The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed"....

[john white]

I put this together for a forum where there is a right old ding dong "Dawkins cheerleader athiests vs religous thiests" scrap going on with extremely polarised debate continuing day ofter day after day... thought it might short out a few circuits, and that it would be interesting to share

The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"

What do I mean by this? Well consider ourselves. We live dependant on our one rock in space being just the right distance from our Sun, and on the existence of a six mile thick layer of gas. We cannot travel the vastness of the Universe, but must peer out and guess and wonder. We are finite: we cannot read every book ever written in a lifetime, or even remotely close, or travel to all places we could travel to. We cannot know everything, we cannot be everything: we are creatures of extreme limitation

We are born, knowing nothing, no language, no pattern, no thought: from our immediate surrounding we start to absorb input with which we construct our "inner world", the model through which we filter all input. What thoughts can a man have, without the construction bricks of concepts to construct them? In terms of development of mind, all humans are wildly different from one another and none is perfect, for the perfection of mind is impossible

And yet, we are connected by our feelings: we all can feel, and feel the same feelings. this is our common bond that unites us all together: whoever we have persuaded ourselves to think we are, or to think another is (atheist/ theist/ humanist/ christian/ muslim/ jew/ buddhist/ communist and all the rest) because of our interpretation of our immediate environment from birth to maturity, whatever bits of data exist within the storage of our brains, we all have human blood pumping through our human hearts: we all have human forms derived, in their diversity, from our common human heritage

For some of us, the mind is enough. Something makes sense, it makes sense, anything which we cannot make sense of, is therefore non-sense. If our inner model has reached its limits of what it can conceive, we do not say "our model is limited": instead we say "this data does not fit, it must be false". Yet for others, we understand that whilst our mind is limited, our feeling is not. What difference does distance make to feel the suffering of a child who has been harmed? What need of a feeling to be rationalised in order to be felt? The rationalisation only comes after the feeling, not before

Consider all of the above, and then consider scripture:

Let us imagine that in the vastness of the universe there is an order of intelligence far far vaster than our own, intelligence without limit, infinite intelligence, occupying all places simultaneously (which is a reasonably fair description of what the spiritually inclined consider "God" to be). Let us imagine one was that intelligence: how then could one communicate effectively with a being as limited and flawed as man? Could man, with his ability only to construct sense from what the pattern of thoughts he knows, immediately and comprehensively grasps what it is to be infinite intelligence? Clearly, the likely answer here is No

But man can feel: and this capacity to feel is what could connect man to the infinite intelligence around him. With this connection, man can feel what it is to be man from the POV of infinite intelligence. He can feel what it is to be awareness much larger than himself... and he can then use the contents of his mind to construct a mental model that defines, imperfectly, as that is the only way man can define, those infinite feelings stimulated by from infinite intelligence

That is what all scripture is: the imperfect translation of infinite feeling, filtered through the cultural and historical context of the individual so connected and inspired

And what feelings are they, that can be inspired by infinite intelligence? What does infinite intelligence feel?

Infinite empathy. Infinite compassion. Infinite Love

Of course, we can reject this. We can focus on the imperfect map of scripture, the product of imperfect man, and say "these words are cruel: this phrase is hurtful: this concept is ignorant": and all these things are true. But we are critiquing man and his failings: not the touch with infinity that so inspired him

All scripture is flawed. The profound beauty lies in the fact that any has been attempted to be written at all

Perhaps we cannot conceive that there is such a thing as infinite intelligence. Perhaps we live in such a way that there is only our own intelligence, and that is all there is. This seems to me to be the same as saying "So! You claim to have had a divine revelation standing on that hill! Right I'm going to go and stand there too: and if I don't have an identical replicable divine inspiration, I'm going to declare you a fraud!"

And perhaps that’s why one of the common translations of communion with infinite intelligence ("God") is:

"Forgive them: they know not what they do"

[bigus_dickus]

good one.

any linkage to see what went on?

[john white]

I think you have to be a member to view, but I'll post up some replies so far:

You'll have a hard job selling that to people heavily invested in their religion. How can you have faith in a text which is full of innaccuracies? That's why the church never like to admit they are wrong. If they are seen to change their mind it brings everything into question, thus they have to cling to their faith regardless of how ludicrous it appears at times. Just read any evolution~creationism thread for examples of that.

Well of course: thats part of the human tragedy. We mistake our inner constructed citadel for ourselves, and feel that our self is then threatened when the concepts we construct that citadel from are questioned

But I can't say it troubles me personally: having gained a perspective of man's finite nature, my natural impulse is to understand and to forgive.

The error you describe is the same whenever we are defending our inner contructed "temple", whether that is a "theological" model based on sun symbolism or an "empirical" model based on interpreting data from the dials of a machine. I won't buy that science doesnt do dogma just becuase scientific dogma's have proved to be more swiftly adaptable: neither does that excuse religous dogma. To see the question of mankinds exisance as defined by which mental model one chooses is, I feel, to miss the point that we do not have to choose a mental model at all: that we can in fact hold two completely contradictory views at the same time, if we so choose, and still "exist"

Yet it seems to me that awareness is not dependant upon our minds at all, whether we fill them with spiritual or scientific concepts to model the world in which we live

Who then is the observer who observes, when we are not our thoughts, but the observation of our thoughts?

That's very deep. You should send that in to the Reader's Digest, they've got a page for people like you. ;)

Have they? Wow! (rushes off to subscribe)

Pigeon holes aside, there is in fact a well established religion that hold to the evolution of scripture, which is the Bahai faith, and I am something of a fan of Bahai scripture

There is a small passage I am constantly reminded of when I read the theist vs atheist debates here in (or is it on?) the Tenth Planet, which to me explains why atheists are perfectly right to believe as they do, and why theists are also perfectly right to believe contrarily, which is this one, discussing the nature of "God's Love"

O SON OF BEING!

Love Me, that I may Love thee.
If thou lovest Me not,
My love can in no wise reach thee.
Know this, O servant

Why is this relevant? Well to me because it speaks of the nature of connection through feeling transcending connection through mind, and of the importance of openness for feeling to flow

If a child becomes frustrated and resentful of a parent, that feeling can turn to hate: this may be rational, but equally may be irrational. But no matter how much a parent loves a child, the child cannot feel that love until that child lets go of feeling hate and agrees to love the parent in return: obviously that’s an example of extremities and I don't mean to suggest that atheists are children who hate their parent: Its my belief that "god" is perfectly able to survive our non belief in "him", if that is what we choose to shape our minds into, and that "compulsion" has nothing to do with god, but everything to do with man wanting other men to support the edifice of the ego-self

But it does speak to me of the difference between those with an empathic feeling flowing connection to what they, at least, understand to be god, and a rationalist "left brain" approach that demands absolute proof before allowing any feeling to flow: Being as the flow of the feeling is the only form of "proof" we are likely to find, there's a classic catch 22 right there: and being as all scripture is inevitably words written down by the hand of man inspired by "God", not written by "God" himself, it seems to me that we are looking in the wrong places if we seek to prove or disprove God by proving or disproving scripture: in the same way that an equation defining the force of gravity is not the force of gravity itself: would challenging the validity of the equation make gravity cease to function?

Bollocks. Go to a farm at calving season and watch the new borns stagger to their feet and instinctively suckle on their mother's teats. There's a huge amount of information already packed into us when we're born - a baby will recoil instinctively from things that are too hot or cold, has a method of drawing attention when it needs it, not to mention all the self-awareness already there.

Genetic programs don't equal "thought", in the same way that a Car comes with inbuilt potential but cannot drive itself.

And as for your general point, that's fascinating as hypothetical theories go but in practical terms it is at best irrelevant, at worst dangerous because it allows people to use religion for whatever ends they desire ("Let's go invade that oil-rich country... in the name of God!") without any of that dirt falling on the hands of any given omnipotent deity that organised the pain and suffering to begin with.

Thanks for the general compliment, and for your candour. I don't see it as excusing human failings, but as driving for us to understand our responsibility for them: but all perception is a matter of choice in what it may or may not mean to us individually

Christians have been trying for years to wriggle out of the gaping flaws in their holy text ("Did we say six days? Well, obviously we meant several billion years by that. Because of, you know, the reason...") and now you're trying to argue that even if we do prove that the Bible is only so much horsecrap, it doesn't matter because that's just the fault of men.

I'd definitely argue that you can only prove the bible is so much horsecrap to yourself: and even horsecrap has its uses (as any lover of magic mushrooms would be glad to tell you!). We might believe we have "proven" something to another, but that is illusion: we have not made another accept anything, they have chosen to accept it by themselves. It's what is commonly called "free will"

Well, if God is so omnipotent, he can arrange for a decent translation.

In fact, I believe He was supposed to have carved the Ten Commandments in stone himself - are you suggesting God has bad handwriting or something?

I'm suggesting that "God" may very well me constantly trying, and if we don't understand ourselves, how can we be sure the "fault on the line" isn’t us? Whether "God" really did make words appear on stone tablets or man invented a metaphor is not "provable" one way or another

Stop wriggling - either stand up for your religion, huge gaping faults and all or bury it. Don't say "This is the truth except for this bit, that bit, all of these passages, oh and it may all be garbage anyway".

Does man need religion to understand God? Debate there all in itself

In my understanding, Religion is supposed to be a guide: Lost in our Ego's, man tries to use it as a Law

No, no. No wriggling. The Bible (I'm guessing you're Christian) has within it the Ten Commandments. These were carved into the stone by God himself. Quick reminder:

I'm quite happy to consider that following the path of the Christ is one route to harmony with God: but then I'm quite happy to consider that for every Religion

So let's see what the Almighty has to say for himself. Okay, point one. "It's Me, only Me, just Me" - He has a big ego. Fair enough, He is God. But what about his character? "...for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me" - so if your great-grandparents were non-believers, you're screwed. Is it me or does God sound pretty bitter and twisted?

More lifestyle stuff: "For six days you shall labour and do all your work." Now that's against EU working week regulations for a start. "But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you." - God approves of slavery.

"Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." - Jealousy is a bad thing so you musn't be jealous.... unless you're God in which case You can be as jealous as You like because after all, You're omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent so there's sooooooooo much for You to be jealous about.

Now remember the above is the direct word of God. Not what someone remembered hearing from a guy with a beard in Jerusalem forty years previously but the direct, hand carved, personalised word of God. There's no wiggle room, no "well, maybe it was a metaphor". And yet He appears to be a vindictive, jealous creature who tolerates some of the worst that our species can offer.

That or people just made it all up to get other people to obey them. Gosh, which one could it be?

Well being as I have no need to accept anything as the literal word of God, I can appreciate your argument but don't appreciably feel it effects the living experiance of being a human or the potential for human communion with the divine. Is the passage written what god meant? Or is it what Moses was able to understand God meant? Maybe that was what Moses decided to beleive God meant. Does that say more about God, or about Moses? Maybe moses interpreted the message as this:

for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me

Becuase he felt the other "rules" were really useful and progressive for his culture and people would respond well with a bit of stick to go with the carrot. Or maybe God presented himself in that way becuase thats what people needed at the time, but in this age man can accept a far more evolved message?

I quite agree with rejecting God in the aspect of a vengeful force: force demands contempt, not respect: but what have we succeded in doing? We have rejected an aspect, a single facet: not the infinite potential of the whole

[bigus_dickus]

thanks! what's funny is this.

atheism exists as a belief system, opposing to theism. there cannot exist atheism without theism. it is obvious why of course.

atheist, comes from the greek word "atheos" (a 'non', 'without' + theos 'god').

but, the opposite word 'theism', does not exist. in the greek language, we don't have such term, it would be either 'theos' (=god) or 'atheos' (=non god). but 'atheos' does not really mean non god, but 'non believer' in a sense.

then again, we would have to know the etymology of the word 'theos' and this is the most interesting part (synchronicity man, i was just readnig about it last night!)

theos, comes from the verb theome which means to observe! which means that he who observes is theos, is god.

the implications are obvious. look at the words that derive:

theater

thea = view and also 'goddess'

theology = theos + logos

theory = 1592, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." www.etymonline.com

theorem = 1551, from M.Fr. théorème, from L.L. theorema, from Gk. theorema "spectacle, speculation," in Euclid "proposition to be proved," from theorein "to consider" (see theory).

so, to come back to 'atheism'... this term analyzed, not only requires the existence of theos (god) as a notion, it actually means "to be unobservant".

and by the correct usage of the word, the reality behind it, it would also mean that one is not able to comprehend what is going on in him or around him. i know that we don't always mean it like that when we say it or when we call someone 'atheist', but the truth lies in the truth of the logos (the words).

in the most general sense, from my point of view, 'atheism' would be "to not have a philosophy, an idea of the world, any concept of direction and choice". generally defined and limited by the contrast with religious belief systems and theology.

[bigus_dickus]

linguistics are really exciting.

the word theory

it comes from the verb "theoro" which means "believe, consider, contemplate, etc"

"theoro" comes from "theos" (=god) and "ora" (=time, =care, ="frontis, frontida")

"frontida" comes from the verb "frono" (="i think", "i believe")

"frono" comes from the word "frin", or "phren" which means nous (=mind)

and you know the term "phren", from the word "schizophrenic", which means "schizo" (=divide, tear) and "phrenic" (=mind) = "split mind".

so what we understand from our language is this: god is, the observant, contemplating mind, that makes decisions by observing and understanding.

need a spliff now

[john white]

Damn! So do I.

Cracking stuff mate, really really interesting

Btw, one more from the thread: this guy is actually a priest!

You'll have a hard job selling that to people heavily invested in their religion.

I invest heavily in my religion, having devoted my life to the service of it. And yet, somehow, I more or less agree with everything said *(by JW)*. This fact should make you think that your following statement:

How can you have faith in a text which is full of innaccuracies?

Must be based on an ignorance of what I, and those like me, think.

So, Conclusion One - Howard, you have a basic misunderstanding about how a large number of Christians 'believe'.

"How can you have faith in a text which is full of inaccuracies?" - Answer - the majority of us don't. Our faith is not in the Bible, it is in God. The Celts thought of the two methods God speaks to us - the "Big Book" and the "Wee book". The "wee book" was the Bible, the "big book" was the world. Finding God in either is a question of how you look at them; how you look at the world, and how you look at the Bible. Fundamentalist Christians or Fundamentalist Atheists look at the Bible in the same way.

That's why the church never like to admit they are wrong. If they are seen to change their mind it brings everything into question, thus they have to cling to their faith regardless of how ludicrous it appears at times Just read any evolution~creationism thread for examples of that.

What is this 'church' of which you speak? I haven't been informed of a francise which I have signed up to. You seem to think that the whole Christian church believes more or less the same thing in the same way. This is not true. If this surprises you, remember that it comes from a priest, and this should lead you to conclusion number two:

Conclusion Number two - Howard, you don't understand what sort of body of people the church is.

You want to think of it like a pollitical party, a group of people who all sign up to the same policies, who are pushing more or less in the same direction against the opposition. Sure they may have internal wrangling, but they are all fighting the same corner.

This is not true. The church is not a pollitical party, it is like a huge, extended family. There are tensions within those, and we all believe different things. Just like me and my Dad disagree about homosexuality, divorce, sex before marriage, contraception (I am for all of them, Dad is against), but we are still part of the same family, so it is with the chruch. Which is why I as a priest can speak out against what I regard as lunatic ravings of some other Christians without being said to be "breaking party ranks" - because there are no party ranks to break.

I know I have said this sort of thing to you before, Howard, but you don't seem to have heard it. You think you know what Chirstianity is, and that it is a monster worthy of fighting against. But you really dont, and all you succeed in doing is shouting at those people we would all shout at, and also shouting at a good deal of people who do not deserve it.

Reading this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that yes, perhaps humanity might just unite together after all...

[bigus_dickus]

Reading this gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that yes, perhaps humanity might just unite together after all...

well, i have been saying pretty much the same things that the priest said -and i am not a priest- many times.. but most people prefer to hold on to their beliefs and their contrasts.

but, i can understand why.. there is a great deal of trauma that goes together with christianity and all religions. there have been many people (including our parents) who got it all wrong and created this opposition that does not exist. and the wars and the slaughters and the conflicts, the divisions that went on, in the name of god, which is totally insane..

imagine that, when i was a young boy, i would receive the teachings of the church and then learn about all the wars related to them and i would feel like i was an alien in this world. it was a world where stupid people seemed to rule and i had to accept that, but question everything for that matter.

if only people knew what god means... that i now have to be really cautious how to use that term, because it hurts people. because they think that when we say "god", we mean a creature that enslaves us and does not help. it's not that at all... however there are creatures that enslave and torture for their reasons. they are "god" too, as much as we are, but they are not "the one".

"the one" (real, living, true), is a theoretical entity. by theoretical, i don't mean non existent, because our minds are also theoretical, we don't really know them, but we believe they exist.
that is to say that, if i believe that i have a mind, then my mind must exist, then god must exist also. if god doesn't exist, then my mind does not exist and it is an illusion. and then i arrive to the basics "do i exist? how do i know that i exist?"

"i think, therefore i am". it is not wrong... "i think, therefore i am conscious of myself, of my ego, who is the thinker and of I who is the awareness of the thinker, theobserver". would we be conscious of ourselves if we were not able to think? or would we be mere "neurons" of a cosmic mind, directed by a cosmic will? if we were not able to think for ourselves, we would still be a part of god (notice again: the term means a "cognitive observant mind" and not a particular form of consciousness), but we would not be god in person.

thinking for ourselves, the original "sin", what makes us think that we are not, what makes us experience fear and terror and love and compassion and experience ourselves as separate beings. "free will", which is our permission to make mistakes and understand what the results of every possible action are. only with "free will" we can recognize ourselves..

our computers will have "free will" and "be like us" when... when they turn against us.

[john white]

*Bumped* for Titurel etc

[dark86]

Mr White, your posting is articulate, unflawed and of the finest quality.

;)

[cheeb]

Mr White, your posting is articulate, unflawed and of the finest quality.

;)
his video ain't to bad either,
sure someone with more computer literacy can,
pop it back up!
POE
PTTP

[john white]

(blush)

http://malvernmessages.free-forums.org/malvernmessages-about521.html&sid=a8819b5c27b3bd3e22c37ac4c35e5f46

[titurel]

The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"

What do I mean by this? Well consider ourselves. We live dependant on our one rock in space being just the right distance from our Sun, and on the existence of a six mile thick layer of gas. We cannot travel the vastness of the Universe, but must peer out and guess and wonder. We are finite: we cannot read every book ever written in a lifetime, or even remotely close, or travel to all places we could travel to. We cannot know everything, we cannot be everything: we are creatures of extreme limitation

We are born, knowing nothing, no language, no pattern, no thought: from our immediate surrounding we start to absorb input with which we construct our "inner world", the model through which we filter all input. What thoughts can a man have, without the construction bricks of concepts to construct them? In terms of development of mind, all humans are wildly different from one another and none is perfect, for the perfection of mind is impossible

And yet, we are connected by our feelings: we all can feel, and feel the same feelings. this is our common bond that unites us all together: whoever we have persuaded ourselves to think we are, or to think another is (atheist/ theist/ humanist/ christian/ muslim/ jew/ buddhist/ communist and all the rest) because of our interpretation of our immediate environment from birth to maturity, whatever bits of data exist within the storage of our brains, we all have human blood pumping through our human hearts: we all have human forms derived, in their diversity, from our common human heritage

For some of us, the mind is enough. Something makes sense, it makes sense, anything which we cannot make sense of, is therefore non-sense. If our inner model has reached its limits of what it can conceive, we do not say "our model is limited": instead we say "this data does not fit, it must be false". Yet for others, we understand that whilst our mind is limited, our feeling is not. What difference does distance make to feel the suffering of a child who has been harmed? What need of a feeling to be rationalised in order to be felt? The rationalisation only comes after the feeling, not before

Consider all of the above, and then consider scripture:

Let us imagine that in the vastness of the universe there is an order of intelligence far far vaster than our own, intelligence without limit, infinite intelligence, occupying all places simultaneously (which is a reasonably fair description of what the spiritually inclined consider "God" to be). Let us imagine one was that intelligence: how then could one communicate effectively with a being as limited and flawed as man? Could man, with his ability only to construct sense from what the pattern of thoughts he knows, immediately and comprehensively grasps what it is to be infinite intelligence? Clearly, the likely answer here is No

But man can feel: and this capacity to feel is what could connect man to the infinite intelligence around him. With this connection, man can feel what it is to be man from the POV of infinite intelligence. He can feel what it is to be awareness much larger than himself... and he can then use the contents of his mind to construct a mental model that defines, imperfectly, as that is the only way man can define, those infinite feelings stimulated by from infinite intelligence

That is what all scripture is: the imperfect translation of infinite feeling, filtered through the cultural and historical context of the individual so connected and inspired

And what feelings are they, that can be inspired by infinite intelligence? What does infinite intelligence feel?

Infinite empathy. Infinite compassion. Infinite Love

Of course, we can reject this. We can focus on the imperfect map of scripture, the product of imperfect man, and say "these words are cruel: this phrase is hurtful: this concept is ignorant": and all these things are true. But we are critiquing man and his failings: not the touch with infinity that so inspired him

All scripture is flawed. The profound beauty lies in the fact that any has been attempted to be written at all

Perhaps we cannot conceive that there is such a thing as infinite intelligence. Perhaps we live in such a way that there is only our own intelligence, and that is all there is. This seems to me to be the same as saying "So! You claim to have had a divine revelation standing on that hill! Right I'm going to go and stand there too: and if I don't have an identical replicable divine inspiration, I'm going to declare you a fraud!"

And perhaps that’s why one of the common translations of communion with infinite intelligence ("God") is:

"Forgive them: they know not what they do"
I read what you wrote above but you haven't at all proved what you set out to prove. I find it incredible to find that you can accept that Beings such as Reptilians exist, in dimensions we cannot see, while at the same time, you cannot accept that there are also Beings that exist in other dimensions we cannot see that are not evil and perverse! It beggars belief... it's as if you only want to accept that only evil other-dimensional Beings exist and nothing else, apart from mortal humans on earth!

If anyone wants to accept that only Reptilian beings exist, I cannot see how these same people can, at the same time, have any hope of reaching any Light because in order to connect with the Light, you have to get past these malevolent Beings whose agenda it is to cut humanity off from God.

Unfortunately, most people are cut off from God by the way they think, and that favours the Reptilians... No wonder, as the world turns increasingly towards materialism and Mammon, the world is increasingly coming under the power of the Elite, who, incidentally, also deny God, and who want to drag the rest of humanity down with them. No wonder Christ said:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it." - Matthew 7:13-14

I can only hope that this verse from the Bible is not flawed:

"Forgive them: they know not what they do"

Funny how you quote the Bible, John, and yet you say it's flawed! I can only hope the one verse you did quote isn't flawed for your own sake!

"First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance." - 2 Peter 3:3-13

Day will bring everything to light and everything shall be revealed by fire:

"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames." - 1 Corinthians 3:10-15

[unitydivided]

i am young but no longer naive. all scriptures are false, at their very core, to both the writer and the reader because one can not truly put into words the true experience because words only exist in our world.

[titurel]

i am young but no longer naive. all scriptures are false, at their very core, to both the writer and the reader because one can not truly put into words the true experience because words only exist in our world.
That's still not proof that the Bible is false. It's true that words cannot capture ideal experience, but they can certainly point the Way. Have you not used words in your post? Without words, we would not only be mute, we would also be lost. You are very lost and confused, if you deny written words!

I take it then, you haven't bothered to read any books at all!

Hang on a minute, you're reading this forum. Why are you reading this forum and expecting us to read your words?

The Gospel according to unitydivided! LOL

A touch of hypocrisy srpings to mind...

[unitydivided]

That's still not proof that the Bible is false. It's true that words cannot capture ideal experience, but they can certainly point the Way. Have you not used words in your post? Without words, we would not only be mute, we would be lost. You are very lost and confused, if you deny written words!

I take it then, you haven't bothered to read any books at all!

Hang on a minute, you're reading this forum. Why are you reading this forum and expecting us to read your words? The Gospel according to unitydivided! LOL

settle down their chief, i have not once proclaimed the bible as false and clearly it is a book (of fiction ;):p:D) that you hold dear to your heart. those who push their religous beliefs on others are often found in a non-favorable position. it's clear you are rattled. i suggest you take a step back and not take things so personally. view things objectively and perhaps you'll be able to discuss things rationally opposed to fanatically.

[unitydivided]

i didn't mean to get off topic, back to john white. that's one of the best posts i've viewed this month on a variety of websites (icke, ATS, ect.)

to find the source, one has to look in and not out. looking out the window will only confuse, distort, and change. when all one needs to do is look inside the "room" that they exist. for everything is already there. simply, come as you are. it is my belief that most religous scriptures have been written after the writers of those very scriptures looked inward and tried to relate what they found inside to the outer world. it can not be. this is why it is up to every individual to look inside to find the unity that exists within us all. for when one looks outward, they will find unity divided.

[titurel]

settle down their chief, i have not once proclaimed the bible as false and clearly it is a book (of fiction ;):p:D) that you hold dear to your heart. those who push their religious beliefs on others are truly looked down upon. it's clear you are rattled. i suggest you take a step back and not take things so personally. view things objectively and perhaps you'll be able to discuss things rationally opposed to fanatically.
First you say "i have not once proclaimed the bible as false", and then in the same sentence, you say it's, "clearly it is a book of fiction". You're confused... probably due to your dumbed down modern education that clearly never even taught you how to punctuate.

At the same time you criticise others for pushing their religious beliefs on others, you push your flawed belief system on others too! Hypocrisy seems to be rife with you!

I suggest you take a step back and rationalise your confused and conflicting thoughts... and why won't you answer the question about Reptilians? Are they the only other-dimensional beings that exist? Answer the question...

[titurel]

i didn't mean to get off topic, back to john white. that's one of the best posts i've viewed this month on a variety of websites (icke, ATS, ect.)

to find the source, one has to look in and not out. looking out the window will only confuse, distort, and change. when all one needs to do is look inside the "room" that they exist. for everything is already there. simply, come as you are. it is my belief that most religous scriptures have been written after the writers of those very scriptures looked inward and tried to relate what they found inside to the outer world. it can not be. this is why it is up to every individual to look inside to find the unity that exists within us all. for when one looks outward, they will find unity divided.
Via what you've written, I've looked inside you and only seen contradiction... see the post above...

[unitydivided]

if you do believe in the bible, titurel, then why don't you have tolerance for others?

[titurel]

if you do believe in the bible, titurel, then why don't you have tolerance for others?
I do have a tolerance for others, but this is a debate and I'm merely pointing out flaws in the arguments of others. Why don't you complain when posters show intolerance to those who accept the Bible then, or does hypocrisy rear up again?

[unitydivided]

I think the question you should be asking yourself is what kind of websites will have a pro-bible agenda and what websites won't. it my personal belief that davidicke.com would not be the best choice of websites for a Pro-Christrian agenda. then again, i am no better than my neighbor.

[titurel]

I think the question you should be asking yourself is what kind of websites will have a pro-bible agenda and what websites won't. it my personal belief that davidicke.com would not be the best choice of websites for a Pro-Christrian agenda. then again, i am no better than my neighbor.
So you only want to read what you want to hear?

Why won't you answer the question about Reptilians? Are they the only other-dimensional beings that exist? Answer the question...

You keep avoiding the question, it seems because it challenges your cosy world view!

[unitydivided]

Who is to say that I have the answer you are searching for or even that the answer is correct? Reptillians are most assuredly not the the only other-dimensional beings that exist. Again, I could be right or I could be wrong.

[titurel]

Who is to say that I have the answer you are searching for or even that the answer is correct? Reptillians are most assuredly not the the only other-dimensional beings that exist. Again, I could be right or I could be wrong.
At least that is a fair and honest reply!

[john white]

I'd like to point out that this thread is a defense of the bible and all other scripture from my own perspective, not an attack

Titurel, you've understood the first part of the title, but not the second...

The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"

The only reason thats not one line for the title... is becuase it won't fit in the word limit allowed!... and the title's original purpose was to draw in hardened athiests to an interesting argument that offered a bridge across a polarised divide.

You yourself stated the view that its man's fault that "true" Christianity is not being practised... I'm supporting that view by giving my insight into what is involved in the inspiration and creation of scripture... I'm also suggesting a path how the genuine spiritual inspiration behind all scripture can be found, no matter the apparant contradictions... and also how the relevance of scripture remains, even when the perspectives contained in that scripture, especially relating to the bestway to live ones life, become apparently harsh and barbaric

The ultimate value of scripture is in the beauty of recording contact with the divine: exactly what was understood in that contact is less important than the fact that the contact occured

All scripture is flawed. The profound beauty lies in the fact that any has been attempted to be written at all

To recognise the limits of scripture is to recognise the limits of man, not to suggest a limit to God.. and yet, on another level, there are no limits that man cannot transcend if he can attune himself to the true perspective of God and embrace it as his own... and however accurate or inaccurate the translation, that perspective is always contained within, like a holographic message within the words... all scripture is a map with which that original contact can be understood, and explored, by all, perhaps even exceeeding the level of insight of the original author

Just another reason why fighting each other over scripture is retarded: to do so is surely only to waste our energies and fight and hinder ourselves

[titurel]

I'd like to point out that this thread is a defense of the bible and all other scripture from my own perspective, not an attack

Titurel, you've understood the first part of the title, but not the second...

The Bible (and all scripture) is "flawed".... ....because humans are "flawed"

The only reason thats not one line for the title... is becuase it won't fit in the word limit allowed!... and the title's original purpose was to draw in hardened athiests to an interesting argument that offered a bridge across a polarised divide.

You yourself stated the view that its man's fault that "true" Christianity is not being practised... I'm supporting that view by giving my insight into what is involved in the inspiration and creation of scripture... I'm also suggesting a path how the genuine spiritual inspiration behind all scripture can be found, no matter the apparant contradictions... and also how the relevance of scripture remains, even when the perspectives contained in that scripture, especially relating to the bestway to live ones life, become apparently harsh and barbaric

The ultimate value of scripture is in the beauty of recording contact with the divine: exactly what was understood in that contact is less important than the fact that the contact occured



To recognise the limits of scripture is to recognise the limits of man, not to suggest a limit to God.. and yet, on another level, there are no limits that man cannot transcend if he can attune himself to the true perspective of God and embrace it as his own... and however accurate or inaccurate the translation, that perspective is always contained within, like a holographic message within the words... all scripture is a map with which that original contact can be understood, and explored, by all, perhaps even exceeeding the level of insight of the original author

Just another reason why fighting each other over scripture is retarded: to do so is surely only to waste our energies and fight and hinder ourselves
It's an attack on scripture because you are accusing scripture of being flawed, but I disagree... The imperfect, human writers of the Bible did not write flawed words because what they wrote did not come from their own flawed intellects but rather they were inspired, in respect to where it is written that God or Christ was the motivating force. Too many prophecies of the Bible have come true for an alternative view to be taken, IMO.

Also, why should we trust what you write that comes, not from an inspired source, but from within you? The Gospel according to John White the Flawed? I know which source I would rather trust more... I'm not saying that absolutely everything you write is flawed, however and IMO, what you write generally about scripture is flawed and that's the issue, but I don't mind debating it, after all, neither am I flawless. But let's therefore stick to the issues rather than these distractions.

[john white]

extra post

[john white]

It's an attack on scripture because you are accusing scripture of being flawed, but I disagree... The imperfect, human writers of the Bible did not write flawed words because what they wrote did not come from their own flawed intellects but rather they were inspired, in respect to where it is written that God or Christ was the motivating force. Too many prophecies of the Bible have come true for an alternative view to be taken, IMO.

Also, why should we trust what you write that comes, not from an inspired source, but from within you? The Gospel according to John White the Flawed? I know which source I would rather trust more... I'm not saying that absolutely everything you write is flawed, however and IMO, what you write generally about scripture is flawed and that's the issue, but I don't mind debating it, after all, neither am I flawless.
You know it’s a funny thing Titurel, because you are not apparently aware how consistently insulting your own attitude to scripture is

How might an orthodox Jew feel about a Christian claiming the Old Testament as their own? How might a Muslim feel about a Christian dismissing the Koran when it preserves more of the original Christian writings than the New Testament does? How should a Hindu feel about Christians arrogantly asserting the primacy of their cultural tradition of understanding God than their own? How should a Buddhist feel about a Christian dismissing the sutra's as "oneness crap?" How might a Maori feel about a western failing to recognise the popal vu? Can you not see that this is an implicit insult to the diversity of human God consciousness?

You recognise yourself as not flawless: therefore, as having flaws. If God tapped you on the shoulder and inspired you and you struggled with your mind to find the words to express the glories your soul beheld, would you be able to do so flawlessly? Would the words you used not be dependant on the words you knew to use, or could find to use? Would not the perspectives you expressed by dependent on the perspectives you are capable of understanding? Would you, therefore, be able to create flawless scripture to honour your contact with the divine? And if you could not, why should anyone else?

I am suggesting that rather than fight over whose translation of contact with God is superior, which allows the illuminati to divide and rule us, we should be celebrating the diversity of experiences with God that mankind has had, and be at least open to finding the glory of God within all of them

What is the alternative? My way is the only way? Everyone else is going to burn? Conformity or death?

Well, that’s hardly the path of defending against the New world Order: that’s the path of facilitating the New World Order

But let's therefore stick to the issues rather than these distractions.


There's no distraction here. I made a thread, you chose to enter it, you chose to reply, you can continue to reply or not reply, but regardless, I will make what threads and what posts I feel inspired to

The Gospel according to John White the Flawed?

Quite a catchy title that, cheers!

[titurel]

You know it’s a funny thing Titurel, because you are not apparently aware how consistently insulting your own attitude to scripture is

How might an orthodox Jew feel about a Christian claiming the Old Testament as their own? How might a Muslim feel about a Christian dismissing the Koran when it preserves more of the original Christian writings than the New Testament does? How should a Hindu feel about Christians arrogantly asserting the primacy of their cultural tradition of understanding God than their own? How should a Buddhist feel about a Christian dismissing the sutra's as "oneness crap?" How might a Maori feel about a western failing to recognise the popal vu? Can you not see that this is an implicit insult to the diversity of human God consciousness?

You recognise yourself as not flawless: therefore, as having flaws. If God tapped you on the shoulder and inspired you and you struggled with your mind to find the words to express the glories your soul beheld, would you be able to do so flawlessly? Would the words you used not be dependant on the words you knew to use, or could find to use? Would not the perspectives you expressed by dependent on the perspectives you are capable of understanding? Would you, therefore, be able to create flawless scripture to honour your contact with the divine? And if you could not, why should anyone else?

I am suggesting that rather than fight over whose translation of contact with God is superior, which allows the illuminati to divide and rule us, we should be celebrating the diversity of experiences with God that mankind has had, and be at least open to finding the glory of God within all of them

What is the alternative? My way is the only way? Everyone else is going to burn? Conformity or death?

Well, that’s hardly the path of defending against the New world Order: that’s the path of facilitating the New World Order



There's no distraction here. I made a thread, you chose to enter it, you chose to reply, you can continue to reply or not reply, but regardless, I will make what threads and what posts I feel inspired to



Quite a catchy title that, cheers!
It's you who are being insulting scripture, John. It's you who is arguing that it is flawed. Let's get that straight.

"How might an orthodox Jew feel about a Christian claiming the Old Testament as their own?" You ask.

Again, you twist what I think....

I have never, claimed to own the Bible. I discuss the Bible which is there on the table for anyone.

The Bible doesn't even have to be directly paid for these days with the apocalyptic advent of the Internet.

Therefore, your claim that Christians claim the OT as their own, only applies to those inhabiting the brain-washing apparatus that is Christendom, which acts like an umbrella organised for religions. It was she that argued that the book was her own. It is also she that argues today, through the Ecumenical Movement and the World Council of Churches that all these denominational religions should be ONE because it's an offense that one of her Religions should be more supreme than another.

Freemasonry and the New Age Movement has an identical argument to the Harlot of Christendom.

In fact, this argument that we should not offend other faiths is identical to your argument. Prince Charles, heir to the House of Windsor and descendant of the Merovingian blood-line, also holds the same argument as you, John. It's an argument that underpins a plank of the political NWO agenda orchestrated by the Reptilians, for the purposes of keeping us all in the Matrix of illusion that David Icke goes on about and which I thoroughly agree is a major psychological problem for a lot of people.

It is the pro political NWO agenda argument that we should all not offend other religions.

Therefore, it's your argument that is dividing humanity. You are helping the "divide and rule" agenda along, and you won't acknowledge it because you're trapped in the mind control, which descends on some people like a trance. The best people to control are those that believe they are free.

[john white]

I'm not sure you actually understand what it is that I am saying on this thread titurel

You condemn me for your belief that what I am saying is what Princes Charles says, about not insulting people: when what I am saying is that we should develop understading and empathy for people: therefore, you condemn me for saying understanding and empathy are qualities we need?

The twist in the reply is yours, becuase you avoid stating that you DO respect Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists and so on

Well DO You?

Do you respect them?

Do you hold their books to be their own scripture?

Do you hold these books to be inspired by God?

Or do you not?

Yet, if you do not hold these texts to be scripture, on what basis can you expect others to uphold what YOU beleive?

The flaw of scripture is all to apparent in your own responses: the flaw it inspires in mans ego to so limit God as to believe he is NOT in all the books, that God is so limited to be contained only in one!

Frankly: how dare you so insult "him"! Open your heart to "his" magnificence!

Give this a contemplate as well rather than dodge it: it will do you good

You recognise yourself as not flawless: therefore, as having flaws. If God tapped you on the shoulder and inspired you and you struggled with your mind to find the words to express the glories your soul beheld, would you be able to do so flawlessly? Would the words you used not be dependant on the words you knew to use, or could find to use? Would not the perspectives you expressed by dependent on the perspectives you are capable of understanding? Would you, therefore, be able to create flawless scripture to honour your contact with the divine? And if you could not, why should anyone else?

[titurel]

You condemn me for your belief that what I am saying is what Princes Charles says, about not insulting people: when what I am saying is that we should develop understading and empathy for people: therefore, you condemn me for saying understanding and empathy are qualities we need?
I'm not condemning you... I'm disagreeing with you. Big difference! I agree with you that we should promote understanding and empathy, but there are still issues we disagree on, such as your accusation that scripture is flawed. You have not proved that pertinent scripture is not inspired by God who is not flawed.

It would be far, far better if we could agree to disagree, rather than to agree on something one of us isn't going to believe in. Agreeing to disagree does not have to involve one side offending another, even!

The twist in the reply is yours, becuase you avoid stating that you DO respect Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Bhuddists and so on

Well DO You?

Do you respect them?
Yes, I also respect the illuminati in the sense that I do not criminally abuse them. It's just that I disagree with their philosophy. I exercise my right of FREE SPEECH within the bounds of what is acceptable. We can always agree to disagree and maintain respect. No need for physical fighting or war. The pen is mightier than the sword.

Do you hold their books to be their own scripture?
Of course it is their own scripture. Mother Babylon has dictated that that should be so but she is now changing her tune and demanding that all religions be united as one... for the political NWO.

Do you hold these books to be inspired by God?

Or do you not?
No I do not. That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Agree to disagree and maintain respect.

Yet, if you do not hold these texts to be scripture, on what basis can you expect others to uphold what YOU beleive?
Some agree with me, others not. That's life John and you have to learn live with it. One day we may all be ONE but the NWO agenda, which I'm not in favour of, has to be set aside first and for me that does not involve taking sides with what Mother Babylon preaches that all her religions should be one under her umbrella. I choose another umbrella and that is God's. If one has no umbrella at all... one will get wet until one decides.

The flaw of scripture is all to apparent in your own responses: the flaw it inspires in mans ego to so limit God as to believe he is NOT in all the books, that God is so limited to be contained only in one!

I happen to agree with you that there is truth, and therefore echoes of God, in all religious texts, except the most Satanic, but I happen to take the view that only the books of the Bible, and may be a few extra related ones that the Vatican left out, are inspired by God. The rest were, IMO, inspired by the Reptilians, the fallen host of heaven. Yes, even the Reptilians can project images of God and that's what they do... they mix truths with deceptions, whilst posing as beings of light and claiming to be comforters and protectors of humanity. Reptilians are very crafty Beings. That's my opinion. We can agree to disagree.

[john white]

LOL! You didnt condemn me?

Prince Charles, heir to the House of Windsor and descendant of the Merovingian blood-line, also holds the same argument as you, John. It's an argument that underpins a plank of the political NWO agenda orchestrated by the Reptilians, for the purposes of keeping us all in the Matrix of illusion that David Icke goes on about and which I thoroughly agree is a major psychological problem for a lot of people.

It is the pro political NWO agenda argument that we should all not offend other religions.

Therefore, it's your argument that is dividing humanity. You are helping the "divide and rule" agenda along, and you won't acknowledge it because you're trapped in the mind control, which descends on some people like a trance. The best people to control are those that believe they are free.

Pull the other one

[titurel]

LOL! You didnt condemn me?

Pull the other one
Never mind, we can perhaps just agree to disagree and remain one in manner that doesn't involve unecessary friction. Love is much better. Although, some assert that love without friction is dull. I haven't made up my mind about that.

[harbingers_kiss]

May I ask a hypothetical question ? What if someone came along and presented an alternate translation/interpretation to the Bible that could be factually proven beyond doubt and it turned out to anihilate the beliefs of the Christians, Jews, and Muslims equally ? What if the Bible was'nt really talking about a universal/multi-versal deity ? How do you think people would respond ? Would they believe in their old beliefs even though they were definitivly disproven ? Would it cause more or less religious tension ? Would religion dissipate ? Would people just place more focus on other areas they can hate each other and war which each other such as race ? Would people seek to better educate themselves in order to find a universal God..such as through physics ? Would this cause science and spirituality to finally merge ? What do YOU think would happen ?

Also, if somebody did have the correct Bible translations/interpretations and they indicated that the God of the Bible was not the universal God people have thought..should the person release this info publically or should they keep sitting on it ?