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.