Funniest Verses In The Bible

[M30USA]

I think it was intentional that they named the telescope LUCIFER. I could give you an endless list of "conspiracy" facts like that. The truth is that cults and false religions use code, symbolism, titles, and subtle concept which are always visible to anyone who cares to look--yet never obvious and forthright. A perfect example is the undeniable fact that our capital building (White House) was buil by Freemasons, uses Freemason architecture, is built on geography which is clearly a pentagram, and was ruled by a Freemason as first president, George Washinton. Just look at any Freemason lodge around the country. You will see all sorts of symbols, colors, numbers and logos all over their buildings. This is because it's subtle enough so that, even in broad daylight, nobody will notice unless they are SEARCHING.

 

Truthfully, this same concept not only applies to evil cults, but also to how our Lord operated. He spoke in parables. This was so that those who aren't searching would hear his payables and just ignore them and move on; while those who ARE searching would dig and dig and find out the meaning. This is how spiritual truth operates--whether good or bad.

[Eve]

I think it was intentional that they named the telescope LUCIFER. I could give you an endless list of "conspiracy" facts like that. The truth is that cults and false religions use code, symbolism, titles, and subtle concept which are always visible to anyone who cares to look--yet never obvious and forthright. A perfect example is the undeniable fact that our capital building (White House) was buil by Freemasons, uses Freemason architecture, is built on geography which is clearly a pentagram, and was ruled by a Freemason as first president, George Washinton. Just look at any Freemason lodge around the country. You will see all sorts of symbols, colors, numbers and logos all over their buildings. This is because it's subtle enough so that, even in broad daylight, nobody will notice unless they are SEARCHING.

Truthfully, this same concept not only applies to evil cults, but also to how our Lord operated. He spoke in parables. This was so that those who aren't searching would hear his payables and just ignore them and move on; while those who ARE searching would dig and dig and find out the meaning. This is how spiritual truth operates--whether good or bad.

 

I agree. I have studied this at length too. Not that there is much need now with so many people in the music industry coming out now as practising satanists.

 

Maybe a thread should be started to discuss this further?

 

Take care,

Eve x

[Robert Z]

Okay, I always found this amusing.

 

Mathew 19:24

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

What I really found amusing was the similarity between this and a logical paradox that Socrates used to confound his opponents. It has been too long now and I can't remember the exact context, but it had to with a direct logical contradiction, where the solution was to realize that one of the contradictory statements was a form of intellectual sarcasm.

 

Socrates was famous for messing with people's heads as a way of making a point. So I have to wonder if Jesus didn't study Socrates and take him to heart. To me this verse sounds suspiciously Socratic!

[M30USA]

Okay, I always found this amusing.

 

Mathew 19:24

And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

 

What I really found amusing was the similarity between this and a logical paradox that Socrates used to confound his opponents. It has been too long now and I can't remember the exact context, but it had to with a direct logical contradiction, where the solution was to realize that one of the contradictory statements was a form of intellectual sarcasm.

 

Socrates was famous for messing with people's heads as a way of making a point. So I have to wonder if Jesus didn't study Socrates and take him to heart. To me this verse sounds suspiciously Socratic!

 

I can tell you that Jesus DID answer trick questions with "trick answers". The Pharisees and Sadducees would ask him question to get him in trouble. Jesus often answered by saying, "I will ask YOU a question." Then he'd proceed to direct it back at them so that if they responded, they would incriminate THEMSELVES. Lol, one time a Pharisee responded to one of Jesus' return questions by huddling together with other hypocrites then saying, "We don't know..." Jesus then said, "Then neither will I tell you..."

[Robert Z]

Jesus often answered by saying, "I will ask YOU a question."

 

The Socratic method of argument is to continually ask the opponent to further define what they mean. Eventually we find that all definitions become subjective or undefinable except in turns of other definitions. We always define things in terms of other words, that are in turn defined in terms of other words... It is a bottomless pit and one can almost always be reduced to absurdity if taken to the limit.

 

This is what Socrates would do in the public square. He would reduce his opponents, mostly arrogant politicians, to some sort of unavoidable contradiction or absurdity, and humiliate them.

 

... course he was later put to death with a dose of hemlock tea.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Robert Z

[M30USA]

The Socratic method of argument is to continually ask the opponent to further define what they mean. Eventually we find that all definitions become subjective or undefinable except in turns of other definitions. We always define things in terms of other words, that are in turn defined in terms of other words... It is a bottomless pit and one can almost always be reduced to absurdity if taken to the limit.

 

That's what I did with Quickjoe a while back. He got pissed and said I was "dodging" the questions and refusing to answer. But like you said the purpose of doing this is to expose the motives of the asker and get to the REAL question.

[Robert Z]

That's what I did with Quickjoe a while back. He got pissed and said I was "dodging" the questions and refusing to answer. But like you said the purpose of doing this is to expose the motives of the asker and get to the REAL question.

 

Well, Socrates was more about showing the false logic that people often use.

 

My first reading of Plato, Socrates, and Descartes, were life changing experiences. While some of it is archaic in practical terms that we think of today, the purity of their logic is enough to bring tears to your eyes.

 

With Socrates I remember being especially amazed because I think I read that first. Here was a guy who lived 2500 years ago, and I had to study the book one page at a time, one paragraph at a time, and even one sentence at a time, and then stop and try to grasp the depth of his insights. I was shocked, honestly. I never imagined that someone we would normally think of as primitive by todays standards, could be so completely and utterly pure in his logic. A thing of beauty to behold, to be sure. And let's not forget that logic leads to truth. That is the beauty of it.

[M30USA]

Well, Socrates was more about showing the false logic that people often use.

 

My first reading of Plato, Socrates, and Descartes, were life changing experiences. While some of it is archaic in practical terms that we think of today, the purity of their logic is enough to bring tears to your eyes.

 

With Socrates I remember being especially amazed because I think I read that first. Here was a guy who lived 2500 years ago, and I had to study the book one page at a time, one paragraph at a time, and even one sentence at a time, and then stop and try to grasp the depth of his insights. I was shocked, honestly. I never imagined that someone we would normally think of as primitive by todays standards, could be so completely and utterly pure in his logic. A thing of beauty to behold, to be sure. And let's not forget that logic leads to truth. That is the beauty of it.

 

The sad thing is that modern society has very little space for profound philosophy. If it's not directly related to increasing someone's salary OR benefiting the "family", it's considered a waste of time. It's for THIS reason that false doctrine and erroneous philosophy has run rampant in America--especially in the Church. CS Lewis said that good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, than to correct bad philosophy.

Edited May 18, 2013 by M30USA

[pureinheart]

I can tell you that Jesus DID answer trick questions with "trick answers". The Pharisees and Sadducees would ask him question to get him in trouble. Jesus often answered by saying, "I will ask YOU a question." Then he'd proceed to direct it back at them so that if they responded, they would incriminate THEMSELVES. Lol, one time a Pharisee responded to one of Jesus' return questions by huddling together with other hypocrites then saying, "We don't know..." Jesus then said, "Then neither will I tell you..."

 

Jesus had a unique was of getting to the root/heart of the matter:lmao::lmao::lmao:

 

I think it's interesting that the enemy played into Gods hands continuously, especially with the cross.

[Robert Z]

The sad thing is that modern society has very little space for profound philosophy. If it's not directly related to increasing someone's salary OR benefiting the "family", it's considered a waste of time. It's for THIS reason that false doctrine and erroneous philosophy has run rampant in America--especially in the Church. CS Lewis said that good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, than to correct bad philosophy.

 

We also have to remember that philosophy led us to the conclusion, and this has now been demonstrated time and time again for 2000 years to be true, that philosophy alone cannot lead to the correct answers. We also need empirical evidence that can be reviewed by a group of expert peers, and the results duplicated by anyone, with no secrets. This is the essence of science. Technically science is a branch of philosophy, but philosophy is now secondary to the scientific process. We still need philosophy to put the scientific truths into perspective and to help us grasp the significance and meaning of newly discovered facts, but philosophy cannot lead the way by deductive or inductive reasoning alone. Far too many times the universe has defied expectations and refused to cooperate. Our minds are not prone to anticipating or grasping the complexity of the perhaps 11-dimensional [4 in spacetime +7 hidden] hyper-surface on which we exist. Indeed we only perceive a very small percentage of reality - on this religion and science certainly agree.

 

The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you can imagine.

- Sir Arthur Eddington, English Astronomer

[Robert Z]

Ugh, I would have to modify my previous statement slightly to allow for mathematics. By applying the power of the purest logic we know, mathematics, to known facts, which is what physicists do, we can and do often predict the existence of something, and then go and show that is does in fact exist. For example, the existence of black holes was postulated going back as far as 1796. And purely through theoretical models, we were able to refine the idea of what we expect to find, and then found it almost 200 years after the idea was first conceived in its most primitive form.

[pureinheart]

I'm watching a movie with Mel Gibson in it about aliens and UFO's. It's a multiple choice question as to who the first person I thought of: Hint- it's an LS Member.

 

A) M30USA

 

B) M30USA or,

 

C) M30USA

[Robert Z]

I'm watching a movie with Mel Gibson in it about aliens and UFO's. It's a multiple choice question as to who the first person I thought of: Hint- it's an LS Member.

 

A) M30USA

 

B) M30USA or,

 

C) M30USA

 

At the end of the movie they baptize their little heads.

[M30USA]

I saw that movie too. It was entertaining. Unfortunately it's because of movies like this that few people have any idea of fact versus fiction. The only movie to date that is based on actual research is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Leave it to Spielberg to do this.

[pureinheart]

At the end of the movie they baptize their little heads.

 

ROFLMBO and at the same time spitting coffee all over my laptop:lmao::lmao::lmao:

[pureinheart]

I saw that movie too. It was entertaining. Unfortunately it's because of movies like this that few people have any idea of fact versus fiction. The only movie to date that is based on actual research is Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Leave it to Spielberg to do this.

 

Well, thanks to you M30 and discussions you've had with others, thinking I might have gotten a real education!

 

...and thanks for the info about Close Encounters...I'll watch again ...thinking I have it on VHS. Remember VHS?

[M30USA]

Well, thanks to you M30 and discussions you've had with others, thinking I might have gotten a real education!

 

...and thanks for the info about Close Encounters...I'll watch again ...thinking I have it on VHS. Remember VHS?

 

I want to be specific about what I mean by the movie being based on research. Obviously that exact story did not happen. It does, however, touch upon true concepts, both symbolically and physically, such as:

 

1) The profound personal impact that "encounters" have upon those who experience them.

 

2) The behavior of the UFOs. They operate very secretively, appearing only to a few select people and eluding the masses.

 

3) The physical appearance of the UFOs--especially the small red orb of light which descends from the UFO craft and seems to weave in and around objects before returning to the main craft. You would be shocked to know how many expert witnesses have seen these exact things. For a great example look up the 1980 Bentwater, UK, case. There were 30 expert military witnesses, including Sgt. Penniston who was head of security at the Air Force base.

 

4) The appearance of the classic "gray" alien. I have STILL not determined what gray aliens are. I'm not sure if they are living beings or if they exist. But Spielberg at least modeled them after reliable reports.

 

5) The fact that UFOs/ETs can implant messages, images, and ideas into the minds of those who see them. The same message can be received by multiple people who are unaware of each other. (In the movie all the characters have a passionate vision about the tall mountain.) There is actually evidence to suggest that the current "climate change" or "global warming" idea has been implanted in people's minds by UFOs/ETs.

 

6) The hugely negative social stigma that is associated with UFOs. In the movie, Dreyfus' character even lost his job and wife due to this stigma.

Edited May 19, 2013 by M30USA

[Robert Z]

From what I have seen, in terms of credibility and inexplicability, this is one of the best cases on record

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

[Robert Z]

Incidentally, the Mormons point to John 10:16 to justify the idea of life on other planets. I thought that was funny. Father Glison never told us about that part!

 

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

[M30USA]

From what I have seen, in terms of credibility and inexplicability, this is one of the best cases on record

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ufo/routing_slip_ufo_iran.pdf

 

That case is crazy, isn't it? Basically 2 fighter jets tried to shoot the glowing object down and suddenly their equipment malfunctioned. One object split apart and chased one of our own fighter jets! Unreal!

[Robert Z]

That case is crazy, isn't it? Basically 2 fighter jets tried to shoot the glowing object down and suddenly their equipment malfunctioned. One object split apart and chased one of our own fighter jets! Unreal!

 

Crazy is right! Systems were disabled on two separate aircrafts, the object fled from pursuit and paced the jet, as you say it split apart and seemingly came after one of the jets, which attempted to fire and couldn't. I had heard about this case and even read an internet copy of a photo of the documents, long before it was available online directly from the National Security Agency. Until I saw it in the NSA archives with my own eyes, I didn't believe it. Since then I have seen both pilots and the General, and I think one tower operator interviewed. And it is has been long enough now that we can have high confidence that this wasn't some secret Soviet or US technology.

 

It should be noted that "nm" refers to nautical miles, which are just slightly greater than a regular mile. 1 nautical mile = 1.15 miles

 

Definitely a head scratcher.

[pie2]

It's weird how prostitutes used to shave their heads....is that true? How was that appealing, lol?

[M30USA]

Robert, thought you might like this concise summary of UFOs purely from a political and military standpoint. It actually includes the case from Tehran, 1974, that you just referenced:

 

Richard Dolan - UFO coverup in 10 minutes - YouTube

[Robert Z]

It's weird how prostitutes used to shave their heads....is that true? How was that appealing, lol?

 

You are confusing prostitutes with Irish rock stars.

[Robert Z]

Robert, thought you might like this concise summary of UFOs purely from a political and military standpoint. It actually includes the case from Tehran, 1974, that you just referenced:

 

Richard Dolan - UFO coverup in 10 minutes - YouTube

 

That was interesting, thanks. I've been following this subject for a long time. I don't accept any particular explanations, but I don't think any reasonable person can consider the best evidence for whatever is happening, and dismiss it or explain it all away. In my view, the evidence from the US military alone is enough to eliminate that as a reasonable option.

 

Along the lines of impressive anecdotal reports, one fascinating case is that of the so called Zimbabwe school landing.

Ariel School UFO Sighting/Alien Encounter- Witness Interviews Part 1 - YouTube

 

I have seen some of these people interviewed fairly recently, now fully grown adults, and they still stand by their story.

 

I don't buy into the whole ancient aliens thing, and certainly not a lot of the hype that goes along with it, but as a matter of principle and logic, I think we have to consider that the history of the human race could be vastly different than we ever imagined possible. With that I will go along with your fascination in this regard.