It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Teachings in The New Testament Found in The Old Testament

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:23 PM

originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: chr0naut

I apologise if I came across as accusing you of being arrogant, I was simply trying to point out a dynamic habit of objectifying ideologies to support our perspectives many of us have adopted in our everyday lives.

Your written and other expressions are excellent.

My intention was to illustrate impact intentional or non-intentional, of specific conversational dynamic patterns most of us utilise but overlook in our daily lives.

A diety of god concept is created and objectified to represent our human emotons,in objectifying our emotions we give ourselves a sense of control.

If we want to control human emotions enmasse the best way to do it is to objectify them within a diety or god concept.

The diety of god concept is representative of Hunmanitys struggle to understand self-awareness and our emotional processes.To self-police and to control and bring into syncronicity many individual emotionally catalysed realitys.

God is Man,it is a parable.

Thank you.

Although I agree that the search for deity is innate in our behavior, there are other solutions to our search for meaning that are more "down-to-earth". Yet, for some reason we associate great emotional response to the idea of deity.

I see a significance in the depth and universalism of human connection to the concept of deity. To me, it is extraordinary, unexplained and feels like a vague hint of something deeper.

edit on 2/6/2014 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:12 PM

originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: chr0naut

Please do not correct people on their punctution or writing skills,it is a suppressionist action which denotes that your or the STATUS QUOS reading comfort level is more important than what another PERSON has to say.

Your comfort zone is not important.

What the poster has to say is important.

Whether you read what the poster writes is not important to anyone but you.

Starting a communication by initiating a Greater Power dynamic and trying to get the upper hand is very religous like,par for the course for people taught to manipulate things to get what they want truth not being the Primary driver but protocal instead.

What you are doing to everyone with this Religous Holier than thou tactic of trying to set the conversational tone by instigating the greater Power dynamic,really upsets me,moreso than the spelling,or punctuation errors should upset you according to your status quo.

In all fairness you may not even know you are doing it,but now you do.

Immediatly allying yourself with a percieved ideological Geater Power while you disenfranchise another person at the same time by proxy is called manipulation.

You cannot objectify the ideological status Quo,so that you may defend it and in the process engage it as an ally.

The unwritten,agreed upon STATUS QUO says using spell-check is the right thing to do.

The Status Quo is a cumulatively agreed upon reality that uses numbers and peer pressure dynamics to attempt to "objectify" itself.

Just because a majority SAY and AGREE that something is a reality does not make it so.

Religons and Status Quos are identical,they are cumulatively agreed upon ideologys,they are not concrete and carry no tangible form which can justifiably be defended or indoctrinated.

Religons try to objectify themselves so that their members can endorse the idea of defending them as if they were an object or a reality or something tangible.This is what you did with the Status Quo at the beginning of your post,you tried to use it as a weapon a dynamic chess piece in a simple communication with someone else,you cheated,you tried to get an adge.

You tried to make the Staus Quo a concrete reality,when it isnt,reality says that as long as we can reasonably understand someones post thenn it is good enough for us all,if YOU have a problem keeping up with the MAJORITY of us who CAN understand posts with inaccurate punctuation and spelling,then pleae ASK FOR HELP,I am sure most people will try to help you out,but please dont try to put the impacts of your own shortcomings upon some innocent poster trying to share their ideas with us all.

This is a perfect example of how religons manipulate by using high numbers of members to attempt to OBJECTIFY an idea which CAN NEVER be objectified,and they do this because as soon as you can find a way to objectify something then you can justifiably ask your members to fight defend and die for it.

It may seem like a harmless dynamicI am outlining here but it is the deadliest dynamic known to Humanity and has killed more people than anything else Humanity has done.

You cannot artificially objectify an idea in order to enable artificially catalysed defense of it by calling upon the support of the Status Quo membership who are nearby,by immediatly pointing out an infraction upon the status Quo in the punctuation mistakes and requesting remediation with the support of the status quo now engaged and on your side you effectively BULLIED from your first comment forward.

Sorry for pointing this dynamic out and it is nothiig personal to you it is just that this is the Primary tactic religons and other manipulative structures most commonly use to control the masses,they think it is funny to use us against ourselves,to manipulate us using things like peer pressure and status quo ideologys.

And I am not trying to make a point either,I really prefer to read past punctuation and spelling errors putting primary focus and value on the person and their ideas,looking for the positive,not immediatly looking for the negative and then trying to manufacture sympathetic dynamics that allow me to defend that negative beginning.

And if a negative comment over a punctuation or spelling error makes someone not post again,i would rather have the person harping on the Staus Quo perspective not post again and have the unknown perspective heard.

Proper grammar leads to better communication.

It's not about comfort level, it is all about "WTH is that person trying to say?" Why should we have to work to decipher when the writer could have avoided all of that and just used proper grammar?

Proper grammar is not Status Quo, it is EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION. I am so sorry you missed out on that lesson in grade school, but with this arrogant attitude, no one will even listen to what the person nor you, is trying to say. All I read in your post was "Blah, blah, blah..religion sucks..blah, blah, blah...status quo enforcement of religion...blah, blah, blah". Did you mean something relevant in your post? If you did, I missed it, because it wasn't very effective communication.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 07:09 PM
a reply to: WarminIndy

You are welcome to your opinion as we all are.

But it doesnt change the facts,your emotionally charged post is your perogative.

If you have had to work hard to decipher the posts on this thread,any of them, and you need help just ask and I am sure anyone here would be able to help you out.

Proper grammer in any post which includes a reasonable number of anomolies or errors is all that most people need to understand the general idea of communications here or anywhere. But in wonderful places like this many people are willing to help you out if you just ask.

People likely will not gang up and support the Status Quo with you,not unless there is a GROSS lack of punctuation or an epic numbers of errors which make the post indistinguishable as the English Language. There has been no such post on this thread and I really havent ever read a post online which was so badly constructed I could not generally understand it.Maybe you could use some refresher courses to make it easier for you to understand basic communications or maybe you never had the chance to become socialised enough to grasp this commonly understood dynamic.

It is also possible that you are lazy and just dont want to put any effort in beyond which the STATUS QUO defines as average, ha ha ha, you are relying on the Status Quo exactly as the OP we are discussing did,as I explainded to him and now to you,this will not work.

On some sites the Status Quo comes in second place to the exchange of ideas in a comfortable and peer driven environment,this to me is one of them. I come here to share ideas,not listen to complaints about punctuation or grammer being used as tools of manipulation to recruit the Status Quo as an artificially catalysed support asset to whatever ideas they type next.Just like you are doing now.Of course you dont feel this way,no one usually challenges you or the status Quo you endorse and try to use to your own benefits with any degree of success,so most dont engage you. I dont mind because it isnt exactly a difficult dynamic template to explain, dont try to recruit the status quo as a personal tool of propoganda not even in a peripheral manner,objectifying an idea like the Status Quo is like objectifying an ideology like a diety or god based religon. It just doesnt work anymore.We know what is real,and we all REALLY KNOW you could read and understand the general idea of the post in discussion here and we also KNOW that the original person who commented on the post could ALSO read and understand the general idea of the post. So now when you try to jump in to defend this initial improper recruitment of the status quo you are actually trying to manipulate how we all define and accept our reality as a cumulative group,this means you are simply trying to cause trouble not to ask for help.

You voice represents only you, and WE KNOW you are not in need here nor was the other poster,so why exactly would you try to recruit the status quo when you were not in need? To be a bully thats likely why and to reinforce the status quos strength and power.

You have bad luck pal,I come from a lineage that has a great deal of experience at catalysing religous support,you will never find dynamic manipulation tactics which will hold water in discussions with me,all you will do is encourage me to fully explain exactly what you are trying to achieve peripherally and subversively and this will disempower your methods.

I have travelled to many places as many other people have and have interacted culturally with different languages and never had more than a few really unworkable moments,you are simply lazy and trying to recruit the status Quo to your side of a discussion.

We ALL understand proper punctuation and grammer and note errors on an ongoing basis ,but the MAJORITY DO NOT COMPLAIN because we understand enough to NOT make a complaint realising it is not our jobs to correct anyone else for punctuation or grammer errors that do not undermine the general communication,that we are not grade school teachers marking spelling or grammer exams,we know that to complain in such a situation actually reflects an an illustration of a personal lacking on our own parts in cognitive ability or a conscious choice to rely on the status quo and complain and cause trouble. , maybe you NEVER made it out of Grade School in terms of maturaity level because your perspective is certainly childish,definately acceptable and welcome as your right of expression,but exactly as the manipulative dynamic you are defending is factually a con-job so is your un-needed attempted recruitment of the status quo.

Complaining about punctuation and grammer errors which do not undermine the message itself is akin to complaining about someones accent,the solution is to listen harder which means keeping your trap closed or asking positive progressive questions which does not mean opening your trap to complain.

Thank you for the opportunity to illustrate how dangerous the practice of creating artificial dynamics which support the objectification of intangible ideologys or status Quo influences can be.

Once again we can see how these objectified ideas and status quos are actively ,emotionally ,and agressively openly defended as if they were tangible reality based things. They are simply agreed upon ideas which carry no tangible reality based value which can justifiable be defended this way.Laws are not even designed to support status quos and ideologys,and any laws doing so have been manipulated into accepting ideologys as tangible things,reality based things.These things carry no weight that is tangible or reality based,they are agreed upon ideas.

Just cause everyones doin it dont make it right.

edit on 3-6-2014 by one4all because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 10:52 AM
a reply to: one4all

LOL, my post is emotionally charged? How funny that you assume it was, I am not so much an emotional person, I was just telling it like it is. Darn, being that English tutor sometimes gets me into trouble. Darn, those published articles of mine just seems asinine compared to an ATS post.

Listen dude, or dudette, I write professionally. It is not about "emotion" or "status quo". Therefore and hence, it is not laziness on my part, as you eloquently assume. It is laziness on the part of the writer who chooses to ignore effective communication.

On top of that, I am Dyslexic. Don't tell me that now I have to do the extra work to decipher someone's random thought processes. I manage to write and publish regardless of the "learning disability". I don't want to hear excuses about status quo and how we are forcing others to follow.

When I don't understand an accent, I ask the person to please tell me again what they are saying. If they tell me that they don't have to repeat it and I should have understood it the first time, then they haven't communicated effectively with me. The first communicator needs to make it clear, not the second. The first is the speaker, the second is the listener.

Oh, my oh so "grade school" maturity level can't compare with such highly enlightened posturing displayed here. I suppose I will have to take my degrees, education, work experience and professional accreditation elsewhere. Just 'cause everyone's using improper grammar doesn't make it right, but who cares.

If you would like to see some very well written posts from posters who have disagreed with me on certain issues, you can check them out, buzzywigs is very effective in her writing skills even though she doesn't agree with me on many things. Another one is Adjensen, who is extremely well-versed in the art of debate. I would even encourage you to read from AfterInfinity, who disagrees with me on everything, yet is very effective in communicating.

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in