Messages

G'day Folks!

Well, the absence of a clock could also indicate that I am immortal.

This may fit in as I have raised kundalini and do have a certain degree of enlightenment.

An interesting life.....

Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

The words 'holy war' form a total oxymoron, in that 'holy' and 'war' are total opposites in meaning that cancel each other out. Its like saying 'good bad' which is meaningless.

*To preface the below:  The below terms were explained to me by a Muslim as an informal explanation of what these terms mean. As someone has rightly pointed out in this thread, the dictionary definition (Islam = submission) is quite different from what I have said. But I like to think my Muslim friend's explanation is true of the majority of Muslims, as by large I find them to be very peaceful and friendly people. So, you can say that the below is my personal interpretation of these words, etc. RB.


The word Islam means 'the way of peace'.

To be a Muslim is, therefore, to be 'a man/woman of peace'.

The word Jihad is also greatly misunderstood. It does not mean 'holy war' at all. It means 'the great struggle'. This term is often applied by Muslims to the 'great inner struggle' of conquering the ego and purifying the inner self. This is something that all devout religious people struggle to do worldwide:  to conquere the 'self', regardless of the religion belonged to, although various terms are obviously used by other religions to express this.

The use of the word 'Jihad' today by fanatics is bending its true meaning completely out of shape.

The fundamentalist issues discussed earlier are very true, in that you have a very small minority of fantatics who's actions cause extremely visible problems. But their actions cannot be applied to the great majority of Muslims, just as the actions of fanatical Christians cannot be applied to the majority of Christians. For example, take a Muslim terrorist who plants a bomb, or a Christian terrorist who murders a doctor at an abortion clinic.  Neither of these provides a typical representation of their respective religions.

You will find that the fanatical streak of Islam exists mainly in the arab and african countries. Muslims in other countries are far more moderate.


Take care, Robert.

G'day MustardSeed!

Yes my friend, all questions relating to the exploration of Hinduism are welcome herein.

Note that the 'Hinduism (discussion)' thread is now active and that is the place to post other stuff, including critiques and gripes.

We are hoping that this format works and if it does we'll apply it to other religions, to stop all the arguements and to make the threads work better.


Take care, Robert.

quote:Originally posted by Mustardseed

Can one post questions or things one does not understand. If not could we open another thread for these things?
Regards Mustardseed

G'day Folks!

I just deleted a few posts here because they were unsuitable for the theme of this thread, as well as being generally offensive and disrespectful towards Islam. I also deleted one that contained a quote from the offensive posts.

Please take this as a friendly caution. We try to be fair to everyone, but such posts are not welcome on the AP as they tend to stir up anger and resentment.

If this advice is ignored, further action will be taken.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

In case anyone wonders...

While we dislike having to take such harsh action, sometimes its unavoidable.

NarrowMind was banned on the AP forums by a unanimous decision of all mods and admin, etc.  We all got sick and tired of having to spend our valuable time deleting his many posts that he scattered throughout the forums, often out of theme and in inappropriate sections. He was warned many times but just ignored us. So now he's gone, his soapbox burned, and he won't be back.


RB.

Mustardseed!

The intended point in my earlier comment was that no wars have been started in the name of Budda or Buddism.

In that post I stated that "by large, Buddists are gentle spiritual people".  Of course there are exceptions in the behaviour of people. This is why I put in the 'by large'.

RB.

NarrowMind,

Where do you get off stating that freedom of thought is Satanic? Your list of LHP traits decries just about everything that is good in modern society. I suppose you smugly believe that everyone who does not believed 'exactly' as you do is a Satanist.

Take a look at your list of Satanic LHP qualities

Features of LHP philosophies frequently include:
Emphasis on freethought, not dogma or strict systems.
Highly individualistic
A distinct rejection of absolutes and moralism
Personal, not universal.
Freethought, Individualism and moral relativism

But if you reverse the meanings in the above list you get another list, and that list is similar to one used to identify unhealthy mind control cults, eg.

Emphasis on closed mindedness, dogma and strict systems
Highly group oriented
Acceptance of absolutes and strict moralism
Group, not personal
Closed mindedness, group oriented, moral absolutes

NarrowMind, by your own statements you stand for blind adherence to an outdated, distorted religious doctrine that is based on mind control and the persecution of all who do not believe 'exactly' as you do.

By your own words, you suggest that if you had the power you would burn all the books and close all the universities and censor all public media, thereby actively suppressing freedom of thought and expression.

Women would become second-class citizens, as they already are in most christian fundamentalist churches.  And people would be persecuted as heretics for disagreeing with the slightest part of your closed minded dogma.  

(I have known people involved with christian fundamentalist churches who have been 'raided'. Their homes were searched and all books and recordings that were not on the 'church list' were confiscated and burned, including some children's school books. This happens regularly and is accepted and considered 'normal' by church members).

Children would be brainwashed from birth, not to question and not to think freely, but to only obey your blind and constrictive dogma, as is already happening in many christian fundamentalist schools.

You would turn humanity into a flock of bleating, mindless sheep that are incapable of thinking for themselves! This, by design, would elevate the priesthood into absolute power... and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ, at the hands of religious fanatics like yourself, than in any other name. This is fact.

And you wonder why your churches are emptying in droves.

You must be blind not see that what you are doing is essential evil.


NarrowMind, your 15 minutes are up.


RB.

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

1. The meaning and usage of the term 'LHP' in the West
"Satanism is not a white light religion; it is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal - all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification of the Left Hand Path"
The Satanic Bible, Book Of Lucifer 3:paragraph 30

The Left Hand Path is solitary, individualistic, personal, based on self development, self analysis, self empowerment. Altruism is materialistically equated as long term selfishness. I think all forms of Satanism are considered Left Hand Path, even Devil Worship and inverse Christian-Satanists are Left Hand Path, although they are frequently considered deluded. Frequently called "evil" and "dark" by non Satanic religions, the followers of the left hand path often have had to remain in the darkness or face severe persecution from the religions that ironically call themselves "good". This is testimony enough that the image of the purely "good" icons is a veneer; a non-truth.

Features of LHP philosophies frequently include:

Emphasis on freethought, not dogma or strict systems.
Highly individualistic
A distinct rejection of absolutes and moralism
Personal, not universal.
Freethought, Individualism and moral relativism

Left Hand Path philosophies all have an emphasis on freethought; not dogma or strict systems. The "rules" in LHP religions are frequently merely "guidelines". The same attitude it applied to all knowledge, including that of the knowledge of reality and morals. Subjectivism and relativism are almost universally assumed amongst followers of the left hand path.

Personal Belief, not Universal
Left Hand Path philosophies do not claim that they are the best religion for all people and frequently claim they are only a valid religion for some people. "Satanists are born, not made" Anton LaVey. Satanism and the LHP is striking for the lack of missionizing. This is probably the result of the admission that no religion, philosophy or belief system is suitable for all people.

Sounds a lot like what most here believe without the "Satan".

G'day Folks!

Here's a good example of the 1st and last letter thing. I have often wondered about this.

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer
in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is
taht the frist and lsat ltteer is at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.

You will also find a similar rule applies to sentences, in that you can often delete many words and still understand completely. This is because some words and phrases logically follow others, eg, they are necessary and easy to predict. So if deleted and blanks are left, you'll still get the picture.

Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

First, I am well pleased with the philosophical way this thread is evolving. This is a lesson to all that, even though we have bad times where tempers flare, reason and manners generally prevail if one is patient. Nuf said.....

I have been asked a number of times to explain my conception of God. This is not that of an old man sitting on a throne in the clouds. I see God everywhere I look, in the act that not only created the universe, but that continually creates every moment and every thing and every life.

As a mystic, my conception of God is very simple and pragmatic. Inside everyone, every animal and lifeform in the universe, resides a part of God, a divine spark. This is of course most evident in the higher and more complex species, like humankind, albeit at times a little difficult to see clearly.  

To me, life and humankind are the eyes and ears and consciousness of the universe, eg, God in living action immersed in and manifesting throughout all of life, from the smallest microbe to the most complex being.

Through the act of living in such infinitely wonderous diversity, God's understanding of life evolves, and through this God evolves. This intimate connection is expressed in the Godname 'Shadday' (that's how you say it), which in essence means that every human has a spark of God inside their hearts, which is of the same fire that burns in God.

To not conceive of God as existing in a state of perpetual evolution and perfect growth is to accuse God of stagnation, which is an imperfect state of being. Without evolution, there would also be no purpose or meaning to life in its entirety, that is, unless one considers life to be some kind of divine cosmic amusement park.

A part of God exists inside everyone. But its impossible to divide a part from its whole, for they are one and the same. Because of this, I say that we are all God. And the only difference between the average person and a person of spiritual accomplishment (with some degree of spiritual enlightenment) is that the latter 'realizes' this a little more keenly and intimately than does the former. This is why faith can move mountains, because the essence of faith is the realization of one's connection with God.  No matter how one conceives or words this connection, regardless of one's beliefs, all are looking in the same direction.

As for the diverse religions on this planet, as is being discussed as well on this thread, I think that their major surface differences evolved through historical and cultural necessity. And no matter what the religion or belief that has evolved to suit any particular culture, all are looking in basically the same direction.

Btw, Zen Buddism is an atheistic religion. It is not so much a religion as a 'way'. Zen teaches one how to live one's life to the full in every moment. By doing this, one grows closer to the 'essence' of life, which is creation, and this closeness nurtures spiritual growth and evolution.  I have the highest respect for Buddism, as by large Buddists are gentle spiritual people who quite literally would not harm a fly. No wars or persecutions have ever been caused by Buddists. I don't think the same can be said for any other religion.

Food for thought....

Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

In my humble opinion, the world is perfect, and is exactly the way God intended it to be.  This is regardless of how or what you conceive to be the existance of God, eg, a universal force or a divine personality, or both.

All the bad things in the world, the trouble and strife and turmoil, cause change and generate growth and evolution.

If we did not have all these bad things, we would not have anything to struggle against. With no struggle there cannot be evolution and spiritual growth.

We live in a world of contrasts, eg, good and evil. But good cannot exist without evil and evil cannot exist without good. The area of interaction between contrasting forces, eg, hot and cold, light and darkness, is the area where change and growth occur. This is both a physical law and a spiritual law.

A physical example of this is ligntening.  Lightening is a destructive force that causes great harm worldwide. But without lightening, life itself could not exist on our planet. Lightening creates nitrates as it burns its way through the atmosphere, and all life depends upon nitrates for growth, eg, fertilizer. By this measure, removing what we consider to be all the bad things can have harmful long term effects that often cannot be clearly seen.  

War, for example, is the process whereby opposing viewpoints, beliefs and ways of life increase and spread out to consume others. The stronger belief or way of living always wins, of course, and in the long term this is how human society evolves. This also applies to the evolution of all species, including the animal and plant kingdoms.

If you consider all the good things alongside all the bad things in life, you will see life in action everywhere.


Food for thought...


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

Mustardseed, I totally agree to agree to disagree with you on these matters, and on any other matter for that matter. And I am sure that Adrian and Beth and many others will also agree to disagree with you.

But the exploration of the origins and evolution of the NT will of course continue full steam ahead in the appropriate threads.

The unphilosophical way this particular thread has evolved with all its ranting and raving is verging on the ridiculous, I think every sane person will agree.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Michael!

I think the best way of understanding these mysterious symbols would be to get a hypnotist to regress us back to that memory, and then to sketch the symbols/letters. Then they could be analyzed, etc. I plan to attempt this one day using self-hypnosis.

Take care, Robert.

Dear Mustardseed,

I have already explained my reasoning (a number of times) regarding my earlier statement that changed the direction of this thread, and have freely admitted that it may not have been entirely accurate in a historical sense.  (Do you research and reference every post you make? Does anyone?) But I think it was still a fair comment to throw into the proverbial pot. And you must admit that it had the desired effect.  I note that you commented on this in a very understanding way in an earlier post. Thank you for that.

But now you state that I made an outrageous claim and seem to be demanding absolute proof one way or the other from Beth.  I could ask the same of you regarding the largely circumstantial evidence that has been offered herein to support the 'historical events' depicted in the NT.

I say again, my earlier statements were in regard to the existance of actual proof of the "historical events' depicted in the NT. They had 'nothing' whatsoever to do with the divine truth or spiritual implications and worth of the NT as a holy book.

One of Beth's earlier comments says it all, regarding my earlier statements.

---------------------------------------
 "Neither Robert nor I are making the claim that ancient texts do not exist. Of course they existed. To claim otherwise would be absurd. But just the mere existence of these ancient texts does not prove that they contain historical facts. It only proves a history that the texts existed—not the actual content of the texts. Where Robert made his error was with this next statement: "The earliest historical evidence of christianity and the bible are a few late-third century 'fingernail sized' fragments that historians consider could 'possibly' be fragments of a very early version of the bible " This, he did get wrong, dates and wording. But in the context of what he is saying overall, his point (I think anyway) is that the historical claims made in the NT were not only recorded after the fact, but much later after the fact. But (like I said above) there are no other supporting documents from any other source to verify any of these accounts as historical."
------------------------------------------

Mustardseed, I also note a derisive change of tone in your last post towards Beth. Your accusations are not very understanding or charitable and some of your statements are openly disrespectful and could even be taken as insulting. In essence, you seem to be demanding that Beth posts an accurate, highly-structured and fully-referenced book on these matters in a single post. But such a book has not been written, not yet anyway. Beth is posting as accurately and fairly as she can on extremely complex topics. Please be more understanding so as not to make her task needlessly difficult.

The whole idea of the thread on early christianity is to examine and discuss the origins of the NT and the foundations of christianity, particularly early christianity. If you find this exploration disconcerting and would rather stick to personal faith-based belief, fine; that's okay.  But please understand that that topic is not for discussing matters of personal faith and belief.

If anyone takes issue with anything Beth posts, please make your point clear so it can be discussed, rather than just making general and/or personal comments that you don't like the way the discussion is unfolding, etc. This will be much more productive.  

Also, once again, please do not think that thread is aimed at debunking the bible and christianity. This is not and never was its purpose. I am amazed that so many people appear to feel so threatened by the content of this thread.

If you read Beth's posts in that thread carefully, you'll actually find that much deeper spiritual meaning is being applied to the NT and christianity in general; much more than currently exists.

Threads on the Astral Pulse should be looked upon as one might look upon the books in a library. Take out and review and discuss whatever books you like with likeminded people. But please leave the books that don't appeal to you on the shelf unread.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

This is a reminder to all posters in this thread to 'please' keep posts on topic.

Reread the title of this thread and please keep to this subject.

If you would like to discuss something else, please go to another topic, or to Astral Chat for general discussion.

We fully intend to keep this and other related threads clear of unrelated material, so please be understanding when some posts are moved or deleted.

As for the matter of Allanon annoying Beth with lots of PEM's and off topic posts containing personal snipes and etc (most of which are quickly deleted), shame on him!  This kind of behaviour will 'not' be tolerated.   Allanon has been warned a number of times about this kind of thing and his forum membership is currently under review.


Take care, Robert

G'day Folks!

This post is unfolding in a very interesting way.  

I would like to bring to everyone's attention that all the topics in this area of the World Religion master topic are being 'very' closely watched by all moderators and admin.  Off topic posts will be moved or deleted, as will be posts containing personal snipes and abuse.  Mindless bible bashing, of the kind that has been seen in other threads, will also be shifted or deleted.

Please keep in mind that these topics are 'not' designed to debate who is right and who is wrong. They are designed to intelligently explore and discuss specific subjects.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Punkyou!

To preface, as I have said a number of times already on this thread, should you care to read back, I made the statements in question to steer this thread in a new and more productive direction.  If you read back in this thread you will find it clear that its original theme was to aggressively debunk and attack anyone who did not believe in exactly the same way as the person who started this thread.  This also included biblical/christian-based debunking of astral projection, meditation, Eastern religions, and etc. This is commonly called 'bible bashing'.  The title of this thread is clearly an open admission of this.

Throwing bricks of bible text at people and using heavy handed emotional blackmail (eg, you'll all go to hell if you don't agree), while trivializing and denouncing out of hand all opposing debate and evidence offered as false, no matter how kind and reasonable and how much factual or experiential evidence offered, is completely and totally unreasonable.

It seems that its ok for christian fundamentalists to dump on 'everyone' who disagrees with them.  But the moment persons try to argue their points, or open up discussions to examine the sources of their opposition (and the validity of those sources), as used to debunk (as any good scientist would do under the same circumstance), the christian fundamentalists immediately shout that they are being unfairly and unjustly treated. And now I am accused of being a liar who is prejudiced against christians, which is totally untrue. I treat everyone equally, no matter their religion or belief or non belief.  

The originators or this thread and 'some' (not all) who have taken part so far have at times shown extreme prejudice towards everyone who does not hold their exact same beliefs. I thought it only fair that they should get some of their own medicine.  They drew the proverbial line, they threw the first stone, but now they seem to be sitting back saying 'how dare you shed doubt' on our sacred texts and dogmas.

And you wonder why people are leaving churches in droves... oh the insanity of it all...

As for my statements that 'outside the church and bible' there is little or no 'historical' proof to support the events depicted in the new testament, this is a matter for conjecture, not for accusations, stone throwing, and 'kill the unbeliever' type sentiments. If you are not up to this level of fair and impartial debate, then either stop posting to this thread or learn how to conduct a proper 'philosophical' discussion. In particular, I suggest you read up on the philosophical rule of 'charity' relating to the debate process.

I explained earlier that I am out of my depth in this level of discussion on the roots of early christianity.  I also explained that I have invited Beth, an expert in said field, to contribute to this discussion.  Beth is not here to debunk christianity, as I've said countless times, but to share her knowlege on these matters.

With respect, to accuse me of being a liar is, in essence, accusing me of fabricating what I have said. This is a very one-sided and unreasonable attack on my post. I am entitled to my opinions, just as you are entitled to your opinions. Any differences of opinion are open to discussion, nothing more.  I could, along the same lines that you have used, also accuse you of being a complete and utter liar.  But insults and stone throwing will not get us very far in a philosophical sense, you must admit.

If you want to accuse a person of something in future, it would be far more effective if you did your homework and cited something specific, rather than just saying 'in general' that you think that person is a liar. You also might like to consider rephrasing the statements you might use in such a case, so they are kinder and less confrontational. This approach will lead the way to a productive resolution, whereas a harsher approach (like the one you used with me), could easily fall into unproductive schoolyard brawling; in which of course I would refuse any involvement.

So, Punkyou, what 'specifically' are you accusing me of telling lies about? Some kind of evidence upon which to base your accusation would be very nice indeed.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

The mention of 'keys' to decode sacred text is fascinating. Have you ever heard the phrase 'to see the writing on the wall'? I think this comes from Jewish mysticism, if memory serves me.

Going back over twenty years, I had an experience where in deep meditation I sensed a powerful presence enter my room. I opened my eyes and saw what looked like Hebrew letters being written on the wall facing my chair, as if an invisible man were writing them in bold marker pen. When it finished writing, there were about a dozen letters or so.  They stayed visible for over a minute. I have no idea what these letters represent or mean, but I feel they are important.

I am wondering if there is a divine phenomenon that, when a person reach a particular state or level of consciousness, the 'writing on the wall' phenomenon is triggered. And, that maybe this writing is a key to decoding something.

I've witnessed this phenomenon three or four times in my life.


....food for thought....


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

To reply to Allanon/NP's question... on what I consider Jesus to be.
This depends on whether one is talking about Jesus the man, or Jesus the Christ.

All things considered, Jesus appears to be a great initiate and ascended master.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

First, a big welcome to Beth!  Thank you so much for taking the time to join us here. I'm sure we all have a lot to share and teach and learn. I look fwd to these threads unfolding with great interest.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

To answer Mustardseed's earlier comments:

First and foremost, please do not think that this topic and the ones that will surely follow are designed to attack the bible or any religious beliefs. They are not.  

As I have said a few times here, this turn of events is in response to the attacks of christian fundamentalists on everyone who does not believe exactly as they do. But the field of debate took an interesting turn and has spread to the point where we need more reliable sources of information than hearsay or quick web searches can provide.

The whole idea of what is to come is to show the truth, not to argue bible text. Beth is not coming here to argue with anyone.  She is coming here to teach and share and debate the truth about religious history. In particular, she will be covering the period from 300 bce to 300 ce, but she will also cover from middle ages to modern times.

The reason I asked Beth to participate in this area is because it is such a complex topic and no one here, including myself, has the knowlege to deal with the origins and history of the bible. A great deal of the history of the bible is clouded. If you give her a chance, Beth will remove many of those clouds. And of course, given Beth's academic level, you can expect accurate referencing. We are honored to have Beth's participation.

Please do not think that Beth will come stomping in here matching bible quote for bible quote. This would be circular, unproductive and thus will never happen.  But if you want intelligent, accurate and informative discussion on the history of these matters, then Beth is your girl.

The matters that will be discussed here under the new master forum topic of religion are wide and deep and absolutely fascinating. I look forward to all of this unfolding with great interest.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

First, I thank you one and all for the philosophical way this thread is progressing. At least, no one has been killed yet.  May it continue.

I am now way out of my depth here, simply because this is not my field. However, a dear friend (an expert in this field, the beautiful "Beth" has agreed to enter this debate and will be posting shortly. Consider yourself honored; and hold onto your hats...

We may be better off starting a new thread, and moving this topic there, as the coming discussion will be amazing and lengthy to say the least. It may even be wise to start a new major topic to deal with this and related subjects, eg, one called 'Religion'.

Hold your breath
And prepare for Beth.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

I'll do a little research and get back to you with some more accurate data on the dates I mentioned earlier.  My gist memory is not what it used to be.  

Note that I was specifically referring to the earliest physical evidence relating to the new testament.

Btw, If memory serves me, all but one part of the new testament was originally written in Greek, but Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

I did not mean to make everyone so defensive.  Please reread my last post. I took 'that' position simply because I am so tired of christian fundamentalists trying to ram their version of truth down the throats of everyone in this forum. I am most definitely not attacking christianity in general. But I notice that the fundamentalists have been quiet lately.

There is no loose or circumstantial evidence to support anything in the bible, not even a 'little'. There is not one single shred of factual evidence, not one. The earliest archeological evidence available today are a few third century fingernail-size fragments of parchment that scientists 'think' may have come from an early hand written bible testament.  The original bible, which is a fair bit different from the one we have today, is on record as having appeared during or after the great meeting called by roman emperor Constantine. He forced the formation of the christian church in an attempt to stabilize his empire.  (One did not argue with the roman emperor.) During the formation of christianity, elements of many beliefs and religions were taken into the heart of christianity (it appeared to be a very political affair), including elements of Mithrism (sun worship), and it is from this that we get the modern Eucharist included in christian worship.  

The 'thousands' of texts that have been vaguely cited as 'loosely' supporting the validity of the bible must be contemporary texts, not historical texts. These are based on blind dogmatic belief in the validity of the bible, not on any actual proof. They should thus be considered inadmissable as proof in this discussion.

Please note that my statements in these posts are not original. A lot of scholarly books have been written on these matters. One that springs to mind is called 'The Rock of Truth'. I forget the author's name (he was an early spiritualist), but it was back in the 50's or 60's I think. I remember the author saying that he sent copies of his manuscript to the heads of all the christian churches he could find, stating that if they could refute anything in his book he would retract it. A year went by and he had no replies, so he published.  The book was immediately banned by most christian churches, even though they could not refute anything in the book.

If you want to find the truth in these matters, study third century religion, which is where everything started. In particular, get the book 'Origen', which is available in most libraries. As I said before, the 'gnostic' gospels are also worth reading. The gnostic gospels also appeared around the same time as the bible, I think, but these were suppressed for many years by the church because they promoted freedom of thought and other such modern stuff.

As for providing proof that there is no evidence, this is ludicrous. It is up to anyone who wants to dispute my statements to offer actual proof to the contrary. The proof you seek, but probably don't want to find, is freely available should you choose to do a little research.

We are all made to believe that the events in the bible are true, because heads of churches and governments want this, as this fosters stability in the population. But there is still no actual proof.

If anyone wants to start refuting things, how about we start in the beginning, where emperor Constantine formed the christian church, and where the bible was put together. So, is anyone saying this did not happen? Is anyone familiar with these events?

You must admit, I hope, that this current change of thread direction has a little more hope of going somewhere than the discussion that started all this. And if my words disturb you, then I have succeeded in making you think.

In closing, I think it is clear that christian belief, and belief in the bible, depends largely upon faith. This is the same with all religions.

Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

First, my previous post was not directed at anyone in particular, especially not at Mustardseed, who in my humble opinion is making a lot of sense. It was directed at closed-minded monotheistic fundamentalists who's sole argument comes from their version of bible text interpretation.

Forgive me if my post seemed otherwise.  I embrace the sentiments and spiritual roots of all religions.  But I am not very tolerant of dogmatic emotional blackmail.

Religious fundamentalist arguments and statements are generally one-sided and absolute and they leave no room for discussion...eg, 'believe my way or be damned' is a wide theme. They also use a lot of emotional blackmail to intimidate people into believing exactly as they do, eg, threatening eternal hellfire and damnation and soul destruction for non believers, etc. In fact, they give new meaning to the words 'non believer' as believing 'almost the same' as they do is not good enough, as they 'demand' total agreement on all points.

(Note that this type of approach is common to most if not all fundamentalist religions, including non Christian type religions).  

Personal experiential evidence is rarely considered, and everything comes down to bible text interpretation. In fact, recourse to bible text is so deeply ingrained in that side of this arena that empirical knowledge, personal experience and other such recognizable evidence is often swept away if it is thought to disagree with bible text. And anything that is not understood, eg, astral projection, Kundalini, meditation, etc, is immediately labelled as being 'of the devil'.  I find this perplexing as my critics here have very little conception of what these things are and how they relate to the spiritual universe, particularly concerning Kundalini.

Do you know just how 'similar' the world's religious beliefs are?  In fact, did you know that the Koran was loosely based on the old and new testaments, albeit heavily rewritten?
All the world's holy books have 'very' similar themes and ideals. The characters and events are different of course, as they arose in different times and cultures, but their messages are essentially the same.

I say, why can't we rejoice in our similarities, rather than waging perpetual war over minor differences?

My point in writing my earlier post was to throw the validity of the Christian fundamentalist argument (based on biblical text) onto the table, to hopefully stimulate some more open minded discussion. The fundamentalists here have been openly attacking and criticizing everyone else with their absolutes at every turn, so I considered it only fair to examine the source and validity of these absolutes (their evidence) as any good scientist would.

I notice that after my last post, I have been asked to be more open-minded in considering 'possibilities' that some of the bible may be genuine. I agree.  And this is important because this is exactly what I have been trying to do, eg, to stimulate 'open minded' discussion of a wide range of possibilities, which is something that certain Christian fundamentalists have not shown. I am extremely open minded to all these things and try to encourage same in all my discussions on all topics.  In all fairness, I ask everyone participating in this discussion to do the same.

One point concerning archaeological evidence cited in this post, that is claimed to support bible events:  the evidence cited has been gathered by Christian-minded archaeologists who's main purpose (and more importantly, their funding) is aimed at validating bible events as being historically accurate.  Evidence gained in this way is highly biased and thus not internationally acceptable in the actual fields of archaeology and history. You will find this kind of evidence being presented as 'fact' in many bible-oriented magazines, books and papers.  But these are the only places where such things (Christian propaganda) are accepted.

This single-minded approach to this kind of research is very unscientific, and results are therefore subjective and dubious to say the least.  This is like funding a large chemical company to do a study on adverse long-term effects of their own major products.  The results of any such study will obviously be flawed as it would be heavily biased in their favour.

In an earlier post a scientist is said to have had a vision of Jesus, showing him the exact site of the crucifixion.  This is taken as 'proof' to validate that scientist's findings.  Now, apart from the highly subjective and personal nature of such evidence, 'how' this scientist reported that 'vision' is important. If, for example, he stated that he had a psychic impression, or a clairvoyant vision, or an astral projection, or a materialization, or a meditation experience, his evidence would have immediately been classed as 'of the devil' and discarded.

You see, all the above things are very similar, but how one describes such a phenomenon is important because certain terms contain 'baggage'.  For example, if a Christian tells his church that he was 'taken up' by the 'holy spirit' to heaven where he had a 'vision of Jesus', this is accepted as a wonderful holy experience by that church. But if the same person rephrases this and says he had an astral projection where an invisible spirit force took him to the akashic records where he had a vision of Jesus, it is discarded as being 'of the devil'. Its all in 'how' one says this kind of thing.  My point here is that regardless of one's religious or cultural roots, or one's choice of words, exactly the same thing is being discussed.

Another example relating to the above is my 'astral knights' experience, given in Astral Dynamics. In this OBE I saw a large cloud appear in my home, full of flickering lightening as if it were on fire, and heard what sounded like the voice of God booming from this burning cloud. This is very much like what Moses experienced when he saw a burning bush and heard the voice of God coming from the fire.  If you compare my contemporary experience to the bible experience, it is quite possible that Moses was having an OBE and saw and heard what I did, eg, a burning bush type of experience.

What we need to do to make progress in this arena is to do more such comparisons.


More food for thought......


Take care, Robert.

G'day Folks!

Firstly, thank you Mustardseed for your thoughtful and intelligent post. I agree with just about everything you say. The essence of a true christian, or a person of any religion for that matter, does not flow from the dusty pages of books, but from faith and spiritual action, and from living one's life according to these beliefs.

My earlier post was to throw light upon the fact that nothing in the bible can be historically or scientifically supported; not one shred of it. This indicates that the events shown in the bible are most likely fabricated. Now, I agree that the bible is a work of genious containing great spiritual truths. But if the stories and events in the bible are fabricated, what does this tell us?

My thought is that the whole bible is like a parable, eg, a work of fiction designed to teach spiritual truths. But, if one examines the gnostic gospels (all the testaments that were discarded when the bible was put together), it is also apparent that the bible was designed to suppress freedom of thought, and to brainwash the masses so they are easier to control, eg, its formation was politically motivated to some extent.

And if you look at fundamental christian ideals, as have often been stated here, they sound very much like cult propaganda, eg, based on fanatical blind faith, blackmailing people through fear of everlasting punishment to tow the line, etc. But this is understandable as christianity did start out as a cult.

If, as has been claimed, the bible is the actual word of God, written by men inspired directly by God, then is it not reasonable to ask why the bible was not written in a more historically accurate manner? Its easy to say that men are fallible and that they may have made human mistakes while transcribing the bible, but this does not explain the gross historical errors and widespread contradictions that permeate the bible. If God truly inspired the bible and guided its creation, then why is it such a historical and factual mess?

Clues to the answers to some of these questions can be found by studying 3rd century christianity, where everything christian began.  A good place to start would be to read the works of 'Origen' (Origin the man -- there would be no bible or christianity if not for Origin). This book is freely available from the public library. The gnostic gospels are also worth reading, as are the dead sea sea scrolls.

Now I am sure that the zealots among us will quickly trash my words and call me heretic, saying I should ignore all the evidence and just have faith.  But I am in good company, if you count all past scientists and thinkers who have been branded same for disproving popularly accepted beliefs.

Thank goodness that the young christian zealots among us have no power in this world. They would quickly burn all our books and we'd soon find ourselves reverting to 'flat earth' theory and other such base assumptions. Most of us here would be tortured to repent and then burned at the stake. The inquisition would reappear. And then we would have another great dark age of global stagnation, as the world slowly falls into ignorance and war after war until nothing is left. Would this be an ideal christian world, where heretics are burned at the stake for wrong thinking or suspicion of same, or just for being different? This is why democratic governments of today are designed to protect the people from the church.

The point in my above statments is to shed some light on the nature of the arguments and evidence given in this thread, from the christian side, which comes mainly from bible text.  Now, this is not as simple as it sounds, as every christian sect interprets the bible differently.  So given all the above, where does that leave us?  Absolutely nowhere, my friends.  The truth cannot be interpreted from bible text as not even christians can agree on this.  The truth can only be found through life, through living one's life, and through thinking and reasoning.

None of the above is intended as insult; just a presentation of some facts and thoughts, with a little healthy conjecture thrown in for good measure. Faith is a wonderful thing, but the faith of any person is unique and personal by nature, depending on one's life experience.  In my opinion, faith is taken too far when it is used as proof to criticise others, faith or the lack of faith, for the whole truth cannot be shown or told, only lived.

And lastly, as for saying that the proof can be found by living according to the bible, this is ridiculous!  No one actually lives according to the whole word of the bible. They take bits and pieces and ignore the rest. For example, who among us would actually stone our own children to death just because they are lazy and don't listen to us?  This describes most children today! It would be a crazy world if people tried, and everyone would do it differently because everyone interprets bible text differently.

But, and there's always a but in my dictionary, following the spiritual ideals of the bible, or the koran, or any other holy book for that matter, will most assuredly help one to live in spiritual peace and quietude.

In closing, I say that the real truth in the bible is written between the lines, and that no matter what religion one follows, all are looking in the same direction and aspiring to the same goals.

Do not give in to baseless spiritual blackmail!

Food for thought....


Take care, Robert.