• 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!

Ask a Prophet

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
You think citing the Baghavad Gita helps your case for prophethood?

The word prophet doesn't appear in any pagan vocabulary for which I thank god.

It's a Scripture which he should be able to respect. Since he is not able to respect my words, I suggested that he read words which his religious beliefs may require him to respect which say the same things I do.

So, no. I don't think that citing the Bhagavhad Gita helps my case for prophethood. I think that citing the Bhagavhad Gita does give me an outside shot of causing this being to actually consider what I say before mindlessly attacking.
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I guess I'm just puzzled that one would try to use Hindu literature to reason out any idea of prophethood. Prophet is not a concept that any ancient society besides Israel would ever envision.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I guess I'm just puzzled that one would try to use Hindu literature to reason out any idea of prophethood. Prophet is not a concept that any ancient society besides Israel would ever envision.

Have you read the Bhagavhad Gita or are you going by hearsay as I suspect?
 

Rainbow Mage

Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
Have you read the Bhagavhad Gita or are you going by hearsay as I suspect?

I have and it doesn't contain the word prophet or a Sanskrit equivalent of the Hebrew word Navi.

It puts forth Lord Krishna as god.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
A short piece on love I posted a week ago you may agree or take issue with:

In terms of action and motives, love is detachment. Perform every act as an offering to the good of all without your thoughts affixed on the future results which cannot be controlled but instead always on the present moment and task at hand and you will know this detachment and logically see the end of your anxiety about future events.

In terms of dealings with other beings, love is realization of oneness with them causing you put others "before" you. To love all is to serve all or to put the all (which does include you) "before" you.

It can be confusing, I understand. On one hand, love is detachment, and on the other it is a sort of "connectedness" with other beings. The reason for this is that the attachments we hold to the physical world, which include our actions, hide the oneness which lies behind all sentient beings. To make an analogy, all beings are like cells in a body. If one cell decides, "I am no longer the body, I am now me," he will no longer work for the good of the body but rather manipulate the body to work for him. Soon these selfish cells are multiplying without regard for the body.

Selfishness is a cancer on the body of life. Love is the cure.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
I have and it doesn't contain the word prophet or a Sanskrit equivalent of the Hebrew word Navi.

It puts forth Lord Krishna as god.

The word I found they used most often in my translation of the Bhagavhad Gita is seer.

I am sorry if this word difference is insurmountable for you, but you should know that words are only sounds. It is the meaning behind them that is important.

Buddha, Christ, seer, and prophet all mean the same thing.
 

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Seems to me you think Enlightenment is something you just catch glimpses of out of the corner of your mind when you are meditating. I assure you I can be fully self-aware standing with my eyes wide open. It is not action or debate that is capable of pulling me from my state. It is attachment.

I just don't believe enlightenment is something that can be directly talked about and the less said about it, the better. It doesn't make sense to me why one would boast or proclaim that they are supremely enlightened, especially in an online forum in which nobody really knows who they are.


There is plenty to be learned from others who disagree with me, but I am not learning truth from them. I have spent a lot of time online probing a lot of people, figuring out the patterns that usually go along with insane groupthink in many worldviews, often finding them repeating among people who disagree vehemently. As far as me being so deluded that I cannot tell if I lost an argument or not, I've had a lot of debates here. Show me where I err.

So you can learn from others, but nothing that you learn from them is true? I'm not interested in picking out flaws in your debates. I'm just curious as to why you are unable to admit that you're not perfect. Do you honestly believe that you are incapable of err? I don't really know you, admittedly, but you must see how it may translate as arrogance through this particular medium.


So, you can't actually demonstrate anything wrong with anything I say, but you want to call me possibly deluded anyway. This is one approach. *shrug*

Someone who's fallen victim to grandiosity cannot see where they may be in err, even if a thousand people logically demonstrated that they were on some occasions. They cannot ever admit when they are wrong. What would convince you that you may be in err?

Others before me like Socrates, Jesus, and Siddhartha Gautama also believed that they had uncovered the absolute questions of reality and, since they taught others, they must have also believed that those answers can be meaningfully conveyed through language. What of them? Were they as deluded as I?

By what manner and criterion do you think you are on the same level as those listed? What have you accomplished of similar feat?

It's not like they're all in the same club anyway. Socrates was a philosopher and questioned the existence of the gods, the Buddha taught the question of gods to be irrelevant to enlightenment, Jesus was a Rabbi and possible mystic very much rooted in his traditional Judaic values... Just pointing out a few differences that should be acknowledged.

They found answers that were meaningfully conveyed within the social and cultural context of their times, and some of it has carried over to the modern era. Also, they probably would have disagreed a great deal with one another. I don't know whether or not any of them were deluded nor to what degree, but I do doubt that they were capable of conveying the absolute nature of reality with words. Language itself is rooted in a relative context. They all had insights to share that were useful to others. It's just that the truth that can be known is not the Final Truth and the word that can be uttered is not the eternal Word IMO.

I apologize for using the word 'deluded' to describe you. I am capable of admitting a wrong because I am not perfect. I'm just completely baffled as to why you would even expect anyone to believe that you are perfectly enlightened when we only know you through your interactions on these forums. It has the appearance of arrogance and it's impossible for us to tell otherwise. What do you hope to achieve by spending time on here? Isn't there some greater good you could be pursuing out in the world with your enlightened insight?
 

Shermana

Heretic
Christ does not mean "Seer" whatsoever. Jesus did call himself a prophet, but the title "Christ" in no way whatsoever means "prophet", it can IMPLY prophet, but it means "One who is anointed with the Holy Oil" and thus "One who is the entitled Priest-leader". Likewise, Buddha does not mean "seer", which essentially means prophet or diviner.

The word "Seer" if anything means "One who sees", particularly in regard to future events and Divine command.
 

Prophet

breaking the statutes of my local municipality
Christ does not mean "Seer" whatsoever. Jesus did call himself a prophet, but the title "Christ" in no way whatsoever means "prophet", it can IMPLY prophet, but it means "One who is anointed with the Holy Oil" and thus "One who is the entitled Priest-leader". Likewise, Buddha does not mean "seer", which essentially means prophet or diviner.

The word "Seer" if anything means "One who sees", particularly in regard to future events and Divine command.

I was certainly quite aware that the word difference would be too much for you.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
A short piece on love I posted a week ago you may agree or take issue with:

I agree with this mostly. I do have long term love desires so to speak but that's not the point. Its about well nothing it just is. Love is. We are all reflections of each other so I agree with that part two.
love feels good and it spreads.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
It's not that I reject you out of hand and ignore any words of truth you might have to say. I've seen you say things I agree with, some of them profound.

But I haven't seen you say anything that hasn't been said before. I've just seen a lot of egotistical nonsense attached to the truth you carry like a cross.
 
Top