User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 208

  1. #171
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default The Number of the Beast?

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise;
    “999 isn't the devil's number, it's the number of woman. 6 is the number of man. Yeah, hence 69.”
    Interesting take, this is new information for me. I wonder if there is any femine energy positive or otherwise which will take place on 9-9-09
    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise;
    “But in New Age beliefs/Wicca/etc. 9 is the number of the witch in a non-satanic sense. Of course, some religious people believe all witchcraft is Satanic, which is why some people think 999 is a number of the devil.”
    Not just religious in the normal use of the word. Satanists, at least Anton LeVey the founders of the Church of Satan believes all witchcraft is at its core Satanic and the “white witch”/”white magic” espoused by wiccans is bunk. (see “The Satanic Witch” by Anton LeVey, actually less about santanism and actually not a bad book on seduction).

    MSJAgernaut noted [/QUOTE] “In Revelation, it is said that a single government would obtain power over the entire world, with the Antichrist being the executive ruler over it. The "beast" would likely be a religious organization affiliated with this government, with the number "666" being the representatives on that organization's council. Revelation mentions a "false prophet," who will likely be this organization's supreme executive officer, who will serve adjacent to the Antichrist.” [/QUOTE]
    Yes I recall that from the bible before the European persecution of witches with witchtrials. This is the first time however I have heard the “religious organization” take on the book of Revelations. I always thought it would be a secular organization who would take over and outlaw religion in general and persecute those with, in particular, Christian religious beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise; “Oh I see. That's why there's so many American Christians who believe that Christians can't be liberal. They fear this one world government.”[/QUOTE
    (endquote)

    Actually of recent it has been the so-called right, the Republican neocons especially under the “leadership” of Bush Sn. And Jr with the support of the religious right who have been pushing for the “new world order”-Bush Doctrine.
    “To me it sounds like Illuminati conspiracy theory rather than Biblical teaching” [/QUOTE]
    Perhaps not so far from the truth? I read some conspiracy mag that the Illuminati’s Luciferians and the Satanists under the Nazis via some secret societies similar to freemasonry had a breakup with 6 as the number of Satan and 9 the number of Lucifer. If six means man and nine means woman then perhaps the six in question means the man Hitler and 9 is some unidentified female leader, perhaps what the book of Revelations called the “great prostitute”?


    PS. bananatrombones thanks for taking my anagram in good humor. Thanks for the palindrome assignment. BTW I really like your hat.

    PPS. Sorry somee of the quotes are not merged proper.
    Last edited by Vizconde; 09-02-2009 at 06:30 PM. Reason: odd numbers popping up

  2. #172
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Given that God may be identified with all that exists, my point is that asking "what created God?" may be like asking "how tall is the number 4?" There is no infinite regress, because the question, when asked of God is just nonsensical. In other words, the law of causality doesn't apply, because while God may be a thing, He is not an effect, and so He does not require a cause (or a creator).
    My question has been one of, if He is finite in any sense, in what does he adhere? Anything that is finite in any sense, even in senses which we never encounter in our experience of reality and could not possibly imagine, would have a "boundary", a terminus. What would lie beyond this? As non-reality, by definition cannot exist, reality at its highest level must be infinite in every respect.

    Unfortunately, it's become clear that the majority of people lack the imagination to come to the terms with the notion of finiteness in senses other than those with which we are familiar (spatial, numerical, temporal, etc.) and have been responding accordingly.

    But, in any case, is reality infinitely orange? Is it infinitely true and infinitely false? Is it infinitely finite? Surely you don't actually mean "in all respects," because many aspects are mutually incoherent. A universe can be no more infinite in all respects than a God.
    Objects are "orange" as our finite psychological apparatus arranges the infinite as such. "Orange" could not exist sans perception. Addressing your comments above, cause and effect also do not exist independent of a psychological apparatus. There are no "causes" and "effects" existing independent of perception.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  3. #173
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    A) Your "definition" of infinite. You've never spelled it out. You've only told me what it isn't, so I've had to keep guessing what you really mean. The closest to a clear definition of infinite you've given is "not finite" which doesn't clear anything up at all.
    My definition of the infinite should be clear to anyone with adequate intelligence and imagination. When you attempt to spell things out to the letter, (a) the idea is diminished, and (b) people spend so much time on irrelevant semantic distinctions that they miss the point entirely.

    In our present and previous discussions, you have consistently been guilty of (b), so knowing that you are involved in this discussion, I'm being particularly careful to avoid that eventuality.

    Frankly, I'm of the mind that even if I did somehow succeed in piloting the vessel of this concept through the keyhole of your remaining rational faculties, you would reflexively, most likely unconsciously, grasp for some semantic grounds on which to dismiss the idea as it would upset your comfortable routine. The only reason I tend to address you is because there are people reading who may be rational and imaginative enough to benefit from seeing how I respond to you.

    B) You conclude reality must be infinite? Why? One problem is I don't understand your definition of infinite, but additionally your reasoning steps look like A-> B-> C -> Z to me. Could you elaborate more? Aside: Also I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the known universe as defined by modern science is most definitely finite according to either my definition or your definition.
    See my previous post in response to Reason.

    C) Even if you clear up problems A) and B) I don't see how your argument can be anything but a straw man. You are asserting that the common view of the Judeo-Christian God is one thing, and then your description does not fit the description of God from any monotheist that I've encountered.
    To repeat precisely what I said the last time you brought this up, I'm unaware of any major branch of Christianity that would accept the notion of God as an inhabitant of reality rather than its creator. Additionally, I never mentioned the Christian God at all; you brought that into the discussion. I've merely pointed out that a "God" as defined as "creator of all reality" could not exist. That the Christian God falls into this category is peripheral.

    If I am misinterpreting your posts it is because you are not communicating effectively. This should be apparant since other posters have been making comments similar to mine.
    If all that were required were clear communication, philosophy would not have its reputation for difficulty. I can do what I'm able to present a difficult concept, but you must be prepared to put an effort of reflection and contemplation into approaching it.

    As I've mentioned, given that your motive is to dismiss rather than to comprehend, you aren't seeing to your end of the bargain.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  4. #174
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    999 isn't the devil's number, it's the number of woman. 6 is the number of man. Yeah, hence 69.
    So above all else, gay threesomes are the devil.

    Got it.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  5. #175
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,442

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spamtar View Post
    how very ingenious, so it does.

    Shhh don't tell Also God spelled backwards is dog. Coincidence?

    Lets play letterman with your name too by shifting the letters around. A Nonabsorbent Ma, A Baboons Remnant, A Nabobs Ornament, Bananas Robot Men, Manana Boobs Rent, and A Man Nbobs a Tenor…music to the ears the list goes on…

    This reminds me 09/09/09 is cuming up.

    999; some say it is the devils number. Or Lucifer’s number.

    I however have seen enough heavy metal album covers (which as we know are the uncontroverted authority in all matters occult, esp. dark occult) to know that when you turn something upside down or inverse it, it means the opposite.

    Therefore if God does exist a priori the Devil exists and if the Devils son, the Beast's, number is 666 does 999 mean the opposite and therefore a day of good luck/positive revelations?

    Also some say Gods number is 333 or 3 (the holy trinity) therefore since 3 x 333 equals 999...
    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    999 isn't the devil's number, it's the number of woman. 6 is the number of man. Yeah, hence 69.

    But in New Age beliefs/Wicca/etc. 9 is the number of the witch in a non-satanic sense. Of course, some religious people believe all witchcraft is Satanic, which is why some people think 999 is a number of the devil.
    The way I had seen it in my studies; 6 is the number of man; 7 is the number of Christ (completeness), 8 is the number of victory (of Christ and his Kingdom), and I think, by extension, 9 would be the number of eternity, or a new heavens.

    Personally I don't think the devil has a number. I think it's a matter of Christianity demonizing the European Pagan religions they sought to convert members from.
    It originally was aimed at Nero (whose name in Hebrew or Aramaic is the one that added up to 666).
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  6. #176
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    My question has been one of, if He is finite in any sense, in what does he adhere? Anything that is finite in any sense, even in senses which we never encounter in our experience of reality and could not possibly imagine, would have a "boundary", a terminus. What would lie beyond this? As non-reality, by definition cannot exist, reality at its highest level must be infinite in every respect.
    Asking "what is beyond the universe?" is just nonsensical, because the universe is equal to everything that exists while "beyond" presupposes that something else exists -- the same is true of "boundry."

    A finite universe doesn't have a boundry in the same way that an ordinary object has a boundry, because there is nothing for it to be bounded in. Likewise, there is nothing for it to be unbounded in either (i.e. "infinite"). The property of "boundedness" does not sensibly adhere to "universe."

    The universe doesn't have to be infinite in the sense you describe.

    By trying to apply properties reserved for objects in a universe to the universe itself, you are merely defining the universe as an object in a universe, and repeating that inconsistent definition sets in motion an infinite regress.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #177
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MFJAGgernaut-B View Post
    Through numerous Bible studies at home, I've come to understand a key secret about the Bible: to fully understand the Bible in context, you have to understand the background of the writer or the passage. Each writer lived in a different culture, and each passage ties to that culture or something written elsewhere in the Bible.
    That's a pretty key point, along with the fact that some books had multiple unspecified authors and some texts might have been written for different purposes in the time frame. The sense of uniformity of purpose within the Scripture seems to be mostly imposed, which causes issues when things that were unrelated are assumed to fit (and then are tied) together by people living far out of the cultural contexts.

    His Number One angel was Lucifer, regarded as the most beautiful of the angels. Lucifer tried to overthrow God out of jealousy, forcing God to banish him and the third of the angels that rebelled with him. Lucifer became known as Satan, and his angels became twisted into demons.
    All that being said, I will point out that already we are starting to impose a mythological construct over top what's actually there. This story (this part and the rest) does not exist in full form anywhere -- it's cobbled together by taking a few verses here and a few verses there and assuming that they refer to some sort of consistent supernatural Satan figure -- and the part here about "Lucifer" being cast out of happen has long been argued to simply apply to Nebuchanezzer (as one example).

    You've pretty much accurately described one version of theology commonly practiced today though (although there are issues here -- for example, "Paradise" in the OT, where actually no one knew what would happen, they would just refer to death as being Sheol, "the grave," and people had faith that SOMEHOW God would bring life to the dead -- this solidified concept of a heaven as a describable place is really a construct of NT thought).

    There are certain ground assumptions that go into "scholarship" that seem to be arbitrary to me to SOME degree... one being that all of these books make a coherent whole. This assumption is made without any thought because we've bundled and packaged them together for centuries as "the word of God." Thus we can build our connections between all the data, because we assume they all operate as separate chapters in a biology or history book (for example) and thus we find a way to fit all the information together in sensible fashion.

    As you can guess, though, whether or not you can skip inconsistencies and weave a narrative out of all the pieces has no bearing on whether the narrative itself is descriptive of reality. It's like finding a box in which someone has (unbeknownst to you) has dumped parts of ten puzzles together, building the "best fit" composite picture out of them (and throwing out pieces that don't fit into that picture) because they have to fit somehow -- they were all in the box! -- then saying that the picture is accurate just because it's the "best fit." The initial flaw comes in that maybe all those pieces weren't coherently interlocked to begin with and were separate puzzles.

    Anyway, enough of addressing that here, back to main thread stuff...

    Quote Originally Posted by living Laser
    You conclude reality must be infinite? Why? One problem is I don't understand your definition of infinite, but additionally your reasoning steps look like A-> B-> C -> Z to me. Could you elaborate more? Aside: Also I'm not sure you're aware of this, but the known universe as defined by modern science is most definitely finite according to either my definition or your definition.
    The "universe" as an entity might have had a beginning (in that sense, it's finite)... but then what of the frame it rests within? Our minds cannot comprehend infinity, but they are also drawn to the concept because if something we imagine is "finite" (i.e., has boundaries), then we automatically think "But what lies beyond those boundaries?") How can something be suspended in nothingness? This could just be a flaw in our human minds.

    Who/What created the frame that the finite universe rests within? And if creator god exists within that frame, then he is not all-encompassing, is he? But if he is outside of it, then he "is" the frame per se and we still have no idea of how to define this being.

    (I've been skimming back, and this seems to be where Mycroft went -- if God is sitting in a room on a chair he created, then who created the room?)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #178
    Ghost Monkey Soul Vizconde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Often these God proving/disproving act is debate is done with linear thinking (with both sides of the debate guilty thereof). If there is a successful debate (with great minds) it must also be done with nonlinear thinking.
    The limitation of the frame of the debate of where God lives being in reality seems a bit over-restrictive unless God is some old man with a white beard like Santa Claus sitting in a room.
    For those who have experimented with a large dose of LSD or salvia divinorum or perhaps those heavily skilled transcendental meditation will likely readily appreciate how much more vast nonreality and timelessness is compared to reality.
    Personally I find both atheism and theism both religious beliefs which both require faith.
    Even if God does show up to the debate in poison, how will we know he is not carrying a fake ID.

  9. #179
    AKA Nunki Polaris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    451 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INFp Ni
    Posts
    1,373

    Default

    Are you sure that you understand what infinity means? There seems to be an impression here that the infinite goes beyond reality, that it exists as a thing which we can never wrap our heads around, even though it's in our heads that the concept emerged and still exists.

    When you think of infinity, you think only of a property of language. Language, the precondition to awareness and our means of internalizing subject-object relations, has boundless potential. By this I mean that language is by its very nature open-ended. You can always potentially count to a higher number; always potentially add another word to a lexicon; always potentially dissect a line into finer segments. Language allows no final barriers, for every barrier at once begs the question: "And then what?" (Somewhere along the line, most people answer, "There's a blackness I'll call nothingness," and leave it at that.) And you can always answer that question; and that you can always answer it, at least in potential, is built into the nature itself of reality.

    If you seek God, therefore, you would do well to stay in this world. The infinite doesn't exist out there as some sort of mysterious container that we can never understand. Infinity and awareness are one, and awareness and infinity are you.

    This brings me to the question of God. Since God or any other symbolic construct arises from the linguistic faculty and is not that faculty itself, it follows that "God" lacks a privileged existence. "God" falls from our tongues as just another word, like "apple" or "Bob." He is bounded within infinite potential (the only kind of infinity), but is not himself infinite in any special sense. Without any choice in the matter, and with or without God, man already spends every moment in touch with the infinite; only until death stills his tongue does that connection break. And perhaps the ancients understood this on some level, for the world began with the Word.
    [ Ni > Ti > Fe > Fi > Ne > Te > Si > Se ][ 4w5 sp/sx ][ RLOAI ][ IEI-Ni ]

  10. #180
    THREADKILLER Prototype's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    Why?
    Socionics
    SEX
    Posts
    855

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric B View Post
    The way I had seen it in my studies; 6 is the number of man; 7 is the number of Christ (completeness), 8 is the number of victory (of Christ and his Kingdom), and I think, by extension, 9 would be the number of eternity, or a new heavens...
    What-about-3's?
    ... They say that knowledge is free, and to truly acquire wisdom always comes with a price... Well then,... That will be $10, please!

Similar Threads

  1. If objective value does not exist, then why become an atheist?
    By Studmuffin23 in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 01-10-2015, 01:16 AM
  2. ADHD Does Not Exist
    By JAVO in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 07:41 PM
  3. America does not exist within its borders.
    By Haphazard in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 03:24 AM
  4. The place where spontaneity does not exist
    By Virtual ghost in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-16-2009, 04:07 PM
  5. Justice does not exist
    By Sahara in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 08-03-2007, 01:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO