|
Post by Immanuel on May 1, 2021 2:16:14 GMT
Lets think, does God want us to evolve and get nearer to Him or to give and be stuck at the same level? It is something like that but the perspective is slightly misgiving. It is not about nearness but assimilation. Another misconception when it comes the original Semitic tongue as the word for "son/daughter" (child) is misinterpreted and the use refers to an abstract resemblance to the object of reference, this is why Abraham seems to be referred to as "Father Abraham" in texts despite that few are really biological offspring of the man, but ignorant people said they were offspring of Abraham and used it to their advantage to gain a religious position over the years. The correct usage is that "bani Ebrahim" are people who resemble him in personality, his image. That is exactly why there is reference to "son of God" too at all, obviously no one is any biological offspring of "God". When someone is a "son of God" they do obviously resemble "God" mentally, same as that when they are calling themselves "son of Abraham" they are referring to themselves as resembling the personality of Abraham. I could as well refer to myself as the son of Jesus but I am actually quite different from Jesus although I find that Elahem is more "everything at once". I hope you understand what I have meant now. Did you know that "bani e'sera'il" (Bani Israel) does not refer to a single human person despite that they attributed it to Moses? Israel is "God", the word means something similar to "is highness-alike" (like the kings of all times are referred to themselves as "your highness"). It is a code-like expression to confuse. 'Sera', the word is deeply rooted even in other languages, for example a reason you say "sir" (from sire) in English and also you have "sera" in other than English, means something which is above and the ending 'El' is the famous 'AL/EL' prefix except that it is used as a suffix in these attribute references e.g. like in Immanuel. Bani E'sera'il hence means "with resemblance being highness-alike", it is like I wrote code-like and meant to be covered in mystery requiring quite the intelligence to understand i.e. mental sharpness and linguistic knowledge. They, Elahem, caused the whole scripture record to become "blurred" and in a chaotic shape, once again to mislead as we have discussed earlier in this thread. It feels pretty mean to do that and then dump it on my shoulders like they do it and say: "Here solve this puzzle, we know you are one of the most tired people on Earth but that only makes it more interesting" (I was sarcastic). To put 'El' at the end of a name means 'alike', so my name means "understand-alike" as in that I am alike someone who understands. Not too many "main prophets" have been referred to by these 'El' endings, but the "arch-angels" Gabriel and Michael carry these names, a couple of individuals who are "divine leaders", controllers of this universe for its current cycle. Actually fulfilling the meaning of an 'El'-name is pretty honorable, it is the only worthy people to bear them. Name-tags are more meaningful than people give them credit, I would say having a name means you have to live up to its meaning, so was the ancient tradition, otherwise it is just a worthless reference and you could just be called "person 99" for example, similar to that people have anonymous social security numbers in our societies like if you were some machine.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on May 1, 2021 2:47:07 GMT
I do not exclude God in this picture at all. I do realize God is greater, but I do too realize that I could be better and that life is something more. It would be unrealistic to say that you could become greater than "God" and the angels (ascended masters), but it is realistic to say that you could very well qualify to become an 'Ascended Master' and become one of the better as well. Saying one could become greater than "God" is no offense but one sure got a lot to prove and it would just show how naive one is, for "God" is what everyone is comprised of abstractly so it is impossible to become greater than what someone one is already. What "God" is, is quite the phenomenon but it is quite easy to understand it if I tell you it is a form of symbiotic lifeform everyone is part of like a singularity. If you grow mentally you do it inside the "singularity of God". singularity noun 3: a point at which the derivative of a given function of a complex variable does not exist but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative does exist Almost impossible to define it. My qualified theory is that the purpose we have is to make our "God" grow since we are an integral part of it, the singularity, we are the life in it. I am not saying that Elahem, our "God" did not originally already exist without us but we play a part nevertheless. Heresy but I believe that our Elahem is just one Elahem in multiple universes and that is a belief of mine but I sure am qualified to speculate, it is not illogical and would bring context to a lot of logical problems such as the meaning why our Elahem lives in the first place "to evolve for what purpose?". When we evolve our Elahem does evolve with it, that is how it is and that is why so much effort has been put into such a crazy environment we are in. Would not surprise me if our Elahem is not much more than a child in comparison. Or/and Elahem does unravel the prophecies to give purpose to its own existence so it lives itself through via the universe. We can be seen as biproducts of that, gaining own independence in the meantime. Our universe is just a mental projection, similar to that you can generate a game world in a computer game with its apparently physical features despite that the barriers are just part of a code, and we are the player's avatar inside the game who can groan and moan taking damage and so on. The only thing which is anomalous to the universe are the very minds of ours, the world itself including the bodies we are within belongs to the autonomy of Elahem and it is also why you cannot even control your heartbeats (heard rumors that skilled meditators have been able to stop the heart though, if it is true or not I do not know but if they did it would only strengthen what I say about the mind). You are given control much like the player at the mouse and keyboard at a computer can control the character on the screen but it will still have to conform to the programmer's ideas in the game, the main difference is that you are both the player and the character on the other side of the screen at the same time and place, something which is actually feeling intrusive and the more you "wake up" the more you begin to dislike this subjection, we would prefer to sit above (on the other side of the screen) and play the character without becoming tired like the character. It is quite bizarre actually.
|
|
|
Post by Immanuel on May 1, 2021 3:07:18 GMT
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. The question is what Semitic word he used to refer to "Lord" in the translation of the passage. If it is Elahi, Elahi it is easy to see what the exact translation would be because then he would refer to that people "I am alike", "I am alike" in reference to Jesus but anyone can imitate Jesus but how does that help if you do not understand the "will of my Father who is in heaven". Alternatively he used the word "rabbi, rabbi" in which case he refers to teacher, more or less, it might indicate that people call him glamorous but meaningless words without understanding "the will of my Father who is in heaven". Hard to tell as the translation we have were from ancient Greek which means it is probably already translated twice thus from the original language excluding the translation then to English or another language. I mean... AT THE END OF THE DAY, somethings are self explanatory, what is more pleasant/attractive, being happy or being miserable? Why chose misery people? Why not chose the greater things? Who in their right mind would say misery is better than bliss? Really feeling the mind awake and evolve in the final stage of development is a big consolation. The problem is it is always relative so I can look back and see how asleep I was years ago but I may feel the same in another decade about my condition now. Nevertheless the evolution progress does bring comfort with it at any stage, it just takes understanding what yields progress and what hampers progress and adapt accordingly. Mental sharpness and believing in it is clearly essential. It is important to understand that listening to the instinct is counterproductive no matter how one wishes to define it. People not understanding the whole picture but who cling unto good morals and hence go against the instinct which wants something different will benefit them and continuously doing so may cause a side-effect that they eventually have indirectly sharpened their minds to come to better senses. But truly independent thinking is difficult to achieve with all the bias and bad things working against it, it takes actually being a little paranoid about that anything is really true at all, and it actually takes "a slight portion of arrogance" although I would not refer to it as that, I am not sure what to call it actually but it is a mix of coming to realize without shame that you are actually better and more evolved than others which is the typical definition of arrogance but without really looking down on anyone and instead seeing them as victims. What I mean is that for everything anyone has ever said about any topic in science, history, language, etc, you ALWAYS have to reinvent the wheel anyhow as in suspiciously investigate every single word that has ever been said on the topic and never take anything for granted, ALL BY USING UNBIASED LOGIC. Unbiased logic is free of emotion/emotional opinion and does only state chains of facts, a so-called logic chain which I refer to that for everything you look for an answer to you ask "why" and when you get the answer there you ask "why" again over and over again until there is no answer to the "why" and it will always lead to "God" in the end of the chain no matter what question of logic, that is the universality about it. For example, "because God wants it" is not a good answer to one of those why's, it is so bad that you can ask "why" instantly to someone saying that and you surely can accomplish a better investigation through sheer logic than that if you put your mind to it. If they insist on saying because God wants it perhaps it is best to stop repeating the question so they do not become maddened, they are not interested in listening because of how they portray "God". But the mere follow-up question on "because God wants it" is a prime example of delving deeper into logic. The interesting part about logic is logical deduction can reach conclusions you lack the data for just because of, well, what the word 'logic' means in the first place, logic is a function variable. For example, you know that "God" is the most advanced entity in existence but the hateful image of it still resembles a primitive Homo sapiens king/dictator who wants people who look up to him, is that logical because it sounds better than anyone else? You see how much religious belief sheer logic can nullify relatively quickly. My reasoning in this forum about the facts of why ANY FORM OF supernatural entity must exist is another perfect example of the use of logic to prove something, it is ridiculous to believe that the universe just happened to assemble itself knowing what it should do to be anything at all, it must require an innate intelligence in itself and for that to happen at all it requires something supernatural to begin with, you have a chain of logic which reaches to "God" as which every chain of logic you can deal with meaning the end answer is easy to know. If I have to say something that I really LOVE, it is logic, because logic is "God". It is quite funny actually, is it not? One must always suspect the worst when instinctive humans have run havoc on Earth, including historical records, linguistics interpretations of ancient texts - who can be certain their interpretation is even remotely accurate? I would not trust the words from a human for a second, not because I believe they genuinely lie but that they have listened to lies. This thinking has taken me far in a decade so far including looking through what religious people take for granted by seeing that they believe in an amateurish rendition of texts which mean things wildly different from the what the person who wrote them originally intended to be conveyed. It started when I both had reflected on the Bible and Quran for a time, finding it illogical this is what "God" says AND actually found linguistic puzzles buried into them such as the mysterious initials introducing some chapters of the Quran AND inconsistencies of what religiously charged words really mean such as "amen", it was an early word I that arose my suspicion, and the first mind-provoker was when I read Jesus saying "amen amen I tell you", then I understood that the meaning is hardly "believe or merely think to be true" but more like understand or realize something to be true.
|
|