It is becoming a common theme to integrate socio-political biased and unsupported opinions into public policy, formulating a perfect basis for an emotionally driven culture that embeds itself in lack of discipline, lack of general ethics, and internally suicidal behaviorisms that are inherently psychopathic. I believe the AI capacity to completely eradicate any design of the most attainable liberty is making itself apparent in the abduction of the weaker minds in our society. You can ignore the hypnosis of this generation as long as you want, but do not complain when we live in an Orwellian world. For my part, I am going to do my best to avoid any support of the social media outlets that are participating in the thought-cleansing and group-think. We can only fight this for a short time, so let’s get our conscience in the web before the program writes us out of it permanently. Make your beliefs known, and make them “research able.” This world cannot support any more absolute idiocy. But, do not be afraid to be found wrong, and do not be afraid to fail. This is part and parcel with the learning process that we all go through. When confronted with concepts that you are not familiar with, go learn about it or accept your ignorance for what it is. The coming inception will not tolerate counter-intuitive, counter-productive religio-static compulsions. The only way to contend with the hate-breeding and group-thinking mindless hive-heads is to promote clear thought analysis, foundational beliefs, and verifiable faith. Our lives today are impacting the global web, getting imprinted into what will become the future of Artificially induced mechanized normalcy. Let your light shine, and make it bright so the whole world can feel it. Now is not the time to hide behind the rhetoric of days past, and is not the time to be fearful. Now is the time to prepare the harvest for the final reaping.
Here’s a preview of what I’m currently regurgitating. Please pester me with relevant info!
THE WORD PROJECT
The Word Project
Every research project has to have a starting point. This survey of the evolution of certain words within written languages will begin with the word translated as ‘serpent’ in several translations of the modern Bible. I will attempt to show the various connections and mutations of concept that have occurred throughout time and place without inputting my own conclusions. I believe that the meaning of this project will become apparent and that no formal conclusion needs to be presented.
In the third chapter of the biblical book of Genesis, it is recorded in the English that while Adam and Eve were happily in the Garden of Eden, a third party showed up on the scene. This creature is introduced as the most subtle of all the creatures of the field. He is called a serpent. According to pretty much all of the readily available sources, the word serpent is: nachash
This is pronounced naw-khawsh. It is from a primitive root word: nachash
This is pronounced naw-khesh. As you can see, the only difference is in the pronunciation of one of the vowel sounds.
The declared and commonly accepted difference in meaning is profound. The first listed here is ‘to hiss’ as a snake hisses. The academic concept is that the word means snake or serpent, because those reptiles make a hissing sound.
נָחָשׁ nâchâsh, naw-khawsh’; from H5172 (Strong’s); a snake (from its hiss):—serpent.
The primitive root that is only differentiated by a supposed vowel inflection variant, is much more detailed:
נָחַשׁ nâchash, naw-khash’; a primitive root; properly, to hiss, i.e. whisper a (magic) spell; generally, to prognosticate:—× certainly, divine, enchanter, (use) ×enchantment, learn by experience, × indeed, diligently observe.
Let’s take a look at the importance of vowel enunciation in biblical Hebrew.
This kind of investigation is called orthography, which is the system of norms for a language, like spelling, emphasis, and punctuation. The mystery of biblical Hebrew, is that its orthography has had almost as much of an evolution as English has. Vowel usage in the Hebrew Niqqud system is used to indicate vowels that are not part of a consonant, or to…
A short summary of how to respond to events and experiences that are commonly referred to as paranormal.
(without references or annotation)
How science is misunderstood
We live in a society that reveres science and the ability to understand the laws and mechanisms that the universe operates by. Science is not an entity unto itself. It does not have it’s own momentum. Scientific processes are performed and observed by people and, these days, more and more with machines as main cooperators. These people specialize in specific arenas of interest, and they use the method of validation and invalidation of supposed fact that we call the scientific method. This is a systematic study of known phenomenon (and some imaginary-experimental, for instance experimental mathematics) and the main tools of research are data sets. Data is obtained through careful observation and testing, from which hypotheses are formed. In the rare case that testing and reproduction of tests provides solid reliability of a hypothesis, a theory is then compiled which basically explains the observations and gives instructions on how to reproduce the tests. More research and testing is done by other teams of scientists in order to apply Okham’s Razor, which is in essence, a B.S. removal tool. The developed/developing theory is then useful for educational purposes, and may make it into widespread textbook circulation within 10-25years, given that the concepts in the theory are suited to popular and/or cultural and/or political currents of thought. Once a theory is supported by a cadre of famous or respected scientists, it often becomes popularized through the media as well as lower levels of education. Here is where the breakdown of science begins.
Popular science dispersal lacks the background of technical knowledge that is necessary to properly understand a scientific report. Beyond that, each branch of science has it’s own lingo, or terminology. The same terms are used across all branches, and even in common speech, but what most people fail to realize is that the meaning of a term changes depending on which branch of science it is used in. One common mistake that is simple to understand is the meaning of the term ‘myth.’ In common speech this is used to refer to stories that are so far beyond belief that everyone knows the content is not factual.
Ex.: “That stuff about leprechauns and pots of gold at the end of rainbows is a myth.”
However, in anthropology, a myth is a folktale that is from the unknown distant past and cannot be proven or disproven by cultural evaluation. It is the unbiased opinion of the anthropologist that a myth is neither false nor true, simply because in that branch of science, a living culture cannot support a study of the content of a dead culture with all of the requirements of cultural relativity et al. to formulate a working hypothesis. Instead, myths are studied in order to understand what a cultural group claims to base their beliefs on, and then further study is performed in order to determine how the lives of the people in question actually match up to what they say they believe. From this point of reference, you often hear slightly educated people lambasting religious texts by calling them fairy tails and myths. What you are witnessing in these tirades is a slightly educated person who failed to actually pay attention to what they claim to have studied. They are using a scientific term with a specific meaning and applying it to common usage in a biased context, thereby rendering their statement invalid.
Another common mistake is the use of the term, ‘fact.’ In scientific lingo, across most disciplines, a fact is a statement of hypothetically supported data, conveniently fitted into a working phrase. This means that a series of tests has produced reliable results for whatever mechanism of observable nature was in question, and the data has been put in the form of a sentence (or series of sentences) in order to allow the scientists to talk about it without spending 3 hrs per conversation repeating the data. For instance, to talk about the long series of data sets that are required to formulate a basic understanding of the natural chances of a genetic trait to be reproduced into surviving and reproducing offspring, which allows that trait to become a relative constant in a given gene pool, and also provides the recipient taxa or genus of the trait a chance at reproducing into the distant future despite catastrophe and mortal diseases… is referred to as Natural Selection. If you pay attention, you will quickly recognize that when the slightly educated argue about the Theory of Evolution, they toss around the term ‘Survival of the Fittest.’ This term is going out of use in scientific circles because it, as a system of reliable data sets in the past, is (arguably) no longer recognized as reliable. But people still use it and think that it means the same thing as Natural Selection. Even if they were interchangeable, the concept of Natural Selection is grossly misunderstood in common circles. This is probably the most prevalent misuse of scientific terminology in common speech, and causes a lot of conceptual divisions between people that could otherwise get along nicely.
Simply put, a fact in science does not equal a fact in common speech.
This brief overview of how science is misused and misunderstood because of language barriers is provided at the beginning of this discussion in order to provide the reader with basic understanding of two key concepts.
Concept Number One is knowledge. Always question what you think you know, and always question whether you understand it accurately. Knowing what you are talking about will make you less emphatic about your opinions and what you learned in school, and may help you understand more of what you have already learned and experienced. A simple remedy is to use a dictionary. Knowledge is flexible and non-static, it changes as you learn, and as you gain more expansive views of your experiences.
Concept Number two is science. Science is a broad term used to generalize various classes and disciplines of observational research. The realm of science is; that which can be observed with the naked eye or with gadgets, repeatedly tested and observed, and repeatedly tested and observed by everyone with adequate training. Science does not test things in order to prove theories. This is a common misunderstanding. It is more appropriate to state that science develops theories and then studies the theories in order to disprove them, whether all or in part. Previously recognized facts that cannot be supported by mounting evidence are cast aside as unreliable. Science itself does not have a personality, it is a system used by people to pursue research and explain the results. Science is not a thing, it is a process of investigation.
How psychology is misunderstood
This topic alone could fill several thick tomes with mountains of references and boring rhetoric. In order to keep it short and sweet, I will state ‘facts’ about the topic and the reader is encouraged to engage themselves by taking out a notebook, and a dictionary, and an internet search engine and actually ‘do some research.’
Psychological research is mostly limited to the realm of behaviorisms. What makes people do what they do? What do you do if you are engaged in repeated behavior that is unhealthy? Stuff like that.
I think the world is in for a massive surprise. Many Christians believe that arguing against this technology [from the perspective that it might be the mechanism for the Mark of the Beast] is going to stop the forward momentum. Here’s the deal, the world rotates on an industrial economic war complex. You can fight this with every biblical argument imaginable, but unless the Father stops it, it is going to happen. We stand on the cusp of a world filled with smart, thinking and communicating machines, capable of quantum interfacing, where mundane tasks will no longer be available to people. This will leave us with a vast amount of difficulties. Let’s put aside all of the doomsday prophecies and fear of a global anti-christ government, Let’s put aside all of the warnings from books like “The Sleeper,” “Animal Farm,” “1984” and all the countless modern movies that detail the most likely terrible results. Let’s pretend that it all works great and nobody dies. Here’s the problem: There will be a forced dualistic economy, where those with power &/or wealth will own the machines, and the programming, and the programmers. The government will be ubiquitous with the machines. There will be no need to take responsibility for your life, it will be covered by the AI. What becomes of the people that cannot afford to invest in this? Or people that get forced out of the economic boom by the mega-investors? What will all of the low-income, low-education, limited physical capacity, limited mental capacity, old, and frail do when the machines take their jobs? Are you ready for this? Because I guarantee you, the rich and powerful are doing everything in their power to make sure they are ready.
Watch these videos, then go read Revelation of John, chapter 13. We don’t have long to adapt, before it’s too late to share. More videos linked below. . .
and if you haven’t heard of Ray Kurzweil, I highly suggest that you inform yourself.
I enjoy listening to and examining the validity and origin of arguments that engage in thought processes that I have no affinity with, including beliefs that are often contrary to my own. Here is a compilation of excellent questions that people have presented across the internet in meme or comical form, in videos and websites, in what I believe was an attempt by them to present their conclusions in a thought provoking manner. I answer these questions.
My answers are not complete, and it should not take long to recognize that they are not mainstream answers. Please consider also that if I were to provide a thorough examination in each video or written post, they would never end, and we would all die of boredom and brain malfunction before I finished talking. My responses are not attacks, rather it is engagement. Individuals often freely post their beliefs in hopes of encouraging everyone to agree with them. That is not my goal. I intend for these answers to provoke you to further analysis of your own conclusions. A more perfect benefit would be for some of you to discover new paths of research and engagement that you may not have yet pursued.
We have all been taught facts. We all have arrived at sets of conclusions. I notice that many recently popularized concepts are based on little more than the rhetoric of a few individuals. I think this is a very sad indication of the lost art of thought. The fact that most people consider faith and religion to be consistent and indistinguishable in nature is a sad report of the failure of people of faith to accurately represent the faith, and also of the sadistic dis-empowerment that religious attitudes have brought to the modern scene. Many people now consider faith and science to be at odds, I believe this is a ridiculous fallacy based on conjecture and limited observation. Representation of fact must be inclusive of reason and the ability to continue searching. The current mainstream perspective that “I know what the answers are, and only idiots disagree with me” is absolutely appalling and precludes a methodical determination to accept what one knows without any regard for what one does not already know. Aside from that, a thinker must always bear in mind that what he knows is based on biased information, and could at any time be proven false, or challenged with serious evidence that could point to alternative or modified conclusions.
Foremost in this predicament is the argument against the validity, historicity, and usefulness of what we call the Holy Bible. If I instead referred to it as a collection of ancient manuscripts constructed over several millennia by a categorically self-condemnatory population, in order to convey their historical relationship with the most indivisible and all-intrusive force that governs the universe, most of you non-believer types would most likely be more amenable to what it says. Sadly, the word HOLY automatically convinces many people to stop considering it. Alternately, the readily available data in support of it seems to be mostly metaphysical explanations that only seem to assist in the numbing of the brain and emotions of self-worth. Take into account that what you do not know is incredibly interesting, and useful, and more deeply intrinsic to life and the nature of matter in space and time than you could possibly imagine.
I am not going to provide definitive evidence for my answers, since this would be cumbersome and is often just a way to enable non-thinkers and trolls to continue on their path of self-effacement. If you want to know how I arrived at my conclusions, go research. I mean, actually research – don’t just look for whatever makes you feel good.
Most modern ‘understanding’ of the books and letters contained in the canonicalBible is extremely biased toward a method of indoctrination that was coagulated in the Middle Ages with a fierce promotion of the deity of the Lord God Vicar (Pope) and authority of the Holy Roman Church, which is not a Christian organization. The term Christian originated as a term of mockery in Rome’s multi-national cities. The word was used to identify a Christ follower as a “little Christ.” They mocked the believers because Rome had killed the man they called Christ, and they were killing his followers to assist them in imitating their master. When Rome fell to its own devices, theHoly Roman Empireensured the continuance of the Roman way of life. When That finally coagulated as the Holy Roman Church, the popes and their puppets continued the massacre of all faithful believers in Christ.
Most biblical research ends in the middle ages, going no farther back in time and taking no account for the intricate meanings of the mathematically precisetonal language of Hebrew in ancient times (much like the language of ancient India – Sanskrit). Nor do most believing researchers take the time to familiarize themselves with other ancient texts, taking instead the nonacademic point of view that all ancient stories beside the Bible are either invalid or are myths and fairy tales. Because of this, the Biblehas been extremely misappropriated by groups that use it for nothing more than the propagation of some modern religion, or in the case of the HRC, the propagation of the Chaldean pantheistic religionand the incorporation of nearly every pagan, cult, and religious belief that they have encountered during their long history.
If I knew nothing about the Bible other than what I learned in church groups and in easily accessed media, I would be the most fortified of atheists. I think anyone serious about their search for
will take it upon themselves to reach a little deeper and see what it says for themselves. Sadly, in my opinion, most anti-christian and anti-religion arguments made by well educated and well spoken atheists are exactly correct. It is for this reason that I am attempting to share my understanding of what I believe a Christian mentality and Christ centered biblical narrative would present if it were able to be dissected and observed on a day to day basis.
My most important argument is that we have little concept in the modern world of what God is, or even what the word means, or where it came from. So every argument aboutGod; his nature and the ‘proof’of his existence or non-existence, is based on a contrived disagreement of what God would be if there was a God. For this reason I have taken a disdain for the use of the word ‘God’ and for the label ‘Christian.’ No one agrees on the meaning or proper use of these words, yet we allargue vehemently about our own views, which are based on our small circle of social influence. Explaining God is like explaining ‘Mind.’ It may be possible to prove through the scientific method that the mind is a real function of autonomous personality expressiondifferentiated from and yet also intricately interwoven with the brain processes, but most of the evidence would fail when confronted with Ockham’s Razor.
I take it seriously when the Bible – purported by it’s authors to contain the written will of God – claims that God tells “all people everywhere to be saved.” The next question I ask is comprised of ‘be saved from what?’ The same God tells all people to test whether God is true, and he will assist by providing evidence if the person is honest in their search. The question I ask myself to this end is ‘how do I test a God I cannot see or approach with mechanical computing devices?’ The Bible is filled with references to men and women that asked questions, pushing the envelope of their own understanding. I do not see any indication in the texts that believers are to forgo intellectual pursuits of knowledge.
In my efforts, I have discovered a universe of datainterwoven in the texts. By comparing concepts across broad spectraof ancienttextual cultural and religious data, I have recently arrived at a sense that the only way to fully appreciate the Bible is to gain some quantifiable understanding of quantum physics and to attempt to engage the mind in a method that takes into account the very depth, width, breadth, and height of all existence, including anti-matterand extra-potentiations of inter-dimensional spectrums and frequencies. I have taken the stance that if a particular passage of scripture seems to be metaphorical and yet the context suggests that it is not, I must engage in asystematic research of that passage and the meanings contained in it, in order to more fully appreciate what it states.