Elon Musk didn’t buy twitter to make money, he bought twitter to control the data stream that AI uses to learn. He’s making himself the kindergarten teacher of future AI and this is pretty smart because he also owns neurolink. So he’ll 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, he’s super cool and all, it seems like he’s for the people but be very careful with this guy. He’s 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:
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. I’ll 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. It’s 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 “traditional Christian teachings” 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 agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.
Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.
Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).
The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.
Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.
To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.
Makes you think.
Well, at least it makes me think.
I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.
Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.
One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.
Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.
Prove it.
The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.
The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.
The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.
The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).
I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.
How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?
My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.
There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much archeological and contextual validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).
I upvoted both yours and Sly's post for high effort.
Thanks đź‘Ť
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.
If you were wanting to annoy God wouldn't you want to have gay sex with Adam to kind of perverse the creation? And with Adam not knowing would go along with it? Genuinely interesting