CAN ALLAH BE EVERYWHERE
-
What kind of frivolous excuse is this!
Man of Faith has a (lol by the way to your style and comment) technique that is generally new to the world of linguistics, where he "adds" the meanings of each letter in a Semitic root to come to a meaning, each letter means something on its own (based on looking at the many words it is used in and other inspiration) and then combined into a three letter word (we usually use four letter words) which has its own meaning combining all three letters individual meanings that he discovered.
So this has caused great difficultly in communication with people since not everyone knows what in the world he is talking about, and even those who do don't have access to his methods or lexicons or anything.
The only option left is to say "According to Man of Faith" such and such means such and such, and then to either regret or not regret having taken that amount of time to mention any of this.
Man of Faith is on a divine mission (this is not mockery), the only two options are that he is either deceived by God or whoever disagrees with him is deceived by God. In my world though, there is just no option where he isn't deceived by God, since I will never call anything that looks to Chance for answers and determination a God.
So at the end of the day, my God is Chance and his God is Sustainer, which looks to Chance (which he calls Probability) for answers and determination. My God is the determiner, not the one looking for answers. A God that looks for answers is "condition based" the answers then drive that God's decisions, just like factors seem to drive a human's decisions. Not so with my God Chance, who is not driven by anything, but is the driver of all things.
The user "reel" has, after a dream from what is certainly the great Deceiver, is convinced of whatever Man of Faith is saying and seems to generally believe in the same transitory model of things and a God that looks to Chance for answers.
In fact almost all the users on this website worship some version of a God that looks to Chance for answers or leaves things for Chance to determine. They are the ones who blabber on about Free Will because of their human sense of Justice, without looking at how even according to very basic experience things are conditional and driven by conditions, but even besides that, a true devotee of what is Ultimate can never say that what looks to Chance for answers or leaves things to Chance or that there are many powers which Chance decides for (since they can go this way or that way, so Chance is what determines if they go this way or that way) is God.
So that ends the tale of most people on this website, very likely including yourself.
I might join you too in the place where you'll have your BBQ party, but for me I never said that God is anything but the Absolute Ultimate and never did I say there is any share in the power with the Ultimate nor that God looks to anything else to determine things. In that, I simply can't be "wrong", I just worship the Ultimate, even if the Ultimate won't save me from the "God" that looks to it for answers.
-
So if you are attacked you do what?
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do . Better to check from 10102-10105.
You may have great difficulty finding another meaning, but then again
others have succeededGod bless
Thank you for your concern. I do not rush but wait till Allah clarifies it for me .
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do 10103]. Better to check from 10102-10105.
Thank you for your concern. I do not rush but wait till Allah clarifies it for me 10109].
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanGod does not necessarily protect everyone from physical harm. In the case of the early Muslims, they even fought and killed people to defend their lives, many of them were killed. Do you think those of them who were killed were somehow sinners for getting killed in the name of Allah? Was it some spiritual weakness of theirs which caused them to die, rather than Allah who determined it?
You said "Allah will protect me" or something, but I'd add "insha'Allah" or if God so wills, since there is no secret covenant or deal that you have where God will definitely protect you from all harm, since you don't know even if you qualify, and even if you did qualify, this is the same God who says even Jesus and his mother can be destroyed freely and no one could stop God. Knowing this, then one can properly "Fear God as God is meant to be Feared" among other things.
-
FreedomStands,
Man of Faith has a (lol by the way to your style and comment) technique that is generally new to the world of linguistics, where he "adds" the meanings of each letter in a Semitic root to come to a meaning, each letter means something on its own (based on looking at the many words it is used in and other inspiration) and then combined into a three letter word (we usually use four letter words) which has its own meaning combining all three letters individual meanings that he discovered.
In fact, even traditional scholars affirm that Semitic words stem from usually trilateral roots.
So this has caused great difficultly in communication with people since not everyone knows what in the world he is talking about, and even those who do don't have access to his methods or lexicons or anything.
To talk about lexicons I utilize Lane's Arabic English lexicon. It can be downloaded on the Internet. Most any definition I refer to can be found there and my innate letter meanings in sequence favor at least one of the definitions (since words have only one general meaning it is not strange).
The only option left is to say "According to Man of Faith" such and such means such and such, and then to either regret or not regret having taken that amount of time to mention any of this.
Not sure what else I should do. Quran is an absolute scam when it comes to the interpretation and I happen to have found the interpretation after over 1000 years and it is almost impossible to prove it except by fighting for its cause. In the end when I am to deliver the finished rendition it all falls to how plausible it will seem. I have generated a kind of hate-love relationship to Quran. One part of me would love to throw the book behind my back, but the other part says to have an impact I have to eventually prove the falsehood in the available interpretations to get people to abandon the delusion.
Man of Faith is on a divine mission (this is not mockery), the only two options are that he is either deceived by God or whoever disagrees with him is deceived by God. In my world though, there is just no option where he isn't deceived by God, since I will never call anything that looks to Chance for answers and determination a God.
Well. Have it your way. I tried at least.
The user "reel" has, after a dream from what is certainly the great Deceiver, is convinced of whatever Man of Faith is saying and seems to generally believe in the same transitory model of things and a God that looks to Chance for answers.
Somehow I must be relieved in this tireless struggle to make people hearken by some external miracle.
You told me that you were not sarcastic about me before, but I am absolutely certain that you outright lied now. You were sarcastic the last time as well. It does not matter. Make fun of it all the way you like. Humor is a good way of discrediting someone's work as nonsense without even reflecting upon it just as conformity to over-academic methodology is another way of easily refuting someone's inspirational work in the shadows of great falsehood.
-
handshake
Contextual consistency aside,
I see no etymological basis for such an assertion!Why not? I do it. Just open lexicons. If you want an Arabic - English lexicon I recommend Lane's Lexicon.
-
FreedomStands,
In fact, even traditional scholars affirm that Semitic words stem from usually trilateral roots.
To talk about lexicons I utilize Lane's Arabic English lexicon. It can be downloaded on the Internet. Most any definition I refer to can be found there and my innate letter meanings in sequence favor at least one of the definitions (since words have only one general meaning it is not strange).
Not sure what else I should do. Quran is an absolute scam when it comes to the interpretation and I happen to have found the interpretation after over 1000 years and it is almost impossible to prove it except by fighting for its cause. In the end when I am to deliver the finished rendition it all falls to how plausible it will seem. I have generated a kind of hate-love relationship to Quran. One part of me would love to throw the book behind my back, but the other part says to have an impact I have to eventually prove the falsehood in the available interpretations to get people to abandon the delusion.
Well. Have it your way. I tried at least.
Somehow I must be relieved in this tireless struggle to make people hearken by some external miracle.
You told me that you were not sarcastic about me before, but I am absolutely certain that you outright lied now. You were sarcastic the last time as well. It does not matter. Make fun of it all the way you like. Humor is a good way of discrediting someone's work as nonsense without even reflecting upon it just as conformity to over-academic methodology is another way of easily refuting someone's inspirational work in the shadows of great falsehood.
Though lying and being a rat snake is not beyond me, I don't think I was lying, nor am I being sarcastic in the above. You are in my opinion genuinely on a divine mission. It is also my genuine opinion that if someone says that things are left up to "Chance" to decide, then "Chance" is the Ultimate determiner, that is just basic language based logic.
If you said "All is God, and everything people do and think is from God entirely because there is nothing but God and All is God" that is another story, but instead you say something like "Pantheism (meaning All is God) but individuals with free will apart from the will of God, so separate in at least that sense" meaning you're going against even part of what you say. You might refine it in time.
The three letter roots are not usually added up letter by letter, that is your unique contribution to the world of linguistics.
Just because your mission is from God, your visions, experiences, all of it is from God, doesn't mean that God is not deceiving.
All I was saying was that in my case I can't define "Ultimate" as less than Ultimate, I wasn't saying I'm denying your model even.
For example, all the things which you say can be true, the only difference is just that in that one particular thing we are calling a different concept the God.
-
Hi OnlyOneGod,
Rabb as per normal usage does not simply encompass the acts of a sustainer and creator as defined by pantheism. It encompasses a much broader scope, which includes his attributes of the greatest judge and jury, the most beneficent, the most merciful, he has no partners, he begets none etc. While your word "sustainer" is limiting.
Can you explain how the Sustainer is limited based on the premise that the Sustainer is existence itself? If you are everything in the world then obviously you have ultimate control. The Sustainer is an advanced intelligence in the universe aware in everything.
"Normal usage" depends on the perception of the beholder. The Sustainer is the determiner of how everything should end up unless it has decided to give freedom of expression and action. It can do anything it will. If it does create a Being in its image (awareness) deceived within a outer husk then it is so.
Have you contemplated the magnitude of a "determiner" and "upholder". This kind of Being can obviously decide anything it wills since it projects the "reality" (illusion) as we see it. Without the Sustainer sustaining everything in the world it would suddenly begin to disintegrate.
Why are you so against the use of the word Allah, which in its scope talks of both the sustainer as you believe, and much more? Do you believe that the other attributes of God mentioned throughout the Quran are not accurate?
I am against "allah" in traditional sense because it is an appropriate term based on old misconception of its meaning. But when speaking of "Being" then it is absolutely okay. In chapter one verse two it says "alhamd lillah Rabb al-'alameen". The reason is because the "lillah" word refers to the "Commendable is (who) Being aware of (the) Sustainer" (very literally). However I suppose you will contend this argument as well. Interpreters and translators often shows a blind eye towards the fact that in, for example, an English rendition, the AL-based adjective has to be placed before the noun since in English you modify a noun placing the adjective first in most clauses. Al-'alemeen refers to a person based on affixing. Arabic words and grammar has a unique linguistic formula very foreign in English. Al-'alemeen can be perceived as genitive here with person reference.
B 'esm ' Allah ' Al-rahman al-raheem could be rendered as "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete", forming coherence to the subsequent text. Chapter one is clearly a reminding prayer in which one is reminding themselves of their purpose. In this case just like in English you can place the adjectives after the defining noun which is "esm". Allah works as an adverb. I.e. Subject + Be + adjective(s). The initial phrase (basmala) is obviously supposed to be read in conjunction with the subsequent text, like I said, i.e. "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete, (who) is commendably Being aware of (the) Sustainer".
Then again I am wondering why I write you this because you will likely reject it outright anyway.
The word Rabb can have multiple interpretations in the same way Lord (in the bible) can have multiple interpretations. But Allah and his attributes are pretty clearly defined in the Quran.
That is because ancient interpreters did a good job at ruining the interpretation with their own baseless work at inserting their doctrine in an innocent context. If one is perceptive however, it is quite easy to find the inconsistency.
No one seems to reflect upon the nature of the word allah. I have multiple times argued that it comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam which root also has relevancy. Who hearkens onto my argument that has basis? Very few if any. The is merely a suffix. Sometimes it carries the affix . Obviously for anyone worth their caliber knows that if it was to follow the grammar rules it would be written if to be grammatically correct. I have an example of that grammar in use here from 3106. If allah was meant to be used with as part of the noun then it would add an extra . The evidence is plentiful. The "allah" itself carrying an AL prefix it is either adverb or adjective. If the word with was intended to be a defining (adjectival) noun it would require a and not . So much for for people and intelligent reflection.
And to add to that, if was intended to be a proper noun, then it would require to write apart from the word just like . Arabic does also have grammar rules you know and ways to distinguish a proper noun. Al is also not known appropriately as it is intended in the ancient grammar rules but AL comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam (just like allah) and means to "be such as" as in giving reference and why the AL words are usually adjectives and adverbs. Hope I have given you some fruit for thought even if I have my doubts you will even read half of what I wrote and digest it. Every word carrying a AL prefix is actually two words as a compound.
We know that when we speak of Rabb in the Quran, it means Allah. So better to just say Allah rather than sustainer as Allah is more accurate.
That is erroneous due to the meaning of the word allah. Even though the interpretations are awfully bad, you can get hints because no righteous person in Quran uses the phrase "Ya Allah", but Ya Rabb is used multiple times.
Be well
-
If you said "All is God, and everything people do and think is from God entirely because there is nothing but God and All is God" that is another story, but instead you say something like "Pantheism (meaning All is God) but individuals with free will apart from the will of God, so separate in at least that sense" meaning you're going against even part of what you say. You might refine it in time.
The (underlying) "will" for the Sustainer was to refine forth the perfect specimen. If you accomplish that you do not go against the will of your Sustainer. The Sustainer does not outright make you feel the more dire consequences of your doings if you are going against the will, but you will likely see yourself cursed to the recurring Gehennom. The thing you may be blind to is that you secondarily will right away feel the consequence of further delusion and severance from the Sustainer.
I think it is you who cannot comprehend what I write because I am not going against what I write. The will for those who are aware is to do the will of the Sustainer which is exactly what I am doing right now. The world likes to go against the will of the Sustainer despite that the illusion/delusion is the deceptive works of the Sustainer and why it has often been called evil in some gnostic sects. The human that does not balance its influence from the spirit but lets themselves be controlled by the beast will certainly be evil so they are right in ways. The human animal is mostly evil in its nature, very egotistical and instinctive even if it is among the more advanced primates. So in that way the Sustainer did create evil, but that was because it was supposed to be a contradiction. The test is obviously supposed to be hard to filter out the absolutely best initiates. It is indeed hard to find the way, I can admit that. But people delude themselves with this and that instead of simply following logic and rationality. That is why the so-called 'books of guidance' often are cursed, but not in themselves but because of what people do with them.
I am however glad that the Sustainer is doing this refining because it is always important to filter out the garbage. Yet I am amazed at the immense mercy of the Sustainer letting anyone have their chances for a long time until it is too late.
The three letter roots are not usually added up letter by letter, that is your unique contribution to the world of linguistics.
Yet any knowledgeable scholar worth their caliber must affirm that there is a relationship between the letters comprising a word and their meaning. That the very ancient letters did carry innate meanings is well-known to people who research on the most distant etymological background of languages. That the letters themselves have names is something that should rise suspicion.
And Quran helps the perceptive by having lonely letters initiating several of the chapters as a demonstration that one may look at the meaning of the letter. That it uses the letter PLUS the conjunction "wa" is further assistance to figuring that out. I did it some year ago or even two. Obviously if the letter was not part of the discourse it would not begin with that conjunction since it marks adhesion.
Just because your mission is from God, your visions, experiences, all of it is from God, doesn't mean that God is not deceiving.
The Sustainer has been deceiving as part of the test. So that evil has been from the Sustainer. But it is still man's fault succumbing to the beast.
For example, all the things which you say can be true, the only difference is just that in that one particular thing we are calling a different concept the God.
Very well then, but you do apply quite heavy sarcasm no matter if it meant to be sarcasm, but irony often becomes sarcasm if it is aimed in a certain way.
Be well
-
Why not?
I dismiss your case for lack of evidence and acumen,
yet, instead of presenting proof (to demonstrate otherwise), you ask me "why not"!?I do it.
Do what!?
Conjecture!?Just open lexicons. If you want an Arabic - English lexicon I recommend Lane's Lexicon.
Ok, here's Ed's dictionary
http//oi62.tinypic.com/nqcitc.jpg
... QA l-Razq (ق = He* who supplies/provides sustenance ().
Now what!?
-
hicham,
That be your opinion. I presented you my evidence based on lexical definitions. It is thus not baseless.
Conjecture the people did of the past who came up with inaccurate definitions. No work which needs to be done as is already done.
And you must check all definitions a lexicon gives because it does not only state one. Only one can be right. If you have a share or portion of a job then this your part of it. You provide that input being your share.
It is not possible to compare that to the sustenance of Rabb which is another word.
Anyway, there is nothing else to say than we could possibly agree to disagree.
-
I presented you my evidence based on lexical definitions. It is thus not baseless.
Sure it is.
For it's based on conjecture instead of sound reasoning or compelling evidence.
Conjecture the people did of the past who came up with inaccurate definitions.
No work which needs to be done as is already done.This argument is invalid!
Ignoratio elenchi, composition fallacy, &c.!And you must check all definitions a lexicon gives because it does not only state one.
Only one can be right.I don't need a (post-quranic) Arabic-to-English dictionary (by a dead brit) to understand the Arabian Quran @M0F!
rzq is a word I use daily, in my L1!If you have a share or portion of a job then this your part of it.
You provide that input being your share.n. is not the quranic term for "share, portion" ...
rzq denoting sustenance, subsistence, or (daily) supply/provision is attested but, most importantly, definite, as it provides contextual consistency.It is not possible to compare that to the sustenance of Rabb which is another word.
You're appealing to the stone (ad lapidem), equivocation, and persuasive definition, ...
Anyway, there is nothing else to say than we could possibly agree to disagree.
With pleasure.
-
You said "Allah will protect me" or something, but I'd add "insha'Allah" or if God so wills, since there is no secret covenant or deal that you have where God will definitely protect you from all harm, since you don't know even if you qualify, and even if you did qualify, this is the same God who says even Jesus and his mother can be destroyed freely and no one could stop God. Knowing this, then one can properly "Fear God as God is meant to be Feared" among other things.
Well said. bravo
-
Okay, hicham. Your opinion is noted.
-
Hi OnlyOneGod,
Can you explain how the Sustainer is limited based on the premise that the Sustainer is existence itself? If you are everything in the world then obviously you have ultimate control. The Sustainer is an advanced intelligence in the universe aware in everything.
"Normal usage" depends on the perception of the beholder. The Sustainer is the determiner of how everything should end up unless it has decided to give freedom of expression and action. It can do anything it will. If it does create a Being in its image (awareness) deceived within a outer husk then it is so.
Have you contemplated the magnitude of a "determiner" and "upholder". This kind of Being can obviously decide anything it wills since it projects the "reality" (illusion) as we see it. Without the Sustainer sustaining everything in the world it would suddenly begin to disintegrate.
I am against "allah" in traditional sense because it is an appropriate term based on old misconception of its meaning. But when speaking of "Being" then it is absolutely okay. In chapter one verse two it says "alhamd lillah Rabb al-'alameen". The reason is because the "lillah" word refers to the "Commendable is (who) Being aware of (the) Sustainer" (very literally). However I suppose you will contend this argument as well. Interpreters and translators often shows a blind eye towards the fact that in, for example, an English rendition, the AL-based adjective has to be placed before the noun since in English you modify a noun placing the adjective first in most clauses. Al-'alemeen refers to a person based on affixing. Arabic words and grammar has a unique linguistic formula very foreign in English. Al-'alemeen can be perceived as genitive here with person reference.
B 'esm ' Allah ' Al-rahman al-raheem could be rendered as "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete", forming coherence to the subsequent text. Chapter one is clearly a reminding prayer in which one is reminding themselves of their purpose. In this case just like in English you can place the adjectives after the defining noun which is "esm". Allah works as an adverb. I.e. Subject + Be + adjective(s). The initial phrase (basmala) is obviously supposed to be read in conjunction with the subsequent text, like I said, i.e. "With a spirit Being fully/totally complete, (who) is commendably Being aware of (the) Sustainer".
Then again I am wondering why I write you this because you will likely reject it outright anyway.
That is because ancient interpreters did a good job at ruining the interpretation with their own baseless work at inserting their doctrine in an innocent context. If one is perceptive however, it is quite easy to find the inconsistency.
No one seems to reflect upon the nature of the word allah. I have multiple times argued that it comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam which root also has relevancy. Who hearkens onto my argument that has basis? Very few if any. The is merely a suffix. Sometimes it carries the affix . Obviously for anyone worth their caliber knows that if it was to follow the grammar rules it would be written if to be grammatically correct. I have an example of that grammar in use here from 3106. If allah was meant to be used with as part of the noun then it would add an extra . The evidence is plentiful. The "allah" itself carrying an AL prefix it is either adverb or adjective. If the word with was intended to be a defining (adjectival) noun it would require a and not . So much for for people and intelligent reflection.
And to add to that, if was intended to be a proper noun, then it would require to write apart from the word just like . Arabic does also have grammar rules you know and ways to distinguish a proper noun. Al is also not known appropriately as it is intended in the ancient grammar rules but AL comes from the root Alif-Lam-Lam (just like allah) and means to "be such as" as in giving reference and why the AL words are usually adjectives and adverbs. Hope I have given you some fruit for thought even if I have my doubts you will even read half of what I wrote and digest it. Every word carrying a AL prefix is actually two words as a compound.
That is erroneous due to the meaning of the word allah. Even though the interpretations are awfully bad, you can get hints because no righteous person in Quran uses the phrase "Ya Allah", but Ya Rabb is used multiple times.
Be well
Salaam Man of Faith,
After reading your reply it seems to me that you are creating a new language based on Arabic. Because no Arabic scholar would agree with your interpretations of words that you are putting forth. You are connecting words and coming up with meanings that seem to satisfy the goal you have set out to achieve. I think a better methodology for you to be to simply say that you do not agree with the Quran, rather than going on this extensive mission of reinterpreting even such commonly used Arabic words like rizq, to mean something that it was never ever meant to mean. Can I tomorrow go to England and claim that followers of pantheism are those who believe in the frying pan as a god deity (Pan + theism = very logical)? To learn the meanings of a language you go to the source of the language and how words are interpreted in that language by those people.
Your whole argument is based on your reinterpretation of Arabic for the Arabs. They say one thing while you tell them they know nothing of Arabic and hence they (and we) should follow your way. Does that make any sense?
-
Peace brother,
No ways! My Rabb will protect me as He always do . Better to check from 10102-10105.
If Allah wills. handshake
Peace brother,
Thank you for your concern. I do not rush but wait till Allah clarifies it for me .
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanMay Allah give you what you need.
peace
-
Salaam Man of Faith,
After reading your reply it seems to me that you are creating a new language based on Arabic. Because no Arabic scholar would agree with your interpretations of words that you are putting forth. You are connecting words and coming up with meanings that seem to satisfy the goal you have set out to achieve. I think a better methodology for you to be to simply say that you do not agree with the Quran, rather than going on this extensive mission of reinterpreting even such commonly used Arabic words like rizq, to mean something that it was never ever meant to mean. Can I tomorrow go to England and claim that followers of pantheism are those who believe in the frying pan as a god deity (Pan + theism = very logical)? To learn the meanings of a language you go to the source of the language and how words are interpreted in that language by those people.
Your whole argument is based on your reinterpretation of Arabic for the Arabs. They say one thing while you tell them they know nothing of Arabic and hence they (and we) should follow your way. Does that make any sense?
Though I want to see his re-translations of the Qur'an, I think the better strategy would be to simply state the religion and not necessarily associate it with any of these things that have long established and stubborn associations at this time.
If you really want more Malakat for God (why more?), the best might be to drop the stubborn Islamic or Christian groups and just go for a totally independent religion. It can be called anything, even something strange like Malakat Drive, or Malakat Avenue.
Seriously, Islam is a stubborn old religion and you don't have so much time to waste on dealing with a change in language that maybe no one well receive very well once they have been academically brainwashed.
So you just have to announce the differing religion.
This seems to be the natural progression, from going away from the mainstream, then going away from the fasting, and the old Salat, then from the Qur'an's mainstream translation maybe, and then from the whole religion or any association with it whatsoever.
The Path to Spiritual Freedom. God's Garden. God's Farmville. Farmer Sustainer's Harvest. So many options for names.
"I am not a Muslim by the standard definition of the word" "I believe in something else other than Islam as it is understood by most people" "I have my own particular religion, which holds that we are spirits in conflict with the beast-body and have to overcome it in order to achieve our spiritual non-bodily state again" "My religion may resemble others, but it actually differs in some way, so we can call my religion _______ instead, a term I've designated to mean my particular beliefs on everything".
"I have a certain method of translating Semitic language words that is not widely accepted by anyone, but my way of translating words actually seems to confirm everything I want to say to people anyway, which is a great happenstance".
"I am on a mission from God, and I am working diligently to leave this body and never return to the prison of the beast-body and its needs, but to be free and powerful, a bodiless spiritual ruler over people and things".
"I used to be a Muslim for a little while and I married a Muslim, but I am no longer associating with that word or that religion, because I realized that it is false and that the truth is instead what I say, which is that the Sustainer is the mainframe underlying everything, that created a contradiction where beings were made who are essentially like God in that they are bodiless spirits and were placed into animal beast bodies which they have to struggle to overcome. Evil stems from following beast-body desires, and so the best path for anyone is to forsake all their material desires as much as possible, this even includes things like food and sex."
"I reject the body entirely, I hate the body, and so should you if you were wise, because the body is the cause of all evils and troubles, an escaping it should be the goal of anyone with any senses. Give up on all the lures of the material world, the body in all its supposed charms, give up on sex, food, and whatever else because it is a deception and illusion which keeps you bound to the world of the material which is the only hell you'll know. You will keep being reincarnated into the body over and over until you learn to ascend to your bodiless state by simply giving up on the material and not being controlled by sexual desire or desire for food."
Haha, funnily enough, I'm ahead of you in this by far, which is a great joke.
Would you consider yourself a hypocrite in some regards? Not living up to what you say quite as well as you might hope? Perhaps you should start to practice these things much more seriously if you really believe them? You're still having sex on occasion, you're still eating possibly rather regularly rather than appropriately practicing as little food as possible. What else are you failing in as you waste your time typing on free-minds? I'm succeeding in your religion, but you're not succeeding in mine or yours? Isn't it a serious matter?
It seems rather simple to abandon your wife and go and live alone somewhere with no sex, no masturbation, very little food verging on no food at all, and making a quick escape of your body.
As you progress, you'll notice becoming more and more apathetic from concerns as you basically starve your beast to death.
If you accidentally get reincarnated, then see if you can remember to refuse to eat as a baby or a worm or whatever you might reincarnate as. They will probably force feed you if you are baby though, so you'll have to wait until you become a teenager at least to practice anorexia, you'll actually get away with it more if you're a boy possibly.
The problem with being a boy though is your testacles, which seem to be causing you problems as it is, so you mind want to get those surgically removed as it can assist resisting the need for sex. The mainstream New Testament says if such and such body part causes you to sin, simply cut it off, so you might consider doing that to your genitals entirely, maybe making them some form which can't have any sort of sex even if you tried.
As you stop eating, you'll also stop defecating eventually, and you'll be right on your way to achieving your suggested goals, with bodily results to boot.
Do you have any objections to the suggestion that you should follow what you preach full force?
-
Though I want to see his re-translations of the Qur'an, I think the better strategy would be to simply state the religion and not necessarily associate it with any of these things that have long established and stubborn associations at this time.
If you really want more Malakat for God (why more?), the best might be to drop the stubborn Islamic or Christian groups and just go for a totally independent religion. It can be called anything, even something strange like Malakat Drive, or Malakat Avenue.
Seriously, Islam is a stubborn old religion and you don't have so much time to waste on dealing with a change in language that maybe no one well receive very well once they have been academically brainwashed.
So you just have to announce the differing religion.
This seems to be the natural progression, from going away from the mainstream, then going away from the fasting, and the old Salat, then from the Qur'an's mainstream translation maybe, and then from the whole religion or any association with it whatsoever.
The Path to Spiritual Freedom. God's Garden. God's Farmville. Farmer Sustainer's Harvest. So many options for names.
"I am not a Muslim by the standard definition of the word" "I believe in something else other than Islam as it is understood by most people" "I have my own particular religion, which holds that we are spirits in conflict with the beast-body and have to overcome it in order to achieve our spiritual non-bodily state again" "My religion may resemble others, but it actually differs in some way, so we can call my religion _______ instead, a term I've designated to mean my particular beliefs on everything".
"I have a certain method of translating Semitic language words that is not widely accepted by anyone, but my way of translating words actually seems to confirm everything I want to say to people anyway, which is a great happenstance".
"I am on a mission from God, and I am working diligently to leave this body and never return to the prison of the beast-body and its needs, but to be free and powerful, a bodiless spiritual ruler over people and things".
"I used to be a Muslim for a little while and I married a Muslim, but I am no longer associating with that word or that religion, because I realized that it is false and that the truth is instead what I say, which is that the Sustainer is the mainframe underlying everything, that created a contradiction where beings were made who are essentially like God in that they are bodiless spirits and were placed into animal beast bodies which they have to struggle to overcome. Evil stems from following beast-body desires, and so the best path for anyone is to forsake all their material desires as much as possible, this even includes things like food and sex."
"I reject the body entirely, I hate the body, and so should you if you were wise, because the body is the cause of all evils and troubles, an escaping it should be the goal of anyone with any senses. Give up on all the lures of the material world, the body in all its supposed charms, give up on sex, food, and whatever else because it is a deception and illusion which keeps you bound to the world of the material which is the only hell you'll know. You will keep being reincarnated into the body over and over until you learn to ascend to your bodiless state by simply giving up on the material and not being controlled by sexual desire or desire for food."
Haha, funnily enough, I'm ahead of you in this by far, which is a great joke.
Would you consider yourself a hypocrite in some regards? Not living up to what you say quite as well as you might hope? Perhaps you should start to practice these things much more seriously if you really believe them? You're still having sex on occasion, you're still eating possibly rather regularly rather than appropriately practicing as little food as possible. What else are you failing in as you waste your time typing on free-minds? I'm succeeding in your religion, but you're not succeeding in mine or yours? Isn't it a serious matter?
It seems rather simple to abandon your wife and go and live alone somewhere with no sex, no masturbation, very little food verging on no food at all, and making a quick escape of your body.
As you progress, you'll notice becoming more and more apathetic from concerns as you basically starve your beast to death.
If you accidentally get reincarnated, then see if you can remember to refuse to eat as a baby or a worm or whatever you might reincarnate as. They will probably force feed you if you are baby though, so you'll have to wait until you become a teenager at least to practice anorexia, you'll actually get away with it more if you're a boy possibly.
The problem with being a boy though is your testacles, which seem to be causing you problems as it is, so you mind want to get those surgically removed as it can assist resisting the need for sex. The mainstream New Testament says if such and such body part causes you to sin, simply cut it off, so you might consider doing that to your genitals entirely, maybe making them some form which can't have any sort of sex even if you tried.
As you stop eating, you'll also stop defecating eventually, and you'll be right on your way to achieving your suggested goals, with bodily results to boot.
Do you have any objections to the suggestion that you should follow what you preach full force?
I do not agree with Man of Faith's views, nor his methodologies, nor his self-righteous interpretation. But this attack in sarcasm and pathetic implied humor was uncalled for. Remember, your ways only expose you as a person, what you're made of and what you're looking for.
-
FreedomStands, have you converted already.
May the "full force" be with you.
Well ,who is going to clean up free minds,then?
GOD (The sustainer) bless you.
Peace. -
I do not agree with Man of Faith's views, nor his methodologies, nor his self-righteous interpretation. But this attack in sarcasm and pathetic implied humor was uncalled for. Remember, your ways only expose you as a person, what you're made of and what you're looking for.
What exactly are you talking about?
Maybe you don't understand Man of Faith's views at all, my suggestions to him were clear and had a purpose to assist him. There is nothing humorous about chopping off one's genitals in order to ascend, yet what is the difference between genitals and hair? People shave off their hair all the time, it grows from the body too, likewise the genitals can be chopped off eliminating the need for any sexual intercourse. This can be done with a medical procedure.
What is it you find objectionable in this suggestion if it assists Man of Faith in ascending more easily and releasing him from the great struggle he has controlling his sexual desires?
I'd like to hear more of your objections, but as usual, I think you might have misunderstood my statements. They were about Man of Faith taking his views to the next level, being more serious about practicing what is preached. The quality of hypocrite is someone who doesn't do what they say. I try to practice what is preached at least. I'm even ahead in regard to the genital removal thing.
If this is a race for us to grow, I'm only working to suggest things which may assist him, otherwise to make him look at the presented beliefs carefully.
It is like you say "I'm a fish" and I say go and breathe water. It may be "funny" sounding, but it is serious. If you're a fish, go jump in the water and breathe water. The joke there is also that I can do that more than you, I can actually cycle water through my nose a bit to extend my time in water. I'm more qualified as a human fish than you for example.
What else? Someone wants a magician? I'm qualified in that regard too, as a sorcerer. If these people are talking about manipulation of reality and influence over nature, and various psychic powers I've done that as well, clearly appearing to control the winds with lots of witnesses too. I'm ahead in every regard, so when I'm being how I am with Man of Faith I am trying to refine him. If it leads to his harm, he simply is not worthy of being harvested at this time. We are working diligently in his favor in all sorts of directions. No one gives him half that care here, because the people here lack compassion perhaps.
When a person says that their goal is such and such, then a person who cares about them can suggest options for them and see how those options might influence them, if the options make them reconsider their stance or if taken then safely lead them towards their goal.
By suggesting that he gradually starve his body to death, it is only to make him learn what he is suggesting generally in regard to detachment from the body and worldliness. Such starvation was practiced by ascetics, even to this day, in India. It is not in accordance with "mainstream Islam" but Man of Faith doesn't care about "mainstream Islam".
He has a wife who has to suffer knowing him for example while she is bodily absorbed and his presence and marriage might be rather insulting for her since he wants to run away from all that and considers it bad to have sex with her generally.
So by suggesting he leave his wife, live alone, not participate in any sexual activity even if it takes surgical assistance, and keep away from worldly contact for the most part as he gradually starves his "beast" it is only to suggest things, like a computer might suggest things (or a search engine) to assist him in his apparently stated goals.
So what humor? Do you think Man of Faith is a joke? I don't. I think he is being told what he is told directly by God. That God guided him through all this, took him away from Salat, from the mainstream Islam, and is now perhaps guiding him to take his religious more seriously, and why if he is so confident should he fear death? I don't think he fears death at all, and thus should embrace the path he promotes so frequently, what is wrong with that?
That is not a rhetorical question, I want you to state if possible what is wrong with all of it in detail.