| ||||
| ||||
| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | Page:   ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ...   |
|
|||||||||||||
| Final Editing | Rating: 
|
| Author | Post |
|---|
| Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2013 09:01 pm |
|
501st Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/18/13 Page 113 If your grandchild does not acknowledge the significance of the lie whereby people share the lie, whereby THINGS are held accountable for the actions of people, then to me, that is a very poor, weak, and powerless position to be in, and I can sympathize. Modified as follows: If your grandchild does not acknowledge the significance of the lie, whereby people share the lie, that THINGS are held accountable for the actions of people, then to me that is a very poor, weak, and powerless position to be in, and I can sympathize.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2013 10:42 pm |
|
502nd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/18/13 Page 113 I don't know who the remnant is. I can't, but I know that we exist. If by remnant I can refer to an author named Albert J. Nock, in reference to those who refuse to "join 'em" because we won't claim that we can't "beat 'em," or some other shared lie - perhaps many of us are the silent remnant, not yet ready to stick our necks out very far. Not willing to be counted so overtly, in public, for various reasons, not just for fear, or even concern, or self-preservation. Modified as follows: I don't know who the remnant is, I can't, but I know that we exist - if by remnant, I can refer to author Albert J. Nock in reference to those who refuse to "join 'em" because we won't claim that we can't "beat 'em," or some other shared lie. Perhaps many of us are the silent remnant…not yet ready to stick our necks out very far…not willing to be counted so overtly, in public, for various reasons…not just for fear, or even concern, or self-preservation.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2013 11:35 pm |
|
503rd Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/18/13 Page 113 / 114 Your grandchild may be setting a fine example if it does not get too hot, and if he does not wither, and if he does not become like the pod people. One of them, I mean, without any ambiguity - become a person who shares the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people. modified as follows: Your grandchild may be setting a fine example, if it does not get too hot, if he does not wither, and if he does not become like the pod people - one of them, I mean, without any ambiguity - one of those people who share the lie that THINGS are accountable for the actions of people.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2013 11:42 pm |
|
504th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/18/13 Page 114 The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected; one still is infected. The lies run very deep. modified as follows Joe, if you do not like this modification, just let me know and I will change it back. The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected. The lies run very deep.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Thu Jul 18th, 2013 11:46 pm |
|
505th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/18/13 Page 114 Without prejudice is a very interesting term. A new one on me, worth understanding - it seems to me - and possibly connected intimately to this line of thinking: making THINGS accountable for the actions of people = prejudice. Changed on me to for me Without prejudice is a very interesting term. A new one for me, worth understanding - it seems to me - and possibly connected intimately to this line of thinking: making THINGS accountable for the actions of people = prejudice.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 19th, 2013 07:09 am |
|
506th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, There is a reason for the corporate leader to be of a certain outward appearance so as to enable the campaign promises to hold power over the targeted victims. The criminals do not discriminate to a greater degree the divisions of race, sex, age, religion. The criminals discriminate to a greater degree the division of POWER. Those who make things worth stealing are those targeted by criminals. That is a bear take. I don't know if Joe saw the same thing or not, there in that land of California. It is not Left versus Right. Look here: Division Are you divided? Do you divide based upon left versus right? Does the message inspire you to be on the right fighting against the left? That message in that video, on "network" television (Monopoly) cannot be Black against White in harmony with the show trial of the month. Do you "feel" inspired to discredit jurors in Trial by Jury? Do you "feel" inspired to discredit Trial by Jury as an effective form of self-government (a competitive definition of democracy or socialism)? If you feel sad for other people then to me the obvious result of the intended message is lost on you. the false message does not work on you, instead of the false message working on you, because you know better, is that you still see from a generous soul, and you are not inspired to act aggressively toward innocent people. The Legal Criminals are not as powerful over some people, perhaps very many people, as they once were in my estimate. You exemplify one of those people. How many people does it take to avoid World War III? War (World War III) is the reset button on the human social computer. As far as I am concerned, having my own way of communicating with other people, I see many more black people in this town now compared to 1973 (or so) when I moved here to Barstow. I was possessed of the idea that now, after the Zimmerman verdict (so called), there are more black people willing to look me in the eye, when passing, and more are generously offering welcome greetings: in passing. I don't get out much, but when I do my eyes normally go for eye contact with everyone I see, when I'm alone, and less wandering when I am not alone, since I will then be occupied with familiar human contact. Criminals are possessed of a desire to gain "at the expense" of a targeted victim. You don't do that, I don't do that, not unless the aggressive attack is in some way perceived as defensive, and the aggressive attack is strictly verbal, and the aggressive attack is strictly factual to our own sense of reason, and the aggressive attack is strictly absent any intended physical injury to anyone. If we are like mother bears then we volunteer to step in between the bear cubs and those POWERS that aim to injure those bear cubs. That is to me the moral thing to do, for many reasons, and since we are imperfect, we make honest mistakes. The criminals willfully target bear cubs so as to injure the bear cubs for fun and profit at the expense of the bear cubs or at the expense of anyone who has something worth stealing. I woke up this morning with a greater appreciation for the lessons you teach, and not just you teaching these lessons, since Jesus teaches these lessons, and many other people like you, and like Jesus, teach these lessons. Which ones? If no one produces anything worth stealing, I'm asking, are there any thieves? That is an odd way for me to communicate, being who I am, the concept of generosity. What do you think is going on, politically with all of this, if I may draw from Joe's take on life. The objective is to discredit any POWER (such as Trial by Jury or individual defensive thoughts and actions, or neighborhood watch organizations or just plain old common sense) that can be used by the targets to avoid being victims. When the targeted victims are polarized as one voluntary union of honest, productive, generous, people, they can then defend themselves, each one, with or without help from anyone else, against criminals. When the leadership that leads is TRUE, what happens?
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 19th, 2013 07:15 am |
|
507th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
a) "ready victims" (immediately available) or b) "victims that are ready" (prepared for immediate use) I think both apply in fact, and I cannot judge who is more responsible in any case of crime: the criminal or the victim. Babies, being innocent, being undeveloped examples of the human being, are immediately available, for criminals. Baby food? Someone who has collected a vast store of riches is not so often a ready victim who is immediately available for a criminal to victimize. Often is the case where the criminals expend a lot of the power they steal in the work required to prepare victims for immediate use. These things I know and so the sentence, if I remember right, was intending to communicate both viewpoints at the same time. Does that make any sense? They buy wars so as to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims powerless to fight back. Modified as follows: They buy wars to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims too powerless to fight back. There may be (coincidentally or not) another case of intending to convey challenges to the reader, to make the reader think about the word POWERLESS. I am not without power, if I were I'd be dead. I am less powerful compared to the criminals who perpetrate crime upon me. So my sentences are a product of my intentions, and your help helps greatly in bridging the gap between what I intend to say, and what the reader may, or may not, get. Your work appears to me to be of great value to me. I've told you about the English Writing Course of Study I paid for, so as to allow me to learn to write well, and the teacher supplied something that was powerless compared to what you supply. Does that exemplify something worth knowing? They buy wars so as to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims powerless to fight back. Modified as follows: They buy wars to consume all the power they can't steal, so as to keep their victims too powerless to fight back. I am not so inclined to step back from something that appeared to add richness to the writing. I can offer a deal where you keep going without stepping back on this one thing, and the next time you feel like double dashes, try to zero in precisely on why you want double dashes. Another option is to zero in on each use of double dashes already done, but again that is going backwards in my view, which is not as competitive, to me, as going forward. You started changing to double dashes, I saw an initial problem, then I saw a richness in at least one sentence, an improvement, so that can be retraced by me, if possible, or you can go on with more editing and in any case where there is an inspiration to question the use of dash, double dash, comma, or three dots, or parenthesis, at that point, that time, that place, zero in on the question, and start a list. Like here: Dash or Double? I can learn to write better, you can learn to edit better, anyone reading our work can learn, or there are other, better, things to do with our time. Our time is not one thing, you have your time, I have mine, so our time is a convenience of using less words instead of using more words to say the same thing. I can learn to write better, you can learn to edit better, anyone reading our work can learn, or there are other, better, things to do with your time, my time, and anyone else who has time. I am in confession mode at this time. I want to confess to you that I have, in the past, stated that I, me, this Joe Kelley person, does not have, in my words, a "pony in that show," and the reference has to do with competitive religions, and the reference has to do specifically with the information offered by Frank O'Collins, where that information includes a religious viewpoint. I am confessing a move from having no pony in that show to me having, in some measure, stepped into the ring, and rather than write a whole lot of text, I can point you to the Talkshoe Phone Conferences (or whatever) whereby I am not making it a regular event on my schedule. Here: Episode 135 Time 1:23:20 is the time where I call Frank for the first time. I don't want to discredit anyone other than myself where my own viewpoint is false, and so I hope you can understand that context, and if you feel like being even more generous, then you can help me understand my own errors in this specific exchange between me and Frank, or, on the other hand, if you care not to be involved, then that is fine too. I am merely offering another measure of me, so you know better instead of knowing worse. Episode 136 52:50 The pony I have in the show of religion is unclear in my own mind, hence the confession to you now, letting you know that I am not willfully intending to discredit any other people or any other religious beliefs, rather, I am intending to know better, if that is at all possible, as to what is, or is not, true. Does that make sense in this context? Back to work: I purchased the ballot access, with my own earnings, for the most part, because of Waco. Regarding "for the most part": Did you purchase the ballot access with your own earnings for the most part? Or did you do that for the most part because of Waco? After I know your intent I can punctuate accordingly. Thanks! My intent there is to convey the importance of Waco on me, as the cause of my thoughts and actions contained within the "run for congress" events. I can see how that sentence is confusing, and I am interested in knowing how you fix it. The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected; one still is infected. The lies run very deep. modified as follows Joe, if you do not like this modification, just let me know and I will change it back. The propaganda machine, a case in point, includes all the spaces between all the ears, and I know my parents were infected. The lies run very deep. That is correct. Thanks.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Fri Jul 19th, 2013 10:58 pm |
|
508th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, regarding this: --------------------------------------- I am in confession mode at this time. I want to confess to you that I have, in the past, stated that I, me, this Joe Kelley person, does not have, in my words, a "pony in that show," and the reference has to do with competitive religions, and the reference has to do specifically with the information offered by Frank O'Collins, where that information includes a religious viewpoint. I am confessing a move from having no pony in that show to me having, in some measure, stepped into the ring, and rather than write a whole lot of text, I can point you to the Talkshoe Phone Conferences (or whatever) whereby I am not making it a regular event on my schedule. Here: Episode 135 Time 1:23:20 is the time where I call Frank for the first time. I don't want to discredit anyone other than myself where my own viewpoint is false, and so I hope you can understand that context, and if you feel like being even more generous, then you can help me understand my own errors in this specific exchange between me and Frank, or, on the other hand, if you care not to be involved, then that is fine too. I am merely offering another measure of me, so you know better instead of knowing worse. Episode 136 52:50 The pony I have in the show of religion is unclear in my own mind, hence the confession to you now, letting you know that I am not willfully intending to discredit any other people or any other religious beliefs, rather, I am intending to know better, if that is at all possible, as to what is, or is not, true. Does that make sense in this context? ---------------------------------- What fault do you want me to find in your words to Frank? I cannot find anything wrong with your exchange in regards to words. I can only find error in seeking contact with the Creator outside of the path given in the Bible. I can find error in Frank's words. I didn't see any error in your words. I can see error in reaching out to a self proclaimed Divine Creator in human flesh (as I think that I what I understood Frank to call himself in reference to the follow up to your discussion with him in the first link) for spiritual guidance. There is no 3rd Testament or 3rd Contract with the Creator initiated by man. The Old Testament Contract was in initiated by God. The New Testament Fulfillment was initiated by God. On the Cross, Jesus said, "It is Finished." He is the Fulfillment of the Contract. If I am understanding Frank correctly, I hear him say that he makes a contact with the Divine Creator and that he is the divine creator. Josf, that sounds exactly like Lucifer: Isaiah 4:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning ! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Jesus said these words: Matt 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo , here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold , I have told you before . 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold , he is in the desert; go not forth : behold , he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be . Joe, there is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved. There is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ. I think you will enjoy Paul talking about the Unknown God in Athens: http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/acts/passage.aspx?q=acts+17:15-33 I was surprised Sunday when Jeff preached from this passage and I read on a little and found the words that We are the Offspring of God. So I am in a quandary as I consider that some of are children of God and some are children of the Devil. But there in Acts Paul says we are all the offspring of God. So, I am confessing that I may need to do some studying to understand the implications of the original languages in that regard. Also confessing that I thought Frank's last name was O'Connor, and I was wrong. It is O'Collins. I must clean house tomorrow and will leave bookwork til I have free time again.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Sat Jul 20th, 2013 10:06 am |
|
509th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, My fault in my words has to do with me not having (as I said in the past) a "pony in the show" in the who has the most accurate understanding of God contest. I am now asking question of Frank that put my interests in a place where I may form a more accurate belief of religion compared to my past and present belief in religion. So my fault has to do with my communications with you being what they were, on the subject of competitive viewpoints in religion, and my viewpoints that may become something other than what they were, or are, and so I see a potential for being untrue to my past words in this regard. I think that your viewpoint of Frank's viewpoint is not accurate. I don't need to go into details, but I can if asked. I can see error in reaching out to a self proclaimed Divine Creator in human flesh (as I think that I what I understood Frank to call himself in reference to the follow up to your discussion with him in the first link) for spiritual guidance. The actual words by Frank can be quoted for references. I think that the idea Frank offers has to do with every aware human being not just Frank. The idea, if I understand it, is that we are all trusted with life and therefore we are all trusted with the power to create, and therefore we are all in that connection divine creators creating by way of that power trusted into our care. At least that is where I am at so far in the reading on Trusts and Estates, and here is where I find much of my interest in Frank's work concerning how bad things are now, and how things got this bad by way of the actions of people he calls nihilists. Trusts and Estates are part of the Real Estate Business, so called, so that brings the information into regular home usage, and so I can now develop my own basis of language, based upon principles concerning the exchange of Real Estate. Estates, it turns out, are principally a secondary to, or a creation from, Trusts. Estates appear to be the beginning of Legal Crime in the exchange of land use among the human beings. That may be more detail than appropriate in this specific forum topic, but we two are able to communicate without rigorous reliance upon protocol, so I trust that you will forgive my elaboration here. The Old Testament Contract was in initiated by God. The New Testament Fulfillment was initiated by God. On the Cross, Jesus said, "It is Finished." He is the Fulfillment of the Contract. I wanted to keep you posted on my dealings with Frank, since you are connected to me, and since I value your trust, and since I want to earn your trust, so I try to be up front in this area of religious belief. I may go places in my perceptions of religion as the contact with Frank may change my direction somewhat, so your navigation skills may also be beneficial to me. I don't know these things, but I am not too afraid to look to see what some other people may believe. One thing Frank does question about people who are Christians is a possible contradiction concerning what is believed or what is not believed in The Bible; concerning contradictions that may appear when Christ says this, and it means this, and then somewhere else in The Bible someone else says that, and it means that, and the two things are contradictory, and does the True Christian put more weight into what Christ says and not as much weight in the viewpoint that contradicts what Christ says? Those are my words not Frank's, and what I find very important is the fact that I can speak to Frank, and ask my own questions. I can't ask Christ questions. I can't ask Josiah Warren questions. I can't ask Alex Jones questions. I can't even ask Ron Paul questions, I tried, seriously tried, without success, or with limited success. I can ask you questions, and you generously offer answers. That is an indirect way of asking Christ questions, but you then point me to The Bible, and you tell me that is where you get your answers. But your answers are yours, not The Bible, you translate, generously, to me, without deceit. How valuable is that, and so I may be asking, some day, questions directed at Frank, concerning what he thinks Jesus said about this or that, and in particular I may go into the places where I have a contention with what is written in the Bible. Original sin is a concept that I find to be very contentious for example. I find the concept of someone being tortured and murdered for my sins to be a contentious idea, for another example, and we have spoken about that, but I have not put my "pony in that show" at this point, or I may not care to resolve things such as those things, having no real interest in doing so, while, or especially while, there are so many other questions I have concerning the work on Political Economy done by Frank up to this point. Matt 24:23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo , here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold , I have told you before . 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold , he is in the desert; go not forth : behold , he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be . Those words apply very well to Alexander Hamilton and Ben Bernanke. To me those words do not apply to Frank. Frank may be acting from false belief, but to me it is obvious that Frank is not inventing falsehoods. Your measure of Frank appears to be such that you think Frank is dishonest. I see the opposite, and if Frank is dishonest then it can be demonstrated that Frank is dishonest, without having to rely upon belief. A dishonest person will produce lies, whereby the lies can be proven as lies, and that is routine to a point that is reasonably evident, or self-evident, in the form of inculpatory evidence. A fabricator of lies cannot admit mistake without having their lies which cover up their false authority over their victims exposed, and that is the point being pointed out by Frank concerning the false authorities that have taken over the power of government in our current world. If Frank is misled by information that he believes to be true then he is no different than any other man or woman walking the earth, and that is according to your belief as far as I understand it. Frank is no different in principle, perhaps different in degree, but who judges any case with any authority? "There is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ." Frank, as far as I can tell, has dealt with contentions in Christian religion far more than I ever want to, and again he appears to find use in the concept of asking people questions concerning their belief in The Bible and the idea that there are contentions concerning what is written in The Bible between what Christ says and what other people say. I think that Frank identifies true Christians, as he understands the concept, to be those who put more weight in the words of Christ when there is a contention, and I think Frank puts less weight (of trust?) in people who side with words that contend with what Christ says. I can be wrong. I don't know. "I must clean house tomorrow and will leave bookwork til I have free time again." Thanks for taking the time to answer my current confession, which may not appear to be one, as your viewpoint remains to be very valuable to me.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Mon Jul 22nd, 2013 06:06 pm |
|
510th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe,So my fault has to do with my communications with you being what they were, on the subject of competitive viewpoints in religion, and my viewpoints that may become something other than what they were, or are, and so I see a potential for being untrue to my past words in this regard. Thanks for being up front with your thoughts on the topic of religion. In regards to my comment: I can see error in reaching out to a self proclaimed Divine Creator in human flesh (as I think that I what I understood Frank to call himself in reference to the follow up to your discussion with him in the first link) for spiritual guidance. http://recordings.talkshoe.com/TC-90342/TS-764245.mp3 - Direct quote from Frank at about 1:33: ...how incredible it is to be a man in this form to be The Divine Creator in this form... You define his words as meaning: The idea, if I understand it, is that we are all trusted with life and therefore we are all trusted with the power to create, and therefore we are all in that connection divine creators creating by way of that power trusted into our care. That is contrary to the Word of God. John 1 says that Jesus is The Divine Creator: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made . 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men...14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. People have the ability to pro-create, but not to create. People cannot even decide for certain that they will pro-create. People have no power to do so. People cannot speak the world or life into existence. Frank has no power to create life. Only THE DIVINE CREATOR WHO IS JESUS CHRIST CAN CREATE LIFE. People cannot even produce a seed from nothing. A single person by themselves cannot even create pro-create. What exactly does the word divine mean? -------------------- Frank, as far as I can tell, has dealt with contentions in Christian religion far more than I ever want to, and again he appears to find use in the concept of asking people questions concerning their belief in The Bible and the idea that there are contentions concerning what is written in The Bible between what Christ says and what other people say. I think that Frank identifies true Christians, as he understands the concept, to be those who put more weight in the words of Christ when there is a contention, and I think Frank puts less weight (of trust?) in people who side with words that contend with what Christ says. The Bible is a book of harmony. You understand harmony from your understanding of music? What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible? Jesus said to study the scriptures because they are they that speak of him. The Bible is about the Lord Jesus Christ from start to finish. Your measure of Frank appears to be such that you think Frank is dishonest. I think this of anyone who denies the Lord Jesus Christ as the Promised Messiah of God: 2 John 1:7 KJV For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. And I think it is one thing to deny the Lord Jesus Christ personally, and I think it is another thing to lead other people astray. Frank is opposed to Christ and Frank is leading other people to be opposed to Christ. I realize my words are strong. I see the opposite, and if Frank is dishonest then it can be demonstrated that Frank is dishonest, without having to rely upon belief. A dishonest person will produce lies, whereby the lies can be proven as lies, and that is routine to a point that is reasonably evident, or self-evident, in the form of inculpatory evidence. Frank produces words contrary to the Word of God; therefore, Frank produces lies. Those words apply very well to Alexander Hamilton and Ben Bernanke. To me those words do not apply to Frank. Frank may be acting from false belief, but to me it is obvious that Frank is not inventing falsehoods. What? Frank has invented a false religion that spits in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ and makes his sacrificial death which is the atonement for sin null and void. There is no 3rd Testament or additional Contract between God and man. Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled , we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. 12 Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned. Which leads me to ask, what do you mean by original sin? The first time I even heard that term was in 1993 when I was watching the Three Musketeers movie. The term "original sin" is not in the Bible. What does it mean? I can be wrong. I can be wrong too. That is why we have the Written Word of God, the Bible and we are supposed to study it so that we can know and understand the truth. Satan is a liar and the father of lies. I think maybe you were given a lie when you were 10 in regards to trying to get God and the Devil to quit fighting. God does not wrestle with evil. We do. Estates appear to be the beginning of Legal Crime in the exchange of land use among the human beings. Here is a land purchase: http://www.biblestudytools.com/audio-bible/kjv/genesis/23.html You can listen to it if you like. I really don't even know what an estate is. Scott has been sick and I have been unable to do work, but will hopefully start tonight.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 08:36 am |
|
511th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
Hi bear,What exactly does the word divine mean? When I hear words written, or spoken, by you or Frank, I think I can understand what you or Frank means, and if I can't, then I can ask. When you define the meanings of words for Frank, then I have a problem with taking your version of what Frank says as an authority over what Frank says. This is basically my problem with literal meaning of words in any form whatsoever. The meaning requires an aware being reading the words. Which aware being has the authority to officially determine the meaning of words? Divine means whatever any aware being can become aware of the meaning of that word within the power of that being in time and place. If you ask me, then I can say that the word divine means a matter of fact. Divine means perfect perception of actual reality. Divine means that having the power of perfect perception of actual reality is a power that gains access to all other power if access to all other power is possible in actual reality. Since I do not have access to perfect perception of actual reality, in my view, I am not divine. I think that Frank is saying that our power is only limited by our present condition and it is our gift from God to be as powerful as God in due time, assuming that is what we want, and assuming we are willing to do what is necessary to reach for that goal. I know, for a fact, that I have a lot of trouble speaking for other people, whereby my ideas of what other people think are more often wrong, more often full of error, and less often less full of error, and I base that estimate of my power to know what other people think on actual trial and error, and I don't base that estimate of my power to know what other people think on baseless assumption. What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible? I plan on attending talks with Frank each Wednesday. If the above question is worth asking, then it is worth asking Frank, since my personal contentions with what I consider to be contradictions in The Bible are already on the table. Example: The concept of someone other than me being punished for my wrong doing is counter to my own understanding of reality. If there are contradictions between what Jesus says and what someone else says in the King James version of The Bible, to be specific, then Frank may be able to point those out, since it is my idea (perhaps wrong) that Frank knows of these things. Please understand my viewpoint here on this point of actual words in The King James version of The Bible being what they are, where those words exist on their own, and then, on the other hand, there can be an observer who observes those words, you can observe those words, I can observe those words, and Frank can observe those words. If the words here contradict the words there, then that happens with, or without, someone observing the contradiction. An example would be an example. I don't have one. Who knows of one? I don't. I can imagine that there is a possible contradiction, but without having the actual words printed in an actual King James version of The Bible, in front of me, my imagination constitutes a contention. You wrote: What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible? I don't know how to answer that question. Jesus is not available for questioning, not to me. Is there a contradiction written into the King James version of The Bible whereby words attributed to Jesus say something to the effective of "go left" and another person is attributed as having said "go right," and that would be an example of a contradiction written, in print, into a version of The Bible, such as a copy of The King James version of The Bible. I am working at being specific, so as to zero in on something specific, so as not to fall victim to error associated with ambiguity, such as often is the case where there is miscommunication. What contentions exist between Jesus and the rest of the Bible? I may not understand the meaning of the word "contentions," so I work at clarifying the meaning of the question. Frank is opposed to Christ and Frank is leading other people to be opposed to Christ. I realize my words are strong. I think that your words could be backed up with actual inculpatory evidence proving the charge of guilt. In the first place you do not share the same understanding of who is Jesus Christ. While your leader is your leader, a being of significance to you, known to you, as you can accurately identify this being as being Jesus Christ, the same being is not the being known to Frank, as far as I can tell. You are, in that respect, blaming Frank for opposing a being that Frank does not even know, perhaps, and the Jesus Christ that Frank does know, may be altogether a different being, so your accusations are in that way an error of misidentification. Your claim of guilt concerns someone you know being someone that Frank opposes, when it appears obvious to me that Frank does not even know the someone that you know. If Frank does not know the someone you know, how can Frank oppose someone he does not even know? As far as I know Frank has tried to find as much information as he can about a Jesus Christ, and his efforts have uncovered enough information for Frank to form an opinion about a person who he considers to be Jesus Christ. Is the person Frank knows as Jesus Christ the same Jesus Christ as the person you know as Jesus Christ? If it is not the same person, then your charge of guilt is an obvious case of misidentification. If you do not oppose John Doe, and then you find out that Henry Smith does opposed John Doe, is it not important to see which John Doe is opposed by Henry Smith? Also, it seems to me, your claim of opposition, charged against Frank, could be specific as to how Frank opposes a Jesus Christ, once it was found out, if it can be found out, which Jesus Christ Frank opposes. Frank produces words contrary to the Word of God; therefore, Frank produces lies. And we are all liars. So the concept of being specific here, is worth something to me, compared to the concept of being ambiguous. Your belief in knowing precisely what is, and what is not, the Word of God is not a power shared by everyone, and therefore the fact that you are right, and those who don't share what you believe are wrong, does not make other people liars, they are merely wrong, and here again, as if this cannot ever be understood, there is the concept of willful deception compared to merely being wrong. If you prefer not to acknowledge the difference between being willfully deceptive and merely being wrong, then I can accept that, so long as I know that is your preference. What? Frank has invented a false religion that spits in the face of the Lord Jesus Christ and makes his sacrificial death which is the atonement for sin null and void. Here are words that appear to be self-contradictory to me. I can be wrong. I can assure you that I am not being willfully deceptive, if you can acknowledge the difference, then please acknowledge the difference between being willfully deceptive and merely being wrong. I may be wrong in my thinking that your words just quoted are self-contradictory. If the Jesus Christ you know did do as you say, then no one can nullify what Jesus Christ did, and no one can void what Jesus Christ did, but your words claim that someone "makes his sacrificial death which is the atonement for sin null and void." If Frank believes in a religion that is not the religion that you believe then there are many possibilities that can explain the differences in your respective beliefs. 1. Your belief is absolutely true (not likely) 2. Frank's belief is absolute true (not likely) 3. Your belief is more accurate by a significant, demonstrable, measure compared to Frank's belief. 4. Frank's belief is more accurate by a significant, demonstrable, measure compared to your belief. 5. You are both sharing the same belief and you don't even know it. 6. I don't understand the meaning of belief. 7. Possibilities explaining the differences that are well beyond my understanding. 8. You are honest and truthful when you claim that Frank is a liar. 9. Frank is a liar 10. You are merely mistaken when you claim that Frank is a liar. 11. Frank is merely mistaken, he is not willfully lying. Which leads me to ask, what do you mean by original sin? The first time I even heard that term was in 1993 when I was watching the Three Musketeers movie. The term "original sin" is not in the Bible. What does it mean? I'm not sure what it means. If it is not in the Bible you believe in, then the actual words may be a reference to other words that are in the Bible you believe in. My idea about the words offered by Frank, so far as I understand them, concerning the concept of original sin, is such that there is a criminal deception that is routinely perpetrated by criminals, whereby criminals blame everyone for the crimes that the criminals perpetrate. So far as I understand the idea, therefore, the term original sin is equal to prejudice or collective punishment. In other words the idea is to blame the victims for being victims. A criminal mind, from what I gather, will rationalize the harm that the criminal does to the victims that the criminal targets. The criminal claims that the victims deserve to be harmed by the criminal. That is what I think is meant by the term original sin. If such a thing as original sin does not exist in the Bible that you believe in, then Frank may be talking about some other Bible, some other words, or I may be misunderstanding what Franks means when Frank refers to original sin. I can ask Frank questions on Wednesdays. So far as I have exchanged words with Frank, my use of the concept of original sin is meant to be collective punishment/prejudice/criminal falsehoods covering up crimes upon the innocent. I think maybe you were given a lie when you were 10 in regards to trying to get God and the Devil to quit fighting. God does not wrestle with evil. We do. Here we go again, it seems to me, moving back to the point where I feel as if I have to assure you that I do not think that I am the God that you believe in. It is not within my POWER to mediate the struggle between all good and all evil, so sure, at the age of 10, my imagination was creating (or not creating if I am incapable of creating anything) error in perspective. At the age of 10 I could have understood the true meaning of the words in The Bible as it was being taught to me by Sunday School teachers. I did not. At that time I had a problem with a guy dying for my sins. What was so horrible about me, at age 10, whereby a human being was tortured and murdered? Why do these people say that I have to eat the flesh of Jesus and drink the blood of Jesus? Those problems persist in my thinking, to this day, so I may invent, or be possessed by, errors in perspective because I refuse to understand the truth about a human, or not really human, sacrifice, done for me. My reaction then, and now, is no thanks. Please don't sacrifice Jesus for me, I don't deserve it. It was already done for you, it is said, and I say no, not for me, again, I do not deserve it, and I do not want it, and please don't ever sacrifice anyone else for me, please. I listened to the trade of silver currency, or money, for use of land used then to bury a woman named Sarah. Apparently the person named Abraham felt that the person named Ephron had somehow earned the four hundred shekels of silver. Frank offers information that traces the enforcement of exclusive use of the land to a few specific people, at the expense of many people. I am finding the same routine played out over and over again so I see recognizable patterns of behavior that are now predictable acts perpetrated by criminals as if criminals are all reading from the same script, or as if criminals are all driven by the same force. If you are dead set at convicting Frank as a willful liar, then that is how you will be, as you decide to be that way. If, on the other hand, it is acknowledge by you that Frank can be, as I am, merely prone to error in perspective, then that is your choice. I am in no position to judge which belief, yours, or Frank's, or my own unspecific belief, is more accurate. I do know that perception exists. I believe, specifically, that God is a word that can work to label the power that creates everything. Beyond that, my belief is unspecific unless I work to make it more specific. I can belief, or not believe, that Jesus Christ died for my sins, depending upon current thoughts, at any given time, but the concept is so foreign to my sense of morality that I'd prefer that no one is ever tortured and murdered on my account, ever. Since my goal is to help, now that I am not holding down a real job, when I can help, and much of my help involves the Real Estate business, so it is interesting, and potentially beneficial, for me to learn the history of Trusts, Estates, and those who claim to own the land. I trust that your children, and you, are in good hands.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 12:14 pm |
|
512th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe When I think of the term original sin, I think of this verse: Romans 5:12 KJV Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned : We sin because Adam sinned. It is in our nature to do so. Every single person alive has done something wrong at some point in time. I do not eat and drink the blood of Jesus. Ie eat and drink unleavened bread and juice of grapes. It is done to remember what Jesus CHOSE to do for us. At any time Jesus could have ended the process HE CHOSE to go thru. He CHOSE to go thru that process because He LOVES YOU, JOE T. KELLEY. As far as the King James Bible, it was the politically correct Bible removing all the notations in the margins of the Geneva Bible which pointed to the Pope and Church of Rome as the Anti-Christ/False Prophet. The Geneva Bible is the Bible that was brought over on the Mayflower. There is history of the English Bible here: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ original king james intro: http://www.genevabible.org/files/Original_1611_King_James_Version.pdf Here are comparisons of early English Bibles, word for word: http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/6_Version_Comparison.pdf Here are words that appear to be self-contradictory to me. I can be wrong. I can assure you that I am not being willfully deceptive, if you can acknowledge the difference, then please acknowledge the difference between being willfully deceptive and merely being wrong. You are right Joe, Frank cannot nullify or void what Jesus Christ did on the cross. You are very good with your words. What I should have said is that Frank has laid out a 3rd testament, a 3rd contract, a 3rd covenant which does not depend upon the Work of Christ to reconcile man to God. Hebrews 10:29 KJV Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye , shall he be thought worthy , who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified , an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? The Bible says this about Jesus Christ: Hebrews 13:8 KJV Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. The Bible is the record of the promised Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ who came, and the Lord Jesus Christ who is to come. There is no other revelation. There is no other covenant. There is no other way to the Creator God, but thru the Cross on which the Creator God hung and bleed and died. But that is not the end, Jesus Christ conquered death and rose again from the grave and comes and lives inside of those who place their trust in Him for the forgiveness of sin. He does not live inside of us thru the bread and the wine, but thru faith in Him for the forgiveness of sin. Frank cannot make a contract between good and evil. He cannot call a truce. He has no standing. You will do what you will do. I think I will do bookwork as I am weary to explain the Gospel of Christ any better. However, I do say that I think that if you would read the Bible, and I don't care which version you read, you may get the big picture. I think that you speak of that which you do not know, and I don't know how to make you know except that you have to search the scriptures yourself, and you have to let God be God, and if God says that He is going to be tortured and murdered on your behalf so that you might be purchased you from the death of sin, then that is the way it is. And I suppose that is child like faith. Divine means that having the power of perfect perception of actual reality is a power that gains access to all other power if access to all other power is possible in actual reality. assuming that is what we want, and assuming we are willing to do what is necessary to reach for that goal. Titus 3:5 KJV Not by works of righteousness which we have done , but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; The only thing required is Faith...Childlike faith. There will be a time when we have perfect perception, and that will be when we see Him. I John 3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : but we know that, when he shall appear , we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is ... 23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. But I do not know that we will be as powerful as God, or that we will be God, but I know that we cannot even imagine what God has in store for us: Isaiah 64:4 KJV For since the beginning of the world men have not heard , nor perceived by the ear , neither hath the eye seen , O God, beside thee, what he hath prepared for him that waiteth for him. Referring back to Isaiah: 1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV But as it is written , Eye hath not seen , nor ear heard , neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. -------------- Here is another instance of a man named Abraham and the use of land: http://www.biblestudytools.com/audio-bible/kjv/genesis/13.html but money is not exchanged. I have rambled.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 01:56 pm |
|
513th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
Joe, you ask:When the leadership that leads is TRUE, what happens? What happens is in Revelation chapter 21 http://www.biblestudytools.com/audio-bible/kjv/revelation/21.html Before that time comes, this happens: 2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. Jesus said these words:John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. Josf, Satan was not able to keep The Word of God locked into Latin away from the common people for ever. But now that we have the Word of God in our own language, Satan casts doubt as to whether the Bible really is in deed, The Word of God. I am not asking you to believe what teachers teach you, I am asking you to find an English copy of the Bible and read it. (I am assuming English is the only language you speak and comprehend.) I am asking you to believe the words in the Bible. Those words were written by the Holy Spirit of God as men were directed to write. http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2022:29
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 03:31 pm |
|
514th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am returning to a method of replying whereby I stop reading and I reply before continuing. I stopped here: We sin because Adam sinned. It is in our nature to do so. Every single person alive has done something wrong at some point in time. I do not eat and drink the blood of Jesus. Ie eat and drink unleavened bread and juice of grapes. It is done to remember what Jesus CHOSE to do for us. At any time Jesus could have ended the process HE CHOSE to go thru. He CHOSE to go thru that process because He LOVES YOU, JOE T. KELLEY. My point earlier, and even earlier than that, and now my point is, and probably my point will continue to be, that you know (or believe) what you know (or believe) and that is not the same thing as what I know (or believe) or what anyone else knows (or believes, including what Frank knows (or believes) so we may be speaking about apples and you may be speaking about oranges, and until such time as we know the same thing, we don't know the same thing. I find that viewpoint, being my own viewpoint, to be something I know (or something I believe), and it makes sense to me, in that context. I don't claim to know that what you know is not true. You are the one claiming to know that what Frank says is a lie, and my question earlier had to do with the difference between a willful lie and merely a case of mistaken identity, such as a person like Frank not knowing (or believing) what you know (or believe) about the person you know (or believe) to be Jesus Christ. If Frank says things about specific people, or people in general, and his claims of facts concerning those specific people, or those people in general, are not supported by any measures of information that Frank things, believes, or knows to be true, from his viewpoint, as if Frank is willfully distorting the information, or Frank is willfully fabricating false information, then that is what Frank does, and when such things can be shown to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, then I can form my opinion based upon that measure of that information. To me you have a unique quality of translating the words in the Bible you believe in, and to me your unique translations are not the actual words that you say are the words that are true. Your unique translations, to me, sound reasonable, while the actual words in the Bible you believe in do not sound reasonable to me, and there have been, and can be, examples provided. Here are comparisons of early English Bibles, word for word: Here are before me now two comparative studies of the origins of specific versions of Bibles. If there are two version then there is not one version. Which version do I believe in? What POWER could possibly be affecting me to choose one version over another version? What POWER could direct me to put more weight into the information found, or fabricated, whereby that information finds its way to me from many source, through Frank, to me? What POWER could direct me to put more weight into the links you provide to me? To me the information Frank offers concerning the history of The English Language is information that places a very clear picture into view as if my view of human existence has been incomprehensible by relative comparative judgement, by me, now that the history of the English language, that I know, or I believe, includes the information discovered by, or fabricated by, Frank. A language that works best for criminals, to me, a language the works best for Legal Criminals, to me, will be the language used by Legal Criminals, as language is a form of currency, like money is a form of currency, so it stands to reason, to me, that English is like Legal Monopoly Money, as English is another example of inculpatory evidence proving that Legal Criminals have been busy, and all one has to do to find those criminals is to follow that money, and in this case the money in question is called English, back to the source of it, and the source of English, is by the information offered by Frank, the same types of criminals, the criminals who have names, the criminals who lived on Earth, and the routine of crime remains to be the same routine. Lie So the claim that Frank is a liar, compared to what I see as the true liars, to me, is misplaced. You know Jesus Christ as you know Jesus Christ. I do not know the same Jesus Christ and apparently Frank does not know the same Jesus Christ too. I am not lying. I am willfully being honest. I do not know the Jesus Christ that you know, how could I? You can claim all day and night that I refuse to know the Jesus Christ that you know, and if it makes you feel better to make that claim, then that may be what you do, but your claim is based on what evidence? To me it is impossible for me, at this time, to accept the idea that the God I know to be the God I know to be, is capable of torture and murder, and that is the message I get from the words in The Bible. The words you offer, as a translation of the words in The Bible are different, significantly different, than the words in The Bible, so your words make significantly more sense to me, at least your words open the door to a possibility that I might some day know the Jesus Christ you know, but those are your words, not the words in The Bible. Examples can be provided again. I opened the links you offer for Translations and I see English. I can ask Frank for a specific example of evidence that he believes to be inculpatory evidence that proves, to Frank, where fabrications of false information have occurred during the history of printing The Bible form the original text into English. I can ask Frank for information specific to such things as original sin, as he uses the term, and the concept of human sacrifice, or this event that you know to be Jesus Christ dying for human sins, for reasons that you know, reasons that you try to explain, but reasons that I think your words are better at explaining, while I think that the words in The Bible are at best ambiguous, and at worst the words in The Bible are fabrications as Frank's information (which could be fabrications themselves) indicates. I can be very specific when asking Frank for specific references concerning specific words written in the original texts as those words were then translated into other languages with the final translation being done in the English language, and again, and here I can be specific, I have been specific already with my linking specific pages offered by Frank on this web page of mine, where I link where Frank publishes the history of the creation of the English language. It make much sense to me that the Legal Criminals are fully capable of inventing, producing, and maintaining forms of currency that work to their exclusive advantage. Looking further down the link on The Original 1611 King James Version I can't tell what those words mean, when I zoom in the words may as well be Greek. I have to go at this point the Network is not Net Working at Work.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 04:27 pm |
|
515th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
JoeHere are before me now two comparative studies of the origins of specific versions of Bibles. If there are two version then there is not one version. The point is that the versions are basically the same. Joe, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. You can ask 3 different people to translate a bunch of Greek and you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations. They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS. Ask you Russian friend...he has to explain words that he knows in Russian by using several English words sometimes. Sometimes he means one thing and it is hard for me to comprehend exactly what he means. So the point is that the King James "Version" is a TRANSLATION that was done and authorized by King James. In the link http://www.genevabible.org/files/Geneva_Bible/6_Version_Comparison.pdf on page 3 you will find an outline or the English Bible Translation Timeline (I have copied it below but it may be easier to read on that site): Short Chronology This information is nicely explained on this website http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/ which also includes a more detailed timeline. The point of knowing Christ Jesus the Lord is not me knowing him as something and you knowing him as something else and Frank knowing him as something else. The point is to know and understand the Bible and from there Jesus Christ is known. The Bible is reveals the Lord Jesus Christ so that we all might know Him AS HE IS. He is not a figment of an imagination to be known or made up. I point you to the Bible because it is the only way to know. I point you to an English Bible because it is the only language you know. If you know German I could point you to Martin Luther's Bible which he TRANSLATED from the Hebrew and Greek into German. That is the Bible used by the Amish. They still know German. The point is to have the WORD OF GOD in your own language so that you are not dependent upon any man or priest or government to tell you what God says. The Roman Church kept the Bible locked away in the Latin language and only the clergy could read and understand it. They could make up whatever they wanted to to make the people do what ever they wanted the people to do such as eat and drink the body and blood in order to get to heaven, or to pay indulgences in order to get sins forgiven or get family out of Purgatory (a place that is non-existent in the Bible). God does not require the payment of money or the drinking of and eating of the blood and flesh of Jesus. God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin. Faith is individual and no one can have faith or get you faith. You alone are responsible to have or not to have faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So, that is why I say read the Bible, an English Bible that has been Translated from the Original Hebrew and Greek (the same way that you are depending on Surgi to translate Russian history into English for his book). Here is some hearing for you  http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/2-peter/1-audio.html Even "religious" people argue about what "version" of the Bible to use. It is a distraction. Looking further down the link on The Original 1611 King James Version I can't tell what those words mean, when I zoom in the words may as well be Greek. Joe, that is because in Old English the letter s was written as f and the letter u was written with a v. I can read it all either. That is another reason for modern "versions" or translations. We don't read Old English. The words thee and thou are confusing enough for some folks, much less trying to trade letters in and out of works so that they make sense. I can't read all of the introduction to that original 1611 Bible, because I don't have a modern translation of the introduction, but the introduction isn't part of the Bible. Those pages are all about how the King of England authorized scholars to translate the Bible into the English Language. (I remember reading Patrick Henry's work opposing the constitution. I had a hard time understanding early American English.) (Let me also add, that if people in China wanted to read Frank's covenant, but didn't know English, what good would it be to them. Maybe they could get someone in China to translate it for them. Would the end product still be Frank's covenant if the translator was doing an honest job? What if 3 translators were doing an honest job, would every single word in Chinese be exactly the same? No, when it takes multiple words to explain a single English word the different translators may choose different Chinese words to accomplish the explanation. What if Surgi were to translate Frank's work, would he translate it the same way another Russian person using exactly the same Russian words to replace the English words? Would the words still be Frank's, but in a different language? Would the intent and content and covenant still be the same if Surgi were to do an honest job at the translation? What if multiple people worked together to make the translation into Russian. Would it maybe be a little better translation? What if the translator had an ulterior motive? Would that not become evident when comparing it to multiple translations done by different people? The point of me offering the link of the multiple English translations together was that the author of that link set out to find out the differences between the translations and found very few here are his words as found on his page 2: I began this study as a skeptic, expecting to discover significant differences between these early translations and the King James. I happily found that there are no differences in the major points of faith, but there are many subtle differences in meaning and many passages are much easier to understand in one version than in another. I found no one version that seemed to be the best in every instance, each one has its strengths and weaknesses. Now I am going to do bookwork, or I will not get bookwork done...and that was exactly what I was starting when I was trying to pick up where I left off and found your words: [quote[So my sentences are a product of my intentions, and your help helps greatly in bridging the gap between what I intend to say, and what the reader may, or may not, get. Your work appears to me to be of great value to me. I've told you about the English Writing Course of Study I paid for, so as to allow me to learn to write well, and the teacher supplied something that was powerless compared to what you supply. Does that exemplify something worth knowing? So, I ask: Which version of Joe Quotes is Joe Quotes? Should we change the title? bear's Thoughts on Joe Quotes? Or bear's Editing of Joe quotes? Or, is Joe Quotes Joe's Quotes? To me that is just like the Bible. It was written in a language other than English and several "bears" have given us the Bible from Hebrew and Greek to English. And then another bear says, hey, I think we should add a word here to make it easier to understand. Hey you know we use "u" now instead of "v" and we use "s" now instead of "f" how about it if I fix those words so you can read them more easily. Oh, and that passage I gave you to listen too...Peter was talking about his tabernacle...he was refering to his earthly body. Did you get that Joe? I know that because I am used to reading those words (King James Translation): 2 Peter 1:13 Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; 14 Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me or would these words be better for you (http://www.biblestudytools.com/bbe/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14) (Basic English Translation): 13 And it seems right to me, as long as I am in this tent of flesh, to keep your minds awake by working on your memory; 14 For I am conscious that in a short time I will have to put off this tent of flesh, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. , or would these words be better for you http://www.biblestudytools.com/gnt/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14 (Good News Translation): 13 I think it only right for me to stir up your memory of these matters as long as I am still alive. 14 I know that I shall soon put off this mortal body, as our Lord Jesus Christ plainly told me. or we could go back to Wycliff in 1300's and get this http://www.biblestudytools.com/wyc/2-peter/passage.aspx?q=2-peter+1:13-14 (which I find difficult even though I am familiar with King James English): 13 Forsooth I deem justly [Forsooth I deem just], as long as I am in this tabernacle, to raise you in admonishing; 14 and I am certain, that the putting away [for the putting off] of my tabernacle is swift, by this that our Lord Jesus Christ hath showed to me. See what I mean jelly bean? Or you can sew buttons on your underwear...and I remember there was something that I thought was mean when you said it to mean and now I can't even remember what it was, but it was another one of those things that you used to say when you were a child and you meant it as funny. After you explained it I thought it was funny too. Do you remember what it was? Oh ya, Guess what? Chicken Butt...but did you know, Joe, that I thought you were really saying Guess what? Chicken Crap, and not the nice word Crap, but the SH word. See Joe, we both speak english, but we are from 2 different families and we use words and jokes differently. I never in my life heard Chicken Butt from my father, but I did hear Chicken SH and it wasn't put nicely. Soooo, as far as versions go, I hope the water is more clear. Now, I hope I will do bookwork.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 06:25 pm |
|
516th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
7/23/13 page 109 Alexander Hamilton, connected too well to the British that was supposedly defeated in The Revolution, worked for and then had ready victims in what was then a Consolidated Government after The Federalist Papers (campaign promises made to be broken) Sold We The People a False Front, where The Articles of Confederation worked well enough to aid in The Revolution, but did not work well enough for a Banking Monopoly to take hold, so Alexander Hamilton, and his ilk, got their National Debt. Considering discussion here: a) "ready victims" (immediately available) modified as follows for readability (Joe, if this is not readable, please say so as I may have gotten carried away trying to make it too readable. It took me nearly an hour of tweaking. Can you imagine how the translators of the Bible felt? (I wonder what they would think about the words "carried away" and "tweaking"): Alexander Hamilton (connected too well to the British that were supposedly defeated in The Revolution) worked for and then had ready victims in what was then a CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT after The Federalist Papers (campaign promises MADE to be broken) SOLD to “We The People” A FALSE FRONT (The Articles of Confederation worked well enough to aid in The Revolution, but did not work well enough for a BANKING MONOPOLY to take hold). So, Alexander Hamilton and his ilk got their NATIONAL DEBT.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Tue Jul 23rd, 2013 07:18 pm |
|
517th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I skipped ahead to this: They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS. I meant this: you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations If you have an issue with my word choices, as you appear to have here, I can be less ambiguous and I can be more precise with my word choices as I am now trying to explain. I meant that there are more than one translations (I chose the word versions), which was an intent by me to acknowledge the fact that "you may get idiosyncrasies in the 3 different translations," and therefore the message in one may not be the same message in another. They are not VERSIONS, they are TRANSLATIONS. Now you are using capital letters to highlight something. What are you intending to highlight? I've done wrong? I am going to go back to where I left off in the first new reply I have yet to read. Frank cannot make a contract between good and evil. He cannot call a truce. He has no standing. Actually Frank has done so, according to Frank. You claim, as if factually, that Frank cannot do so, when in fact, Frank has done so, and then there is the separate measure of what exactly is done by Frank, whereby the words are left behind and the actual actions stand as being what the actual actions are in fact. I am not Frank, so I don't actually know what Frank has done, other than reading the words, and listening to his words, and so I know what I read, and I know what I hear, so you can claim what you claim, and I can know that you claim what you claim, because I can read your words too. What actually happens? If Frank says that there is significance to the Roman Pontiff resigning, then I am less able to understand what that means, if my perspective is compared to Frank's perspective concerning what he measures as the fight between good and evil. You believe what you believe. Frank believes what Frank believes. I seek to know better, and my power to believe is, to me, power less, and often counter productive. You will do what you will do. I think I will do bookwork as I am weary to explain the Gospel of Christ any better. However, I do say that I think that if you would read the Bible, and I don't care which version you read, you may get the big picture. I think that you speak of that which you do not know, and I don't know how to make you know except that you have to search the scriptures yourself, and you have to let God be God, and if God says that He is going to be tortured and murdered on your behalf so that you might be purchased you from the death of sin, then that is the way it is. And I suppose that is child like faith. The many Translations of The Bible say different things, and much of what I've already read is ambiguous, or beyond my understanding as to what the intended meaning is in those ambiguous words. As far as child like faith, there is what appears to be a contradiction, since I've heard a Translation that makes the claim that childlike things are to be left behind. I may be mistaken as to such an intended meaning, of course. I am not, nor do I pretend to be, nor have I ever claimed to be, an authority concerning any Translation of The Bible. I also do not claim to be an authority concerning what God says. The only thing required is Faith...Childlike faith. There will be a time when we have perfect perception, and that will be when we see Him. That is good news for those in that group. I am happy for those in that group. My current understanding is such that I am not in that group, unless told otherwise. But I do not know that we will be as powerful as God, or that we will be God, but I know that we cannot even imagine what God has in store for us: That appears to be another contradiction, but I understand that it is more than likely that the contradiction is a product of my error in perspective. If I do not believe, as I'm told that I must believe, despite every attempt to believe, then I am told that I don't go to heaven. Is that true or not? Is that imagined into being and therefore not true, or is that the type of thing that is set in stone, non-negotiable, factual, real, known to be my fate, beyond doubt, and therefore having nothing to do with the power to imagine what may, or many not, be my fate? We, you say, will have perfect perception. That can be imagined by me, and when I imagine that, I imagine God. I am told that failing to do what I can't do reduces me to some lesser fate than what you get for your ability to believe? You get perfect perception. I get the lake of fire? I get from Genesis 13 a message that sounds like God subsidy, so what do I know? I know enough not to claim knowledge of the word of God, as my ability to demonstrate such authority is not merely weak, it appears to be demonstrably absent. If I imagine God, a perfection of perception, then I imagine a power capable of avoiding resort to torture and murder, especially regarding human children, so much for my childlike dreams? I am asking you to find an English copy of the Bible and read it. I read parts, and I get God subsidy. I get ambiguous words that convey either no meaning to me, or the meaning is anything I may care to make of it, since the meaning is ambiguously conveyed to me, and again, sure, the fault is all mine, but that is the current state of my being in relation to any specific translation (that is not a version) of any Bible. As to the actual, real, word of God, your claim of authority as to knowing what the actual, real, word of God could be demonstrated in fact. You say this, and you say that, and that, according to you, is the Word of God, and as far as I am concerned, that could be true, factual, real, or that could not be true, factual, and real. I don't believe it is true, factual, or really the Word of God because I can't, and no matter how many times I keep asking, you keep repeating the same suggestions, and so I read, and what do I get? God subsidy. God pays favorites. If that is God, it is not the God I know, it is not the God I believe, for the same reasons already stated. God aught to be able to figure a way out of playing favorites. I am asking you to believe the words in the Bible. Which words? I believe that to fear God is to hate evil. Those words I get, and I get those words loud and clear. I do not believe the slaughter of babies was done by God to accomplish some nebulous goal. I do not believe that the torture and slaughter of Jesus Christ was done to excuse my sins, or some other wording that appears to mean the same thing, as if I am being blamed for Jesus Christ being tortured and murdered. I don't believe such thing, it makes no sense, and if there is a God that is going to torture and murder more people because I'm not obeying words written in English, whereby I have to forgo my sense of reason, and I have to blindly follow orders, without question, that appear to be unreasonable, then I have a problem with that God. That God, to me, sounds much more like what I can conjure up as being The Devil. I do not claim to be an authority on what God is, or is not, according to anyone else but me. God to me is real, and real nice, a power to perfectly perceive everything to such a degree of power as to then be able to create things and those things created then are able to create things of beauty, like songs, like paintings, and even beautiful things like happiness. So, sure, I am all set to get thrown in the Lake of Fire and that happens despite your best efforts to encourage me to believe, by reading an English Translation of The Bible. I've read. I've read before you ever knew me. I get the same reaction each time. The words are ambiguous, or the words are specifically abhorrent to my sense of reason. Childlike faith? I did that at age 10. I've told you already. My childlike faith was not signing onto the concept of some guy being tortured and murdered for me. There has to be a more Godly way to deal with human beings, it seemed to me then, and it still seems to me now. Sure, again, sure, I'm all wrong, send me off to the Lake of Fire, that is how it is, until who knows, I don't. I am not disbelieving, so that aught to be understood, if by now it is not been made clear. Those words were written by the Holy Spirit of God as men were directed to write. Written in Greek? English language, apparently, is like Federal Reserve Notes, as far as my understanding goes currently, and that fits the Big Picture, since that could easily explain the lack of capacity to convey meaning with those English words arranged in those ways in those Translations (not versions). The point is that the versions are basically the same. Joe, the New Testament was originally written in Greek. I can ask Frank as to specific words in specific original texts and what is added or subtracted concerning specific things. I have been thinking about this all day, and I was reminded of a specific example already stumbled upon by me in Frank's writing, and the example concerned the message contained in the parable about the son who took an inheritance from his father, spent it all on having fun, and then returned to the father broke. I forgot the names of the people in the parable. If it is Frank's contention that the words are fiction, then that is based upon his viewpoint. If it is your contention that the words are true, then that is based upon your viewpoint. If other people have similar viewpoints then those are their viewpoints. If the Greek words (or Latin, or Hebrew, or whatever) of the original documents mean this, or that, and the English words meant this for awhile, and then that for awhile, then there can be a comparison done from original meaning to translated meaning, and in that example I remember it was Frank's claim that words were added to the message that were words never in the original message. The point is to know and understand the Bible and from there Jesus Christ is known. If you say the words in The Bible are true accounts of real things, such as the example I remembered about the story you had already shown to me, about the father and the son who wasted all that money, then that is your claim, based upon your belief, and it may be true, or not true, as far as I know. Frank says that words were added to that story, which he calls the words a parable, I think that is what he says, I can check. Frank may be wrong too. How do I know? I can know, eventually, by actually getting the actual document written in the original form, and then I can see if Frank is correct, where there are words added, to make the story different in specific ways, not ambiguous ways, specific ways, where someone, sometime, changes the message from the original to something different. If that can be demonstrated as true, then your claim of the Word of God being the English Translation would require that the additional words added to the original copies were added by God, through whoever did the edit work. That can be true too. I don't know. The Bible is reveals the Lord Jesus Christ so that we all might know Him AS HE IS. He is not a figment of an imagination to be known or made up. I don't know anyone who claims that Jesus Christ was made up. I have read enough of Frank's work that proves to me that Frank believes that Jesus Christ was a human being. Much in The Bible is not about Jesus Christ, and now we are back to Frank's contention concerning Christians who may, or may not, put more weight into words in the Bible quoting Jesus Christ where there may be contentions (or contradictions) with words quoted from other people. I could add that to the list of things I can ask Frank, if I run out of specific things I want to speak to Frank about concerning my power perspective relating to political economy. I point you to the Bible because it is the only way to know. The message I get from those words are such that I would need to find the original documents and I would need to translate the words myself, since I do not trust the English language versions now that I understand the history of English, at least as far as the information offered by Frank is concerned. Counterfeit Language makes sense to me. English is a counterfeit language. I point you to an English Bible because it is the only language you know. If you know German I could point you to Martin Luther's Bible which he TRANSLATED from the Hebrew and Greek into German. That is the Bible used by the Amish. They still know German. If I have to learn a new language then directly going to the original documents, to me, makes the most sense, and that is what Frank appears to have done. You can claim, all day, that I believe in what Frank says, which is not true, if that is what you are going to do, or if that is what you are already doing. The information offered by Frank is significant information for reasons that I can explain, such as the history of English, and such as the example of that specific parable concerning the father and son where the son wastes all that money. The point is to have the WORD OF GOD in your own language so that you are not dependent upon any man or priest or government to tell you what God says. That is odd, because that is the point I am pointing out to you, when I do not trust the many translations done by the many men, priests, and employees of so called government. God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin. That is a very good point of contention I have right now. What is the original meaning of the word "atonement" and "sin"? What is the original words, any sentence, any paragraph, any quote by Jesus Christ saying, that God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin? That sounds like a very good way that I can briefly put the question to Frank. You alone are responsible to have or not to have faith. Here again I am seeing contradiction. If I ask and there is no answer, then I am unable to respond, I have no ability to respond, there is no faith within my power to respond. I lack that ability. If I lack that ability, then the faith has to arrive from an external power, and why not? Why does God not simply give faith to me? If you are sent to me to help me, then I should find the original text and get the word of God from the mouths of the people God used to speak to man, if that is at all true, what you say is true. So then, there is Frank, out of nowhere, and he just happens to have done all that study work, finding the original documents, and doing the manual translations himself? Is that how God answers me? Am I to act childlike again, in this case, like I acted when I was a child at age 10? So, that is why I say read the Bible, an English Bible that has been Translated from the Original Hebrew and Greek (the same way that you are depending on Surgi to translate Russian history into English for his book). There is English again. You use the word "depend," and I am supposed to agree that I depend upon Sergey for accurate information? I do no such thing. From nothing there is now a version of Russian History, which can be called a translation of Russian History, and it is far more competitive to me compared to no translations. I do not depend upon it, as if to say that I would reject any competitive offer of another translation, and then I have two from which to compare one to the other looking for similarities, looking for contradictions, and it is often the case, but not always the case, where one is demonstrably more accurate, and therefore better, than the other one. Here is a few possible tests in view. 1. A parable or news report concerning a son and a father and a lot of money spent on having a good time. 2. A claim that can be traced back to actual words written in original documents concerning that which God requires, without misunderstanding, and without ambiguity. Even "religious" people argue about what "version" of the Bible to use. It is a distraction. So now you say that those words are for me, for my hearing, as if I don't know that these arguments over who knows, who is the greater authority, over what God did or did not say, is a diversion? Those pages are all about how the King of England authorized scholars to translate the Bible into the English Language. (I remember reading Patrick Henry's work opposing the constitution. I had a hard time understanding early American English.) What is the full measure of that King? I have my measure of Patrick Henry, which I base upon his words and deeds, as far as it is possible to trust the origin of the words and deeds having been attributed to Patrick Henry. We can cut past a lot of words concerning our differences in religious belief, it seems to me, if it is possible to trace back the original message in the original document that claims to say that God requires this or that such as your claim as you make that claim earlier in this discussion. (Let me also add, that if people in China wanted to read Frank's covenant, but didn't know English, what good would it be to them. Maybe they could get someone in China to translate it for them. Here is where my thinking has been with Frank and his work. To me the effort to hold the Roman Cult to account is limited in scope, since it is my understanding that the most powerful humans are now creating World War III. The supposed Westernization of China, for example, indicates to me that these most powerful of human beings, whatever names they hide behind, are gaining power in China, and they are not using Uniform Commercial Code, or Nohide Law, or Admiralty Law in China, or are they? That may be a key point? Does the "westernization" of China actually mean that Admiralty Law is now being enforced in China? Would the end product still be Frank's covenant if the translator was doing an honest job? I can't see Frank's ideas working for the average Joe. Compared to Trial by Jury, as explained in the Essay by Lysander Spooner, the work done by Frank is much too complex, unusable, for most people, and that does not make it unusable for all people. Those who voluntarily need complex associations find ways to find agreement, so Frank's work might help them. I don't know. The idea Frank has is similar to mine in that there has to be something replacing Legal Crime, something to work toward, or Legal Crime will be the Default. I see much more value in moving forward to a Democratic Federated Republic, with Trial by Jury based upon sortition, such as the example already set with The Articles of Confederation. It was an example of Free Market Government, complete with Free Market Money (whiskey when the Gold was driven out by fraud money). But Frank may be much more pessimistic than I am, so he may be thinking in terms of having total collapse, and then a necessity of building everything back up from ashes. He wants to get a head start, so do I, but that does not mean that I agree with the specific methods. I see getting rid of The FED, and doing so by inventing, producing, and maintaining competitive Legal Monies, at State levels (republics), or even County, City, Town, Company, Family, or Individual levels. It was Josiah Warren who proved that individual are fully capable of being their own central bankers. Would the words still be Frank's, but in a different language? Would the intent and content and covenant still be the same if Surgi were to do an honest job at the translation? What if multiple people worked together to make the translation into Russian. Would it maybe be a little better translation? I don't think that you get the point offered by Frank. Frank does not claim to be the leader of anyone; other than to lead by example, and to offer, voluntarily, the advice that each individual person has to become their own competent leader themselves. Here is where I have a problem with Frank, again, since his example sets the bar way too high, or if high is the wrong word, then the word I want to use, the word I can repeat, is too complex. Frank sets a too complex example. But the point is not complex. The point is that each person has to develop their own level of competence in defending their own existence while they are human beings in this thing we call reality, and that has to be done because, according to Frank, the system is evil. That is another contention I have with Frank, since I do not blame the system, I think it is much more important to hold the actual people who are evil accountable for the actual evil that they perpetrate. Again, to me, that can be attributable to my own error in understanding the message intended by Frank. What if the translator had an ulterior motive? Would that not become evident when comparing it to multiple translations done by different people? If I ask Frank if he knows of any messages in the original documents claimed to be written by people who were directed by God, those original documents that constituted The Bible, I ask Frank, if in those original documents does he know of any words that actually convey the requirements made by God in reference to your claim, then I can get an answer, and I can then have, possibly, a specific document, I can then have the original symbols in the original language, and I can have the actual meanings of those original symbols, perhaps. Is that stretching things too far? I began this study as a skeptic, expecting to discover significant differences between these early translations and the King James. I happily found that there are no differences in the major points of faith, but there are many subtle differences in meaning and many passages are much easier to understand in one version than in another. I found no one version that seemed to be the best in every instance, each one has its strengths and weaknesses. Case closed? To me there are specific things worthy of greater care in study to find the original message intended by God, if such a message does exist. Example: God requires faith in the death of Christ as atonement for sin. What is the original arrangement of symbols that leads to that message right there in those English words? I can ask Frank tomorrow, to see if he can offer a competitive answer. Did you get that Joe? Please excuse my failure to get that, in this case, I can't remember Peter and a tabernacle. My son just called and said "be outside in 2 minutes," as the Real Estate Agents are rushed today, and I am asked to go help look at a house.
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 24th, 2013 06:37 am |
|
518th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
modified as follows for readability (Joe, if this is not readable, please say so as I may have gotten carried away trying to make it too readable. It took me nearly an hour of tweaking. Can you imagine how the translators of the Bible felt? (I wonder what they would think about the words "carried away" and "tweaking"): Alexander Hamilton (connected too well to the British that were supposedly defeated in The Revolution) worked for and then had ready victims in what was then a CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT after The Federalist Papers (campaign promises MADE to be broken) SOLD to “We The People” A FALSE FRONT (The Articles of Confederation worked well enough to aid in The Revolution, but did not work well enough for a BANKING MONOPOLY to take hold). So, Alexander Hamilton and his ilk got their NATIONAL DEBT. bear, That is easily understood by me, easy to read, an improvement from the original. If there is intent to improve accuracy then the power to do so is at least directed toward reaching that goal, and that can be compared, reasonably, to any attempt made by anyone, at any time, whereby the power of will is employed to reach the goal of deceiving targeted people who are targeted for some reason. I am going to charge into an area of view that you may not, at first, understand. I've warned you in the past about things that I have witnessed on my path through this process of setting aside what I call the Monopoly viewpoint, and picking up pieces of the puzzle that improve, by way of comparative study, intentionally more accurate viewpoint - of anything. Anything. I've learned this habit in many ways, including the work required to fix mechanical things. If I have earned a title in life then my title could be mechanic. My title earned could be Heavy Equipment Operator. Example: My brother borrowed my other brother's tractor to level some ground in preparation for a fence. He tried to level the ground, he made it worse instead, he asked for my help. It has been over 5 years, easy, since I've operated any heavy equipment. I get in the machine and I doubt my ability to operate this machine. I've never operated this specific type of machine, and not this machine specifically. Problem: ground is not level. Solution: create a solution. Try this, try this, try this, try this, which works better? Go with that which works better, let go that which does not work better. Get off the machine, my brother says thanks, what do I owe you, he asks. I say nothing, I like to help. Which viewpoint works better, specifically, and what is the goal? I must know better, even if I no longer want to know better. Being alive can be a problem, and the only solution that works is knowing better. The warning I want to charge into is such that really horrible things become acutely, intimately, known. I've warned you about that, at least I have tried to warn you about that, and so this is not an easy path to take, if you are going down the same path I went down, the same path I am traveling, down, or level, or up, or whatever actual direction I am going, despite my willful goal of reaching for a more accurate perspective: knowing better. Were I am going is where I will go because I want to know better. You may not understand now, you may never understand, but I am going to warn you, for future reference, about rewards and punishments. I will not be your helpful friend, able to give you credit, and thank you, for things that do not appear to me as helping me. I would be false to myself, and it would be counterfeit gratitude in that case. What I am saying is that this path is not often rewarding, and very difficult in fact, when dealing with other people who are not yet able to see what you see. True or not. There are old sayings that ring true, and these old sayings ring true even when I, personally, am wrong, the saying still rings true. If you speak the truth have a foot in the stirrup. Long and torturous (relatively speaking) is the road where words are offered honestly, without care in considering the possible costs, because error in perspective is ubiquitous. Example: This is an event that I may have reported to you already. In this room were assembled many people who were gathering in reaction to current events that included Waco and subsequent NEWS about The Militia Movement, so called. I was listening to speakers, and the speaker spoke words that were fashionable but false, concerning the concept of government. I do not remember the actual words. I raised my hand from the back of the room, the speaker allowed me to speak, and my words were simple and to the point. In unison the whole room turned their heads to me shouting the word "no" at me. I was not aware of it, specifically, at the time, but the friend who was with me, the same guy who helped me get on the Congressional Ballot, told me what happened. It hurts. It hurts worse when those I love express to me words that kill me, because I speak the truth. Example: While my mother was dying we talked, and I babbled on, and on, and on, about Chem trails, and Legal Crime, and often was the case that my mother would ask questions as if seeking to validate my viewpoint, to which I responded with references, and studies, and books, and quotes, and my own measures such as my Joe's Law measure, on and on. I thought, during those times, that my mother was listening, and at least entertaining the information as being possibly valid. We even shared some things, such as a skepticism concerning the official story about the Kennedy murders, by Legal Criminals. Anyway, one day, and she may have been slipping at that point, having suffered long with lack of oxygen up to that point, and she turns to me while I was speaking, on and on, as I sometimes do, and she interrupts me, and with a look of what looks like revulsion, she ask incredulously: "You don't really believe that...do you...Joe." Not a question mark, really, it was a charge, a conviction, a sentence, and punishment all rolled up into one sentence. Eyes roll. People whisper. I get those looks. People learn not to talk to me. Years, decades, a long time, a road traveled, and lessons learned along the way. You understand this, I trust, because you travel a similar road, perhaps not the same viewpoint, but a similar viewpoint. How is this for a quote? "Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold." Leo Tolstoy The reward for seeking the goal of improved perspective, to me, is life: when I no longer want life I can go the other way.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 24th, 2013 12:58 pm |
|
519th Post |
|
bear Guest
|
JoeI will not be your helpful friend, able to give you credit, and thank you, for things that do not appear to me as helping me. I would be false to myself, and it would be counterfeit gratitude in that case. What I am saying is that this path is not often rewarding, and very difficult in fact, when dealing with other people who are not yet able to see what you see. A helpful friend is honest. Honest to themselves and honest to their friends. An unhelpful friend is dishonest. Dishonest to themselves and dishonest to their friends. Dishonesty can come in the form of trying to soften the truth or to avoid hurting another person because the truth may be too damaging to the friendship. I prefer an honest friend. Truth spoken in love is friendship. Truth spoken in hate is not honest. I trust that you will speak the truth in love. I am not talking of a romantic love, I am speaking of a love every human should have for their fellow human: Brotherly Love. Truth spoken in brotherly love is helpful. I too try as hard as I may, to speak the truth to you in brotherly love. At the point you ask me not to speak truth, I will stop. That too would be out of brotherly love: Kindness and Respect for your boundaries. I think helpful friendship can exist with boundaries. However, then there are boundaries, so the friendship does not accomplish all that it may. I think that some people cannot exist with the damage honesty brings to their perception of reality. I understand much more than I understood when you first began to help me see. I still at times have a hard time accepting that the reality I once perceived never even existed. I think that people who cannot exist with the damage that the truth brings in a way are like people who are physically traumatized and protective shock takes over the physical body to preserve the internal organs so that live can be prolonged. I think some comas work in that fashion as well. There are also times that doctors put people into comas thru medicines so that the body can work on healing itself. Joe, the reality of Legal Crime and the softness that most Americans have been brought up in clash. Your mom had hard times, but she did not see the physical slaughter of her family. She did not see her children starve to death. For the most part, life in America is good. We have plenty to eat and modern conveniences. Rarely do we face wondering where the next morsel of bread will come from. There are people in Haiti, children...families, who are lucky to have one small meal a day. So, it was hard for your mom to really understand all that you understand. She was dealing with her life slipping away. It is hard to wake up even when health exists. It was hard for her to even comprehend that you could believe the things that you believe. My mom for the most part does not want to hear it. It is too much. It is much easier to exist in the perception of the goodness and abundance that does exist instead of the abundance that could exist. It is more comforting to believe that votes count and that elected, paid, officials care and want to do good for the people they represent. I remember when looking at the trails in the sky brought horror to me. It was too much. I remember when you showed me the Economic Hit Man. The horror of what people do for money to other people and countries was too much. I remember when I saw Gadhafi murdered for public viewing. It was too much. Truth was too much. It hurt too much to know the truth and to have my pie in the sky perception shattered into a million pieces. It doesn't hurt so much now. My pop knows. He was a soldier in Korea like your dad. All he had to say to me was, "I don't know what can be done about it." I still have a hard time with the Pilger information. Perhaps it is too much. Perhaps I rather believe that it is one-sided reporting. Perhaps I think that legal criminals within our country have destroyed our country by doing evil things to other countries so that we will easily be turned upon ourselves and then be overrun be the ilk of the legal criminals existing in other countries. Perhaps I would rather believe that Pilger is being used to turn us upon ourselves so that we can easily be turned. That one side of my perception. Perhaps it is too much for me to divide the patriotism that has been ingrained in me to accept that "our country" has been so evil. I understand that it is not "out country" that has done anything. I understand that it is specific evil people in our country who have done specific evil things. But I also have been taught that the Communists will rewrite our history so that we do have a foundation to stand upon. I am not seeing red. I am stating something that I have been taught. So it is hard to sort truth and error when error has been mixed with truth and accepted for one's whole life. "We" funded Japan. "We" paid to have those Batan Death March Soldiers walk that road to their death and torture. I will not tell the widow in our town that information. She is 90+. What good would that information do other than to crush her? Joe, I perceive that you hate the God that I love. That does not make me unhappy with your friendship. It makes me know that I have not explained well enough. There is so much I want to say. Or did you mean something different when you said you would not be my helpful friend? ...
|
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
| Posted: Wed Jul 24th, 2013 01:32 pm |
|
520th Post |
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
bear, I think that you and I are able to communicate well once again. We are not able to see a common viewpoint, as if one could exist, but we are able to find some of the commonalities. In other words no to this: Or did you mean something different when you said you would not be my helpful friend? I hope I can continue to help to the limits that are agreeable.
|
|||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
| Current time is 01:22 pm | Page: ... 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ... |
| Power Independence > Book > Book Resources > Final Editing | Top |
