godly feature, which is the eternal life, because God has sent them away from the Garden of Eden. Therefore, they only became like gods AFTER their misconduct, according to the narrative. Yes of course there may surely be two trees to make the parable consistent, because there are two contrasting aims in life, one which is pleasure-seeking, and another is hard to obtain/otherworldly.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 24, 2017 8:15:18 GMT
It is a bit fascinating that you cannot see the concept I am propagating in the forum within the Gospels because they convey the most explicit example of it. It is obvious that Jesus is teaching "Be Who Is", Maveli, even if his words suffer from the decay of language.
Even without trying to infer what Jesus is really saying through poorly rendered passages, it is clear Jesus stands for a concept which involves a symbiotic union with the God phenomenon. He says you will be children of God and in one case he says a woman will be like an angel, and he himself he says will be a ruler not of this world. What else of evidence do you seek? Once again I tell you he says "I am in the Father AND the Father is in me", what else than that God is a symbiotic phenomenon does it mean and it is plain except if one is in a sort of in denial and too one-tracked on the old worldview of oneself.
The thing I am teaching about elevating the mind is something with truth in it, it is not just gibberish, and my own mind is a Testament to that.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 24, 2017 11:05:33 GMT
Let me comment on something you said yesterday. He also "began to be sorrowful and troubled" not long before his crucifixion. This is in contradiction to his overall stance on life and what he is trying to teach his disciples and if he has a strong integrity of his mind this is not something he would demonstrate. It is not logical that he harshly rebukes his disciples for showing affection when he tells he is going to die and then later go around and worry about something as superficial as dying and he also knows the prophecy involves him dying and with his level of faith he would not worry that he would suffer heavy pain. 41 After withdrawing about a stone's throw from them and kneeling, he prayed, 42 saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me; still, not my will but yours be done."43 (And to strengthen him an angel from heaven appeared to him. 44 He was in such agony and he prayed so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.) 45 When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. Underlined: This is not consistent with Jesus' overall stance on conceptual matters and is contradictory. The "take this cup away from me" rendition is likely horrendously poorly translated and is probably supposed to say something else. Worth paying attention to, while it is additionally not one of his sayings, is that the whole part is written within parenthesis and how could anyone write down whatever he did if his disciples were asleep? The logic of the situation is self-explanatory. Alternative translation: Jesus Prays on the Mount of Olives 39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[c] 45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow. 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”
The translation is not so definite as you want to make it seem. It is filled with problems and the phrase "take this cup from me" is nonsensical as it is and if it is a Semitic saying it needs an explanation or paraphrasing. Furthermore, Jesus is hardly full of anguish, it is against what he believes in and I cannot fathom a man like him falling for that, particularly when returning to his disciples and rebuking them for sleeping their sorrow away. "Father, are you willing to take this "cup" from me, it is not my will but yours to be done". You need to read the whole segment of text in its context. He starts by saying: 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” When he returns he says: 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and pray so that you will not fall into temptation.”
The word pray in Semitic writings is a recurring word, but it is doubtfully what it is used for in reality, i.e. that one is beseeching someone else. The Arabic equivalent is "A'duha" and it is commonly translated as "to pray", but is that what it means? No, when that word is used it means you are seeking something, not always that you ask for something. Look at it from another angle: 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Seek to it that you will not fall into temptation.” | He tells his disciples to seek a solution for not falling into sin | 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and sought to it (himself) | He goes away to arrange the same for himself | 42 “(O) Father/Maker/Originator, if are you willing to take/accept this (beggar's) cup/question from of me mine; (as it is) yet not my will, but yours to be done" (or your doing). | He beseeches "God" to accept his search for strength, without even mentioning his problem saying "if you accept this cup", because he knows that "God" already knows before he even opens his mouth and what he says is for his own rhetorical sake. | 43 An angel from heaven The control (or message/elaboration) from "Heaven" appeared to on/in him and strengthened him. | Control or a message (based on A'najel which is often used to translate into angel while it means message/elaboration) from "Heaven" emerges unto him and it makes him stronger mentally. | 44 (as) He was in such agony and he sought it so fervently that his sweat became like drops of blood falling on the ground.) | He has some issues with what lies ahead, perhaps it is the logical thought of that physical pain in this visual reality feels realistic indeed. The ignorance of the future may also be disturbing him. | 45 When he rose from prayer and returned to his disciples, he found them sleeping from grief. | He sees that his disciples have done nothing to solve their emotional unrest and simply solve it through sleeping the sorrow away, which is a solution one can take in everyday life and which may work, but is only good temporarily. | 46 “Why are you sleeping?” he asked them. “Get up and seek to it so that you will not fall into temptation.” | He rebukes his disciples for not dealing with their emotional unrest, they are not trying to boost their thinking in order to stand above the instinct which leads them to feeling sad over events. | Row 8 column 1 | Row 8 column 2 |
What is meant by the falling into temptation? What can it possibly mean? He was likely meaning that he does not feel emotionally disturbed, which is the sole message he comes with, i.e. to suppress the instinct of our bodies. He sought control amidst a difficult situation and he may have been troubled by the thought of physical pain. He is addressing it politely and therefore says it is up to you and not my desire. Furthermore, I have never said one has reached salvation while yet on Earth and Jesus was just another subject like us and subjected to the dynamics of this world including the sense of physical pain. It is logical that he is asking for a circumvention of the standard Law of the Universe in the approach towards his execution. The response with something from "Heaven" emerging over him and strengthening him, it is only logical that he was enforced with additional mental strength, probably he was given additional control over the functionality of the Earth, such as suppression of pain or similar. Jesus was leading his life under a prophecy and was therefore often not in control over the course of events. It may be that Jesus was asking for an elaboration of what is about to happen, because Jesus' consciousness was just like ours on Earth right now, we're cut off from the conceiver and so Jesus did not have more advantages than us and if he had it would have been unfair. And the question Jesus has, has in its entirety not been written out here, but we only read Jesus' question to answer his request (which he was likely thinking in his mind). Do you call this interpretation acrobatics? I call it deductive reasoning and a logical analysis of a text in doubt of its retained integrity, and I am not lost at all and I utilize my combined knowledge of common misconception of Arabic in understanding where the interpreters who translated it into Greek have made errors. Be well Qaral Henurak Amenuel [Manifestor - Is Your Spark (to) - Be of Integrity-like] (from Carl/Karl Henrik/Heinrich Amenuel) PS: One could see it that my names have nothing to do with Semitic linguistics, but I do not care to think that way and I merely utilize the very letters in deriving exactly what I was just saying and the words as they read through pronunciation, actually mean something in Arabic, i.e. QaRa'l from root Qara = Manifest + Lam = Like as in normal Semitic name-giving He'nur'ak/Anurak - two grammatical variations of the same - He [Attributed] or A' [Be/Is] + NUR = Flame/Fire/Spark + Kaf = You Amenu'el - Amen = (be) Integrity/Real/Realized + Lam = Like. I mainly only use the name Amenuel for those who know me and you ought to see it as an honor for you that I address myself as it to you and publicly in my private life I retain Henrik to people, because most people are virtually only wandering husks anyway and what they need is Henrik/Henurak, "so that I am your spark". And I am aware of the common belief the etymology of the name Henrik is "homestead" or "ruler of the home", but I do not think of it that way, even if that may be the case. Reason for it, language is basically what you make it into and I use Semitic ILM in understanding my name(s). More or less directly if you pronounce Henrik with Semitic pronunciation one would read and understand it as I said. Anurak is a kind of Thai mythical angel too, ironically.
|
|
|
Post by Wanderer on Nov 24, 2017 13:39:40 GMT
Immanuel, these verse from the gospels can also be understood this way :
"My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me"
Here Jesus is asking God if Jesus can pass the cup(burden/hardtask/) as to not drink from it (not letting his enemies catch him and potentially torture him, publicly humiliate him before killing.) Just imagine like people at that time would sit in circles and drink from the same cup while passing along the cup to each other. And here Jesus is asking God if He can just pass along.
but then, of course, Jesus says
"nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
like nevertheless I will do what you want me to do
As You yourself wrote earlier Immanuel, you said Jesus was under prophecy. Most probably he was knowledgeable in the scriptures available at that time period. There passages in from the Old Testament which fit into the messianic life of Jesus. But it can verily be in such a way, that Jesus instead of others who just waited for this figure, He actually took this role/cup himself, and started to do things to fit into the prophecies from the past. So in a way, he knew that in order to fulfill these prophecies he would need to do the things that were prophecized.
For example, Isiah prophecized how this individual will be tortured, despised and killed for "our" sins. So it makes logical sense that Jesus was asking God if He could change the "script/timeline of events that must come forth into reality". Just like for example like in the case of Moses who left his place of living due to the danger of getting caught and killed. It makes logical sense that if Jesus knew that the people in power want him dead, that maybe he wanted to immigrate somewhere else like Moses did, maybe teach other people, heal other people, make a use of his skills to help others but not let some other less developed men to capture him, humiliate him and torture him and kill him, because in their eyes he was a heretic.
It makes sense
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on Nov 24, 2017 13:58:58 GMT
Good explanation, Wanderer and I commend your scriptural knowledge in terms of the prophecies of Isaiah.
Yes, Jesus may very well have asked for a 'High Community' alteration of the "manuscript" through seeking a consensus to change it, since Isaiah's prophecy was a little violent, perhaps because Isaiah did not reflect upon the implications of his prophesying.
Sadly, what we are going through today is due to him as well. I have been thinking about imploring the 'High Community' to soften the mayhem a little, because with a consensus among the Ascended Ones, it can be changed. I do too possess certain power to influence the timeline myself of which I have enabled for myself. Isaiah prophesied that we would go through worse times than ever and as you can see this escalation is already beginning to take place. If we have thought the Earth to have gone through problems before, nothing is alike what is about to come. Perhaps a nuclear winter, the prophecies of Isaiah involve some sort of "wave".
Either way, I must begin to take my place in the prophecies, although it will come as foreseen. What is for me to do to trigger a manuscript/prophetic progression by "Learning the good and rejecting the bad", for that is for Immanuel to do. It is something I have been working on for some time now, to ascend myself.
Be well Qara'el A'nura'k Amenu'el
|
|