The Bible and the Evil God: Lies, deception & brainwashing

[whitecrow]

An interesting thread. It was my reading and rereading of the Bible that eventually caused me to start saying: It's all true, and it's all lies.

The Bible is many things. A corrupted book, yes. Full of contradictions and falsehoods, yes. In many ways a work of fiction, yes. But it is also sublime truth, a record of people's uneasy relationship with their gods and with the Great Spirit, and a goldmine of information about the attitudes and lifestyles of many different eras and cultures.

I won't even address the arguments that are based on a snippet. You can pull anything out of context to make any case. You have to read the Bible as a whole, cover-to-cover, about three times before it begins to make sense. When that happens, terms like "living water" begin to seem appropriate.

I'm not a Christian, though I have been. I don't practice any formal religion. I've studied the Bible more thoroughly than any of the world's other scriptures, but I have an interest in them all. I no longer think in terms of "God," much less "Jehovah" or "Yaweh." All such terms are limiting and corrupt. The Divine Source is utterly numinous to our 3D perceptions, and all portrayals are simply caricatures.

We're almost approaching the point where the language of science and the language of mysticism converge. Like the Internet, this is a historic and timely step in our evolution. The language of religion is the more dogmatic, but not by much. Paradigms in both religion and science are being severely tested about now. I think a much more holistic cosmology will emerge.

(By the way...I posted this at Camelot...there is a free download called Ocean that contains a fantastic collection of the world's main scriptures. It's put out by the Bahá'is so of course those scriptures are exhaustively represented. It also contains the main writings from the Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Hindu, Sikh and Taoist Faiths. It's totally free and contains no preachy stuff, the Bahá'is never do that. If you have an interest in religions, this is a great resource!)

I take the view that the same "God" has been communicating with and occasionally manifesting among people since the beginning. I believe in the Hindu/Bahá'i principle that all religions are just different forms of the same thing.

I believe that ALL religions are true and ALL are false, depending on your viewpoint. There is no such thing as One True Faith except for the one that has no name and has always been known in the heart of everyone who ever dwelt on this planet.

The Bible is the record of one of many traditions. The Light is there, for those who have eyes to see it - just as it is there in many, many other great writings from all times and cultures. If it's lies and contradictions you seek, ammunition to prove the church is false and God doesn't exist, those things are even easier to find. What most people find there is pablum - soma - that keeps them sleepy and contented.

And that my friends is a real shame.

[Edward Alexander]

Allie: The one you mention is one of those I work with. There are also some others, which as far I know is not known to the world at least not by the names I know them. One is called Lalo , which I found a strange name but I checked with him several times and he is persistent on that being his name.

Alice Baily I am not familiar with, is she a theosofist? Think I've heard the name, perhaps if you mentioned some books or work she's done I might be aware of some of it. I've studied some theosophical material, mainly some of the work of Charles Leadbeater and Annie Besant and I find most of it pretty accurate in comparison with my own personal experiences and insights. I've been working with ascended masters, or I prefer calling them Teachers really as that is what they are, for at least a decade and half now. Theosophical material is rather new to me, couple years since I got into studying that material.

I'm also member of several different so called secret societies and orders and have for most of it benefitted greatly from that as well, though Im not part of this Theosophical Society. But there are many similarities in practices and teachings as well as ideology within many of these.

One of the ways I personally feel certain about such an entity being good or not is by the way they act and what they tell you and do for you. For example, one who never ask or demand you to do anything, and only brings you goodness, kindness, love and various insights about yourself and existence that can be verified in many cases, and helps you with different problems, and give you the ability to help others (for example I have been healed from ailments, and been given the ability to heal others) - such an entity is as far I'm concerned "good" and a "positive" being. It is highly unusual for any "negative" entities to act in such ways, at least for longer periods of time - it is simply not their nature.

Mischievous and negative entities are usual more aggresive in behavior, colder vibrations, demanding, and not able to follow you up to higher states of being, awareness and spiritual planes of existence where purity and love rules. They also lie and deceive a lot, and this can be easily found out in most cases by first establishing that it is a negative being you are in contact with - then you should break all contact with that beign.

There's also many other ways to distinguish the two forms of beings from eachother, and ways to make sure you get rid of the negative and stay in contact with the positive etc but that's a bit much to get into further details about here and now for me.

Arcora: I might for a moment have mistaken you for ctophil when addressing you above, if so my mistake an apologies.

[Edward Alexander]

WhiteCrow: Good points there, I agree to virtually all of it, except for the manifestation of God part. I do not think the True God above All manifests or take part of anything happening here, he has set in place other systems to make sure things are going the way as designed. Such as divine Laws etc.

Though, other Gods may manifest at times and contact various people to different degree and for various reasons, mostly because they want to communicate a specific message to larger masses and do not have the power to do so directly themselves (Because they are not True God, and have limitations to what they can do).

All religions being Right and Wrong at the same time I can also agree to. But with that said, there is to me little doubt several religions were put in place to mislead people and direct them away from true spiritual development, so the power that be that organized these religions could keep their own power and control over their followers.

Blessings,
-EA

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by Edward Alexander

WhiteCrow: Good points there, I agree to virtually all of it, except for the manifestation of God part. I do not think the True God above All manifests or take part of anything happening here, he has set in place other systems to make sure things are going the way as designed. Such as divine Laws etc.

We could probably have an interesting conversation about that. It'd be easy for me to say I disagree with that, only I've noticed that often when I have these conversations, I eventually come to realize that we're saying almost the same thing from different perspectives, even though it may not sound that way at the beginning. So until we have that conversation I will simply choose to respect your opinion as I do my own.

Originally Posted by Edward Alexander

...there is to me little doubt several religions were put in place to mislead people and direct them away from true spiritual development, so the power that be that organized these religions could keep their own power and control over their followers.

If you'd said several denominations or several churches instead of several religions, you'd have my total agreement. And I'm curious what you mean when you use the term "put in place." Who "puts" are religion in place? By what mechanism is this achieved?

Good posts, good thread. Makes my wheels turn.

[Edward Alexander]

meekforce: I have another thread touching upon some of those things, look for "Revelations from a Master".

Your questions are deep and need more time for me to properly respond, for now I will have to wait with that as it is late here and time for journeys into dreamland =)

Whitecrow: If you want to elaborate, feel free to do so, when it comes to your first quote.

For the second one, a religion can be put in place from everything to a larger group that have planned to do so either for their own agenda, or because they actually believe it, but also by private people. I could put in place a religion of my own if I really wanted, and for many different purposes.

The way it is achieved is simple enough - get enough gullible persons and present them with some uncommono events, or even stories of such events, and you're good on your way already.

Will have to expand further on this tomorrow or so if that is requested.

Night for now, and blessings.
-EA

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by Edward Alexander

Whitecrow: If you want to elaborate, feel free to do so, when it comes to your first quote.

This is so much an area of belief and faith that I don't even know if it's really apropos for this forum. I very much resonate with the idea of Manifestations even though what constitutes one, and who qualified and who didn't are topics that could waste decades if we let that happen. If we are agreed that there has been, and can continue to be interaction between people and Larger Principals, that's probably good enough for us to proceed in friendship.

Originally Posted by Edward Alexander

...I could put in place a religion of my own if I really wanted, and for many different purposes.

The way it is achieved is simple enough - get enough gullible persons and present them with some uncommon events, or even stories of such events, and you're good on your way already.

The thing is, I've imagined this scenario too, any number of times, and I don't see it working out that way. This is why I made my original comment, that if you'd said churches or denoms... People that attempt to start religions rarely succeed in starting anything more than a cult. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate and David Koresh come to mind. None of these were religions in the true sense.

The reason I couldn't start a religion is that I have no new revelation concerning the relationship between God and man. I think all the information that's needed is already out there. I could to be sure, repackage some of that information into some shiny new model and proclaim myself a prophet, but several things would result. First, most everyone would immediately see that I was a fraud. Second, even more people wouldn't care whether I was or not. And third, the followers I'd gather around me would be weak and gullible fools, the very sort of person I prefer not to be associated with. But that's me.

Founders of great religions have not so much chosen as had it thrust upon them. If it was possible to simply go out and start a religion, the world would be filled with religions that glorify wealth. There are churches and ministers that glorify wealth, but I do not know of a major religious tradition that teaches this.

[Edward Alexander]

Well religions are well-established because they've been around for so long and had the time to grow and expand and keep in their state of power and control over their masses.

But, you do mention some cults, however what about Scientology? That is a rather new Religion, also pretty big, and it glorifies wealth I'd say too =)

That's a good example on what one man can achieve if he wants - funny thing is Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer but also associated with "real" magicians and religious people such as Aleister Crowley, and NASA scientist & fellow Occultist Jack Parson, founder of Jet Propulsions Lab (JPL) among others.

Though that's a huge topic on its own though.

In either case, I agree with your about an interactio between people and Larger Principles as you word it.

Blessings.
-EA

[SuperManny]

Hi all
Interesting thread; perhaps a tad controversial, so I shan't get in too deep, because the bottom line is if you're looking for fallacies, discrepancies, etc. you will most certainly find it. But if you're looking for confirmation, inspiration, or divine guidance you'll probably find that too.

In my opinion one of the biggest fallacies in the bible is the idea that Jehovah (or JHWH) was the "one, true God" as he claimed to be. Think about it; he was jealous, vengeful, threw temper tantrums like a 2 yr old, etc. In the Ra Material, he is even portrayed as a negative "Service-to Self" entity, who mixed in just enough truth to be believable. I tend to agree, because I've studied the Ra Material for yrs and find it to be among the purest information available.

[whitecrow]

Originally Posted by SuperManny

In my opinion one of the biggest fallacies in the bible is the idea that Jehovah (or JHWH) was the "one, true God" as he claimed to be. Think about it; he was jealous, vengeful, threw temper tantrums like a 2 yr old...

Well, that's what they wrote about him, anyway. These books of the Old Testament are bronze-age documents. Folks didn't have a real clear understanding of cause and effect. And these were the mainstream media of the time, too...and no more reliable perhaps than what we have today.

I think that to conclude there's no Divine Mind because of what some people wrote about their ideas about God...is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[Norval]

The Bible and the Evil God: Lies, deception & brainwashing


Yes, I have to agree, that is what this thread is all about.
While many read "others" writings about the bible, why?

Do not any of you trust yourselves to read it for yourselves?

The bible is a book all about love and sacrifice.

It contains the instructions for an Intergalactic Governance.

If you can't read it for some reason, get someone to read it to you.

[Allie]

Hi EdwardI recognise the names you mention - Leadbeater and Besant - and have read some of their works. Alice Bailey was from that same source, although I think some of the theosophists parted company due to a disagreement in how the society should be run.

Alice wrote some 35 books, around 30 of which are said to be dictations from Djwahl Kuhl. She is said to have been the successor to Blavatsky, but there are some glaring differences between them. I would imagine if you google Bailey, you'll find more information than you could hope to get through as she is deemed to be the person who started the whole 'New Age' thing off. She's also as famous as Blavatsky.

I really wanted to like Bailey, but actually couldn't tell which side of the fence she was on. She appeared to speak with great wisdom out of one side of her mouth, and then spout what I can only describe as wildly inaccurate, racist comments out of the other. I have read all the explanations for this given by those who seek to protect her name (and DK's I'd imagine) but regardless, anyone with a reasonable understanding of history and an astute brain could run a tank through both Alice's words and the subsequent explanations for them. There were other things that I couldn't get past with Alice (DK?)

When I started down my own particular path (which arose due to some pretty startling psychic experiences) I felt pulled towards the AM's. However, I linked up with a number of people who either have internet sites or have written books, but who all knew each other.

It's a long story but it became impossible to know the truth. I know that intuitively, the feeling I had was always one of unease and akin to 'deception'. I do not believe the people I met were intentionally fraudulent in any shape or form - I just became uneasy with who or what they were channelling. Something just wasn't right.

Because I was discovering Bailey at around this time, I was bewildered by it all. Would an enlightened being (DK) really channel such unfortunate, racist comments? Or was it Bailey's mind poking through? I had similar thoughts about Blavatsky at times.

Bailey takes the same view of God that you outlined in your post - which is why I thought you might be familiear with her work

As mentioned, I did read something which is supposed to have come from Kuthumi, denoucing come of Bailey's work but a) it was not clear which aspects he meant and b) it came from the Summit Lighthouse which is now denounced by some.

Anyway - I've waffled on, haven't I?

[JoshG_528hz]

How can any person in their right mind argue for the validity of the bible by quoting from it? Faith? Come on! I just feel like sharing one of my major pet peeves. Whenever i try to point out the many flaws in the bible, this is a very common response - "Have you ever heard of faith?" "You have to have faith" - I NEED TO HAVE BLIND OBEDIENCE BASED ON WHAT MY FAMILY WAS TOLD TO BELIEVE FOR GENERATIONS!? Well, thats what is sounds like to me. anyone else?

[Antonia]

Well done Edward…. I agree totally with you… There are in fact 18 different personages in the old testament that were all translated as the ‘LORD’, the Elohim is indeed a plural word and female plural…
Look sure the message is genuine…. Live honestly, don’t hurt other people, love one another…. Love a greater creator force defined as God…Etc… but that’s all New Testament (which I’ll get to in a minute)… The Old Testament is a shorter version of the Torah which is all about fear and controle in many ways… I know the people were a bit warlike and hard to controle back then, times were tough, fertile farming land and food was scarce so people were very tough…. The ruling forces had to be very harsh to stop a free for all… But the old testament apart from being quite savage in “The Lords” neurotic insecurities and dealing out punishment, smiting and death to any one who said boo to him, is quite beautiful and also quite ridiculous in parts….I mean Leviticus??? People with big noses and blemishes of any kind were displeasing to the LORD, there fore could not worship or enter in to a Temple??? Never mind a cripple or a hunchback???

If you wore a cloth woven of two different cloths from two different weaves y
you merit stoning or smiting as you did if you touched the skin of a pig (There goes footballers!)
Women were literally there to be beaten, raped and used as slaves as was all slavery ok!
But this aside….
The Torah is a further translation of the Sumerian Tablets of Enki (The Snake in the Garden of Eden) and much of the LORD is Anu or Enlil…. You can read the direct translations of the Seven Tablets of Creation on You tube or in Zachariah Sitchen’s book of the same name…




There are 2000 of these Tablets on Museums all round the world they are 10, 000 years older then the Torah and have all the bible stories from The garden of Eden (Eden being a Sumerian word meaning The House of Life, to Adam (A Sumerian word meaning (The Earth Man)… there’s the creation, the expelling from Eden, the founding of The Earth race … then every one up to Noah and the great flood , complete with Ark and all the DNA life forms being rescued on the arch… “The actual “Flood Tablet “ is on display in the British History Museum .Sitchen’s translations have been corroborated now by many other Linguistic scholars and scientist… as word for word correct…
His theories about them all on personal conclusions have been scrutinised by some.
The jist of the original Sumerian Bible.. ( Most of you know this stuff.. it's here for the Bible word of God believers)It starts on Earth aftr a nuclear war then goes back to tell the tale of how on the 10th planet Nibiru, after wars and much jousting for king ship they tear their atmosphere or weaken it and need to repair it, by suspending gold particles that ward off radiation etc… Gold is paramount…



They end up in a long way arriving on planet Earth looking for Gold… The small search party consists of Enki and Enlil and there sister Nanharsag amongst others who are the children of Anu (God) the king back on Nibiru…with a work force of Lulu’s… another worker spices probably Greys, the mine gold successfully in North Africa… Their main station is in Iraq…
There’s decent in the mines and the Lulu revolt… left with no work force Enki Enlil and co have to come up with something quick so Enki who is the chief geneticist (His symbol was the two entwining serpents (DNA that is still used in Medicine today).. Enki has set up shop in the EDEN.. and has been studying the lie forms on the planet… he has been watching a sort of Neanderthal /ape like humanoid which in his own words “We Annunaki, must have evolved from a species like this way back on Nibiru millions of years ago!” he says he can mix his own DNA with the ape and create a new race (Homo Sapian) as a work force for the mines!.. Enlil (Yahweh) is against this and says that to interfere with the evolution of a species is against the laws of the universe and the Great Universal father (Big God)... in the end they all decide that their own race will perish with out this experiment and they go ahead and create Adam and Eve….”In their own Image”












Later Enki gets remorseful about creating a creature as a slave and sneakily up grades the chromosomes to realise free thinking intelligence. The snake with the apple from the tree of knowledge…






Later Enlil is walking in Eden and comes upon Adam and Eve clothed and asks them why they are clothed etc… you know the rest of the story…







Later the two brothers go to war and there is a nuclear war over the Dead sea were they release literal translations “Weapons of Terrer” In fact the Tablets start at the end with Total devastation of this part of the world with everything annihilated by the evil weapons and the evil wind they created “Not man in his house nor Gods in their temples were safe from the evil wind!” They have now proved with infer red and stone fused in to glass round the Deadd sea (Called the DEAD sea for this reason think Sodom and Gomorah) there was a nuclear blast around this date precisely…. Any way please goes read this stuff and research what scholars, archaeologists and scientist who research the Sumerian Tablets say….







There is no dispute the Torah came from this... and no dispute the old testiment came from the Torah...
Whether any of it true??? WHo knows but the original bible was about ET's comming to this planet to mine gold and then by a chain of events beyond their control creating this brach of humantiy....
Then the humans overrunning and the ET's trying to controle them and take responsabilty for what they had created.... ending in much sqabiling amongst the ET's and finally all out war.... The ET's trying to create some code of honer nad laws of how to live amongst the Earthy's and One brother Enki who upgraded the Earthy's IQ and fell in love with his own creation and tried to free the Earthy's from slavery to the ET's ... He was later vilafied as the Devil by his brother ENlil Yaweh, who was in charge and then it's Enki who hides behind a reed hut and tells Noah how to build the Arck when Enlil decides the earthy's have lost the run of them selves and were a terrible mistake and wants tto let them all drwown in the oending greta flood that thier own approaching planet Nibiru was going to cause....
These ET's are very aware of a universal creator who is not them...who is Big God... but they are the little Gods of Earth...

[Antonia]

The New Testiment is made up of different Gospels that were collected at the Council of Nicea... There were around 80 gospels circulating....
The Dead Sea Scrolls gives a more complet version ... with the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalin and Judas being authenticated as older then many that were later incorperated in to the New Testement compilation.

The Bishops and Pope Gregory at the Council on Nicia spets ages debating what went in and what was left out, cut out or changed.....

So nothing is authentic or unchanged or editid or safe from translation error ....

[abraxasinas]

Originally Posted by Antonia

The New Testiment is made up of different Gospels that were collected at the Council of Nicea... There were around 80 gospels circulating....
The Dead Sea Scrolls gives a more complet version ... with the Gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalin and Judas being authenticated as older then many that were later incorperated in to the New Testement compilation.

The Bishops and Pope Gregory at the Council on Nicia spets ages debating what went in and what was left out, cut out or changed.....

So nothing is authentic or unchanged or editid or safe from translation error ....

Hi Antonia!

Your descriptions in this thread are an interpretation of archetypes and an interpreation which is more ancient than the collective editorship of the scribes of the Torah.
The Mesopotamian mythologies of Enki and Elil became mingled with the 'Sons of God' and the Elohim in Genesis and the Gilgamesh.
So then the Torah became a 'retelling' of the 'cosmic war' between 'brothers'.
Edward's thread is highly appropriate and the comments of whitecrow are truly excellent.

And again, Edward and whitecrow and you have discerned the great difference between the Torah 'God' of vengenance, control and jealousy and the 'God' of the 'true' Jesus.
There is a 'fake' Jesus and this 'false one' is the one 'worshipped' in the dogmatic denominations of Christianity.

There is a 'master handbook' of the 'true ' Jesus and that is the Gospel of Thomas or GoT.
A related Nag Hammadi document, written in convoluted encodings, but retelling again the 'Story of the False God Jehovah as Yaldabaoth' is the 'Secret Book of John'.

An understanding of the GoT will allow anyone who reads this 'book' to appreciate the 'bible' and similar ancient scrolls as the 'story telling of archetypes' and NOT as a historically accurate work of literacy.

The 'Word of God' then becomes the Logos (John.1.1) and as expressed MOST potentently in the GoT.

Peace of Mind be with you all.

Abraxas

[THE eXchanger]

Does Gaia believe in God?
Mother Earth (Gaia) through Pepper Lewis

I just have one small question. Do you believe in God?

Your question is short, but it is not small.
It is an interesting question, and of obvious importance to you.
Uncertain times carry uncertainty into almost every area of life,
creeping into the deeper recesses of one's thoughts and challenging even those things and thoughts that have been accepted at face value for eons of time

But may I engage you peacefully and politely by suggesting that your question is a challenge designed to confront the science that enables channeling, the channel who is now veiled behind these words,
and your own doubts and beliefs about the subject? No matter!

It is simply best to state the known in one's search for the unknown.

With this is mind, let's begin with what is known about God versus what is believed.

Interesting telling points distinguish philosophers, scientists, followers of religious faith, and other lay people.

One of these is the use of the terms belief and knowledge, because while some people make a distinction between what they know and what they believe, others do not.

It is human nature to accept a belief as a known fact, particularly when exploring a subject or statement that is considered accurate, true, or justified.

A belief in God, or a higher power/authority is a perfect example of a concept appropriately named justified true belief, which describes a traditional relationship in which a belief is also considered knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (a necessarily plausible assertion that may or may not include evidence).

False beliefs, even if true and sincere, would not be justified under this concept, because they are not necessary and plausible to a large enough percentage of the population.

Beliefs are assumptions that humanity makes about itself, about others, and about how it expects things are or will one day be. Beliefs are also definitive ideas about how individuals and groups think things really are. When a large group or segment of the population thinks similarly, it often believes similarly as well. A

justified belief sees other beliefs as less than just. Most beliefs presume a subject and an object of belief, which requires a subjective and objective God, an internal and external relationship with God.

Beliefs are further divided into core beliefs, those that you might actively consider, dispositional beliefs, those that you simply choose to believe or disbelieve, and occurent beliefs, those that you are currently considering based upon stored knowledge or unconcluded wisdom. Based upon the foregoing, do you know what part of your being believes in God? It may be more likely that a part of your being knows God, so let's explore further.

Just as with beliefs there are many different forms of knowledge, each one important in its own way. Scientific knowledge, for instance, is a method of inquiry that focuses upon gathering empirical, observable and measurable evidence. It is subject to specific principles of reasoning, the collection of data, experimentation, and formulation and testing of hypotheses. Partial knowledge acknowledges that in most realistic cases it is not possible to have an extensive or exhaustive understanding of a subject, and that most real problems can be solved by combining a partial understanding with the proper context and other data.

Situational knowledge as the name implies, applies to a specific situations and is often embedded in language, culture and tradition. Other forms of knowledge include trial and error, learning from direct experience, secondhand knowledge, and discovery.

Do you know how you know what you know, or do you believe deeply in what you believe that you know about God?

Knowledge about God and belief in God are supported by faith. Faith is the confidence and trust that one places upon truth; it is the trustworthiness of a person, thing or idea. Faith has a special advantage in that it involves a concept of past events and future outcomes.

Faith does not require logical proof or material evidence. Informally, faith and trust are similar, but in this regard faith would more appropriately connote a context of religion or spirituality, where a transcendent reality in a Supreme Being is implied. Faith is the point of view of the mind that a certain statement or belief is true.

The mind accedes (accepts) belief based upon declarations by accepted forms of authority including people, books, doctrine and scripture. Faith encourages the acquisition of knowledge and growth.

Those who believe and also know God have faith in their beliefs.

Although you may not agree that faith is within your field of concern, I would tell you otherwise. Faith, like its counterpart hope, rises and falls during seasons of discontent. Faith is also affected by economic conditions, changes in lifestyle and living situation, sickness, and especially when others in one's family or community experience a change of heart in regard to their spiritual beliefs. When faith and hope waver the individual and the collective mind of humanity suffers a kind of stroke, paralyzing some thoughts and exaggerating others.

A spiritual stroke is like a great divide between mountain ranges - there is no clear path between here and there. One must pick one's way in roundabout ways and up and over rocky crags.

I will tell you what I know and believe about God, but only some of it will meet with your approval, because your mind and your heart currently wander the great divide between what you believe, what you know, what you hope, and the direction that members in your immediate family are beginning to take.

The God you reference in your question is a deity. A deity is a supernatural immortal being who is holy, divine, sacred and worthy of great respect. God is the sole deity in insofar as many world religions are concerned and the principal deity in many belief systems. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. He is eternal and necessary to human existence.

The modern concept of God is one in which He is personal and active in the organization and governance of the universe and the world you live in. God is invisible, but is thought to dwell in holy places such as Heaven, supernatural planes and celestial spheres. God is made manifest to humanity through the effects of His omnipresence.

Although immortal, God is assumed to have a personality that is perfect, pure and free of defect. I know this God because it is one of the versions of God that humanity prefers and has a close bond with.

Another version of God assumes immortality, consciousness, intellect, desire and emotion. Natural phenomena in the form of floods, lighting and earthquakes are attributable to God as are miracles and other wonderful acts. God is the controlling authority in the various aspects of human life and afterlife. He is the director of fate, the giver of law and the moderator of moral obligation. The ultimate judge of human worth, he is also the creator of earth and heaven. I know this God too, because humanity studies Him, lives and is guided by His hand.

I know another God too. He is divine and infinite simplicity, perfection and goodness. This God is whole and without parts. He and his attributes are one. He is the God of truth and goodness, which is also identical to his being. This Simple Being is indivisible rather than composite - his characteristics are not made up of thing upon thing. His properties are also His being, which is not true of any created being. He is complete in all ways and He is the cause of all that exists. He is the greatest in all things and the least of all too, and this without exception. This God is also mine -- because He is your God, he is also mine.

Aside from the God of religion, I know the god of philosophy. His essence is inexpressible. He is concerned with ideas that are incomprehensible to most. These cannot be expressed in general terms or in common language for they would render that which is ineffable mundane. This abstract god is complex and his nature is paradoxical. He is symbolic gesture, illogical statement, principle and reason, and intrinsically impossible to understand. I have attended the schools of thought that uphold this version of god and bear witness to the existence of an existential god. This version of God is as real as the other versions.

My favorite version is not as popular as the others because it exists beyond humanity's capacity to conceive. This inconceivable Beingness is the light that gives meaning to the darkness of being. This Being and Nothingness are closely related. Nothingness and All That Is are one in this Beingness. All That Is cannot be comprehended by human senses - not today, tomorrow or yesterday. It is unknowable, indefinable, eternal, invisible and formless. It is Living Mind. No language can describe or define the All. It's being is so still as to be indistinguishable from non-being. I do not know this God/Being/All That Is, and to believe in that which exists without need of existence is folly. I do not believe in this Being either for its existence does not require my belief or that of any other being. To do so would limit my relationship with It, an injustice to say the least. This All is a substantial part of the reality that underlies all appearances and manifestations that are called Life, including matter and non-matter, energy and non-energy, thought and no-thought. And there is that which exists beyond this.

As your life continues to unfold your beliefs will change, shaped by the thoughts and experiences that you draw to you. Your individual existence that currently believes you are a human being also believes that it must fight for itself in this world. This part of you has a sense of "doership" that must establish a purpose for its existence, but it is ultimately unaware and unconscious of its own true nature. Human nature and the mind that occupies its time compulsively thinks, and then thinks about what it is thinking. It does so in order to assure its own future existence, because it does not know that the present moment and the eternal self are one and the same. The human self does not know that it is made of nothingness and believes in error that it is made of something. This is because the human mind dwells within the Living Mind and is subject to the laws of created things. As one of your mystics once said, you are the eternal principle and the temporal process; you are the impressure of nothingness into something.

Do not think for a moment that Gaia hopes to challenge or change your life stance on God, religion or the nature of your being. Your worldview, values and viewpoints are preserved by your own will and by approval of All That Is. Your way of life is well guided and moved by the same forces of nature that pilot these words. Know that I am one with your thoughts and with your beliefs too. They are no strangers to me and I find no provocation in your attitudes and convictions. Let quarrel be with those who object for all is at rest here. The same principles and ideas that created the earth also created the moment we now share, and ideas beyond ours will inspire the future we will both share. New concepts will present fodder to philosophers, thinkers, logicians, academicians, theorists, truth-seekers and dreamers. And the One that was in first place before a place was made will yet Be.

Mother Earth (Gaia) through Pepper Lewis

[mntruthseeker]

Bravo for you Edward for daring to be different

I believe you are absolutely correct in your observation.

We humans are so dumbed down and out of the loop that there are still many that still walk around with their heads in a cloud

Anyone that knows what religion is all about and how long this has been going on would be very naive to believe that the Bible was true Sure some same that only part of it is re-written.............well which part, I ask ?

Not only has it been re-written but the parts they left in are only half rights. Most of the important words left out.

Its truly sad but in the same breath I have to say brilliant the way they have covered up the truth.

They have had their fun for billion of years and I think its our time to prevail and put things right again. They brought all of their misfortunes unto themselfs and although I can't hate them, I feel that I do understand.

[Initiate]

Time and time again men just as yourself and woman have been contacted from the spiritual realm and given messages to pass on to their brothers and sisters. Higher consciousnesses have also incarnated on this earth to give those messages to humanity directly time and time again. These messages have been given in the purest universal love and truth. Over time individuals and elite groups have then distorted these messages and twisted or misrepresented them to their own advantage. The messages, however, are very strong and a man or woman of good heart with good intention can see the true message within the brambles and gain from them. A man or woman looking at the messages without the benefit of a good solid heart foundation will only see the brambles. Jesus was one of many messengers to try and set the record straight.

Fundamentally, many religions share the same message at their heart.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...tory+of+jesus#

[Moxie]

I think my brain is working better today... I did not mean that good and evil do not exist... I was merely pointing out that perhaps it is time to recognize that "evil" equates to those that are cut off from Source, the UnEnlightened, (those not in their right mind, whose actions are deemed Evil).

How Might We Bring the Unenlightened to Enlightenment?

Would it be better, perhaps, to use the words "Enlightened and Unenlightened" over words like "good and evil" because I can see how compassion enters the picture with the former and a warrior/fighting stance may enter with the latter word choice.

Going for some tea now...

[orthodoxymoron]

Originally Posted by Moxie

I think my brain is working better today... I did not mean that good and evil do not exist... I was merely pointing out that perhaps it is time to recognize that "evil" equates to those that are cut off from Source, the UnEnlightened, (those not in their right mind, whose actions are deemed Evil).

How Might We Bring the Unenlightened to Enlightenment?

Would it be better, perhaps, to use the words "Enlightened and Unenlightened" over words like "good and evil" because I can see how compassion enters the picture with the former and a warrior/fighting stance may enter with the latter word choice.

Going for some tea now...

I knew what you meant...but I just felt like ranting. I rant...because I can. I rant...therefore I am. I don't want a solution...I just want to rant.

I understand the evils of a rigid and fundamentalist treatment of evil...but irresponsible relativism is not the answer either. Enlightened people have been some of the most evil people in the history of the world. This is a real problem...which isn't going away anytime soon.

Arguing on Avalon is probably a good place to begin. And putting into practice the message in the video just posted by Initiate.

Namaste

[taomation]

This thread very much establishies what Dr. Deagle was taling about in his interview. Divorce yourself from the middle man! You are conected part of consciousness, but feel largley becasue of the left brain that you are disconneted.

But the one thing that I have learned is to not waste time on differences. If we are all spirtual people then when should allow each of us to grow at our own pace.

Certainly, I do find it strange to find hard core bible believers on this forum. If you listen to Svali on any numerous other whistle blowers and articles on Camelot and elswhere it is fairly obvious that the Christain Church and specifically the Vatican are a very corrupt group and that is putting in mildly. Constantine made sure that the bible carried with it the political agenda of the Roman Empire and was re-edited as a tool to control the masses.

That being said, it is very difficult if not impossible to overcome a persons conditioning and denial and in my opinoion a complete waste of time. The minute that you try to convince anyone of anything a wall of cognitive dissonance comes down and they can't even hear what you saying. They are just trying to think of the next thing they are going to say in thier argument. And believe me I have tried.

That's why we must be careful what we learn, because after we learn it, we act as if we were the ones who came up with it and then when a better idea comes along we reject it, because we feel we didn't come up with it ourselves.

Just as with Freudian psychology, the patient has to come to the answers on his own otherwise he will reject them.

In other words beings have to grow at thier own pace and they will get there with or without our help eventually...Tao

[100thmonkey]

taomation, good post.
Ed thanks for these threads. It's good to find a like mind.
I don't have any channeling contacts but I recognise truth to most everything you've put forward.

[arcora]

xxx

[Allie]

Taomation.

Although I understand the rationale behind your thoughts in respect of differences, I think it's how we all approach them For my part, I love to hear the perspectives of others - which are often very different - they make me think, often make me review my own perspectives and inevitably, I find I can learn/grow from them. Even if it doesn't alter my view, I might find a lesson arises from my own reactions. What I think occasionally goes wrong is that others become scathing or perdantic if your views don't match theirs, and that's where the real 'differences' begin to show. Healthy debate - such as appears to be present on this thread - is ...well,....healthy

Edward

I was interested to read both Blavatsky and Bailey's view of God. Or rather, their rampant dismissal What intrigued me was the life each had led prior to their becoming theosophists. Blavatsky had been very religious - in the conventional, Russian Orthodox fashion, but turned full circle following the death of a child, widely believed to be her own (although she wouldn't admit it). She failed to understand how a loving God could deal her such a hand. Similarly, Bailey had been raised in a somewhat orthodox Christian background -marrying into it too -and later reacted to it (or her one-time husband) I find both conversions telling and wonder if their personal experiences coloured their later writing. In times of trouble some people 'find' faith, others lose it. The AM's who worked with both apparently found them 'trying'

I don't read many books on the AM's any more. But, I don't regret reading Bailey - if only because it made me think. The number of people who, when reading the racist bits, which truly were appalling, continued to find excuses for Bailey or ways to 'interpret' and 'understand' what she'd said was interesting. Even though what she'd written appeared pretty unenlightened, the blind loyalty was nevertheless apparent. It made me think about how our need for a leader or a teacher can have its darker side.

I was also pleased to have read Bailey just to understand how she is playing out today. As the instigator of the 'New Age', her views are slipping into the UN and apparently into schools in America. Not being American, I don't know how true that is, though It's actually rather difficult to know which agenda Mrs Bailey's work is supporting, but some believe it isn't particularly healthy. Whether you take that view or not depends on your perspective of race and religion.


Before I leave the topic of the AM's, I wondered what your thoughts are on Benjamin Creme and his assertation that Maitreya is already here and has addressed many crowds in many nations - oh, and certain UN delegates, too?

I don't have too many thoughts with respect to the Bible. Although I am reasonably informed, I haven't made what might be honestly called a scholarly study. The UK takes a rather quiet, reserved approach to religion. Like politics and money, it's an 'off the agenda' topic, generally considered too personal a question to ask of another When Tony Blair mentioned God we were mostly appalled! We don't like our politics and religion mixing Historically, it's led to mindless bloodshed and strife.

I believe that the ancient Jewish scholars did not take the Bible at face value, but interpreted it into what we now know as the Talmud. Their interpretations could be so focused that it wasn't unknown for them to get hung up for ages on the meaning of a single word. The Talmud, however, remains in the same form today - i.e. under an interpretation that is centuries old. It would be very good if today's scholars undertook the task again

I knew a very cool rabbi who gave me some interesting insights into the non-literal interpretations of the bible - such as the book of Ruth, which he said was not to be taken literally as it had been written simply to encourage converts to Judaism

Thanks for the open-minded thread, Edward

[100thmonkey]

Originally Posted by Allie

... I wondered what your thoughts are on Benjamin Creme and his assertation that Maitreya is already here and has addressed many crowds in many nations - oh, and certain UN delegates, too?

Would that be Obamaitreya?