Please do take the time to look into his hyperlinks, before you jump to the conclusion that my question was sincere. In fact, it would behoove you to read quite a lot of what Iacchus wrote here, and how it was reacted to (by me, for example). His numerology, like yours, was hogwash. It began with flawed assumptions, shoehorned into faulty equations, subjected to torturous logic, resulting in conclusions that were known well before the initial assumptions were even made. "This is what I know to be true, now what numbers can I massage to get there from here?"
My linking you to his threads was the equivalent of the case study "the three Christs of Ypsilanti", in which three mental patients, each under the delusion that he was Christ, were placed together. I wanted to see how you reacted to another numerologist who claimed to see The Truth in Sacred Geometry. Would you denounce him as heretic? Would you embrace him as fellow? Would the forum implode under a critical mass of ignorance? It was an emperical question.
Mercutio, your above POST shows your classic labeling categorizing ERROR.
This is what the lazy do because if you can label; and categorise you don;t have to do the hard work of discerning truths, you just have to make little boxes and put whole areas of study into them so you can avoid thinking about such subjects. Its conveneient, superficial, and flippant but it can in a sense let you sleep better and more righteously in your own mind at night.
But let me suggest to you, that each and every subject has to be weighed and discerned without going to the extreme and negating everything with a ten second browse.
Its called logic and math. Logic deals with set theory, where you learn logically and rationally what ideals or truths or statistics very what conclusion, or what fits into what.
I mean GASP GULP Oh MY GOD, I have to admit that there are some church people that are good, and that it is only the dam church system that needs to go. I can;t go to the extreme and label them all as dangerous and devoid, for some of them shall break away from their bondages eventually and be real brethren...because they must have real hearts and souls and fiber right now. The same with atheists, all of them are not evil and non thinkers and rude and foolish. Some of them just haven;t connected the dots as of yet, and so I can't paint them ALL as errant and deficient. For the least shall and can become the greatest... we just don't know until the final curtain closes. So I have to watch that I use logic and math properly so as to always admit to myself that there is still hope for some athiests. Sure the majority won;t get liberated and freed mentally and every other way, but set theory and discernment sattes that some will make it. Some in set theory means a minumum of one... and so with life there is hope even if just for ONE.
Hence Mercutio, I don't like wordly numerology etc. it is basically a crock. But each article would have to be analysied for its separate merits, For believe it or not, all usually have some truths, and we can;t just label with truths lies because of the authors or even their past mistakes.
we have to judge everyone and every subject OBJECTIVELY rather than subjectively.
You see HERE, with group pressure, you are forced to post according to group principles or lack of them. Your peer pressure forces you into compliance and denial. Its almost impossible for you to agree with any truth whatsoever of mine, as that would put you at risk from the mob mentality. You have to negate all and everything to keep being accepted by your fellow negaters. You just can;t be objective under these conditions Mercutio, you need their support to much right NOW, and hence you become subjectibve rather than objective, and you go to the extreme in wanting to label huge areas of study by negating them in seconds.
It takes time an an honest heart to do the hard work of discernment. But that's your choice, no one can do it for you.