Ask a Prophet

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by Prophet

Often I hear questions like this posed, implying that if God intervened when unfair things happened, that He'd be more loving. I would posit exactly the opposite. I say that God is our example of perfect love, and He demonstrates this by allowing us all to go our own way through eons and many lifetimes and lovers as it takes for us to find our way back to the One who loved us first. This example set by God is the basis for all love and good.

All life is immortal. Much clear thought follows from understanding of this truth. I am truly sorry that non-understanding of this truth caused caretakers to keep these beings trapped in tortured bodies against their wills. They thought destroying the body destroyed the being. It is not true.

I disagree with the notion that God was punishing anyone. I don't know where these poor souls have gone for now, but I do know they will be with God, someday.

Are you recommending euthanasia here, or saying we should just ignore suffering and do nothing about it because it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things?

[Alceste]

My question was: wouldn't an enlightened being understand that claiming to be superior to his fellow human beings would inevitably create hostility, making his audience less receptive to his words of wisdom?

Please answer, when you get the chance.

[tumbleweed41]

Prophet,

What is your purpose?

[Iti oj]

What message do you bring? And can you work miracles

[Prophet]

Originally Posted by Straw Dog

I thought you said that false prophets led others astray because of their incomplete knowledge. Are you saying then that the basic cut-off point on critical knowledge is understanding what good and evil are?

It can be confusing, because Knowledge of Good and Evil isn't really knowledge itself but rather the wisdom that correctly organizes knowledge beings already have.

So in your worldview, the experience of understanding good and evil is the fundamental necessity for liberating the mind and becoming omniscient? Can you then elaborate on what exactly "good" and "evil" are in the absolute sense? And how can one attain such an understanding through experience?

Well, first off, I would just leave out the word "omniscience" for now. It means too many different things to different people including "having all knowledge". The understanding of good and evil however, is the basis for all wisdom.

On it's most basic level, good is detachment from selfish desire and is the basis for our central ideal of love. Evil is, then, attachment to selfish desire. The reason these things must be experientially understood is that we divide our minds into conscious and subconscious with the ego or false self to hide our attachments from ourselves.

The ego isn't real. It can be reasoned away into nothing. It is worth noting that this is not easy. The ego has tricks. It's first trick is identification. All egoic beings believe they are their ego. Thus, if you are reasoning against your ego, you will feel its primary defense mechanism, fear, telling you to go no further or you will be destroyed. The ego doesn't know that you will be reborn.

Can you explain what this single truth with a capital 'T' is exactly? Is its determining criterion that it frees the mind from egoistic attachment? How do you understand freedom? How do you understand the ego?

When I say Truth (capital T) I am referring to that which is always true. Seeing a glimpse of the Truth can be a catalyst for enlightenement, but primarily, the Truth is something you come to understand afterwards.

How would this be any different from the many truths that individuals discover within the context of their lives in which also presents them with a new and more liberating perspective on life? Why is it necessary for people to accept the 'Truth' that you're advertising specifically rather than the 'truths' that they find to be most useful within their personal lives?

This is me speaking admittedly from a degree of ignorance, but I believe that when a being comes upon a meaningful truth, they are able to recover a portion of their mind which was previous lost. I come with ultimate truth, capable of recovering the entire subconscious.

You're not absolutely certain?

I've said a lot on this thread, admittedly some of it while quite intoxicated. I know I make a lot of claims but I feel I am pretty transparent and open to questioning about how I have come to my conclusions.

[Quagmire]

Originally Posted by Prophet

Can you demonstrate a single example of me being purposefully dense as you seem to insinuate?

I don't know if it's purposeful or not, at least on the conscious level.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Haven't you already let the cat out of the bag that you believe prophets have existed when you indicated earlier that you agreed with me that characterizing prophets as future-tellers is not a intelligent way to see them?

I agreed that it wasn't an strictly accurate definition.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Your Martian defense is a transparent attempt to have it both ways. You use Martians now because it is reasonable to assume they do not exist, lending the appearance of weight to your argument.

I wasn't using Martians, I was using self-confused people who believe they're Martians.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Your case only holds if you are trying to demonstrate that I cannot be a prophet because prophets do not exist,

I think if you really want to understand my analogy and what I was getting at with it, you'd have to take yourself out of the picture. What I mean is: I was trying to illustrate a situation and the predictable reactions of the people involved.

Whether or not any of it applies to you is for you to decide, but to assume that the whole thing was supposed to be specifically and exclusively about you is just going to confuse you. Old saying: "a man who looks in a mirror can still see the world behind him, but the world he sees in reflection is always backwards".

Originally Posted by Prophet

which is not only contradictory with a view you claimed earlier but conveniently circular as well.

As soon as you give me some indication that you understand what the analogy is supposed to be about, then I'll start paying attention to any commentary you may have in regards to it.

Right now it just seems like you're bending over backwards to find excuses not to understand it.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Your insinuation that my defense of my viewpoints has been wild and irrational in your analogy is not supported either.

See my last comment.

If you insist on taking everything I say personally we won't have much chance of communicating.

Originally Posted by Prophet

If the minority group from my earlier example went beyond being a nuisance into a full blown epidemic of insane and violent behavior, a similar store worker reaction to seeing another of this group show up at the door would also be perfectly understandable and prejudiced at the same time.

Ah (friggin) HAH! That's exactly what I've been trying to get at through this whole conversation: we've had would-be prophets here before, a bunch of them, so, even if the genuine article were to show up, the general skepticism of the rest of our members would be understandable. It may still be a prejudice, but for anybody (genuine article or not) to get in a twist about it would be a distinctly near-sighted and, sorry, egotistical reaction.

[quote=Prophet;2980607]Understandable behavior and prejudiced behavior are not mutually exclusive. [/quiote]

As was my point.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Your defense has been proven irrelevant.

Defense of what exactly? I think it's your interpretation of my "defense" that's irrelevant (in that it was completely inaccurate).

You've had no idea at all what I've been trying to say all through this conversation. All you know is that for some reason, you don't like it. So, you labeled it as something other that what it was in order to justify that dislike.

Originally Posted by Prophet

I wasn't trying to demonstrate that I was a minority. I was only demonstrating that you are prejudiced against those who claim to be a prophet.

Didn't need to have that demonstrated, you could have just asked: yes , if you're equating skepticism with prejudice, then call me Archie Bunker.

Originally Posted by Prophet

That you base this emnity on previous examples of self-proclaimed prophets is completely within the parameters of prejudice.

I love how this is evolving: you take Skepticism, turn it into Prejudice, and now it's sprouted legs and turned into Enmity.

Can't wait to see what that turns into.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Yet, despite my commitment to what I believe in,

Your own superiority you mean?

Originally Posted by Prophet

I understand enough of your perspective to point out your contradictions.

The only thing you understand is that you dislike the tone of what I'm saying, which is apparently all it took to grant yourself permission to fabricate contradictions.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Have you been interested in understanding my clearly deluded perspective enough to point out any of my own contradictions?

I have a feeling that would be a big waste of time.

Originally Posted by Prophet

No, you've stayed on the level of guesses, prejudice, and ad hominem to make your strongest points in this debate.

This is all in your head. I was trying to help you understand why someone who comes in to a place like this claiming to be a prophet could expect the the kind of reception you've gotten. That's it. Anything else you got out of that came from you.

Originally Posted by Prophet

I've pointed out your own contradictions to you.

Don't be so modest: you didn't just point them out, you created them, out of thin air in fact.

Originally Posted by Prophet

I've pointed out others contradictions here as well. I believe I understand what you are saying demonstrably more clearly than you understand what I am saying.

I'll play future teller now: I predict that this habit of second guessing people and interpreting what thy say in accordance with your own fears and insecurities is going to cause you problems as time goes on.

Originally Posted by Prophet

You, yourself, say that thinking of a prophet as a future-teller detracts from understanding of the reading, did you not?

Well, you read at least one line of mine accurately.

Originally Posted by Prophet

I agree.

And that's probably why.

Originally Posted by Prophet

Wouldn't reclaiming the word "prophet" in a rational manner then be good for increasing general religious understanding?

Yes, in a rational manner.

All I have time for now. In fact, I may not waste any more time on this.

If not, have a nice day and good luck.

[Iti oj]

does any one ever call you a tree huger?
if so what do you do?
does any one ever call you a bible humper?
if so what do you do?
etc what ever applies

[apophenia]

Personal advice - go to school. Study psychology. Get accredited in something like CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy). You have some useful insight, but you are conflating that with mystical hocus pocus. If you can decouple your psychological insights from that mysticism, you may be of help to others.

IMO, the whole point of calling yourself a prophet is to validate yourself and your insights. If you did the work and obtained legitimate credentials then you would not need the mystical baggage and the claim of divine inspiration. Have a good look at the responses you get from people here. Various people, including myself, have acknowledged that some of your insights are valid and valuable. How many people on this forum have given you a positive response about the prophet thing ? My guess is none.

[Prophet]

Originally Posted by Quagmire

I don't know if it's purposeful or not, at least on the conscious level....

Oh, hah. The way I understood you, I thought you were saying that it wasn't prejudice because it was "understandable". So you're admitting prejudice then. Interesting strategy.

You are defending the act of judging something before attempting to understand it, which is what prejudice is. This would be bad enough if you didn't expand this delusion to accuse me of prejudice, which, for some odd reason, you are defending as acceptable behavior when performed by you. So it's wrong for me to be prejudiced but it's okay for you, right? You say I learn nothing of others, but, frankly, the way you think fascinates me, so I've taken the time to fully understand it.

Know that it is hypocrisy when you complain about me not caring to understand others while you let your prejudices run wild and defend them all the way.

[Alceste]

Originally Posted by apophenia

Personal advice - go to school. Study psychology. Get accredited in something like CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy). You have some useful insight, but you are conflating that with mystical hocus pocus. If you can decouple your psychological insights from that mysticism, you may be of help to others.

IMO, the whole point of calling yourself a prophet is to validate yourself and your insights. If you did the work and obtained legitimate credentials then you would not need the mystical baggage and the claim of divine inspiration. Have a good look at the responses you get from people here. Various people, including myself, have acknowledged that some of your insights are valid and valuable. How many people on this forum have given you a positive response about the prophet thing ? My guess is none.

Agreed. It seems like the OP's mystical experience resulted in some useful (if unoriginal) insights. I'm just curious whether the insight that posturing as a superior / special / exceptional person makes others hostile and interferes with their openness to your message was one of them.

Strage that he refuses to answer this question. Seems like such a simple, obvious one to me.