In praise of Hilo Hawai’i unsung hero Bruno Curfs

*

Bruno & Cantonese/Pilipina Visayan wife Luz

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=images+bruno+curfs&qpvt=images+bruno+curfs&FORM=IGRE#view=detail&id=87E81B583E7E2EE0D8EAFE8A73D26A5A35F141BB&selectedIndex=0

*

*

http://brunocurfs-blog.authorsxpress.com/2012/04/30/the-end-of-religion-the-beginning-of-self-by-bruno-curfs-m-sc/

*

*

Author Bruno Curfs, M.Sc. was born on 1969 in the Netherlands. He was raised as a Roman Catholic and he studied Mathematics from 1987-1993. He, afterwards, worked in Information Technology. In 1989 Curfs converted to full gospel Christianity. He followed his own path, practically cut off from family and friends. He prayed to God to show him His plan for his life. In 2001 he started to question his beliefs. This led to a crisis in 2006 that lasted for 2 years. In October 2007, things turned around for Curfs as he found a valuable reference that was mind-shattering and changed his life forever.

*

*

*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/author-bio.html

*

I was born in 1969, in the Netherlands and raised Roman Catholic. From 1987 to 1993, I studied mathematics at the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands.    In 1998, I converted to full gospel Christianity. I had no idea what I was in for, but I always wanted to know what the Bible was all about. I felt I needed to make a personal commitment to God and gradually it became an absolute priority in my life. I was baptized for the second time, in a church that wanted to baptize me after a short introductory course. After that I immediately left the church again and never considered to join a church.

*
After my study, I worked in the Information Technology. Nothing seemed impossible and I started as a coach, giving a course in programming to my new colleagues. About a year and a half later, when the course was perfected according to me, I started working in the field. In a few years, I advanced from junior programmer to senior programmer, technical designer and debugger. I thanked God for all of my riches. You would say that my life was a success.

*
As a Christian, I shared my faith with one close friend. I did not attend any church, as I did not believe that a church taught the same what Jesus taught. Because looking at the world we live in and the amount of Christians among us, I believed there must be a radically different approach than the one taught by the churches. I believed in a very personal approach, to study the Bible alone fervently without any other books and ask the Holy Ghost every day for guidance and understanding. I thought that this resembled closest the way that the first disciples learned, who were near Jesus on a daily basis. They had theory and practice in one package. In my case, theory was the written word, practice was my daily life guided by the Holy Spirit. I believed that this approach would make me stronger in the long run, by not depending on ‘outside’ help. After several years, I believed I had built a strong personal relationship with Jesus and trusted Him with all of my life.
In 2001, I found a book by Friedrich Weinreb, an orthodox Jew, who explained things about Jesus that I did not know as a Christian. That was shocking and interesting at the same time. He kindled my interest for the Hebrew Alphabet, with its numbers attached to them. He explained the validity of the New Testament from a Jewish perspective. I found that very refreshing. He gave it his own very personal and creative twist. It did not bother me at all. I learned the Hebrew Alphabet and became interested in learning Hebrew, but I did not pursue it at the time.

*
Then the unthinkable happened in 2006: I had a personal crisis. It had festered for many years. I was not happy and my belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit had not changed that one bit. If anything, I had become very radical, and my heart was torn between what I believed was God’s will for everybody–to believe in Jesus’s sacrifice for everybody to obtain total forgiveness and eternal life–and the reality I was faced with, where family, friends and colleagues lived as if Jesus had never lived or died and did not even want to talk about Him–and that in a Christian country, I might add. I could not deny that there was something completely wrong with me. I was not a happy Christian. My relationships had not healed. In fact, also my job became very demanding and seemed to become too much to handle for me. Nothing seemed to work out. Why?

*
Intuitively I turned to the Bible for answers. This time I started to study the Old Testament in Hebrew. The first verse I studied, set me on the course of discoveries that has not ended yet.
In Psalm 27:14 we read:     Wait on the Lord,    Be of good courage,     And he shall strengthen thine heart.    Wait, I say, on the Lord.
The keyword that I looked at was ‘wait’. I discovered that the Hebrew verb used in the original text is in piel, a verb modality indicating intensity. The dictionary states that this verb in piel should be translated with ‘to expect’. This was a shock. For me, ‘to wait’ and ‘to expect’ are not similar at all. I prefer expecting. If anything, waiting seems passive, and expecting is active.
If I found an error in the translation in the first verse I studied, how would I find the state of the rest of the Old Testament? I freaked out, because I started to see that an inaccurate translation might be fatal for those, like me, who believe in the infallibility of the Bible. The Bible was so dear to me that I considered it also my personal possession. It was part of my upbringing, part of my culture, part of my heart. And it had been messed with! I checked this verse in many translations and languages, but all of them have this mistake. However, the translation should be:      Expect of the Lord,    Be of good courage,     And he shall strengthen thine heart.    Expect of the Lord
There is also no ‘I say’ in the repetition of ‘Expect of . . . ’
At once, I decided to expect of God that he would guide me to a new job, by sending somebody to my door or by a personal letter of somebody who had heard of me and would hire me. Added to that, I expected of God that they would investigate my talents, so I could be of use to them. It was quite something to expect. It happened in October 2006. I received such a letter and my new employer would draw up my ‘talent profile’ as they called it. This would be used to match my talents with the required talents for any assignment. I never had experienced such a miracle. I was very excited about this and I took that job. I told my family and friends that a miracle had happened.
Something kept telling me that there was something strange going on here. Would God only listen to somebody who had understood one Hebrew word? Also, since the distinction between ‘to wait’ and ‘to expect’ was only in the pronunciation (!) and not in the letters, I pondered about this for quite a while. In the original text, before the Masoretes added vowel pointing in the 7th century C.E., there had been no indication of the pronunciation in the text, just the three letters forming the verb. So, how could a Hebrew mind decide between ‘to wait’ and ‘to expect’ in this context by just looking at the letters? And how were the different interpretations of the verb connected to the three letters used? To me they were just a random combination of letters, such as QVH. This was a clue that I did not fully grasp at the time. According to me, the only one that had changed was me. I was the one that had decided to expect something. I had never done that quite the same way. But there was this other possibility, namely that the Hebrew Letters had a mysterious power. Whether it was God who had answered me or that something else had happened, my prayer had worked and it had something to do with the Hebrew Letters.

*
I started to search for clues on the web. I found many useless ones. There are sites that find all kind of fantastic relationships in the letter-number patterns. But none of those fantastic relationships had any relationship with my feelings, with the miracle that had actually happened. Those patterns did not explain anything to me. They were just there, but what did it mean?

*
Then, in October 2007, I discovered a website dedicated to the work of Carlo Suarès (he died in 1976). I had never heard of him before. Something about the Hebrew Letters. Something different. I ordered one of his books in a new edition of 2005 with a new foreword by Gregg Braden. Also never heard of. I started to study this book and I was stunned. Here was an author who disclosed the true Kabbala. It was abstract, but I knew that this was what I had been looking for. The letters contain meaning! I started to experiment with this and the results were mind-blowing.

*
I became convinced that another book should be written about it, less abstract and with more examples, with more tangible things, with a more personal feel to it. So, I set out to write that book and learned in the process what I always had wanted to know.
It became clear that the nature of the Hebrew Alphabet explained every confusion I have ever had. It gave me all the answers I had longed for. In fact, I believe that all my questions have been answered–and there were not just a few . . . In itself that is a lonely place. Now I needed to find a way to apply what I had learned. I needed to start sharing it, myself. Overcoming my initial resistances was not easy at all. But this is it, I would say. I did it. Step one, the book. Step two to follow.

*
I started writing this book in March 2008, asking: “Have you  ever wanted to know what the Bible really is about?” Well, I did, with all my heart and mind and strength. My book gives you a head start to (re)discover its deepest meaning and message, hidden in plain sight in a code (abstract), namely in the Hebrew Alphabet. I discovered that these eternal symbols of the One energy have the potential to be awakened in the human heart (experience) and take on a life of their own there. This has enabled me to forgive others and myself and live the life of my dreams. Now you.

*
My book is at the same time a fragmented and an integrated view of everything I have learned. It might not necessarily be easy to read or easy to digest. But it is written with this realization pouring out on every page: that there is more to life, for everybody to find (such as: to find who you are, and all other answers).

*
It is you who are that which most people believe God is. Because also you are essentially spirit and invisible, sic! Whatever is a part of you is not you, whatever you are a part of is not you. Yet, whoever you are is only for you to find. And when you find yourself, you are like me (not what you know of me): formless, infinite, eternal, all-knowing, source of abundance, loving. Your existence and your life will become forever interconnected with mine.  The Golden Rule is stated in different forms throughout the Bible, but these are from the New Testament:

  • 1Jo 3:14 – We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. 
  • 1Jo 4:8 – He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
  • 1Jo 4:20 – If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?

This presents each of us with the challenge to come to that point where you not only know (with your mind) what love is, but that you actually  unconditionally love with your heart; because there is nobody excluded from the  ‘brethren’, nobody excluded from God. This book is for everybody, my kinsmen and kinswomen.

*

*

*

*

The End Of Religion, The Beginning Of Self

*

With The End Of Religion, The Beginning Of Self readers can look forward to an in-depth analysis, profound interpretation and insightful reflection of the Bible. This spectacular read freely shares a thought-provoking perspective about famous and less famous Bible stories and their practical significance in the reader’s life.

Every letter of the Hebrew Alphabet is explained in a separate chapter and in many different ways, as a letter and as a letter-name, as a number and as a number-name, as part of scripture and as part of words.

This technique is one of the most important legacies given to human kind. And it is no doubt that scientists will be baffled by this innovative knowledge for centuries to come, especially when they get wind of its applications.

Exhilarating, this read contains riddles and appendices for extra depth and emphasis.

So what are you waiting for? Let this book open the doors to a greater and more profound understanding about life!

*

*

*

Have you ever wanted to know what the true meaning of the Bible is?

I have always wanted to know that, and it forced me to make difficult personal decisions earlier in life that made my experience genuine. I was enticed by the idea that I should be a Christian in order to know God’s will and his plan for my life, so although I was raised Roman Catholic, I converted to full-gospel Pentecostal Christianity when I was 20.

In the following two decades my search continued and ultimately I found that I was actually looking for the truth about everything. I just believed that I could find the answers in the Bible. When I started reading the Hebrew text, finally I did in the most mind-blowing way!

When in October 2007 I discovered that the Hebrew Alphabet is the key to understanding and the letters from the building blocks of our reality–this may sound incredible; well it was indeed a shock to discover it–my former world collapsed as my understanding of reality transformed. Being a Christian proved to me its impossibility. Yet, I regained the freedom I had before I was born.

After a while things started to stabilize and I decided in March 2008 to write a book (in English). I felt compelled to share my discoveries in the hope that it will help my readers to understand for themselves that the Bible contains the oldest knowledge preserved by humanity, destined to be general knowledge to ensure our peaceful survival, encrypted and preserved for all those who have the stamina to change their hearts and minds, to prove their ultimate quality of being human.

Consider the next step on your spiritual path to let the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet become alive within you, as discerning inner eyes, giving you a growing awareness to the mystery of your existence and life. We may be able together to generate unlimited love, peace and understanding, enabling everybody in our world to participate in their abundant benefits.

*

*

*

About the Book

Each chapter treats one letter of the Hebrew Alphabet and reveals it as the key to understanding. Each letter is a symbol expressing its own essence, therefore carrying meaning. Each letter relates recursively to the other ones by its letter-name, number and number-name. The Hebrew text of the Old Testament is written in this code of letter-numbers. The reader is guided through the meaning of letters, numbers, words and names, building them up from scratch. This enables a deeply sensible and thought provoking reinterpretation of the Bible and its stories, not as religious, but as an inside out map of the human psyche. With this key one may discover one’s true Self.

*

*

*

 http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/

*

Summary Of The Book

Every letter of the Hebrew Alphabet is explained in a separate chapter (every chapter stands on its own, but the interconnections become clear as you progress) in different ways: as a letter and as a letter-name, as a number and as a number-name, as part of scripture and as part of words. I consider the Hebrew Alphabet the most important legacy left to human kind. It will baffle scientists for centuries to come when they get wind of its applications.   Further included in my book are: poems, riddles and appendices for extra depth.

*
I freely share my thought-provoking insights about famous and less famous bible stories, in their structure and in their detail. Such as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Sodom and Gomorrah, the splitting of the Red Sea, the reception of the Law, Jonah and the whale, the rivalry between Cain and Abel, Jacob and Esau and between Jesus and John the Baptist and many more.

*
Key-words are explained, such as: beginning, create, light, Heaven, Earth, face, tree, good and bad, life, and why there is so much destruction in the biblical stories.

*
Names are explained, among which Adam, Eve, Satan, Cain, Abel, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Israel, Jesus, Judas and, most importantly, the name of God. That will become very personal and powerful indeed.

*
As an example of the appendices you will find in one a novel ‘translation’ (about 20 p.) of the first five Bible verses, Gen 1:1-5. It is one of the highlights of application of the knowledge explained in the book. And in another appendix you will find a fictitious conversation (about 9 p.) between Cain and Abel, with a touching end that has never been conceived of before. It will hit the point home how deep our misconception of truth has become and open a door to new ways of thinking and understanding. There are four more appendices for you to discover.

*
These interpretations show never disclosed relationships between letters, numbers and meaning, always keeping a positive mindset that a human being is able to come face to face with the truth, die to their illusions and come to life in a new world answering to love.

*
My hope is that you will discover for yourself that the Bible is a science book. You do not have to believe me–this is beyond belief. Its science is the science of what it means to be a human being. In that sense, it is a book for everybody, no matter what background or religion you have.

*

Language in this case is not a problem. Each and every Hebrew word is a gem to admire, or some kind of manna (where did that come from?) to eat. Think of each word as a looking glass through which you can see an infinite depth of its living essence.  Then, watching closely what happens within you, you will discover that those words are aspects of you. Not like any other language, the Hebrew Letters are able to convey meaning, for the letters themselves used in a word are the seeds of the meaning of that word. This leaves you the creator of their meaning, a mind-blowing revelation!

*
Meaning is covered in layers and layers of confusion. These layers are pierced through with a sharp knife: the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet. It is like looking through a microscope. At first you have no idea what you are looking at, for lack of orientation. Soon, however, you will find the most beautiful structures, relations and . . . life! . . . and more.

*
Expounding on the characteristics of all of the letters gives you a complete ‘toolkit’ for further study and the key to understand anything.

*
Your responses, comments or questions are welcomed on the Facebook Fan Page. Please, be reassured that I would like to think that we are all on the same eternal journey.

*

*

*

Buy the Book

Discover the treasure hidden within the true meaning of Hebrew text of the Bible and become the revelation of your Self.

CLICK HERE TO ORDER A COPY!

ISBN 13 (Softcover): 978-1-4653-3705-4 ISBN 13 (Hardcover): 978-1-4653-3706-1 ISBN 13 (eBook): 978-1-4653-3707-8

www.Xlibris.com

*

*

*

Contact Us

The End Of Religion, The Beginning Of Self * by Bruno Curfs, M.Sc.Using The Hebrew Alphabet As Secret Wisdom Key Publication Date: April 18, 2012 Trade Paperback; $23.99; 716 pages; 978-1-4653-3705-4 Trade Hardback; $34.99; 716 pages; 978-1-4653-3706-1

To request a complimentary paperback review copy, contact the publisher at (888) 795-4274 x. 7879. To purchase copies of the book for resale, please fax Xlibris at (610) 915-0294 or call (888) 795-4274 x. 7879.

For more information, contact Xlibris at (888) 795-4274 or on the web at www.Xlibris.com.

*

*

*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/blog.html

*

The Soul is not a well-defined thing. We shouldn’t just believe we have a soul; if it is true, we must be able to affirm it by our own understandings. As it turns out, there is a clue that we don’t have a soul, but the soul has us. In other words, there is only one soul, and we all share it. — The first clue is that the word Adam is written as Aleph-Dallet-Mem Sophiyt in Hebrew (or ADm in shorthand, showing the small letter for an ending letter Mem).  — Aleph as the first principle, the source, the “soul” is attached to the word dam (Dm), which means blood. The Hebrew name Adam becomes the idea that Aleph needs “blood” to become alive, or that man becomes alive through the Aleph in his blood. Carlo Suares says that only when the Aleph is resurrected in us, do we live. And Aleph is not just the principle of life, but of life-death, life-death-life-death, a continuous-discontinuous pulsation. More than once, the Biblical account stresses the importance of blood.  We have the following instances where it is stressed that the life is in the blood (and it is prohibited to eat it for that reason): > Gen 9:4  – But flesh with its life, which is its blood, you shall not eat > Lev 17:11, 14 – the life of every creature is in its blood. > Deu 12:23 – Be sure not to eat the blood, because the blood is the life (nefesh) and you shall not eat the life (still) within the flesh.

*
Let’s see what we can learn from these:
> Now in Gen 9:4, the word nefesh is used for “life”, but in other places this word is also translated as “soul”. In Hebrew, it does not say “with its life”, but litterally it says: “but flesh in its soul, (which is) its blood” or alternatively, “flesh which is (still) within its soul, its blood you shall not eat”. > In Lev 17:11,14, we are told that the nefesh, the soul, is in the blood. > In Deu 12:23, we learn that it is the blood itself which is (the soul’s) life. — In the New Testament, we find similar references to the blood and life in the blood. They become so personalized that one needs to pay close attention; something of great value is communicated, but our understanding is lacking. The principle is of great importance to us, to know what is going on. We read that Jesus says:
Jhn 6:53,54 – Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man (i.e., Ben Adam), and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Who eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, he has eternal life, and I will raise him up the last day.
So these words seem to defy the two things that we learned from the Old Testament. First of all it defies the decree that one should not eat the blood of a creature (let alone a man), but Jesus is commanding to drink his blood. This then can only come through his death (and the death of a man is required at the hand of a man) The second thing is that Jesus’s words defy that death is the end of things, but rather they stress that in Jesus’s blood, there is not just life (as in the Old Testament passages above), but that this life is eternal.Our minds can not comprehend this statement without knowledge of the Hebrew Alphabet. This causes us to generate religion after religion about what we believe.
However, the Aleph is an unchangeable (eternal) principle; the soul, the self, the spirit, they are all synonyms for this principle, which does not let itself trap within a word, yet within a self-expressing symbol as Aleph is. Its companions, the other letters, are the “angels”, the messengers through which Aleph becomes known.

*
And when we see that the Hebrew names and words (such as “Adam”) describe processes alive within us, we see at the same time that we participate in that life. The myth is trying to tell us that the Aleph (as a life giving principle) can become alive within us, as it supposedly did in Jesus, so that we also become a “Son of Adam”, which means nothing more than that the process “Adam” has become reality within us, and thus that the Aleph is resurrected. We will thus take part in Aleph, in the soul.A paradox of the Christian myth is that through the denial of the decrees in the Old Testament (of which the prophecies needed to be fulfilled), this life can be obtained. It is clear why Jesus is seen as a subversive element to the Jewish religion. Nevertheless, this paradox is part of the nature of Aleph. It is equally clear that through the principles of the Jewish faith, the Aleph can not come to life within a person, UNLESS those decrees are denied. (It is said that salvation comes through the Jews) This is what Jesus represents. It gives a clue to what the “great oppression” is that the Jewish and Christian religions both represent. They stage people from all over the world to move the story of life into the future, yet themselves not partaking in the life it harbors, by taking the myth too literally.

*
The “new” decree that Jesus gives, to “remember” him by “eating his body” and “drinking his blood”, is not original either. See for instance Sir James George Frazer’s The Golden Bough (Free Kindle edition with reader on Amazon, or a not free edition covering references to the Christian religion), describing pagan rituals not much different from the Christian rituals (e.g., chapter “Eating the God”). Taken too literal, the Jesus myth may spawn a religion as pagan as any other. As tempting as it is to dismiss the Christian religion as false, based on these considerations, we nevertheless can not deny the continuation of the Jewish myth, which is instilled in the Hebrew Letters. And if only for this commonality, both myths give us a better understanding of who we are as a human being, if we ever can overcome our superstitions. This is the sacrifice we have to perform: to die to our (religious) beliefs and to discover what is alive within us, for that which lives within us can not be killed. Beyond the death of our bodies, our life is eternally influencing all other events as we are participating in them and those events participate within us.

*

*

*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/radio-shows.html

*

On BlogTalkRadio

*

In January 2013 I started a series of radio shows about the material in the book, appearing on BlogTalkRadio. I’m embedding these shows here. You can either listen to them, or download them.

Popular Spirituality Internet Radio with Stone Soup Moving Feast on BlogTalkRadio
*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/blog.html

*

Marketing

Writing is one thing, publishing another and marketing yet another. — I am learning marketing from scratch. To market well, one needs to build an audience. I tried to do this by appearing on an internet radio show this year for about 8 months, every week. I’m making a separate tab (Radio Shows) which will feature embedded shows. One of the introductory shows is embedded here. More to come. — One also needs to serve the audience. Please, review the eBook-tab. I included a purchase button, but also explained better that you can sign up for a free copy of the eBook.  — Enjoy learning about this material. When you reach the point where it is mind blowing, you will know that I’ve scratched the surface just deep enough :-).

*
*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/ebook.html

The eBook

There is a preview of my book available at GOOGLE BOOKS. It contains about 130 pages with: Table Of Contents, Foreword, Introduction, clickable Index, excerpts of several chapters.  The format you see is *not* the eBook (ePub) that you will receive if you order it from Amazon or Xlibris or anywhere else. The current eBook is not to my liking. The publisher was not able to convert the Hebrew into a scalable eBook format. Well, it’s the USA, not Israel. The generator which converts the original PDF into eBook format is unable to recognize the Hebrew and reverses the reading direction resulting in misspelled Hebrew words. The publisher decided to use *scans* of the book and convert those into an eBook.  This is sub-optimal because only eBook-readers which are compatible with unscalable formats can be used to read the eBook. The results on other readers are often unreadable. My apology for the inconvenience.  I offer an alternative. (Read on.)

The Value

Since I am the author of this work and self-published, I own the copyright. This means that I am the only person who can sell my work. This copyright protects me to some degree. But it also limits me. For instance, I have the liberty to sell through official channels, who decides the price of the book, and giving me only part of the sales as a royalty. The reader pays also for third party involvement.
Example. Somebody buys my eBook for $10.00 from an official channel. If that is Xlibris, then only half of that goes to me. If it is another internet vendor, it is only 25%. The quality of the eBook may not be what they expected and the eBook may not display on their e-reader such that it can be comfortably read. This can be improved. If you buy the eBook from me directly, I get the full amount. This is better for me, because I don’t have to wait ’till the end of the quarter. It is also better for you, because I can offer you same or better quality for less than you would pay elsewhere. I am providing you with a quality eBook here, in PDF-format. This is the best I can do for now. Most modern tablets and e-readers are able to display PDF-documents. You can sign up and receive a link to download a free preview of the eBook and test it. Then you can decide to pay for the full version if you are satisfied. The free version contains all of the text of the book, but its page layout is not finished; it has a watermark on every page, does not contain page numbers or chapter headers at the top of the page, and it does not have an index.  If you like the comfort of reading the complete book, without watermarks, and with index, you have the choice to acquire it for a small donation ($2.50) or for the regular price ($5.00, recommended). You may also opt to sponsor my work for a $10.00 fee (optional). Thank you. In this way, my book may reach more people, without the intervention of a third party. The value of my work will increase with the number of people reading my work.  I believe that the information in my book is so powerful that over time it will help more and more people all over the world to become aware of their (limiting) beliefs, change them, and thrive forever after. The challenge of this life is to overcome your inner obstacles to realize your freedom and enjoy it, share it and increase other people’s awareness of their freedom. My aim is to stimulate the study and practice of this material on larger and larger scale and hope to contribute to any research project interested in taking this to the next level. My book, even at 714+ pages, only scratches the surface of its potential uses.
The information in my book is dense. If  you want to discuss this information with others, I believe that you will be helped with buying the physical book and use it as a study book. Later it may serve as a reference. It definitely has a long shelf-life; this information will not grow old within your lifetime. Although I deem the eBook not very appealing for the purpose of thoroughly studying this material, it may serve as a good introduction and give you some acquaintance with the material. NOTE. When you decide to buy a physical copy of the book, please consider buying it from Xlibris (See “Buy the Book”), so more of your purchase money goes to me (40% instead of 25%). I can not provide the service that goes into sending books, but I believe that you will get value for your money, comparable to any other physical book.
Free eBook
Only pay for the eBook when you are satisfied with how the free eBook displays on your e-reader.
To receive the free eBook, sign up below to receive a link that allows you to download the free eBook (PDF).
Thank you for your consideration and enjoy reading my book.
Buy eBook During the transaction, you are asked to provide your email, so I can send you an URL for your exclusive access after payment is received.
eBook Price Options
Minimum = $2,50 USDStandard = $5,00 USDStandard + $5 Donation = $10,00 USDStandard + $20 Donation = $25,00 USDStandard + $95 Donation = $100,00 USD

Contact For questions regarding the material of the book itself, please consider contacting me on the Facebook Fan Page of the Book (click on the Facebook icon at the top of the page). Also read the blog, you’re welcome to respond.
*
*

https://www.facebook.com/bruno.curfs

*
*
*

http://theendofreligion.weebly.com/blog.html

*

A goal, the goal

Every time somebody asks me about the goal of my book, I am able to come up with a different answer. One of the goals is to draw the reader into the source of their own reality. This source is invisible, it is personal. This source is symbolized by the letter Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet. With its value 1, it points to that without which nothing else can exist, not even that without which nothing else can exist. Does it “exist”? We are drawn into the vagueness of what it means for anything to exist. Some things exist like matter exists. But some things exist in a different way, and the question is justifiable if we’d be better off if we would use a different word for that. Consider the following examples. — If the sun sets, does the sun rise on the opposite point of the Earth? Therefore, does the sunset exist or not?

*
If we watch a movie, do the scenes we view exist? How are they different from other scenes we view? Ultimately, they may both be equally real to our brain. How do we know the difference between fact and fiction?

*
If we imagine an event, does it exist? If we experience something “real”, our experience of that which is real is several steps removed from what is really real. From our perspective, we can only observe, sense, part of what is happening, our brain translates and filters the input picked up by our senses; a reduced impression is left to our awareness and we imbue emotions to the event which are highly personal and subjective. How do we know that we are not imagining that which we consider “real?”

*
If we experience emotions, if we think thoughts, who is our witness? How can we prove our emotions, how can we prove our thoughts? If they exist, how can they be measured objectively? Is there an objective reality which includes our subjective emotions and thoughts? The power of creation “exists” by the mere fact that creation consists of things which “exist”, but the word “exist” means different things in both cases. That which is behind the horizon “exists”, but we can not witness it. That which is within our radius of experience “exists”, but most other people do not experience it. — The power of creation exists and does not exist. Creation exists and does not exist. We dream reality. Do we exist? Do we even live? When are our questions affirmed?

*
To know what is real, to know what life is, we have to die to our preconceptions of whatever Aleph is. And even though Aleph may be beyond our grasp, its life impulse can be witnessed within us. Its “existence” can be verified by our existence, its life can be verified by our life. Beyond that there exists nothing. All is within. And all is without. All effable things have ineffable essences. The effable is rooted in the ineffable. Yet, also the ineffable is rooted in the effable: this is Aleph, the pardox of [existence]-[non-existence], the pardox of life-death. Our power is to realize the power of Aleph.

*

*

*

*

*

On theodicy (the matter of suffering)    —

*

Dear Curtis,

Last time, we derived that we do not have to believe in the redemptive work
of Jesus or that of the exclusive position of the Jewish People for the
belief in a forgiving God —  since his forgiveness is conditional, it means
that if I were God, I could be better.

*

Therefore, I do not believe in the
“goodness” of the God in the Bible, and frankly, I do not believe in the
God of the Bible any more. More precisely, I do not believe in the God of the
translated Bible.

*

However, this poses the problem that the God we choose to believe
in —  is not the one in the (translated) Bible.

*

Reggie asked, is there
another God?

*

That is a good question. I believe there is something that we
can substitute for “God,”  but as we lack the attributes for the moment,
as of yet there is no definite answer to this question.

*
Also, if we do not believe in the God of the Bible, theodicy is not an
issue. It boils down to individuals figuring out what is good and what is
evil and to choose good.

*

This seems a reasonable starting point, but as
these words (good and bad) are abstractions, it is difficult to decide for
all instances in any person’s life whether things/events/actions are “good” or “bad.”

*

If we
had a decision procedure to find out whether things are good or bad, we
would be in the game. We could apply that mechanism and decide for any
instance whether it is good or bad. I do not believe such a decision
procedure exists.

*

Basically, I think we both agree that the definitions of good and bad are
applied arbitrarily. If we can not know how the final results of any
decision will turn out to be, there is no final word on whether something
is good or bad, unless we know all the consequences that come from that.

*

In
Zen, there is the story of the father whose son breaks a leg, but is not
eligible for the army of an evil emperor. If you do not know the story, I
could look it up for you. The moral is that rather than judge things to be
good or bad, you always realize that there are two sides to every event.
Both sides are of equal importance, and if you choose to focus on the bad,
you see the bad. If you focus on the good, you see the good.

*

Good and bad are
not characteristics of human nature, as we can not define them.

*
There is a saying: “All things end well. And if they did not end well, they
did not end yet.” (Of course, this makes the choice arbitrary for the word “well,” confirming our earlier point.)

We also addressed the slightly different problem of avoiding unnecessary
evil. You distinguished evil that you choose as a necessity to avoid evil
for others. In some cases this could be a fallacy of fear; you fear the
outcome of one decision, so you make another decision and subject yourself
to suffering as a justification for the evil that you think is going to
happen. But you did not have to choose this based on your fear. There are
other motivating factors for making choices.
In other cases, when the evil seems unavoidable, and undergoing suffering
by your own choice, this may not apply. And you call this necessary evil.

Unnecessary evil would be, according to you, all suffering that results
from choices based on selfishness, greed and lust for power, and what not.
You seem to be unaware that these words are descriptors (or diagnoses) for
behavior that may have perfect rational explanations and are rooted in
motivating facts described as autonomy, safety and consistency.

You can find a list of human needs, which are motivating factors of
rational behavior, here: http://www.cnvc.org/Training/needs-inventoryCalling people selfish, greedy, or lusty for power may be a wrong
perception; it is also a way to damage the connection with the people you
perceive to behave that way.
If their needs could be met by voluntary actions of the people involved, it
would not cause unnecessary suffering. Their needs are valid. Helping them
to realise that they do not have to impede other people’s freedoms is one
way of resolving this cause of unnecessary suffering. It boils down to the
challenge of how to meet everybody’s needs without limiting the resources
to meet everybody’s needs.   In particular cases, coming up with a solution
may be easier than solving it for all people at once. We are in this
together. I am working to understand whether there is a workable strategy
that could create a situation where this becomes possible.

Therefore, it fits within my paradigm that to educate on different
strategies, but also to teach analytical thinking and emotional skills —  is
the way to go and to diminish unnecessary suffering. It does not seem
necessary to involve God in the resolution of these challenges.

If you like the Bible passages where the behavior of Jesus is questionable,
I can give it a try in my next email.

Please, feel free to respond with comments, observations or questions.
Thank you for your time and sharing.

Yours,
Bruno.

*

*

*

*

*

July 4, 2016   —

*

Theistic or Anti-theistic

*

Dear Curtis,
you asked me today, July 4, 2016, if my position is either theistic or anti-theistic, where I stand. Here is my answer: neither theistic, nor anti-theistic. I will outline my reasons for this position below. I hope it will be enlightening.
Theism
The definition of theism is twofold:
a. the belief in the existence of a god or gods;
b. the belief in a single God, the creator of the universe and everything in it.
My problem with the formulation of theism is that it never defines the concept of god in the first place. In other words, for every possible god G, there is a theism that states: the belief in the existence of god G. Note that version b. of theism tries to tie down the god of version a. of the definition. It defines the one God as the creator of the universe. The problem is now that we have to believe in two things, rather than one. The first thing is that the universe was created, i.e., by a “god” (singular), and that we further have to believe in this god as the only God.
Before I continue, I like to say something about the word “belief”. In my understanding of the word “belief” in this context, it is a conclusion or something you hold for true. The presence or absence of evidence is not important. So, if we believe that the Earth is flat, based on observations, then that is a conclusion. If we believe that the Earth is a sphere, based on other observations, then that is also a conclusion. Some conclusions are mutually exclusive. It is logically impossible to believe that the Earth is flat AND that the Earth is a sphere. To help sort out beliefs (conclusions), it is important to include evidence.
If one has a belief that is not supported by evidence, then one can call it a conjecture. Note that a conjecture does not need to be false. It merely lacks evidence. If one has a belief that is supported by evidence, then one can call it a theory. A theory explains (by virtue of the evidence) the trust in the conclusion. Evidence gives credence to a conjecture and renders it into a theory.
Ironically, notice that the word “theory” stems from the word “theorem” < Gr. theos, meaning god, and Gr. rhema, meaning word. Hence, a theory is “(a) word of God”, i.e., one can trust it to be true.
So, to hold the conclusion that the universe was created by a god or gods, does not need evidence, but if evidence is presented, it might help us to trust that the conclusion is true. The stronger the evidence, the more valid and trustworthy the theory. Ultimately, we use our thinking skills to decide whether something, such as observations, is evidence for (or against) our belief (conclusion). A sound skepticism about the correctness of observations is advisable, since our senses are biassed and we often draw conclusions about what we sense (see, hear, feel, smell, taste) without noticing.
Example. Bernadette Soubirous had visions of Mary in Lourdes (F.). Question: did Mary appear in Lourdes or did Bernadette experience something that resembled the appearance of Mary in Lourdes? In a modern setting, suppose we can not take a picture of a vision, was that which appeared in the vision really there? Are visions evidence of existence? If one person observes something, but the people near them in the same room don’t, does that mean that what is observed by the one person exists or that it doesn’t exist? It is important to notice that we may not have enough information and that further investigation is always useful, if we gather more data that is useful as evidence. If we don’t trust the senses of the one with the vision, why would we trust our own senses?
The Existence of God
What kind of evidence are we looking for? Well, simply that we can establish the existence of a god, gods or God. I’d like to notice that the verb “to exist” pertains in normal language to things that can be observed or measured. If we can’t observe something in any way, or we can’t measure it, it does not really exist. If something exist, it interacts with other things that exist. If something “exists” that does not interact with anything, then how does it exist? It is easier to say that if something doesn’t interact with anything else, it doesn’t exist, plain and simple.
If the definition of a god includes that it is an invisible being, an unmeasurable being, a being outside time and space, etc. we see that we are setting ourselves up for a disappointment. We can now never hope to gain evidence for such a god’s existence, because of our choice to exclude observations and measurements; it is a self-defeating definition. To be more clear, if God existed and we could establish God’s existence in any way–for instance, if we could observe God, then God doesn’t follow our definition of being invisible; if we can measure God, then God doesn’t follow our definition of being unmeasurable; if we can find God within space and time, then he doesn’t follow our definition of being outside time and space–then God doesn’t follow our definition of being invisible, unmeasurable and outside time and space. Oppositely, if God follows our definition, we can never observe God, never measure God and never find God within space and time. So, in both cases, we can’t ever obtain evidence of God’s existence, either because God simply doesn’t follow the definition of “to exist”, or if God does exist, God doesn’t follow the definition of a god (invisible, unmeasurable, and outside space and time). It’s a hopeless case.
It is important to consider that if our definition precludes to establish God’s existence, we must raise doubts about our definition in the first place. Furthermore, if a definition of God is lacking, it is a poor basis for a discussion. I don’t discuss the existence of God unless anybody can give me a definition of God for which the existence can possibly be established, because it is not self-contradictory. In absence of such a definition, the word “God” doesn’t have a meaning for me.
Note that this lack of a clear definition of God explains why there is so much confusion about God and the ongoing quest to find evidence of God’s existence, simply because of the failure to understand that we haven’t defined who or what God is.
So, my position is definitely not theistic. I have no conclusion about God’s existence, simply because I lack a good definition of God. I also have no evidence for God’s involvement in the creation of the universe. In addition to that, for the sake of argument suppose that a god created the universe, how do we arrive at the conclusion that this god is indeed the God described in the Bible? (For now I will not specify the difference between the OT and NT in regard to the definition of God.) I don’t need to go into that now, given the above.
Anti-theism
Anti-theism is defined as active opposition to theism.
I’m not sure that I follow the intention of this definition. Because, as argued above, if somebody has a belief in a god, that’s fine with me. But if they ask me if I believe in their god, and they can not give me a definition of their god of which the existence can be established, I have to wonder what their conclusion (belief) is based on. But if somebody could give a definition D of their god G that is worth looking into, and I see that D is not a self-contradictory definition, then I don’t see a reason to disagree with that theism stating; there exists a god G with definition D.
So, my position is not anti-theistic in those cases where there is a good definition for God. In those cases that there isn’t a good definition of God, I can hardly be against something that has no meaning to me.
Unfortunately, I haven’t come across a good definition of God. But I don’t presume to know all possible definitions that can be given for a god or God, of which some might be consistent and even be supported by evidence.
The Simulation Argument
Nick Bostrom formulated the Simulation Argument in 2003, see http://www.simulation-argument.com/ for more information.
It bears on our discussion, as I will try to show.
The conclusion of the Simulation Argument is that we are most likely living in a computer simulation. Considering the previous discussion on the existence of God, we can now see what the problem is. If we are living in a computer simulation, then we don’t actually exist ourselves!
Those sentient beings running these simulations are in a reality “one level up” from ours. But nothing precludes that they themselves are simulated. We can see that there must be a finite number of levels in this simulation, and that if we go enough levels “up” then we must arrive, after a finite number of steps, at the ultimate reality in which these simulations really run in real computers. The sentient beings in this ultimate reality aren’t gods; they are just sentient beings like we are. Their culture may be more advanced, but further than that, they may have most of the same characteristics as we.
We can now see that there wasn’t a single “god” responsible for the creation of “our universe”. It was simulated in a computer, and it took the effort of a large team of sentient beings to build and program that computer! But I have to admit, it begs the question how that ultimate reality came into being. I have no answer to that. But it must be clear that the ultimate reality in which the computers (really) exist that run the simulation of our universe can NOT give an argument for the existence of a god or gods or God. We do not have to assume that the ultimate reality follows the same laws of physics as our reality, although it seems to be likely from our perspective.
Note that if we are living in a computer simulation, then it will be very hard for us to obtain evidence for that. On the other hand, if we ever create computers that can run simulations of our universe, it will be even more likely for us to be already in a simulation than not! This is one consequence of the simulation argument, to which I referred earlier.
Also, there is perhaps some evidence that our reality is simulated, since there is a minimum Planck length, suggesting that the universe is discrete, and a corresponding Planck time, which is the time a photon needs to traverse the Planck length (1.6 x 10^-35 m), it is approx. 5.4 x 10^-44 sec. It suggests that time and space are discrete. Nevertheless, it means that this simulation is pretty darn precise! Because if the universe is 13.8 billion years old, it is only 4.4 x 10^17 seconds.The Planck time is so very small that it boggles the mind; it is the smallest unit of time that makes sense. Perhaps the Planck time is so small to be able to ignore any inaccuracies on our level of the simulation (human bodies, atoms), that come from inaccuracies of the simulation on that smallest scale of detail. Consider the strange attractors (such as the Lorenz attractor, see here), that cause two initial situations to diverge into very different patterns if one waits long enough. The Planck length seems to be so small as to ensure that there is only one possible simulation that started the way our universe did (handy for future reference and constructability).
Background
I am the author of “The End of Religion, The Beginning of Self. Using the Hebrew Alphabet as Secret Wisdom Key.” You can sign up for a free copy here.
In my upcoming book “The Ma-ZEN-atician and the Paradoxes of Religion” (working title), I will address some of the issues presented in this essay, perhaps in more detail. I will also outline some of my own past religious experiences and how I am still dealing with the repercussions of admitting that my past beliefs were not backed up by evidence.
Enjoy your day,
Bruno Curfs.

*

*

*

*

July 5, 2016   —

*

Theodicy or anti-theodicy, or neither!

Aloha Curtis,
You correct me and claim you asked for the my position on theodicy vs. anti-theodicy. But I’m sure you said theism vs. anti-theism. Of course I know that we have discussed the theodicy issue before. You posted my initial reaction to theodicy a while back, stemming from March 9, 2014. It turns out it has some of the same themes as the current post.
Anyway, I thought that the question as I understood it was interesting enough, and I remember that I never heard of the term anti-theistic. But it does exist. If it hadn’t (if I hadn’t found it in the dictionary) I would have tried to get back to you to clarify your question before I wrote my response. I realize that the more common term opposite to theism, of course, is atheism rather than anti-theism, but at the time I did not question your intention. I intended to look into it with an open mind. I can certainly understand such a slip of the tongue. I wouldn’t put it past myself to use the wrong term now and then unawares of the different meaning in the context at hand . . . I hope you liked my essay nevertheless. And thanks for publishing it, despite the fact you thought I misunderstood you (and you could have dismissed the subject to be less irrelevant.)
You did use another term related to the triangle “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” and associated it with a name I do not remember. Do you remember which they are?
Atheism
Currently I have some sympathy for the position of atheists, although I do not agree with them. As I have indicated, if there is not a workable definition of God, then the term atheism (the belief that there is no god or God), skips the definition phase as much as the theism (the belief that there is a god) position. I hold the position that you can not believe in the absence of God if you can’t define the term God. It is perfectly OK to believe in the absence of unicorns, even though everybody knows what a unicorn is! That means that the definition of unicorn is clear to everybody. Of course, a good definition does not imply existence, but the absence of a good definition of God precludes that the sentences “God exists” and “God does not exist” have any meaning at all! That’s the basic problem I see.
As a result, I am nor a theist, nor an atheist. Pretty much as outlined in the current post.
My sympathy for the atheist position stems from the following: if we can not define God, but we can define at least some of God’s attributes, we would still be in business. However, if we can show that an attribute of God is self-contradictory, then there can not be a God with that attribute. In that case, the atheist says, there is no God.
However, an atheist with this position fails to see that just because a definition is self-contradictory or absent, it doesn’t mean that that for which a definition is still forthcoming (God) doesn’t exist. It is the lack of a definition that is at the core of the problem. Without it, the term God simply has no meaning. If we are faced with the lack of a (consistent) definition, then we know that there doesn’t exist that which the definition purports exists. But that which does not exist in such a case, can hardly be called God. So, we are still back to square 1.
Examples of the self-contradictory attributes of God include: omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, omni-benevolence. Again, we have to define these terms unequivocally before we can decide that they are self-contradictory.
 
Example. Omnipotence. 
  • If omnipotence means anything different than “being able to do anything”, it can hardly be called omnipotence, wouldn’t you say? Some definitions state the attribute in relation to God, as that God is able to anything God wants to do, e.g., to exclude the illogical. But this adds a problem as well, because if God doesn’t want to do certain things (including possible things), how do we know he isable to do them? For all practical purposes, God is then not able to do those things God does not want to do, because God will never do them! (Another god might be able to do them and indeed do them. Then, which of the two gods is really “omnipotent”? And if we are not aware of that other god, we may think that God did it and we can never know what God wants in the first place. Is God not able to stop that other god? Then God is not omnipotent. But if God does not want to stop that other god, but could, then God must really want what the other god does; but why did God not do it himself then? And who created that other god? Who created God? If God could not create God, is God omnipotent? If other omnipotent gods exist, and they created themselves, God could not prevent them from being created! So, God is not omnipotent. In fact, then, no gods can be omnipotent.)
  • However, as we have seen, if we conflate the definition of omnipotent with a lack of definition of God, we end up saying nothing. The term omnipotent can not involve the will of a being that we haven’t been able to define. OK, so let’s say it means being able to do anything without further ado, OR anything that is possible. What if there are things that can not be done, simply because they are contradictory? For instance, does omnipotence include the ability to abdicate one’s omnipotence for a while? (In Christian Theology, since Jesus is considered God, but not omnipotent, it is seen as evidence of God’s ability to abdicate omnipotence. But God did not abdicate his omnipotence, as God apparently still existed independently of Jesus (as Jesus prayed to God). Why would God pray to God? OK, because Jesus was not omnipotent, and God is. Could God have made Jesus omnipotent? If not, God is not omnipotent. If it’s possible for a human being to be omnipotent, then if God doesn’t want it, God is not able to make us omnipotent for all practical purposes, and is therefore not omnipotent. Lending us omnipotence could be harmful for God, because some people might want to get rid of God. Just saying. If so, and God is not able to get rid of himself, God is not omnipotent. Perhaps this is the reason for the deep rooted belief in any culture that suicide is a sin? If people can get rid of themselves, but God can’t, does that mean that people can do some things that God can’t? How does that make God omnipotent?)
  • If indeed it is possible to (truly) abdicate from omnipotence, then implicitly it means that there are things that omnipotence is not able to do during the period of abdication (and therefore is not omnipotence)! If, on the other hand, omnipotence does not include the ability to abdicate omnipotence because it is impossible, then we feel cheated by our definition of omnipotence for its condition to include only possible things. Yet, we feel that omnipotence is lacking in some way! If we drop the condition for the possible, then of course, omnipotence can never do the impossible and is then also not omnipotence. (In the Superman saga, Superman once wanted to be “simply human” and abdicated his powers for a while. Even though Superman was not omnipotent, the abdication of his abilities could only once be restored. After his powers were restored, he could not again abdicate them! We could say he wasn’t able NOT to be Superman.)
All in all, I have shown to the best of my ability that omnipotence is a contradictory concept, and if God exists, omnipotence can’t be one of God’s attributes.
Similar intriguing arguments for the other attributes of God can be given, and it boils down to a big zero of clarity about God’s existence or God’s attributes. The failure to come up with consistent definitions is my biggest obstacle to be theist OR atheist (OR anti-theist) at this point.
I wonder, in this context, whether I even understand the word theist, or how theists can use that term for themselves without doubting their theistic beliefs! And if they doubt their own beliefs, they fail to be theists after all . . . (as happened to me).
Mahalo,
Bruno.
*
*
*
*
*
*

Triangulation

*

*

*

Curtis, you did use another term related to the triangle “thesis, antithesis, synthesis” and associated it with a name I do not remember. Do you remember which they are?      —   Bruno  (see  above)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

*

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*
*

*

Johann Gottlieb Fichte – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Triangulation (politics) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

*

*

*

Interviews – Dick Morris | The Clinton Years | FRONTLINE | PBS

You develop a theory that comes to be known as “triangulation” after the ’94 elections. And just very briefly, what was your thinking?

*

Well, we were locked into a very sterile conflict between the left agenda and the right agenda. And it was like going into a restaurant and not being able to order a la carte. If you wanted to have pro choice, you had to vote for the Democrats and accept high taxes. If you wanted to have pro life, you had to also accept government–less environment. There was a coupling here on both sides that was inappropriate.

And I felt that what you should do is really take the best from each party’s agenda, and come to a solution somewhere above the positions of each party. So from the left, take the idea that we need day care and food supplements for people on welfare. From the right, take the idea that they have to work for a living, and that there are time limits. But discard the nonsense of the left, which is that there shouldn’t be work requirements; and the nonsense of the right, which is you should punish single mothers. Get rid of the garbage of each position, that the people didn’t believe in; take the best from each position; and move up to a third way. And that became a triangle, which was triangulation.

For those of your viewers who are into philosophy, it really is Hegelian in concept: the idea of a thesis, an antithesis, and a synthesis. And when we originally discussed it, we did so in terms of Hegel, which we had studied at Oxford. But in American politics, we spoke of triangulation.

*

*

*

*

*

*

https://curtisnarimatsu.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/music-a-bridge-from-abandonment-and-brokenness-to-wholeness-and-freedom/

*

http://www.peteenns.com/worshiping-god-because-he-is-god-some-thoughts-on-job-by-choon-leong-seow/
*

What are one or two common misunderstandings of the book of Job and how do you handle them differently?

*
The book is commonly thought to be about why people suffer, and that it is a theodicy (evil/suffering in the presence of an omnipotent God). If it is either of these, it is not very successful.

*

In the end there is no answer to the question of why there is innocent suffering.

*

And the book is as much antitheodic (decrying the lack of divine justice) as it is theodicy (defending divine justice).

The liberation theologian Gustavo Gutierrez is right that it is not about these issues. Rather, to Gutierrez, it is about “God talk”—how we talk about God in the face of inexplicable human suffering. Yet the book is more than “God talk.” It is “God thought”—human interiority, what is in the human heart and unexpressed when we face a God who contradicts all our expectations.

The book asks, in effect, if human beings worship God because God is good (what we expect and demand God to be), or if we worship God because God is God—utterly sovereign, utterly free.

*
The suffering Job in drawing above

*

*

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to In praise of Hilo Hawai’i unsung hero Bruno Curfs

  1. Bruno says:

    My points above raise questions. Don’t hesitate to ask. I love questions, because they come with answers. The points were not edited, so they have imprecisions, e.g. I use the word “facts” where I mean “factors.” If somebody likes me to be more precise, please let me know.

    On the same day the article above was published, somebody asked me “Where do you find yourself in the Bible?” She was expecting me to mention a verse particularly describing me, inspiring me or transforming me. First, I replied that that is a good question that I need to think about. Then I answered: “I found myself in the letters of the Hebrew Alphabet.” She said: “I did not mean that, I meant in which verse of the Bible do you find yourself.” I answered: “My answer is my testimony.” I explained that the translations of the Hebrew text (of the Old Testament) into English is like covering a city with a black cloth veil. As a result you can see vague contours of shapes, but all colors, all buildings, their doors and windows, all people, their activities, all roads, all vehicles and everything specific, animate and inanimate, becomes invisible. One can not observe what is going on under the veil. Reading the text in Hebrew, with an understanding of the Hebrew Letters, is like taking away the black cloth veil, finding that each word is a living creature with uncountably many possible interpretations. No translation in any other language can do justice to what the Hebrew means.

    If you take the Bible as your road map in life, you need to realize that it is not a drawn map, it is a written account of the map. And the translation of the description is far from accurate. If you base decisions on this imperfect translation, can you fathom the disasters that can come from following it blindly? What guarantee do you have that the description is an accurate description when you are at a fork in the road? Some forks have been discarded in the translations, others have been added. You would be at a loss to know whether you are at the same fork that you think you are at. I am concerned about the well-being of those who follow these translated descriptions blindly. Furthermore, even if you had a good view at the map itself (by looking at the Hebrew), you need to realize that the map is not the territory. The territory is life, your life. You can choose to go where roads are and in absence of a real map resort to descriptions of the road OR you can choose to go where no description or map will be able to guide you, because there is no description or map of the area. This territory is the truth about you. Going there alone is the only way to find out what is there.

    The story of the farmer can be found here http://www.myrkothum.com/the-10-very-best-zen-stories/ as story 6.titled “Maybe” (in another version, “Maybe so, maybe not”).

    Story 9 is another this collection called “right and wrong” (related to “good and evil”). In this story, do you at first agree with the pupils and afterwards with master Bankei? Then you should be aware that in a real event, you are prone to make a similar decision as the pupils. And ask yourself, is there really a difference between the students judging and the one student they judge?

    My intention is to share insights and clarity. Whether I fail or succeed does not change my intention.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s