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.

 

Who is behind the plain Biblical deceptions?

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
and I am so inclined...just not very dedicated or enthusiastic... and actually it's a good distraction...or at least it's good to be distracted..
this distraction just doesn't seem to go anywhere for me anymore...and I'm just...easily frustrated right now and in some pays, though not incarnate, you would be my major problem with perceptions and semantics personified
and I don't have the energy to be dealing with what aggravates me about the world in one person


I'm sure I'll "snap out of it" soon enough and bounce back to being me


"...on my own here we go" ("Brain Stew" Green Day)



LCKob:

Well heres to bouncing back then ... jump on in when you feel the urge and if I am around, I will be happy to "greet" you back
.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
............................
recently, a year ago- on another subject entirely, my life without religion and lived contrary to faith I found myself thus so as well...always caught in perpetual pardoxes in life and a friend of mine and I did Joke that he was evil incarnate and I was simply...paradox incarnate.

Thats just me

and since paradox is hard enough for people to wrap their mind around, certainly words fail exceedlingly so to help something so intangible
.................


Uhhhhh, I'm sorry, I am just able to drop in and out of this site from time to time, and I guess I've missed something significant here, but what the blue blazes are you talking about here? Is this something related to the thread topic, or just the withdrawals talking?
Banjo


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by banjo_guru
Uhhhhh, I'm sorry, I am just able to drop in and out of this site from time to time, and I guess I've missed something significant here, but what the blue blazes are you talking about here? Is this something related to the thread topic, or just the withdrawals talking?
Banjo


Oh, poor confused banjo...

okay...well...in a nutshell-here's the breakdown banjo-once upon a time,I started this thread-the topic of which RARELY gets spoken directly about/on, but subtopics mostly eligion related do...one such subtopic is spamandham and LCKob trying to understand-through semantic means-where I stand philosphically/religiously in my beliefs...

in so doing...it's come to LCKobs attention my answers seem paradoxical in nature...not that I am wishy washy I point out but just pardoxical by nature, so and I agree with him in that

Now in the confusing post you refer to, I am agreeing and referencing the fact many of my perceptions, beliefs, phiolosphies etc in life seem pardoxical by nature-not just my religious beliefs, hense I say



on another subject entirely, my life without religion and lived contrary to faith I found myself thus so as well...always caught in perpetual pardoxes in life


I was refering to other subects entirely, comparing the pardoxes of other subjects as well so he can realize this is just me as a whole-pardox incarnate-not just a problem with semantics or my religious views exclusively

...and that this is nothing new to me, as I pointed out a friend of mine have discussed such before etc


clear enough for you now?


it has to do with me and my answers to LCKob on my views and beliefs so he can understand the basis for my thought process and reasoning re:religion which this board is of a religious topic-the Bible and deceptions concerning it, right?

Sorry if we lost you-perhaps I should have u2u'd him!

why...did YOU have something more on-topic to discuss...and are at a loss now?
Go ahead! post away-I've enjopyed what you've had to say-the one time I thjink you had something to say...
but please expound upon deceptions or cover-ups or conspiracies concerning the Bible or it's meanings or uses etc...

The representative to deny confusion, Banjo, now has the floor...

Or gee...maybe youre just pickin on me?


[edit on 13-1-2006 by think2much]

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 13/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
think2much:

I must say, you seem to be feeling better


p.s. This is in no way an attempt to "derail" your initial point ....


LCKob



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
think2much:

I must say, you seem to be feeling better



I have my moments LCKob
So...you wanna piece of me...huh? HuH? You wanna piece of me?




mostly I'm just lurking around ATS in general like my good ol' pre-registering days....


So on to the topic...if no one has more about the Bible...can anyone tell me why logically or Biblically there can not be other lifes, gods etc? Could we be a point system..huh LCKOb...even if we don't have the linguistics in order...start giving me some feedback on (one of the orignial) topics...that would be a first for you



geez...I can't even spell or type!

[edit on 13-1-2006 by think2much]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Think2much:

I have my moments LCKob
So...you wanna piece of me...huh? HuH? You wanna piece of me?


LCKob:

A piece of you ... hahaha ... no, I think you need all your pieces at this point ... actually I was just happy to see indications that grant the appeance of improvement .

think2much:

mostly I'm just lurking around ATS in general like my good ol' pre-registering days....


So on to the topic...if no one has more about the Bible...can anyone tell me why logically or Biblically there can not be other lifes, gods etc?

LCKob:

hmmm ... after reading the thread contents I would say that 2 possibilities jump out at me ...

1. God is part of some larger continuum of beings of reasonably analogous power.

2. The bible was written in a segmented and disjointed fashion due to span of writing and of course different contributers.

Personally, I favor the latter explanation due to my bias of SM and passing aquaintance with the dynamics of historical documentation as provided by the "winners". i.e. the subjective nature of documented perception. ... where the mention of other "gods" in the text would be taken as acknowledgement of the existing "factions" or prominant sects (in competition to the Judeo-Christian model.

One other bit of related "deception info" though is found here in this Times Online article entitled

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible



"... As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing."


www.timesonline.co.uk...



think2much:

Could we be a point system..huh LCKOb...even if we don't have the linguistics in order...start giving me some feedback on (one of the orignial) topics...that would be a first for you


LCKob:

hahahahhaha ... don't worry T2M, I won't "press" ... and as an act of good faith (pun intended) ... my above post.



LCKob


[edit on 13-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
Think2much:

I have my moments LCKob
So...you wanna piece of me...huh? HuH? You wanna piece of me?


LCKob:

A piece of you ... hahaha ... no, I think you need all your pieces at this point ... actually I was just happy to see indications that grant the appeance of improvement .


awww...thanks
though the line from that RT song seems a mantra for me these days ("And I'm steady but I'm startin to shake...and I don't know how much more I can take..."
)



Originally posted by LCKob

think2much:

So on to the topic...if no one has more about the Bible...can anyone tell me why logically or Biblically there can not be other lifes, gods etc?

LCKob:

hmmm ... after reading the thread contents I would say that 2 possibilities jump out at me ...

1. God is part of some larger continuum of beings of reasonably analogous power.


2. The bible was written in a segmented and disjointed fashion due to span of writing and of course different contributers.


Personally, I favor the latter explanation due to my bias of SM and passing aquaintance with the dynamics of historical documentation as provided by the "winners". i.e. the subjective nature of documented perception. ... where the mention of other "gods" in the text would be taken as acknowledgement of the existing "factions" or prominant sects (in competition to the Judeo-Christian model.


Hmmm I'm inclined to favor the former myself-imagine that.


and as for the latter, not to split hairs (not my style) but I don't think so much of how it was compiled by men, by writings over a large span of time, or the number of contributers, or the consequence of of both of those thus contributing to the disjointed fashion as you call it, having much revelance, but maybe I missed your point there.

as for the "winners" LMAO


as for referencing "other gods" being merely a way of acknowledging other factions or sects-that is interesting to me...though it doesn't prove or disprove the validity of the possibility of other gods -even gods of other sects it just says "ah...it means nothing..." which is what you and mainstream Christianity have in common

...but interesting to think *they* would go to the trouble of acknowledging such...and as it refers to factions-do you merely mean beyond sects of followers, the "religious factions" as the leaders and law makers of those sects? Factions is usually a political descriptive term isn't it? Your the hair-splitting linguistic specialist, so I'll take your word for it...



Originally posted by LCKob
One other bit of related "deception info" though is found here in this Times Online article entitled

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible



"... As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing."


BWAHAHAHA
sorry, although I do myself wonder about the origin of the creation "story" in the Bible-and what -if anything-should be taken literally in it-I believe in the principle of creation being true-which is WHY it is given in accounts from religions and races of people from all over the globe...but what I find hysterical is the Catholic church speaking about the Bible...I just find the idea and leadership -not the good intentioned followers-of Catholiscism as a whole UNBELIEVABLY and hyppocritically in a state of not stagnant, but growing apostasy, that I find it hard to take them serriously in ANYthing.

No offense to any Catholics intended-God knows your heart


Originally posted by LCKob
think2much:

Could we be a point system..huh LCKOb...even if we don't have the linguistics in order...start giving me some feedback on (one of the orignial) topics...that would be a first for you


LCKob:

hahahahhaha ... don't worry T2M, I won't "press" ... and as an act of good faith (pun intended) ... my above post.


Ah, nice to see you found your faith in all of this LCKob


...and you can feel free press on anything with me, just don't do it with malice or a sense of superiority or go in circles trying to "win" some linguistic point under the guise of SM
not that I'm acussing you of ever doing so, just saying understanding that-you may press to understand me/where I am coming from etc

I conceed my answers by nature seem paradoxical-this is where language fails me most. There are no words to express the validity of paradox and the co-existing of seemingly contradictory beliefs and understandings, so the semantic arguements go nowhere with me if you are trying to prove or understand a point merely by pulling apart my words and splitting hairs linguistically and semantically, you know?

...and this is why I do sometimes have to stretch the meanings of words to try to fit a perception for which there are no words I know of...that or else make up new words entirely-but somehow I don't think I'm authorized to do so, or empowered to have them accepted-lol

but am I to abandon what-or how- I personally believe and know, just because there are not adequate words to express it, or factual ways to prove it scientifically, or there isn't an acurrate accepted pigeonholed term to lable me under?

I really do like just thinking of myself simply as paradox incarnate


...the acceptance of it grows on me daily...

or maybe I just need a shower...


hehehe

[edit on 18-1-2006 by think2much]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by banjo_guru
Uhhhhh, I'm sorry, (snip) Is this something related to the thread topic, or just the withdrawals talking?



Originally posted by think2much
Oh, poor confused banjo...(snip)

The representative to deny confusion, Banjo, now has the floor...



hehehe I am so funny


now that WAS the withdrawls talking Banjo, my only coping mechanism seems to be my smartass alter-ego and of course waaay too much Green Day music!

but I meant no offense-was just picking on you



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:18 PM
link   
think2much:

"...and this is why I do sometimes have to stretch the meanings of words to try to fit a perception for which there are no words I know of...that or else make up new words entirely-but somehow I don't think I'm authorized to do so, or empowered to have them accepted-lol"


LCKob:

I think "authorized" is too strong a word ... any limitations or difficulties that we have had really stemmed from the different "rules and guidelines" of how we use words ... Now from a SM standpoint, I really have no choice but to question and confirm in the manner that I have (really this integral to the core of SM.

... of course this does not mean that you can't express your point (in what ever mode you want - within the guidelines of this board ) ... just that we are in essence speaking a different "language" ... and if you address me in "the context or language of SM ... I will use the rules inherent to the methodology to assess your message.

... which is not to say that there is only one language, far from it, this being the case, some forms are mutually antagonistic (case in point) ... where your "fluid" definitional form is at odds with Scientific Methodology ... where, terms, processes and ideas are critically assessed based upon a stepped process which includes the adherence to carefully defined words, concepts and assertions.


LCKob



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   
SO LCKob...

in knowing where we so stand in communicating ideas and beliefs...are you any clearer on understanding where I stand, what I believe or think?




posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by think2much
SO LCKob...

in knowing where we so stand in communicating ideas and beliefs...are you any clearer on understanding where I stand, what I believe or think?



hahaha ... actually no, or perhaps I should say, by definition unclear ... as I have said, we appear to speak different but related languages ... one that shares the same root but has diverged for a number of reasons ... thus with this model, we by using our respective "languages" are able to piece together by inference and context say 80% of what the other is saying or intending but key terms seem elusive in common agreement (as evidenced from the disagreement and or confusion). Where the meanings, concepts and assertions revolve around the "YESNO" issue. ... by how I view things within my worldview as assessed by SM, I have not found a logical way to support your assertion of manifesting simultaneous mutually exclusive states.

... but of course my stance in no way takes away your right to feel and believe it ... merely that as you have stated earlier makes it "less than comprehensible" to those you talk to ... and in my case logically impossible by the definitions I posted earlier.

So I would say that as long as you don't use the context of conventional logic and SM as the context for your present stance ... I won't have any real problems with it (by using your own "liquid" definitions for things)

... but if you do, then my assessment will continue by force of method.

So, what is the context for your stance? Mine is SM ...

LCKob

[edit on 19-1-2006 by LCKob]



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
... but of course my stance in no way takes away your right to feel and believe it


WHEW! I was nearly ready to disavow all I believe LCKob!



Originally posted by LCKob
merely that as you have stated earlier makes it "less than comprehensible" to those you talk to


Yes I agree "less than comprehensible" is acurrate in that people can't/wont wrap their brain around what /how I preceive and believe thus they can't comprehend it... but is that indicative of it being less than valid, or just of a failure of me to express it... or a faliulre of people to understand that which is unconventional, seems paradoxical, and is limited by their conventional thinking and.or the need for absolute adherance to the value and meanings of specific words which can not accurately express the nature of such thought for which there are no other words?

What is incomprehensible is my paradoxical beliefs -no matter how you spell it out or what words chosen, it's the nature of the paradox that usually is incomprehensible, don't you think?

My largest problem with linguistics is it usually just keeps me from appearing intelligent while my IQ would indicate otherwise
But really only interferes with the SM types such as yourself using semantic arguement to understand my philosphical belief or broader scope.


Many people merely find me open minded and think I should subscribe to agnostic beliefs, and claim I don't know either way of the existancce of a God...or the possibility of God, and the possibility of no God... But I do believe in God, not just a god either, but in a specific opne-our God and creator- and have confirmation of the existance of God, and faith in that God and belief and confirmation

I just allow for the possibility that one day as I evolve in life and understanding... that I may be wrong...I don't think so, but I've been wrong about things before...have you?
I allow for this...that as I grow my perceptions may change, as I become more knolwedgeable I may think/realize/understand differently than I do now...and so I allow for the fact I am imperfect and progressing and thus, could be wrong....it doesn't make me doubt my faith in anyway however! But I allow for the possibility I am wrong and there is no God

I believe contrary to that, that we are creations of our God, and even that I am more right than most "believers" usually
but when I question my myself in my beliefs, its not...perhaps there is no God as much as "What if"... You know? What if: there was no God...we were wrong...faith and confirmation was an illusion...etc" ...make sense?

Religious types find me heretical many times, because I go as far as saying maybe we don't understand who God is completely...and what it all means...to worship God, believe, and maybe there is much more to know, making our limited knowledge almost in error in comparrison to the bigger picure...they don't like this, nor the fact I propose God has a family etc...or other non-traditional believes or views or proposed possibilities of God the father and Jesus.

and athiests are by far the biggest SM users who find me a linguistic target example of why "believers" are "confused" in an effort to split hairs about what I believe by splitting hairs about how I express it-this is merely what I assumed from you most the time.

This is usually done in effort to exploit my paradoxical belief that I believe God exists (by direct belief and basic philosophy) with no proof (Discounting the confirmation faith brings full circle) but still allow that there may exist the possibility there is no God (Hippocritical at worst, confused at best) and that I am possibly in error in what I do believe,(wishy washy or agnostic) or believe we could be in error as far as we perceive him/understand Him etc. (lack of faith/belief) etc...and it's not the case as it would appear

Trust me I see the logic of those arguements its just not the case...this is why I can't hang with angostics as I believe way to strongly, and in a specific God and have faith...can't hang with traditional mainstream believers...well for about 1000 reasons! LMAO!
as evidenced by people here who tell me I have to speak in tongues to prove something...whoa...that is just sooo far from FAITH AND REASON and Biblical knowledge to me that I can't even go there...even confident that no one reads this thread anymore


But seriously, the varying denominations and beliefs within Christianity and the only thing they seem to agree on is that people like me are heretical!


And the one things agnostics, athiest and believers will agree on is my beliefs all seem illogical and unREASONable by agnostics, athiests and believers alike-what can I say-sorry folks-I refuse to subscribe to ALL of your ways of thinking, and believing!!

But linguisitcally, it's just usually the agnostics saying then you don't really believe...or athiests saying...you know it can't be true logically then but rationalize it is true through faith...blah blah blah.

They believing then its my rationalized faith that believes, and my logic that accepts the possibility there is no God...and they want to point out...shouldn't I go with logic?


Paradox incarnate-logic and faith can coexist

it's like believing religion and science can co-exist...faith and logic

God created the world...but not with a magic wand or out of free will...out of universal elements that exist and are scientifically sound etc...

people just want to believe in absolutes, (even linguistically) which is fine, but don't cut the absolutes in half and believe absolutely in one half! Or a fraction...etc...

you lose so much that way...


Originally posted by LCKob
So I would say that as long as you don't use the context of conventional logic and SM as the context for your present stance ... I won't have any real problems with it (by using your own "liquid" definitions for things)


well Ok...thats notcontested nor a a matter of semantics anyway-faith isn't consiidered logical anyway, is it???? So I don't have a problem with those who don't believe thinking it illogical to believe, or likewise it is illogical to be paradoxical-I understand that in the context of conventional logic and SM that any belief in God, or co-existing beliefs in God and in the possibility of no God is illogical!


Originally posted by LCKob
... but if you do, then my assessment will continue by force of method.


ROFL! sorry but now that you don't annoy me, (you haven't in some time) you entertain me (you have for some time) and in a good way.



Originally posted by LCKob
So, what is the context for your stance? Mine is SM ...


my stance being...? My paradoxial belief of faith coexisting with logical reason, without one canceling the other out?

...hmm...now what could be the context for such stance?


(enlighten me, is what I'm saying )

or do I misunderstand the rhetorical nature of your statement, er, I mean question?


Ah...thanks for the distraction LCkob



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
think2much:

"my stance being...? My paradoxial belief of faith coexisting with logical reason, without one canceling the other out?

...hmm...now what could be the context for such stance?

(enlighten me, is what I'm saying )

or do I misunderstand the rhetorical nature of your statement, er, I mean question?"

LCKob:

No, not a rhetorical question, but I can see how it could be ... merely the open ended invitation to the refinement to your stance definition ... as for me "enlightening" you ... I suppose it would be found in my assessment role as "one skeptical recipient of your view" (with my rationale as given through SM).

Simply put, your answers come from you ... and I for one will be interested to see what the future has in store for your present perceptions.




posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
... and I for one will be interested to see what the future has in store for your present perceptions.


You and me both, but I think ultimately I think I'm heading in the right direction...most of the time...sometimes I just stop and screw off for a bit





posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by think2much

The representative to deny confusion, Banjo, now has the floor...

Or gee...maybe youre just pickin on me?



Well, I could be pickin' on you I guess; as long as your strings are tight
But seriously, I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were going.
If it's just philosophical meanderings, I understand, I go there occasionally.
If it is Biblical on the other hand, you left out the scripture reference .
Banjo



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by banjo_guru
I just wanted to make sure I understood where you were going.
If it's just philosophical meanderings, I understand, I go there occasionally.
If it is Biblical on the other hand, you left out the scripture reference



What was the question?


Seriously, I can neither confirm nor deny if it was phiolosphical meandering as I don't know what it's in reference is to anymore, but usually if I am stating it's a Biblical quote-I state so, and give scripture reference...so if that helps...


and suddenly I get it...strings tight...picking...banjo guru
Takes me asecond sometimes



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join