What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

• The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator. Not only separate, but subordinate.

• We take it on faith that that is true.

• We can't be separated from Source.

-> Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't set up a proper "Rulership" if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a belief of a separation from Source, taken on faith and trust.

No possible chance of a spell there.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator. Not only separate, but subordinate.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't set up a proper "Rulership" if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a belief of a separation from Source, taken on faith and trust.

No possible chance of a spell there.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator. Not only separate, but subordinate.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't rule if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a belief of a separation from Source, taken on faith and trust.

No possible chance of a spell there.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't rule if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a belief of a separation from Source, taken on faith and trust.

No possible chance of a spell there.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't rule if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia through a forced separation, taken on faith and trust.

No possible chance of a spell there.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to set up a hierarchy (you can't rule if everyone is Divine), to control a society; a book that ended up controlling the whole World for almost two millennia.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible (OT) doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. Jesus seems to be talking about Source ("You are all the Children of God" AKA you are Split-Aparts from Source), but the OT doesn't say anything like that. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible Story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The Creator created the Heavens and the Earth. What did The Creator use to create those things? Source. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible (AKA that from which all things come, not just "the heavens and the earth" but all things). The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible (the OT specifically) teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible (AKA that from which all things come, not just "the heavens and the earth" but all things). The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" (as so named in the Bible) is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new and different God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

When it comes to the New Testament, it seems that there is a completely new God from the OT. It is explained as a "New Covenant," and "God Changing" even though God (according to the Bible) says "I am unchanging."

The important point here is, "The Creator" is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

The important point here is, "The Creator" is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator from the Bible story (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.

What if "The Word" is the greatest spell ever cast.

I'm not saying it is, but what if?

The Bible is literally circularly defined as "God's Word." It tells you itself that it was written by God (even though it is not controversial that it was written by many different people). While it is possible that it was written through actual divine guidance, it is also possible it was not. Either way, it is unprovable without relying on the circular argument that is the Bible. It must be taken on faith, on trust. It is faith and trust that are the primary tools of every spell.

Perhaps most important however, and the question that no one who believes that it is God's Word asks is, which God?

There are, in the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, numerous gods in the bible, explicitly stated as gods. The OT, written in an ancient form of Hebrew has numerous names for "god." The one that is supposed to represent "The Creator" is YHWH, which translates roughly as "He who must not be named." Interestingly, and I'm sure totally unrelated, there's a certain other fella who's name translates as such, and he didn't like Harry Potter (a "good wizard") very much.

The important point here is, "The Creator" is not necessarily the same as Source. It can be, but not necessarily. The Bible doesn't even say that the Creator is Source. We assume that the Creator is Source, but Source isn't even discussed at all in the Bible. The potential difference between the two (at least in how it is taught, though not necessarily) is that we can be separated from a Creator (He Who Must Not Be Named), but we can't be separated from Source.

The Bible teaches that we are a separate entity from The Creator.

We take it on faith that that is true.

We can't be separated from Source.

Ergo, The Creator of the Bible (He Who Must Not Be Named) is not Source.

I suggest that anyone who believes they are fundamentally a separate entity from Source is under the greatest spell ever cast, from a book designed to control a society, that ended up controlling the World.