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.

 

Ok, I've had it!

page: 3
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by thejlxc
 


The problem here is who gets to decide who is the evil doer?

I remember reading in some bronze age book that it’s a bad thing to judge others and that if you do then you will be judged in the same standards


Don't I know what you Mean!!!!!

We have to have SOME standards, right?

Serial Murderers?
Men who knowingly cause death for profit?
Men who knowingly starve people to death for profit?
Men who poison the air, water, and skies and kill us in a thousand ways on purpose and with malice?

There have to be a few things we can all agree upon, and act upon, to save ourselves at this time! There must!




posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Having examined the evidence so far presented for this Jesus character, I have decided that it does not meet my burden of proof *

But if for you the proof is enough for you to accept the Jesus story and then you post something about Jesus (as if it where real), I don’t assume you are lying – I just assume you are wrong (or more accurately in my opinion you are wrong)


*When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by thejlxc
 




somebody's gotta do it, but you'd think they'd realize the responsibility part is referring to them. and that it shouldn't take the common folk to be sure they are seeing to the part where they behave responsibly to the rest of us. that's like obvious! it's like me expecting my kids to make sure i pay my bills. i'm an adult. i'm supposed to do that without my kids having to remind me
(unless i ask them to). until i'm so old that i can't remember to do so myself, anyway. so either they are behaving like they are too old or too young.

if reincarnation was real, i'd theorize they were on their first go around.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   
crud, i have the worst and best luck with threads on ats they either sink like a stone, get moved to a different forum, or
are all time hits. one extreme to the other.
this thread has been moved to the rant section.
i suppose it is a rant but it's also evidence of conspiracy in religion (and other organizations) cause these people are conspiring via lies, to get one up on everybody else.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by thejlxc
 


That all well and good – the problems with this kind of thing is when some religious muppet wants to include gays or people who have picked the wrong god or something equally silly on the list of evil doers, what if some racist thinks brown people are evil – should we add them to the list and kill um all and just let god sort it all out?

But let me ask what would you do with someone who is as you call it an evil doer but who then has a change of hart and tries to fix the evil they have done – should they be killed?

Remember people learn and grow and change they are not all one thing all the time for ever and ever



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by undo
 


Having examined the evidence so far presented for this Jesus character, I have decided that it does not meet my burden of proof *

But if for you the proof is enough for you to accept the Jesus story and then you post something about Jesus (as if it where real), I don’t assume you are lying – I just assume you are wrong (or more accurately in my opinion you are wrong)


*When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim


did you watch that ring of power video i linked for you in the other thread? i think that contains very compelling evidence of who jesus was and why he was such a threat to the entire power structure of the day. if he is who the video suggests, he would've been the rightful legal heir to the thrones of egypt, the roman empire and israel. talking about a guy with a big target on his head.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Bad luck on your thread getting moved and I agree it was good material for where it was

It wouldn’t surprise me if some mod with a religious axe to grind and enough brains to see how this thread might go moved it – you might have noticed a lack of my atheist brothers and sisters posting on ATS recently – you can be sure its all due to the religious mods on here

Anyway stifling debate, another thing to add to the list of things which upset you
oh and yes i have seen the vid you posted and yes its good



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Scientology: If you're not a scientologist, they can lie to you about anything they want.
Mormonism: If you're a gentile (a nom-mormon), they can lie to you about anything they want.


Umm I disagree on at least two things:
Scientology: They lie even to their own members
Mormonism: They lie to their own members



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by undo
 


oh and yes i have seen the vid you posted and yes its good


to me that not only proves he existed, but does so in a very meaningful way that helps flesh out the rest of the text so it makes more sense (at least to me). it doesn't suggest he wasn't who he claimed to be, but the exact opposite. of course, i have a few, shall we say, strange theories? they are theories though and not my firm belief. my firm belief is that guy was who he said he was and i think the movie kinda proves it in spades.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by remyrange
 


well i can't prove that, and this thread isn't really meant as a "air somebody else's dirty laundry", more of a pointed question as regards their own documented positions. if everyone can lie to everyone else with full approval, we're gonna have problems.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
the2ofusr1 said:

..I think that it is possible to misunderstand something and be truthful about the error and at the same time be lying .


This comment above, I think, says what I was inspired to say by your rant, undo (hey, it'll do fine in the rant forum, no worries).

The worst, the absolute WORST is being misunderstood, and then the person who misunderstands... 'paraphrases'... or 'misinterprets'...claims the original speaker is a liar when they try to clarify!

I don't know how many times I have been misunderstood, my words misconstrued, my intentions misinterpreted on these forums, but I would rather be lied to than be accused of lying, because I know me! I KNOW that I am NOT a liar! I am actually not capable of it! I am also not capable of being deceptive. I am not going to discuss how I arrived at that stage of absolute truthfulness regarding myself and my beliefs, because it is no one's business but my own. Nevertheless, I am as highly principled as anyone I have ever come across. Am I perfect? No, not by any means. But I am genuine, authentic, and honest with myself and about myself.
What does the phrase mean: "This above all else: TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE." ??

It can be misconstrued, twisted, turned into support for selfishness .... but what was the author's MEANING? He chose the words. Sadly, since he is now dead, I must try to deconstruct and interpret what he meant. If I am not sure I get it, I can't go to him and ask him; I must rely on others who think they know what he meant. Chances are great that many, many people may believe they know what he meant, and still BE WRONG.

I write thoughtfully, and I carefully compose my words to accurately deliver my message.

I am no less than infuriated, I mean ENRAGED, when people twist what I have said into something it was NOT, and rather than asking ME to clarify (which I am always happy and eager and willing to do, because I want to be understood), they accuse me of "meaning" some warped and asinine idea which would never even have occurred to me.

THAT is the lying that I most despise. Being lied about.

We as human beings all have a right to PROTEST UNFAIR TREATMENT. It is UNFAIR to manipulate someone's words to mean something other than what they were intended to mean. That might be my favorite of the Ten Big Fat Rules (aside from murder and theft, of course): Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor To me, this means, and has always meant, don't MAKE UP LIES about people, ever.

Now, I typed the rule from memory, but then I went to google, just for purposes of making a point. I typed in "thou shalt not bear false witness" and I got About 589,000 results (0.16 seconds)
then there was a subsearch with that phrase and "meaning" after it: results: About 104,000 results (0.39 seconds).


Any document or spoken word might be misconstrued, poorly translated, edited incorrectly, reworded to change its meaning. And there are those who make a deliberate practice of doing just that -- purposefully -- so that they can then accuse the author or speaker of being something other than they really are, and when that author protests, they say "you are lying!"

If I do not understand what someone means, I SAY SO. I ask them to clarify for me, to rephrase, analogize, give an example, use bigger words, or smaller words, or whatever it takes to get across to me THEIR MESSAGE.
Until I am able to say to them, "So, this is what I believe I'm hearing/reading. Is this correct?" and then whatever I mirror (repeat) back to them is acknowledged with, "Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say." – only then do I assume I clearly understand. And then I make a response (if warranted), and expect to be treated just as respectfully.
But you know that old saying; If you don't expect anything, you won't be disappointed.

/tangential rant.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Anyhoo.
...
yeah, liars suck. I loved that video with the suited armed chimp. Awesome.
Have a good day, everyone!



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


it's not tangetial at all! in fact, it's awesome that you brought it up. i have to remember that some of the people who say what i think they're saying may not be saying what i think they're saying! and as a result, are not lying or even trying to lie, and may not even be saying that it's okay to lie and it's me who has misunderstood what they meant! good point!
(only works of course, if the person is being truthful with themselves)


edit on 17-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Well, I'm glad you found it worthwhile!

The second little post was to make sure that I made it clear that there ARE liars, blatant, manipulative, deceitful speakers of untruths...and they are awful specimens of humanity. I can't STAND being lied to (but of course, one doesn't always realize one has been lied to unless they later find it out from actions or evidence).....
when I said I'd rather be lied to than be called a liar, I fear I may have understated how much I abhor liars.

I just went to run an errand, and while gone I was thinking about your rant, and these issues. I was listening to NPR's Here and Now on the way to my destination, and they were discussing translated books and how important the translator's ability is to represent the author's original intent, voice, and style. It's a very difficult thing to do.

I am bilingual, and have in the past taught my second language to others who were monolingual in my first language. I received a bachelor's degree in that second language, not on the teaching track, but on the literature/language/culture track....which was targeted for those who wanted not just to teach the language, but to be culturally adept and familiar with that language's subtleties. I also, being a writer by vocation, have always been fascinated with language, words, nuance, structure, the endless possibilties of self-expression.

I have also been a formal translator and interpreter on behalf of speakers of one or the other (another demanding position requiring precision), and of documents. I learned that the best translations have to be built, and then unbuilt (like the reverse of a vehicle tear-down manual), to ensure the translation was as accurate as possible. One person translates from language A into language B, then another translates that version back into language A. The two are compared. If both documents A after this process are the SAME, the translation is good. If they are glaringly different, it is a poorly done translation.

There is a common phrase: "lost in translation" . The above poor-translation example is what is meant by it.

Which brings us to one of the biggest issues I have with the Bible. There are so many people who take this or that version, from then or from now, or from Tom or Dick or Harry or Jose or the King James' team or Constantine's goons or Paul, and ALL OF THEM are translations. Every one. Not ONE of them can claim to be accurate, and too many people pick and choose which version suits whatever they want to hear or want to use it to mean.

No one has been able to reproduce the original back into its dialect and original form yet. I know they are endeavoring to do this now, and then they MIGHT produce a translation I will accept as accurate. Even so, I will then read the content as it was orginally intended to be heard by the authors, and decide if I think it's a worthwhile volume. I suspect, however, that it will prove to be largely unprovable no matter what, which leaves it exactly where it is now: a book that claims to contain the truth merely by virtue of its existence and its statement that it is the truth. Preposterous.

Anyway, thanks for the little dalliance into linguistcs, semantics, translation, and interpretation. (The latter two being separate things, just for anyone who might wonder: translation refers to written works, interpretation refers to speech when discussing bilingual assistance. In literary terms, though, one can speak the author's language and STILL misinterpret it and misrepresent it).

Here's to wordsmiths the world over!!
--wild
(p.s. any questions?
)
edit on 17-1-2012 by wildtimes because: punctuation and spelling..yes, I'm also pedantic but try to keep it under control.


edit on 17-1-2012 by wildtimes because: and...again. same reason

edit on 17-1-2012 by wildtimes because: this time for clarity. you know what I mean. tweak, tweak, tweak.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by digitalbluco
Seriously, who isn't tired of being lied to too these days. Isn't that how Obama got elected? By promising change.


Obama did get elected by lying, but it wasn't Change he lied about. The only promise Obama has kept is Change, but it's not the kind of Change everyone thought it was going to be.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


i sure wish you could translate the I AM THAT I AM, passage in the bible. i've been having some problems with it, primarily because i use strong's concordance with the king james blue letter bible, for word translation, and it doesn't have any words listed for things like "THAT" in the verse, just I AM I AM which is hayah hayah. but people with actual knowledge of the verse and the masoretic text and even variants, will tell you that THAT is in there. and that it originally was Ehyeh asher ehyeh i wish i could figure this out because when i look up the word THAT in strongs asher is not a common word for THAT, so who decided it was THAT? well, there's even arguments about it being THAT.

and i need to know what it actually says there. this is the listing in strongs for asher

834 'aher ash-er' a primitive relative pronoun (of every gender and number); who, which, what, that; also (as an adverb and a conjunction) when, where, how, because, in order that, etc.:--X after, X alike, as (soon as), because, X every, for, + forasmuch, + from whence, + how(-soever), X if, (so) that ((thing) which, wherein), X though, + until, + whatsoever, when, where (+ -as, -in, -of, -on, -soever, -with), which, whilst, + whither(- soever), who(-m, -soever, -se). As it is indeclinable, it is often accompanied by the personal pronoun expletively, used to show the connection.

so does that mean it could've been I AM WHO I AM, or I AM WHAT I AM, or I AM WHEN I AM, or I AM WHERE I AM, or I AM HOW I AM or I AM BECAUSE I AM (this last one sounds like he's saying, i think, therefore i am). or is asher even in the original ? and why asher?

it bugs me that the definition of THAT in many bible verses is not even specified even when you do a search on it. i'll show you what i mean. notice that some of the verses on this page have a number you can access for the word THAT in the verse, whereas other verses don't have a number for THAT until the end of the phrase THAT begins many you're supposed to believe the entire phrase that starts with THAT is supported by that single word linked at the end of the phrase.
www.blueletterbible.org...



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


LOL!!
Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, but...the best I can do for you in this case is to translate the KJ version into modern English. (I have been trained and studied the English language from that period -- even am able to read it....by perusing original texts and doing extensive cross-referencing).

But you prove the point beautifully with this post, undo.

Sorry, I can't help you with the Bible.



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by undo
 


LOL!!
Well, thanks for your vote of confidence, but...the best I can do for you in this case is to translate the KJ version into modern English. (I have been trained and studied the English language from that period -- even am able to read it....by perusing original texts and doing extensive cross-referencing).

But you prove the point beautifully with this post, undo.

Sorry, I can't help you with the Bible.


i'm being completely serious! if it's hayah hayah (ehyeh ehyeh) and not hayah asher hayah (ehyeh asher ehyeh), it might change the meaning somewhat. it's actually a crucial point. oh bleh, you had me going there for a minute! i thought you might be able to figure it out! you understand grammar pretty good right? could the phrase I AM, also be the equivalent of I EXIST or TO BE (no shakespeare jokes, mmkay?) or IS? like a state of constant IS or constant existence? argh i don't like grammar. lol
edit on 17-1-2012 by undo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


I hear you loud and clear, undo. Everyone on TV I think lies to us, commercials lie, government officials lie, police lie. You cannot trust anyone to tell you the truth, even if the person talking know what the truth is. Good rant.


Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by undo
 


Information is power

but I’m wondering why you care if the religious* lie, all people with an agenda lie or more typically try to give you the information they want you to have and hide any facts from you which go against their beliefs – all they want from you is for you to be in their club, the truth is of no importance to such people

lying in Christianity was seen as necessary to save the unbeliever from hell – so that kind of lying is seen as being done in a good cause

*as for the alphabet government agencies you mention it should be obvious why they lie


Actually, I think Christianity lies to themselves more that they lie to us. And it's true that the alphabet government agencies lie, they have to. We each just have to use our built in truth meter. If I am speaking face to face, I can tell if someone is lying, but now on other mediums such as the internet



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



oh bleh, you had me going there for a minute! i thought you might be able to figure it out!

And I might, if that language was my first or second....
but when you posted the ex-text giving the multiple possibilities, it went over my head, like....Greek!

I certainly did not mean to disrespect, undo. I wish I could help you with it, but I would be claiming something false. I've been raised with the KJV of the Bible, and the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

I don't know Greek, or Hebrew, or Aramaic, or whatever ancient languages in which the original bible is written.

Now I feel bad. Please understand I was not mocking you or jabbing you?


I would love to figure it out, but just in case this helps, there is a thread here: Is the "Holy Spirit" in Reality a Demon? by autowrench, in which I just read something about 'asher' by the member WarmnIndy.

The Shekinah is female, and is separate and in unity in God. The temple of Solomon had written on the wall of the temple, the one God dwelt in, said "To Yaweh and His Ashera".
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Brightest of blessings to you, undo.
Very sorry if I hurt you or seemed to come across as negative or derogatory. Seriously, I am able to "translate" Shakespearian (Renaissance) English fairly well into modern American English....but would never attempt to decipher the ancient middle-eastern tongues.


could the phrase I AM, also be the equivalent of I EXIST or TO BE (no shakespeare jokes, mmkay?) or IS? like a state of constant IS or constant existence? argh i don't like grammar. lol

Yes, it could be equivalent to "I exist." As far as "I am" meaning "to be"? Or "I am" being "is"? I've not the slighted clue how it could, but again, that is for the translator to clarify....I AM is a pronoun and a word that has multiple usages. I am going to the store. I am who I am.
I am I am? Honestly, either it would mean "my name is I am" or "I exist I exist" to me....or..."I am s/he who you know as I Am."
???????
Ergo the confusion! Lost in translation!!
--wild:duh
edit on 17-1-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join