It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

What does it mean to be an Elohim?

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2019 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: rom12345

Well its always been about Sun worship and not Son worship.

Rinse and repeat, time after time, and that's you got our somewhat modern-day interpretations of organized religious practice.

And also blood, its always been about that as well.

We are not just half weird semi-intelligent clever little monkeys, we are the whole shebang batcrap crazy and then some.

I would say our framework of understanding is as much a philosophical prospect and kettle of fish as it is scientific by nature.

What do we call it? Existence apparently.

Edit: That one free miracle, by the way, equates to the singularity that spawned the current iteration of space-time in which we exist.


The sun is an obvious target of worship. Pretty cool they figured that out. So now as we know better, we now can turn attention to the infinite order that proceeded the big bang. Can we not infer this by science ? I feel that modern scientific understanding tremendously expands our understanding of the majesty of God, and also lines up well with many established metaphysical ideas. That literature contains metaphor and contemporaneous contextual references does not deter, or detract from idea of God. The ideas of the Sephora and their consolidation into the Trinity present valid progress in my regard. These things are perhaps not physically existing concepts , but could be viewed in the same way a mathematician may introduce things like imaginary numbers, or hypothetical coordinate systems, while still producing results that give insight. The hardcore scientist would posit that these unintuitive constructs are in fact in a sense real. And if the result spawned technology it may hint that there may be truth in the assertion. If they spawn nuclear weapons, it may be believed that that reality was malevolent, even though it was the application of it that was.




posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 06:57 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

You cant ever measure or observe what came before the big bang hence the question is somewhat irrelevant but none the less interesting.

As to the Sun, well it rose every morning and set every evening, brought life and death in cycles and season, is it any wonder that they really decided to bestow worship toward the thing given the impact it had on their daily lives?



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Sheye

Never managed to work that one out properly or get the hang of it, forgiveness that is, we are a bit like the Basque here in Scotland, well some of us any road, when we hate, its for life.

As to being disappointed and let down, unfortunately, that's just part of existence as one get older, as the world begins to stop giving you things with the same frequency and starts to take them away.

Disappointed is simply part of existence, look at it this way if we were happy all the time how would we even know when we are sad?

We do indeed need trust, as it's in our nature to do so, and without such, there can be no hope, which is a requirement for continued existence really.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Sheye

Never managed to work that one out properly or get the hang of it, forgiveness that is, we are a bit like the Basque here in Scotland, well some of us any road, when we hate, its for life.

As to being disappointed and let down, unfortunately, that's just part of existence as one get older, as the world begins to stop giving you things with the same frequency and starts to take them away.

Disappointed is simply part of existence, look at it this way if we were happy all the time how would we even know when we are sad?

We do indeed need trust, as it's in our nature to do so, and without such, there can be no hope, which is a requirement for continued existence really.


I also struggle with forgiveness thing. For me it has become a primary concept beyond the minutia of metaphysics and science. I'm coming personally to the place where by the only way to do so, is to hold contradictory ideas at the same time. Not an easy thing when these ideas are intermittently reinforced. I think people, my self included, hurt each other for reasons that become hidden over time. I am of the opinion that the seemly constant thread of people being deceiving "devils" to each other (and God f*cking them up for being so), has meaning in the context of forgiving and being forgiven. If this is the only thing to take away from a religion it is good. I think that given a realistic chance to redeem themselves, even the hardest criminal would be transformed. What so often prevent this, is the idea the bargain "i'll forgive you, If you will forgive me", otherwise "I hate you". Black and white thinking on a psychological level.



posted on Dec, 31 2019 @ 09:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: WanderingMrM
Ok so the coincidences are rather too odd, I have had several individuals a total of 11 tell me that I am an Elohim. Some living in sperate countries and most I do not know directly!
What does it mean to be an Elohim?Who are the Elohim?Better yet - What are the Elohim?Is it good or bad?

If you are an Elohim what are *they* in comparison that enables a perspective of your situation? Why haven't you asked them (your witnesses)?
Nobody gains critical information that easily. You have to work for enlightenment. I suspect you are a fraud.
edit on 31-12-2019 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

When it comes to Julian Jaynes and his bicarmeralism, what we're dealing with is a philosophy that is motivated by a dissociation of early life experience and the paramount meaning it has for how we understand our relatedness to the world.

In other words, bicameralism is a fantasy which imagines consciousness to be an aberration of modern humans. Consciousness for such a person is painful. And why? Because they are not using consciousness for what it is for: to understand cause and effect.

Anyone who finds this theory of Jaynes appealing have - for me - the most specious and amateur understanding of the complexity of the phenomenon of human existence.

A companion notion to the hatred of consciousness - or the representation of human experience as a matter of 'just-going-on-being' (as if the environment didn't embody asymmetry/randomness, and thus not always demand from us conscious discrimination of coherent from incoherent) - is the asinine representation of language as somehow unrelated to how humans know and regulate themselves. You find this in postmodernism as well as new age nonsense from people like Bruce Lipton. It is incoherent. You couldn't even know how to be in the world or in relation to yourself without the mediating constraints - for what to focus on and find meaningful (meaning language actually constitutes meaning) that language embodies.

Language and consciousness is what humans are. The drive to minimize consciousness or language is invidious, and symptomatic of an incredibly confused society and culture. Anyone who puts any meaningful thought into how they are able to know as they know cannot get rid of language from the process anymore than they can get rid of affect or nonverbal knowing.

These processes are complimentary. Ecological dynamics precede linguistic constraints; but we ascend the rungs of being to higher levels of ecological knowing via the enablements created by language.

You have good reason to be worried about people worshiping 'false gods'. False gods are not false because someone says so; they are false because they are arbitrary; and arbitrariness is inherently false because it is incompatible with the structural dynamics of self-regulation within the biosphere.

Nature operates through symmetry, and if people refuse to live by it, its quite simple: you die. You die from disease or you die from your own hand or you die from violence with others. In short, in order to reduce the stresses intrinsic to the living processes, you either follow natures design, or you die. You either realize the superior ontology of nature, or you fetishize your arbitrariness as if nature wasn't behind that as well (that is, created the conditions for ontological confusion to emerge to begin with).

But of course Satanism does not care about that. We are entering the apogee of representational arbitrariness in our neoliberal, post-gender, post-sexual orientation, cyborg thinking society.

What do you think will cause people to change other than ungodly suffering? It'll happen whether you like it or not. It'll wear away at rebellion eventually.
edit on 1-1-2020 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

Why do you assume that there is an infinite order which precedes the big bang?

Sometimes I think people use the word 'infinity' for 'really big'. Sort of like when people use the word 'omniscient' for 'lots of knowledge'. How do you know whats infinite, or whats omniscient? By definition, to be omniscient would be to know what you don't know, and that a contradiction in terms. Do you think you know my experiences or I know yours? Or you how it feels to be in my body or me in yours? Could anyone know what a quasar is before the background conditions required to make sense of such a concept?

Mystics strike me as some of the most epistemologically muddled headed people around.

I do not dispute God, or a deeper unifying reality which links the entire universe into a singular being, but to say very simply that there is an 'infinite' order without any evidence is simply unjustified.

I actually think the paradox is that infinity, if it can be spoken about, has to do with the infinity of time. Are we certain nothing precedes the big bang? That the universe we know is the only one that has ever existed?

I think intellectual consistency necessitates considering the universe to be something like a breathing process: expansion and contraction; birth and death, and there rebirth, ad infinitum.

But it is always creation - always newness. That makes the universe inherently interesting.

The now contains every moment that has ever existed since the universe might simply be the evolutionary meanderings of the now, creating particularity and in the process, life, feeling, and consciousness.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
In my understanding of physics, which admittedly has gaps, leads me to consider that if time is the progression toward greater entropy, that if we go back to the 'beginning" , there would be a highly ordered state. Perhaps Infinity is a big word, but if it is to be considered mathematically in the case of black holes, I would think the same would apply for the moment, just before the big bang.

The nature of the universe is less important than our experience of it. The inner voice that guides both scientific thought and moral behaviour is the underpinning of our civilization.
My choice is to not 'throw the baby out with the bath water'.

False beliefs do have consequences, and we certainly look to science for this in empirical matters, but many things, especially within our lived experiences can not be measured, or in hindsight put into empirical contexts, At least not without a leap of faith of another kind.

Maybe when science is more advanced it will be capable of giving us more subtle solutions.
edit on 0000001030713America/Chicago01 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)

edit on 0000001031413America/Chicago01 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345

Maybe when science is more advanced it will be capable of giving us more subtle solutions.


This statement completely misunderstands the nature of the problem posed by the inability of cosmology to tell us whether there was one universe or more than one universe (notice that we don't need to assume there was an infinite number).

It is not a question of science needing to become more "advanced" in order to give us the answer. Rather, the basic paradigm within which it works needs to evolve in order to ALLOW this question to be answered. Saying that our current universe originated from the previous collapsing one just pretends to answer it by hypothesizing other universes that we can no longer observe but about which the same question can be asked. Science only works inside the conceptual bubble that it has defined for itself. If it asks questions that (unbeknown to it) only have answers that lie outside this bubble, no amount of technical advancement will allow it to cross the boundaries of this bubble. Only the evolution of science into a new form of understanding that encompasses the domain of religion will allow a perspective sufficiently comprehensive to facilitate this crossing. But then it will no longer be called "science", which deludes itself into believing that it can answer all questions without the need for religion. In cosmology, science presses its head hard against the walls of its own conceptual prison and finds itself unable to break through by answering its hardest question because its conceptual, mathematical framework gives it no door to pass through. Instead, they become its prison bars. We don't need more advanced science - that just makes the bubble bigger and more imprisoning. What we need is a form of knowledge that reaches beyond the limitations of ad hoc models and their mathematical equations, one that reaches out of the scientific "noosphere" as conceived by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and Vladimir Vernadsky into a level where intuition, not reason, provides answers to all questions - even the biggest ones. This is the highest level of truth perception found in scientific geniuses and the greatest religious mystics.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 06:44 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

And what is this 'intuition'?

What do you make of that scientific evidence from the cognitive sciences (experimental psychology, neuroscience) which puts the word 'intuition' into massive epistemological question?

I am all for just giving up and admitting the limitations of scientific knowledge - that is, positive knowing beyond what we can say about the only universe we live in. But giving priority to 'intuition' as if intuition isn't informed by the structural dynamics of our living bodies embeddedment in a physical environment - a body organized by regulation via unconscious enactment dynamics designed to reattune ourselves to external conditions vis-à-vis our structural needs for food water, food, oxygen, etc - is even more hardheaded then taking science to be imprisoning itself.

The biggest prison of all is believing you know everything; or rather, believing that intuition can offer you anything more than simplicities like 'love is at the core of things' - an intuition I agree with, but an intuition which isn't necessarily in conflict with the proximal symmetry which we see all around us.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

But lived experiences do not lie outside the domain of science.

What is lived experience but an example of the third - that is, the synthesis between one point and another point?

If we recognize that conceptual processes grow from early life experiences of 'differences which make a difference', than lived experience is itself fully subject to induction and deduction procedures.

What we mystify as consciousness is not nearly as mysterious as it is often made out to be.

For me at least, understanding adds to the measure of awe I feel. That our minds can make meaningful the way we make meaning utterly astonishes me. Einstein noted this: that understanding - despite the fact that there always lies more beyond what we've just understood - is possible at all is a mystery.



posted on Jan, 1 2020 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: micpsi

Even though people like Lee Smolin and Roger Penrose like to speculate about the origins of the universe, and even posit - in the case of the former - the irreducible nature of time (a position I incidentally have much sympathy for) - I have my reservations about letting ourselves speculate about anything beyond the one universe we actually exist within. In fact, I have issue with any sort of thinking that abstracts from real-world realities in search for explanations that don't add any explanatory power to the questions we pose.

So, time is irreducible because for all intents and purposes, we're all a function of time, and morally speaking, everything we do is textured by the process of how our bodies have developed meaning since we came into this world. So at an ethical level, it is downright immoral and unjust to exempt yourself from the responsibilities that time demands from us.

A person who does not respect time has more or less admitted to you that he doesn't respect your being or any of the conditions that have shaped your being - since everything that matters to anyone is a function of how their bodies (brains) have been conditioned by temporal processes in intersubjective tension (or tensegrity) with other bodies and brains.

When you don't realize that this is what we are at root, you are stuck in a make-believe idea of how you work.

Ultimate meaning may never take us outside of the universe we exist within. What is time? Smolin is obsessed with this question and his ideas about applying evolutionary natural selection to the selection of conditions for the universe, itself claimed to be derived from a previous universe, is for him, a question that can be falsified.

Conversely, simply claiming multiverses exist without any evidence for such multiverses or any way of checking whether such multiverses exist is pure metaphysical quackery. What matters is checkability and falsifiability. If something can't be checked, it has no epistemological value - its as good as any imaginary thing that can be claimed.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: rom12345

But that's exactly what science does.

Science replaces and/or supplements old theories with new and better ones as more data and refined results become available through study and experimentation.

It's not static in the same manner that most organized religious practices are.

Science encourages experimentation and questioning, religion not so much.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 04:36 PM
link   
What does it mean to be an Elohim?

Elohim is not a thing but a state. I suspect they are suggesting, figuratively, that you were born from the mouth of God. That you were from a priestly caste in a previous reincarnation. This may mean that you have energies within, that may need be channelled correctly, else could result in things like hypertension etc, affecting your health.



posted on Jan, 2 2020 @ 10:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
I believe it is plural and means “The Gods”, as in more than one.


Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.​—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men.
...
The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.

When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) Regarding this, Aaron Ember wrote: “That the language of the O[ld] T[estament] has entirely given up the idea of plurality in . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] (as applied to the God of Israel) is especially shown by the fact that it is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute. . . . [ʼElo·himʹ] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty, being equal to The Great God.”​—The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. XXI, 1905, p. 208.

The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. They are called benehʹ ha·ʼElo·himʹ, “sons of God” (KJ); “sons of the true God” (NW), at Genesis 6:2, 4; Job 1:6; 2:1. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

The word ʼelo·himʹ is also used when referring to idol gods. Sometimes this plural form means simply “gods.” (Ex 12:12; 20:23) At other times it is the plural of excellence and only one god (or goddess) is referred to. However, these gods were clearly not trinities.​—1Sa 5:7b (Dagon); 1Ki 11:5 (“goddess” Ashtoreth); Da 1:2b (Marduk).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.

In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.

The Greek Term. The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ. ...

From which we get the English word "theology".
Source: God (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

In the context of the way the word was used to describe the OP, it's a bit like calling him/her an angel I guess (or just special in a divine or spiritual sense). It's quite flattering. A word of warning:

Flattery (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

The act of pleasing by artful commendation; adulation; false, insincere, or excessive praise. It is usually done to gratify the self-love or vanity of the one flattered and is therefore damaging to him. Its motive is to gain favor or material benefits from another, to create a feeling of obligation toward the flatterer or to bring glory to him. Often it is designed to lead the other person into a trap. (Pr 29:5) The use of flattery is not evidence of the wisdom from above; it is of this world, being characterized by selfishness, the making of partial distinctions, and hypocrisy. (Jas 3:17) Insincerity, lying, adulating or glorifying men, and playing on the vanity of others are all displeasing to God.​—2Co 1:12; Ga 1:10; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Re 21:8.
...
While the use of flattery may appear to be the gainful course, the Bible points out that “he that is reproving a man will afterward find more favor than he will that is flattering with his tongue.” (Pr 28:23) When a person employs flattery to gain advantage over another person, it is the opposite of love. A hater may resort to flattery but will eventually have his deceptiveness roll back on him like a stone.​—Pr 26:24-28.

Flattery employs smooth talk in order to beguile its victim. The expressions “flattery,” “smooth tongue (lip, or words)” (Ps 5:9; 12:2, 3; Da 11:32), “smoothness” (Pr 7:21; Da 11:34, ftn), and “double-faced” (Eze 12:24, ftn) are translations of the Hebrew root word cha·laqʹ or related words. In every Bible instance cited, the motive of the smooth talker is bad.

edit on 2-1-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2020 @ 11:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: rom12345
So now as we know better, we now can turn attention to the infinite order that proceeded the big bang. Can we not infer this by science ? I feel that modern scientific understanding tremendously expands our understanding of the majesty of God, and also lines up well with many established metaphysical ideas.


You are a repressed minority.
The big bang was the beginning of Time and death, not the beginning of existence. Such as electron flow of a battery, the potential source must input before an imative output can reach levels of physical perception.


See you in heaven friend



posted on Jan, 4 2020 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: AnodeOrCathode

The big bang was the beginning of space-time.

We are never going to get to be able to measure or compare any inputs that contributed to nor constituted the singularity that spawned our universe.

Seems to me that you are assuming cause and effect to be the colour of the day which may not necessarily have been the case outside of whatever constitutes the space-time in which we exist.

As to rom12345 being a repressed minority, well 84% of the world's population subscribe to some notion of organized religious practice, so if anything he's in the majority.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join