skapunkboi
New Member
Posts: 28
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: Canadian, French, and Russian
Country: USA
Region: South
Ancestry: Most of Western Europe, and Russia
Taxonomy: THICC BOI
Politics: Skammunist Skanarchist
Religion: SKA
Relationship Status: Liam Neeson Movie
Hero: Reel Big Fish
Age: Shwenty
|
Post by skapunkboi on Feb 16, 2018 2:24:33 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Dec 27, 2019 21:25:38 GMT
thesageofmainstreetHow do you what went down before ancient Greece?If you suggest that glorified cave-men evolved out of mud then you imply that life is just complex inanimate matter, then your consciousness has no reason to exist as a unique soul. For what reason do think that Prometheus was NOT an advanced alien that taught us skills, and likely even created us? How would that be any different from 'God' from our perspective? Do you have a crystal ball that can see back to before ancient greece?
|
|
Etu Malku
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 25
Religion: Mercuræn-Luciferian
Philosophy: Western Left Hand Path
|
Post by Etu Malku on Dec 28, 2019 18:51:31 GMT
Ha! That entire book is a metaphor . . . let me dumb it down for ya Morning Star = Failed Usurper (fallen star) King Nebuchadnezzar = Failed Usurper (fallen king) Lucifer = Morning Star (metaphor) You'll need to fight a religion. King Nebuchadnezzar was a king who matters little. Just another person in history. Son of the morning it says not morning star so don't confuse that. Two different things. Son of the morning implies some male figure that something starts with. Morning star is a name of a star. A name isn't a metaphor. It's just a name. Your name isn't a metaphor and neither is mine. Lucifer is also a name not a metaphor. Some people are named Lucifer too. In Christianity it's Satan's name. There's no point arguing me about it. You'll need to fight the religion as I said since it's not liking your Lucifer version. We've been 'fighting' the Abrahamic faiths for centuries, why stop now? In Latin, Lucifer means bringer of light. It's a strange choice for the name of Satan, also called the Prince of Darkness. What's more, the Romans didn't use Lucifer as the word for Satan. Instead, Lucifer meant Venus, the planet. As one of the brightest stars in the sky, Venus was called the Morning Star, or light-bringer. How did the Roman word for Venus find its way into the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible?
The Old Testament, where Lucifer first appears, was originally written in Hebrew. The original text of Isaiah used the word לֵילֵה, or helel, to mean "shining one." Latin translators read the word as "morning star," using the Latin word Lucifer for the Hebrew helel. The choice must have confused some Roman readers, since Lucifer was a Roman god. In Roman mythology, Lucifer was called the lightbearer, the equivalent of the Greek god Phosphorus or Eosphoros. The Romans saw Lucifer as a male god carrying a torch, symbolizing Venus's brightness at dawn. Roman poets described Lucifer as the herald of dawn, and Lucifer was often depicted as a shining star.
The word "Lucifer" only appears one time in the Old Testament, in the Isaiah verse. By contrast, Satan appears multiple times, often described as the adversary or the opponent. In the New Testament, the Devil becomes an even more common figure, as Jesus warned his followers to beware the Devil's attempts to lure them from the chosen path.
Surprisingly, "Lucifer" does appear in the Latin version of the New Testament - as a description for Jesus. Professor Henry Kelly explains, "Jesus is called 'Lucifer' or 'the morning star' because he represents a new beginning." In short, the original text of the Bible never used Lucifer to mean Satan. In fact, the word "Lucifer" was more closely associated with Jesus than the Devil.
If the Old Testament reference to Lucifer didn't mean Satan, and the New Testament references to Lucifer meant Jesus, how did Lucifer become Satan?
The first references to Lucifer as Satan date to the 3rd century, after the New Testament had been in circulation for nearly 200 years. Professor Henry Kelly explains how the Latin word for light-bearer was misinterpreted as Satan. The ancient Hebrew in the Book of Isaiah doesn't refer to Satan at all. According to Kelly, Isaiah refers to a Babylonian king, using the metaphor of Venus.
But in the 3rd century, the early Christian theologian Origen claimed the verse referred to Satan. "Origen says, 'Lucifer is said to have fallen from Heaven,'" Kelly relates. "'This can't refer to a human being, so it must refer to Satan.' Subsequent Church fathers found this reasoning persuasive, and so did everyone who followed them."
Origen's reasoning drew on Lucifer's classical connection to Venus. In one of his commentaries, Origen described Earth as, “that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.” The astronomical understanding gradually faded, even in Origen's writings. In De Principiis, Origen linked the falling star in Isaiah with Jesus's New Testament words, "Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." Origen reasons that Satan was Lucifer - once a being of light who fell from Heaven.
Origin wasn't the only 3rd century Christian to see Satan in Isaiah's verse. Tertullian claimed the line was about the Devil. Later writers echoed this interpretation. Gregory the Theologian (325-389 CE), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 CE), and St. Gildas (6th c.) all link the Devil with Isaiah's description of Lucifer. Writing in the 4th century, for example, Gregory the Theologian declared, "The nature of the divine essence is then above all conception by human intelligence. It is, moreover, well that it is so. For... we should, perhaps, lose ourselves through pride, like Lucifer, if it were given us too soon."
These influential writers shaped centuries of Christian thinking. With their attention to light and darkness, plus a close reading of the Bible, many early Christian theologians saw Satan in Isaiah's description of a fallen light-bringer – even though the original Old Testament verse never intended that interpretation.
Hebrew scholars claim that Isaiah 14:12, the only reference to Lucifer in the Old Testament, does not refer to Satan. The Jewish Encyclopedia says the line refers to a Babylonian king, and most Biblical scholars agree. Hebrew scholar Lee Fields explains that Isaiah 14:12 has nothing to do with Satan. But centuries of misreading changed the meaning of the passage. Fields points out, "The name Lucifer, then, meaning 'light-bearer,' is quite appropriate for Christians and their task of bringing the light of the gospel to the world," pointing to New Testament verses calling Jesus the "morning star." Fields continues, "Of course, given the historic identification of Lucifer as the name for Satan, this meaning would be completely lost today."
- Genevieve Carlton PhD
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 28, 2019 21:21:03 GMT
thesageofmainstreet How do you what went down before ancient Greece?If you suggest that glorified cave-men evolved out of mud then you imply that life is just complex inanimate matter, then your consciousness has no reason to exist as a unique soul. For what reason do think that Prometheus was NOT an advanced alien that taught us skills, and likely even created us? How would that be any different from 'God' from our perspective? Do you have a crystal ball that can see back to before ancient greece? Imprimatur Ut ImperemusRetro-history: a logical conclusion based on what is going on in the present. That's how we can trace back evidence for this detective story. Another tool is the knowledge that every explanation we are given, including your pushy assumption that we don't have enough evidence to work with, is biased and promoted by inferior minds promoted to superior positions by a guillotine-fodder hereditary plutocracy.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 28, 2019 21:36:05 GMT
You'll need to fight a religion. King Nebuchadnezzar was a king who matters little. Just another person in history. Son of the morning it says not morning star so don't confuse that. Two different things. Son of the morning implies some male figure that something starts with. Morning star is a name of a star. A name isn't a metaphor. It's just a name. Your name isn't a metaphor and neither is mine. Lucifer is also a name not a metaphor. Some people are named Lucifer too. In Christianity it's Satan's name. There's no point arguing me about it. You'll need to fight the religion as I said since it's not liking your Lucifer version. We've been 'fighting' the Abrahamic faiths for centuries, why stop now? In Latin, Lucifer means bringer of light. It's a strange choice for the name of Satan, also called the Prince of Darkness. What's more, the Romans didn't use Lucifer as the word for Satan. Instead, Lucifer meant Venus, the planet. As one of the brightest stars in the sky, Venus was called the Morning Star, or light-bringer. How did the Roman word for Venus find its way into the Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible?
The Old Testament, where Lucifer first appears, was originally written in Hebrew. The original text of Isaiah used the word לֵילֵה, or helel, to mean "shining one." Latin translators read the word as "morning star," using the Latin word Lucifer for the Hebrew helel. The choice must have confused some Roman readers, since Lucifer was a Roman god. In Roman mythology, Lucifer was called the lightbearer, the equivalent of the Greek god Phosphorus or Eosphoros. The Romans saw Lucifer as a male god carrying a torch, symbolizing Venus's brightness at dawn. Roman poets described Lucifer as the herald of dawn, and Lucifer was often depicted as a shining star.
The word "Lucifer" only appears one time in the Old Testament, in the Isaiah verse. By contrast, Satan appears multiple times, often described as the adversary or the opponent. In the New Testament, the Devil becomes an even more common figure, as Jesus warned his followers to beware the Devil's attempts to lure them from the chosen path.
Surprisingly, "Lucifer" does appear in the Latin version of the New Testament - as a description for Jesus. Professor Henry Kelly explains, "Jesus is called 'Lucifer' or 'the morning star' because he represents a new beginning." In short, the original text of the Bible never used Lucifer to mean Satan. In fact, the word "Lucifer" was more closely associated with Jesus than the Devil.
If the Old Testament reference to Lucifer didn't mean Satan, and the New Testament references to Lucifer meant Jesus, how did Lucifer become Satan?
The first references to Lucifer as Satan date to the 3rd century, after the New Testament had been in circulation for nearly 200 years. Professor Henry Kelly explains how the Latin word for light-bearer was misinterpreted as Satan. The ancient Hebrew in the Book of Isaiah doesn't refer to Satan at all. According to Kelly, Isaiah refers to a Babylonian king, using the metaphor of Venus.
But in the 3rd century, the early Christian theologian Origen claimed the verse referred to Satan. "Origen says, 'Lucifer is said to have fallen from Heaven,'" Kelly relates. "'This can't refer to a human being, so it must refer to Satan.' Subsequent Church fathers found this reasoning persuasive, and so did everyone who followed them."
Origen's reasoning drew on Lucifer's classical connection to Venus. In one of his commentaries, Origen described Earth as, “that seat of war, on which Lucifer, star of the morning, fell from heaven, to be warred against and destroyed by Jesus.” The astronomical understanding gradually faded, even in Origen's writings. In De Principiis, Origen linked the falling star in Isaiah with Jesus's New Testament words, "Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning." Origen reasons that Satan was Lucifer - once a being of light who fell from Heaven.
Origin wasn't the only 3rd century Christian to see Satan in Isaiah's verse. Tertullian claimed the line was about the Devil. Later writers echoed this interpretation. Gregory the Theologian (325-389 CE), Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339 CE), and St. Gildas (6th c.) all link the Devil with Isaiah's description of Lucifer. Writing in the 4th century, for example, Gregory the Theologian declared, "The nature of the divine essence is then above all conception by human intelligence. It is, moreover, well that it is so. For... we should, perhaps, lose ourselves through pride, like Lucifer, if it were given us too soon."
These influential writers shaped centuries of Christian thinking. With their attention to light and darkness, plus a close reading of the Bible, many early Christian theologians saw Satan in Isaiah's description of a fallen light-bringer – even though the original Old Testament verse never intended that interpretation.
Hebrew scholars claim that Isaiah 14:12, the only reference to Lucifer in the Old Testament, does not refer to Satan. The Jewish Encyclopedia says the line refers to a Babylonian king, and most Biblical scholars agree. Hebrew scholar Lee Fields explains that Isaiah 14:12 has nothing to do with Satan. But centuries of misreading changed the meaning of the passage. Fields points out, "The name Lucifer, then, meaning 'light-bearer,' is quite appropriate for Christians and their task of bringing the light of the gospel to the world," pointing to New Testament verses calling Jesus the "morning star." Fields continues, "Of course, given the historic identification of Lucifer as the name for Satan, this meaning would be completely lost today."
- Genevieve Carlton PhD
Priests Work for Plutocratic Parasites and Discredit the True Owners of Intellectual PropertyAnother similarity between Prometheus and the false light-bearer, Jesus, is that Prometheus being chained to a mountainside with an eagle eating away his liver is symbolic of the crucifixion and the wound the Roman soldier gave to Jesus. Prometheus means "prophet." And that would also cover the prediction of an inventor: "If I rub these sticks together and touch kindling wood with them, it will catch on fire." Devil comes from a word meaning "slander." But wouldn't the guilty try to say that someone who justly accuses them is just a dishonest mud-slinger. There is a popular representation of this blame game in Flip Wilson's "The Devil made me do it."
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Dec 30, 2019 21:46:07 GMT
thesageofmainstreet How do you what went down before ancient Greece?If you suggest that glorified cave-men evolved out of mud then you imply that life is just complex inanimate matter, then your consciousness has no reason to exist as a unique soul. For what reason do think that Prometheus was NOT an advanced alien that taught us skills, and likely even created us? How would that be any different from 'God' from our perspective? Do you have a crystal ball that can see back to before ancient greece? Imprimatur Ut ImperemusRetro-history: a logical conclusion based on what is going on in the present. That's how we can trace back evidence for this detective story. Another tool is the knowledge that every explanation we are given, including your pushy assumption that we don't have enough evidence to work with, is biased and promoted by inferior minds promoted to superior positions by a guillotine-fodder hereditary plutocracy. But it is the materialist plutocracy that pushes the idea of clever-cave-men inventing everything. A logical conclusion on what is going on present, you say? So how did I get the idea of the Astrosling? This is after all, the greatest discovery since the rocket, whether your ego and the current plutocracy agrees or not. And do you believe that the rocket was purely a result of 'cleverness'? Just like the plutocracy would have you believe? Horatio might agree with you. ;-j
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Dec 31, 2019 19:26:43 GMT
Imprimatur Ut ImperemusRetro-history: a logical conclusion based on what is going on in the present. That's how we can trace back evidence for this detective story. Another tool is the knowledge that every explanation we are given, including your pushy assumption that we don't have enough evidence to work with, is biased and promoted by inferior minds promoted to superior positions by a guillotine-fodder hereditary plutocracy. But it is the materialist plutocracy that pushes the idea of clever-cave-men inventing everything. A logical conclusion on what is going on present, you say? So how did I get the idea of the Astrosling? This is after all, the greatest discovery since the rocket And do you believe that the rocket was purely a result of 'cleverness'? Just like the plutocracy would have you believe? ;-j To Protect This Larceny, They Have to Cripple Our Sense of Worth Early in ChildhoodIf you call it a kleptocracy rather than a "plutocracy," then you won't become an anti-materialist doormat, because people can only rightfully resent wealth that is stolen from them. Unless someone has a self-hating suicidal lack of pride, he would focus on getting it back (including what was stolen from people just like them). Inventors must unionize and go on strike until they get 50% ownership of corporate patents. How can you possibly believe that the kleptocratic parasites and their even more parasitic heirs would praise the inventors from whom they stole all their wealth?
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 2, 2020 13:22:07 GMT
But it is the materialist plutocracy that pushes the idea of clever-cave-men inventing everything. A logical conclusion on what is going on present, you say? So how did I get the idea of the Astrosling? This is after all, the greatest discovery since the rocket And do you believe that the rocket was purely a result of 'cleverness'? Just like the plutocracy would have you believe? ;-j To Protect This Larceny, They Have to Cripple Our Sense of Worth Early in ChildhoodIf you call it a kleptocracy rather than a "plutocracy," then you won't become an anti-materialist doormat, because people can only rightfully resent wealth that is stolen from them. Unless someone has a self-hating suicidal lack of pride, he would focus on getting it back (including what was stolen from people just like them). Inventors must unionize and go on strike until they get 50% ownership of corporate patents. How can you possibly believe that the kleptocratic parasites and their even more parasitic heirs would praise the inventors from whom they stole all their wealth? Plutocracy was your word. The entire idea of 'patent' is flawed in principle, and entirely wrong in practise. One cannot own the laws of nature. There is no short-cut to ethics, and those without ethics will corrupt any 'system' regardless of how good it is in principle. Only genuine transcendental ethics can keep the hounds of materialism at bay. But you avoided the question I posed, so let me answer it: The Astrosling was discovered through a combination of logic and observation; but both of those were built on a foundation of ethics and spirituality, which began with direct communion with John the Baptist. Then later, Jesus. At the time my cultural affiliation was pagan: an eclectic mix of Norse, Hindi, and Greek. So in no way was the communion anything remotely to do with internal psychology of my self. But to fully appreciate matters, you need to thoroughly read through this article: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htmBut most likely, you will try and take a short-cut, and we will revert back to square one again. Only when others take up the baton I present, will we be able to begin to make an ethical change to society.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jan 2, 2020 22:33:50 GMT
To Protect This Larceny, They Have to Cripple Our Sense of Worth Early in ChildhoodIf you call it a kleptocracy rather than a "plutocracy," then you won't become an anti-materialist doormat, because people can only rightfully resent wealth that is stolen from them. Unless someone has a self-hating suicidal lack of pride, he would focus on getting it back (including what was stolen from people just like them). Inventors must unionize and go on strike until they get 50% ownership of corporate patents. How can you possibly believe that the kleptocratic parasites and their even more parasitic heirs would praise the inventors from whom they stole all their wealth? Plutocracy was your word. The entire idea of 'patent' is flawed in principle, and entirely wrong in practise. One cannot own the laws of nature. There is no short-cut to ethics, and those without ethics will corrupt any 'system' regardless of how good it is in principle. Only genuine transcendental ethics can keep the hounds of materialism at bay. But you avoided the question I posed, so let me answer it: The Astrosling was discovered through a combination of logic and observation; but both of those were built on a foundation of ethics and spirituality, which began with direct communion with John the Baptist. Then later, Jesus. At the time my cultural affiliation was pagan: an eclectic mix of Norse, Hindi, and Greek. So in no way was the communion anything remotely to do with internal psychology of my self. But to fully appreciate matters, you need to thoroughly read through this article: www.flight-light-and-spin.com/LIGO/analysis-gw150914.htmBut most likely, you will try and take a short-cut, and we will revert back to square one again. Only when others take up the baton I present, will we be able to begin to make an ethical change to society. Under Sissy Ethics, SCIENCE IS FOR SUCKERS. There's Nothing Wrong With Being "Greedy" for What You're WorthYou shouldn't feel warm and fuzzy about your slave morality. You influence others to let themselves be exploited in the name of "science for science's sake," which makes you an accomplice of the uncreative predators who make the most money off science and promote this cowardly and self-hating slavishness. Also, because it is unnatural to not expect a material reward, those who believe in your cretins' creed won't have the will to produce very much, no matter how dedicated their false idealism makes them feel as they fiddle around without the energy that comes from having pride. Do you believe that talented pro athletes should play "for the love of the game"? That is a common but insincere outburst from the no-talent spectators who nevertheless continue to pay the higher prices caused by players' unions, despite their pathetic boasting that they'll quit watching sports because of that.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 3, 2020 18:14:52 GMT
thesageofmainstreetYou did not read clearly. It is not science for the sake of science at all. Its science for the sake of ethics and spirituality.And also science as a consequence of ethics and spirituality. I have found that the more money a person has, the more that money owns them in such a subtle way that they do not even see their gilded cage. I am nobody's slave because I do not fear death like those that hide in their gilded cage, and use it to protect themselves, and thereby enslave themselves. But render unto the engineers, that which is the engineers'. They need the coins, whereas good ideas are stifled by them. We all have our roles to play. If I make money or not off of my ideas, that is secondary to the optimal means by which they are simply the tools of communicating spirituality. If by money in my pocket it should fly, then so be it. But if not, then that is fine too. You are right though - there is something super-natural about not expecting a material reward. I know without doubt that even if I make not 1 dollar off the astrosling, and others make trillions defending the ecosystem with it, then in my next life I will have much less chance of incarnating into a dystopia or a stone-age society that was caused by meteor strike. More likely I will incarnate into a world where probes are being sent to other worlds, and eventually colonists too. And those adventurers will also seek something greater than baubles and accolades. As for those who believe in this ethical philosophy of Christ 'not producing much', well I produced the idea of the Astrolsing (and more). And there is no feeling quite as enjoyable as "eureka!". It makes the soul quite all a-flutter with excitement.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jan 3, 2020 19:27:43 GMT
thesageofmainstreet You did not read clearly. It is not science for the sake of science at all. Its science for the sake of ethics and spirituality.And also science as a consequence of ethics and spirituality. I have found that the more money a person has, the more that money owns them in such a subtle way that they do not even see their gilded cage. I am nobody's slave because I do not fear death like those that hide in their gilded cage, and use it to protect themselves, and thereby enslave themselves. But render unto the engineers, that which is the engineers'. They need the coins, whereas good ideas are stifled by them. We all have our roles to play. If I make money or not off of my ideas, that is secondary to the optimal means by which they are simply the tools of communicating spirituality. If by money in my pocket it should fly, then so be it. But if not, then that is fine too. You are right though - there is something super-natural about not expecting a material reward. I know without doubt that even if I make not 1 dollar off the astrosling, and others make trillions defending the ecosystem with it, then in my next life I will have much less chance of incarnating into a dystopia or a stone-age society that was caused by meteor strike. More likely I will incarnate into a world where probes are being sent to other worlds, and eventually colonists too. And those adventurers will also seek something greater than baubles and accolades. As for those who believe in this ethical philosophy of Christ 'not producing much', well I produced the idea of the Astrolsing (and more). And there is no feeling quite as enjoyable as "eureka!". It makes the soul quite all a-flutter with excitement. The Paralyzing Paradigm Your elevated silliness originated when science became the escapist toy of useless aristocrats. Their snobbish contempt for making money was backed up only by the fact that they had plenty of unearned money from their family fortune. Since these worthless dilettantes controlled every branch of thought, they forced their contempt for the practical on science and delayed progress for 2,000 years. Around 300 BC, Aristotle, one of the chief enforcers of stifled science, opened his Metaphysics with the ridiculous (to an active mind) claim that all inventions had already been made. So he smugly opined that all that was left to do was to wander through theories explaining the wonderful and warm and fuzzy hidden meaning behind natural phenomena.
|
|
Etu Malku
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 25
Religion: Mercuræn-Luciferian
Philosophy: Western Left Hand Path
|
Post by Etu Malku on Jan 4, 2020 22:58:21 GMT
Are we still talking about that 'Interview with a Satanist' or what?
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jan 5, 2020 22:07:03 GMT
Are we still talking about that 'Interview with a Satanist' or what? A Thread Is Not a Tightrope Why should we be shackled by links? They are all part of a chain that drags us into enslavement to whoever has the money to create them. In other words, don't let the topic and its pushy reference have any authority. That silly, unrealistic interview is politically biased and should be dismissed.
|
|
Etu Malku
Full Member
Posts: 147
Likes: 25
Religion: Mercuræn-Luciferian
Philosophy: Western Left Hand Path
|
Post by Etu Malku on Jan 6, 2020 0:58:28 GMT
Are we still talking about that 'Interview with a Satanist' or what? A Thread Is Not a Tightrope Why should we be shackled by links? They are all part of a chain that drags us into enslavement to whoever has the money to create them. In other words, don't let the topic and its pushy reference have any authority. That silly, unrealistic interview is politically biased and should be dismissed. Right . . . so, what are we talking about here then? And that guy does NOT represent Satanism
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jan 6, 2020 22:19:10 GMT
thesageofmainstreet You did not read clearly. It is not science for the sake of science at all. Its science for the sake of ethics and spirituality.And also science as a consequence of ethics and spirituality. I have found that the more money a person has, the more that money owns them in such a subtle way that they do not even see their gilded cage. I am nobody's slave because I do not fear death like those that hide in their gilded cage, and use it to protect themselves, and thereby enslave themselves. But render unto the engineers, that which is the engineers'. They need the coins, whereas good ideas are stifled by them. We all have our roles to play. If I make money or not off of my ideas, that is secondary to the optimal means by which they are simply the tools of communicating spirituality. If by money in my pocket it should fly, then so be it. But if not, then that is fine too. You are right though - there is something super-natural about not expecting a material reward. I know without doubt that even if I make not 1 dollar off the astrosling, and others make trillions defending the ecosystem with it, then in my next life I will have much less chance of incarnating into a dystopia or a stone-age society that was caused by meteor strike. More likely I will incarnate into a world where probes are being sent to other worlds, and eventually colonists too. And those adventurers will also seek something greater than baubles and accolades. As for those who believe in this ethical philosophy of Christ 'not producing much', well I produced the idea of the Astrolsing (and more). And there is no feeling quite as enjoyable as "eureka!". It makes the soul quite all a-flutter with excitement. The Paralyzing Paradigm Your elevated silliness originated when science became the escapist toy of useless aristocrats. Their snobbish contempt for making money was backed up only by the fact that they had plenty of unearned money from their family fortune. Since these worthless dilettantes controlled every branch of thought, they forced their contempt for the practical on science and delayed progress for 2,000 years. Around 300 BC, Aristotle, one of the chief enforcers of stifled science, opened his Metaphysics with the ridiculous (to an active mind) claim that all inventions had already been made. So he smugly opined that all that was left to do was to wander through theories explaining the wonderful and warm and fuzzy hidden meaning behind natural phenomena. I would have no problem monetizing what I am doing if money itself had to become a true measure of value. In the post-industrial society money is simply a power structure. The only way to attain it in this situation is to give up one's freedom - and THAT freedom is essential to maintaining the creative endeavour. In 2008 I discovered/invented the Entothopter www.flight-light-and-spin.com/entothopter-project.htmAt that stage I could have thrown everything into the material pursuit of developing it and become a very rich and powerful man. But instead I was more interested in maintaining the freedom required to invent the Astrosling - which is a million times better concept. I also then developed all the other countless ideas between those 2. Aristotle is no philosopher in my book, btw, and those ideas of little use accredited to him, are most likely simply pilfered and watered-down. The prime example being his rewording of Plato's forms. And that juxtaposition between form and substance is the issue at hand. The closer I move my soul towards the logos: pure form, the more naturally it simply moves away from the shadows on the wall of the cave: the physicality of the mundane world of money. It need not actually be like this in a mature society, but that is just the way it is.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jan 7, 2020 0:01:03 GMT
A Thread Is Not a Tightrope Why should we be shackled by links? They are all part of a chain that drags us into enslavement to whoever has the money to create them. In other words, don't let the topic and its pushy reference have any authority. That silly, unrealistic interview is politically biased and should be dismissed. Right . . . so, what are we talking about here then? Submission to Nature Should Not Be Glorified
The definition of evil, which Satan is supposed to represent. But he also represents Lucifer, the bringer of light. And an unbiased reading of the myth also makes him a rebel against a cruel and irrational absolute ruler, the First Protestant. The same people who want us to be slaves to the human tyrants tell us that getting our own is evil. "Blessed are the meek" enables all kind of tyranny. Why trust those who selfishly define right and wrong for us?
|
|