View Single Post
Old 02-22-2010, 11:46 PM   #1225
Anchor
Avalon Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 2,280
Default Re: Thuban Q&A: (warning longer than normal posts here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by beren View Post
I ask you did Jesus Christ spoke like that?
Did he hide truth from his disciples and whom ever wanted with honest heart?
Did he aimed to amaze people with hard -to-know phrases and words?
Actually he had to, he often had to speak in parables because the core truth was too much for the average man in his audience. To some extent it was necessary to de-tune the message for wider coverage.

I agree that it is better to speak truth with clarity so far as it is possible.

Many times this means not speaking at all. However, on this forum, there are topic titles that can allow people to ignore that which they dont want to read - and it is for this reason I keep asking people to let it be.

I think abraxasinas has demonstrated accuracy with the bible and I dont see where words are being twisted. I myself tend to restrict myself to the reported "sayings" of Jesus since they appear to me to be the least distorted parts of the bible. Since many of them are wrapped in parable, they were probably deemed by the editors to be so open to debate and inpenetrable, they did not require distortion to support any elitist agenda.

[with no particular focus on you Beren...]

Once again I see many here falling into the same old trap of judging the messenger and not the message.

It also seems as if inpenetrable data seriously offends a few egos - I say tough! Deal with it. Have you considered this is one of the distortions we all need help working through? Data is data.

Two sides of the polarised arguement against this thread - on the one hand there is no such thing as Dragons so Abraxasinas is clearly off his trolley - on the otherhand Dragons are very real and us poor humans need protection by the gallant knights in shining armour and experienced dragon slayers. Which is more preposterous? To me neither. Data is data.

What is not preposterous is that questions and answers to those questions yeild pure DATA. Data can be left or worked with - your/our choice.

Context can manipulate that data - but the assembled masses here are not vulnerable chooks that need protection. We are more on our guard against any potential contextual manipulation and trickery; not that I myself have discerned any yet from the OP and subsequent posts - all I have discerened with every fibre of my own intuition is a desire to deliver information/data in the context of the questions asked.

This Dragon (personae) - is providing answers - so far - in what looks like good faith. On that note, Abraxasinas, I have a few more questions of my own for you :

1) to what extent do dragons have a bearing on the functioning of the elite/dark forces currently attempting to control the evolution of human kind on this planet?

2) are there good dragons and bad dragons (where good and bad have the meaning of service to the interests of humanity or service to self, not in the interests of humanity).

3) please re-state the exact relationship between what you call dragon and what you call human.

4) dragon iconography crops up a lot. In the recent video by Bill Ryan one is struck by the number of dragon images in the opening sequence of shots around London, England. Additionally I recently have cosidered that there are the Eastern (I'm thinking about chinese) Dragons who are associated with the power elite - emporers etc - in a more mystical way, and Western Dragons who live in caves and get slaughtered by "heros". Can you elaborate more on the role of the dragon iconography through the human ages? When did it start and why?

A..

Last edited by Anchor; 02-22-2010 at 11:51 PM.
Anchor is offline