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.

 

Love vs Tyranny

page: 11
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You may want to look into the origin of the word hermeneutics, it derives from the Greek god Hermes.


The folk etymology places the origin (Greek: hermeneutike) with Hermes, the mythological Greek deity whose role is that of messenger of the Gods.[4] Besides being mediator between the gods themselves, and between the gods and humanity, he leads souls to the underworld upon death. He is also considered the inventor of language and speech, an interpreter, a liar, a thief and a trickster. These multiple roles make Hermes an ideal representative figure for hermeneutics. As Socrates notes, words have the power to reveal or conceal, thus promoting the message in an ambiguous way. The Greek view of language as consisting of signs that could lead to truth or falsehood is the very essence of Hermes, who is said to relish the uneasiness of the recipients.


Source

Hermes was a liar and trickster who led people to the underworld (hell), so anything attached to his name is not a good thing in my opinion. He also reveled in people's confusion. The bible has created confusion from the beginning, 40,000 denominations prove that.

Did you know Paul was called Hermes in Acts? Paul was a liar and trickster who used written language to trick and lead people to the underworld. There is no other reason for him to be called Hermes other than to point out that he was a liar and trickster.
edit on 2-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


What sect do you think Jesus rose up through to be called "Master", "Teacher", "Rabbi"? Do you think he arose from the midst of the Pharisees, the Sadducees? Doubtful. Did the Pharisee baptize people?

Jesus aligns with the Essenes teaching more than not. Further, there was a huge movement to silence the Essenes and remove their existence from our Biblical awareness.

Why aren't the Essenes mentioned in the Bible? Because the Bible was written by people with an agenda. We can't believe everything it says about Jesus.




edit on 2-3-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Here's some more examples of God's Love turned to tyranny:


Did you know, for example, that God:
Forced friends and family to kill each other for dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf?
Burned Aaron's sons to death for offering him strange fire?
Burned complainers to death, forced the survivors to eat quail until it literally came out their noses, sent "fiery serpents" to bite people for complaining about the lack of food and water, and killed 14,700 for complaining about his killings?
Buried alive those that opposed Moses (along with their families)?
Burned 250 men to death for burning incense?
Rewarded Phinehas for throwing a spear though the bellies of an inter-tribal couple while they were having sex? Ordered, assisted in, or approved of dozens of complete genocides?
Accepted human sacrifice in the cases of Jephthah's daughter and Saul's seven sons?
Helped Samson murder thirty men for their clothes, slaughter 1000 with the jawbone of an ass, and kill 3000 civilians in a a suicide terrorist attack?
Smote the Philistines of several cities with hemorrhoids in their secret parts?
Killed a man for trying to keep the ark of the covenant from falling and 50,070 for looking into the ark?
Approved when David bought his first wife with 200 Philistine foreskins?
Killed King Saul for not killing every Amalekite as he told him to do? Slowly killed a baby to punish King David for committing adultery? Killed 70,000 because David had a census that he (or Satan) told him to do? Sent a lion to kill a prophet for believing another prophet's lie, another lion to kill a man for not smiting a prophet, and some more lions to kill people that didn't fear him enough? Killed 450 religious leaders who lost a prayer contest with Elijah and burned 102 men to death for asking Elijah to come down from his hill? Sent two bears to rip apart 42 boys for making fun of Elisha's bald head? Killed 27,000 Syrians by having a wall fall on them, sent an angel to kill 185,000 sleeping soldiers, interfered in human battles to kill a half million Israelite and a million Ethiopian soldiers? Killed King Ahab for not killing a captured king, and then sent King Jehu on a series of mass murders to kill all of Ahab's family and friends who had ever "pissed against a wall?"
Killed Jehoram by making his bowels fall out? Killed Job's ten children in a bet with Satan?
Killed Ezekiel's wife and told him not to mourn her?
Killed Ananias and Sapphira for not giving Peter all their money?
Killed King Herod by feeding him to worms?
www.drunkwithblood.com...



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by windword
 


God killing 250 men for burning incense caught my eye and made me think of a certain passage in the NT concerning John the Baptist's birth.


Luke 1
8 Once when Zechariah’s division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9 he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.


Right after this passage, Zecharia is visited by Gabriel who tells him John would be born.

If god killed 250 men for burning incense then why did he reward a man right after doing the same exact thing? Seems a bit contradictory if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Right. "Don't obey Yahweh, he kills you.

Obey Yahweh and he still kills you!"


dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com...



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I know that. But the root of that word has nothing to do with the definition.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Please explain how "Paul used eisegesis" of a gospel account that was yet to be written when he was alive.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Biblical hermeneutics is the study of the principles of interpretation concerning the books of the Bible.


So it's the study of principles of interpretations? So their are rules that cannot be strayed from while interpreting the bible? So basically, anything that strays outside of these "principles", a.k.a. rules, is labeled as non-hermeneutical? I think I'd rather interpret it along my own guidelines instead of someone else's.

How exactly is abiding by a set of rules considered objective analysis?

The origins of words usually tell you a lot about the meaning of them. Etymology is a very important study tool.
edit on 3-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're right, my mistake, but I'm sure Paul's teachings didn't hurt that interpretation though.

How could Acts have been written in 62 CE if Luke's gospel wasn't written until at least 70 CE, many even believing no earlier than 90 CE? You never did explain that.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Do you ever make posts that aren't rhetoric?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You're right, my mistake, but I'm sure Paul's teachings didn't hurt that interpretation though.

How could Acts have been written in 62 CE if Luke's gospel wasn't written until at least 70 CE, many even believing no earlier than 90 CE? You never did explain that.



I've explained it 15 ways to Sunday. Im not going down that rabbit trail again. Not gonna happen. Stay on one subject/point and refrain from the constant moving of the goalposts. Im not indulging any more red herring issues.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Post the rules of Biblical hermeneutics that scholars use.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



As I said, that's my opinion, so I see no reason for you to agree with me. But it's your proposition, not mine, so saying that I have to do something for your benefit is irrational.


You don't have to do anything. I'm asking you to state your opinion regarding the issue I have raised and defend your point of view with a rational argument. I don't understand how some threads can make their opinion clear right off the bat, and the thread goes on for 30 pages arguing various angles of it, but as soon as I voice a possible opinion and ask others to contribute, they shut down. Is there a certain way the game must be played? Because I'm trying to demonstrate a willingness to consider all views, but it seems that members are either reluctant to exercise their imagination, or reluctant to defend the opinion they hold.


Well, yours seems to be rather well coloured -- "everyone except the victims thought he was doing the right things" has no grounding in reality. There was significant dissension in Nazi Germany.


There's significant dissension in the church as well, as can be seen by the population of christian-turned-atheist users that frequent this forum. Again, why do you hold your opinion in this matter? Do you believe "God" is love? Why?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




You totally missed my point which was God's sovereignty. He created us and the universe, so I allow Him to set the rules.


So where do you wanna start, concerning historical records of monarchs who were either overthrown or rebelled against? The power to create a universe does not guarantee the right to rule it when, out of all of the universe, he chooses to step back from the one place that is, to our knowledge, most prone to destruction.

If the President fails to address a situation, fails to take action, that President is persecuted for negligence. So what of this deity? Does he escape such standards purely because of his background?

And you failed to answer my earlier question: why do you believe that "God" is love?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


All you did was post a link on how scholarship isn't accurate. If that's the case then why accept any scholarly opinion on the bible? How can you be so sure the Gospel of John wasn't completed until after Paul died? Scholars aren't accurate, so their opinions don't hold any water with your logic.

The fact is, the Gospel of Luke possibly used Jospehus' Antiquity of the Jews as a source material for some of its content. Antiquity of the Jews wasn't written until 93 CE, so how could it have been finished along with Acts 30 years prior? Even if it was completed earlier than that, most scholars agree that it couldn't have been completed any earlier than 70 CE, which points towards Acts not being an affidavit at all, but a story written after-the-fact.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't know them and don't care to know them. The fact that biblical hermeneutics is the study of principles in interpretation shows that there ARE rules you abide by when applying that specific method, the definition says so.

Hermeneutics derives from Hermes, a thief and trickster. I wouldn't trust anything attached to his name.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


That's the whole thing, you say that the Creator of the universe created evil, but it is you who creates evil. The Creator of the universe created galaxies and planets, and a mysteriously blackhole along with dark matter to keep everything spinning around with incredible energy. The will of the Creator to create consciousness yes, but who says it is the will of the Creator to create evil? You my friend.

I know this because people hate me all the time and I do not hate them, so the things that I do change for them because I show care for them, but the things they do will not change because they do not show care for me. It is because I have this will of love that I do things which are looking out for them. So in conclusion it is people for sure that hate and cause evil, there is no evidence that meditation and spirituality will bring about hatred but it causes a realization of oneness and enlightenment, if you don't think that then you are just completely wrong.
edit on 3-3-2013 by greyer because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 



That's the whole thing, you say that the Creator of the universe created evil, but it is you who creates evil.


According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as "good" or "evil". These words are more a reflection of who we are than anything else. Every time we define something using one of these words, we instead define ourselves.

In this thread, however, I am playing on Judaic territory. I am stepping on the ground of the Abrahamic faith and asking its followers to defend their ideals. In this way, I am educating myself.


The Creator of the universe created galaxies and planets, and a mysteriously blackhole along with dark matter to keep everything spinning around with incredible energy. The will of the Creator to create consciousness yes, but who says it is the will of the Creator to create evil? You my friend.


I would hesitate to suggest that there is any sort of will to the fabric of reality. There is a direction, certainly...a sort of intent. But does gravity have a will? No, and yet it always acts towards a specific end determined by the variables involved. There is a direction to gravity, a personality of sorts. The same can be said of lightning. An inherent nature which dictates the behavior of such phenomena in reality.

I believe that, at the very deepest level, it is the nature of energy. The nature of energy is the will of the universe. Speed up, and you lose focus. Slow down, and you gain stability. Stop, and you lose potential. That is the nature of love - it is energy. Learn love, and you learn energy. Learn to handle love, and you learn to utilize energy. But as with all things, energy has positive and negative possibilities.

And the negative aspect of love, the opposite end of that particular dualist spectrum, is tyranny. Which is why I ask where love ends and tyranny begins. Where does constructive energy end and oppressive energy begin? Where does the sun end and the storm begin?


I know this because people hate me all the time and I do not hate them, so the things that I do change for them because I show care for them, but the things they do will not change because they do not show care for me. It is because I have this will of love that I do things which are looking out for them. So in conclusion it is people for sure that hate and cause evil, there is no evidence that meditation and spirituality will bring about hatred but it causes a realization of oneness and enlightenment, if you don't think that then you are just completely wrong.


What does hate mean to you?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Oh I know already that you don't know them, that much is obvious. Here are the 8 basic rules:

1) The rule of DEFINITION:



This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."


2) The rule of USAGE:


It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.


3) The rule of CONTEXT:


The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.


4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:



The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation.


5) The rule of LOGIC:


Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis.


6) The rule of INFERENCE:


An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.


7) The rule of GENRE JUDGMENT:



A "literal" approach to Scripture recognizes that the Bible contains a variety of literary genres, each of which has certain peculiar characteristics that must be recognized in order to interpret the text properly.



8) The rule of dependence upon the HOLY SPIRIT:



It must also be kept in mind that the function of the Holy Spirit is not to communicate to the minds of people any doctrine or meaning of Scripture that is not contained already in Scripture itself. The Holy Spirit makes men "wise up to what is written, not beyond it." Indeed, "the function of the Spirit is not to communicate new truth or to instruct in matters unknown, but to illuminate what is revealed in Scripture."



8 rules



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 



According to my beliefs, there is no such thing as "good" or "evil".


So you're saying it would make no difference to you whether I offered to buy you lunch if you were poor and hungry or If I murdered your wife while you were at work?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join