Thursday, March 23, 2017

Response to the book, "50 Simple questions for every Christian"

This is a copy of the email that I sent to the author, as below in the following:

Hi Mr. Harrison:
The first thing I want to do before making the attempt to answer the title in the subject line is that I recently purchased “50 Simple questions for every Christian” on the FOR SALE shelf at my local library. I am always looking to read something that satisfies my curious nature, especially as it pertains to questions or answers to the ultimate mystery as presented in some of the world’s religious systems, and Judaism/Christianity in particular. I was hooked after reading the first few pages, and if you will pardon the expression, “it’s a Godsend” (blessing). The writing is masterful, probing, direct, and the questions are provocative, poignant as well as challenging; the book should be read by every Christian in my opinion. I was thinking about the resurrection narratives as recorded in several New Testament passages, which to me would be a skeptic’s treasure trove. In the gospel of Matthew 27: 62-66 and 28: 11-17 there seems to be some confusion with the temple guard and the soldiers; what story would be told about how the body of Jesus was missing; the payment of a bribe; soldiers falling asleep on duty; and the last part of verse 17 where it says of the disciples of Jesus: “. . . and some doubted” – (what??); These were people who were right there and part of this supernatural event, and yet, these unnamed followers and disciples/apostles were not convinced; which says something for those of us who believe two thousand years later.

Before I move on to another matter, the stone that was removed from the tomb or sepulcher is interesting because according to the story, Jesus had already been resurrected and could simply materialize and appear suddenly as He did where the disciples were gathered. I think the resurrection story would have been more credible if the stone had not been removed and Jesus was seen walking around because it would have avoided the rumor that Matthew 28: 13 talks about.  There is at least the name of one skeptic as recorded in John 20: 24-25, which reads: Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see for myself the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe” (wow!!).  This is a man that followed Jesus around, heard Him teach and perform miracles but instead of taking the word of the other disciples, he wanted verifiable proof, empirical facts, and not hearsay, or eyewitness accounts/testimonies- which should serve as a good lesson for us today and food for thought instead of just believing or accepting everything on “faith” or rather Church tradition, ritual and dogma.

Now that I have said all of that, let’s get to the main issue. I have given some thoughtful consideration to the proof of God’s existence, and if you don’t mind I would like to answer this concern by “flipping the script” or turning the question around. I would like to ask, “can you offer proof that you exist; of for that matter, proof that you love someone?” Are numbers real or letters of the alphabet- how can you prove this, and by what measure? And what about the concept of time or what is perceived as this phenomena? Isn’t everything composed of atoms or smaller subatomic particles, and isn’t there space or a void between each atom? Aren’t we really dealing with concepts or constructs of the “Mind” that are merely symbols and serve as building blocks in this illusion called “Life” but don’t really exist, in and of Itself, in reality. Whatever or Whoever is cosmic ‘Mind,’ it casts a wide net where there is reality-bias that skews any true knowledge and distorts sense perception. Therefore, all what we experience is essentially subjective and non-quantifiable (“Cogito ergo sum”).


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 17, 2017
robertrandle51@yahoo.com


Tuesday, March 21, 2017

The feminine face of God

To most readers of the Bible, God is almost universally accepted as male; with the exception of the Holy Spirit, who is presented as female. But is the gender of deity always gendered as tradition and Church history says it does, or is there possibly more to the story than what we have been told and led to believe? I guess the first place to start in the journey of inquiry is the start at the beginning (‘Bereshith’).

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

In “The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words” (1985) by Lawrence O. Richards, the word ‘Elohim’ is the most frequently used name for God in the entire Old Testament, occurring nearly 2,570 times. Lon Milo Duquette writes in “The Chicken Qabalah” that this word stems from the root word ‘Eloh/Eloah’ which is a feminine singular noun for Goddess (or divine feminine); “im” is merely the plural masculine suffix. Duquette, who is a Kabbalist, or Jewish esoteric/metaphysical practitioner or teacher, is not the only person to make this same association. So, taken together the word “Elohim” gives the meaning of Goddess/God; Dual-gendered deity/ Creatress-Creator; Feminine/Masculine divine Principal; or something like that. Ok, maybe this is a little bit to much to swallow, but keep reading, as in the following below:

Genesis 1: 26, 27
Then Elohim said, “Let Us make man in Our image after Our likeness.” So Elohim created man in His (not their??) own image, in the image of Elohim He (not they??) created him (Adam); male and female He (not they??) created them (Cp. Genesis 5: 1-2).

NOTE: The male and female (Adam) was created in the image and likeness of the Us/Our-“Elohim.”

There’s more:

Exodus 6: 2-3
Elohim also said to Moses, “I am the Lord (Yahuwah), I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El Shaddai (“The Almighty”). . .

NOTE: The word “Shaddai” is plural of the root ‘shad’ which refers to a female breast/ or teat [as it pertains to the female mammary gland], and the “ai” is just the plural suffix for breasts or teats. A literal translation for El Shaddi might be something like: God of breasts or breasted God (hermaphrodite??). Since men do not have breasts it seems reasonable to conclude the deity of the patriarchs was dual-gendered, or a Goddess, at the very least.

Continuing further: the book of Job is considered the second oldest in the entire Bible and this great great man is believed to be a contemporary of Abraham, so it is certainly worth the time and effort to see what he perceived or understood of deity’s (God’s) nature as it was revealed to him.

Job 38: 1, 8, 29
Then the Lord (Yahuwah) answered Job out of the storm, “Who shut up the sea behind doors when it burst forth from the womb?” “From whose womb comes the ice?” “Who gives birth to the frost from heaven?”

NOTE: The language in the above rendering would seem a little odd to be spoken by a male, wouldn’t it; does a man have a womb or give birth to anything?

Job 22: 26-27
Surely then you will find delight in Shaddai (Mighty), and lift up your voice to Eloh/Eloah (God). You will pray to him (??) and he (??) will hear you.

NOTE: Curious why Job would use feminine references (Shaddai and Eloh) and then include such pronouns as him and he if God were strictly gendered as male (Oops)? Interestingly, David B. Clark maintains that the single book, Job, makes heavy use of ‘Shaddai’ and comprises roughly 2/3 of all the uses of the word mentioned in the Old Testament. Some other biblical passages that seem to juxtapose Lord (Yahuwah) with God/Goddess (Elohim) are: Genesis 24: 3; 1 Samuel 6: 20; Psalms 50: 6; Isaiah 30: 18; 37: 16; 40: 28; 45: 15; 54: 5; 65: 16; and Jeremiah 10: 10.

I have covered the Old Testament in quite some detail, so what about the New Testament?

Luke 11: 27
And it came to pass, as Jesus spoke these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, “Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps (Heb. Hashaddayim) which thou hast sucked.”

Revelation 1: 13
And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle (KJV).

COMMENTARY: This last part is quite revealing and controversial because paps are another word for breasts. In Luke’s gospel the Hebrew is the plural suffix (“ai” or” im”) of singular breast/teat (shad). The translation of most modern bibles uses the “chest” or “breast/bosom” (singular) but some other translations do not, such as: Jubilee Bible 2000; American Standard Version; Darby Bible; Easy-to-Read Version Bible; and American King James. A few other versions use “paps” as in: Webster Bible; Douay-Rheims; King James. This matter might just be far from being settled as a certainty, so the reader has to draw his or her conclusion. The inclusion of the feminine into the exclusive male godhead as co-equal in all aspects of divinity can have a profound effect socially, theologically, psychologically, and culturally; impacting not only the role of women in society and the Church, but will reshape the future evolvement of life on planet Earth.


Robert Randle
776 Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma, WA 98402
March 20, 2017