Another one! Beyonce' admits to being demon possessed.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


Don't you mean Genesis 6?

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
Again, common sense and context clues dictate it was literal. Or do you assume that everyone who says something isn't speaking literally?

Obviously "common sense" is different between us. To me common sense in this instance tells me she is speaking figuratively where as to you it tells you she's speaking literally. Neither of us will feel any different unless there is proof of some kind so it's kind of pointless to continue.

reply to post by aaron2209

Did I miss the part with her stating she is speaking literally?

To answer your question no you didn't. To answer more completely you never do. But quotes from a magazine are nothing but literal. IMO

reply to post by randyvs


Like I've said ad nauseum, there's nothing indicating a metaphor in the least bit. The only reason people are arguing for a metaphor or not literal interpretation is because they do not believe in demonic entities or possession. Then they turn around and mock us for promoting the common sense literal interpretation because we do believe in demonic entities and possession, and because we understand that in order for something to be seen as a metaphor there has to be some sort of context clues promoting that idea.

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Basing a thread/claim on a personal viewpoint/opinion, but demanding that the opposition counter with evidentiary documentation rather than equal personal view/opinion (aka: like with like) is not only known as poor debate form, but also known as "hubris".

Already addressed this...numerous times.

As is breaking down a post sentence by sentence with independent argument on each, rather than countering the main context of the post, thereby polluting the debate with complexity overkill.

No, I do this to keep my counterpoints/responses organized. It's what I've done for years. Don't like it? Then don't reply to me. I'm not nitpicking how you respond.

And I'm not the only one who does it.

Yes, you have addressed it numerous times by claiming your "evidence" of what she stated is, as you said, only your opinion and viewpoint of her being literal.

Therefore, your opinion that she's being literal in her statement is not evidence to your claim that she's an "Illuminati puppet"... it's only evidence of your opinion that she is.

But you demand documented "evidence" from your counterparts if they opine otherwise...

Thus, you've "addressed it" fallaciously.

reply to post by aaron2209

Obviously "common sense" is different between us. To me common sense in this instance tells me she is speaking figuratively where as to you it tells you she's speaking literally. Neither of us will feel any different unless there is proof of some kind so it's kind of pointless to continue.

Let me ask you, how would you explain this all away, if she would have said something like: And I mean this quite literally ?

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr
reply to post by randyvs

 

Like I've said ad nauseum, there's nothing indicating a metaphor in the least bit. The only reason people are arguing for a metaphor or not literal interpretation is because they do not believe in demonic entities or possession. Then they turn around and mock us for promoting the common sense literal interpretation because we do believe in demonic entities and possession, and because we understand that in order for something to be seen as a metaphor there has to be some sort of context clues promoting that idea.

That's exactly right nor do they want to have to wake up to this true to life what would be nightmare to their lifestyles. So don't let them run you in circles. It's just not worth it.

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Yes, you have addressed it numerous times by claiming your "evidence" of what she stated is, as you said, only your opinion and viewpoint of her being literal.

Therefore, your opinion that she's being literal in her statement is not evidence to your claim that she's an "Illuminati puppet"... it's only evidence of your opinion that she is.

But you demand documented "evidence" from your counterparts if they opine otherwise...

Thus, you've "addressed it" fallaciously.

I demand evidence because there's no reason to take her words other than literal. Do you have any reason (other than "demons aren't real") to claim that her words are a metaphor? What evidence do you have for that position? What context clues tell you that her claim of feeling a presence enter her was a metaphor and not literal?

No matter what kind of smoke and mirrors you continue to bring out, I will keep asking this question.

It's my "opinion" that her words are literal. Well it's your opinion that they are not. Anything else?

reply to post by randyvs


They'd just say she was insane then and needed to be locked up or on medication.

It's just weird to me how it's being considered "common sense" to interpret her words as a metaphor when there are no context clues in what she said to even remotely justify that interpretation.

Like I said before, it boils down to nothing more than these people don't believe in demons or possession and that's all they need to justify their "It's not literal" opinion. For them, their belief = fact. But our belief = nothing but belief or falsehood.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by LazarusTsiyr

 

Not Satan, but Lucifer. By the way, where are Jesus's spirits that help people with their creativity? There mostly aren't any. Jesus is a slave-master while Lucifer encourages freedom and creativity.

Angels are less in number than demons by far, and no one will have the opportunity to work with them unless they practice good ethics. It involves an entirely different state of being to communicate, but they make the best friends you will ever find, if you are aspiring to the same wholesome mindset. There are also enthiastic spirits on earth, who are careless and foolish, but not usually rooted in evils.

A slave to sin, or a slave to righteousness ... "chaining oneself" to good behaviour really isn't a form of slavery, it leads to freedom from vice, and to the sowing of good habits. Lucifer did encourage freedom and creativity, but was never one decent society - people you would want to call friends - ever advocated following.

And a "demon" is just a powerful spirit. It comes from Greek and it has nothing to do with anything being evil. The Christians abused this word.

Measuring the present net effect is ever of higher importance than studying the historical origins. Demons are everywhere, and are possessing billions of humans. It's like trying to describe Ronald Reagan and the punk movements reaction to him by stating that humans evolved from Sumarian and African culture, it's misleading, smoke and mirrors. It does nothing to address or counter the concerns. Life itself teaches us this one.

How many times has this subject been discussed on ATS????

power up ATS Search function!!!!!! weeeee oooooo bsshhhhhhhhhhhh ennnnngggggggggg ennngggg ennggg eng eng eng eng click click click click..... click click click... click. dabalabwew!

beyonce ATS search results.

I wish everyone had this super power... Wait all of you do. Give it a rest, it's been done it's been done over and over and over.

*clicks ruby slippers*

Va va voooooooom!

*departs in a cloud of tinfoil hats*

reply to post by Openeye


It could be Molech? no?

reply to post by LazarusTsiyr


It is weird but you won't change their minds. Always remember if we could change everyone Gods word would become a fallacy.

reply to post by Hijinx

How many times has this subject been discussed on ATS????

What the hell difference does that make. OPs in the right forum. So squawk about something on topic.

To all of you that are going on and on about the 'proof', and this really can apply to either side, are doing so in vain.

This is Skunk Works, ya know.

If the 'highly speculative' is not your cup of tea, then why are you here demanding proof in a forum that explicitly states that proof is not required?

ATS Skunk Works: This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Just sayin'.

reply to post by daryllyn


See I didn't want to play that card Daryllyn but you are exactly right. Apparently people were ignoring that in their desire to be right and refute the existence of the Most High (because I mean in their minds if demons aren't real then God probably isn't either).

I wasn't trying to "demand" proof. I was merely pointing out that my stance was based on a literal interpretation of her words (which there is nothing to suggest she was speaking metaphorically). But once they started trying to shoot down my common sense interpretation by positively claiming she was either joking around for publicity or was speaking metaphorically then I had to ask for evidence to support that interpretation because common sense and context clues indicate that she was speaking literally

If someone already asked or mentioned this would you point me to the page. Way to much to read and got a paper to type up.

But what would "muses" fall under? I've read before where artist (singers, writers, artist, etc) said they were possessed by a muse and that the work done by the person was not their own but that of the muse.

Muse therefore is a demon? entity? spirit? A whole another ballpark? Curious, as to what others on here might think about this.

Originally posted by Lostmymarbles

But what would "muses" fall under? I've read before where artist (singers, writers, artist, etc) said they were possessed by a muse and that the work done by the person was not their own but that of the muse.

Muse therefore is a demon? entity? spirit? A whole another ballpark? Curious, as to what others on here might think about this.

Good question. I think that depends on the content that said "muse" is inspiring. If it's evil, negative, immoral lyrics well it's easy to conclude that the "muse" is actually a demon inspiring wicked words. If it's positive, uplifting, and God-centered lyrics, then the "muse" is clearly either the Holy Spirit or an angel.

As I mentioned on a long-previous comment, the Bible says you can tell a tree by the fruit it produces.

reply to post by Openeye

Originally posted by Openeye
I just want to point out for the thousandth time that Baphomet is not a pagan deity worshiped by any culture around the world, but a perversion of Muhammad that was created by the Templar during the Inquisition to condemn heretics.

Hey, George Soros said it, MUST be true...

Who Controls Wikipedia? (George Soros)

It is a propaganda outlet dominated by people who want to radically transform our existence.

There's a reason Soros supports it. Because his vast minions can manipulate it. And manipulate it they do.

I encourage everybody to take a look at the wikimedia's own webpage:

Wikimedia Foundation Advisory Board

Search the page for "soros" or "open society" and right there for all of us to see, three of them!

Melissa(Hagemann) manages the Open Access Initiative within the Information Program of the Open Society Institute (OSI)/Soros foundations.

Ethan(Zuckerman) also works with Open Society Institute's Information Program, along with Melissa Hagemann.

Trevor Neilson is a Partner in the Global Philanthropy Group , a company that advises philanthropists on the development and implementation of philanthropic strategies. Neilson formed DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade, Africa) with Bill Gates, Bono and George Soros, served as a founding board member, and stays involved as a member of DATA's policy board.

There's also a fourth member of the wikimedia foundation who is from OSI. Seeing the following is what made me curious enough to look for this info. You can see that here:

Wall Space (MacKinnon Formerly of CNN, now works for Soros)

freerepublic.com...

Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? ( George Soros )
www.freerepublic.com...

The problem with Wikipedia is not that it exists, but that it has become the cornerstone for researchers scanning the Internet for information and blindly copying from Wikipedia entries, wrongfully assuming that they are neutral and correct.

It has become the "Ministry of Information", the "one-stop information shop" of the Internet, but no one should fall for the "Newspeak" of a title. Wikipedia has made the task for those seeding disinformation and removing dissenting views easier, more direct and even more anonymous. °

Wikipedia Lies:Online Disinformation & Propaganda

Originally posted by LazarusTsiyr

Originally posted by CranialSponge

Yes, you have addressed it numerous times by claiming your "evidence" of what she stated is, as you said, only your opinion and viewpoint of her being literal.

Therefore, your opinion that she's being literal in her statement is not evidence to your claim that she's an "Illuminati puppet"... it's only evidence of your opinion that she is.

But you demand documented "evidence" from your counterparts if they opine otherwise...

Thus, you've "addressed it" fallaciously.

I demand evidence because there's no reason to take her words other than literal. Do you have any reason (other than "demons aren't real") to claim that her words are a metaphor? What evidence do you have for that position? What context clues tell you that her claim of feeling a presence enter her was a metaphor and not literal?

No matter what kind of smoke and mirrors you continue to bring out, I will keep asking this question.

It's my "opinion" that her words are literal. Well it's your opinion that they are not. Anything else?

Nowhere have I stated that "demons aren't real"... That's just simply your assumption of my opinion because I'm questioning your viewpoint as one of being absolution rather than one of being open to interpretation.

Nor have I directly stated in any of my posts where she is metaphorical OR literal.

Quite frankly, I haven't stated any absolutes on either side.
Therefore, no need of evidence on my part, nor any smoke and mirrors.

You continue with assumption and speculation of a person's posts causing a confirmation bias with yourself.

Perception is everything, isn't it ?

Originally posted by CranialSponge



Nowhere have I stated that "demons aren't real"... That's just simply your assumption of my opinion because I'm questioning your viewpoint as one of being absolution rather than one of being open to interpretation.

Nor have I directly stated in any of my posts where she is metaphorical OR literal.

Quite frankly, I haven't stated any absolutes on either side.
Therefore, no need of evidence on my part, nor any smoke and mirrors.

You continue with assumption and speculation of a person's posts causing a confirmation bias with yourself.

Perception is everything, isn't it ?

Well you know what? When you play "devil's advocate" (pun not intended) you can't be upset when people make an assumption. While it was indeed an assumption on my part, it was a safe assumption based on my interaction with you here and your posts.

At the same time you're also not saying that demons are real or that she is speaking literally. So basically I have a 50/50 chance of being right in my assumption of you. Not bad odds, actually.

reply to post by LazarusTsiyr


I wasn't taking a stab at you, man.

I worded it the way I did just to illustrate the point that proof is not required by either side of the debate based on its placement in skunk works.

And to point out that if people aren't fond of a subject that is highly speculative, that they don't have to participate. There are plenty of other threads that are probably better suited to their interests.