Thread: Trusting the bible

Because it was divinely inspired.


NEXT!

Well, spoon, you ask a good question.

Being an occultist, I realize that there are many works that aren't viewed by the narrow-minded of the orthodox religions as being "inspired." that, for all I know, could be inspired. I haven't read them myself , nor tested them, so I don't know. To say they are false is a fallacy of logic, in that I cannot disprove a negative.

Rather let me rephrase your quesiton a little to compensate for my particular situation, to say "What makes an 'inspired' work (what ever work that may be, let's say the Bible in this case) and an 'uninspired' work (a mental creation of a man with little creative input on a spiritual level) different?"

God has a way of doing things. I've found his reasons to be multifacited, and no human being knows all the reasons why God does the things that he does. Knowing a few of them helps to have faith in what he is doing, but you just have to trust God is benevolent and highly intellegent and has sufficient ability to deliver on HIs promises to you.

When he "inspires" men to write "inspired" writtings, called scripture, he does so for a specific purpose and it is this purpose that the explaination of provides the answer to your question "uninspired versus inspired, what's the diff?"

Originally posted by John 16: 13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

What John is talking about here is something that a group I belong to, called the Keysters, call "Soul Contact". The Buddhists call it "buddhi". The Christians call it "The Holy Ghost", "The Spirit of God" or "The Spirit of Truth." Different names to explain the exact same mechanism in reality.

How it works is like this. If you have an "inspired" work, it provides much mental information, but no proof of its veracity. This makes sense because you can't just write in the book "I am true" and have intelligent people beleive the book just because you wrote this statement in it.

The "proof" comes in a form that is equally limited, it has no mental information, but is pure spiritual information. It comes in a sensation in your core that a given thing is true, a pure assurance, something that when you experience it, you know there is no room for doubt, and that the experience was indeed initiated by God.

Returning to what John the Beloved said, we can now figure it out. The "Spirit of Truth" will guide you to truth. How? What ever it "hears" (or in other words if you are indeed reading an inspired book) that is what it shall "speak" (or in other words, communicate on a spiritual level assuring you that what you are reading is true).

Without the inspired work (our example here being the bible) the Spirit of Truth "shall not speak of himself", or rather give you BOTH the mental information and the spiritual assurance. YOU need to go out and proactively test what you read, what you might suspect may tell you about God and see if the assurance comes. If the book is inspired by God, then it will be verified as true by this mechanism I have just described.

Conversely, if the book is not inspired, it can still be true, or fiction, well or poorly written, whatever, but the Spirit of Truth will not witness to your spirit that what you are reading is true.

I'm not here to tell you the Bible is scripture. I'm not here to tell you the Koran is scripture. I'm not here to tell you that any book is scripture, because frankly I'm just another falible human being, and what do I know? But God does. But don't even trust my word that there is a God.

The Athiests around here say "Take your destiny back into your own hands. Use the scientific method. Use logic." and I agree 100% with this portion of their message and advise you to do this.

I have proscribed a rigidly scientific method for (1) telling the difference between scripture and regular literature and (2) verifying the existence of God. That it is completely subjective (ie. individual, set up purposefully to be this way by God) in no way makes it any less scientific.

You start with a hypothesis: "God exisits"

You design an experiment: "If I read an inspired book, and if the the Spirit of Truth comes to me and validates that it is true, then I will beleive".

Then you run the experiment and observe the results of it.

Unfortunately, the "science of soul" is an experiment that every man and woman must perform in their OWN mind, heart and spirit by themselves, individually, for them to experience the result of the experiment.

Isn't this interesting how it parallels perfectly the positive and logical portions of the Athiestic viewpoint, that man is responsible for his own destiny, that only he is to blaim for failure, only he is ultimately praised for success. If you read what I have just written, you will see that God is a secular humanist, even an Athiest himself from this perspective. Even though the Christian and other organized religions have forced and forced and forced over the centuries, God's way is proper.

Between you and Him...if you are scientific, and you take responsiblity for your own destiny (in this case the ultimate freedom to combine an inspired book with a spiritual verification) and are open-minded, the method is proscribed.

That it has not been taught to you correctly is not the fault of God, but of flattering men who the common people have choosen to listen to, but did not know the true way of God in this matter.

It has been explained here. I invite you to test what I have said and see, of yourself, if what I have assured you of is true. I can only point in a direction. The direction may be false or it may be true. But it is you that must walk it to find out if it is true or not, or don't walk it at all, or find another man pointing his finger in a different direction and walk his way, its your choice. It always has been.

Things stated as facts and sound intresting catch on just as esialy as fact.

Like the myth that people only use 10% of the brain. And I bet that alot of people will believe things our of the book 'the da vinci code' for example. That book is based only losely on facts, but becouse it is written as if it would be real, people do actually start to think wrong things.

And the koran has just as much 'truth' in it as the bible. (they even origin from the same story). Both have nilhil real proof. Only subjectivity by people.

Originally posted by ptahsokar
Being an occultist, I realize that there are many works that aren't viewed by the narrow-minded of the orthodox religions as being \"inspired.\" that, for all I know, could be inspired. I haven't read them myself , nor tested them, so I don't know. To say they are false is a fallacy of logic, in that I cannot disprove a negative.

This is the crux of it when you think about it. People interpret what they are capable of interpreting. If they are not able to recognize true princibles or concepts behind what is said, or they are not in a position to understand a specific context of the text for whatever reason. For those who lack experience, There is a danger of not only misinterpretation, but seeing it as something that is even part of an almost opposite illusional concept and teaching that misconception to others.

When we talk of inspired writings. First we have to get our head around what \"inspired\" is suppose to mean. This in itself takes a certain degree of experience and understanding by the individual. After which a great deal of clarity will then make it possible to be able to discuss issues involving \"inspired writings\". Lacking this experience. It will be very difficult to even talk about it with someone who does not understand the term. As the foundations of their understanding will limit any perception of what is being discussed about it.

Originally posted by ptahsokar
\"What makes an 'inspired' work (what ever work that may be, let's say the Bible in this case) and an 'uninspired' work (a mental creation of a man with little creative input on a spiritual level) different?\"

Precisely, We have to use our own discernment and experience, and develop this ability to look within ourself for to verify and understand what is true and not true about it. It is known commonly at keysters as \"soul contact\" or \"the still small voice within.\" Despite what you call this higher intuitive connection. This is the main process that will allow you to know. I think a thread needs to be created about this \"soul contact\" concept to fully explain or discuss what this involves. Basically this is just a brief reference to Soul contact as a mechanism for finding the truth about these writings.

Originally posted by ptahsokar+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ptahsokar)</div>

Knowing a few of them helps to have faith in what he is doing, but you just have to trust God is benevolent and highly intellegent and has sufficient ability to deliver on HIs promises to you.[/b]

And to trust this much, and know this much, again requires a certain amount of experience and understanding. No matter how much you may say to a person, that this is so, they have to know it and find it for themself. They can be taught and guided, and increase the speed at which they learn. But it is through their own experience and effort/intention to progress that is ultimately going to teach them this.

<!--QuoteBegin-ptahsokar
When he \"inspires\" men to write \"inspired\" writtings, called scripture, he does so for a specific purpose and it is this purpose that the explaination of provides the answer to your question \"uninspired versus inspired, what's the diff?\"

I think the basic idea here is, why concern yourself with if they are \"inspired\" when you need to be concerning yourself with what it is teaching, or saying. After you understand this, and the term \"inspired\" then you will know if it is anyway.

Originally posted by ptahsokar+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ptahsokar)</div>

John 16: 13 wrote:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.[/b]

When one is ready, the spirit of truth comes because of the desire for it, and it manifests in this person, and it is then not the person speaking but speaking for truth only, and whatever he hears of this truth he will speak.

<!--QuoteBegin-ptahsokar
What John is talking about here is something that a group I belong to, called the Keysters, call \"Soul Contact\". The Buddhists call it \"buddhi\". The Christians call it \"The Holy Ghost\", \"The Spirit of God\" or \"The Spirit of Truth.\" Different names to explain the exact same mechanism in reality.

ptahsokar is saying the same thing basically, but in different words. Read it carefully because there is more in this than people tend to assume. Some are actively searching for the truth and desire it. Others do not care, and others pretend they are, but are really centered emotionally in themself to much to be able to search for it. All will seek the spirit of truth during some point in their progression and reach a stage where they are able to be guided by it.

Originally posted by ptahsokar


I have proscribed a rigidly scientific method for (1) telling the difference between scripture and regular literature and (2) verifying the existence of God. That it is completely subjective (ie. individual, set up purposefully to be this way by God) in no way makes it any less scientific.

You start with a hypothesis: \"God exisits\"

You design an experiment: \"If I read an inspired book, and if the the Spirit of Truth comes to me and validates that it is true, then I will beleive\".

Then you run the experiment and observe the results of it.

Unfortunately, the \"science of soul\" is an experiment that every man and woman must perform in their OWN mind, heart and spirit by themselves, individually, for them to experience the result of the experiment.

Isn't this interesting how it parallels perfectly the positive and logical portions of the Athiestic viewpoint, that man is responsible for his own destiny, that only he is to blaim for failure, only he is ultimately praised for success. If you read what I have just written, you will see that God is a secular humanist, even an Athiest himself from this perspective. Even though the Christian and other organized religions have forced and forced and forced over the centuries, God's way is proper.

Between you and Him...if you are scientific, and you take responsiblity for your own destiny (in this case the ultimate freedom to combine an inspired book with a spiritual verification) and are open-minded, the method is proscribed.

That it has not been taught to you correctly is not the fault of God, but of flattering men who the common people have choosen to listen to, but did not know the true way of God in this matter.

It has been explained here. I invite you to test what I have said and see, of yourself, if what I have assured you of is true. I can only point in a direction. The direction may be false or it may be true. But it is you that must walk it to find out if it is true or not, or don't walk it at all, or find another man pointing his finger in a different direction and walk his way, its your choice. It always has been.

Interesting approach. when you look at it like that.

However despite the efforts to appeal to particular athiest, I don't think some are able to understand or accept the process of this experiment of what you are saying here because they still so involved in their drama. Similar to how in the times of Jesus the jewish leaders were still too involved in their own teachings to listen to what he had to say about the law of moses.

Only the difference between athiest and religious mentality, is they are opposites.
Both consider "they are right". So athiest believe certain things such as "I am right and know this" for different reasons. They believe they are following science. But what It is not understood is they are missing a big part of what science has to offer. And understand in reality little about why they believe what they do. This is the similarity in illogic between the 2 groups.

The science of spirituality, involves true 'religion' is backed up by the understanding of true science. It is both these forces combined that will complete a true science that can sense this truth fully. At the moment both aspects of the vision are seperated and unevolved. The destiny of these subjects is to merge into one. There is currently a lack of understanding about this here with the majority. What is the same with both groups or both extremes. Is both do not understand they have closed their mind to the other aspects of this truth. Combine this with the emotional/astral involvement with what they believe in, and consider they are not actually looking for the truth, but generally think they know it already. To the extent they close their mind to the point where they are unable to see what part of their beliefs are not based on whats true, or which is false, and what they simple do not understand yet. In reality such a group is not ready to embark on a true search of knowledge. This is also evident because of the works and words, astral in nature, which yeild nothing compared to the works and words of those in a higher plane of consiousness with the spirit of truth working through them.

This is a generalization of the process these individuals are 'either crystalized' or involved in, as they move up from the astral plane onwards. They evolve to the point where they either get out this 'rut' finally or continue in their progression to a point where they are ready to embark on a true search of knowlegde. And it is here where they can finally resist the glamour maya and illusion, and the spirit of truth can finally guide them into the light and life.

ptahsokar and myself, we say this roughly, but the main idea of what is being conveyed is what is important. We say it knowing we have imperfect filters. But we understand enough to know that we do.

Originally posted by Neruo
Things stated as facts and sound intresting catch on just as esialy as fact.

For a second there Neuro, I thought you were going to tell a lie. However, I see that even though you are reactive to what I have said, that what you have said is true. I thought that you were going to discourage a plain presentation of an opinion on the grounds that doing such would fool people in beleiving my way.

What you have said is an aspect of personality's inherent inability to arrive at a full 100%assertain-ment of the truth of a given thing. This is true. But for an Athiest to even say this brings a fundamental instability to the foundation upon which he bases his non-beleif system.

Neuro, I think you have done my job for me. You have echoed my assertion that total assurance cannot be found between one's own ears.

[The Koran and the Bible] have nilhil real proof. Only subjectivity by people.[/b]

Now this IS incorrect, but not a lie, not an intentional one on your part, but part and parcel of the Athiest viewpoint.

I would give an example of the flaw in reasoning that "subjective" things are not "real".

For something to be "real" means that its based in reality, or it is "true." All true things must have some effecatious effect on physical reality in order to be proven true.

Take for example the case of a death of another's child.

Objectively, you could say "What is the parent getting all bent about? Its the child that suffered the painful death, not him. He's just as healthy as he was before the child died. The bucks he's out paying for a funeral will be quickly made up by not having that mouth to feed. Why is he unable to work his job, talk without crying, etc. etc?"

The answer of course is the subjective reality of it. Even though it was the child that died, the parent has a strong subjective bond with the child. This bond is real. And it has a powerful effect on the physical reality of the situation.

The point I'm getting at here is that when a person says subjectively (ie. within himself, with no external indication of why he thinks that way) "I beleive in God" there can be a strong, very real, but "subjective," reason for this beleif.

Though its true that many (dare I say most) who say "I beleive in God" do so because their personality, their mental and emotional sides, have been raised and instructed to beleive this. This is not the confirmation (ie. the witness of the Holy Spirit) that I have been talking about here.

The Athiest is actually superior to the blindly faithful person, holier, farther ahead spiritually, in that an Athiest can cognize a "reality without God". This state of beleif is a testiment of their honor in accepting truth, and rejecting things that are unprovable.

I just want to remind the Athiests that just because the term "faith" has been completely screwed up for 2000 years by state religion, brainwashing, weak minds of the commoner, the domination of the religious ruler, doesn't mean that the simple, scientific, scriptural principle is not there. It is there. I have pointed it out.