Dumb Old Lady vs. Ancient Aliens Debunked

[Somamech]

I'll take a Little Old Lady over some Alien Debunker any day of the week 

[undo11]

I'll take a Little Old Lady over some Alien Debunker any day of the week 

me too. lol!!

[undo11]

thought i'd share my last point in the thread, regarding my interpretation of Ezekiel 1, for those who haven't, can't or aren't planning on reading the thread any more:

everyone assumes that's god, but it says "likeness", which doesn't mean it's god. could be a projection of god, i suppose, but that's not the impression i get when reading the text there. to me it almost sounds like it's saying "one who looks like god". but since the OT claims no one has seen god, i'm thinking that ain't god, cause how would he know what god looked like in order to say he looks like god? so this must be one of those cases where god (as in elohim) doesn't mean god and dr. heiser knows what i mean when i say that, since he knows that elohim doesn't always mean god. perhaps this is a case where that leaked over into the interpretation of jehovah. seriously, how do you say "that's what god looks like" or "that's what god's glory looks like" etc, if you've never seen god ?

[starwarp2000]

thought i'd share my last point in the thread, regarding my interpretation of Ezekiel 1, for those who haven't, can't or aren't planning on reading the thread any more:

everyone assumes that's god, but it says "likeness", which doesn't mean it's god. could be a projection of god, i suppose, but that's not the impression i get when reading the text there. to me it almost sounds like it's saying "one who looks like god". but since the OT claims no one has seen god, i'm thinking that ain't god, cause how would he know what god looked like in order to say he looks like god? so this must be one of those cases where god (as in elohim) doesn't mean god and dr. heiser knows what i mean when i say that, since he knows that elohim doesn't always mean god. perhaps this is a case where that leaked over into the interpretation of jehovah. seriously, how do you say "that's what god looks like" or "that's what god's glory looks like" etc, if you've never seen god ?

Most people have trouble with that word Undo, 'Eloh-im'.
The Hebrew word Elohim is plural, as can be seen from the ending -im.
Plural you say? What you talking about Willis?
Well plural as in the same way that your family (Surname) name is plural, i can use that word to refer to all the members of your family.

And, therefore, Eloh-im is saying this: There is a God 'family'.... all speaking and acting by the command of the Father....... therefore there is no distinction between them in that respect, but they are individual beings.
So, you are most probably right... it wasn't the Father who appeared.... mostly likely the 'Word' (who later became Yeshoah).

And yes, none have seen the Father.... the dead know nothing etc. etc..... hope that gives you some insight 

[undo11]

starwarp

yeah,  i thought it was the divine council. you call it the god family hehe
well anyway, i'm trying to get the reader to pay closer attention to the text.  it helps everyone if they try to account for all the descriptions that they can, especially in a vision like that.  not that we'll always be right, but at least trying to connect the dots is better than just chalking it up to something mundane if it isn't mundane.  ya know?

i knew something was up with that but i still hadn't connected all the pieces together.  then it dawned on me that it was a gate that created a wormhole, for lack of a better word.  perhaps white hole is closer to the mark.  yesterday i finally figured out the firmanent of awesome ice was the event horizon.

[ArMaP]

You can actually demonstrate this using an elastic band. Fix one end of an elastic band to an object and the other to something that can't move.  Pull the elastic out and allow it to pull the object as far as it can back.  There will still be some potential energy in the elastic band (it will have some tightness still providing the object is heavy enough to give some friction with the surface.  Now hit a drum near to the object and the elastic band will pull it some more.  This proves that the vibration reduces the friction.

Couldn't that be because of the extra stress on the elastic band pulling the object?

I think a better experiment would be made with an object on a sloping surface, then trying to find that object's acoustic resonance frequency (or using an object for which we already know that frequency) and making a sound at that frequency and see if it would move down slope.

[Pimander]

I think a better experiment would be made with an object on a sloping surface, then trying to find that object's acoustic resonance frequency (or using an object for which we already know that frequency) and making a sound at that frequency and see if it would move down slope.

That would still show that friction is reduced by "resonating" an object.  It would also work.

[petrus4]

And, therefore, Eloh-im is saying this: There is a God 'family'.... all speaking and acting by the command of the Father....... therefore there is no distinction between them in that respect, but they are individual beings.
So, you are most probably right... it wasn't the Father who appeared.... mostly likely the 'Word' (who later became Yeshoah).

I would put it in a slightly different way.  I view "the will of God," as a decentralised, co-ordinating intelligence, which transmits itself, and in some respects is added to, by every individual node in the overall network; the plurality which the term "Elohim," implies.

I've been accused of transhumanism before, and the main reason why is because I tend to use their vocabulary for describing a lot of things.  I would argue that I am not a transhumanist, and that the main reason why, is because I accept the existence of the Akash, or what Pimander called the "A-field," which is another part of what we tend to collectively refer to as God.

I could (and have before) rave on at length about how transhumanism is a lethal threat to the survival of humanity, etc etc, but that truthfully is not my main objection to it.  My main objection to transhumanism as a philosophy, is simply that it is redundant.  Because it is based on Cartesian mechanism, which presupposes a dead, hollow, entirely mechanistic universe in which astral space does not exist, the transhumanist ideal essentially consists of using machines, to re-implement a very large amount of functionality which we already have anyway. 

It's a case of them wanting to do large amounts of work to obtain things (such as telepathy, as one great example) which already exist, but which they do not accept the existence of, simply because of their own atheistic pseudo-skepticism.