Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Bobd

  • Rank
    New Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1943

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
  1. Is The Law Good Or Evil

    JosephM, you hit the nail on the head. By eating from the treed understanding of good and bad, (I call it by a different phrase than others who call it the tree of knowledeg of good and evil, or good and bad.) we find ourselves in a soup of chaotic complexity that can never be resolved. When Paul said that the sting of death is sin, he was talking about a spiritual death, not a physical death. Part of our spirits died when we began eating from the treed understanding of good and bad. To establish what is good and what is bad requires an arrogant mind because the concept of what is good and what is bad or evil exists only in the mind. Everybody has a different idea of what is good and what is evil. For one to be in a position to impose his own idea of what is good by law means that his arrogance is allowed to reign over others. This also applies on a collective basis when we have a group of legislators doing the same thing. All politicians display arrogance when they pass laws to be imposed on others. There is a better way. The world needs guides who can rise above eating from the treed understanding of good and bad and lead us into more harmonious relationships. It all starts with forgiveness. And I have outlined some other ideas to McKenna BobD
  2. Is The Law Good Or Evil

    McKenna; You make some good points. Actually I have another 100 or so pages that provide some ideas about a better way. I start by going back to the Hebrew to see if the translations of the Ten Commandments are accurate. Much to my surprise, I find that the accusations of the Gnostics over this many hundred of years are true. The interpretation of what the Hebrew actually says has been substantially distorted. Once I sorted out what I think that they actually say, I suggest that we use them as guidelines and commit ourselves to following them of our own free will, rather than be commanded by the so called moral majority. Next, I suggest that we apply forgiveness universally to criminals and despots. This does not mean that they are absolved. I suggest that all criminals should be rehabilitated as opposed to punished using the Ten Guidelines as a platform from which to work. One Gnostic point that I make is that that there is no death. Therefore you cannot kill a criminal. That method does not work. He simply comes back in a later generation to consider his disfunctional ways. The only way to solve the crime problem is by forgiveness and correction. Punishment will never work. To punish someone is to cause injury to that person. To cause injury to others is what criminals do. Society cannot solve the crime problem by becoming like the criminals. That is just plain bad wisdom. I use the parable of the lost sheep to illustrate how despots and criminals have lost their way with their dysfunctional, egoist, arrogant behaviour and need to be brought back into the fold. They have become lost sheep in their own egos and their own arrogance. We try to find these lost sheep by doing everything we can rehabilite them by putting love and prayer into action. BobD
  3. …Do not establish laws, as the lawgiver did, so you will not be bound by them. - The Gospel of Mary The concept of the law which is proclaimed to have been introduced allegedly by god through Moses; has been regarded as the basic tool with which to control our world societies – not the world society as a whole, but populations of individual countries, states and kingdoms. It is structured in such a way that if we follow laws created by our so called leaders or groups of leaders, we are considered “good” and if we don’t, we are considered “bad” and need to be “punished”. As such we have built around them a whole system of law and law enforcement designed to control the rough crowd, the ruthless ones, the swindlers and political dissidents and keep them on the “good side” of god; or more importantly, on the “good side” of the leaders who claim that these rules come from god. But were the Ten Commandments originally intended to be regarded as laws? Does god really have a “good side”? Or have we merely pinned this image on “Him”? The concept of creating laws contradicts the concept of free will. Why would god give us free will and then dictate laws for us to obey? If you are to obey laws created by others you become the puppet of these “others”. What is the point of having free will if you are nothing but a puppet? Laws actually stifle the concept of free will. Do we have a god that created us to control us? If that is the case then “he” would have been better off creating androids. They obey without question. It just does not make any sense to create human beings with free will for the purpose of making them obey a set of laws. Perhaps the so-called laws that come to us through Moses are not laws at all – perhaps they are commitments or guidelines. The Gnostics ask this simple question. “If you were god, would you create people for the purpose of controlling them with laws, or would you create people and give them a set of guidelines to live by?” The Gnostic Christian view favours the latter. According to Organized Jewish and Christian Religions’ interpretation of the Pentateuch, Moses presented the words in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 as laws, and he presented them in the grammatical form of the second person future tense. You shall do or not do this or that. When you claim that what Moses presented is to be understood in this manner, it means “you” must follow them; it does not necessarily mean “me”. To many Christian leaders the commandments apply to “you”. “You” are to obey the commandments – not “me”. In order to be “righteous” in the eyes of god, “you” must follow god’s commandments to rid the earth of the “unrighteous heretics” and “our enemies”. As an egoist leader, these are really “my” commands because “I” know that god is invisible and mute and is not saying anything at the time to refute “me”. So “I” interpret what god allegedly said and therefore issue “my” commands as though they were god’s commandments. This is what happened when Moses presented the Ten Commandments to the Israelites. The words you read in the Bible come from Moses, not directly from god. The way that Moses is portrayed as presenting the commandments, does not bring harmony; it brings power, control and confrontation. “You” obey; “I” give the orders because “I” am in control. Systems of governments around the world are based on this concept of power and control using the same type of approach as is used in the Mosaic system of the “commandments from god” interpreted in their own way as their basic premise for the control they desire. The command and obey system cements their power base, especially that of the dictators and kings, giving them wealth and power and the right to use their citizens as pawns to protect them from dissenters and outside threats and to maintain their wealth and power. For dictators and kings, it works for life or deposition, and for elected politicians it works until the next election. They create and enforce the laws for everybody to obey. There are laws to create borders between municipalities, states, provinces and countries. There are laws forcing us to pay taxes. There are international, federal, provincial, state, and municipal laws controlling just about every aspect of our lives. Acting as the village heretic in this world family of humans, I propose that the system of making and obeying laws, although it brings some order, does not stem the growth of anger, rage and egoism and serves mainly those who have the greatest power and wealth. There is a better way. We spend billions of dollars on legislation, building places of incarceration, building large police forces and armies and yet theft, murder and misleading others, wars and threats of wars continue day after day, month after month, year after year and century after century. Creating laws still has not eliminated the need for spending billions of dollars on security devices and locks. Even though we develop more sophisticated laws, locks and security devices, there are always some who murder, mislead, deceive, steal, commit adultery, dishonour parenthood, ingest dangerous drugs and worship idols. It appears that although making laws to prevent theft, murder, the ingesting of dangerous drugs, and intent to injure and mislead has become a job creation program for lawyers, judges, policemen, politicians and security specialists, it never seems to solve its intended objective of actually eliminating these activities or eliminating the paranoia and fear of being robbed, misled, injured or killed. We have a never-ending cycle of disobedience followed by punishment. Only a very small sector of the population commits offences against their fellow man, but that small sector of the population creates a very large amount of paranoia and fear among the general population. There is a better way. There are also many, many examples where the law damages people’s lives and punishes them, even though they have committed no crime. I found in our local newspaper dated the 29th of May 2004, an article that appears to be a good example of one. WINNIPEG (CP) – A single mother who took her car for a tune-up is without a vehicle after her mechanic was busted for driving without a licence. The mechanic’s arrest triggered a mandatory section of Manitoba legislation that authorizes police to impound and eventually seize a vehicle – regardless of its owner – because it was the third offence within five years. “This has turned my life upside down, and I’ve been innocent in this whole thing,” Brandy Simmons said. The province agrees Simmons is the victim of a “highly unusual situation,” but has refused to reimburse her for the loss of her car. The mechanic was pulled over by police last November while driving her car from a parking lot into the shop’s garage. Somehow, officers caught the man during the minute-long spin. Simmons bailed her car out of the impound lot one week later, but had it seized for good in March after her mechanic pleaded guilty to a Highway Traffic Act offence. The plea triggered a mandatory forfeiture of the vehicle in question. Simmons was sent a forfeiture notice, which permitted her to appeal within a 30-day period, but she ignored it because she assumed her role in the case was over. Lawyer Tom Percy said he doesn’t blame her for ignoring the notice. “She had no clue what was happening here, and this notice was so vague,” he said. “We passed it around the office here and three or four lawyers couldn’t make heads or tails out of it.” The matter only got worse for Simmons when the car was stolen. Police eventually found the smashed-up car and Manitoba Public Insurance deemed it a write-off. The insurer was ready to pay Simmons $5,300 for her loss, but the province took the cash instead. Don Lofendale, Crown counsel with the provincial civil legal services branch, said he sympathizes with Simmons, but his department has refused to return the cash from her wrecked car because she failed to respond to the forfeiture notice. Lofendale said provincial legislation doesn’t allow for the review of such cases once forfeiture has occurred. Simmons said the financial fallout has forced her to drop out of Red River College where she was in her final year of studying child and youth care. “I’m really struggling and I’m wondering where the justice is here,” she said. This is a case where a single mother was seriously inconvenienced and legally robbed by the Province because of the way the law is written. This is not an isolated case. We read about these kinds of incidents every day in our local newspapers. Parents are convicted of child pornography for taking bathtub photos of their toddlers; a man is convicted of cruelty to animals for fighting off a vicious dog with a cane; a quadriplegic is convicted of marijuana possession for smoking it to relieve post-surgery muscle spasms. In many places, a person can be jailed for growing hemp or fined for putting unopened liquor behind the front seat of his vehicle. According to BBC News March 15, 2002, Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress. Fifteen of the girls died in the fire because the mutaween police were enforcing Islamic law. There is also the problem of people being wrongly convicted. The Death Penalty Information Centre announced on August 9, 2004 that Jefferson Parish prosecutors today dismissed all charges against former Louisiana death row inmate Ryan Matthews. He became the nation's 115th death row inmate to be freed according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). Matthews was sentenced to die in 1999 and spent nearly five years on death row before DNA evidence helped clear him of a murder that occurred just two weeks after his 17th birthday. Can you imagine how much misery the legal system has created for Matthews and his family and friends as well as the other 115 families and their friends? If DNA is able to uncover 115 wrong convictions pertaining to the Death Penalty, how many hundreds or even thousands of wrong convictions exist in crimes not involving the Death Penalty? The question is a legitimate one. A major problem that produces wrongful convictions is sloppy forensic science or outright fraud in forensic testing. Sloppy forensic testing by people like Arnold Melnikoff, Joyce Gilcrest and Jacquiline Blake has resulted in dozens of overturned convictions in the United States. Guardian Newspapers on November 3rd 2003 reports that thousands of convictions based on DNA evidence have been called into question after inspections revealed that sloppy standards and contamination of evidence were rife at American police laboratories. Wrongful convictions are really not the main issue regarding the inadequacies of using and applying the concept of the law to control unacceptable behaviour. The central issue of the concept of the legal system is that it represents the number of the beast of Revelation, 666. It is based on an adversarial system with the prosecutor against the defendant. It is the system of ha Satan which is known as a symbol called the adversary. Ha Satan is actually a transliteration of the Hebrew phrase ˆf;c Ah in the Jewish Tanakh meaning ‘the adversary’ or ‘the opponent’. (Please note that Hebrew is read from right to left.) The beast of Revelation has ten horns. According to Organized religion’s interpretation of the Old Testament and the Jewish Tanakh, god introduced the law with its ten intimidating horns called the Ten Commandments with the intention of controlling the behaviour of the ancient Israelite tribes. The horns of a moose, bull, deer or other horned animals are used to intimidate their opponents or perceived opponents. If that does not work, then they have the ability to gore and seriously injure or kill any animal or person that they perceive as a threat. Mankind has evolved enforcement and penal systems based on this beast called the law which gives the power to intimidate, confine, psychologically and physically injure or kill any person who does not obey the “Ten Commandments”. The idea of the law has been adopted with the intention of controlling our behaviour when we fail to respect the rights and needs of others. And to some degree, it works. Unfortunately, like so many other things in the world of ha Satan, it has also turned out to be a tool for the powerful to keep themselves in power and to make themselves rich. As well, it has been ineffective in completely stopping crime, become a heavy financial burden for prosecuting and housing those convicted of a crime and has contributed to the spread of discontent. According to Revelation which was written by Saint John, it has become more of a beast to man instead of a useful tool. Very few people know that Saint John was actually a Gnostic Christian Unfairness in the law is also a problem. Apartheid laws are unfair to those against whom they are directed. Laws restricting immigration and emigration are unfair to those who feel they can make a better life in another country. Today we see groups of various kinds campaigning against unfair laws. Just to mention a few, we have the Pro-Choice and Pro-Life groups campaigning against unfair abortion laws from opposite sides. Those who feel that we should have the right to die with dignity, argue that we have unfair palliative care laws. We have petitioners campaigning against unfair incarceration laws in Florida. We have the Countryside Alliance campaigning against unfair laws in general. Iranian women campaign against unfair rape laws. The Centre for Trade Policy Studies in the U. S. discusses the unfairness of the anti-dumping laws. Dr. Kayoko Tsumori, a Policy Analyst at The Centre for Independent Studies in Australia writes a discussion paper on unfair dismissal laws in that country. In Wichita Kansas the Wichita Eagle, February 7, 2004, had an article about unfair sodomy laws. The law has become an unfair burden for business people who have to retain legal representation with respect to every project they begin to make sure they are not breaking the law. The cost of personal liability insurance for professionals is going through the roof. All this makes one wonder why we are all so hell bent on using the law to solve our relationship problems. The Gnostic Christians call the maker of the law, who is the Old Testament god Yahveh (also called Yahweh, HaShem, Jehovah or The Lord), the creation of Yaldabaoth (also spelled Ialdabaoth) the deformed son of Sophia. Sophia is the Greek word for wisdom and the deformed son of Sophia, Yaldabaoth, is the spiritual symbol for distorted, twisted and warped wisdom which has been used to create the demiurge who is a craftsman called Yahveh. According to Gnostic Christians, using the laws of Yahveh to solve relationship problems is warped wisdom. It is warped because it is generally used to suit the desires of those who are in a position to legislate and enforce the law. It is also deformed and twisted in the sense that it creates as many or more problems than it solves. We are continually fixing it with new laws as illustrated by the thousands of pages of new laws that are produced by legislatures every year, and yet it never seems to actually get fixed. An example of how bent our wisdom has become is illustrated by the laws making the parents responsible for the acts of their children. It’s a sure fire way to teach our youth how not to be responsible for themselves. The Gnostics see Jesus laughing at the law makers for introducing such a warped and demented law to control the behaviour of our youth. Another flaw in using law is the self righteousness of the law makers who feel that they have the right to control the masses by command and force rather than by guiding. Governing bodies also assume that there are absolutes around which we can build our lives. Actually, everything in the universe is relative and always changing and many laws become obsolete or are found to be inadequate before the ink dries on the decrees; or there is an unforeseen issue missed after the law is proclaimed. The end result is that we have truck loads upon truck loads of books of laws and amendments and still we perceive that new ones need to be proclaimed every day. For example, our local newspaper, the Times and Transcript, reports on May 28, 2005 that a nationwide audit shows Access to Information laws fail in New Brunswick. Welfare laws are often counterproductive in relation to their intended objective. Often large sums of money are spent in ways which mainly benefit a bureaucracy full of officials that administer them and that much needless legislative effort goes into securing the rights of welfare recipients which serve only to create jobs for tribunals and lawyers. There is a better way to help the disadvantaged. The concept of the law is based on the assumption that we give authority to a few people or accept authority from a few people and the rest obey. The concept of authority and obedience and law and order falls short of its objective of bringing security and harmony because it includes foolishness with its wisdom; produces chaos with its demands and often the horns of the law produce fear instead of love. The law is arrogant because it forces the values of the legislators upon all people. It forces the people to follow rules that are based on values that are not necessarily agreed upon by all people affected by them. Why should the moral values of any one religion be imposed on all people? To proclaim that theses laws come from god is even more arrogant. Harmful side affects of the law include underground markets that develop when you outlaw pornography, prostitution, abortion, drugs and alcohol or create price freezing. Procuring these services and products from an underground market can substantially increased risk to your health or provide you with an inferior product, as those who market in this manner tend to be of the more ruthless kind. They simply don’t care about quality or cleanness or the danger that they present to the prospective buyer. There is a better way. The law fails to give us complete security against officials of a sovereign nation who would cause our deaths, injure us or take our property. It fails to provide full security for us from stalkers, serial killers, rapists, abusers, thieves, drunk drivers and many other kinds of offenders no matter how strictly it is enforced. It fails to protect citizens in countries where political leaders hide behind an official secrets act to bully, murder and torture. How do I know this? The answer is simple. It is because these activities continue day after day, month after month, year after year and decade after decade no matter what laws we create to “protect” society. The law brings some security and harmony. However it also carries with it the mark of the beast Jehovah who is portrayed as giving us the law by retaining the concept of ha Satan the Adversary in its application, producing antagonism and unrest among its victims of wrongful prosecution or attempted wrongful prosecution. Furthermore, those who do not obey the law are considered adversaries. As a result, anger and unrest continues to prevail. Although they created victims themselves, those punished become victims of the law along with their spouses and children who committed no crimes but are, nonetheless, forced to be separated from their loved one who has been placed in jail. By punishing people through the law we are merely perpetuating the adversarial acts committed by the original offenders. The law binds us and it will not provide harmony and security by itself. There is a better way to bring about harmony on earth. According to Dr. Charles Scobie, retired professor of theology at Mount Allison University in Sackville, New Brunswick, ‘law’ is a poor translation of ‘torah’ which really means ‘teaching’ or ‘guidelines’. If we look at the Laws of Moses as guidelines, we are free to build a system with flexibility rather than fall in line with rote obedience. We will follow naturally when we understand the harmonizing value behind a commitment. We will not fall in line if we can see that a commitment produces ha Satan immediately or at some point in the future. I would like to present a word of caution as we take a look at the Ten Guidelines presented by Moses as they come to us through the Bible. The words issuing the Guidelines did not come directly from Yahveh. They came from the mouth of the only witness, Moses, who made the claim that they are the words of Yahveh. Are you one of those people who believe that the words composing the “commandments” were originally written in English? If so, you are wrong. They are written in Hebrew. The words you read are only the opinion of a translator as to what Moses actually said. All translators of the “commandments” in the Pentateuch to date are represented by or are sponsored by Jewish and/or Christian religious organizations. No existing translation has ever been audited by any independent experts who are not either paid by or strongly dedicated to either of these religions. As a result the meaning that evolves from reading the “commandments” in English has a bias that favours the theory that they were delivered through Moses by an all powerful third party entity called god or The Lord and that they are actually commandments. This may not be a completely accurate portrayal of how Moses received them, delivered them, or what was intended by them. The source languages of the Biblical books are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These languages have become institutionalized by Jewish and Christian Religious Organizations. The meaning of their words has been established by long standing acceptance within these organizations. Such meanings may or may not accurately represent the intended meaning of the original authors. The only way to find out is to dig into it yourself. Tools are now available to permit you to do this. One of the greatest tools ever invented for studying the Bible is the computer disk version of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. It uses something called Strong’s numbers and Strong’s concordance as well as a system known as G/K numbers produced by Goodrick and Kohlenberger, editors of the New International Version Exhaustive Concordance. Strong’s numbers are numbers given to words in the Bible by a seminary professor, Dr. James Strong for his Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible first published in 1890. With the recent development of personal computers, Strong’s Numbers became very easy to use. By looking up the corresponding number, you can observe the original Greek or Hebrew word, the pronunciation of the original word, the definition of the original word and references to other appearances of that same word in the Bible. Unfortunately Strong’s Number system has some inconsistencies and some numbers are skipped entirely. In order to circumvent this problem, Goodrick and Kohlenberger developed their own system called G/K numbers. Both the G/K numbers system and the Strong’s numbers system are used in The Expositors Bible Commentary. With these numbers systems you don’t have to be a scholar to understand Hebrew and Greek. Pastors and laymen, and for that matter, any heretic who can read and use a computer who knows little to nothing of the original languages of the Bible, can gain access to the Greek and Hebrew words behind their English translation. It is precisely that tool, along with three Hebrew/English lexicons and an unsupervised study of the Hebrew language, which I used to gain access to the Hebrew meaning of the Ten “Commandments”. I have version 5.1, a Microsoft Windows version powered by Pradis and produced by Zondervan. It requires a Pentium 166 MHZ or higher processor. My impression of Zondervan is that they are a caring Christian organization ready to provide first rate service to their customers. I highly recommend this product and their service for it. As I got into the reading of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, I was shocked at the liberties taken by Christian organized religions in their translation out of the Hebrew language. When translating passages into English, some addition or deletion of words is acceptable because often one Hebrew word can best be interpreted with the use of two or three English words and vice versa. However, over 30% of the words that appear in the English translation of our Old Testament do not even appear in the Hebrew version. According to The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, the words were inserted and called an “assist in translation”, “not in Hebrew”, “article”, and “repeated English word”. The range of meanings for individual Hebrew words is often different from the English. For this reason, too, you may need to use a string of English words to accurately reflect the meaning of one Hebrew word. I was also concerned by the wide variation of English words that are considered “equal words” for one Hebrew word. I found as many as 45 different English words represented as “equal words” for a single Hebrew word. How do they select which particular English word is the “equal word” for a particular passage? Does this mean that translations from Hebrew and Aramaic to English are more of an art than a science? Is organized religion putting their own spin on the meaning of the words? Does this mean that the translator has to guess which meaning the original author of the script intended based on the context of what he is saying? There are dozens of different English translations of the Old Testament. Which one is the most accurate? Are the English translations of the Hebrew Old Testament screaming for an audit to be done by an organization something like Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, which is not influenced by organized religion? The Jesus Seminar is a group of over 100 Bible scholars sponsored by the Westar Institute, a scholarly think tank headquartered in Santa Rosa, California, who have produced a new translation of the Gospels. At the end of a six year period of examining the source documents and events pertaining to the acts of Jesus, their conclusion was that 84% of the Gospels are largely or entirely fictive. This does not mean that the wisdom contained in them is entirely useless. Every time I have the opportunity to attend, I hear valuable wisdom coming from my United Church pulpit and my wife’s Salvation Army Church pulpit, and a large portion of it is derived from the Gospels. What I object to is Organized Religion presenting the Gospels as literal historical fact. Likewise, the Old Testament is full of valuable symbolism that can add greatly to the wisdom of mankind. But it is currently monopolized by an Organized Religion that portrays it as historical fact.
  4. jamesAMDG You are right. We are a pot and a kettle. I tend to be huffy and when I recognize that I am moving into the aeon of arrogance, I back off until I can cool down. That is why I said I did not want to talk to you any more. I define an aeon as a place in thought. Like when a man doesn't want to talk about his divorce. he says "don't go there". It means he doesn't want to think about it. He does not wan't to go to that particular aeon of thought or place in thought. In regard to the Old Testament Yahveh, my thinking, right or wrong, is a little different from the traditional Gnostic thinking about him. I see Yahveh as a man who once walked the earth and who was in possession of very high tech science, taught great wisdom and taught us about god. I can quote many passages from the Old Testament to support my theory, but I am not trying to win an argument here. Ancient men knew who he really was, but in later times when Hebrew tribesmen fell into a period of dark ignorance, they began to proclaim him as a god as they gradually wrote down and evolved the Pentateuch. As a result, I see him as an inferior god created by the Hebrew tribesmen, falsly proclaimed as the creator of the Universe. In his Old Testament image as a god, I see him as the beast of Saint John's Revelation with his ten horns of the law. The horns of a bull moose or other horned animal are very intimidating and when you confront the animal it has the power to gore you or kill you. The horns of the law are very intimidating and when you confront it the police and the supporting judicial system have the power to punish you or even kill you by a process called execution. The seven heads of the beast are the seven reputations of the god created by the descendants of Abraham. They are, in random order: 1. The head with the reputation of being the Creator 2. The head with the reputation of being a Curse Maker 3. The head with the reputation of being a Protector 4. The head with the reputation of being a Powerful Lord 5. The head with the reputation of being a Destroyer 6. The head with the reputation of being Jealous 7. The head with the reputation of being an Avenger I see the symbolism of John's beast matching the characteristics of Yahveh that are described in the Old Testament. I explain this in much more detail in my book which is unpublished, but I am looking for a publisher. However I will not present the details here because I am not trying to win an argument. I do not believe that the universe is an inferior creation. It is the most majestic creation that I can possibly imagine. When I read about Yahveh saying "you shall have no other gods besides me", I see him talking not about himself, but about the God I. Understandably the ancient Hebrews mistakenly believed that he was god and developed their thought patterns to write about him as such. The result was a very strange beast indeed. BobD
  5. Very eloquently put Soma. You are so focused and write so well that it is almost impossible to improve on what you have to say. It is the interchange of dialogue on the Progressive Christianity site that has helped me grow. I join you with a big thank you to them. BobD
  6. jamesAMDG All of your replies speak for themselves They tell me that you talk down to and demonize me, Pagans, Tom Harpur, Professor Khun, so called non-Christians, Gnostics, Progressive Christians and anyone else who does not agree with your theology. You set yourself above others with your perfect god and demean the rest of us who do not agree with you. Enjoy yourself and have a nice life! BobD
  7. jamesAMDG Congratulations on making some good marks on your exams! Having a battle of wits to prove one right or wrong is more like self righteous people sparring for a position of intellectual power over the other. I don't think that flow meant it in that way. You are assuming that gods have something to do with the One god. The word elohim has no part in the definition of god and therefore your assumption that because I say that it is plural creates a plurality of gods, is false. I see Organized Religion's claim that elohim has anything to to with the One god as completely false. Tom Harpur and Alvin Boyd Kuhn are not non-Christians. Tom Harpur is a former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and the New Testament at the University of Toronto. Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Ph.D (1880-1963) was a scholar of comparative religion and a Gnostic Christian. I am not an expert in the history of Christianity, therefore I must refer you to these people and other expert historians who are. Perhaps you might also consider reading The History of Christianity by the very eminant Catholic historian Paul Johnson. Why do you assume that they are non-Christians just on the basis of what I said? Is it your position that all those who argue with the Evangical literalist position are non-Christians? I can counter your statement about the Pagans by talking about the Roman Church's torture, and sensless slaughter of the Moslems, Gnostic Christian Cathars during the crusades, but character assassination Pagans and Christians is not what progressive Christianity is all about. Feeling insulted is a fact and it is not intended to change your opinion. The fact that it expresses is that you are trying to dominate me intellectually. You will not succeed and I will get over my feeling of being insulted soon enough. I believe that we were talking about morality and immorality here. If you think you have morality, you must have a standard against which morality is measured. That is usually what you believe as your preconceived set of moral standards. You obtain those from what you have been taught which may or may not be accurate. Sometimes what is moral can be immoral to another such as pro-life verses pro-choice. To choose the side of one or the other is self righteousness. The self righteousness of each group produces ha Satan (the adversary). Establishing a set of moral values is not possible because not everybody agrees. If you take the literalist side, you are being self righteous. If you take the progressive side, you are also being self righteous. What happens when the two sides fight? You have ha Satan, the adversary. We therefore have to change our thinking towards achieving harmony verses chaos. When we take this route, the results of our actions can be observed. Using this observable data, we can analyse actions and their affects and make changes that hopefully will bring greater harmony. If a particular moral standard works for everybody, I am all for it. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, it is true. Judging is decision making and judgment is the ability to make decisions. I don't worship god because worshiping doesn't cut it. Please read my postings in other places on this matter and you are free to comment on them there. 'Sin' means to 'miss the mark'. When man ate from that tree, that was the first time that he missed the mark and he has been missing the mark ever since by characterizing people as good or evil or moral or immoral. Characterizing people as one or the other is nothing more than character assassination. I am the God of Abraham - not Jehovah the jealous, petty, unforgiving control-freak, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, homophobic, genocidal god of the Old Testament. Jehovah is the beast of the Apocalypse. The god I is the god of Abraham.
  8. Ann Coulter

    canajan, eh? That was extremely well written and on the point. I enjoyed reading that. The only thing different I would have said is 4-dimensional earth as the new science includes time as a dimension. Well Done! BobD
  9. I didn't say that that the Old Testament refers to a plurality of gods. I said that the word elohim is plural and I continue to regard it as plural. You twist my words. Literalist Christianity is connected to literalist Judaism like a flower is connected to the stem. Try reading The Pagan Christ by Tom Harper., or A Rebirth of Christianity by Alvin Boyd Kuhn. Try reading Jesus and the Lost Goddess by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. Your implication that I am not a real Gnostic is insulting. Are you the keeper of the definition of what a "real Gnostic" is? To say something is "better" doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with morality. Something that is "better" can also be more harmonious or more pleasing which has nothing to do with morality or immorality. If I am arguing that harmony is better than chaos, that has nothing to do with morality. To say that something is "better" or "worse" is a matter of judgment rather than morality. Again, you twist my words by implying that if I say that something is "better", it is a moral issue, or you are confusing judgment with morality. The fact that I make judgment calls has nothing to do with morality. To classify what I say as "recognizable moral language" is dysfunctional judgment on your part. To apply the concepts of morality and immorality and right and wrong is to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Wasn't it your god who said, "Do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?" BobD
  10. Eucharist

    McKenna Professor Erhman is talking about errors over time. He explains in his book how these errors occurred, how we corrected many of them and how some can never be corrected because we don't have the original texts of the original authors. BpbD
  11. Hello

    Lucille, I am a little slow in getting around to seeing your posting but I would would like to say that if we do not embrace and honour homsexuality in the same manner that we honour and embrace heterosexuality we insult god. For I created homesexuals as part of My perfect creation. If you show a homophobic attitude towards My perfect creation as the beast Yahveh (also known as Jehovah, Yahweh or The Lord) does, it shows Me that your self-righteousness makes you think that you are better than Me. When you read the above please do not confuse I with I or [b]Me[/b] with me. I am god. I am bobD. Welcome to our website.
  12. The Eucharist As A Hidden Message

    Soma; Thank you for letting me know. BobD
  13. Justice And Grace

    Well said Tariki! One can make the argument that the Hebrew word mishpat actually means 'responsibility' 'relaible' or 'judgment' and has been misinterpreted as meaning 'justice'. If you read through the Old Testament and substitute the word 'justice' with 'responsible', 'reliable' or 'judgment' in their appropriate spots, it tells a different story. In fact, the message that is revealed tends to be more compatable with the teachings of Jesus. In the parable of the 99 Sheep, I see the sheep who is lost as an offender who commits offenses against others. The teaching of this parable suggests that we should make every effort to seek out and identify the problems within this offender and bring him back into the fold, rather than throw him in jail and throw away the key. How do we do this? We follow a program of detaining offenders, forgiving them, but not letting them go free, and rehabilitating them with the use of Psychiatrists, Psycholigists and social workers as long as it takes to get them back into the fold. It is the responsibliity of society to rehabilitate offenders, not to put them on trial and punish them for their "evil" deeds. Grace is forgiveness with a program of wisdom that produces a change in behvaiour to make offenders more compatable and loving in their relationships with others. This concept can also be applied on a macro scale when political parties or whole countries are offending others. However, it is a lot tougher to invoke. Grace, in forgiveness, love and tolerance of other faiths, beliefs, races and cultures is also inherent in "the anointed". "The anointed" or "Christ" is one who has resurrected himself or herself above the death inherited when eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Jesus is not the only one who is the Christ. He is only the first who is resurrected from death - the death we experience from eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. All you have to do is stop eating from it and you will become one with the Christ in eternity. BobD
  14. Is God Emotional?

    Jerryb The Gnostic poem The Thunder Perfect Mind has an interesting view concerning the nature of god. It refers to god as "I" and starts off something like this. I was sent forth from the power, and I have come to those who reflect upon me, and I have been found among those who seek after me. Look upon me, you who reflect upon me, and you hearers, hear me. You who are waiting for me, take me to yourselves. And do not banish me from your sight. And do not make your voice hate me, nor your hearing. Do not be ignorant of me anywhere or any time. Be on your guard! Do not be ignorant of me. For I am the first and the last. I am the honored one and the scorned one. I am the whore and the holy one. I am the wife and the virgin. I am <the mother> and the daughter... It goes on and on saying what "I Am" In fact, you could say that "I am like us and I am not like us", or "I am emotional and I am not emotional". Where it says, "I am the first and the last" and "take me to yourselves", it means that we are all the essence of god. Each and every one of us are an expression of god and we take this idea into ourselves if we want to know god. I think that the Gospel of Luke is correct when it says that the kingdom of god is within us. BobD
  15. The trinity "fact" that you quote was actually taken from the Pagans. During the time of Jesus, the world was over 90% Pagan. The Pagan trinity was a form of fertility worship which included the Father, Mother, Child. This trintiy of fertility is what ensures mans perpetual existence on earth. The early Catholic (Universal) church took this trinity and distorted it into Father, Son and Holy Ghost. In so doing they took the feminity out of the concept of the trinity and called it a masculine god. The god you believe in is only half a god because it is missing the feminine portion of its androgyny. God is more than just male. God is the ALL, the I AM. Nobody will ever suck me into believing this trintiy nonsense. On the subject of elohim, it is not the only word that is translated as 'god' there is YHVH, el, eloah and several others. However, since elohim is plural, then in many places, the biblia talks about gods, not God. So it does matter. What has happened is that, over time, man has created a false idol called the Old Testament God. In Revelation, John refers to this Old Testament God as a beast. As far as "authority" is concerned; it comes from bullies, not from god. The true Old Testament god is anawkee, I with emphasis, or I. This concept of god is supported by Quantum Physics and by the true meaning of the Hebrew Old Testament words which have been poorly translated by religious scholars. It is also the concept of god known by Gnostic Christians since the time of Jesus. The biblia is also full of errors. The eminant bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman claims that there are between 200,000 and 400,000 errors in the New Testament alone! To regard the bible as the sole authority of god is idol worship and idol worship is forbidden by the second commandment. Finally, belief doesn't cut it. You have to know god. BobD