Sensible Logic, on 12 December 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:
Interesting but not quite. It wouldn't be helpful for Satan to bring back the great king of the Mongols - Genghis Khan. Kahn promoted religious tolerance and thus would make a poor Antichrist.
Unless, of course, by promoting tolerance a thinning diversion from "true religion" were intended.
In that light, tolerance would actually serve such a person/being quite well - an effective long-term strategy.
HavocWing, on 30 December 2011 - 01:29 AM, said:
In english gematria, God incarnate comes out to 666.
Now that's interesting if true.
The symbolic value of 6, by itself, (to simplify an otherwise lengthy response about subconscious "psychology of symbols") equates to "good enough" or "perfect by my own measure", balanced and in need of no further development and thus already "Godlike" or "Godly" ... not a stretch from that to analyze the psychology of a person defined by the "value" of 6. But it's a state that stops evolving at that point. Too long and it fears everything that threatens a developing insecurity, which only grows/grew because it decided to become complacent and "rest on its laurels" as it were.
The 6 which proceeds to continue advancing towards 7 (something closer to true perfection, more or less) overcomes that blockage by adding that "little something extra" and getting over itself and realizing that there is always something bigger, badder, stronger, smarter, faster - without seeing that as a threat (faith, or the modern version, confidence). Not sure what 3 6's would mean: maybe the 3 major psychological processes or each aspect of the individual trinity concept? (feeling/emotions, objective thinking and interpersonal perception)
That's all assuming that the original Greek symbol didn't have long-standing meaning and it was significant specifically for its numeric value. He wouldn't have had to know, understand or even be aware of or appreciate the subconscious aspects to have manifested them - he could quite literally have dreamed them up while contemplating unsavory personalities around him at the time. Something as primal as numbers and the sequence of time/life/death/growth/decay they represent don't require thought's active participation.
The problem is that everyone hits that block at some point(s) throughout life (if you don't understand that now, you will later). An ego which refuses to realize itself for what it is will fail to continue to evolve. Usually such a mind will then drag others down with it, even become obsessed or destructive or in some other manner extreme and "logically irrational" (subjectively, perception-wise) - a need to always be right, a need to rule and conquer and control ... everything, especially anything that threatens the tense condition that is repressed insecurity. Happens with individuals. Happens with whole societies, nations and empires. What starts as a legitimate need for survival becomes something less human and more animal. Nevertheless, I don't personally see this as unique, presented in numeric format or not, other than this potentially being "the big one" (which does have an exciting quality to it of course).
Interesting though.
grendals_bane, on 01 January 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:
Okay, so you have contradicted yourself. First you say they are written the way they are to prevent people altering future events and now you say reading them gives you no advantage or disadvantage apart from righteousness, make your mind up.
I perceive the issue as being with the word "righteousness", which is so strongly subjective that it is likely to be interpreted differently between any random collection of strangers. What's advantageous to one is apt to be disadvantageous to another, but of no material or worldly value other than for the knowledge/insight/awareness/etc that it might impart (in this case). Also, wouldn't it be easier to prevent alteration of future events by not saying anything at all? (makes more sense to me anyway)
Of course, that last argument just leads into other modern 'back to the future' speculations about tampering and whatnot... could just as easily end up creating the future we're trying to avoid, in which case history writes that Nostradamus was actually an agent of Satan (assuming history is capable of being written after such a momentous event).
Best just get right with whatever you've got to get right with, then help others do the same (if they're receptive).
Then it doesn't matter one way or the other, when, how, where, what or anything else.
Guess that's what you're trying to do though. But really, something new might be more effective.
You could say that the church has been so thoroughly infiltrated and corrupted now that there are few left who really want to hear it from that crowd anymore, 'cause really it just sounds hypocritical at this point.
(K. I'm done dorking out now... 
)
2
