Research: Religion & Spirituality, Part 1

My Research on Religion & Spirituality

PREFACE
This is still a WIP, it may end but that is not THE END.

I am writing this out because I wanted to explain to those who have condemned me for leaving the Church. Condemned may be a strong word, but I have been called crazy by just about everyone that I know, and love. I still love them, despite this rather harsh judgment. What I have set out to do is explain why I have left the Church and once that is done I will elaborate more about what my research of religion has revealed. My goal here is to re-examine the differences between Religion and Spirituality as well as provide historical evidence that led me to believe as I do now.

Also, I have verified that all of the scriptures I reference in this document have been verified with www.youversion.com to ensure that I am not taking anything out of context. Everything I reference is there for the viewing in whatever Bible you read, though some versions differ slightly. Most of the scripture used comes from KJV unless it was difficult to understand in which case I chose NIV for a more easily digestible version.

Let me make clear that I am not writing this as an attack on anyone. If what I say upsets you please keep in mind this quote:

"If you want to make someone angry, tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth. All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident". - A. Schopenhauer Philosopher"

I am searching for the truth, always, and I do not trust any source that claims to be the truth unless it is both credible and legitimate. Credibility is established through collaborating and corroborating information. Legitimacy is established through historical research as well as rational & analytical processing. If you feel that I am missing the truth below please point it out to me and I will re-evaluate anything that I have said in this article.

Section 1: My back story

Let me begin by saying that religion is NOT the same as spirituality. You can have one without the other, and more often than not that's how you'll have it.

I began going to church in the 3rd grade (Roughly 7-8 years old), and being somewhat mature for my age I picked things up very quickly. From everything I had learned in church, I "accepted Jesus Christ into my heart" at age 9 and was shortly after baptized.

I developed a spiritual connection to God, which seemed very different from what other people described theirs being like. I felt God speaking to me all of the time, explaining things that I was struggling to understand. Epiphany after epiphany it felt like, spurring me forward into deeper thinking, a deeper relationship, and spawning thousands of questions that no one else seemed to be asking. Most of them were revealed to me shortly after I asked them through inspired words all around me. Whether it was what a friend said, or a poster I saw, or a song, the answers were popping out at me. It was incredible. What was unusual about it was that it felt like the knowledge was simply downloaded to my heart through a complex chain of emotional responses; these are emotions that have no name and almost seem like their sole purpose is to serve as an informational conduit to our mind.

Any-who, I began getting more involved in church when I hit the youth group, which packed some theology into the sermons. I quickly became a bible literalist, with a blind faith that I best describe as being a "Super Christian" as there is no swaying these types from their beliefs. I always had a problem with the whole converting others, and I never knew where it stemmed from, but it just seemed unfair in some way.

I knew nothing of what others believed, nor how deep those beliefs were, but I was expected to somehow convince them that my beliefs were superior? And the whole tactic of informing them they were going to hell if they didn't convert was NOT something I personally believed in. I didn't let that bother me, though, because I was more about the research than some divine call to convert everyone I came into contact with. I think there was always some doubt in my mind about my beliefs, which is why I wanted to research it so thoroughly as to give myself the proof necessary to dispel those doubts.

I wanted to know answers to questions that most people do not ask, and I knew for sure I could find them in the bible. So I read the bible and I learned a lot of things that challenged my beliefs. That's right, the bible is what led me to question some of the most fundamental aspects of the religion. Before this point all I knew was what others had told me, or from scriptures used during sermons.

I had questions like:

"Why is there a hell in the first place?"

"What kind of merciful, loving god could create a place such as hell?"

"How exactly did Adam & Eve sin? Why even put the tree there to tempt them in the first place if the god who put it there was not mischievous... at the very least contemptible?!"

"What is the Land of Nod, and who exactly did Cain find to be his wife in a world where no one else preexisted, save Adam & Eve's children?"

"Who or what is Nod anyways and what does it even mean?

"If Sin is an affront to God, why allow it to exist at all? He is the creator after all, and he can undo it... but then that implies a mistake in creation and doesn't align with his absolute perfection, therefore if sin is a creation of God, then it cannot be an affront to him, for nothing in creation could exist without his willing it to be so."

"It's evident that sin exists, so why does it exist? Obviously it is part of the plan or it wouldn't exist..."

"Why is there a war between Satan and God if God is all-powerful... it's no contest. Why allow humanity to suffer under 'The Prince of Darkness' when he could restore us to health and happiness in a moment? Unless of course there is some reason behind all of this that we do not understand because it isn't as the story tells us it is."

"If the Jews were God's chosen people, that descended from Adam & Eve... then who were the Gentiles who differed greatly from those who called themselves Jews?"

And people looked at ME LIKE I WAS CRAZY! Seriously? Has no one else ever thought about these questions before? This is just a few of the questions I asked.. there were many more questions concerning scriptural and doctrinal beliefs of the Church. Do you know the only three answers that were ever given to me? They were:

"Pray about it."
I did and I was told to look for it. That's where I found all of this.

"Have faith that God will reveal the answer in time."
If a man was thirsty, and begged you for water would you tell him that God will fulfill his thirst when God is ready to? Or would you do everything in your power to find some water to give to this man?

"We will find out when we die."
What's the point of living and learning if the answers to the hard questions cannot be attained in this life? I believe that one of my purposes is to expose the answers to those hard questions and help people who are having a hard time accepting them.

OK WHAT?! I am not satisfied living some complacent life with a religion that teaches me to be a sheep, easily herded to the slaughter without answering some of the most basic questions that any rational mind should ask off the bat.

However, that did not break my belief system... not until I hit 20 years old and the realization that I could not repair the patchwork house of sticks that was now my entire belief system. I realized that the church had no answers to these questions, even after searching into the deepest of theological researchers findings... the answers were always the same as the three I mentioned above. I was having no luck talking to people about them because that just made them think I was mad for even asking. They could not understand. I was a very bad sheep because I questioned... and I spent the next two years in utter devastation as my belief system collapsed inwardly upon it's hollow self... I could not even think about a god or the church. I was ANGRY! I felt cheated, I felt like everything I had spent my life doing up to that point had been a waste and a lie.

And then around 23 I reemerged from that dark place, though the topic of god was still like a bruise, but I began researching again. Only this time I was set on disproving the whole thing. I found more information with that mindset than I ever found attempting to answer my questions from within the church. Suddenly I found all sorts of "forbidden books" that the church had destroyed long, long ago that the ancient church could not allow (for they challenged the authority of the church by putting the church INSIDE of people instead of OUTSIDE)... I'm getting ahead of myself a little here by talking about my findings, but regardless I found a trove of information that reignited something inside me. I found my faith again, only this time it was not the same.

I no longer needed religion to tell me how to think, how to behave, what to believe, and who to associate with. All I needed was a direct relationship with God, similar to what I had before... just without all the crap that religion brainwashed me to believe regarding rules and doctrines and methods and whatnot. This is what God wanted all along with me and I feel that he and my spiritual guides have been taking me through the brush (AKA the road less traveled) for quite a while now in order to guide me to answers that I would never have learned had I stayed in the church. Call me a heretic if you like for thinking that God can do this, but then I say unto ye of little faith that God fits not in your box and by your own admittance works in mysterious ways.

So in the last 5 years or so I've researched Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism primarily. The first two because that is my audience for the most part, having 98% Christian friends. This is the world I grew up in and it's important for me to grasp as much as I can about the history of the church in order to better breakdown the reasons I no longer claim to be a part of it. (Tangent: I find it interesting how when one leaves the church they are suddenly deemed an atheist who no longer believes in God... that certainly isn't true... I actually find it quite disturbing how people justify this in their minds, but I digress.). The Paganism was for two reasons:

1. Almost every aspect of Christianity & Judaism was copied from ancient pagan traditions and beliefs. *GASP* I know, blasphemy... but read on where I get to that and you will see just how much Christianity has in common with its own arch-nemesis.

2. Because I've ALWAYS believed in magic, and faeries, and dragons, and goblins. I used to see them as a young child, and I remember fondly the kind goblinoid creature who watched over me at night. I never feared him or any of the other things I saw unless they truly were a malevolent being, but I was surrounded by benevolent ones who always kept me safe. It always bothered me that magic was forbidden to Christians and deemed one of the greatest acts of sin. Really? I think that the church feared what it could not control, which is quite clear from history, and thus the end of magic had to happen.

So I will now proceed into my findings... thanks for reading the above, it was nice to get it out of my system. Ironically, I have found possible answers to the questions above, though to many they may seem more mad than the questions themselves, I shall address them as we reach those topics.

Section 2: Research findings.

It is a difficult task to research Hebrew/Jewish history, as there are many inconsistencies that make it difficult to narrow down to a definitive timeline of events. For example, some reports show that Abraham led his tribe into Canaan between 1900 and 1500 BCE, a period of 400 years difference. To put this into perspective, the United States has not even been around that long. That is a very large window of time and makes it difficult to discern whether or not it is true or false.

The main point that I wanted to make in this section is how the Jews were originally polytheistic, as is evidenced in the Bible by them constantly reverting back to idol worship. Monotheism was forced upon them by their leaders and so by choice of conversion or death they chose to convert. Their ancient gods were plentiful, likely derived from Sumerian/Akkadian religions, of which culture their tribe(s) originated.

Polytheistic Monotheism:

It was not until the time of the Biblical Moses that they were led down the path of monotheism. What is interesting about this is that the Bible is a work of translation. Translations cannot always be exact, given that words may exist in one language where there is no parallel word in the other. In the old testament, there exist references to many different gods of the time: Yahweh (YHWH), Ba'al, El (Plural form: Elohim), Ishtar, and many others that the different tribes in the area of Judea believed in. It's almost impossible for those who rely only on the current translation of the Bible to know this because many of those words have been translated as "Lord" or merely "God" to pull a stronger monotheistic value to the texts.

That seems like a pretty outrageous claim if you grasp what I am suggesting. Though I would direct you to look to Genesis 1:26-27 (KJV)

" 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

It is most interesting in this scripture how God refers to himself as "Us" and "Our" but then in the next passage it's back to a singular form of reference. This passage originally used the word "Elohim" instead of God. Elohim is a plural form of El, meaning god and just happens to be one of the Hebrews former polytheistic gods. The Elohim was their way of acknowledging all gods at once.

Many modern day biblical scholars will argue that this plural form suggests the Trinity, but there is no female in the trinity, and so whose likeness was she cast from? There was never even mention of the Trinity in the Bible. It is disconcerting when I read how Christians explain the Trinity:

Question: "What does the Bible teach about the Trinity?"

Answer: The most difficult thing about the Christian concept of the Trinity is that there is no way to perfectly and completely understand it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain. God is infinitely greater than we are; therefore, we should not expect to be able to fully understand Him. The Bible teaches that the Father is God, that Jesus is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God. The Bible also teaches that there is only one God. Though we can understand some facts about the relationship of the different Persons of the Trinity to one another, ultimately, it is incomprehensible to the human mind. However, this does not mean the Trinity is not true or that it is not based on the teachings of the Bible.
The Trinity is one God existing in three Persons. Understand that this is not in any way suggesting three Gods. Keep in mind when studying this subject that the word “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God—three coexistent, co-eternal Persons who make up God. (source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html)

So, it's expected for us to grasp a concept that is "incomprehensible to the human mind?" and we are then further expected to put our faith in this irrational and unexplainable concept, yet to consider for one moment that this concept is ludicrous is madness? This is an example of how the Church attempts to explain something that would otherwise contradict the credibility of the Bible.

It's interesting too, this trinity. How do they explain this passage and just who are these seven Spirits of God?:

"And I beheld, and lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth." (Revelation 5:6)

What a frightening vision of Heaven... a slain lamb with seven horns and eyes?! Revelation in many ways depicts a vision of a Hell rather than a Heaven... what a mighty fearsome place it sounds to be...

Elohim is used in Exodus 12:12 to describe all of the Egyptian deities, and is used around 2570 times in the Hebrew Bible (Which is only the old testament mind you... 2570!!!). It also refers to El quite frequently (230 times in the OT). The mistranslation of these words has a huge significance upon the reliability of scripture itself. Let's look at Baal, which if translated means "Lord, Owner" or if left untranslated suggests the name of an ancient Akkadian deity. If we pick and choose which appearances of the word Baal get translated and which ones don't, we can control the context of the message AND protect our monotheistic belief system from being exposed. Suddenly "And Baal said.." becomes "And the Lord said.." and everything is peachy. But not really, not if this matters to you.

Suspension of Disbelief:

It's very interesting how when you read the Bible from a rational perspective, merely attempting to understand the words of what is said, you can walk away with nothing gained from it. Yet if you allow the suspension of disbelief to occur, then suddenly everything is real to you. This does not happen automatically, and it's actually something we are trained to do from a very young age.

When you sit and watch a movie, there are triggers that may or may not suspend your disbelief, mostly dependent upon how easily yours is triggered. It also has to do with interest, a lessened interest in something is less likely to trigger your SoD. What happens when your SoD is triggered is that your mind disengages doubt mechanisms, either somewhat or in whole, allowing your mind to process the information as it is presented. Normally you have many doubt mechanisms in place to prevent such things from occurring, but when it's a harmless type of movie then it's okay to allow yourself to remove the doubt to enjoy the movie.

When this is applied to the Bible, however, things become more dangerous. You are allowing yourself to believe blindly what this book says to be true without any collaborating information or corroboration from other sources. You allow one book to claim itself as an authority that it does not receive legitimately from any other authority except the one that the book says it is given by God.

This is interesting, because it's hypocritical really. Now this book, this Holy Book of God, has been allowed to transcend rational boundaries on authority that it grants upon itself by claiming that God inspired it. Other books that claim to be inspired by God are rejected, unless they align themselves with the original Holy Book of God and support it. Anything that uses scripture to disprove the validity of the bible is typically rejected by the Church.

In a computer programming mindset, this type of logic mechanism would be considered a virus. You cannot selectively choose what is holy and what is not simply based on the writings in a single book that cannot be proven to be true by any modern-day means.

Now, allow me to say that I believe in the Creator of all things, but I do not believe that such a Creator is even mentioned in any scripture except Genesis Chapter 1. Everything else in the whole bible is of questionable interest and in some instances contemptible. The slaughtering of innocents in the name of a merciful deity? Where is the mercy? The racist determination to wipe out all other tribes who refuse to convert to your belief system? This is the gist of the old testament in one passage.

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man.8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword.9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder.10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps.11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals,12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.
13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp.14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord's people.17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7-18)

Shameful and reprehensible is what I call it. So much for "Thou shalt not kill" "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not commit adultery." What kind of god calls for his chosen people to take no prisoners in battle, to kill all men, women, and children (except young virgin girls who they are free to take as slaves to rape) and pillage the place for it's riches? An evil one, that's what... yet this same deity is the Lord of Mercy, Compassion, and Love?

No, MY Creator is merciful, compassionate, and loving, but the god of the old testament... no... irredeemable evil is what that god commands of his followers. I will not allow my suspension of disbelief to allow me to believe that this OT god of punishment, vengeance, jealousy, and murder is the same as the one that brought all things into existence. Moses was evil, plain and simple, and his directives were not as they are spelled out throughout the OT. Any man who could bring down the ten commandments to the people and not question a god who commands such evil is evil himself.

More dark acts can be read about here: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible3.htm

Who was Jesus, really?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

These words are spoken by Jesus to his disciples in the book of Matthew. I never recalled having read this despite having read Matthew like 20+ times. So much for him being the Prince of Peace... but oh, there is more:

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star. (Revelation 22:16)

This may not seem at first like anything, until you bring in the character of Lucifer (Satan), whose name means "light-bearer", or "the morning star"

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" (Isaiah 14:12 KJV)

"How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" (Isaiah 14:12 NIV)

This is very strange, because I did not encounter this information until I was researching this very document. The whole Jesus is Satan thing is about as blasphemous as it comes, but there are instances like the ones I mentioned above that bring validity to the question of are the two actually one?

While I'm thinking about this... how does the Light-Bearer, keeper of the light, fall? That seems preposterous! By his very definition he seems incapable of falling into darkness, for he bears the light and therefore he can enter no darkness for darkness retreats from the light.

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Luke 12:51-53)

"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple... So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions." (Luke 14:25 & 33)

I understand how the above two passages can suggest that one must shed their earthly possessions to follow Jesus, but to hate your father and your mother? Doesn't the same book tell us to honor our mother and father? To hate your spouse and your children?! They are not possessions, they are people and are not owned by anyone. How can anyone who claims to be good say such things?

"And behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments." (Matthew 19:16-17)

Guess that explains it. Interesting that he doesn't say "My Father" or something that ties him to his mentioning of "God" but it almost sounds like this person is not referencing his father... but God. If in fact he were one with God as it is claimed that he is, then this whole scripture would make no sense at all, for he would be as good as God. Is this Jesus or a Charlatan posing as him? These passages contradict the very nature that is taught about Jesus, so what is true?

Don't get me wrong here, I'm NOT saying that Jesus is Satan, however I find it interesting that scripture may be.

Creation, Again?

Let's jump back to Genesis Chapters 1 & 2. This is one of the biggest reasons I had to leave the church, because I could not reconcile the massive problem that two creations pose.

In Chapter 1 we have the gods (the Elohim) who created everything, benevolently and equal. It reads in modern versions as simply God, in a masculine form, but references "us" and "our" which isn't something it does in the rest of the Bible.

26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."27 God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.28 God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." (Genesis 1:26-28)

Above you will see how the scripture uses pluralisms to describe this specific process in creation. It then reverts back to a singular form, which is odd. This Genesis 1:26 is very strange in that nowhere else in scripture does God refer to "himself" in the plural. This cannot be a "majestic plural" which appeared in the late 12th century when royalty/clergy would refer to themselves in the plural. Before this, there was no "majestic plural" and never before then did someone refer to themselves in the plural when they were a singular entity, describing themselves.

Then Creation occurs again? Although very similar, there are problems with this second creation story.

The Bible starts with this:

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. (Genesis 1:1)

However, the second creation starts with this:

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven. (Genesis 2:4)

Interesting distinction... God vs. the Lord God!! Which of these two are rightfully God? If you remember above, I mentioned that Baal translated means "The Lord" which could very well be this secondary figure that Genesis 2:4 begins to mention. Also of interesting note is that this second creation begins on the first-chapter God's 7th day, the day of rest. A day which was made sanctified for all to rest, this new god began creating again.

This new "God" does everything a little bit differently. Like completely changing the order of Creation. It feels like it attempts to play off the original Creation, but since the order is entirely different it cannot be the same. Also, it feels unplanned, like he was going "Oh yeah, you'll need this... oh and this too.." which isn't very "perfect" or "all-knowing" or even slightly "with it" really.

It's interesting that later on, in Mark, Jesus clears up which of the two stories was real:

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mark 10:6)

Notice he does not say the Lord God, and that he also says they were created simultaneously which is just like the first story, nothing like the second.

In case you're not convinced, let's examine the orders of the Creation stories:

The Order of Creation, and then again, but different this time

GENESIS 1 CREATION (God's Version)

Broken into Days

Follows this order:
-Day 1: Heavens & Earth & Day & Night
-Day 2: Dividing the Waters
-Day 3: Dry Land & seas, also grass, herbs, & trees
-Day 4: The Sun & The Moon, dividing day and night
-Day 5: Ocean and Air creatures
-Day 6: Land creatures & Man and Woman
-Day 7: Rested, Sanctified

Called everything good upon creating it

Man & Woman were equals

Made no rules for mankind, nor conditions for life. They were sent on their way because they were made "good".

GENESIS 2 CREATION (The Lord God's Version)

Not Broken into Days

Rough order:
1. Heavens and Earth
2. Plants
3. Man from dust
4. The Garden of Eden, Tree of Good & Evil
5. Beasts of the field
6. Woman from Man's rib

Didn't make a note of whether it was good or not

Man was made dominant over Woman

Threatened to kick them out when they eat of the Tree of Good & Evil and bring shame upon themselves. Told them they would DIE.

I think it's pretty clear which God I would want to be created by and which one it would be an absolute nightmare to have been created by. The stories may be similar but they are strikingly different, different enough to not be the same, close enough to confuse Christians into believing they are the same. Hopefully that has been cleared up now.

Cain's Wife

Adam and Eve had two sons that are mentioned in the Bible. Cain and Abel. If you've read the story, you know that Cain kills Abel and is banished to the Land of Nod. Here is where the Bible leaves the story off pretty much, but not before mentioning that Cain finds a wife in the Land of Nod.

Christian scholars will argue that Cain must have taken one of his sisters to be his wife, but this is problematic because the Bible never mentions again about another person being banished to the Land of Nod, which evidently would be quite an important event as it was before.

9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?10 And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.s11 And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;12 When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.
13 And Cain said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear.s14 Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.15 And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.
16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. (Genesis 4:9-17)

Some very interesting things pop out of this scripture that are concerning. First, as I asked above, just who was Cain's wife? Also, upon further examination and bolded for your convenience, exactly who were these every ones that would find and slay him?

If indeed, at this point, it were ONLY Adam, Eve, and Cain (Abel being dead), then who else would there be to find and kill Cain? Who did he have to fear exactly? Perhaps the same people from whom he found his wife.

In this case, the Bible appears to be saying clearly that Adam and Eve were not the first people upon Earth, as the second story of Creation suggests, but there were others who preexisted that creation that dwelt elsewhere on Earth.

Adam & Eve were the creation of "The Lord God" but not "Elohim" and further down the rabbit hole we go...

Hell hath no Fury indeed!

The very concept of Hell is difficult for any human being to wrap their mind around, though relatable in some ways to the aspects of life that we endure here as humans. But this is not the picture painted by the Church. Their picture is vastly darker, oh so much worse than anything imaginable on Earth. But exactly where does Hell come from?

Well it started out rather innocently enough in the ancient Jewish beliefs. Sheol was its name and it was simply the grave, a place situated below the surface, a place of darkness, silence and forgetfulness. But as time went on, Sheol grew in meaning to become more and more sinister a place. By the third-second century BC, there were now two distinct divisions of hell: one for the good and righteous, one for the wicked and evil. By the new testament time period it was the ultimate place of punishment, now called Gehenna.

Christians now believe Hell to be the home of the Devil, the ultimate punishment for those who did not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord. Fiery torment awaits those who are sent there by the irrevocable judgment of God.

This idea of Hell is considered ridiculous to anyone outside of the Christian religion. I tend to agree having been a super Christian myself and even then I had a problem with this idea. I do not believe that the true Creator who is merciful, compassionate, and loving to all things and to all peoples could bear the loss of even one soul to such a miserable torment for all eternity. Nor do I see such a God passing judgment that would send a soul to such a place no matter the circumstances, for God loves all of his children equally.

If your child committed a crime would you love them less? No, though you would be very concerned about them and want to help set them back onto a healthy path. This instinctual notion within us is mirrored from the ones who originally made us in their image. It is impossible that the true Creator would destroy anything that was created by their hand. Especially in such a fashion as eternal torment. That is not love, that is not compassion, and that is most certainly not mercy. Even a punishment of non-existence would be better than eternal torment.

What God can witness his child suffer unspeakable horrors for all of eternity? Does this delight God? He is all-knowing, therefore not one moment of their torment would escape his sight, his hearing, his feeling. A truly empathic God would be condemning himself to suffer eternal torment through this act, and that does not seem like something an absolutely perfect being would do to themselves.

I personally do not believe there will be some "Rapture" that takes all Christians off the planet into Heaven, leaving those who did not believe in Jesus Christ to suffer an Apocalypse. I do not believe that believing any which way has any effect on where you go in the afterlife.

To those who would argue against that I ask this... have you ever played a video game where you killed lots of lots of people? I know that I have, though put in words like that its rather shameful sounding. However, that is not who I am, not really... I am not the character in the video game, though for a short time I was, while I played it. This life could be very similar, in that who we are in this life is but a challenge endured for our soul's growth. We endure hardships and experience miracles, we play to level up.

There are even some people who tell me that "Jesus is kind of like an insurance plan for me, I'll believe in him in case the Bible is right about me otherwise going to Hell," I say this: Fear is the opposite of love. If you are choosing to be Christian out of fear of what could happen otherwise, then you do not know God, for fear is the tool of evil. Sorry for the tongue in cheek but... You enter into the Synagogue of Satan every time you go to worship because fear is not the tool that the true Creator uses. He would never expect you to be anything except what you were born to be! Be yourself, be loved, and love others.

I mean really... How many times have you heard "God is Love" and how many times have you heard "God is Fear?" I can hate you, and I can love you... both at the same time. However, I cannot fear you and love you, both, for if I fear you there is no place in my heart for love to settle, and if I love you then there is no place for fear to settle. But then again, most of humanity has forgotten what love really is, because it's not what we think it is. At least, not as narrow and specific as we tend to make it be.

Orthodox - Orthowhati?

I'm about to talk about the Orthodox Church in the next section, but what is the Orthodox Church anyways? The "Church" as I refer to it mostly throughout this article includes the Roman Catholic Church, all Protestant (Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Evangelical, Lutheran, Church of Christ, etc.), and the Greek Orthodox Church.

Orthodox is defined as: Conforming to what is accepted as right or true.

So who decided what was right and/or true?

That would be Eusebius in the service to Emperor Constantine I, who established the Church. Here is a snippet of an article I found relating the role that Eusebius played in Christianity:

Eusebius, a little known figure in the Christian reality, was the first court-appointed Christian theologian in the service of the Emperor Constantine. Constantine commissioned Eusebius, personally, to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures but gave no instruction what books Eusebius should include or, on what authority or criteria that decision should be made. He was given sole authority over this project and, therefore, became the first editor of the Bible we have today.

The entire basis of belief for the Christian Church allegedly comes from the Bible, although simple research proves the reality to be otherwise. However, this concept is accepted by most Catholics and Protestants. There are actually surviving copies of that original Bible called the Codex Sinaiticus. This Bible, produced by Eusebius, is the same as that produced by King James with the exception of the New Testament Epistle of Barnabas, and the book of Hermas, which, though widely regarded as inspired, were purged before the 1611 translation.

The religion created by Constantine was formed by the "opinions" of Eusebius and there is no record of any reference to standards of historical research or textual criticism. He did not form his idea of what was accepted by using the books that existed as the foundation for that acceptance, but first created the religious beliefs and accepted only the books that matched those beliefs. Eusebius stated that the only standard he used in deciding which texts to call "recognized" is to accept only books that were recognized by orthodox authors he knew. Merriam-Webster defines "orthodox" as: "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion". Eusebius determined the doctrine of the religion and therefore became the sole judge of what was "orthodox".

The result of Eusebius' final judgment of biblical canon, the books of the New Testament to be included in that original Bible, was the division of all known and accepted books into three categories:

Recognized - Those books accepted by others that mirrored his specific beliefsThose books generally make up the modern New Testament.

Recognized but Disputed - Those books accepted by most others that held his beliefs but disputed by some that also followed his concept of orthodox beliefs.
Those books included the Acts of Paul, the Book of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.

Heretical - Those universally regarded as heretical by those adhering to his idea of orthodoxy.Those books included, but were not restricted to, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Matthias, as well as other gospel accounts not specified, and the Acts of Andrew and the Acts of John.

So, if Eusebius accepted the authority that recognized the book as orthodox, the book was accepted. If Eusebius did not consider the authority that recognized the book as orthodox the book was rejected. It should be noted that the sole reason Eusebius uses to reject all but the four gospels now found in the New Testament was that he considered them to be a "holy quaternion" of books that could not be changed. Later in church history, the divine nature of this specific group of four books being the only possible gospels to be used was justified because there were only four directions, and four pillars of the Earth, to name a few. Hardly a proper reason to exclude all other gospels without consideration..

Who was this man that determined the basis for almost all the beliefs of a religion, which is accepted by over 2 billion people under the control of churches claiming the title, Christian? No single person had more influence over those beliefs than the original editor of the "Bible" and the first theologian, who determined the doctrines of the first Universal / Catholic Church, from which come, most of the beliefs of the Protestant Church. There is no dispute that Eusebius was completed dedicated to the divine authority and reform agenda of the Emperor Constantine, and that he was trusted to shape that agenda into a religion by Constantine. It is most curious that there was never any pronouncement by any central authority, such as the Pope, in all of Christian history concerning, which books belonged in the Bible, until 1443 AD at the conclusion of the Council of Florence.

As a church historian, Eusebius receives very low marks and has even been characterized by the noted Swiss historian, Jacob Burckhardt, as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". Eusebius openly displays his lack of integrity in his Ecclesiastical History by stating "We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."

As a theologian he directly affirmed his total disregard for honesty, in his Evangelical Preparation, by declaring "How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine, and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived.", as well as "it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach", and "falsehood is something even more useful". Here we have the very first theologian clearly stating that it was proper to use deception to achieve an end. To put in different terms; the ends justify the means, no matter how deceptive those means are.

This man, who has sole authority over what is doctrine in the Christian religion, and, who lacks moral integrity, decided that, at least, 33% of all the commonly accepted books considered to be "New Testament" by the earlier church, should be purged. (http://www.bibleufo.com/anomchurch8.htm)

That is Orthodox for you, the decisions of a man who on a whim tossed out books without consideration simply because he felt there should be only four... a man who, by admittance, tossed out all books that were not in line with the doctrines that he established before even began reviewing the books... a man who admits that he included in the Bible only the books that are first useful to "ourselves" first and then to all others.. a man who believed deception was an appropriate means to an end, especially if that end was to his own personal benefit...

This is the foundation of the Bible, which is the foundation for the Church, which includes the church you attend no matter what denomination it claims to be. Do you feel good about the motives of the first editor of the Bible? Does it sit well with you that one person, one completely dishonest person, defined "what is accepted as right or true?"

Of course, then there was King James I, who commissioned the creation of the King James Version of the bible. Man was this guy interesting. In summary and to be as concise as possible:

James I believed strongly in the "Divine Right of Kings" meaning that if there was an evil king on the throne, the people should suffer in silence because this was God's punishment. If there was a good king on the throne the people should be happy because this was God's blessing. Boy did James hate the Geneva Bible, which had marginal notes written largely by the leaders of the Reformation such as John Knox and John Calvin. James wanted those marginal notes gone because they included interpretations by those religious leaders that challenged his ideals, and the people knew who wrote them... it would be no easy task to discredit Knox and Calvin. So instead he commissioned his own bible that would not have the marginal notes at all! He also banned the Geneva Bible and anyone caught with one would be put to death.

Oh and here's why I said he was interesting:

The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.

James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offense, the King himself presided at a new hearing - and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.

History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."

In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honorable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives. (http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/bible101.htm#BIBLE%20101)

If Charles Manson were to commission his own version of the Bible, would you consider it trustworthy and credible given his stance toward Christianity? What about the Adolf Hitler Version? no? But then again, no one in today's world knows much about King James other than his name appears on the King James Version of the Bible, which they may or may not read.

Pre-existent themes

When you bring up the topic of reincarnation, one immediately jumps to the beliefs of the Buddhists or the Hindus who believe in the Karmic cycle of reincarnation. This cycle is completed by living many lifetimes of good in order to reach the final stage of freedom from the cycle called Nirvana.

To any Christian, that belief does not fall within the framework of their accepted doctrines, because it contradicts the process of redemption; by accepting Jesus Christ as savior you will go to heaven for eternity, and if you reject Him then you will go to hell for all eternity.

As a Christian, I never understood why we were given but one life to live, to learn, to get it right or suffer eternally for it. That seemed rather unfair. We are all raised in different environments, with different circumstances surrounding our finances, our beliefs, and our positions in this world. It is rare to find one path to a single answer. 2+2=4 but so does 1+3 and 9-5. There are very few absolute truths, and even those may be arguable. This is rational and analytical thinking, which seems to be frowned upon when applied to religion.

The original Gnostic Christians were highly spiritual people, who believed that knowledge was the path to wisdom and understanding. In many ways they had a view of existence that we are still struggling to recapture to this day. They were not afraid to question a concept if it appeared to be lacking in evidence, much like the scientific method. They were also not afraid of posing theories that may contradict the accepted beliefs if the evidence was there to support the theory.

The Orthodox Church’s view is much more rigid and strict. Questions are not to be asked, theories are not to be posed that threaten the accepted doctrines of the church. To do either of those is heresy, punishable by death or banishment. At least this was the custom for most of history. It drew upon Old Testament writings in order to justify the means of extinguishing opposition to their central core. The outcome of this policy has led to millions of deaths of “unbelievers” and “believers” alike. The crusades for instance… over NINE of them, not counting the Children’s crusade and the Northern Crusades, were a travesty of immeasurable proportions.

I find it interesting that the Orthodox Church, with its rigid thinking and “holy” hierarchy has maintained itself despite its complete disregard for the teachings that they profess to be absolute truth. No other institution in the world or throughout history is responsible for more deaths than the Orthodox Church.

“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi

I’ve brought up the topic with Christians throughout my life how tragically horrible the Church has been throughout history and done so in the name of God. They would acknowledge how horrible it was, but say that times have changed and that stuff doesn’t happen anymore. Really? Has it really stopped happening? You have to look no further back than a few weeks to see the death of Muammar Gaddafi and the reaction I’ve seen from Christians. They celebrate his death, his inhumane murder without a trial. To celebrate any death is a travesty, and it matters little what truth people know about it as long as they are able to villainize the person. How definitely UNCHRISTIAN.

I know I’m straying from the topic at hand, but I do so in order to convey how absolutely horrible the Orthodox Church has been throughout history. By establishing their actions as heinous, their words are made hollow and empty. Their holy teachings are ineffective because even some of those who tout themselves as incredible servants to God are some of the most bigot-minded, selfish people I have ever met. Why does anyone take this “authority” as credible when their actions identify them as fear-mongering, war-inciting, deviants? Their thirst for power across the globe has caused the death of millions of people. Not to mention that their intolerance of foreign ideas has led to the destruction of some of history’s greatest libraries and genocide of entire peoples.

I personally have come to believe in reincarnation, and what led me to believe in it was a sudden realization about past lives. There has been much work done to prove the existence of past lives through past-life regression therapy. People have been able to recall historically provable knowledge from first-hand experience in a previous lifetime. In some cases, it reveals knowledge that few others would even know. Like in the case of one boy who remembered.

Visit here to read/watch that story: http://www.reversespins.com/proofofreincarnation.html

Past lives explain many things, especially the things that we believe that we don’t remember exactly where we came to believe them. Fears especially apply here, as most fears seem irrational due to a lack of triggers in this life that would explain them. If we carry over memories from one life to the next then that would explain this phenomena. Just because you can’t recall them doesn’t mean they are not there in your memory. How often do you forget things? You know it’s still in your memory somewhere, you just can’t find it until something triggers it again. It’s a predisposition to specific things that allows us to sometimes pick up where we left off, or at the very least progress much faster through them than others without such a predisposition.

You need look no further than child prodigies who pick up a craft with near mastery in but a couple of years. How could they be so much more advanced than the rest of humanity in that specific area from the beginning? The theory is that they possess a predisposition, which allows prior lifetime knowledge to become unlocked as they pursue it again in this life.

I have always believed in magic, as I said above, even while I was a “Super Christian” who believed the Bible to be a literal account of history and the Word of God, I struggled because I still believed in magic. Magic was forbidden to Christians, deemed heretical, and almost all knowledge of it has been destroyed. Where did this belief come from? My parents did not teach me, yet it was inherently there from the moment I could think. It’s a bit embarrassing to admit, but I even believed that if I was really angry and curled my fingers hard enough that I would turn into a horrible monster. I was most disappointed when it didn’t occur as I knew it would, but the fact that I believed so strongly would suggest a predisposition.

Even today when I watch movies that display forms of magic or even mystical creatures like Unicorns, I am overwhelmed with such sadness that tears start flowing down my face. To best describe it, it feels like remembering something that has been lost to you that was almost as precious as life itself. I cannot explain it any other way than saying “I miss what I have never known” unless of course that isn’t true and at one point I knew it all too well, just not in this lifetime.

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

That concludes Note 1. As I proceed into Note 2 I will focus entirely on what I found as soon as I emerged from the box mindset that I had previous to losing my religion. I will link it here when I have posted it for simple continuation. Until then thank you so much for reading :)

(UPDATE: Note 2 is still on my agenda, however I have had many other things to think about in the present so while I hope to get it written eventually, it may not be until late 2012 that it gets posted.)