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.

 

Yahweh is a DEMON

page: 12
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:06 AM
link   

All the bible quotes [are] (out of context by the way)


Actually, not one of the quotes i had presented was taken out of context. Can you please explain why you feel that even ONE, was taken out of context?



I feel it is very important that i reitterate this again...

(read below in next post)



[edit on 3/10/2007 by DerekOneSeven17]




posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Here is a synopsis of my last few posts, to make things clear for all.


The real Jesus spent much of his life condemning Yahweh and his priesthood.

Even in the extremely perverted, edited, censored, and misrepresented recordings of Jesus in the Bible, it retains his rebuke of the Pharisees, who were planning to follow their "god" Yahweh's commandments and stone an adulteress to death. They, according to the WebBible Encyclopedia, "were extremely accurate and minute in all matters appertaining to the law of Moses." They were supposed to be true followers of Yahweh's law.

Jesus says to the Pharisees, the followers of Yahweh, in John, chapter 8,



Ye neither know me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also...

...Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it



As i outlined in one of my previous posts, Yahweh is, according to the bible, a liar. Since Yahweh is held to be the epitome of goodness and truth, when in fact, he is the epitome of evil and deceit, i believe it is only fair to call him, the devil, "father of lies," and a "satanic," being, the "lord of evil." If Yahweh created this universe, than he did, in fact, create Satan, which would make him at least as evil as Satan, to desire to create the epitome of evil in the first place.


Here are two examples, of many, of his lies



Yahweh's lie # 1 :


39 Therefore the wild beasts of the desert with the wild beasts of the islands shall dwell there, and the owls shall dwell therein: and it [Babylon] shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation.
40 As God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighbour cities thereof, saith the LORD; so shall no man abide there, neither shall any son of man dwell therein.
[Jeremiah, chapter 50)


Yahweh promises that Babylon "shall be no more inhabited for ever; neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation." The land of Babylon, in actuality, has since been inhabited constantly, even to this very day.


Lie # 2 :


4 Yet hear the word of the LORD, O Zedekiah king of Judah; Thus saith the LORD of thee, Thou shalt not die by the sword:
5 But thou shalt die in peace: and with the burnings of thy fathers, the former kings which were before thee, so shall they burn odours for thee; and they will lament thee, saying, Ah lord! for I have pronounced the word, saith the LORD.
(Jeremiah, chapter 34)

10 And the king of Babylon slew the sons of Zedekiah before his eyes: he slew also all the princes of Judah in Riblah.
11 Then he put out the eyes of Zedekiah; and the king of Babylon bound him in chains, and carried him to Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of his death.
(Jeremiah, Chapter 52)



Yahweh promises Zedekiah that he will die in peace. Subsequently, he is tortured, chained, and rots in prison until he dies.


Clearly, Yahweh's promises do not "last for eternity [as WiseSheep attests]." Not only is he a murderer, torturer, commander of theives, infant killer, sadist, and all around demon, he is also a liar.




----


To anyone that is actually interested in the Truth, to put this in a wider perspective, i suggest you, if you have not already, read my original post, proving, using the Bible, that Yahweh is OBVIOUSLY a demon. Some of my following posts, containing explanations and responses, may be of interest as well (links below).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by I am Legend
i feel that in some way Judaism is far closer to the source of it all than the other 2, and i will never disrespect judaism or the OT "per se".


Then you obviously disagree with the OP that Yahweh is a demon.

One thing is clear from reading this thread, the road that leads to hell is wide AND crowded apparently.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
I have seen the Moon blood many times, and it is quite impressive.


Oh that's nothing. This particular event will give Legend a chance to see his mountain moved, if he survives it for it to do any good for him.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by WiseSheep]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 09:57 AM
link   
Ermm i Thought God was a DJ?

ANd yeah i think yahweh was old testament which was created in like bc or something like that....

you know it also has stories of myth and legend - adam and eve, etc

just stories and rubbish.

anyways

new testament is all about love, forgiveness, caring, i think anyways.

just remember the bible is written by men not god.

if you belive in men, or god.

I would take to bible witha grain of salt and just be who you are. a kind non - violent person who containers compassion and understanding.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Indeed, what I have said seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

There are many heros of the green route, without count. And there are many heros of the red route, fewer, but plenty. But there are never any heros of the black route. They go unsung.

I mean, how does one declare themselves to the world? "I am Matyas, Master of the Ordinary!" Yeah, right. It takes the most strength, courage, and bravery, yet is the most unrecognized.

Now concerning ideologies I have an excerpt for your reading pleasure. From THE DEGREE OF KNIGHT ROSE CROIX AND OF THE PELICAN AND EAGLE, Historical Considerations, Philosophical Analysis, and Moral Imperatives, 1971, we have this:


The question dealt with in this paper is an ideological one. It is so, no
matter which of the opposing positions may be taken by one or the other
Brother. This is what sociologists have to say on the matter:

We speak of an ideology when a certain idea serves a vested interest in
society. Very frequently, though not always, ideologies systematically
distort social reality in order to come out where it is functional for them to
do so . . . Ideological thinking is capable of covering much larger human
collectivities. For example, the racial mythology of the American South
serves to legitimate a social system practised by millions of human beings
. . . The Marxist ideology, in turn, serves to legitimate the tyranny practised
by the Communist Party apparatus whose interests have about as much in
common with Karl Marx's as those of Elmer Gantry had with the Apostle
Paul's. In each case, the ideology both justifies what is done by the group
whose vested interest is served and interprets social reality in such a way
that the justification is made plausible. . .

It should be stressed in this connection that commonly the people putting
faith these propositions are perfectly sincere. The moral effort to lie
deliberately is beyond most people. It is much easier to deceive oneself.
It is, therefore, important to keep the concept of ideology distinct from
notions of lying, deception, propaganda or legerdemain. The liar, by
definition, knows that he is lying. The ideologist does not. (44)

Ideology . . . limits and restricts the readiness to see things in a new light.
(45)


Now I am not going to fully reveal the source of this. To do so will cause an international incident. But I gave the title, and that that is enough for someone diligent to find.

If the moderators find this unacceptable, I am willing to take my warning and 500 pt. hit. I am even willing to be banned, so long as this post is not removed from the thread, and so long as this thread is not removed from the forum.



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiseSheep Every last one of us deserves hell. That's why we are going unless we accept and faith in the only sacrifice capable of covering our sin. Jesus Christ.


On this subject I would like to cite another quote, this time taken from Notre Dame Magazine, Grace Notes by Brian Doyle, P. 52:


Can grace be granted all men, all women, all faiths all nations, whether or no they have the Word of God in their mouths and hearts? O yes O yes, the Church says-interestingly has always said, no controversies and wrestling matches and murders done over the issue-a miracle. And it has eloquently said it, here and there. Orosius, one of Augustine's many desciples, said that grace was showered upon us all quotidie tempora, per dies, per momenta, cunctis et singulis-daily through the seasons through the days, through the moments, to every one of us.


Grace is getting what we do not deserve, and mercy is not getting what we deserve.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I have read quite a few of your post on ATS and some of your blog. I am very intrigued by whatever you have to say as you claim to have been a fundamental christian missionary, then having turned from these viewpoints of faith you now relate to Judaism but not the conventional flavor of this either correct?

Then I came across your thread about Nordics and Greys and reptilian overloards etc. and it seems that this some how plays into your current belief system and I thought I saw you mention having even seen one



Ah, yes, as I have mentioned, I used to be an evangelical christian.
So you were once swirling in the midst of all things 'fundamental'?




Interesting, it seems that those that have been deeply involved with evangelical christianity - if they 'fall' from the faith...they literally fall. (meaning the whole Bible is useless...or, like one guy I know, he turns opposite and claims to be a 'satanist'.)


So here you are saying if one is to fall from the faith they literaly fall flat on thier face or whatever. And or they do a 180 and look to replace thier faith with the complete opposite beliefs? (but I suspect this isnt the same as what happened to you?)


I look at what happened to me as a deepening of understanding of what the Bible teaches.
Im not anti Jesus/Paul, etc. In fact their teachings, in light of a lot of what I have studied, make even more sense. I tend to like the gnostic way of thought mixed with Judaic Kabbalah. (yes, the evil kabbalah, as the apologist for evangelical christianity will say...but, its there 'loss', my gain...at least I'm at peace.
)


Still not sure what you believe...


Having said that...you mentioned their is no fire for eternity.
You bring up an interesting point.


Are you sure, do you have evidence to share?


Your right, an infinite creator would not put its creation into the fires of an eternal hell.
But we dont really know the nature of the soul, or if it exist...the way we believe it does. (I have written here at ATS and given reference before to this topic)...



"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."
C. S. Lewis




If there is a hell...its a creation by 'overlords' of the galaxy for people who 'rebel'.

Point is, its not from the 'God'. - so I am in agreement with your statement.


Its from the Nordics or the Greys?


The whole case of predestination is quite interesting when dealing with this.
Paul states that who are we to question if God throws a few pots in hell for 'fun' and others he makes 'holy'. I only bring this up to help make those still in their doctrinal thoughts, think a bit more about their 'belief'.


Out of characters to discuss this on this post...


Neuron networks built up...they dont disappear overnight.
You change the way you think in a 'safe' environment, and even when you are busy trying to convert people...you will be pondering the truth to it all...changing ever so slowly - ever so slightly, but changing. Now thats if you seek with all your heart.


You say this neuron network thing alot, would love for you to expand...


If you seek with all your fear, as most Christians do...you will have signs in your face with the truth, but ignore it....


Perfect love should drive out thier fear no? 1 John 4:18



Yes there is hope for all...but some really want to find out, others are satisfied in giving their life to the 'shepherd'. Oh, shepherd, what path do you lead us down...can we be certain your not the wolf. And the sheep say, "we know his voice"...hmmm, same as those that follow the hypnotic music of the pied piper believe his voice to be that of the savior.


Peace

dAlen


So which shepherd are you reffering to here? A pastor or teachor or Jesus?

Looking forward to your responses!



posted on Mar, 14 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   
"Oblate Spheriod," can you please elaborate as to why you feel i have taken Old Testament quotes out of context?

I feel it is obvious that all my biblical quotations are not misconstrued or taken out of context.


Anyone interested in this topic should read my original post and earlier post on this thread below...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 02:48 AM
link   
Spirit rules above thought where the devil can’t steal. The Bible is about believers and unbelievers of truth. Believers are instructed to worship in spirit and truth. It historically demonstrates how people lived (the good, the evil and the in between), and the results those actions.

Moses was raised by the Egyptians who had knowledge of the secret mysteries. Therefore, he learned the mysteries. This fact is often overlooked. He knew that this was not the God of truth. The Ten Commandments were the foundation of what Jesus manifested in the miracles he performed. Egypt reached the height of her power and then fell. The “Book of the Dead”, refers to dead souls. The Bible is the book of life (everlasting).

Jesus replaced the pagan rituals by demonstrating that within the spiritual realm is the ability to overcome the powers (witchcraft and trickery) of the rulers of darkness of this world. He clearly states that there were gods (multiple) of this world (earth, physical realm). Jesus also demonstrated that the spiritual power for good far exceeds any power evil could exert. “Those that survive the first death (death to self serving ideology) will not be hurt by the second death (mortal body will resurrect).

The Bible is true and explains how spiritual things manifest physically. The first warning was to “not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. It does not change throughout the Bible and again in Revelations there is reference to “the synagogues of satan” (gogues and or gogs are controlling demons which attach to the body physically to influence the mind and are the cause of disease as well as illness). Which is why the mind has to be constantly renewed and restored (repent = restore) to serving the spirit.


In saying that, the words 'evil' and 'good' have been so overused, and there is a certain mindset as to what evil/good means, that using them could prove a hinderance.


Evidence is here today in phrases we take for commonplace such as “pulling the wool over ones eyes”. This would be using the attributes of Christ (wool) to blind (cover ones eyes). What do you think the rulers want to blind you to? Perhaps, the revelation of Jesus Christ. The two edged sword represents one power which may be used for good or evil. This is why you will “know them by their fruits.” Good produces the fruits of truth, mercy, peace, love, faith, hope, charity, kindness, etc. Evil produces the cankerworms, divers’ flies, scorpions, bugs of chaos, strife, maliciousness, malice, envy, murder, robbery, etc.


the 'evil dude' - my terminology - made the earth.


The Bible says: “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, for He has established it.” It also says that “Satan was cast out with his angels. It may very well be that only some people here on earth are being held captive, but, belong to the true God. Jesus came to show the way to salvation and Jesus will return to reclaim those that were given him of the father (see Psalm 67:2).

Also, “All those who oppress are enemies of thy sanctuary.” Psalm 74


I do not recall Jesus calling His Father by any other name other than “Father, and our Father in Heaven. “


The King James Version is just that, a King's version of the Bible.


There is a Holy Bible translated from the Aramaic of the Pe#ta (ancient Eastern text) which was the language of Jesus.

If “only a remnant” (believers with understanding) remained in Christ’s and Paul’s time, how much less is there today.


…what the soul may be if there is one.


The soul is the mind.


no way that God would allow this to happen to his word.


God’s word was made flesh in Jesus Christ and they crucified him.


The list goes on and on.


Putting things into perspective, in centuries past, there were people who thought the world was flat and if they sailed into the horizon they would fall off. Today, this seems absurd. People in the bible did similar things according to the beliefs of their time. Some of those events, also, today, seem absurd. Remember, there was no mass media and there were no precedents before Moses and the Ten Commandments and no hope of redemption before Jesus. With that in mind, to say that all of English history is a lie because they thought the world was flat would be ridiculous. The same is true of the Bible. Not all ancient people practiced pagan rituals or slaughtered their neighbors. Oftentimes, opinions are formed based on limited knowledge of a text, and the norms of an era are not considered when conceptualizing the doctrine. There is nothing new. When Moses came down from the mount, the people had made a golden calf. The gold taken out of Egypt was melted down and made into an image. Today, animal images are plastered everywhere and statues of all sorts decorate our everyday lives. Most people rely on the lives of others, be it through TV, newspapers, magazines, entertaining events to define what they believe. There is no revelation, because of all the input from the media, family and friends. People carry rabbits foots and trolls, have lucky pennies and shirts. They believe that what they are doing on New Years Eve will be reflective of that year. Kids crave designer sneakers at a hefty price and the list goes on and on. If anything, it looks more insane today.


See the inconsistency though?


There is no inconsistency. You do not understand. It is as if you have read the first and last page of a book and then guessing at why the beginning and ending don’t make sense. Perhaps you may want to read the Old Testament like a history book and the New Testament as a sifter of truth for the Old Testament. For example, when you come across something in the Old Testament that does not make sense to you, look in the New Testament for what Jesus said about it, and then Revelation for the conclusion. Then you can relate it to yourself.

What one believes is the way one lives. I think public restrooms are reflective of where the mindset of the world is right now. They come in, make a mess and then leave.

When the lion and lamb lay down together, it is then that power and love will be comrades.

“You must be the change you want to see in the world”. –Ghandi



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Siren
Spirit rules above thought where the devil can’t steal. The Bible is about believers and unbelievers of truth. Believers are instructed to worship in spirit and truth. .


And also with all thier mind, heart, strength and soul...

Mark 12:30
Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'




Moses was raised by the Egyptians who had knowledge of the secret mysteries. Therefore, he learned the mysteries. This fact is often overlooked. He knew that this was not the God of truth.


So are you saying Moses was of the Essene sect as some claim Jesus also studied while growing up in Egypt? And the God of the O.T. Bible you say was not the God of truth? (please explain) Is he different than the God of the N.T.?


Jesus replaced the pagan rituals by demonstrating that within the spiritual realm is the ability to overcome the powers (witchcraft and trickery) of the rulers of darkness of this world. He clearly states that there were gods (multiple) of this world (earth, physical realm).


I am confused on the last part of this statement. Your refering to satan or demons? Or money, power etc.?


It does not change throughout the Bible and again in Revelations there is reference to “the synagogues of satan” (gogues and or gogs are controlling demons which attach to the body physically to influence the mind and are the cause of disease as well as illness). Which is why the mind has to be constantly renewed and restored (repent = restore) to serving the spirit.


I am not sure where you derived this info from, do you have a link? Anything to do with Gog and Magog?


Evidence is here today in phrases we take for commonplace such as “pulling the wool over ones eyes”. This would be using the attributes of Christ (wool) to blind (cover ones eyes). What do you think the rulers want to blind you to? Perhaps, the revelation of Jesus Christ. The two edged sword represents one power which may be used for good or evil. This is why you will “know them by their fruits.” Good produces the fruits of truth, mercy, peace, love, faith, hope, charity, kindness, etc. Evil produces the cankerworms, divers’ flies, scorpions, bugs of chaos, strife, maliciousness, malice, envy, murder, robbery, etc.


Are you saying the knowledge of the truth can be used for good or evil?


The Bible says: “the earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, for He has established it.” It also says that “Satan was cast out with his angels. It may very well be that only some people here on earth are being held captive, but, belong to the true God. Jesus came to show the way to salvation and Jesus will return to reclaim those that were given him of the father (see Psalm 67:2).


I was looking for the passage about Satan being cast out of heaven for another reason. Anyhow I cant seem to find it... I came across Job where it starts out some of the angels came to talk to God and Satan came with them. (he must have not been cast out at that point)



…what the soul may be if there is one.



The soul is the mind.


Anyone seen that Jesus of suburbia? He claims the same that the soul is the mind.



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Siren
The soul is the mind.


Good post Siren. I go a little further and claim the material world a subset of the spiritual world. That is because the numenal world is superior to the phenomenal world therefore interpenetrates it. This is the secret of the spark of life, and the reality of the soul.

But that in no wise means I am an Animist. If anything I am more Neo Platonic, a Transcendentalist. Not so much of one as a Deist, but an amalgam of all of it..oh to heck with it, I am just Human. So does that meke me a Secular Humanist? Perhaps again I agree with some of the precepts of Secular Humanism. All of us carry some part of the puzzle, and if we combine it together we just may get the Big Picture. But ya can't force the peices, or it falls apart!



posted on Mar, 16 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

So are you saying Moses was of the Essene sect as some claim Jesus also studied while growing up in Egypt? And the God of the O.T. Bible you say was not the God of truth? (please explain) Is he different than the God of the N.T.?


What I said was that people were not living under the God of truth. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

How people perceive, interpret, form opinions, beliefs change from yesterday to today. People have confused the true God (of love), who said to love your neighbor as yourself with other stuff.

Mark 12 is phenonmenal in that it is precisely related to this discussion.

“But the laborers said among themselves. This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.”

There are two opposites here. One is laborer and the second is the heir. The laborers want to kill (this is not the spirit of the God of love) and to steal (this not the spirit of the God of love). The laborers conspire and join forces to kill the heir (this is not the spirit of the God of love). Being that it is not the spirit of the God of love, it has to be some other spirit. Call it what you will, but, it is not loving your neighbor as yourself and therefore must be under the direction of something else.

In verse Mark 12:12 “They wanted to seize him, but were afraid of the people; for they knew that he spoke this parable against them; and they left him and went away.”

This shows that Jesus knew the depth of their intent and it also shows that they knew that he knew.

Oh, but, it did not end with them leaving. They sent their scribes to trap him with his own words and that failed. Then those who were of a different belief came with their questions.

The scribes had to have knowledge of what was true, because in verse 28 they acknowledge that his answer was a good one. After that, they did not question Jesus anymore.



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I certainly like the way you get your points across Siren! Good critical thinking skills.

For those who want to be in the know, this material originates from here.

So, perhaps it does not qualify as a cult. But now that we have reduced the material to its source we can see it as the product of extremist thinking. And for some reason ardent follower(s?) are spamming the boards with it.

A question remains, is there anyone concerned or burdened enough to minister to Amitakh Stanford? This would address the problem (pathology-but I am no sociological expert to judge) at its root instead of treating the symptoms? Just saying...



posted on Mar, 17 2007 @ 09:20 PM
link   
I have said much of what needs to be said about Yahweh and Jesus in my post here : www.abovetopsecret.com... and here : www.abovetopsecret.com...




----




For those who want to be in the know, this material originates from here [Ken Adachi's deceitful hit piece].

So, perhaps it does not qualify as a cult. But now that we have reduced the material to its source we can see it as the product of extremist thinking. And for some reason ardent follower(s?) are spamming the boards with it.

-Matyas


First of all, the "material," concerned with this thread originates with the Bible and my quotations from it, specifically, of Yahweh's murders, commands of murder, genocide, lies, and hypocracy.

As for your link to the Ken Adachi piece, it is just a list of ideas from Amitakh 's work that he feels uncomfortable with. There are not even actual accusations against Amitakh, just ideas which the auther, Ken, feels uncomfortable with.

Amitakh Stanford has a website which is the home of many of her writtings at www.xeeatwelve.net...

I don't understand how you've "reduced the material to it's source." Amitakh 's work stands on it's own and it doesn't need you to analyze or deconstruct it for people to ascertain it's value or appreciate it. I feel you deprecatingly label her work as "extremist," because it makes you uncomfortable.

I certainly haven't "spammed," the board with her material, i have attempted to share it, in some of my threads and posts, with those who would resonate with it's energy and would appreciate it's content.





A question remains, is there anyone concerned or burdened enough to minister to Amitakh Stanford?

-Matyas


I don't understand your sentence.





This would address the problem (pathology-but I am no sociological expert to judge) at its root instead of treating the symptoms?

-Matyas


Are you accusing Amitakh of having a mental or sociological ailment? It appears you are implying that (though i am not sure, considering you so spordadicly brought up the issue of "pathology'), considering you believe you see "symptoms," and "pathology" of a "sociological" problem. Why don't you be concise and clear in what you mean and are trying to imply, rather than shrouding your message and intentions in confusing semantics?



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17

For those who want to be in the know, this material originates from here [Ken Adachi's deceitful hit piece].


Does everything that will not agree with your ideaology have to be "deceitful"?


First of all, the "material," concerned with this thread originates with the Bible and my quotations from it, specifically, of Yahweh's murders, commands of murder, genocide, lies, and hypocracy.


You are making a judgement with a flawed text and human interpretation against an anthropomorphological entity.


As for your link to the Ken Adachi piece, it is just a list of ideas from Amitakh 's work that he feels uncomfortable with. There are not even actual accusations against Amitakh, just ideas which the auther, Ken, feels uncomfortable with.


True, and to reaffirm this I would like to say I am not looking to make accusations against the person of Amitakh, but the work of Amitakh since both Ken and I feel similar discomfort but to differing degrees.


Amitakh Stanford has a website which is the home of many of her writtings at www.xeeatwelve.net...


Yes, I was there. It gave me a headache.


I don't understand how you've "reduced the material to it's source."


Well, what you are espousing has a one-to-one relationship with Amitakh's work, no? So therfore it stands to reason the source of this material is her work.


Amitakh 's work stands on it's own and it doesn't need you to analyze or deconstruct it for people to ascertain it's value or appreciate it.


It stands alone, not on its own with merit of authenticity. There are wild assumptions and conclusions based on a wide scope of popular material with no documentation to back up these claims and assertions.


I feel you deprecatingly label her work as "extremist," because it makes you uncomfortable.


In this you are correct. Subjectively I am uncomfortable because it feels off. Objectively I am reminded of other works of different flavors that I am equally uncomfortable with such as J.Z. Knight's channelings and Bashar's channelings.


I certainly haven't "spammed," the board with her material, i have attempted to share it, in some of my threads and posts, with those who would resonate with it's energy and would appreciate it's content.


Perhaps "spammed" was too harsh a descriptor. You have been consistent in keeping it in the threads you authored as far as I can tell. So I will give you that one and admit I am wrong. But I still disagree as to your intent, because from what I have seen the majority of people on this board do not resonate with its energy or appreciate its content. In fact I perceive your intent as combatitive and annoying, a noisy distraction from legitimate and productive reearch. We could always do a poll if you doubt what I say.



A question remains, is there anyone concerned or burdened enough to minister to Amitakh Stanford?



I don't understand your sentence.


I was attempting to address the Christian audience. "Ministering to" and the "burden" thereof when used in this context is exclusively a western Christian ideal of setting the record straight through enlightenment by Christian teachings. I recalled this from my own involvement within the movement many years ago.


Are you accusing Amitakh of having a mental or sociological ailment?


I don't know her mental state, so no. A sociological ailment perhaps if it is viewed as shared by society. Actually it may not be entirely sociological, but more of a spiritual pathology that Amitakh shares with society, thus removing her from being a cause and becoming a symptom instead. For more on spiritual pathology I would refer you to the works of Eric Voegelin, Wilheim Reich, and Ken Wilbur, as just a few off the top of my head.


Why don't you be concise and clear in what you mean and are trying to imply, rather than shrouding your message and intentions in confusing semantics?


Looking back on my post it appears I was not at all concise or clear. But that does not mean I was shrouding messages in confusing semantics intentionally. As in the beginning of your post, you end with distrust and a perception of some kind of "evil" defined by your own human values for any opposition to your ideas.

Just because I look like "the enemy" does not mean I am actually out to destroy your precious beliefs and make personal attacks on people I do not know. We could have a deeper and more meaningful relationship than you care to admit on some level yet to be explored.

Come to think of it, what about that homework?



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Yahweh originated as a great volcano god, of course he's a murderer and someone to be feared...he had a tendancy to literally blow his top from time to time, causing massive damage and death..

ya know, hawaii has it's own volcano god, can't think or her name off hand. but, well, I know someone who visited this god's little mountain...and well, let's just say that you don't want to ever take anything, not even a little pebble from her mountain...lol!!!

Yahweh isn't a demon.....just the perception that some ancient civilization had of "God"....based on the events that occured in the world around them. he lived in a mountain that often rumbled and shook when he was angry, and occasionally he got angry enough that he blew his top...this caused the people to fear him, and try to appease him (worship)...and well, they carried this image of their god along with them throughout the generations and even after the great mountain was no longer visable to them...

bad events were blamed on the angry god and the people were encouraged to do something to appease him, and whatever...

it is man that defines a god and gives them whatever power they have through their belief in them. and well, as the example of the god of hawaii indicates, once that power it given, well, it does seem to have the ability to influence the physical world. bad things will happen to you if you take something from the great volcano goddess' mountain!!

the Christian God had a little redefining performed, he's forgiving now, loving, more like a father. he's less likely to blow his top! sure some of his followers will always try to redefine him more to their liking, and sometimes, it will work, and the masses will believe, and the god will oblige them their beliefs and bad things will happen... since, in so many ways, the god is the creation of man, and is there to serve the man...he can be mean, if humanity want him to be. it all depends on what you want from your god.



posted on Mar, 18 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
To Matyas :



Does everything that will not agree with your ideaology have to be "deceitful"?

No, and i had never implied this. I try to use my words in context.



You are making a judgement with a flawed text and human interpretation against an anthropomorphological entity.

I am using the text of the Bible because it is the most widely used reference to Yahweh. My human interpretation has no signifigance with the fact that the creator of this universe is a torturer, liar, murderer, and sadist. Whether you believe these are qualities representative of an evil being or not, i KNOW that any being with these qualities is evil. Look up the word "evil" in the dictionary.



Well, what you are espousing has a one-to-one relationship with Amitakh's work, no? So therfore it stands to reason the source of this material is her work.

One-to-one relationship? I am not Amitakh and do not speak for her. She and i share some beliefs, including the belief that the material universe is an evil creation.

As i had said in my previous post, my "source," is the Bible, and my inner knowing.



It stands alone, not on its own with merit of authenticity. There are wild assumptions and conclusions based on a wide scope of popular material with no documentation to back up these claims and assertions.

It is your opinion that what she writes are "wild assumptions and conclusions." Keep in mind, only a few hundred years ago, it was the popular opinion that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth. The "authenticity" of what Amitakh writes is the inner knowing within all beings of the Light.

The Truth is Within all being of the Light. Their inner knowing will tell them their spiritual Truth.



In this you are correct. Subjectively I am uncomfortable because it feels off. Objectively I am reminded of other works of different flavors that I am equally uncomfortable with such as J.Z. Knight's channelings and Bashar's channelings.

Amitakh does not channel her writings. As for J.Z. Knight, and "Ramtha," Amitakh has written much condemning them, and the entire New Age movement in general. What they write and believe is vastly different, and in many areas, diametrically opposite.



I still disagree as to your intent, because from what I have seen the majority of people on this board do not resonate with its energy or appreciate its content. In fact I perceive your intent as combatitive and annoying, a noisy distraction from legitimate and productive reearch. We could always do a poll if you doubt what I say.

You are entitled to you opinions, as is everybody else. I, frankly, do not care what the majority of people believe or resonate with. I am not here to "convert," anybody. My intent is NOT combative, perhaps what you perceive as combativeness is my reactions to the venom, slander, and attacks i respond to in defence of the truth.



I don't know her mental state, so no. A sociological ailment perhaps if it is viewed as shared by society. Actually it may not be entirely sociological, but more of a spiritual pathology that Amitakh shares with society, thus removing her from being a cause and becoming a symptom instead.

Amitakh is neither sociologically disturbed nor suffers from "a spiritual pathology," as you ridiculously put it. Perhaps it is your bigoted outlook that makes you see others who don't agree with you as being disturbed.



Just because I look like "the enemy" does not mean I am actually out to destroy your precious beliefs and make personal attacks on people I do not know.

I never called you "the enemy," or accused you of anything. As for personal attacks, you obviously DO attack others personally (and fallaciously) who you don't know. You have accused and diagnosed, in your own ignorance and arrogance, Amitakh as having a sociological or spiritual sickness.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekOneSeven17

Does everything that will not agree with your ideaology have to be "deceitful"?

No, and i had never implied this. I try to use my words in context.


OK, so in the context of Ken's views, you are calling it deceitful? Can you produce some documentation to back this claim?



You are making a judgement with a flawed text and human interpretation against an anthropomorphological entity.



I am using the text of the Bible because it is the most widely used reference to Yahweh.


I can agree on this, because you did not hold it up as absolute truth. Cookbooks and Bibles sell best, but popular does not an accurate rendering of the text make.


My human interpretation has no signifigance with the fact that the creator of this universe is a torturer, liar, murderer, and sadist.


These are all human traits and subjects of your interpretation.


Whether you believe these are qualities representative of an evil being or not, i KNOW that any being with these qualities is evil.


Your knowing is subjective and does not represent the exoteric knowing. First the existence of such a being must be established, which to us is impossible. Secondly these qualities are not universal but relegated to a narrow species called Man. So why do we judge ourselves when Nature does not judge herself?


Look up the word "evil" in the dictionary.


And spelled backwards is "live". The Creator is also the Sustainer, and you owe your very breath to that sustaining grace.

This interpretation of a man made idea form tinged with (your) human values and traits could be seen as a projection. Have you considered this?


One-to-one relationship? I am not Amitakh and do not speak for her. She and i share some beliefs, including the belief that the material universe is an evil creation.


Ibid.


As i had said in my previous post, my "source," is the Bible, and my inner knowing.


As above, so below. Again, Ibid.


It is your opinion that what she writes are "wild assumptions and conclusions." Keep in mind, only a few hundred years ago, it was the popular opinion that the world was flat and that the sun revolved around the earth.


Yes, that is correct. It is my opinion, and I believe an informed one as well. But using an apple argument to compare with an orange argument does not not negate the opinion I present.


The "authenticity" of what Amitakh writes is the inner knowing within all beings of the Light.


This is not good enough. To me it is too vague, specifically as I view the Universe as made up of all light, which is the inner structure of the material realm. I don't have authentic resonance until either the burden of proof is satisfied or I gain some logical reason for not having an explanation such as a paradox.


The Truth is Within all being of the Light. Their inner knowing will tell them their spiritual Truth.


See, here is your absolutism. Truth cannot be spelled with a "T" except at the beginning of a sentence, and objectively is relative from one being to the next.


Amitakh does not channel her writings. As for J.Z. Knight, and "Ramtha," Amitakh has written much condemning them, and the entire New Age movement in general. What they write and believe is vastly different, and in many areas, diametrically opposite.


Well, yes, because there are different brands. And different methods as well. Here I am channeling what is in the core of my atoms, but I have conscious control of what comes out and balance with the input. And I can temper it with a lifetime of experience in a dangerously real world.


You are entitled to you opinions, as is everybody else. I, frankly, do not care what the majority of people believe or resonate with.


My point too.


I am not here to "convert," anybody. My intent is NOT combative, perhaps what you perceive as combativeness is my reactions to the venom, slander, and attacks i respond to in defence of the truth.


Yes, those are your reactions I perceive as combativeness. But if you label all opposing opinion as venom, slander, attacks, etc. then you may as well adopt a universally combatative stance since you will have to defend against all such proponents of opposing opinion.


Amitakh is neither sociologically disturbed nor suffers from "a spiritual pathology," as you ridiculously put it. Perhaps it is your bigoted outlook that makes you see others who don't agree with you as being disturbed.


Well I am glad you know this. I am also sure you reviewed those references and came to an understanding of what a spiritual pathology is. Perhaps as you imply she is the only one among us who does not suffer from this affliction, which would make her special indeed.

Cults and organized religion made me a bigot (as you so succiently put it). It took years to get over (25?), and I still have problems on the subconscious level. But I have come to accept many, many variations of wisdom and people in the world, and like a lotus flower it opened up to me. Still though, there are those teachings I cannot assimilate (or even grok) that were responsible for getting me into the mess to start with such as the few we have reviewed. That is why I am here, to take the time to warn you before you have to go through the same thing I did.


I never called you "the enemy," or accused you of anything.


True, but to perceive me as one was my point. Thus you act in defense, but of the truth, as you put it.


As for personal attacks, you obviously DO attack others personally (and fallaciously) who you don't know. You have accused and diagnosed, in your own ignorance and arrogance, Amitakh as having a sociological or spiritual sickness.


Here you have laid a trap, and I will not fall for it. You are making a generalization of my actions by using a plurality of victims without proof, you disregard my statements of clarification to the contrary of works vs. the person, you state I have made a diagnosis when I explicitly admitted I am not an expert, you accuse me of ignorance and arrogance in the face of a preponderance of knowledge I have presented for your edification, and you have railroaded the issue of social and spiritual pathology from Amitakh's work to the person of Amitakh herself. Did I forget anything?

Of course you are not attacking, only defending the truth, right? I think that shares insight with projection.

Now I think you are a very smart person, and I cannot for the world understand why you would squander your gifts for to me what is nonsensical drivel when you could be making great contributions, not just to this thread, but to the human family at large. I await you and hopefully all the others to arrive.



posted on Mar, 19 2007 @ 07:42 PM
link   
dude in the bible it doesnt say jesus is god in the quaran it doesnt say jesus is god



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join