The Bible Unmasked

PepperFritz

The Living Force
whyisthatso said:
Every evil that exist in this world today is the result of the unwillingness to accept or the failure to submit to authority.
Wowsa. Did this dude ever walk into the wrong bar....

christx11 said:
Seems we get to see more and more examples daily of how the world is as it is.
Indeed.

domivr said:
Maybe whyisthatso should try Pastafarianism for a change?
All bow to the authority of the Spaghedeity, and his prophet Bobby Henderson.
 

whyisthatso

The Force is Strong With This One
"THOUGHT" is the most personal aspect of any being. You are what you think. Take a look around you. Everything that exist is the result, directly or indirectly of thought, this computer, this desk, this building, this city, this state, this society, this culture, this nation, this world and all that is in it....yes, even YOU and me. The cosmos, the known and unknown, ALL that exist is the result of "thought".
Question : Is there a right way to think ? Answer : There certainly is a wrong way (witness human history ) so there has to be a right way. But thought being the most personal aspect of being, to suggest there is a right way to do so is "naturally" offensive to the hostile mind. Who in the world has any authority to say how a person should or should not think. Why no one in this world does. Only the source of thought can make such a demand.
Because the source of thought IS thought. Thought magnified on a plane and in a demension that is not accessible by anyone or anything ( who are the result of Thought )..... ( aka "God" ). The only means of communication is by "Word", which is thought manifested , and that for communication only. Because unless and until one can "hear" (understand) the word, there is no communication. Just a bunch of static (confusion).
Imagine a world where every human being on this planet all thought the same way in regards to what is right and what is wrong ( good and evil ). And imagine that all in turn thought the right way to manifest what is right in every aspect of life and living, every minute of everyday. Can you say "utopia" ? Ok, what about "paradise" then ? No matter what you call it, it would be good, very good.
"REPENT" - to change the mind, to change the way one thinks
 

anart

A Disturbance in the Force
And this would be an example of:

"he scurries and screams, pontificates and preaches, all with the demented fervor of the powerless, ignorant and trapped."

Have we had enough yet?
 

whyisthatso

The Force is Strong With This One
domivr said:
whyisthatso said:
Every evil that exist in this world today is the result of the unwillingness to accept or the failure to submit to authority.
How interesting is it that those who commit evil deeds in this world are those who are champions of authoritarianism (wether that authority be based on some old dude in the sky, genetics, tribe, etc).
Seems the dictators of this world - past and present - didn't get the memo.

Maybe whyisthatso should try Pastafarianism for a change?
Note the part about "authorized" and "unauthorized" please.
 

Annette1

Jedi
My eyes are crossing, my head hurts, the merry-go-round continues, I think I hear the timer on the oven dinging. Is it done yet????? Anart, got your oven mitts?
 

mkrnhr

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
stop feeding the troll (whyisthatso). He's funny but he takes from you time all.
 

christx11

Jedi Master
wits said:
But thought being the most personal aspect of being, to suggest there is a right way to do so is "naturally" offensive to the hostile mind. Who in the world has any authority to say how a person should or should not think. Why no one in this world does. Only the source of thought can make such a demand.
"to suggest there is a right way to do so is "naturally" offensive to the hostile mind." ???????????

Shouldn't that be to the logical mind? Why should this be "to the [hostile] mind? A hostile mind is just that - hostile, it will do whatever it darn well wants and be offended at whatever it wants.


"Only the source of thought can make such a demand." ??????????

Make what demand? Only the person thinking the thought can "demand" what can be or not be thought??? Why would the person having the thought "demand" anything? That would imply one part of the person being controlled by another part of the person and demanding / controlling what can and can't be thought by the other part.

Wow you seem to have one big control freak issue. Which part of you is posting here, the one thinking or the one telling you what to think?

wits said:
Thought magnified on a plane and in a demension that is not accessible by anyone or anything ( who are the result of Thought )..... ( aka "God" ).
Say what? Thought that is not accessible by anyone or anything?? Sounds like a black dark place to me.

wits said:
The only means of communication is by "Word", which is thought manifested , and that for communication only. Because unless and until one can "hear" (understand) the word, there is no communication. Just a bunch of static (confusion).
What about communication by emotion? What about a frown? What about tears? What about pain? None of these things exist because "The only means of communication is by "Word""??? You really like to "hear" yourself it seems. Self-reflection is oh so mesmerizing!!!

wits said:
I need to go pour another bowl of Fruity O's, this one's headed to Baked Noodles!
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Yeah, I think he's done now. I'm borrowing Anart's mitts.
 

Annette1

Jedi
BTW, Thank you, Laura, for sharing Joseph Lewis' work. Excellent find. I've never heard of it. I will have look for a copy of that one. There's a few people I would like to share it with.
 

mamadrama

The Living Force
This is quite an interesting website you found, Laura. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewun01.htm
I thought the the argument presented in the excerpt by Joe Edward Barnhart on the immorality of the Bible was quite good as well.

The Relativity of Biblical Ethics
by Joe Edward Barnhart
from Biblical v. Secular Ethics: The Conflict
edited by R Joseph Hoffman and Gerald A Larue
Buffalo, New York (1988), Prometheus Books

Barnhart said:
Evangelical scholar G. T. Manley, in The New Bible Commentary, tries to justify the morally inferior outlook found in Deuteronomy by noting that it belongs to "the Mosaic age, and [is] quite different from that of the later monarchy."[5]

Unfortunately, to cast the biblical material in historical context (as doubtless it should be) serves only to emphasize the historical relativism of so-called biblical morality. Indeed, the very notion of a complete and self-consistent biblical morality is problematic. The attempt by some evangelicals to borrow the "progressive revelation" principle in order to make the claim that the later revelation (i.e., the New Testament) stands on a higher plane than the earlier revelation (the Old Testament) collapses when one considers the rage against, and hatred of, most of the human race exemplified in the Book of Revelation. And certainly the threat found in Hebrews 6:4-6 -- which proclaims that God will never forgive a repentant apostate -- is more, not less vicious than anything found in the Old Testament. When theologians try to justify the vendetta that the Book of Revelation describes in lurid detail, they demonstrate just how perverse the human mind can sometimes become.

Those who believe that the Bible presents its readers moral absolutes have failed to acknowledge the staggering diversity of its moral perspectives. These differing perspectives are often grounded in the political and evangelical experiences of the early Christian church. Professor Daniel Fuller, noted evangelical scholar and former president of Fuller Seminary, pointed out to me, for example, that the apostle Paul had three major problems to face in the early Christian churches: (1) the wall separating Jew and Gentile, (2) the wall separating male and female, and (3) the wall separating slave from free citizen. According to Fuller, Paul, whose theological interpretation of Christ's teachings formed the foundation of the Church, felt that he had to make a practical decision to concentrate on the problem of the ethnic and religious relationship between Judaism and Christianity to the exclusion of the other two problems. Fuller's point is that, while racism and sexism are in principle undermined by the Christian gospel ("Love thy neighbor as thyself"), Paul was forced to leave to later generations the application of this subversive Christian insight to the problems of racism and sexism. For Paul, getting the church off the ground was the key thing; to try to implement total Christian justice would have scared most potential converts away. I take this to be an example of situational ethics. Whether Paul utilized situation ethics in order to advance the agape principle of 1 Corinthians 13 more effectively is a question open for debate. As Morton Smith ably demonstrated in Free Inquiry (Spring 1987) there is much in the Bible that contributed to the institution of slavery and little that in actual practice moved against it. Even the Golden Rule of the New Testament, because of its abstractness and adaptability, has throughout history often failed to override the deep-seated racial bigotry of the Book of Genesis.

The doctrine of election accepted by the Puritans did not incline them to gentleness in their dealing with inferior races. The savage Negroes and the savage Indians were accursed peoples whom it was quite proper to destroy and enslave. "We know not when or how these Indians first became the inhabitants of this mighty continent," says Cotton Mather, "yet we may guess that probably the devil decoyed these miserable savages hither, in hope that the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ would never come to destroy or disturb this absolute empire over them."[6]
 

bedower

Jedi Master
This article has just been posted on thetruthseeker site from What Really Happened. While it deals with the present sabre-rattling for war on Iran, it does raise a few very salient questions about biblical history as written in the Hebrew Testaments. It also includes a question that has always bothered me: why haven't more artifacts and ruins been found to support the Jewish version of their history in Canaan? Even Mediggo has only one archeological layer that can be attributed to the Hebrews; the other layers belong to other settlers, with most of the artifacts being Egyptian in origin.

_http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9022

'Persia: Ancient Soul of Iran.'
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
There aren't any "Hebrew/Jewish" archaeological artifacts because there was no such thing as "the Jewish people" until very, VERY late. In fact, you could say that they were created by the Romans. Before then, it was just a few small sects here and there among the many Palestinian sects and groups, including Roman, Hellenic, etc groups. It is also very likely that the FIRST REAL Jewish temple was the one Herod built. Oh, sure, there have been temples - or a temple - and it was variously used at different times, but it was never strictly a Jewish, Hebrew, Yahweh, Jehovah thing for any length of time at all.

In short, the great nation of Israel - as it is depicted in the Bible and as Jews (and Christians) are wont to believe - is a huge fraud. From start to finish. And nobody has been able to prove otherwise no matter how hard they have tried and how often they try to fake stuff.
 

bedower

Jedi Master
It's ironic that the only secondary source for the Jewish history is to be found in the Qur'an; the Exodus and the building of Solomon's temple, for instance. There is even a verse which reads; 'And We gave David the Psalms...'
 

pr

A Disturbance in the Force
Hello everyone,
I hope this is the appropriate location/format to address the following issues; if it's not, please, oh please, tell me!
I'm a newbie to this forum. However, I've spent a considerable amount of time on this globe (BBM) and have gained/been given some understanding of things biblical by ASKING PROPERLY.
Let's just say 'for the sake of discussion' (FTSOD), that 'WHYISTHATSO' (WITS) is/could be a 'petty tyrant' (PT).
This thread is presented with the perfect opportunity to demonstrate a 'self-importance quantity' (SIQ) (that is rotten or not) and 'impeccability quality' (IQ). The action of rechanneling the rotten self-importance is impeccability. It is achieved through six elements that interplay each other: control, discipline, forbearance, timing, will and the PT.
Is this example of postings (that I've read above), the best this site has to offer in demonstrating impeccability and lack of self-importance? If you are trying to achieve a good impression, it's not working. Ridicule, innuendo and petty sarcasm (PS). Are (some of) these examples of how YOU all would LIKE to be treated?
I have read the postings (above) suggesting the inappropriateness of (format) WITS's addition to this thread, but no suggestions where he might post at a better subject location/format. Sure, you may disagree with his perspective; there are more effective, mature and professional ways to disagree with ANYONE than what you are demonstrating. If you don't like what he is "prophetizing", tell him so and why you disagree, as Laura attempted to do (although again, and I DO NOT MEAN TO BE ANTAGONISTIC HERE, but based on the aura of the attitude she displayed, her/your self-importance quantity is too high; one that has raised children can SEE these things).
We expect our children to submit to our JUST authority; we expect ourselves to submit to the JUST laws of this republic; but we then refuse to recognize that we have responsibility to a JUST greater authority. Maybe, some of you remember a saying; You gotta serve somebody. Wheather or not we want to admit it, there is a hiarchy here.
I concede/admit/agree that the Word that is (HIDDEN) in the bible has been subjected to un-JUST agendas and mind sets, whether by way of translation, hack and add jobs or whatever. This does not EXCUSE us from the attempt to glean the TRUTH (GRAIN) from the LIES (TARES).
So let me see if I've got this straight; SIMPLY because some un-JUST, corrupt and evil agenda oriented beings, that have applied their twisted "biblical values, ideals, premises, modes of thought, falsified history and self-image," [which] "have brought the world to the brink of disaster", to the [largely accepted understanding of the] bible as we know it, that we should (un-)JUST(ly) throw out whatever else will have redeeming value? Isn't that analagous to throwing out the baby, bathwater AND the tub?
That is the impression one gets after reading the above; Because evil, immorale beings have twisted, cut out and added to the subject, that none of it should be tolerated. NO, you don't say THAT, but neither do you qualify your presentation otherwise. Are we not allowed to read between the lines/posts? This is the inherint implication. AND (I know I'm not to begin a sentence that way, but), BTW, there is a EXTREMELY LARGE AMOUNT (ELA) of difference in knowing something about the bible and knowing what a whole bunch of (possibly twisted) pontificaters have said/written about same (no, pontificaters IS NOT a referance to Laura, unless her self-importance INSISTS that it is; the rest of the sentence, however, is). Case in point (as in knowing something about the bible):
In the excerpt of The Secret History of the World (TSHOTW) series, under the heading "The Tribe of Dan", about 3/5ths of the way down the fourth page, Laura maintains that the word "shibboleth" occurs only once in the bible. That is correct, BUT, what she DOESN"T tell us, is THAT is ONLY correct in English translations. The word shibboleth occurs a total of EIGHTEEN times, seventeen of which are in OTHER ENGLISH WORD DISGUISES. I have seen one Hebrew word disguised with as many as ten English words in the King James Version (KJV) alone. That isn't usually discussed in the general understanding of bible exegesis. One must avail thenselves of STUDY helps, such as various translations, various concordances and Hebrew/Greek/English dictionaries when studying this book, especially if one doesn't, as myself, speak Hebrew or Greek. But then, what do I know; after all, I haven't read all of the possible (DIS-)information on the bible. As you well know, when one is "available" to dis-information, unless one is aware of said disinformation, then one runs the risk of being corrupted by the same. Besides, if an evil being/force decided to deceive the "very elect", where do you think they/it would start? Obviously, in the very WORD that is being discussed here. THAT should be EXPECTED and allowed/searched/guarded for.
Just as this site has discussed that there are many levels of consciousness in this universe, there are also many levels of understanding capable (or NOT) of being accessed in the bible. The mundane understanding, of this current interface that we all share on a physical level, is not given much of it (understanding), just like not many have access to higher level densities.
It should never be assumed to be the case, that one cannot access higher levels of understanding in the bible; one can be given proper understanding. All one has to do is ASK PROPERLY. After all, isn't that one of the main premises here? That not all of human kind has access to the levels of understanding existing in this universe unless one is capable (given the appropriate amount) of awareness/knowledge/understanding; but if so given, that they then can? One MUST "Study to show yourself approved unto [the Heavenly Father], a workman that needs not to be ashamed, RIGHTLY DIVIDING THE WORD OF TRUTH. But shun profane vain [empty] babblings: for they will increase unto more 'ungodliness'* [wickedness/also known as (AKA) lawlessness].
Thank you for your time and PATIENCE in reading this,
Sincerely, pr
*'ungodliness: #763 'asebia'; genitive 'asebias', feminine noun from 'asebes' (#765), impious, ungodly, wicked. Impiety toward [the Heavenly Father], ungodliness, lack of reverence (Rom. 1:18); wickedness in general, neglect or violation of duty toward [the Heavenly Father], our neighbor or ourselves, joined with and springing from impiety toward [the Heavenly Father] (rom.11:26; 2 Tim.2:16; Titus 2:12; Jude 1:15, 18; Septuagint: Prov. 4:17;eccl. 8:8; Jer 5:6; Ezek. 16:58; 21:24. (from: Word Study Series; The Complete Word Study Dictionary {New Testament} by Spiros Zodhiates, Th.D., AMG Publishers)
P.S.: If I "exibit" emotion, it can only be achieved if I have put the requisit amount of thought into the emotion. The same with a frown, tears or a smile; it is because I have applied thought to render my experience into emotion. While one CAN argue that this happens without words (and it sometimes does), we usually will have the necessary words in our thoughts to back up our emotions, especially if asked; Why are you: frowning, crying, smiling or laughing? One usually (but not always) does. It's called "vacalizing your thoughts/emotions". This won't happen without thoughts/words.
The "logical mind " without proper awareness is and can only be "hostile" to correct knowledge until properly enlightlened. Ask the "Cs"!
And lastly, although WITS may have put an extra letter in a word on occassion (bible), at least he didn't "fuss at" or "make fun of" any of you when you LEFT LETTERS OUT of your words! SOMEBODY wasn't doing a spell check (check the " pillars' " post), but hey, DON"T WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES? I know that I do. Nope, sorry; not perfect yet! Workin' on it!
 

Mountain Crown

The Living Force
So let me see if I've got this straight; SIMPLY because some un-JUST, corrupt and evil agenda oriented beings, that have applied their twisted "biblical values, ideals, premises, modes of thought, falsified history and self-image," [which] "have brought the world to the brink of disaster", to the [largely accepted understanding of the] bible as we know it, that we should (un-)JUST(ly) throw out whatever else will have redeeming value? Isn't that analagous to throwing out the baby, bathwater AND the tub?

The stance taken by this forum re the bible is based on scholarly research covering hundreds of years. The effect the bible has had on western civilization bringing the world to "the brink of disaster" is used as evidence of the result of its claim to be revelatory in light of research into its origins. The above analogy doesn't hold enough water for any baby.

That is the impression one gets

Impressions are best understood by observing one's mechanism.

Thank you for your time and PATIENCE in reading this

Much of my time and patience was required to read your post. Did you preview it? Was communication your intent? Are you acquainted with the concept of economy of words?
 
Top Bottom