Elon Musk didnāt buy twitter to make money, he bought twitter to control the data stream that AI uses to learn. Heās making himself the kindergarten teacher of future AI and this is pretty smart because he also owns neurolink. So heāll own not only a chunk of what AI uses to form its world view from but also the technology that is used to convert a human into AI. His whole thing is about trans humanism. I know everyone likes Elon, heās super cool and all, it seems like heās for the people but be very careful with this guy. Heās probably a key player in the end times.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
I think you are making a lot of negative assumptions here. So far, Elon has demonstrated that he is standing up for many good things and I am holding onto the hope that he is a force for good.
He's the master opinion manipulation. If he weren't getting DoD contracts from Trump he'd be nothing. Look at his company's balance books and you'll see why he's kissing Trump's ass so hard.
So why isnāt he kissing Joe Bidens ass?
According to the official biblical narrative (the modern day interpretation of it), "the devil" tempted Eve and thus began the process of "sin" by encouraging her to eat from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. What is the Tree of Knowledge? It is an understanding of the nature of things. It is free will. In other words, according to that story, prior to Satan "tempting" her with an appreciation for a broader scope of information, "God," or the PTB (at the time) had Adam and Eve's understanding of things in a box. Satan, according to the story, encouraged opening the door on that box to the larger truth.
Elon is providing information that is otherwise forbidden by the PTB. Elon is opening the door on our box to the larger truth.
Which is "good" or "evil"? Well, it depends on the intent. Evil is in general not an action by itself, but an action coupled with an intention.
What are Elon's intentions? I have no idea.
Why? Why "hold onto hope?" Why is that important? Who cares if his intentions are good or evil?
I love the Elon character. He is probably my favorite in this movie. I don't know if he will turn out to be the hero or the villain, but he is definitely fun to watch. By not "holding on to hope" I lessen the chances of blinding myself to evidence through my bias. Hope is too often blindness. I'm not suggesting "letting go of all hope." I am suggesting that the need to hope for one thing or another (or "the need" for any specific belief) only serves to keep us from seeing the evidence. It keeps us from the full scope of the GA. It serves the continued victory of the entity that has had humanity in a box for a very, very long time.
Slyver, while you qualify what you say with "the modern day interpretation of it," your response attempts to reinterpret the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve's story, framing the Tree of Knowledge as merely symbolic of understanding, free will, and a broader scope of information. It suggests that prior to the serpent's temptation, humanity's understanding was limited or confined by God, and the serpent, traditionally associated with Satan, is portrayed as encouraging a pursuit of knowledge and freedom beyond God's intended limits.
However, this interpretation diverges from traditional Christian teachings (as you aptly point out), particularly in Orthodox and mainstream Christianity. Here's a brief assessment:
Tree of Knowledge: While some interpretations view the tree symbolically, emphasizing understanding or free will, the traditional understanding is that it represented a test of obedience rather than a limitation on knowledge. It symbolized a boundary set by God to test Adam and Eve's obedience and trust in Him.
Temptation and Sin: The biblical narrative portrays the serpent tempting Eve to disobey God's command, not merely to gain knowledge, but as an act of disobedience. This act led to the introduction of sin into the world, emphasizing the consequence of human choice to defy God's explicit instruction.
God's Intent: Orthodox Christianity doesn't depict God as confining human understanding but rather providing boundaries for the well-being of humanity. The narrative emphasizes the consequences of humanity's disobedience to God's will rather than a limitation imposed by God on knowledge or understanding.
the traditional Christian understanding sees the story of Adam and Eve as illustrating the consequences of human disobedience, the introduction of sin, and the need for redemption through Christ, rather than merely a limitation of human understanding by God.
You have correctly interpreted my "interpretation."
Correct. However, I suggest that "traditional Christian teachings" diverge substantially from the source material (Torah), and diverge even more when compared with original versions of that material (or as old as we have found, Nag Hammadi, DSS, etc.). Indeed, when actually looking at that evidence, digging into the broader context of information available in the region (stone tablets, hieroglyphs, etc. from Canaan, Babylon, Egypt, etc.) and reading those older texts in the original Hebrew (or Greek or Aramaic translations as the case may be), the "traditional Christian teachings," which are derived exclusively from the Latin Vulgate, written upwards of a thousand years after those older versions, deviate substantially on some very important points, especially in the broader context of evidence.
It was within a more period context in which I was paraphrasing the narrative, not the modern day justification, which itself is based, at least in part, on provably faulty interpretations (when compared with older texts), and Catholic Church, or Reformation (extra-biblical) additions to the dogma.
If I understand you correctly, your main argument presented suggests that "traditional Christian teachings" diverge substantially from the source material (Torah), and further deviate when compared with older versions like Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Iāll try and examine each point made.
Divergence from Source Material:
You claim that traditional Christian teachings diverge significantly from the source material (Torah). However, it's essential to recognize that Christian interpretations often incorporate a variety of sources beyond the Torah, including the New Testament and theological traditions. The interpretation of the story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil can vary among Christian denominations.
While interpretations of biblical texts can indeed vary, many Christian scholars and theologians engage with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and its original languages to derive meanings. Itās simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.
Comparison with Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls:
Your argument here suggests that the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea Scrolls provide original versions that differ from traditional Christian teachings.
The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts, which present a distinct theological perspective. The Dead Sea Scrolls, while valuable for understanding Second Temple Judaism, do not contain the entire Hebrew Bible. It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.
Broader Context of Information in the Region:
Your claim here implies that broader contextual information from the region, including stone tablets and hieroglyphs from Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt, challenges traditional Christian teachings.
While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.
Reading Older Texts in Original Languages:
You opine that reading older texts in the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic reveals substantial deviations from traditional Christian teachings.
Engaging with original languages is crucial for biblical scholarship. However, interpretations are multifaceted, and linguistic nuances require careful consideration. Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.
Latin Vulgate as the Sole Source:
You emphasis heavily that ātraditional Christian teachingsā are derived exclusively from the Latin Vulgate.
While the Latin Vulgate was influential in Western Christianity, it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings. The Vulgate itself was a translation of earlier texts, and Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.
Within the realm of biblical manuscripts, the Masoretic Text stands as the authoritative Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible, forming the basis for the Old Testament in Christian Scriptures.
The Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, played a pivotal role in the early Christian community, influencing theological thought.
Additionally, New Testament manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, contribute to the understanding of Christian scriptures.
Early translations, such as Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, served as pivotal bridges for disseminating biblical content.
Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.
Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. Patristic writings like Augustine's "Confessions" and Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" provide profound reflections, enriching the theological landscape of Christianity.
This intricate interplay of diverse sources has contributed to the vibrant tapestry of Christian teachings over centuries.
To wrap this up (hopefully people are still reading lol), my counter argument raises points about the diversity of textual traditions and the importance of considering original languages and broader contextual information. While engaging with these aspects is fundamental to biblical scholarship, it is important to avoid oversimplifications and recognize the complexity of the interpretive traditions within Christianity. Integrating insights from various sources contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the biblical text.
I upvoted both yours and Sly's post for high effort.
Thanks š
Well, you certainly are allowed to have your own opinion about it.
Re: Adam & Eve. I have my own opinion about that, too.
I believe the actual 'bite of the apple' was a metaphor for sexual relations.
Remember, The Archangel Lucifer was previously God's favorite and most virile and handsome angel who disobeyed and was cast down to Earth as punishment. He took a third of the angels with him. What was his misbehavior? We've never been told.
When the extremely beautiful and powerful Lucifer saw the virginal beauty of Eve, he was not a serpent yet, but likely one of the most incredible specimens of manhood. I don't believe Adam & Eve had knowledge of their bodies and sex until Lucifer showed them.
I think he introduced Eve to sexual relations. She bore Cain after this. I believe he was Lucifer's child. (The original sin?)
Later, she did the same with Adam and she bore Abel.
When God saw what had happened he turned Lucifer into an ugly, horned and repulsive 'serpent' (the Devil?) and shamed Adam & Eve so that they then felt compelled to cover their bodies with fig leaves.
Think about this - why would you feel ashamed of your naked body because of taking a bite out of an apple? It had to be sexual.
God treated their two sons differently. He praised Adam's son and chastised Lucifer's son. The boys did not understand why. Cain became angered and lashed out at his brother killing him with a rock.
Cain begat the city of Canaan and the Canaanites. And an entire bloodline of humans begat from a human and a fallen angel...
Why did Adam feel the need? Did lucifer have sex with him too? Did Adam feel jealous of lucifer taking the virginity? Virginity was a big thing so it would have to have been mentioned Interesting theory to be sure
I don't understand your question. Why did Adam feel the need for what?
My interpretation is that Lucifer seduced Eve and introduced her to the joys of her body and his body and sex and she then seduced Adam with her newly learned skills.
I am hoping she did not introduce Adam to Lucifer. The bible says the serpent convinced her to 'take a bite of the apple' and then she did. And then she offered 'the apple' to Adam, who also 'took a bite'.
Since they were the 'first people' who lived without others, they would have no knowledge of stigmas, or homosexuality or the idea of virginity or anything of that sort. They were 'new' and naive and had no preconceived notions yet. They were innocent babes who ran around with no clothes on until they were shamed and cast out of Eden.