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.

 

The "Other People"?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:44 AM
link   
A while back I ran across a web page that talks about the "Other People". The author is writing about how when people come knocking on his door trying to save his soul he likes to have a bit of fun with them by quoting passages from the Bible to refute what they are saying and doing. This particular time he goes about explaining how he is one of the Other People and so the Bible does not apply to him because he was not created by Yahweh.




The Other People
With the stage set and all the actors in place, the show is ready to begin. Their mission, of course, is to save our heathen souls by turning us on to "The Word of the Lord"- their Bible. I guess they figger some of us just haven't heard about it yet, and we're all eagerly awaiting their joyous tidings of personal salvation through giving our rational faculties to Jesus. Every time they come around, I look forward to trying out a new riposte. Sure, it may be cruel and sadistic of me, but hey, I didn't call them up and ask them to come over; they entered at their own risk! This time should be pretty good. After letting them run off their basic rap while lovely Morning Glory serves us all hot herb tea, I innocently remark: "But none of that applies to us. We have no need for salvation because we don't have original sin. We are the Other People."


It's a bit of a read, but I think that he makes some valid arguements that are based on the Bible and the original meanings of some words that have been changed during the many translations. I'd like to know what everyone else thinks about the concept. Do you think that the author may be correct in his theory? Why or why not?




posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
It's a bit of a read, but I think that he makes some valid arguements that are based on the Bible and the original meanings of some words that have been changed during the many translations.

He sure does--I skimmed just the first page, but it was easy to tell that he's got a lot of 'understanding' in a certain fashion--but on the other hand, there are things he says that betray a lack of inner understanding.


Do you think that the author may be correct in his theory? Why or why not?

I think he is basically correct--but from the intellectual approach only. Namely because he calls God 'Yahweh.' That is not God's name, it is a bastardized adaptation of the Hebrew used in the OT for God's name, which isn't a name but a mutable statement, since YHVH means 'I AM that which I AM' or 'I AM that which I will BE' (when Moses askes the burning bush--the latter is the answer, but otherwise it's always the former I AM). 'Yahweh' is even worse than the adaptation 'Jehovah,' IMPO.
And if this dude knew this stuff from divine intervention he would be totally humble and not so arrogantly boasting of not having 'original sin.'
Jews don't have original sin, either--because they hold the tradition/memory that it was removed from their fathers in the Exodus--there was a group baptism in the Red Sea, I believe it was, prior to Moses acquiring the law from God. But they certainly don't think that makes them exempt from sin, in general--nor does it remove their need for 'salvation.' Unless this guy can prove immortality or has complete recollection of former lives (meaning he has been 'resurrected') then he's just like the rest of us.
Except, of course, that he doesn't think he is--he is one of the 'other people.' Must be nice, huh?


It's kind of funny, in a way.
You'd think one of the 'other people' would have better things to do than entertaining uninvited solicitors of the gospel...I know I do, and I'm just one of the 'regular people.'



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
And if this dude knew this stuff from divine intervention he would be totally humble and not so arrogantly boasting of not having 'original sin.' ..........
Unless this guy can prove immortality or has complete recollection of former lives (meaning he has been 'resurrected') then he's just like the rest of us.
Except, of course, that he doesn't think he is--he is one of the 'other people.'


According to him, he didn't get it from divine intervention it was just from his own studies. He is by no interpretation of the word a Christian, which may explain why he isn't humble about not having original sin. In some versions of the Bible it does say "Let us make them in our image." Which has to make you wonder why it was translated like that. Was that really how it was originally written? Or did the translators take some liberties with it? Until I learn hebrew and aramaic and find the original copy I guess I'll never know for sure. :shk:


It's kind of funny, in a way.
You'd think one of the 'other people' would have better things to do than entertaining uninvited solicitors of the gospel...I know I do, and I'm just one of the 'regular people.'


True, but I have to say it is one heck of a creative way to make sure that unwanted solicitors/religion-sellers never knock on your door again!



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
According to him, he didn't get it from divine intervention it was just from his own studies. He is by no interpretation of the word a Christian, which may explain why he isn't humble about not having original sin.

If he didn't get it from divine intervention, yet has no original sin--saying he wasn't created by the Elohim....I wonder who it is that he thinks created him? Did you happen to stumble upon any such information on his site?


In some versions of the Bible it does say "Let us make them in our image." Which has to make you wonder why it was translated like that. Was that really how it was originally written?

That's actually correct--it is Elohim all through the first chapter of Genesis--7 spiritual aspects/manifestations of the Invisible God, who is the Most High--sometimes called the Ancient of Days. In the NT, Yehoshua says 'the Father.'


Or did the translators take some liberties with it? Until I learn hebrew and aramaic and find the original copy I guess I'll never know for sure. :shk:

No, they actually got that one right. Elohim means 'these thises' (as in more than one 'this' and it is 'these') and/or 'these right hands.' That's why it says 'male and female created they them,' meaning that both male and female were created in the image (reflection) of the Elohim.


True, but I have to say it is one heck of a creative way to make sure that unwanted solicitors/religion-sellers never knock on your door again!

No doubt! But that, too, makes me wonder--if he's doing it to get rid of these unwanted visitors--how come he has so many? I don't get any. At all. For whatever reason, I don't know. I'm glad, mind you--but his story just doesn't make sense. And then to make a website about it? What the heck?

Now you've got me thinking and ornery in my curiosity! I'm going to check his site out, in more depth. Somethin' just ain't right, ya' know?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Oh! Duh!


Not a whole website--just an article! Dumb me.

Well, I'm going to read it anyway.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   
LOL
I was wondering what you meant by the first page! It is a long read though, but he makes very interesting points.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   
Okay. I read it for comprehension this time--I guess I skimmed it last time I read it, probably busy.

The dude's pretty funny, though, have to say that.
I wonder who 'morning glory' is if Diane is his wife? Is he talking about Jehovah witnesses coming to his door--since it's Sunday morning this takes place?

Anyway, it's kind of amusing, also, that he's a lot like christians, taking part of the bible very literally (the non-literal parts) and then ignoring the parts which don't fit for his purpose, which is justification of whatever it is he feels he must justify. Being the owner of a non-guilty conscience, I guess?

The reason I say that is this: if he's going to use the Adam and Eve story literally, saying he is of those 'other people,' yet ignore the story of Noah--he's cheating! He must surely apply Noah totally literally and if he does that, he winds up back in the human race!

But I'm just playing 'devil's advocate' on that one, since I find his selective interpretations ironically hilarious!

And just FYI, Jenna, since you said you don't have a way of getting to the original meanings of the Hebrew words--the 'man' in Genesis 1:27 is 'adam' just the same as it is in chapter 2. 'Adam' means 'ruddy' or 'man of blood' and did not start out as a proper name.

This is the verse, in unadorned Hebrew (in parenthesis):

So God (Elohim) created (formed the) man (human being) in his own image (after their resemblance), in the image (in resemblance) of God (Elohim) created (formed)he him; male (male: marked and remembered) and female (female: sexually reproductive vessel) created (formed) he them.
(Genesis 1:27)

If you read just the emphasized words, that's what it really says.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I laughed my butt off the first time I read it. I have no idea who Morning Glory is supposed to be either. I think they were supposed to be Jehovah's Witnesses that he was talking to, but I don't think he ever actually said what religion they were. That would be my best guess. From my own experience they seem to be the only one's who actually try to preach at your door-step. The rest of them tend to just give me a pamphlet and invite me to church.


The reason I say that is this: if he's going to use the Adam and Eve story literally, saying he is of those 'other people,' yet ignore the story of Noah--he's cheating! He must surely apply Noah totally literally and if he does that, he winds up back in the human race!


Yeah, but where's the fun in that? Most people do pick and choose which parts to take literally and which to say are figurative.

Thanks for the verse. Where did you find that at?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Actually, it's just the KJV using a Strong's concordance for each word listed...it's totally enlightening! Translations are inconsistent, at best.

It would be impossible to do, though, except for this free download called e-sword. The basic download has all you need to look the words up--they pop up when you mouse over, so it's way convenient. Check it out if you want: E-sword

I couldn't do without it, personally.




top topics



 
0

log in

join