Philip Gardiner, Homosexuality and Alchemy Disinformation

[Alana]

what chance do i have of ever changing anything about that, at all ? what about discarding the more unpleasant and/or destructive programs ? from where i stand the answer to both questions seems to be 'Nil'.

Like hkoelhi says, first you need to observe yourself. Do not try to change anything, just learn your machine. And while self observing, start reading psychology books along with the 4th way books, so you know what to look out for in yourself, to identify programs installed since childhood.

From another thread:

Laura wrote:
The "Big Four" books that must be read in this order are:

1) The Myth of Sanity by Martha Stout
2) Trapped in The Mirror by Elan Goulomb
3) Unholy Hungers by Barbara Hort
4) The Narcissistic Family by Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman and Robert M. Pressman

 

[Z...]

But I think we should stop bashing name

I didn't see anyone bashing name. I saw it the other way around. How do you see giving feedback to a harmful program as bashing?

Well this was actually sarcasm,

but point taken- there is no place for such way of communication on this forum,
was it famous homosexual Oscar Wilde who said irony is lowest form of humour?!



I sincerely hope name will manage to use this thread and all the shocks it created constructively.

 

[mopiet]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

Dear members of SOTT,

I came over from Thot and World Mysteries. A very interesting article is published at WM on the alchemy hidden in Genesis. I am planning an article myself on the subject, so I would very much like to hear your opinions on the article.

hxxp://www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters_21.htm

 

[j0da]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

Hi mopiet. You might want to check this thread - Philip Gardiner, Homosexuality and Alchemy Disinformation

 

[Laura]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

You also might want to read Thomas L. Thompson's "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaelogy and the Myth of Israel". Once you really understand who wrote the Bible and why, you can disabuse yourself of these silly notions.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

You also might want to read Thomas L. Thompson's "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaelogy and the Myth of Israel". Once you really understand who wrote the Bible and why, you can disabuse yourself of these silly notions.

Would you recommend this book over Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"? I just read this one about a month ago, and really liked it.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

Would you recommend this book over Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"? I just read this one about a month ago, and really liked it.

I've read "The Bible Unearthed" book some years ago and it was an interesting perceptive. Here's one of the reviews:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible/reviews/unearthed.htm

I don't think recommending one book "over" another would be a sound approach. Why not read both?

just my two cent..or is it five cent?

 

[Laura]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

You also might want to read Thomas L. Thompson's "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaelogy and the Myth of Israel". Once you really understand who wrote the Bible and why, you can disabuse yourself of these silly notions.

Would you recommend this book over Finkelstein and Silberman's "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts"? I just read this one about a month ago, and really liked it.

No, not really... Thompson goes where they don't, and what they are doing is a somewhat different job.

Let me just say, I just finished Thompson's book and it blew me away at the end. Only about half way through the book do you get a real inkling of where he is going to take you with his laying out the data and examples, and then, in the last 50 pages or so "kaboom!" It is definitely not for the faint at heart even if it is written in an almost mild, circuitous, scholarly style.

Giovanni Garbini's work is also HIGHLY recommended.

 

[mopiet]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

You also might want to read Thomas L. Thompson's "The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaelogy and the Myth of Israel". Once you really understand who wrote the Bible and why, you can disabuse yourself of these silly notions.

The problem is that Thompson's info is not relevant to the article. Whether the Old Testament is history, or not, is not important. Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text.

Here is some review-stuff on Thompson's book, although this thread is not meant to discuss Finkelstein or Thompson (have read Finkelstein by the way).

"One of the great controversies surrounding the Bible in the last 20 years centers on whether it is a historical document and therefore literally "true." Thomas L. Thompson has spent his academic career steeped in this controversy, researching the archaeological histories of Israel and Palestine, and has concluded that the Bible is not a historical document. Thompson contends however, that understanding the Bible as fictive does not have to undermine its truth and integrity. Currently a professor of the Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen, Thompson's The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel aims to separate the Bible from history in order to understand it on its own terms, in the context its authors intended. While parts of The Mythic Past value research and analysis over readability, it is arranged to help aspiring scholars negotiate the vast and complex history of biblical understanding. Thompson believes that "How the Bible is related to history has been badly misunderstood. As we have been reading the Bible within a context that is certainly wrong, and as we have misunderstood the Bible because of this, we need to seek a context more appropriate. As a result, we will begin to read the Bible in a new way." --Jodie Buller --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title."

From Publishers Weekly:

It is most appropriate that Thompson, who has been a professor of Old Testament at the University of Copenhagen since 1993, takes up the metaphor of Lego blocks to describe a narrative strategy common to the variety of texts that make up biblical literature: a tiny collection of simple shapes imaginatively combined to create an explosion of possible worlds. Thompson writes passionately, persuasively and provocatively, as, for example, when he notes that "it is only as history that the Bible does not make sense." He notes that history demands evidence, not plausibility. It is, in fact, fiction that demands plausibilityAand this is the basis for Thompson's eloquent argument on behalf of a literary approach to biblical material. One thing the Bible does not claim to be, he maintains, is history. To read it as such is to distort it, and to inform archeological and historical research with such a reading compounds the distortion. In Thompson's words, "the misappropriation of ancient texts for purposes contrary to the tradition's intentions, which two generations of theological use of the Bible have now encouraged, is one of those common abuses of intellect" that "contributes to the pollution of the ocean of our language.". Thompson's book is sure to generate significant discussion, and it should be of interest not only to students of biblical literature but to general readers fascinated both by "how stories talk about the past" and by how they form our present.
Copyright 1999 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Again, this all is not relevant to the Hume-article.

Laura, could it be then that you only read the introduction to the Hume-article?

 

[christx11]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

Dear members of SOTT,

I came over from Thot and World Mysteries. A very interesting article is published at WM on the alchemy hidden in Genesis. I am planning an article myself on the subject, so I would very much like to hear your opinions on the article.

hxxp://www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters_21.htm

How is the article interesting to you?

How do you think that this article you point to in anyway demonstrates that there is "alchemy hidden in Genesis"?

'Without being ashamed.' Our ability to feel shame is somehow relevant here then. And that would bring us to the first chapters of Genesis in my opinion, the 'only book in the Old Testament with kernels of alchemy,' according to Paul Nixon.

'And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.' [Genesis 3:6,7/italics added]

'And they knew that they were naked.'

'And the Lord God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.' [Genesis 3:22-24]

I do agree with Anton Schneider that there has never been a Fall, and thereby with the Paris 4 that alchemy 'is the goal of evolution,' and that 'God is on his way in our genes.'[de la Censerie] The Fall was just an editorial trick by priests to induce guilt in man and possibly to explain 'why God isn't taking care of us.'[Michaels] - Whatever the case, our 'kernels of alchemy' have clearly survived that edit.

The above is the only thing I see that even references genesis.
Are we to deduce from the above that references to some true interpretation of what is or is not alchemy is pointed to in genesis? You are very vague. Is there a specific point you are trying to make about some truth you see and want to point out to everyone here? Or do you see some kind of disinfo that you would like to discuss? Or what? You are very vague. It almost seems as if you are purposefully being very vague just to stir things up for whatever reason you may have.

I do not understand your point.

The first post by you to this board on the day you join is very odd. You do not come and discuss what is alchemy or some other interest specifically and then join in talking about your thoughts and ideas. You make your first post addressed to "Dear members of SOTT". I am not even sure what that is. I thought SOTT was a news website. Are you addressing or targeting your inquiry to the people on this board? Or are you looking to find some official representative of Signs-Of-The-Times.org and get them to so called speak for that organization or some such thing.

You say you "came over from Thot and World Mysteries". What does that mean? Some link in some article over there pointed you to here somehow? You coming from Thot and World Mysteries does not make sense to me. It almost sounds like you are on a mission as some member from that site. How was it that the Thot and WM site made you interested in what people on this board or what "SOTT members" thought about something? How did you even know about SOTT? Were you just reading stuff over at Thot and it entered your mind, "I need to know what SOTT thinks about this, Oh, what in the heck is SOTT, why would I even care what SOTT thinks about this, ..."

Why do you even want "SOTT members" (whoever or whatever that is) opinion on this specific article? Why is that important to you?

As far as Hume's article goes it also seems very vague to me and any tie in to genesis carrying hidden references to alchemy, well I don't even get that out of his article. What I see mostly is 90% quoting others with little or no tie in, vagueness and red flags that make me want to turn away.

What is it you want to discuss? The article you asked about, to me seems to be a bunch of vague word salad that does not really have a point.

The problem is that Thompson's info is not relevant to the article. Whether the Old Testament is history, or not, is not important. Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text.

Here is some review-stuff on Thompson's book, although this thread is not meant to discuss Finkelstein or Thompson (have read Finkelstein by the way).

"Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text."
How is that? Is that what you want to discuss? I sure did not get that conclusion out of the article. I didn't see any reason to even make such a conclusion out of "snakes" appearing with the motif of the "child". And then a bunch of references to 'nakedness' being somehow a symbol and then Hume concluding that he agrees with "Anton Schneider that there has never been a Fall".

I don't see how that demonstrates anything, let alone that Hume "simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text." Seems like nonsense in, nonsense out to me.

Again, this all is not relevant to the Hume-article.

According to you.

If sources of data point to a possible fact that much of the bible is a fabrication designed to misinform and mislead. Then the books pointed out to you are very relevant. Otherwise you are saying some document that may have been fabricated for nefarious purposes to mislead people has some special significance of true secrets of alchemy in it. I can't even follow your reasoning.

You ask, very vaguely. People respond. You say No, No, that's got nothing to do with it!

OK. Then explain yourself. Get rid of some of the vagueness. What is your point? What do you think alchemy even is? Why does that make this article significant? What truth does this article reveal and in what way? Try to make a point and provide some evidence of some kind.

Laura, could it be then that you only read the introduction to the Hume-article?

Your above statement sounds belittling. "could it be then" that you did not follow my commands? Otherwise my point would be perfectly clear and everyone would agree with my vagueness.

I also find it interesting that you select Laura's post specifically to respond to. It would appear to me that your first post is directed at SOTT, not the people of this forum. "Dear members of SOTT" and then choosing to respond to Laura and then chiding her for not following the instructions you had in your head.

It is tough to read a mind that is so vague. You or at least your post reminds me of a blast from the past - Linda DeCloedt. I am not sure why that jumped into my mind, it just did though. Maybe it was the chiding of Laura that did it.

 

[j0da]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

I have a gut feeling that this is another troll and I'll explain why.

I came over from Thot and World Mysteries.

We have already discussed Thoth/Thot/World Mysteries web pages, we know they belong to the long list of BS providers, so any mention regarding these pages guarantees a little "stir".

A very interesting article is published at WM on the alchemy hidden in Genesis.

If I was a troll "alchemy bait" would be one of my favourite tools. Some people here know hell lot about this subject so it's a good bet that at least some of them would react to an ignorant posing as expert.

I am planning an article myself on the subject(...)

This is an expansion of the previous gambit. Claiming authority and in the same time pointing to known disinfo guarantees our reaction as well. We are not easily impressed, even more so when one presents himself as merely "planning to do" - again - such behaviour is immediately spotted here and appropriate responses follow.

I would very much like to hear your opinions on the article. hxxp://www.world-mysteries.com/PhilipGardiner/forbidden_letters_21.htm

Also, it must be clear already for troll agents that we usually demand (from new members especially) some introduction/summary of information published at linked web-page. Nobody here has time to check every link, text, page, etc - we are busy. Failure to comply with this demand is almost always met with some "straightening up".

Laura, could it be then that you only read the introduction to the Hume-article?

Since the opening maneuver was succesful it was time to stir the pot some more and what would work better than ignoring forum members and adressing Laura directly in confrontational tone.


Now, all kinds of unfortunate posts are written by new members. We are used to it, in fact - a lot of us had a rough beginning here, so we don't expect absolutely proper behaviour from newbees. BUT, if a new member plays the way mopiet does, violates so many rules at once and "coincidentaly" presses so many buttons in only TWO posts then I'm pretty damned sure there's something fishy about him.

I may be wrong, however it's unlikely. We shall see - as always.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

Laura, could it be then that you only read the introduction to the Hume-article?

Don't you get it? The Old Testament is a fraud. Trying to find great truths in it is like trying trying to find a foreskin in a synagogue.

 

[mopiet]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

"Now, all kinds of unfortunate posts are written by new members. We are used to it, in fact - a lot of us had a rough beginning here, so we don't expect absolutely proper behaviour from newbees. BUT, if a new member plays the way mopiet does, violates so many rules at once and "coincidentaly" presses so many buttons in only TWO posts then I'm pretty damned sure there's something fishy about him.

I may be wrong, however it's unlikely. We shall see - as always."

No offense (and hoping not to press to many buttons here) but this is by far the funniest Forum I've ever visited.
And yes, questions that can be answered by people themselves if only they would do their reading are ignored.
I mean, everybody should clean up their own mess.

For instance, writing:

Don't you get it? The Old Testament is a fraud. Trying to find great truths in it is like trying trying to find a foreskin in a synagogue.

after I have written:

The problem is that Thompson's info is not relevant to the article. Whether the Old Testament is history, or not, is not important. Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text.

Or writing:

You are very vague. Is there a specific point you are trying to make about some truth you see and want to point out to everyone here? Or do you see some kind of disinfo that you would like to discuss? Or what? You are very vague.

After I have written:

I am planning an article myself on the subject, so I would very much like to hear your opinions on the article.

 

[j0da]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

No offense (and hoping not to press to many buttons here) but this is by far the funniest Forum I've ever visited.

No offense taken. Could you specify what makes our forum funny? You don't play the "ridicule" trick, do you?

And yes, questions that can be answered by people themselves if only they would do their reading are ignored.

Haven't we aswered your question? You asked about our opinion and we gave it to you.

I mean, everybody should clean up their own mess.

That's correct, however, we clean our own mess in a specific way, as outlined in Forum Rules section. Posting on this forum requires registration, thus becoming forum member. You are forum member now, so you are expected to act accordingly.

The problem is that Thompson's info is not relevant to the article. Whether the Old Testament is history, or not, is not important. Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

You haven't adressed christx11 questions, while he made quite a few good points. Why is that, hmm?

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Philip Gardiner: expert on hidden mysteries? PSY-OPS Agent

No offense (and hoping not to press to many buttons here) but this is by far the funniest Forum I've ever visited.
And yes, questions that can be answered by people themselves if only they would do their reading are ignored.
I mean, everybody should clean up their own mess.

For instance, writing:

Don't you get it? The Old Testament is a fraud. Trying to find great truths in it is like trying trying to find a foreskin in a synagogue.

after I have written:

The problem is that Thompson's info is not relevant to the article. Whether the Old Testament is history, or not, is not important. Hume simply demonstrated that alchemy travelled with the text.

Okay, so you don't get it. Thompson's info is relevant. I know it will be next to impossible to break the hold you have on your overvalued ideas and long-held stereotypes of reasoning, but, again: the idea of finding "alchemy" in the OT is like looking back at PNAC in 1500 years and proclaiming to find the secrets of transcendental meditation.

Of course, it is possible that some of the stories in the bible are vague reminiscences of earlier tales with some symbolic (and/or historical) meaning, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. (Maybe you'll surprise me with your article? I'm looking forward to it.)