German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer once said that the truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed and eventually it is admitted that it is self-evident. Men of truth who dared to challenge accepted practice typically went through the first two stages without ever arriving at the third stage. (e.g. President Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Christ), as truth can be a very painful thing for many people to face.
The three stages for men of truth were more typically as follows: first they were misunderstood; then even if they were understood, they were not believed; then if they were believed, they were killed. The message of these men could not be tolerated if they attracted too many followers because the truth is too revolutionary in that it threatens the control matrix.
So where does their truth come from? For that matter, where do paranormal events like intuition or inspiration come from? Well, real truth only comes from God. Here’s how it works. Ancient mystics said that God came from Nothingness (the Void). Christianity later had a similar idea – that man was created out of nothing (ex nihilo). Now, nothingness is an impossible concept to define; by definition, it’s no thing. So man’s feeble attempt to define the Absolute resulted in them describing God in human terms and relative to their own human experiences. God, in essence, became an invention of philosophers and science based on a three-dimensional reality.
The problem with science describing God is that science is based on observation, as measured by physical instruments, and there’s no way to observe nothing. Conceptually, the ancients knew that but science has come a long way since, especially in the last 30 years. For example, electrical signals from the brain can be recorded on an oscilloscope. When a person has a thought the electrical signal spikes, but exactly where did the thought originate? Prior to the thought, the oscilloscope reading is zero and zero is always the reading both immediately before and after the thought. Substituting nothingness for zero, we discover that God can only exist outside of our three-dimensional reality.
Science has theoretically demonstrated that there are various dimensions outside of this reality which are, in effect, unobservable. So when energy enters our world from the outside, the oscilloscope first registers a spike at the point of entry. The great adepts, shamans and prophets understood those principles and were able to manipulate reality; but, of course, they were never able to truly understand God.
Today, the masses are asleep and impervious to the shaman power that they possess; and some people would like to keep it that way. By asleep, I mean that they are continuously manipulated and controlled, from birth to death. Just ask Morpheus. For most believers, god is a person, a “him” at that. Their belief system is based on whatever they have been told to believe in. Now, I have nothing against belief systems, per se, but problems arise when people get emotionally attached to them (e.g. free will only works when you’re mind isn’t already made up).
The good news, however, is that our world is evolving (tied to the natural cycles of the universe), and with it so are we. Best of all, the truth is evolving too. However, it’s not necessary for man to struggle with the concept of God, as it was never intended that he would ever find God; only that some day he would return to God(dust to dust and ashes to ashes). Some people will never accept the truth and that’s probably as it should be. Religion and philosophy will continue to label God using human attributes and I suppose that’s also as it should be. But I wonder… who are we to reduce God to human qualities, anyway?
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”.
– George Orwell
In the biblical stories, God is often referred to as YHWH, sometime spoken Yahweh, by the ancient Hebrews. Much later, Yahweh would be given the name Jehovah which is a name that is still in use today. Among other things, Yahweh was said to have created Adam and Eve and later would enter into a covenant with Abraham which would eventually lead to the creation of the nation of Israel. Such was the basis for Judaism and their worship of one god, and the beginning of monotheism as a form of worship.
Yes, others might argue that monotheism actually began with the Egyptians and their Pharaoh Akhenaten or even with Zoroastrianism, but Judaism is where monotheism took root and eventually spread to other religions. Christianity, a later monotheistic religion, would adopt the Jewish Bible (essentially the Old Testament) as part of their own Bible. In so doing, they also took on the mantle of Yahweh/Jehovah, the supposedly one and only god. Little did they know, however, exactly what that entailed and even today most Christians don’t realize who Jehovah was, or wasn’t.
Let’s rewind, back to the beginning. If we assume for the purpose of this discussion that the chronology in the Bible is accurate, then the following can be gleaned about the god(s) that the Hebrews/Israelites worshipped. According to the Jewish Calendar, Adam and Eve were created circa 3700 BC. So let’s count it down. Based on the biblical genealogies, Abraham lived around 2000 BC, or 1,700 years after Adam and Eve. During that period, the Hebrews worshipped many gods (the Old Testament is replete with references to multiple gods, especially in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy). This is why Yahweh admonished the Hebrews, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exodus 20:3).
It’s also why a covenant might have been required between Yahweh and the Hebrews, since they actually had a choice of who to follow. Obviously, if Yahweh was the prime creator (the first cause) or the one and only god, there would be no choice and no covenant would have been required. There would have been no reason for Yahweh to have said, “And I will take you to me for a people and I will be to you a God” (Exodus 6:7). It would not have been necessary for the prime creator to enter into such a covenant to be their god (because it would have been true ipso facto), and neither would he have referred to himself as “a God” (one of many); rather, he would have referred to himself simply as “God”.
Yet for the 1,700 years up to the time of Abraham, the Hebrews worshipped many gods instead of Yahweh; according to the Bible, even Abraham’s father did (Joshua 24:2). But if they truly believed that Yahweh was the creator and helped Noah save mankind, how could they possibly have worshiped other gods?
Now, Moses was said to have lived around 1500 BC. So roughly 500 years after Abraham, the Israelites still weren’t worshipping Yahweh as the one true god. This was one of the reasons supposedly for the Ten Commandments. Yet despite Moses and notwithstanding the Ten Commandments, it would still be another 1,000 years or so before the Torah would be written and accepted as the religious belief system of the Jewish people (for example, see 2 Kings 22:8-13). In the end, it took 3,000 years before the Israelites would officially pay homage to Yahweh.
How is it then that Yahweh was not worshipped by the Israelites over that incredible period of time even though the Jewish people feared him and recognized his status and his power? How come, indeed. The Dead Sea Scrolls, the original Septuagint and another recently discovered ancient manuscript shed new light on an important biblical passage, Deuteronomy 32:8-9. The acceptable translation of this passage should be either “sons of God” or “the number of the gods”. These sons of god were also made reference to in other biblical passages, for example Genesis 6:2, Job 1:6, and Job 38:7. These passages relate to the fact that the early Canaanite religions believed in a pantheon of gods called the Elohim, or children of El (the sons of God). The Elohim is the Hebrew term which is generally used for, and translated into, the word “God” in the Bible. As for Yahweh, he would have been simply one of the Elohim, one of the creative spirits who fashioned the universe (Note: none of which were actually God, the prime creator). Each member (Elohim) of the divine assembly were given a nation to rule over (see the Table of Nations in Genesis 10-11); and Yahweh, he was given Israel.
It was therefore difficult for the writers of the Torah to have taken the old stories, which related to a worship of many deities, and woven them together into a coherent story about the one and only god. For example, in Psalm 82:1, “God presides in the great assembly; he gives judgment among the gods”. It’s tough to go from that to the concept of only one god. So what exactly then is one to make of the Old Testament? In truth, it’s simply a history of Jewish religious thought and how it evolved over thousands of years, from the creation to the actual writing of the Torah; how it changed from the worship of many deities to the worship of the one and only Yahweh.
So why is any of this important? Well, down through the ages man has made a habit of using the name “God” to describe the deity of their own personal belief system. All one can say, at best, is that such a deity is in reality only “a god”, or the God Below God as I like to refer to him. I have endeavored to write about the biblical god story, not because I necessarily believe it, but because I feel that the story in the Bible, as written, is deserving of further explanation. So tell me, in your opinion, whose god is it anyway?
Your right, Patrick Henry didn’t quite say it that way, now did he. However, today it seems that one can more and more hear a similar refrain across the political landscape. Proponents of liberalism have become extremely outspoken in their efforts to radically transform America. One could almost say that liberalism has become a religion.
Jonah Goldberg, in his book “Liberal Fascism”, branded all liberals as fascists and all fascists as progressives. Now, that covers a lot of territory. Take fascism for example. In my opinion, fascism is something that is generally misunderstood and exists on both sides of the political divide. Labels like this, therefore, don’t mean all that much. The bigger question is do people support the ideals of the founding fathers that this country was based on, or not?
I recently heard someone compare liberalism to radical Islam and Islamic terrorists/suicide bombers. The comparison apparently was that they both like to destroy things by blowing them up so that they can then take over. I wouldn’t go quite that far but I would say that liberalism isn’t merely about ideology; rather, it’s a means to an end.
In order to properly understand liberalism, one really shouldn’t consider it to be anything like a religion, even if the liberals due tend to be rather fanatical in their beliefs. Liberals intentionally promote agendas that are like motherhood and apple pie; that is, who could say no to them. Theoretically then if it were possible, the state could provide for all of man’s needs. The problem is that man would no longer be the engine driving the world and the center of creation – the state would.
To liberals, this would be nirvana, though. Man subjugated to nature – and the state. As for God, he would no longer exist – like so many other truths relegated to the dustbin of mythology. With respect to freedom and individual rights, they would essentially disappear; only the state, and corporations, would have rights. The Constitution would no longer be necessary either since it promulgates that man’s unalienable rights flow directly from God. Without God as the source of moral authority, the state(read, the liberals) would, in effect, become God. People like Bill Gates and Bill Maher would be absolutely ecstatic. They, and the rest of their intellectual, progressive buddies, could then proclaim the new Ten Commandments of the Georgia Guidestones to the rest of the world.
So the next time that you hear someone suggesting that the government solve all of our social ills, be wary. Free handouts don’t grow on trees and they don’t really come from the government either since “we the people” produce the nation’s wealth. First, read the fine print as there are usually conditions attached – conditions such as you have to give up your personal freedoms. Why isn’t there a Patrick Henry around when you need one?
Something remarkable happened on the way to one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. The discovery, once made, simply disappeared from view. There wasn’t even a call to Houston to alert them to the problem.
Way back in 1953, Francis Crick and James Watson became the first ones to map the human genome for which they were later awarded the Nobel Prize. Of course, mapping it and understanding it were totally different things. So in 1990, a group of top international scientists formed the Human Genome Project to further explore man’s DNA.
Prior to the Human Genome Project, scientists believed that 90% of our DNA was “junk”, in other words – useless. However, that all changed in a big way with the discovery of a network of human consciousness which operated under principles referred to as hyper-communication. By hyper-communication, science is referring to a process by which our DNA functions similarly to a biological internet. The actual communication process involves an energy field that all life exists in, an energy field that connects all living cells through what’s referred to as a non-local area phenomena; that is outside of space and time. So as it turns out, our DNA isn’t junk after all, but rather a huge database with the ability to transmit and receive. The shocking conclusion is that all DNA can instantaneously communicate with all other DNA, wherever they might exist.
As an individual, hyper-communication occurs when one receives information that is beyond their previous level of awareness. This can take the form of human paranormal activity like inspiration, intuition and clairvoyance, among other things. One of the practical uses of hyper-communication is that our bodies can be programmed through language, words and thought (e.g. positive thinking and affirmations). The real potential, though, is that mankind could develop a group consciousness that would then allow them to actually create and manage the world they live in.
The hyper-communication findings are revolutionary to say the least and represent, in effect, a new science. This has the potential to radically change the fields of medicine, energy, weather, agriculture, communications and nearly all other scientific investigation. Life as we know it could be vastly different (better), but only if we make a conscious decision to embrace the change and then only if we are first told about it. Houston, do you copy?
There’s a new God in town and he’s been throwing his weight around lately. Seems that he wants to have no other gods before us. The name of the new God… is science.
With apologies to my scientific friends, I have a bone to pick with science. It’s not that I don’t like science, I do. I even agree with some of their new theories. It’s a matter of perspective to be sure, but I can’t tell if I’m the problem or they are.
It all started for me recently when I saw a YouTube video of a speech given by Jerry Coyne. Now, Jerry Coyne is a biologist and he’s also an author, having written a book on evolution. I guess that since he’s now an author that this automatically makes him an expert on the subject. At least he seems to think so, inasmuch as he is quite dismissive towards many of his peers who believe in other paradigms.
What I reacted to in his video is that he kept using the word “proof” with respect to his research. Now, evidence is one thing, but proof is quite another. His chain of reasoning was that since there was proof, then his theory was a fact. Now, that’s truly amazing! A theory that’s a fact.
Unfortunately, science has progressed to the point where proof is hard to find. By that, I mean that science is suppose to be a process of observation. Since many new theories like a Multiverse are unobservable, science has been reduced to scribbling a bunch of formulas on a chalkboard. As a result, there can be no proof because there is no observation.
In the end, we are reduced to staring into the unknown, trying to define eternity. What makes us think that our finite minds can comprehend the infinite, anyway? Now, this kind of arrogance is a strange and beautiful thing. You display your incredible intelligence only to demonstrate how stupid you can truly be. I guess that’s why I have a bone to pick with science.
“Science has proof without any certainty….”
Once upon a time many years ago, there was a man named Yeshua. Some time after his birth, he was visited by Persian Zoroastrian holy men because he had been born of the proper lineage (from a great king) to become a messiah. You see, his people had been hopefully expecting a messiah to come and save them from their oppressors.
Once he was old enough, his parents shipped him off to India to learn from the great Buddhist masters, rather than study the local religion. As a result, he became an extremely enlightened person and eventually returned to his homeland. Upon his return, he found himself in direct conflict with the religious leaders who he thought were leading the people astray. His message of hope, love and redemption would largely fall on deaf ears. Even his closest followers would admit that they did not understand his teachings and some of them said that there were great mysteries surrounding those teachings and that the truth was only disclosed to a privileged few.
Because of his opposition to the religious authorities, he would be labeled as a troublemaker and, eventually, his enemies would conspire against him with the result that his life would be cut short. In the end, he was never considered to be a hero even in his own hometown. Neither was he ever thought of by his own people to be a messiah. Nevertheless, his legend lived on in the minds and hearts of those that had known him best and they would form a movement in his honor. Oddly enough, though, he would eventually become a savior in the minds of people who had but heard of his legend.
So goodbye, sweet Yeshua. I wish that I could have known you better; I wish that I could have called you friend. Now, I can only listen to all the stories that people still tell about your greatness and wonder what it might have been like if you had only lived longer…and wonder if the truth of your teachings will ever be disclosed.
The re-election of a president, who has led the nation into one of the worst economic crises in our history, is a wake-up call for citizens on both sides of the political divide. If the election proved one thing, it’s that we’ve now crossed the threshold into class warfare. That’s the good news. The bad news is that there’s only one way that this can end, and that’s very badly.
If the election had just been about the president’s record, he no doubt would have lost. However, the election wasn’t about his record. Instead, it was a referendum on this nation and what it has become – a country of haves and have-nots. A nation of equality we are no longer; rather, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
In this election, the president was viewed as being the champion of Carl-Henric Svanberg’s little people and Mitt Romney… well you know who he champions. It’s not that the president actually represents the little people, but compared to Romney…well, there is no comparison. Therefore, the little people voted with their hearts and not their pocketbooks.
When the little people get angry, there is hell to pay. Down through history, revolution was all but inevitable in many cases, just ask the Russians and the French. However, we the people need to realize that in a republic, such as ours, government is never a solution to problems (rather it’s a self-governing instrument of the people). Neither does government have any money of its own – we the people create the wealth of the nation. Therefore, it doesn’t help the situation when one class of people, in effect, vote themselves hand-outs from the government. Hand-outs don’t grow on trees and they don’t come from the government either.
What we have inherited now is a polarized nation and, in the long run, the republic cannot survive as such. We have to decide whether we are going to continue as a free nation or whether we’re going to gradually descend into either anarchy and/or rule by the elite. No matter how it turns out, it is destined to be remembered as the Revolt of the Little People.
In a place referred to as the Garden of Eden, lived the biblical couple of Adam and Eve. They became man and wife (although undoubtedly didn’t marry) and had children. There was much controversy surrounding one of their children, a son named Cain (the black sheep of the family we are told). But the real mystery surrounding Cain, is rarely if ever discussed because of the possible scandal that it would cause (the family skeleton in the closet, so to speak).
The issue is one of kingly descent. As homo sapiens sapiens proliferated, there had to be a way to determine who the king would be. So a rule was born that kingly authority was a matter of direct descendancy based on bloodlines, or more specifically on one’s DNA. Kingship was, therefore, deemed to be a genetic right.
Now, the Jewish tradition of kingship has always been one of a matriarchal descent, the first son of the mother. Then why the conflict between Cain and Abel? After all, Cain was the first son, wasn’t he? Well, that depends on who you ask and how you define “first son”. The Bible story is couched in terminology that clouds the issue over Cain’s paternity although it does say that Eve “had gotten a man(Cain) from the Lord”. Ancient Jewish esoteric teachings such as the Zohar and the Cabala, and even the Talmud itself, are much more informative about this issue and state that Cain was, in fact, the son of an angel of the Lord by the name of Samael. Symbolically then, the Mark of Cain was a unique DNA which was inherited(on the male side) directly from the gods. This then created the issue of who exactly was the “first son”; was it Abel the first son who descended from man (Adam) or Cain the first son who descended from the gods?
This would help explain a lot. Two family lines descended from Adam and Eve, one through Cain and one through Seth(the later son of Adam and Eve) that would eventually lead to Jesus; a line from man in direct opposition to a line from the gods. It set into motion a cosmic struggle for supremacy that still rages today.
Scientific research continues to demonstrate that man has been around considerably longer than the Bible would have us believe. Other religions or cultures, such as Buddhism or the Mayan culture, also reflect a very long evolutionary period for man, millions if not billions of years. So where does that leave us with respect to the Bible which says that Adam and Eve were supposedly created circa 4000BC?
The options, I believe, are fourfold as follows:
- The Bible is a combination of mythology and oral tradition;
- The bible is totally made up;
- The Bible is based on real events with an incorrect timetable; or
- The Bible is based on real events that have been largely misunderstood or misinterpreted.
However, the key to understanding the Bible, is the Sumerians. Who did I say? Why, I said the Sumerians of course. Amazingly, the Sumerians appeared out of nowhere as a fully-formed civilization in about 4000BC, more or less the same timeframe as for the creation of Adam. They were the first advanced civilization on the planet (that we know of) and they were even more advanced in some respects than Greek civilization which came some 3,000 years later. Yet, the Sumerians are rarely mentioned in history books with respect to their impact on civilizations that followed, especially as to to their religion and their gods. Why, you say? Well, because it would be considered politically incorrect to confront the world with this information. Of course, the last thing that I’ve ever been accused of is being politically correct.
Records of the Sumerian civilization, first discovered in the 19th century, abound today in places like the Louvre, the British Museum and Yale University. Their creation story (Enuma Elish) and the Epic of Gilgamesh were written long before the Genesis story and scholars have recognized the close parallels between the Genesis and Sumerian accounts. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, for example, Gilgamesh goes in search of the Tree of Life and is foiled by a serpent who steals eternity from him.
But, here’s where it gets really interesting. You see Abraham, the patriarch of the Israelites, was a Sumerian. As the Bible says, Abraham came from the city of Ur, which was part of Sumer in those days; and Abraham wasn’t just any average Sumerian – he was from the royal family line that descended from Noah less than twelve generations earlier. So the Israelites earliest spiritual roots were actually in Sumer since the Israelites were, in fact, descendants of the Sumerians. Sure, the Bible chronology only goes back to the time of the Sumerians because written records did not exist prior to that time. So the Israelites did the next best thing and traced their roots back to their forefathers. It was only natural then that the Israelites would have viewed the Sumerians, the greatest civilization ever in their eyes, as the starting point for defining their culture and their religion.
Sumerian records actually refer back to a time far back in prehistory, a time of myths and legends – a time when perhaps the first man (maybe even one named Adam) was created. As for the four options above, it could have been any of them or a combination thereof. It only matters if you’re trying to make some sense out of the god of the Old Testament. So I ask you, does it really matter if the god of Genesis was in reality the god of the Sumerians?