User talk:Realmessage
Welcome!
|
Your edits
The material you are adding belongs in Raëlian beliefs and practices, not in the articles you are editing. If you read the policy at WP:UNDUE, what you are adding is simply not significant enough for the set of articles you are editing, and you going to be reverted. Sorry, but Wikipedia does have its policies and guidelines and new editors usually don't know them and aren't expected to. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
April 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at El (deity), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that you would like to have what you call a reliable source. But the problem is that there is no reliable source for the claim that El would mean deity in the sense that is has been interpreted for a long time now. It is understandable that this interpretation, has been done and is being done still today all of the time. But it is not however many time being interpreted incorrectly any more true nonetheless. It is a known fact that "El" has the meaning of "them" in Hebrew. But they who read the scriptures and did not understand the using of the word El in specific places where it did not make any sense to them, drew the conclusion that it must refer to a deity. Thus the meaning of the word El, was wrongfully interpreted as a deity, along with the word Elohim and Yahweh. We can see this so very obviously when looking at the original text and what it says. Example: Ari-el .. has been interpreted as a kind of lion god. When in fact they referred to the lion of the Elohim, the creators. The lion of the creators. The lion of "them". Their lion. - instead this meaning turned into some kind of "lion god". If you could only comprehend the vast amount of words that have been completely and utterly misinterpreted due to the belief that El refers to a "god". Take for instance the with El Beth-el, which is typically translated as "The God Bethel". When at the same time it is seemingly referring to "the table of Jacob". Definition currently: "the God of Bethel," an altar of Jacob or a spot that he refers to. It makes no sense what so ever. What it means is "Their something". Them, being the creators, referred to in the word Elohim, as THEM, not as god. The fonetics of the word Beth-el, also sounds suspiciously much like "Bethlehem". A place well known from other texts. Instead this has suddenly become "The altar of god" - what? Another example: Elazar, currently interpreted as "god has helped" - when actually meaning "they helped" or "they did helping". Or the word Lael, currently translated as "belonging to god", when it actually means "theirs". There is this huge misunderstanding in the entire interpretation of the hebrew meaning of the scriptures, due to the wrongful interpretation of the meaning of El, Eloha, and Elohim. What it actually refers to is "Them", "One of them who came from the sky" and "They who came from the sky". But when El, Eloha, Elohim are all interpreted wrongfully, the entire meaning of a whole bunch of words has become totally distorted. Look at the word: ale (which is the same as el), that has been understood to mean those, or these. Yet when used in combination with other words, it is suddenly interpreted as God. It makes no sense what so ever. It has never meant God in the first place and this interpretation is entirely wrong. If you look at the word Yruw'el (pronounced yer-oo-ale') and how it is currently translated - you will see that it is translated as "founded by God" and believed to be a place in Palestine. This is the most foolish of all interpretations ever. What it means is "the place that they erected/built/founded" and it is none other then Jerusalem. The word itself is clearly seen in the fonetics of the pronunciation. Jer-u-ale. Which later became known as Jerusalem of course. At the same time words such as Abiel is translated as "El is my father" - when it actually means "they are my father". The Elohim are my father. They are the creators, who created man on earth. Or the word Yiphtach-el, translated into "god opens" and seen as a location by context - when it actually means "the place they opened". Or take the word barak-el, which is now interpreted as "God does bless", when it actually means "they heal", The Elohim heals something. Or take the word Betsalel, translated as "in the shadow/protection of el" - when it actually means "under their protection/cover". Or take the word Gabriel, which is interpreted as "a man of El" or archangel - totally ludicrus interpretation of this which clearly means "one of them" or "one of their men". Or take Migdal-el, which is interpreted as "a tower of god" supposedly a stronghold in Naphtali. It of course clearly refers to "their tower" in some place. Or look at Yabneel - translated as "El causes to build", refering to a place in Isr. It means nothing other then "they built". Finally what can easily be concluded, is that Isr, is not a location or a name of some place - it means simply "their place". Irsa-el. The location of Elohim. The place where they lived and conducted their business. All of this is conveyed in the message to Rael. He did not read hebrew to understand these things. He was told, that this is the history of the ancient times, and that there were laboratories, in which they created all of humankind. They were supposedly located in current Palestine, in Jerusalem a.k.a as Israel. Among other places on the earth, but this location was the most prominent and best of all the laboratories at that time. - So you can clearly see, that the way we have interpreted this language doesn't make any sense. It is ridiculous how foolish the interpretation of El as a "god" is. It was never about any "god", it referred to the creators, the ones who came from the sky and created all of mankind. El means nothing other then simply "they". You are writing about the "god They" as if it was a fact that this god existed or that people back then believed in the "they"-god. So that is my answer to you regarding this topic. Hopefully it makes you think a little bit. not everything is correct, simply because everyone else seems to believe that it is so, despite how many scholars have written their books adn made interpretations of the most ludicrous kind for centuries already.
--Realmessage (talk) 20:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has no interest in your original research, we report only on what the reliable sources say. Theroadislong (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
undoing of the addition to the meaning of the word Elohim
copying reply errantly left at another editor's to this page, to keep thread together Jytdog (talk) 22:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ed!
I noticed that you undid an edit that I contributed to the article regarding the meaning of the word Elohim. This seemed a little strange a thing to do, as the facts that I stated in the edit are very concrete and real. I am new to writing on Wikipedia, and I might not have had the full chance to add all of the things that go into a good text such as sources etc, but this does not quite call for the deletion of the text entirely. Especially as these things are true. Raelianism is a religion, and the meaning of the word Elohim according to that religion is as I have stated in the text. Rael as a person is very real and have published several book on the topic. So it seems a bit strange to remove something from wikipedia that is a simple fact. This means very simply that there is a distortion of the presentation of factual things, such as the Raelian meaning and message of the word Elohim.
The Raelian meaning of the word Elohim, might not be what is typically associated with the word in religious context such as judaism och any other religion - for obvious reasons. Therefore it is important that the alternative reason for why the word exist under such cryptical circumstances in the hebrew texts is given a fair chance of being interpreted according to the message of Rael. After all, you do not know with any certainty that what he is saying, and what previous messengers has been trying to say is not true. In the case that you are wrong in your interpretation (along with a lot of other people for obvious and understandable reasons) you are not really contributing to the advancement of human society and civilisation by removing this important piece of information. In fact you would by doing so work against that which the masters and messengers of previous times and this current time is trying to achieve - including that which religious figures have been trying to achieve for ages. Please do not do that, as it is both selfish, ignorant and counter productive. The information that I added to the meaning of the word Elohim, is important for all of humanity to know and to read. It is not up to you to singlehandedly decide what people can and cannot read in relation to this word and it's true meaning. Much of the things already written about the word Elohim, supports entirely the message that the Elohim has given to Rael, as does much of the texts from the Quran and the Bible. I would kindly ask that you revoke the undoing of removal of the text, and rather instruct me on how you would like to get additional information. Such as sources for the claims etc. This is a much more constructive way of contributing to the material at hand. I understand that you want the text to be good and according to the inherit structure of the article. But please do instead improve, and work together on improving, and not just undo the text that is written. There are plenty of articles of wikipedia that need improvement, but they are not deleted, simply because they are not academically perfect in all sense.
Kind regards --Realmessage (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- I am afraid you should address this message to Jytdog (talk · contribs) directly. I think I haven't edited the article about Elohim so far. --Edcolins (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Realmessage. Thanks for your note. Thanks too for acknowledging that you are new to Wikipedia. Please be aware that although this is indeed "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit", this place is not a wild west - there is kind of "rule of law" here. The community has developed what we call policies and guidelines that govern content and editor behavior. Your edit violated several of those policies. This is not a terrible thing! A lot of people who first come here don't understand the policies. But you are obligated to try to understand them, and to follow them. This is actually part of the "terms of service" that you agreed to when you created your account, and that you again agree to each time you edit. The relevant policies are WP:OR (you cannot add your own thoughts or beliefs to Wikipedia), instead, per the policy WP:VERIFY, everything you add needs to be directly supported by what we consider to be a reliable source (which ideally is independent). The actual content that gets added needs to be what we call neutral - you need to actually try to write without coloring what the literature says, and to give what we call "weight" to content according to what is in the literature. Finally, Wikipedia cannot be used as a platform to promote any perspective. Your edit violated every one of those policies. If that doesn't make sense to you I can try to explain more, but please do have a read of each of those policies before you react. You can reply here. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- copying comment left at my talk page in this edit, here, to keep thread together Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. It is indeed true, that I have not dwelled much upon the rules of wikipedia and sure as it is there was no source as such mentioned. I will make sure to improve upon these things upon further submits. However, I would like to and feel a strong need to defend the fact that what I have written as such are neither my own thoughts or beliefs. They are facts, in the sense of the existence of the Raelian message, and the Raelian chruch, as well as the person Claude Vorihol and his publications. The message in these publications are very clear and easily understood by them who has taken the time, interest, bravery and openmindedness to read them. This message has in fact changed the entire view of a great deal of people from all walks of life, with understandable logic - as there are things in the message that have not only a strong foundation in truth and actuality, but also gives us a very real and new perspective to the narrative that has been popularly adopted up until this day and age. There is a reason for why this is so, and the reason is in itself an alternative view of the typical narrative and interpretation of the word Elohim and Yahweh, only to name a few. The message has a very strong foundation in the lithography of the Hebrew language, that is rather obvious and far more logical than the commonly practice of simply substituting a whole array of words into just "god" for no apparent reason whatsoever. There are many indications that show, how and why this has happened - all of which are fairly easy to understand. But it also has to be noted, that while this practice has been around for a long time, and plentyfold of literature has been written based on complete nonsense (yes, these things happen still today) there exist very little literature that would have been around for a long time that could support this new perspective of things. So one can not expect to see this kind of literature all over the place and to see this as a kind of proof that it is not a valid point of view is not sound. This mentality of literature being always the foundation of truth constitutes a kind of academic stagnation, where one beliefs that all which can and should be said, has already been said. We are also discovering new things about the universe all of the time. If you would apply this same kind of logic onto scientific studies of the universe, you would be censoring all things that contradict the laws of Newton simply because they are not represented in the history of literature. This is a kind of self preserving delusion. Never allowing a new perspective to emerge, in fear of it being "too strange" or "revolutionary". If we had this practice when relating to physical studies, we would be stuck in the middle ages because of the lack of open-mindedness.
- What I am here interested in knowing is the following: If wikipedia is not to be used as a platform to promote any perspective - what excuse is then being used to promote the perspective of Elohim referring to some Deity ? The same regarding Yahweh. THIS by all possible meanings of the word, is a perspective. It is an interpretation - made by people who tried to interpret a text that they did not understand. These things are a FACT. So. Either we delete all references of Elohim as being a Deity (or God) and refrain from making any other remarks than the fact that this word exists in the hebrew scriptures - or we alternatively present all different views on the subject in question, including the fact that the word has been interpreted as to mean Deity and is typically referred to as a Deity as a result. It is by no factual evidence correct to say that Elohim means deity. The fact is that it was translated into having this meaning. Just as it is a fact, that there exist different interpretations of these words. One of them being that Elohim actually refers to "Them who came from the sky", and Yahweh being a person rather than a "god". If you would take the time to read the scriptures, I think you would also find it rather strange how many things this Elohim does in the very physical world, as well as Yahweh being the one both flying in clouds and landing on the ground entering houses and doing all kind of things that any living person can do (with the kind of technology needed to do so). So, in all fairness, we either delete all interpretations and perspectives of the words Elohim and Yahweh - or we present them all with due respect. If you want to complete the article with some further perspectives, then you are most welcome. I contributed with my knowledge of the Raelian perspective. You are free by all means to contribute with your own material on the topic, but please do not judge that which you have no knowledge about simply because you lack this piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmessage (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- oh man that was TMI. If you actually read the article on Elohim you will find that it is written from a history of religions perspective. It doesn't assume there is actually a metaphysical being called "Elohim". Ditto the article on Yahweh. Neither make claims about "reality" but only how figures are depicted. You won't find much difference if you compare with Easter Bunny or Charlie Brown. Jytdog (talk) 13:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- That said there are articles in WP about theology, but again they are (meant to be) scholarly, not confessional. See Christology or Raëlian beliefs and practices Jytdog (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- What I am here interested in knowing is the following: If wikipedia is not to be used as a platform to promote any perspective - what excuse is then being used to promote the perspective of Elohim referring to some Deity ? The same regarding Yahweh. THIS by all possible meanings of the word, is a perspective. It is an interpretation - made by people who tried to interpret a text that they did not understand. These things are a FACT. So. Either we delete all references of Elohim as being a Deity (or God) and refrain from making any other remarks than the fact that this word exists in the hebrew scriptures - or we alternatively present all different views on the subject in question, including the fact that the word has been interpreted as to mean Deity and is typically referred to as a Deity as a result. It is by no factual evidence correct to say that Elohim means deity. The fact is that it was translated into having this meaning. Just as it is a fact, that there exist different interpretations of these words. One of them being that Elohim actually refers to "Them who came from the sky", and Yahweh being a person rather than a "god". If you would take the time to read the scriptures, I think you would also find it rather strange how many things this Elohim does in the very physical world, as well as Yahweh being the one both flying in clouds and landing on the ground entering houses and doing all kind of things that any living person can do (with the kind of technology needed to do so). So, in all fairness, we either delete all interpretations and perspectives of the words Elohim and Yahweh - or we present them all with due respect. If you want to complete the article with some further perspectives, then you are most welcome. I contributed with my knowledge of the Raelian perspective. You are free by all means to contribute with your own material on the topic, but please do not judge that which you have no knowledge about simply because you lack this piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmessage (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- My good Jtydog. What is here the problem, is that all information regarding the usage of the word Elohim is not only "religious history" in the perspective of it meaning Gods or Deity. There are also perspectives regarding this specific historical passage in the context of modern religion that states how this perspective of "god" or "deity" came to be. This my friend is by all means an important piece of information to the person who is looking for an answer to the meaning of the word Elohim. In the Raelian religion it is said that this word Elohim was wrongfully translated into the meaning of a Deity, by individuals who did not understand how and why the word existed in the scriptures in the way that they did. This is historically relevant information regarding the word Elohim, as is the information that according to Rael, the true meaning of the word is "Those who came from the sky". The explanation as to how this misinterpretation happened to pass, is equally important to the person who is looking to understand the meaning of the word Elohim. The interpretation of the hebrew word Elohim - IS as by evidential facts merely an interpretation. Thus is also the perspective of this meaning being that of a Deity or "god" none the more or less important than the perspective of how this interpretation came to be, and what this word actually (or alternatively if you so like) means. There is no universal right that states that the meaning of Elohim as a Deity is the only acceptable interpretation or perspective regarding this word, and that all other perspectives are to be censored due to lack of intelligence, knowledge or understanding. Keep in mind, that there exists too the possibility, in all fairness - that you (and all of those who claim that the word means Deity or "god") are wrong, just as much as you apparently seem to be so sure of the thought that this alternative perspective is wrong. You DO NOT know if it is right/wrong and in that sense you are not in any position to judge regarding any such matter. No difference how much you consider yourself knowing or what amount of experience you have editing wikipedia articles. So please, can we have an intelligent conversation about this subject, rather than one that is tainted by beliefs and preconceived truth.
Now that you are seemingly fond of The Easter Bunny or Charlie Brown, maybe this will help you in understanding my point. If you have an article, that states how the Easter Bunny came to be a phenomenon within our society, claiming that is is a fictitious character. There is nothing wrong in adding information that according to some people it is a "symbolic" character that has a meaning which originates in some real life thing - such as "showing of gratitude" perhaps, and a presentation as to how this came to be a cultural phenomenon according to these people. The problem here is that as apparently some individuals find it difficult to believe this symbolic connection and the relevance of it being known in this case, they seem eager to censor this information in order to keep their perception of reality intact. --Realmessage (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- And this stuff you say about FACTs - I do not care about what you think is true. You should not care what i think is true. None of that has anything to do with how we work in Wikipedia. Nothing. And has nothing to do with why I deleted your content - the words you wrote. They violated the content policies here. There were no sources, and there was UNDUE weight. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. We do agree that there were things missing, such as a source. This can be easily corrected. Seemingly though it is important for us to have this discussion, as there is a clear misunderstanding regarding the subject matter. To not care if something is true or not true, is a good way of relating to the contents. It is important that this is not a matter of belief, as in that case the inability to accept the possibility of another interpretation and perspective than what is prevalent and common becomes the problem. This alternative perspective constitutes a fact, that is evident and founded in reality. If you wish to dispute this, please go ahead. I am all willing to hear what you have to say. - as mentioned before, I am more than happy to rework the contribution to the article according to the guidelines.
- You don't understand Wikipedia's policies for content, and you are more busy lecturing than you are learning. You haven't asked me a single question about the policies that I mentioned , in this vast, vast amount of writing. I'm done here. Jytdog (talk) 14:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough. We do agree that there were things missing, such as a source. This can be easily corrected. Seemingly though it is important for us to have this discussion, as there is a clear misunderstanding regarding the subject matter. To not care if something is true or not true, is a good way of relating to the contents. It is important that this is not a matter of belief, as in that case the inability to accept the possibility of another interpretation and perspective than what is prevalent and common becomes the problem. This alternative perspective constitutes a fact, that is evident and founded in reality. If you wish to dispute this, please go ahead. I am all willing to hear what you have to say. - as mentioned before, I am more than happy to rework the contribution to the article according to the guidelines.