Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you have that topsy turvy. In order to be saved one must give up self.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proof of Islam?
- Thread starter Wolf Spirit
- Start date
I believe you have that topsy turvy. In order to be saved one must give up self.
Muffled
Jesus in me
It is. That is why we requested the Lord to appear in nine avataras. One can't have enough of them.Only your deeds save you. I think Jesus must have told you that.
I believe Jesus is sufficient and nothing more is needed.
I believe on will never be saved by ones deeds. If I am saved by deeds it is because they are God's deeds done by His power.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Bible does not support that belief. Jesus never claimed to be God in the flesh. Christianity made that claim.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
That does not change the fact that caring about being saved is selfish.
“WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise.... Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God.
That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.
Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God’s good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God’s favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom.” Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 77-78
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Don't say that, because if I am not saved, that too will be because of God's deeds done by his power.
Do you think the deeds of Stalin, Hitler, Franco, Mugabe, were God's deeds done by his power?
If the worship should be without fear of fire or hope of paradise, then why even talk about them?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
No, they were man's deeds done by his free will.
Same here, except that I would add to that list Muhammad and those who came before Him.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
That is what Muffled said.
There is no free-will. All animal actions are conditioned or random.
Absolument!
So where are we at in this very successful and thought-provoking thread?
Different types of Islam and Islamic off-shoots and descendsnts have been put on display.
The Qur'an has been offered in some formats to help with research (also other scriptures).
I believe my views are the most pragmatic.
They are that we have a large amount of human heritage and content to draw from, observing, being inspired by, and manipulating it or investing in it meanings as we may please and think is best and most useful or beneficial for us, and to take everything, and use whatever one can for the best ends and policies and thoughts and fantasies and art and productivity and laws and whatever to live the best life we can possibly create for ourselves step by step through care and caution.
To be ascetic about things is to deprive oneself unnecessarily in some cases, that means, if some faction has said something good, their idea should be taken freely, there is no need to deprive oneself of good things out of hatred for how people look or other aspects of their practices or cultures.
Thus, all the Universe and All Experiences, from the ramblings of people gripped by mental disease to the great work of scientists and engineers and artists, and all the fruits and all the trees, and the whole of the stars and planets, and animals, are available for potential inspiration and movement towards a refining and perfecting of your 15 or so waking hours a day. Thats so few!
If someone runs themselves in the ground with religion, its the same as if they crashed a vehicle or misused a tool or took something in a destructive way which led to their own vastly miscalculated demise. They are called fools, idiots, mad people, people who refuse to eat for some reason, and it comes down to their deficiencies and the chances which led to their being the way they are. The story is a sad one.
If we have luck on our side, then you'll be like me, King of Gurus, able to be inspired and extract joy out of so many things, blissful Ananada, having all at my disposal and only some 15 hours to refine to happiness after happiness after spiritual joy and good thoughts and beautiful modification of all content into much more stimulating "value" for myself.
Take Islam and devour it, don't let yucky people be the sole owners of things, take it, use it.
Buddhism, Christianity. Who cares where they contradict? You're going to let that stop you from accessing power? Its like saying "Oh the Grocery store wrote a wrong label on this thing, its one letter off, it says Bets instead of Beets, I can't eat them", wouldn't that be a pretty stupid and absurd person? That is how most people are though, really dumb!
They also use their snotty arrogance to think that a single word can not be made to mean any number of things that can be inspiring or useful, or they worry about what some Ape intended rather than what it CAN be made to mean and how it may be freely used for good?
What if a fork can be used to fix something "but it was made for eating", yeah, so what? Look at its shape! See what it can do! Cut it up or melt it "then it isn't a fork!" so what you bloody children! You cross-eyed nincompoops! Can't you make use of it? "No, we can't, we can not do it".
They can't, it isn't even a lie, but will you be like these hypotheticals who can not make use of most things and twist them for good?
Furthermore, religions have the advantage that many people already believe in them, and so they can potentially be used to emphasize to people useful aspects or modify and control their behaviors towards decency and ethics using fear, guilt, superstition, or whatever else by showing them their own scriptures for the purpose of benefit rather than destruction.
No, certainly most are incapable of that as well, and mockery is all that is left.
The good thing about bad people is the examples they make and the opposition they inspire, to make things which wouldn't have been made except to try to counter their evil and stupidity.
So I have all the religions on my belt, and "all the God" profits me. I even have a direction to send my sense of appreciation or my anger. I have what atheists and agnostics can't have, and what specifically religious people are deprived of. I own everything, baby!
ttps://youtu.be/IqKpTa9OhSg
ttps://youtu.be/Wdx5nGphnAI
ttps://youtu.be/fmBLukivRXo
Now, to test your abilities and intelligences, how much can you make of these and extract from these? What sensations, thoughts, references, associations? How profound and useful and in how many dimensions can you apply such uses or reactions you shape yourself to receive?
You will find in everything, I should be kept as the Sun you can never reach, an ideal of total mastery over the comedy of life! Meaning, no matter how hard you think you may be trying, there can be even more, nor do you need it all, but the state people are in now, they get nothing much out of ANYTHING. They scarcely see ONE THING and are far from tapping the font of ongoing value!
The color, the words, the humor, the message, the bolstering, the emotion, the reaction.
It is why people are largely deficient, their lives are miserable because their minds mouth is small and stomach is big. Hungry Ghosts.
How can you get as much as possible of joy inducing value and heart out of everything? How can you be filled by glorious gifts even of the mundane? How can you make those 15 waking hours a day even better and better?
Sharpen, don't dull, make broad, light, deep.
How can something broad be sharp? Something light and deep? Use the fullest of your brains unless they are already dead, otherwise maybe when you are corpses that will be the most life has been inside you!
This is why I am the True Muslim, I acknowledge and devour more, with my obnoxiously large orifices.
ttps://youtu.be/9fo810yiNTs
Different types of Islam and Islamic off-shoots and descendsnts have been put on display.
The Qur'an has been offered in some formats to help with research (also other scriptures).
I believe my views are the most pragmatic.
They are that we have a large amount of human heritage and content to draw from, observing, being inspired by, and manipulating it or investing in it meanings as we may please and think is best and most useful or beneficial for us, and to take everything, and use whatever one can for the best ends and policies and thoughts and fantasies and art and productivity and laws and whatever to live the best life we can possibly create for ourselves step by step through care and caution.
To be ascetic about things is to deprive oneself unnecessarily in some cases, that means, if some faction has said something good, their idea should be taken freely, there is no need to deprive oneself of good things out of hatred for how people look or other aspects of their practices or cultures.
Thus, all the Universe and All Experiences, from the ramblings of people gripped by mental disease to the great work of scientists and engineers and artists, and all the fruits and all the trees, and the whole of the stars and planets, and animals, are available for potential inspiration and movement towards a refining and perfecting of your 15 or so waking hours a day. Thats so few!
If someone runs themselves in the ground with religion, its the same as if they crashed a vehicle or misused a tool or took something in a destructive way which led to their own vastly miscalculated demise. They are called fools, idiots, mad people, people who refuse to eat for some reason, and it comes down to their deficiencies and the chances which led to their being the way they are. The story is a sad one.
If we have luck on our side, then you'll be like me, King of Gurus, able to be inspired and extract joy out of so many things, blissful Ananada, having all at my disposal and only some 15 hours to refine to happiness after happiness after spiritual joy and good thoughts and beautiful modification of all content into much more stimulating "value" for myself.
Take Islam and devour it, don't let yucky people be the sole owners of things, take it, use it.
Buddhism, Christianity. Who cares where they contradict? You're going to let that stop you from accessing power? Its like saying "Oh the Grocery store wrote a wrong label on this thing, its one letter off, it says Bets instead of Beets, I can't eat them", wouldn't that be a pretty stupid and absurd person? That is how most people are though, really dumb!
They also use their snotty arrogance to think that a single word can not be made to mean any number of things that can be inspiring or useful, or they worry about what some Ape intended rather than what it CAN be made to mean and how it may be freely used for good?
What if a fork can be used to fix something "but it was made for eating", yeah, so what? Look at its shape! See what it can do! Cut it up or melt it "then it isn't a fork!" so what you bloody children! You cross-eyed nincompoops! Can't you make use of it? "No, we can't, we can not do it".
They can't, it isn't even a lie, but will you be like these hypotheticals who can not make use of most things and twist them for good?
Furthermore, religions have the advantage that many people already believe in them, and so they can potentially be used to emphasize to people useful aspects or modify and control their behaviors towards decency and ethics using fear, guilt, superstition, or whatever else by showing them their own scriptures for the purpose of benefit rather than destruction.
No, certainly most are incapable of that as well, and mockery is all that is left.
The good thing about bad people is the examples they make and the opposition they inspire, to make things which wouldn't have been made except to try to counter their evil and stupidity.
So I have all the religions on my belt, and "all the God" profits me. I even have a direction to send my sense of appreciation or my anger. I have what atheists and agnostics can't have, and what specifically religious people are deprived of. I own everything, baby!
Now, to test your abilities and intelligences, how much can you make of these and extract from these? What sensations, thoughts, references, associations? How profound and useful and in how many dimensions can you apply such uses or reactions you shape yourself to receive?
You will find in everything, I should be kept as the Sun you can never reach, an ideal of total mastery over the comedy of life! Meaning, no matter how hard you think you may be trying, there can be even more, nor do you need it all, but the state people are in now, they get nothing much out of ANYTHING. They scarcely see ONE THING and are far from tapping the font of ongoing value!
The color, the words, the humor, the message, the bolstering, the emotion, the reaction.
It is why people are largely deficient, their lives are miserable because their minds mouth is small and stomach is big. Hungry Ghosts.
How can you get as much as possible of joy inducing value and heart out of everything? How can you be filled by glorious gifts even of the mundane? How can you make those 15 waking hours a day even better and better?
Sharpen, don't dull, make broad, light, deep.
How can something broad be sharp? Something light and deep? Use the fullest of your brains unless they are already dead, otherwise maybe when you are corpses that will be the most life has been inside you!
This is why I am the True Muslim, I acknowledge and devour more, with my obnoxiously large orifices.
Posted elsewhere but appropriate here as well:
"The Muslims probably have mixed opinions about the Bible as the word of God leaning towards it not being the word of God at this point but made by several writers as it claims, rather than the direct products of the "Book Bringing" Prophets.
"
In two surah (chapters), which are dated from the first Meccan period, there is a reference to the 'Leaves, Scrolls, Journals' (Suhuf) of Abraham (and the Scrolls of Moses), by which presumably certain divinely inspired texts handwritten by the patriarchs are meant. "
The Book Bringing Prophets are usually considered to be Abraham and his Suhuf, Musa and his Tawrat, David and his Zabur, Jesus and his Injeel, and Muhammed and his Qur'an.
A part of the Bible is just traditionally thought to be by Moses but pretty clearly is not by Moses because of how it was written, the other writings that have similar sections not associated with Moses directly like from writings of neighboring cultures and then bypasses his life and also speaks of him and not to him.
Its also unlikely that the Zabur are the Psalms, though its possible that is what was intended, there were other words that might have corresponded better.
"
The Arabic word zabūr means "book" "inscription," or "writing." [2]
An alternate, less accepted origin for the titlezabuur in the meaning of "psalm" is that it is a corruption of the Hebrew zimrah (Hebrew:זִמְרָה) meaning "song, music" or sipur(Hebrew: סִפּוּר), meaning "story." "
So the Qur'an seems to suggest there were books in resemblance of the Qur'an which had come from the "Mother Book".
43:4
"And Verily, it (this Quran) is in the Mother of the Book (i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz), before Us, indeed Exalted, full of Wisdom."
13:39
"Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book."
These were expected not to be written in the style that the Psalms or Tanakh is written, but in the style of the Qur'an, namely "Spoken To" and spoken in rhythmic and rhyming language easy for memorization and transmission and locking its careful structure making it difficult to change words without breaking the rhyme structure, rhythm, or meaning.
All the texts were also generally expected to be written in the Semitic Tongue which resembles Arabic, but may have been in other tongues, though this was probably not imagined by people.
The New Testament was knowm even in the earliest times not to be written by or dictates by Jesus but about Jesus and written as collected stories after his death, thus making it most similar to the Hadiths, which are popular among Muslims but supposedly was requested by Muhammed not to write those things but they did anyway.
So, the New Testament are some books written about Jesus and letters sent by Paul and stuff like that, and the Book of Revelations and whatever else. No one educated even thinks it was written by or dictated by the living human Jesus.
The Qur'an is the only scripture where academics suspect it really was authored by someone who was likely the Muhammed who is mentioned within the text.
The Torah, Psalms, and New Testament are the three most important Pre-Islamic scriptures, and the Torah or Tanakh makes no attempt to even appear like it was actually written by Moses or direct revelation to Moses.
So many Muslims who actually read these books and topping it off with reading the Qur'an further defaming the books and the followers of the books are unlikely to believe these are really the same as the Qur'an.
Yet! The Qur'an seems to feel no trouble in taking into its contents some very unusual things, such as a chunk from the Syriac Alexander Romance, the alleged dialogue of a Jinn convert, and stories that appear in the other scriptures. It also includes answers to questions posed by locals and local issues happening at the time supposedly and contemporary and sometimes perhaps petty seeming issues. Likewise, the Qur'an says that God does not have any trouble using even examples like gnats or mosquitos to demonstrate things or to make references to popular notions and literature that people were familiar with or asking about.
The style remains very consistent though and does not break from the impression that Muhammed is being spoken to and directed rather than speaking for himself ever.
That style is not at all present or reflected in practically any otherm scripture around the time or before (as far as I am aware).
My personal stance is heterodox to the mainstream, which is that God necessarily generates all experiences and everything in any experience in every detail down to how we interpret such, an idea that is strongly implied or outright repeatedly stated through the Qur'an but not very strongly accepted or seemingly comprehended by mainstream Muslims in that way. Thus, Moby Dick, Paradise Lost, The Holy War by John Bunyan, or even a Hustler magazine are all created by God but not necessarily good or for good, and can be used to mislead people as well.
The mainstream view though, which I also pretty much share, is that the Qur'an is especially a revelation which claims other revelations before it which we expect would be the same or very similar in style to the Qur'an.
I personally think the Bible is almost immediately a pretty terrible book and anyone "Islamified" by a strong positive feeling for the text and translations of the Qur'an, I believe in reading the Bible carefully would want to destroy the book as truly evil, easily misleading, slanderous and vile text. Even the psalms are often quite hateful and annoying:
Psalm 78:65
Then the Lord rose up as though waking from sleep, like a warrior aroused from a drunken stupor.
If I thought that David really wrote such a hideous thing, or even God, I'd despise them even more. No true Muslim in my opinion could ever accept such trash as the words supposed to be from God directly or a real Prophet. The Muslims typically accept these things only because of the opinion presented to them that these are the scriptures of the Prophets they heard about, but they would likely shoo away any of this by saying its changed or corrupted, in case they don't feel confident enough in stating that it is trash and descipable writing by people with really terrible minds / hearts.
So, Unlike the Bahai people and many Muslims as well who might claim these are really supposed to represent the words of God, to a "true Muslim" like I deem myself to be, they cause nothing but total revulsion and hatred really because of how different they are from the Qur'an, not only in its original language but also in translation and content, style, and description. "
"The Muslims probably have mixed opinions about the Bible as the word of God leaning towards it not being the word of God at this point but made by several writers as it claims, rather than the direct products of the "Book Bringing" Prophets.
"
In two surah (chapters), which are dated from the first Meccan period, there is a reference to the 'Leaves, Scrolls, Journals' (Suhuf) of Abraham (and the Scrolls of Moses), by which presumably certain divinely inspired texts handwritten by the patriarchs are meant. "
The Book Bringing Prophets are usually considered to be Abraham and his Suhuf, Musa and his Tawrat, David and his Zabur, Jesus and his Injeel, and Muhammed and his Qur'an.
A part of the Bible is just traditionally thought to be by Moses but pretty clearly is not by Moses because of how it was written, the other writings that have similar sections not associated with Moses directly like from writings of neighboring cultures and then bypasses his life and also speaks of him and not to him.
Its also unlikely that the Zabur are the Psalms, though its possible that is what was intended, there were other words that might have corresponded better.
"
The Arabic word zabūr means "book" "inscription," or "writing." [2]
An alternate, less accepted origin for the titlezabuur in the meaning of "psalm" is that it is a corruption of the Hebrew zimrah (Hebrew:זִמְרָה) meaning "song, music" or sipur(Hebrew: סִפּוּר), meaning "story." "
So the Qur'an seems to suggest there were books in resemblance of the Qur'an which had come from the "Mother Book".
43:4
"And Verily, it (this Quran) is in the Mother of the Book (i.e. Al-Lauh Al-Mahfuz), before Us, indeed Exalted, full of Wisdom."
13:39
"Allah eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book."
These were expected not to be written in the style that the Psalms or Tanakh is written, but in the style of the Qur'an, namely "Spoken To" and spoken in rhythmic and rhyming language easy for memorization and transmission and locking its careful structure making it difficult to change words without breaking the rhyme structure, rhythm, or meaning.
All the texts were also generally expected to be written in the Semitic Tongue which resembles Arabic, but may have been in other tongues, though this was probably not imagined by people.
The New Testament was knowm even in the earliest times not to be written by or dictates by Jesus but about Jesus and written as collected stories after his death, thus making it most similar to the Hadiths, which are popular among Muslims but supposedly was requested by Muhammed not to write those things but they did anyway.
So, the New Testament are some books written about Jesus and letters sent by Paul and stuff like that, and the Book of Revelations and whatever else. No one educated even thinks it was written by or dictated by the living human Jesus.
The Qur'an is the only scripture where academics suspect it really was authored by someone who was likely the Muhammed who is mentioned within the text.
The Torah, Psalms, and New Testament are the three most important Pre-Islamic scriptures, and the Torah or Tanakh makes no attempt to even appear like it was actually written by Moses or direct revelation to Moses.
So many Muslims who actually read these books and topping it off with reading the Qur'an further defaming the books and the followers of the books are unlikely to believe these are really the same as the Qur'an.
Yet! The Qur'an seems to feel no trouble in taking into its contents some very unusual things, such as a chunk from the Syriac Alexander Romance, the alleged dialogue of a Jinn convert, and stories that appear in the other scriptures. It also includes answers to questions posed by locals and local issues happening at the time supposedly and contemporary and sometimes perhaps petty seeming issues. Likewise, the Qur'an says that God does not have any trouble using even examples like gnats or mosquitos to demonstrate things or to make references to popular notions and literature that people were familiar with or asking about.
The style remains very consistent though and does not break from the impression that Muhammed is being spoken to and directed rather than speaking for himself ever.
That style is not at all present or reflected in practically any otherm scripture around the time or before (as far as I am aware).
My personal stance is heterodox to the mainstream, which is that God necessarily generates all experiences and everything in any experience in every detail down to how we interpret such, an idea that is strongly implied or outright repeatedly stated through the Qur'an but not very strongly accepted or seemingly comprehended by mainstream Muslims in that way. Thus, Moby Dick, Paradise Lost, The Holy War by John Bunyan, or even a Hustler magazine are all created by God but not necessarily good or for good, and can be used to mislead people as well.
The mainstream view though, which I also pretty much share, is that the Qur'an is especially a revelation which claims other revelations before it which we expect would be the same or very similar in style to the Qur'an.
I personally think the Bible is almost immediately a pretty terrible book and anyone "Islamified" by a strong positive feeling for the text and translations of the Qur'an, I believe in reading the Bible carefully would want to destroy the book as truly evil, easily misleading, slanderous and vile text. Even the psalms are often quite hateful and annoying:
Psalm 78:65
Then the Lord rose up as though waking from sleep, like a warrior aroused from a drunken stupor.
If I thought that David really wrote such a hideous thing, or even God, I'd despise them even more. No true Muslim in my opinion could ever accept such trash as the words supposed to be from God directly or a real Prophet. The Muslims typically accept these things only because of the opinion presented to them that these are the scriptures of the Prophets they heard about, but they would likely shoo away any of this by saying its changed or corrupted, in case they don't feel confident enough in stating that it is trash and descipable writing by people with really terrible minds / hearts.
So, Unlike the Bahai people and many Muslims as well who might claim these are really supposed to represent the words of God, to a "true Muslim" like I deem myself to be, they cause nothing but total revulsion and hatred really because of how different they are from the Qur'an, not only in its original language but also in translation and content, style, and description. "
WonderingWorrier
Active Member
I think your description of the position being associated with fear is interesting.
No. The light was made up of many tiny slithers of light that were constantly change colours. And it was all swirling folding in on itself everywhere. Like kneading dough.
It starts small and gets bigger as it moves closer until filling all vision. That's when the detail can be seen.
The rainbow door/bridge between worlds is spoken of all over the world.
The little girl was wearing a dress. Seemed European in features and spoke English. Maybe 5 to 7 years old. The woman was maybe around 70 and wearing a head covering with an open face. Seemed middle eastern features.
I don't mind getting hassled. Everything I have said can be backed up with evidence and logic.
In Buddhism the meditation state people are trying to achieve is selfless. Which is said to take many years of practice and many will never be able to achieve it within their lifetime. But I know the state of no self can be achieved instantly. I think I could even describe a way for anyone to do it. The practices of counting, listening to breath, or visualising is not selfless.
Buddhism speaks the wheel of the law. The wheels are all over the world. The Quran also speaks the wheel.
I believe the vision of the man named Black Elk. The tepee with the rainbow door. And the hoops of many nations is one hoop.
But perhaps David really did say such a thing and there is no such thing as a true Prophet.
It seems to be a common mistake made by Muslims to assume the most hagiographic account of history must be the most accurate.
Piculet
Active Member
Piculet
Active Member
They can't go to Mekkah. How can they then do Hajj?
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
I meant that similar to Islam, we have five pillars in the Baha'i Faith, but they are not practiced the same way as the five pillars of Islam.
Piculet
Active Member
Then it is false to say that you 'have the five pillars that Muslims have'.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Five Pillars are the core beliefs and practices of Islam:
- Profession of Faith (shahada). The belief that "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God" is central to Islam. ...
- Prayer (salat). ...
- Alms (zakat). ...
- Fasting (sawm). ...
- Pilgrimage (hajj).
******************************************************************************************
The Baha'i Faith has five pillars but they are not practiced the same as the Muslims.
- Baha'is have a Profession of Faith. The belief that "There is no god but God, and Baha'u'llah is the Messenger of God for this age is central to the Baha'i Faith.
- The Obligatory Prayers
- 161. payment of Zakát # 146
- Nineteen-Day Fast
- Baháʼí pilgrimage
Yay! Finally! How are each technically performed step by step? Wouldn't it be better to do more rather than less in order to outstrip the Muslims and the Qur'an? Or is it considered a relaxing of requirements?
Piculet
Active Member
The number 5 is what they have in common then. The contradiction is in that you claim to believe in the Quran when you really only want to distort it.