Cerise Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Maybe not so much brainwashed as misinformed (if there is a difference). The message wasn't meant to be understood by all because of the perceived misuse of power if the knowledge fell into the wrong hands. No offense nbbtb, but if that's true then those ancient wise farts that made the message and encoded it in the first place were extremely dumb in their handling of the information. It's quite clear that any knowledge gleaned from these sources has fallen into the wrong hands and has been misused, and you could make a very good claim that its this kind of mysterious encoding of the message and obscuring it from view that lead right to its misuse. Smart move ancient wiseguys! The message wasn't meant to be understood by all? Great! So now it's understood by few, and the world is messed up by those who misunderstood. Brilliant work. Sorry, but I don't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 Maybe not so much brainwashed as misinformed (if there is a difference). The message wasn't meant to be understood by all because of the perceived misuse of power if the knowledge fell into the wrong hands. No offense nbbtb, but if that's true then those ancient wise farts that made the message and encoded it in the first place were extremely dumb in their handling of the information. It's quite clear that any knowledge gleaned from these sources has fallen into the wrong hands and has been misused, and you could make a very good claim that its this kind of mysterious encoding of the message and obscuring it from view that lead right to its misuse. Smart move ancient wiseguys! The message wasn't meant to be understood by all? Great! So now it's understood by few, and the world is messed up by those who misunderstood. Brilliant work. Sorry, but I don't buy it. That's okay Cerise. The language goes back at least to ancient Egypt (where Moses was an Initiate). It wasn't a problem until the uninformed people (Moses didn't understand it completely) used it for their own power and told everyone to take it as it was written and/or the writers of the old testament and the new didn't completely understand this language and made a mess of their stories. The problem they were scared of was one of occult power, not the power of man to subjugate. Let me rephrase that a little...I don't know if it was a problem or not before Judaism, I can only speculate, but it was the occult power they feared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 It's strange... how can you define "Evil"? Is it a force? Is it a spirit? Is it immoral intentions? If someone kills a person, is the killer evil? If so, say the killer was a cop that shot a rapist, is the cop still evil? Is it the opposite of good? If so, say it's good to give candy to kids at halloween, would I then be evil if I didn't? I'm not sure there are any true or solid definition of the word "evil"... Anyone? Check out "The Lucifer Principle". It's a damn good read. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/087113664...=books&v=glance Granted, some of it gets a bit hooey, but in explaining the origin of "evil".....it's pretty good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 6, 2005 Share Posted December 6, 2005 I'm not sure there are any true or solid definition of the word "evil"... The word refers to the concept of whatever destroys life. In English, the word is the word "live" spelled backwards so as to indicate such. Often people think of evil as a thing. It is actually a qualitative noun, referring to the quality of something being against life. But it is also necessarily a relative quality. What is bad for one can be good for another. Thus there is "evil" as a comparative word and there is "Evil" meaning "bad for ALL life in totem". To say that Evil doesn't exist is basically saying that there is nothing which is bad for Life in general. I would tend to suspect that Life is not quite that arrogantly stable. Of course the next question that you would want to ask is, "Why would God create such a thing?" The answer to that is, "How do you spur intelligent life into growth? - by opposing it, giving it an adversary, a problem to solve." We are just getting into this in the "Black Box Intelligence" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I'm pretty sure the concept of "evil" was around way before the English language, Ssel. Doesn't that kind of problematize your live=evil evidence? I mean, god backwards is dog in english, but I wouldn't say that means anything in particular towards the meaning of either word or concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I mean, god backwards is dog in english, but I wouldn't say that means anything in particular towards the meaning of either word or concept. Well, both of them are man's best friend! <<<runs away quickly to avoid the onslaughtistic wrath of Cerise>>> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ssel Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 I'm pretty sure the concept of "evil" was around way before the English language, Ssel. Doesn't that kind of problematize your live=evil evidence? Obviously the concept of evil was around long before the English word "evil". I was explaining that the English word was derived from the concept. That in itself is not proof that the concept is acurate, but it obviously fits the usage, so where's the conflict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted December 7, 2005 Share Posted December 7, 2005 b]Obviously[/b] the concept of evil was around long before the English word "evil". I was explaining that the English word was derived from the concept. That in itself is not proof that the concept is acurate, but it obviously fits the usage, so where's the conflict? I could see that...would it also be true that the word devil came about from the opposite of lived? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerise Posted December 8, 2005 Share Posted December 8, 2005 Obviously the concept of evil was around long before the English word "evil". I was explaining that the English word was derived from the concept. That in itself is not proof that the concept is acurate, but it obviously fits the usage, so where's the conflict? Don't get snooty. The english word "evil" comes from a variety of backgrounds such as Old English's "yfel" and 'Übel' in German, and the root is thought to come from the Teutonic *ubilo(z) which translates into the words "up" and "over". So the concept of the English word derived from "yfel" is that of going above and beyond acceptence, trangessing "up and over" a certain line. Live and evil might be a palindrome in modernized english, but that doesn't mean that they have any metonymic relation to each other because of that fact. and notblinded, the word "devil" comes from greek and latin roots "diablo" (accuser, slanderer) and is derived from words meaning "to throw across". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts