It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by spamandham
Many legends and muths are verifiably false.
Snopes is filled with them. Some are quite ancient, yet we have a historical thread that shows them growing in extravagance over time, such as Santa Claus.
If you wish to deny that there are such things as legends and myths, or if you wish to reject the idea that they can form gradually as stories are repeatedly embelished during retelling, that's up to you. These things are obvious enough I think to be unworthy of discussion. The question in my mind is not whether or not this happens, but whether or not that is what happened in regard to the ark of the covenant.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Your opinions based on a mind that is not 1 verses the billions of minds that preceded you. Who carries more weight in the arguement? Obviously you do, because you know better than the billions that have preceded you. Fancy that.
I didn't even claim that the stories of the ark were greatly exagerated, I just asked the question as to why that isn't a reasonable assumption.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
However, I have done this in a class of 30 in a leadership class in the Air Force. We were given twelve words, and only 2 people could be in the room at a time to relay. We did produce a end result that was the 12 words we started from, but I admit it was on our third attempt.
So you know from your own experience that this does in fact happen, yet you seem to be calling the concept into question nonetheless?!
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
The links are to blame, not the message. Why hate the message because of the messenger's fears manifesting in your reality?
We don't have a priori knowledge of the original message. All we have is what the links have reported. Part of the goal is to determine whether or not the message we have received from the links resembles the original or not.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Then choose to look at it from my perspective. I know and accept yours as is, you do not know nor accept mine as is.
I don't recall claiming to understand you better than you understand yourself, nor claiming there are regions of knowledge you can not have insight into as a result of your beliefs.
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
"naive and arrogant" is stereotyping.
No it isn't. It's a judgement about you specifically as a result of what you've claimed. It isn't a judgement about you because you are a member of some group.
Originally posted by spamandham
With all due respect ET, I'm not interested in a subdiscussion on how the mind works. This thread is about the ark of the covenant,...... . ..
. .. . . and I don't see . .. .
Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
If the ark of the covenant exists (I believe it does), and it is of God, then can fear and hate approach it and survive? As I understand it no one unpure and fearing or hating God could approach it and live.
Originally posted by spamandham
The question remains; why is myth not a more plausible explanation than the actual existence of a shiny magic box that shoots lighting at people and instantly kills anyone that touches it?
I will reference Thomas, I need to give him a name because he is another one of my best friends and he showed me the truth more than anyone else ever could.
I hope he gets better
Thank you everyone. You've cheered me up X infinity.