The Neverending Thread (was SATAN DECEIVES YOU)

[Narrow Path]

quote:Narrow Path:

I have seen no "historical proof."

Besides, written "History" is NEVER the WHOLE TRUTH. "History" is always decided upon by the one that is speaking/writing at the time. There are always at least two sides to every story--and usually more than two. Further, no two people ever remember a shared experience "exactly the same way" even just hours later. This is ever more exacerbated when it involves countless people over hundreds of years. In the case of Western Civilization, Christianity "wrote the history books" that were used for centuries--and for very good reasons not many people argued with the Chruch--think Galileo and where the earth is actually now known to be located in relationship to the rest of the solar system. Thank goodness things are very different today.

I have NEVER denied that Christianity has a "history." Christianity has a very long and complex history. To make a claim that it does not, would be totally absurd on my part. Scripture however, has NOT been proven to be a "factual" historical document in and of itself, but you are not going to learn in Church how or why that is the case. Why would they want to teach that it is not? To believe in the NT as "history" is a matter of faith and belief, and no one here could argue that your faith and belief are extremely important to you. If being a Christian helps you to be a peaceful loving person in the image that the NT offers of Jesus, then I have no argument that. But Narrow Path, you just don't sound very peaceful--or very loving.

Well Beth the Historical evidence is there so take that for what it is.

If you dont trust historical evidence than what do you trust as "Truth"? You seem to be open minded to the point that you are a skeptic. What is the "Truth" to you Beth? Is it a matter of your personal perspective?

Moral Relativism at its finest. Most "highly" educated people prescribed to just that.

Once you know the Power of Christ there is no need for psycho babble and circular reasoning. The Truth is the Truth.

[Passionate-fool]

Dearest Tab,

quote:omgwtf Blavatsky reincarnated

Apparently you feel it appropriate to call upon God and to use profanity in the same sentence.  I also noted how you attempt to present yourself as superior by removal of DjM's individuality.  Thus, taking away his uniqueness, making him "less" of a creature of God.

quote:Originally posted by Passionate-fool

A bunch of jesus stuff

True.  Though, it somehow misses the point.

quote:omg allanon reincarnated.. again... with worse grammar.

Again, we have the use of God's name in vain and a ripping away of my personal uniqueness.  With the added bonus of belittlement.

quote:Theosophists seem to be the more arrogant of their kind

I actually had to think for a good couple of hours to remember what theosophist meant.  I'm not quite sure I fall under your label on this one my friend.  As for arrogance?  I believe my post spoke for itself.

quote:whether it's justified arrogance or not I couldn't say.

I really liked this one.  You actually BELIEVE in arrogance that is justifiable.

quote:I can say that because I'm a wanna be myself

At least we can end on an encouraging note.  I am glad you realize that you aren't an all knowing entity.  I would ask though that you keep your "wanna be" status to yourself since you have no idea what I do "wanna be".

I love you.
God loves you more.
May the peace that passeth understanding find you.

Passionate-fool.

[Passionate-fool]

Soulfire,

I will attempt to address your response as soon as I can.  I take a lot of time to write anything intelligible .  So i'll get back to ya.

[punkyou]

quote:Originally posted by Robert Bruce

G'day Folks!

A fun topic by the looks of it all....

But it has a serious side.

I have known a number of devout born again type christians to experience spontaneous OBE.  They have told their church that they were 'taken up' and shown visions.  This is recieved well by churches as the 'terminology' used to describe OBE experiences fits their paradigms.

This only goes to show that it is not so much the experience of OBE, but the 'terminology' used to describe it that matters to devout christian type people.

On a more serious note, this type of fundamental christian view of OBE can cause a great deal of harm.  Many christians, including ministers, I have know and helped, who have experienced OBE related symptoms, eg, paralysis, rapid heartbeat, vibrations, etc, interpret this as major satanic attack.  The symptoms thus needlessly terrorize and traumatize them, when they are actually just harmless and natural phenomena.

With regard to 'letting go of ones mind', or emptying the mind, etc, newage and Eastern terminology also gets in the way. If you use terms like 'focusing the mind' or 'clearing the mind' or 'quietening the mind' then christians take less offense.  The act of clearing the mind involves strength and discipline, and such a mind is far less vulnerable to negative influences than any other 'non disciplined' mind.

Keep all this in mind when you discuss these matters with christians as a simple change in terminology can overcome most such arguments.

Also, I always wonder about the other 80% of the world's population that are non christian when I come across this type of dogmanic argument. But then again, they probably think the same way about the christians.

Btw, are you aware that there is absolutely 'no' historical proof to support 'anything' written in the new testament?  The only thing that supports biblical history is the bible itself. This is fact that can be ascertained through historical records and university religious studies. 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.

There is a big difference between 'popularly believed' history and 'real' history that can be supported by hard evidence.  However, most christians are not interested in the 'real' truth, only in the 'comfortable' truth.

Also note that freedom of thought is 'actively' discouraged in fundamentalist type christian churches, where members are told what to think and what to believe, so this situation is likely to remain unchanged.


Take care, Robert.

Hang on there a second Robert.  I consider myself a christian and I don't necessarily go for "organized religeon", but your comment that "there is no historical proof in the New Testament" is a complete and utter lie!  Don't get me wrong, I am not attempting a fight here or to convert your soul! Thats between you and whomever you think did or did not make you.  But that comment was made in ignorance of commonly accepted and proven scientific studies of history and archealogy.  So...unless you can prove what your saying, maybe you should try to remain opened minded and remember we all have something worth offering here.  Whether Christian, muslim, hindu, etc....   Or are you prejudice against Christians?

[punkyou]

quote:Originally posted by Adrian

Greetings Allanon,

Whilst we most certainly respect your right to believe in anything you will, evangelising on these forums will get you nowhere at all.

Please support your claims and positions with facts and experience.

I would like to followup on an excellent point made by Robert:

quote:
Btw, are you aware that there is absolutely 'no' historical proof to support 'anything' written in the new testament? The only thing that supports biblical history is the bible itself. This is fact that can be ascertained through historical records and university religious studies. 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.

All of christianity is based around the words contained in the bible, which is, in and of itself, extremely suspect. What fragments have been found were translated and retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted by the various factions of the church, all with view to creating a religion to control the masses. To that end they succeeded to a certain extent, notwithstanding the extreme genocide and bloodshed that seems to have followed religion throughout the centuries, and the "commandment" "thou shalt not kill".

If the bible was presented as evidence of the happenings of 2000 years ago, then it would be rejected outright as hearsay.

Please feel free to contribute your views, but when you make remarks like:

quote:
All this projection and letting go of your mind just allows the Devil to get a stranglehold on your soul.

There is no other Way out of this.

You may think that you will "live forever" after you die but that is exactly what Satan's first lie was. If you want eternal life and happiness with God you must accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and turn to the Word of God. The Bible is absolutely true no matter what "evidence" Satan puts on the table.

Please support it with evidence, and remember, the bible is inadmissible.

Finally a word of caution. In the lower Astral there are levels known as the "belief system territories", some of which are analogous to "hells". These are the places people are attracted to after they pass on from the physical world due to strongly held religious beliefs they will not let go of. Only when the residents there see there beliefs for the illusions they are can they progress to the mid-Astral worlds and higher where most decent people dwell.

I would respectfully suggest you consider these things deeply.

With best regards,

Adrian.

Adrian you poor Hypocrite you! If Robert is right and he isn't, where is his/your proof that there is no historical truth to the bible.  This is a very ignorant statement whic I can disprove, and how embarrassing for you and Rober Bruce if I do so.  This is such a passionate subject and people tend to talk before thinking.  Don't be so dogmatic and closed minded.

[punkyou]

quote:Originally posted by Adrian

Greetings Allanon,

Whilst we most certainly respect your right to believe in anything you will, evangelising on these forums will get you nowhere at all.

Please support your claims and positions with facts and experience.

I would like to followup on an excellent point made by Robert:

quote:
Btw, are you aware that there is absolutely 'no' historical proof to support 'anything' written in the new testament? The only thing that supports biblical history is the bible itself. This is fact that can be ascertained through historical records and university religious studies. 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.

All of christianity is based around the words contained in the bible, which is, in and of itself, extremely suspect. What fragments have been found were translated and retranslated, interpreted and reinterpreted by the various factions of the church, all with view to creating a religion to control the masses. To that end they succeeded to a certain extent, notwithstanding the extreme genocide and bloodshed that seems to have followed religion throughout the centuries, and the "commandment" "thou shalt not kill".

If the bible was presented as evidence of the happenings of 2000 years ago, then it would be rejected outright as hearsay.

Please feel free to contribute your views, but when you make remarks like:

quote:
All this projection and letting go of your mind just allows the Devil to get a stranglehold on your soul.

There is no other Way out of this.

You may think that you will "live forever" after you die but that is exactly what Satan's first lie was. If you want eternal life and happiness with God you must accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour and turn to the Word of God. The Bible is absolutely true no matter what "evidence" Satan puts on the table.

Please support it with evidence, and remember, the bible is inadmissible.

Finally a word of caution. In the lower Astral there are levels known as the "belief system territories", some of which are analogous to "hells". These are the places people are attracted to after they pass on from the physical world due to strongly held religious beliefs they will not let go of. Only when the residents there see there beliefs for the illusions they are can they progress to the mid-Astral worlds and higher where most decent people dwell.

I would respectfully suggest you consider these things deeply.

With best regards,

Adrian.

Adrian you poor Hypocrite you! If Robert is right and he isn't, where is his/your proof that there is no historical truth to the bible.  This is a very ignorant statement whic I can disprove, and how embarrassing for you and Rober Bruce if I do so.  This is such a passionate subject and people tend to talk before thinking.  Don't be so dogmatic and closed minded.

[Beth]

Mustardseed --

Even though I could discuss Jospheus and the nature of Jewish midrash during the early rabbinical period, as well the historical significance of ancient literary documents and many other relavant topics--I think I am going to pass.

I have come to the conclusion that my participation on these threads was a bad idea.  I am already frustrated and I want to leave before I do get sour. The whole "tone" of this discussion makes me tired...I did not come here to be insulted nor did I come prepared to "defend myself"...To be frank, I feel like I have BEEN the soccer ball [B)]...So, here you go....I was wrong.

[Beth]

By the way:

All I have to say on this can be found under the "Early Judaism/Christianity" section.

[Soulfire]

Hi,

I really don't want to debate the validity of the Bible anymore.  It simply is not my intention to discourage anybody else's beliefs or to "argue".  Besides, I do not even necessarily believe I am "right".  It's just my opinion.

With the best possible intentions I depart this discussion by stating what beliefs I think we have in common rather than where I differ:  

1) I believe much of what the Bible sais is spiritually valuable.
2) I don't believe anybody who reads the Bible with love in their heart can possibly go wrong by it.

That being said, I say goodbye to this and other similar topics.  I will still follow the threads about the contents and interpretation of the Bible, but not the "debate" about the Bible itself. God bless.  

--Soulfire

[Mustardseed]

Well dear Beth I am really and truly sorry to see you leave. I do apologise if I have offended you. I am very very interested in your research and would like very much to read it. It sound a lot like the much talked about Bible code. However I felt that since Robert made these statements, and claims, I should do my best to answer, or atleast try to explain how it works for me and how I see things. This is a debating forum and meant to be a place where people bring their questions and what they believe to be answers.
Anyway I wish you all the best and wish you would stay.

Kind regards and respect

Mustardseed

[Tab]

...
amazing you guys should get your panties in such a bunch over my post, which was mostly directed at DjM.

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

Hey Tab why not go somewhere else and spread your ignorance.

Have a little respect for people or get out of my thread.
If you have anything to contribute concerning the subject do so, if not GO TALK ABOUT MEDIUMSHIP OR SOME OTHER OCCULT CRAP.

Last I remembered this was a public forum and I had the freedom to have however much respect I or the administrators deem necessary. You should probably be grateful you still have the privelage of posting here, considering the number of offensive and hypocrytical posts to your name. Aside from that, I find it funny you should call me ignorant ESPECIALLY right above the sentance "GO TALK ABOUT MEDIUMSHIP OR SOME OTHER OCCULT CRAP.".
Same for you and your anthropomorphized history book.

Moving along...

quote:Originally posted by Passionate-fool


Apparently you feel it appropriate to call upon God and to use profanity in the same sentence.  I also noted how you attempt to present yourself as superior by removal of DjM's individuality.  Thus, taking away his uniqueness, making him "less" of a creature of God.

... scuse me?
First off, omgwtf and the many variations are part of my online vocabulary, mostly in parody of the many widely used internet acronyms such as that. If you have a real problem with it, take it up with a moderator.

I never presented myself as superior or DjM as inferior (not even gonna comment on the creature of god thing). I was mostly referencing the quote "there is no religion higher than truth", which is a memorable quote from The Key to Theosophy if memory serves me correctly. I'm sure he would have understood what I meant. Wow, esoteric theosophist communication and unintended at that! How crazy.

quote:Again, we have the use of God's name in vain and a ripping away of my personal uniqueness.  With the added bonus of belittlement.

sorry, but with all these generic christians popping up suddenly with a small post count and allanon changing names all the time, I'm just going to assume that they're all him. I mean you.

quote:I actually had to think for a good couple of hours to remember what theosophist meant.  I'm not quite sure I fall under your label on this one my friend.  As for arrogance?  I believe my post spoke for itself.

This part wasn't even directed at you. Last I checked, you weren't the one quoting Blavatsky. Sorry for the confusion, but no, I didn't see any indication that you were a theosophist, whereas DjM appears to be one and a damn good one at that.

quote:I really liked this one.  You actually BELIEVE in arrogance that is justifiable.

Uh.. yes. Theosophy contains a lot of supposed truths. If the truths are as they seem, the arrogance of real theosophists in having the keys to wisdom may indeed be justified and correct.




Sorry for being 'offensive', this is mostly my posting style on other forums. Maybe it's the wrong atmosphere for it, but don't be so grave about it. Yeesh.

[edit]
nooo Beth!
I sincerely hope I haven't contributed to your distress in this thread, but if I have, you have my apologies. I've really enjoyed your posts and appreciate your coming to this forum even for the short time it was.

[Mustardseed]

Dear Robert
I feel a bit bad about the way things have turned out. It was never my aim to discourage anyone. Anyway I hope that we can just agree to disagree. I value your input and all that you give and share in these forums, and your very insightful books. In conclusion I would say that what I see as the thing that remains is and what we can agree upon is, that the Bible is a mysterious book. It stirs up tempers divides people into believers and unbelievers it inspires some and enrages others. It is believed by faith and the mysteries therein will most likely not be revealed in its entirety for some time yet. Do you think it is time we close the thread and just agree to disagree before the gloating and unkindness and further arguing continues. As I say I am a bit taken back that Beth left the forum and feel a bit to blame, maybe I could have been more diplomatic. I believe we have many things in common and maybe we should all look for the things we agree about rather than argue about things that stir up these heated debates.

Regards Mustardseed

[Robert Bruce]

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.

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by punkyou
where is his/your proof that there is no historical truth to the bible.  This is a very ignorant statement whic I can disprove

How in the world could someone prove that there is no truth to the bible?  You can't prove a negative like that you can only point to the fact that there is no proof supporting the claim of the bible being true unless if you have some.

---------------------------------

A note from Robert Bruce:

I have posted my comment directly here so that it does not get lost pages hence. I have never said that there is no truth in the bible. I believe it is a masterpiece that contains a great deal of spiritual truth. My earlier point was relating to 'historical' proof of the actual events portrayed in the bible. RB.

[Narrow Path]

Well it looks like we have some people a little riled up here.

Back to the base of ths post.

What, if any, goodness, comes from projecting into unseen realms when you have no standard for which to base your experience on other than your own imperfect nature?

It is like climbing a mountain with no map and no gear and especially no rope. It is putting yourself at the risk of possible influences which you are not able to identify. Meditation in order to clear the mind and embrace.....NOTHINGNESS???

How is this Love and how is this finding yourself? The Truth is the Word of God made full in the Son of God. What about Jesus is so bad? How is anchoring yourself to Christ a problem for you people? Why do you insist on relying on the fallible knowledge of man rather than trusting in the Way that is said to be Pure, Just, and Noble? Do you think all of these "Born Again" people are just blowing this out of thier butts or what? Do you see this type of confidence in Truth coming from the pagan way of life?

No.

I remember reading a book called "What the Buddha didnt teach". In it the writer went to a sect of meditators in the east and meditated for a year. Do you know what he came up with after all that meditation?

That the point ot life is that there is no point.

This is coming from a man that WANTED the Truth so bad and the release from bondage and what he got from it was uncertainty, madness, and depression.

There is only One Way to peace and that is by giving your will to the True force of Love which is Jesus Christ.

What is the point of projection wothout God?

What do you hope to achieve?

[Makaveli]

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path


What, if any, goodness, comes from projecting into unseen realms when you have no standard for which to base your experience on other than your own imperfect nature?

Though nobody is perfect, I find actual experience is much more reliable then blind faith and what some fanatic tells me to believe out of fear of hell.  Like Einstein said: "All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it."

quote:What about Jesus is so bad?

I personally don't think there is anything bad about Jesus himself he had a great message.  The horrible thing is the way people twist his message for their own purposes that should be considered blasphemy.  

quote:Why do you insist on relying on the fallible knowledge of man rather than trusting in the Way that is said to be Pure, Just, and Noble?

This is just your belief and beliefs are extremely fallible.

quote:Do you think all of these "Born Again" people are just blowing this out of thier butts or what? Do you see this type of confidence in Truth coming from the pagan way of life?

Probably, I don't know much about pagans but what these born again people believe has no effect on reailty.  Most other religions have followers who feel just as strongly about their beliefs but they can't all be the one way.  What makes your religion better then others?

quote:There is only One Way to peace and that is by giving your will to the True force of Love which is Jesus Christ.

How exactly do you know this?  

[Akensai]

I dont really know alot of these things, but im going to give it a try to discus this matter whit you guys/girls (and beth if she cares to come back []).

quote:(you said)
There are always at least two sides to every story--and usually more than two. Further, no two people ever remember a shared experience "exactly the same way" even just hours later. This is ever more exacerbated when it involves countless people over hundreds of years.

(answer)
I agree again and state as above. What makes your version more correct your books more accurate. This principle goes all the way around Beth.

This other version and books show a other point of view, that indeed doesnt mean they are more correct, but it does raise the question "If my version no the only one, how can i be sure it is the truth".

Also I think the things beth say are logical, so could very well be true, but i still question them like i try to do whit everything so i dont lock myself down at one side of the argument.

Belief is taking something for true whitout any evidence.When your saying disprove the bible or its true, your kinda living in a upside world, if you want to convince people of your point of view, YOU have to show the prove.

Now this is the same for people who want to convince that the bible isnt true, they should give evidence that its not true.

Written text is not evidence, because you cant be sure of its orgin and in what context its meant to be viewed.To get REAL FACTUAL evidence for any belief that orginated so long ago is impossible.

Again the people who wanna disprove the bible have the same trouble, they cannot get the evidence to disprove it either.

So in short its useless to go and talk about proving or disproving the bible, because in the end it stays a matter of belief on either side.

What we can do is discus theories whit theory, logic and questions, ofcouse we have to be very carefull not to get cought up in the belief debate again.

Now let me present a theory;

I recently read up on the gnostism.

What they are saying goes something like this.

Can comething that is made absolutly perfect and good ever turn even a little evil ?

No, then it wasnt perfect to begin whit.Then was man ever perfect and how come we became sinners(from bible point of view)? Witch started whit adam and eve eating the forbidden fruit.

Its either because we are never made perfect by god or he couldnt make  us perfect, because he wasnt so himself.

Now in the first case the bible says we ARE made perfect, so those that mean the bible lied, god lied to us, but why?In the second case how come he himself isnt perfect.

In gnostism its believed the god of the bible is the false god and that he didnt make us perfect.They belief there is a higher authority than the false god.

Now what did the false god mean whit the fruit, was it really his doing to test us or did the fruit mean something else, more abstract.Did it perhaps mean that the fruit was an abstract meaning of escaping the the false god.

Well i have to be hounest this isnt a perfect presentation of the gnostic view, but it does show you abit insight in their beliefs.

Look here for a more indepth view;
http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm

Gnostism was strongly believed in the time the bible was created(or believed to be created) and presents a intresting alternate view on Genesis. Something to think about.

So to close this post; i think there is alot of wisdom in the bible both on surface level as a deeper level, but there are other works outside the bible that diserve the same respect. Beliefs can just aswell be based on those other works.

~, Akensai []

[James S]

Narrow Path,

It has become plainly obvious from your posts that you have little to no intention of discussing this matter in a constructive manner such as Robert and Beth are attempting to do. In fact you have no wish to discuss these issues at all. Your inflexible vewpoints demand of you that you only ever TELL us what "the truth" is. Beyond that you're mind is locked, and you've no desire to open it up to anything outside of your views. I do hope that you eventually grow out of this phase, and find out for yourself that life is not about absolutes.

Dear Beth,
I do hope you will be able to forgive all this narrowmindedness and mudslinging that has plagued this and other threads. Your knowledge and comments really are a breath of fresh air here. Being someone who experienced and indeed involved myself in the inflexible doctrines of some christian churches, your revelations here about what has been hidden within the pages of the bible are fascinating. I had lost all respect for the bible as a result of modern church teachings, but you have very nicely opened up a whole new aspect to these texts that give them back their validity and meaning for anyone on a spiritual path, christian and non-christian alike.

Kind regards,
James.

[Mustardseed]

(You said)
It has become plainly obvious from your posts that you have little to no intention of discussing this matter in a constructive manner such as Robert and Beth are attempting to do. .........I do hope that you eventually grow out of this phase, and find out for yourself that life is not about absolutes.

(answer)
I do however. and have tried to do so in a kind manner. Maybe life is not about absolutes for you but maybe it is to many others, do not attempt to tell us "what life is" or is not about, that depends entirely on who you are.

Dear Robert Bruce and Moderators

Let me first state for the record that I am also sorry for the loss of Beth, that said I would like to draw again your attention to the thread and the issue at hand.The Issue to me were the following statements by you that I have compiled below

(Robert Bruce said)

There is a big difference between 'popularly believed' history and 'real' history that can be supported by hard evidence.  However, most christians are not interested in the 'real' truth, only in the 'comfortable' truth.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing that supports the bible is the bible. I say again:  there is no historical evidence to support the new testament.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wherever this topic is going, I think its healthy. Whoever you are and whatever you believe in, in Western society you will eventually come across born agains, baptists, christian fundamentalists of all types. So, here is an opportunity for everyone to test out their wit and mettle in this arena. So debating here has merit for everyone.

On a personal note, I would like to see the christian fundamentalists posting here go head to head with a person with a Phd level in religious studies. They would 'blow' them out of the water, I kid you not.

I have made a few comments here, and thrown some bait, but none has been taken.  I say again, there is 'no' historical proof to support what is in the bible. The only thing that supports the bible is the bible itself. This is fact, provable, etc. Anyone want to take the challenge??  

My religious schollar friends tell me that christians 'hate' this mention, re its true and cannot be debated. Fact.

I also love the way that christian fundamentalists only take what they like from the bible, and ignore the rest.

(end Qoute)


I feel it is unfair that you talk about narrow mindedness as if it is only on the side of those who believe in the Bible. There have been many slurs against myself and Narrow path has his share of it too. I find it problematic that I have tried to comply to the challenges thrown out by Robert and Beth and what in my opinion was an surprising and outrageous claim, it seems that neither wants to address the literature I have qouted. It seems I am being ignored. I have tried to cunduct myself in every way as a gentleman, and be polite but have debated the subject without grandiose claims and allegations. I have certainly also at times felt the victim. I have furthermore spend time trying to research their claims , wanting to be open to the truth, and found a overwhelming amount of what seems to me to be "proof" by Christian and SECULAR historians as well, what they said did not exist. I would like to ask what you would have had me do. Please read my comments. Do you feel that I have not discussed the matter in a constructive matter. With all due respect to Beth it does seem she did not expect people to opose her statements, but maybe expected that everyone would just sit back and let her make unsubstantiated claims. This is however a internet forum and not a lecture hall, and did not happen. The tone is a bit rough here at times (we all know that and get a bit sensitive at times), a whole lot more like the real world in a way. I state again to Robert (since Beth left). Well then, how about it, Would you mind reacting to my posts and the included information. You threw out the challenge!!! . I am not even saying that what I have written is the absolute truth Robert, but does it have any bearing at all. I am as interested in finding the truth as I assume you are. With all due respect, I do not feel that I am "blown out of the water " I kid you not either []

Regards Mustardseed

[Mustardseed]

And for the record I am also pretty fed up with the Bible bashing, mostly done by Narrow Path. It feels very "yucky" in the spirit. He does not have a very kind way with words, that is for sure and it bears witness of a very autocratic selfrighteous spirit, with no love for anything than his own way and views. Literally a person who would kill for his cause. Pretty scary. I did send him a personal email asking for peace which he ignored so what to do!!!. I do hope to continue posting on the thread and forum and believe the best thing i just to ignore him, he has shown his true colors as a judge of men, certainly not a kindhearted loving forgiving type person. He seem to fit better in the old testament seeing himself as a mighty prophet of God whose job it is "to slay the false prophets"

I say to you Narrow path woe that you be not a judge of men "judge not least you be judged for with the same meassure you mete to others it shall be meeted unto you" You will reap what you sow, all in good time. I know that you might return this with abuse, but Mark my words!!

Regards Mustardseed

[Soulfire]

Hi everyone,

I tried to say this before, but apparently I did not communicate well.  Beth is not here trying to prove the Bible is false.  Just because Robert made a comment saying there was no "historical evidence" to support the Bible, and later invited Beth to the discussion because of her extensive Bible studies, does not mean they are ganging up trying to "disprove" the Bible.  Maybe Robert hopes to gain a new perspective just as much as he hoped maybe we would appreciate it?  []

If you really look back over what she has said, she supports the validity of the Bible!  The only place where you and she seem to differ on your beliefs about the validity of the Bible is that she has come to believe there is even more truth in the Bible than is apparent on the surface.  If you really want to debate the validity of the Bible, I think you would do better to find somebody who actually thinks it is false first?  []

My understanding is that she came here more to share some of her insights and experiences than to argue or debate.  I for one hold a much less critical view of the Bible than I did before she came here, and it sounds like James and maybe others have similar experiences.  Thanks to Beth, I can see where maybe some of the things I thought were "wrong" with the Bible were more a result of my limited understanding of it than any actual "falsehoods" or "errors" of the Bible.  []

Beth has restored my interest in the Bible by showing me new ways to look at it.   Just having people tell me "it is the absolute truth and I am being deceived by Satan if I don't believe it" would never have reached me.  In fact, that kind of approach pushes me further away from the Bible because to me it demonstrates a lack of compassion and love that I find it easy to blame (unfairly) on the Bible.  I guess you could say that I was judging the tree (the Bible) by its fruits (how the people who profess to read the Bible and follow its teachings manifest the love of Jesus in their day to day lives).  Part of my problem with Christianity back when I was a Christian was that I felt most of the Christians (myself included) demonstrated less love and compassion for other people than the non-christians.

I guess I would conclude by saying maybe we should judge our own "tree" by our own "fruits"?  Maybe we should look at our own lives and how much we actively demonstrate love and compassion to other people in our day to day lives and use that as a "measurement" of how well we are really listening to God's truth and Jesus' message.  It was flawed logic on my part to judge the Bible by the fruits of the people who read it.  The only thing you can accurately judge by the fruits of the people who read the Bible is how well they are listening to and understanding the truth that is there.  Thanks to Beth, I see that again...  []

--Soulfire

[Mustardseed]

Dear Soulfire

(You Said)
Beth is not here trying to prove the Bible is false.  Just because Robert made a comment saying there was no "historical evidence" to support the Bible, and later invited Beth to the discussion because of her extensive Bible studies, does not mean they are ganging up trying to "disprove" the Bible.  Maybe Robert hopes to gain a new perspective just as much as he hoped maybe we would appreciate it?  [] If you really look back over what she has said, she supports the validity of the Bible

(Beth said)
Many people today, want and perhaps need the Bible to be the ultimate source of wisdom regarding the divine realm. The Church has done well in making that the case. The nature of humankind in relationship with "fiction" has taken care of the rest. People tend to "believe" in the fictional sometimes much more than their own experience. . I became afraid because of the latter--......who was I to tell the good people that their scripture was just a fictional creation?


Well I beg to differ . The above qoutes is what she said. She seems to believe that the Bible is a "work of fiction" making the life of Jesus a fairytale and ultimately his sacrefice a lie. Wouldn't you agree? I do not believe that she was trying to discount that there is a lot of wisdom in the Bible or that it was not well "constructed" or that it did not hold great moral truths. But she and Robert did state it was FICTIONAL, and furthermore challenged anyone to a debate!! In fun saying that they would "be blown out of the water". I am not that smart nor educated, I actually dropped out of highschool but I just did a bit of research and included it. Shortly thereafter Beth decides to leave, Robert gets offended that someone called his statement a lie. (at least it seems he did) and still, after all that, the Statements that I made and literature list I included for consideration are not even mentioned, and to top it off people like yourself come running to their aid, defending explaining etc. And remember I am not that religious or doctrinated , I am not even here to push Christianity. I came here in this forum solely to learn about OBEs and appreciate Roberts insight and wisdom and Beths research as well, more than they will ever know. He helped me a lot man. Ok so all I ask is that he adress my research and substantiate his claim. Is that too much to ask.

Regards Mustardseed

[Soulfire]

Hi,

Ok, I can sort of see why you could conclude that if that was all you read of everyting she has written.  In my opinion that particular paragraph you quote was not clearly written and was a little confusing.  My understanding of this is that she was referring to how some of the Bible was written in terms of "stories" that still relay the truth with total integrity.  Like maybe Eve was not literally created out of Adam's "rib bone" and maybe she did not literally pluck an "apple" from a "tree", but that these "stories" still contain the absolute truth in principle.  Her point that this "story" approach to literature was possibly done to avoid persecution or in a similar manner to Jesus' use of parables seems very reasonable.  An example of this is the parable of the prodigal son.  This parable is just a fictional story that Jesus used as an illustration.  I interpret Beth's comments about how people are sometimes more receptive to "fiction" probably explains the reason why Jesus so often chose to use parables in his teachings rather than having any ontention to insult the Bible.  Does this make any sense to you?

If you look at the entire content of what she has written, this would seem to be much more consistent with the rest of the information she has shared with us.  I don't think she would spend 10 years of her life studying the Bible and boldly proclaim that it has all kinds of amazing spiritual truths and then turn around and contradict that by saying the Bible is a worthless piece of fiction.  Look over everything she has said yourself and then re-evaluate that paragraph you quoted in the context of the rest of her material.  Or better yet, just ask her for clarification if you are confused what she believes?  

--Soulfire

[Beth]

Thank you Soulfire for helping me out here.  I tried to address this in one of my posts, but I guess that I failed to communicate it properly.  So,

Mustardseed--Let me see what I can do to clarify my statement.
I am not a literature scholar--so I am ill prepared to actually split the hairs here. But, according to Websters:

Fiction is 1a:something invented by the imagination or feigned;specifically:an invented story b: fictitious literature (as novels or short stories)c: a work of fiction;especially:NOVEL 2a: an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth *a legal fiction*  b:a useful illusion or pretense 3:the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination.  

And Fairy tale: 1: a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) —  called also fairy story  2: a made-up story usually designed to mislead

Please note the highlighted definitions.  The first can be based upon realistic life situations.  BUT that does not mean that they are intended to be representative of blow-by-blow details of actual happenings.  They "could" be true, but, it is not the "truth" of the situation that the text is concerned with.  It is rather, with capturing the possibility of a situational event in a written or oral form.  In other words, it is not intended to be held up to what we consider today to be "scientific proof."

Further, I do NOT think that scripture is a fairytale. However, in my opinion, some interpretations are.

Anything written of the past, most especially decades or even centuries after the fact, cannot be held up to scientific proof.  There is none.  It is gone.  However, this does not mean that the written work has not captured in some way, the essence and/or moral of the story.  I use the word fictional here because the texts were written long after the period of time had passed.  AND, I do not think that it is the validity of the blow-by-blow accounting of the situations that really matter.

A tremendous amount of the bible is written in Parable--a form of "allegory" with a moral or religious message. These are all very valuable if we can see what the parable is trying to communicate.  

Here is a scriptural reference that may help:

Proverbs 1
1The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young--
5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance--
6 for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.
7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and discipline.
8 Listen, my son, to your father's instruction
and do not forsake your mother's teaching.

I think that this is the very best that any fictional work could attain to.  And I think that the bible--if seen in the proper light--and approached in search of all that it has to offer--is perhaps the highest and very best fictional work that has ever been written.

I really hope this helps.


 

[Narrow Path]

quote:I think that this is very best that any fictional work could attain to. And I think that the bible--if seen in the proper light--is perhaps the very best that has ever been written.

The Bible is a very good fairy tale indeed!! One that has massive quantities of verified prophecy to accredit to the wishful "tale".