When I was twelve I heard a voice coming out of nowhere which said, ‘the telephone is going to ring. Your grandfather is dead.' About a minute later this happened. When I was fifteen I witnessed the appearance of unusual craft (popularly referred to as UFOs, although I am hoping to change people's perception of these objects so that, at least for those who can accept my testimony, they will become ‘IFOs'). This took place at Jasper Park, Alberta, Canada. The object was stationary, and then moved into a small cloud, which then dissolved and there was nothing there. (This event was the inspiration for the graphic on the main index page, and is also captured in a small animation file on the story page.) These objects then appeared for several months over my hometown of Melville, Saskatchewan, and periodically at different times and places ever since. They were the subject of much talk at the time, were witnessed by police officers, sometimes for as long as two hours, and were covered on television and in newspaper articles. (You will find links to scanned jpeg images of these newspaper articles on the story page, as well as links to testimony from these police officers, among other things.) These objects continue to appear to this very day, the latest occurrence being only days ago (as I am writing this at the beginning of September, 2000).

      The first thing that you can expect to find at this site is my personal testimony and witness to what I have seen, heard and experienced. You can read about this in more detail on the page where I have posted my story. Included on this page are small animations (my attempt at sharing a ‘virtual experience' with others). My experience was not simply a personal experience, but rather was something that was experienced by many others, and for this reason I have included links to newspaper articles relevant to the testimony that I deliver. I am also actively seeking personal testimony from others regarding the events I describe, and you will find links on this subject on both the personal testimony page and on the feedback page. Over the years I have witnessed these craft in the presence of many people and I am hoping, since those who live above us have been so loyal and always remain with me, that I can build up a core of what I am going to refer to as ‘disciples'.

      My experience is a religious experience. My reasons for presenting my testimony in this way are presented on my testimony page. God exists I prefer to use the term ‘Yahweh,' which is a personal term, a name, rather than the impersonal term ‘God.' As well, I feel that 'Yahweh' is an accurate term to use because Yahweh describes a certain conception of God that I have found to be accurate over twenty five years of experience (I have seen the good side of Yahweh, and the bad tempered angry side of Yahweh, and so, for me, 'Yahweh' is an accurate term to describe the One people would normally refer to as God-but this term is to neutral and to wide open for interpretation to suit my experience, so Yahweh it is.)

      Normally the term ‘Yahweh' (a personal name) is translated with the impersonal term ‘YAHWEH' in most Bibles, which is something I consider unfortunate. The (plural) term ‘Elohim' (which means ‘the gods') is usually translated ‘God.' Similarly I never use the term ‘Jesus Christ', and over the years have become accustomed to the English translation, ‘Joshua' (or Joshua Messiah, which is the English translation of the Greek term ‘Jesus Christ.') I also believe that using the term ‘Joshua' helps to emphasize the fact that I do not take my stand on classical Christian traditions, nor am I a follower or advocate of traditional Christian theology. My use of these terms might take some getting used to on the part of readers, but seem perfectly natural to me. I find that I cannot explain my religious experience without relating substantial portions of my personal testimony, so I direct readers to my testimony page for further information.

      I am an ‘evangelist' of sorts, and this drive to share my experience is the principle motivating factors in my creation of this site. An ancient saying describes very well how I feel. "The people who lived in darkness have seen a great light. On those who lived in a land as dark as death, a light has dawned. You have increased their joy." If you experienced what I experienced, you would understand what I mean when I say that this knowledge has, for the last twenty five years, often been a source of extreme pain for me. On the one hand I feel a great deal of sympathy for people, because it seems to me that it really is true that most people do not know who they are, they don't know where they are, they do not know much about the nature of the universe in which they find themselves living, and as peculiar as this might sound to people who have spent their entire lives living in a place like this one, the way people view the world and the beliefs that most people take for granted really are a terrible lie, a destructive and damaging falsehood. (If it was true that we are alone in this universe then accepting this fact would demonstrate ‘maturity' but since we are not alone this belief is needlessly harmful and destructive.) While this causes me grief, on the other hand, it is an understatement to say that it is almost impossible to get through to people or get them to understand the meaning of what I am trying to share with them, so in that sense, people really are their own worst enemies. It seems to me that we live in two separate worlds, and trying to bridge the gulf is the challenge that I face. This site is my attempt to reach those who I can reach, share my testimony with those who are able to hear it, and receive it, and thus share the free gifts I have received. It is a big world, and a big Internet, so I encourage myself with the hope that somewhere at sometime I will actually be able to achieve the goal I am setting out to achieve.

      It might be good to pause for a moment and define what I mean by the term ‘disciple'. To me a disciple is a witness to Yahweh, a witness to Joshua in the midst of a world in which people live lives separated from God and are (so it would seem) so conditioned by their experience of this separation, that it is almost impossible for them to believe that God is not far away (if any God even exists for most people). However, I have shared the experiences I have had with others (I am referring to sharing the literal experience with others, not simply the testimony) and I have found that seeing is not necessarily believing, and believing is not the same as trusting. Faith is very rare commodity, and I have come to the conclusion that most people carry around a deep and abiding resentment against the very notion of God, the end result of the pain and suffering of life on this godless planet, of aging, of sickness, of death. For this reason people are often hostile to even the very idea of God. Instead of thinking to themselves, ‘I wish there was a God' I often find people who are hostile to the very idea, as though to say, ‘well I certainly hope there is no God.' Now that there is no God is certainly the worst possible scenario for any person, for it means that you will come, you will quickly wither and fade away (you aren't young for very long in this place) and then the years will speed by and you will die and everything you were, everything you ever will be will vanish forever with you. How such a thing could possibly be considered preferable is a concept that eludes me. The only possible explanation for the decided preference some people display for godlessness is a deep and abiding emotional response of resentment and unreconciled hurt and resultant hostility.

      People often level charges against God, and have a lot of hard, hard things to say about God, and what they are saying are expressions of their own anger at the shortness (and often the brutality) of human existence. Yet at the same time people refuse to acknowledge ‘sin' which would transfer responsibility for the state of the world onto humanity, rather than onto God. Such an outlook seems to be completely devoid of faith to me (not to mention arrogantly presumptuous, a mere expression of human anger and unresolved humiliation and pain). God is in the wrong and we are in the right, so then let God appear in court and answer the charges of a prosecuting humanity. The fact that, as most people will acknowledge, this is a godless world where very little of God's presence in any real display of power is seen, demonstrates that the problems of this world are the problems of humanity.

      The notion of ‘sin' is not in vogue today, and this idea that humanity is innocent of offense only contributes to feelings of hostility and anger towards God, so I ask you to consider the following simple example. We live in a world where 80 per cent of all the food produced is used to feed livestock. 10 per cent is actually consumed by human beings. 10 per cent is used in industrial processes. (These statistics are readily available on the USDA site and from the United Nations Food and Agriculture site. This is no closely guarded secret but rather a simple fact of life). If people starve to death here, they do not starve to death because we lack resources, or the world is over populated, they starve to death because we, as humanity, often pursue ends that are self serving. We remain locked into systems which become expressions of sin (and if there is nothing ‘sinful' or wrong about the above described scenario, then truly nothing is wrong.) We do not have in place systems that put a premium on human life on this planet, and so humanity suffers and then, in a strange twist, charges are leveled against God. God can only be held responsible for our decisions, our systems, and our actions in that God allows us to follow a destructive course, but the course is ours alone, for, as people say, ‘Where is God'? This is not a godly planet, but rather an unbelieving and godless place, so godless in fact that most people consider faith to be far fetched, pie in the sky type thinking, so conditioned have people become by their experience of the hardheartedness of humanity. This hardening is necessary in order to live in such a hard place and this hardening makes this place hard, so the process is circular. These problems are only God's problems in that this is God's universe. As for the systems, the hardening, and the hardness that results causing more hardening, these are human problems, and during our short stay in this place, these are the things we should be learning.

      I mention all this to help describe what I mean by a ‘disciple'. A disciple is going to confront any feelings of resentment or anger against God and begin the process of reconciliation and healing. This requires taking some responsibility. A disciple is not going to simply hurl charges against God, but is ready to assume a share of responsibility for the actions of the human race. A disciple will be a literal witness to Yahweh and Joshua. A disciple will learn to trust and have faith. As I have discovered again and again (as astonishing as this might sound to people) while perhaps seeing might be believing in the literal sense, seeing is not the same as having faith. Simply seeing does not bring reconciliation or spiritual maturity or understanding. Simply seeing does not bring conviction and consequent repentance and change.

      Almost everyone I have (literally) shared this experience with have not become ‘disciples'. A disciple is someone who understands that the truth must be shared (does anyone hide a lamp under a basket?) A disciple understands the meaning of the term ‘God' (can anyone instruct God on any matter? Who is fit to advise or criticize God? Common sense should tell a person that given the choice of listening to a small and insignificant creature who only understands a small fraction of the truth about the universe we live in instead of listening to a being who obviously understands everything, well who would you listen to under those circumstances? This is faith actually put into practice, not to mention simple common sense, the type of common sense approach that can only be practiced if the underlying emotional issues are acknowledged and dealt with, and reconciliation is pursued. I use the term common sense in this context because common sense is exactly what is required here, and all this requires is some sensible humility and some reasonable knowledge of the situation from God's point of view to be able to grasp the concept).

      I mention these things to point out that I have an agenda, which might as well be clearly spelled out from the start. My first agenda is to shine a light into a dark place, both for the benefit of anyone who can receive my testimony, and for my own benefit, because as I mentioned this experience has been extremely painful for me to endure. Somewhere there is someone who can receive and for the benefit of those who are seeking and searching, I offer my experience and my testimony. (And if you can receive then share, or, as I like to put it, raise someone from the dead today. Do the right thing. I emphasize these things to point out that being a disciple in this place can be hard, disappointing, and even downright painful, and demands endurance, but still, just living in a land of death, like this place, the dark creation of a humanity in separation from God, must be a lot harder, demands even more endurance, or, at the very best, it demands a hardened heart that has become immune to the suffering of humanity, the kind of hardened heart that can turn a deaf ear to the truth, and find a way to live here without suffering, or without feeling much of anything it would seem, which is the price people pay for employing hardening as a survival mechanism.)

      I have a second agenda, the fulfillment of which takes up most of the space on this site at the present time. I stand in the most radical tradition of the Jewish prophets and of the early church. With religious history having become so notorious as a force for conservative reaction in society, it might come as a shock to most people to find out that such a radical tradition even exists. You will find this radicalism extolled and exhibited and explained again and again on this site. You can call this practice of mine an attempt to achieve some balance in the discussion. (And, besides, this radical tradition is my tradition, for as I will attempt to demonstrate, it best encapsulates the truth about the Bible-reaction and conservatism rely on false beliefs about the infallibility and inerrancy of scripture, while the radical tradition of the Bible tells the truth about the Bible. This distinction alone should be enough to convince anyone that the choice between these two points of view is more than simply a matter of personal taste. The very concept of truth itself is involved here, as well as fundamental principles of morality and human dignity. Is ‘Holy War' moral simply because it is advocated on the pages of the Bible, as just one example of what I mean.)

      My goal in critiquing the Bible and putting the radicalism of Biblical tradition on display is to set people free from rigid orthodoxy and slavery to dogma and creed, for the Bible is found to champion gross immorality (these were political-religious polemics in their original time) and these harmful and immoral concepts are harmful to human well being. It is necessary to bring these matters to light in order to question the Bible as the simple rule of faith. Books were made for people, and it is not the case that people were created for the sole purpose of serving books. So much needs to be said here that it is difficult to summarize my position briefly and do it justice, and since a good deal of this site is devoted to my agenda of setting people free from slavery to certain destructive ancient ideologies, I direct interested readers to the Bible pages. (The truth will set you free! This is certainly the case in regards to the Bible itself.) The Bible is composed of writings that were birthed from human experience, and the Bible actually records on its pages a collection of human traditions that span the spectrum from the harshest forms of intolerant religious tyranny to radicalism and concern for human liberty and dignity. I present my evidence and you can decide the matter for yourself, provided that you are willing to keep an open mind.

      My personal faith can be summarized in the following simple statement. ‘The righteous will live by faith.' The righteous will not live by traditions, the righteous will not live by dogma, the righteous will not live by books. The righteous will live by faith. When I say this I am not suggesting that ‘the righteous will live by believing' or ‘the righteous will believe in God and be saved.' These are conventional interpretations that are commonly touted, but fail to do any real justice to the idea of faith. To have faith means to be fearless, to be trusting, to rely on completely and trust completely, which, if you understand that God is very great and humans very small, is the sensible, mature, not to mention simple common sense approach (if indeed you are capable of having such faith. After all, the unrighteous can be ruined by lack of faith. If you harbor dark brooding suspicions about the motives of God, if you believe that God means harm, or that God is dangerous and unpredictable and cannot be trusted, then faith will be impossible. I direct your attention to infants and little kittens and pups to suggest that living by faith is the more reasonable choice in this universe, based on the evidence which the universe itself presents as to the gentle nature of God. On the other hand, people age, they decay and wither, they die, and so a simple optimistic viewpoint fails to adequately explain reality as humanity experiences it on this planet. God is gentle, this has been my experience, when God is not provoked. God is hard in response to hardness, and human freedom, while I extol it, also allows us the freedom to be free from God, and in this case we are certainly free to reap what we sow-and then complain bitterly about the harvest later.)

      If the righteous will live by faith then it follows that righteous will certainly not live by some of the traditions that are recorded on the pages of the Bible. God as WAR LORD. God as the instigator of mass murders, holy war and genocide. God as vindictive, dogmatic, ritualistic, and overbearing, demanding, even requiring people to believe falsehoods and foolish nonsense as the price for ‘salvation', salvation in this sense being salvation from the extreme ruthless cruelty of God. Salvation in this scenario is a kind of guessing game, where the penalty for making a wrong guess is to hideous to even consider. This is not faith, and the righteous will certainly not live this way. It is ironic that the radical tradition of the Bible teaches people to reject slavery to human tradition and to reject faithless scripture if they want to achieve freedom from religious slavery, freedom from the slavery of faithless unbelief, and achieve faith and reconciliation with God and find the healing that only knowledge of God can bring (as opposed to the damage that godlessness, hopelessness, hardening of heart, and the endless circular cycle of sin bring). These are the things we are learning during our brief stay in this place, and a hard, hard lesson to learn all this truly is, but it is a hard, hard place and the human heart has hardened as a result, so in this case, the instruction we receive is in keeping with the lessons we must learn. It is part of process of reconciliation with God that we learn to accept the judgments of God with some maturity (rather than becoming insolent, self justifying, accusatory, and rebellious as we vent the emotional pain of old wounds - this conduct shows a lack of common sense and certainly displays no faith in the integrity of God. If the righteous will live by faith, this certainly isn't the way to do it.) The fruits of sin and self concern are truly bitter and the wages of faithlessness are the kind of harmful blackness (the dark night of the soul) which humanity experiences in this place.

      My experience has never been one of attempting to build my faith upon the foundation of a book. I came to faith apart from manuscripts, I did not come to believe because I read about the experience of someone else, and then decided to believe. For this reason the Bible has always played a secondary role in my religious life, and the ‘faith of the book' type of approach to religion has been somewhat of an enigma to me.

      However because the Bible provides the lexicon for communicating with churches it becomes important to me to understand the Bible in an attempt to understand the experience of churches. This is not impossible for me to do. The Bible (or rather parts of it) have also woven themselves into my own religious experience, as I notice parallels between my lived experience and the recorded experiences of those who lived in times long past. If the experience of authors whose writings are found on the pages of the Bible was an authentic experience of God, then this is about what one would expect.

      Even a cursory examination of the Bible should be enough to convince anyone that the Bible actually preserves a wide spectrum of opinion and the ideological positions of its authors span the spectrum from extreme conservatism (even to the point of being reactionary) to radicalism; it spans the spectrum from extreme ‘right wing' ideology to advocating ‘communism'. The Bible does not present a single point of view (the consistent viewpoint of God) but rather is a smorgasbord of ideology and theology, a diverse and mixed bag of doctrine and even contains inconsistent and contradictory presentations of what purports to be history (on examination ‘history' in the Bible proves to be polemic, something I will demonstrate on this site). As such the Bible reveals itself to be a record of human experience, human tradition, and human opinions about the nature of God and reality. One of my first purposes in constructing the Bible pages on this site is to demonstrate conclusively that the preceding statements are true. It is a matter of fact, not opinion, and can be proven to the satisfaction of anyone who maintains an open mind on the matter, simply by examining the Biblical text.

      After having established that the Bible is a record of varying human experiences and the differing and competing traditions that were born from these experiences, I am then left to wonder just what place the Bible has a rule of faith, and this question is not one that can be simply answered. I continue to struggle to come up with a solution. Personally I am not convinced that finding such a solution is really necessary for the righteous will live by faith and this describes a simple relationship of trust. The Bible was never at the center of my faith, and as such coming up with solutions to the problems it presents is not my very top priority. I will not rise or fall with the rising and falling of the Bible. Faith can stand on its own merits, and in my experience is not dependant on the merits (or the lack of merits) of the Bible. At the same time I respect the experiences of many of the writers on its pages, and I find common ground with them, I value them, and so simply disposing of the Bible has never seemed like a viable option to me, for this would be devaluing the lived experience of another human being. As well, the experiences of others have not been my experience, and for many people their connection to faith has become deeply bound to the Bible, so much so that any critique of the Bible is emotionally interpreted as a critique of faith itself. This deeply emotional response best explains the aptly name process of ‘Biblical apologetics'. If the Bible was truly harmonious, then this would be accepted as a simple fact and there would be no controversy, and no need for apologetics. It is the fact that the Bible is unharmonious that makes ‘harmonization' of the Bible so necessary (for no one would need to bother trying to ‘harmonize' a book in which harmony already existed. The process of harmonization itself testifies that the Bible is not a harmonious unity.)

      The Bible is a record of human experience and is a compilation of various human traditions, some of which are, unfortunately, downright immoral and abhorrent, cruel and vicious and hostile to humanity and everything that it means to be human. The same ideology that the Bible recommends, it also condemns. The Bible is a compilation of opposing traditions and variant ideologies and a collection of human traditions. It reflects human struggles and is the product of human experiences.

      Consider the following simple examples. We know that the Jewish people were split into two nations for centuries, Israel in the north, Judah in the south. An examination of the Bible demonstrates that during this time of separation traditions developed in both countries, traditions that were then edited together in the final manuscript we now call the Bible when the Jewish nation was once again joined as one nation after the Babylonian exile. (This is an over simplified model, for within each nation were also found variant traditions, complicating the picture - this should be no surprise to anyone, for even today we have ‘liberal' Christians, ‘fundamentalist' Christians, ‘Reform' Judaism, ‘Conservative' Judaism, ‘Orthodox' Judaism, and the list goes on. The more things change, the more they stay the same.) It was this experience of separation and then reunion, and the development of isolated traditions which then became united during the editing process of the Bible that explains the contradictory nature of the Biblical manuscripts and the conflicting accounts of events and doctrine we find on its pages. These were human experiences and these experiences led to the development of human religious traditions. Some of these experiences touch on something universal in human nature, others are products of their time and culture. Some are meaningful to me and some I actually abhor (such as the linking of religion and politics in the dogma of ‘Holy War.')

      That this broad range of opinion and experience exists in the Bible is easily recognized by anyone who takes the time to investigate carefully, keeping an open mind. In the book of Genesis we are told that Joseph asked that his bones be taken away from Egypt and buried with those of his ancestors. According to Genesis, Abraham purchased the ancestral burial ground, and it was located near Mamre, in the south, which would correspond with the territory of Judah during the time of the divided Kingdoms, indicating a southern source for this particular tradition. According to the book of Joshua, the tomb of the patriarchs was located in Shechem, in the north, which coincidentally was the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel during the time of separation. Joseph, requested that he be buried in the ancestral burial grounds, and that he not be buried in Egypt, and we are told, Joseph was buried in Shechem, in the north, not Mamre in the south, thus suggesting an origin for the burial tradition of Joseph that originated in the north, not the south.

      The Gospels in the Church Testament also preserve variant traditions and represent different ideological viewpoints. For example in Matthew's gospel, we read in his ‘Sermon on the Mount', "how blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. How blessed are you when you hunger and thirst after righteousness, for you will be satisfied." Luke presents us with a ‘Sermon on the Plain' and Matthews terminology is changed in significant ways. According to Luke, "How blessed are the poor, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. How blessed are those who are hungry and thirsty, for they will be filled." Luke then adds words not found in Matthew's version. "But how terrible for those of you who are rich, for you have had all you are ever going to get." The parable of poor Lazarus, who went to heaven, and the rich man who ignored his sufferings and went to hell, is peculiar to the gospel of Luke. As well, according to Luke, in the book of Acts, the early churches were practicing communists. They all pooled their resources into communal farms and no one had personal possessions, but rather everything belonged to everyone. The concept of private property was abolished. Luke's gospel was written from the perspective of a community of Christians on the radical ‘left wing' and this explains the minor changes and adaptions made to earlier stories in the gospel of Luke, and it also explains the presence of parables and traditions (from the economic left) found only in Luke and Acts and nowhere else.

      Another distinctive feature of Luke's gospel is the attempted ‘harmonization' of every variant and every conflicting tradition found on the pages of the Bible. There were two traditions concerning the place of pilgrimage to visit the ancestral burial place (for political reasons, one corresponding to Israel in the north, and another corresponding to Judah in the south.) According to Luke:

"And Jacob went down into Egypt. And he died, himself and our fathers, and they were carried back to Shechem and laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a sum of silver from the sons of Hamor in Shechem." (Acts 7:15)

      The Bible contains multiple traditions and preserves variant versions of historical fact. In the book of Acts the author attempts to deal with these inconsistent passages through a strange process of harmonization that I call ‘taking half a loaf'. In Genesis the tomb was in Mamre but it was Jacob who purchased the tomb from Hamor long after the time that Abraham died. The author of acts took bits and pieces from Genesis and bits and pieces from the book of Joshua (the northern tradition) to spin together a very strange ‘harmonized' account that basically takes half a loaf from each conflicting tradition and glues them together to create a new loaf. This, I would suppose is one idea as to how one might deal with inconsistent and contradictory traditions, but it certainly isn't my approach.

      From this we can surmise that Luke put emphasis on unity, even among the disparate factions and traditions represented in the early churches and in Judaism, and this ‘half a loaf from here, half a loaf from there' approach was an attempt to reach a compromise that would bring unity among the disparate factions in the movement. It was done deliberately, and I can only assume that this convergence, this ‘half a loaf approach' was intended to serve some purpose. (This peculiar style of harmonization infuses the entire gospel of Luke and pervades the book of Acts. Thus we are certainly not reading ‘history' here, because true history never consists of deliberately taking a half a loaf from here or there, but is intent on finding literal truth.) This was the experience of the community that Luke represented, and these were their responses and their proposed solutions. They may not be mine, and it is here that I find myself struggling with the Bible as a rule of faith. In just what way do I encounter the traditions recorded on the pages of the Bible.

      Luke was a ‘communist' from the far left but it was one of the peculiarities of his character that he was also ‘a harmonizer' which I assume was his way of being ‘a peacemaker'. Luke put a premium on unity, even if to achieve unity one had to invent fictions and reach a compromise whereby everyone would be left with half a loaf. Mark, on the other hand, wrote the gospel of Joshua as a rebel against tradition and a religious radical who made no compromises. (Mark's gospel is my favorite.) Luke imposes his half a loaf methodology on the gospel of Mark, as well, as I will demonstrate, silencing Mark, nullifying Mark, all for the sake of enforced compromise, for the sake of Luke's own personal preference for a ‘middle of the road approach' to doctrine and religious practice (while at the same time, when it came to left wing politics, Luke showed no willingness to compromise, as is demonstrated by the story of the ‘purge of the Kulak' in the gospel of Acts - a Kulak, then as now, being someone who refused to join the collective farm.) On this site I have posted a comparison of the three synoptic gospels (this is a work in progress as I am writing this in September, 2000). Consult the comparison of Mark chapter 7. Here Mark launches into an attack on religious traditions and the food laws. Notice how this parable appears in Matthew but has been purged from Luke's gospel. Luke allowed no criticism of religious traditions, and this is also demonstrated in Luke's purging of the radical traditions of the early church and the prophets in his book of Acts. Luke allows Mark's critique of the Sabbath but eliminates Mark's criticism of Joshua's family, in particular his mother. Similarly to much criticism of disciples is not allowed by Luke. (Compare Mark 10:35 to see that once again Luke purges this critical description of the disciples. As you can tell by reading the opening section of Mark 10 in the synoptic comparison, Luke also does not allow it to be suggested that the law of Moses could be critiqued.) And there are many other examples of similar things.

      Luke does not stop at nullifying Mark, altering Matthew. He tones down the earlier radical traditions of the church surrounding Joshua (while further radicalizing the church in economic ideology) and he also silences Paul and nullifies Paul. Paul, the radical, becomes a compliant traditionalist in Luke's gospel, in keeping with Luke's agenda of eliminating every trace of doctrinal radicalism in the early church, with the notable exception of radical communism. This would appear to be Luke's one ‘sacred cow' and while everyone had to give up their sacred cows, in Luke's version of the perfect church, Luke, as much as anyone else, had that ‘one sacred cow' that simply could not be compromised.

      While Luke was an economic radical, he was also politically extremely conservative, and promoted compliant submission to all forms of political authority (the doctrine of ‘the divine right of Kings' becoming an expression of this mode of thinking that developed as the church grew in power and influence, eventually becoming another form of political power itself). Throughout Luke's book of Acts the Roman authorities are portrayed as very favorable to the gospel, even eager to hear the gospel. It is not surprising then to find that Luke makes significant changes to the story of Herod which is found in Mark chapter 6 verse 14. In Luke's version the criticism of Herod is blunted, and in keeping with Luke's politically conservative presentation in Acts, Herod, like all the Roman rulers in Acts, is eager for the gospel, and actively ‘sought to meet Christ.' This novelty is unique to Luke. In Mark's gospel Herod and his men were actively plotting with the religious pharisees from the start to murder Joshua, something also not allowed by Luke - see chapter 3 verse 6 and compare- and not allowed by Matthew either, it turns out. In Matthew's version it was the pharisees who were the guilty parties, and in Luke's version it always ‘the mob.' In Luke's version of John the Baptist's sermon John condemns ‘the crowds' of common people, not the pharisees, and these are typical Lukan style politically conservative alterations. Luke was very insistent that people comply with every form of authority, whether religious or political.

      That Luke could be so economically radical, advocating what we would call radical communism and the communal farm, and yet remain so politically conservative seems remarkable, until you consider just how politically oppressive, even reactionary, modern communists were known to be ( which, along with Luke's dogma of ‘purging Kulaks,' shows that the more things change, the more they stay the same.)

      So where then does Luke fit into my own personal experience of faith? Shall I yield to Luke's demands and surrender my own personal beliefs for the communal welfare of all? Shall I become Luke, radically to the left economically, willing to harmonize inconsistent Bible accounts and giving my consent to whatever ‘official' version I am presented with, compliant to every form of religious and political authority, submissive and content to listen to Luke's purged version of Mark or Luke's watered down version of Paul? Personally, I prefer to read Mark's radicalism in Mark's own gospel and to read Paul in Paul's own words and don't see much of a point in surrendering objectivity in the service of Luke's communal doctrine of ‘harmonization.' I prefer to think for myself, and to keep on thinking, and where does this leave Luke, and where does this leave Luke's mythological communal unified church? (If I withdraw my consent, do I then become another one of Luke's ‘Kulaks'? Shall I be purged from the church? Shall I surrender my identity to the collective? Shall I became Luke? Shall Luke's thoughts become my thoughts?)

      I bring these matters to your attention just to demonstrate how problematic I find the Bible, and how much difficulty I have in finding a place for this book in my experience of faith. Another person's solutions may not be my solutions, but when they are then the Bible has a place. This suggests that in the end, a personal experience of faith is the determining factor, and the Bible is definitely secondary as everyone who approaches the book, without exception, determines how it will be used based on their own personal decisions. That is simply a fact, and all claims of ‘inerrant scripture' are merely an attempt to impose one of the Bible's many ideologies on others (while engaging in subterfuge and trying to pretend that the Bible only endorses a single ideological point of view. Diversity is regarded with hostility, and human beings thus must serve books, and this is the real goal of the doctrine of ‘inerrancy of scripture,' since no such inerrancy actually exists, which is easily demonstrated. This is a political statement, and a statement about the organization of human societies, and not a description of the Bible itself.)

      This site is evolving, but then HTML and the web is a dynamic publishing medium. As time goes by I plan to explore these issues in more detail, so interested readers are encouraged to return to this site periodically for more information. Right now you will find this site heavily tilted towards Biblical analysis, and comparatively short on reflection, and evangelism (which is important to me in my own way) and this is an imbalance I plan to correct as time goes by. That this site is so heavily weighted towards Biblical analysis is a reflection of how seriously I take this issue of setting people free from the rigid slavery to anything and everything that might happen to be found on the pages of the Bible. It was for freedom that Joshua and Yahweh set people free. As the early (radical) tradition of the church taught, refuse to submit again to a yoke of slavery. It is truly ironic then that the pervasive expression of religion in the church as it developed throughout history seems to consist of compelling people to submit to a yoke of slavery expressed in the form of Luke style selective appropriation of scripture (selective because the Bible is so contradictory in terms of dogma and ideology that when something is chosen, something opposite and opposing must be rejected, a point I will demonstrate again and again and again. The dogma of ‘inerrant scripture', ‘sola scripture' (which means, ‘only scripture') are only employed to attempt to force compliance to this cobbled together loaf of selected quotes and chosen dogma. It is a deliberate attempt to deprive people of their freedom to think and evaluate. If the righteous will live by faith then it follows that they will fall by this type of faithless submission to the yoke of slavery imposed upon them by human authority and human tradition. Because this issue is so important to me, you will presently find this site heavily weighted towards exposing the truth about the conflicts in the Bible, and this is an expression of my firmly held belief that people should never, ever be enslaved. They should think. They must make decisions. They must take personal responsibility. Religion as a form of bondage and slavery to systems, ideologues and dogma is loathsome to me, and it is this type of thinking that runs beneath the surface of my Bible pages, and is the point I am trying to illustrate.)

      If you find the material on this site interesting, please tell a friend, and check back periodically for updates. As I mentioned above, I am actively pursuing a course of sharing my experience (literally sharing my experience) with ‘disciples', who will both see for themselves and have useful faith, an ideal combination. News about how this project of mine is progressing will be posted on a ‘disciples' page, where I am also hoping to post relevant testimony from others about the truth of the testimony I bring regarding these unusual experiences. If you have faith, then share it. (Raise someone from the dead today. Do the right thing. And by all means, aim for faith and trust, not to mention simple common sense and humility-aim for these things in everything, because this ‘rebirth', this ‘rising from the dead', this ‘coming out of darkness and into light', this genuine faith and simple trust is the true meaning of ‘salvation' as far as this writer is concerned.)

      I welcome feedback, and indeed I hope to use feedback to expand and grow this site (making it more relevant and more mature as time goes by). A general email link is included at the bottom of the main index page of this site (some older email programs cannot handle the ‘?subject:' field I have included at the bottom of each page on this site, and those still using these clients might consider launching their emails from the main page for this reason, or manually entering my email address and filling in their own subject lines - my email address is ‘feedback@awitness.org'.) I have also included an interactive feedback page, which includes FIRETALK, a live telephone like voice communication system for the Internet. More information on Firetalk can be found by following the link to the feedback page on the main index page of this site.

      Firetalk also turns any website on the Internet into a communications link, if you are using Internet Explorer 4 or higher (the feature is not yet implemented for Netscape users). When you click the ‘Talk and Surf' button on the bottom left side of the interface and then surf to any website, you are automatically connected to any other Firetalk users who might be present at that site (if they are in ‘Talk and Surf' mode as well) and this is an easy way to start conference call type communications. (In addition to voice communication, Firetalk offers an ‘instant messenger' and a type in live chat interface, for those without microphones. Anyone with speakers can listen in on conversations.) I plan to post some type of schedule of times when I will be in ‘Talk and Surf' mode with explorer pointed to my site, and if you are interested in discussing the issues using voice communication or the type and chat feature, you can surf to my site using Explorer during these times. (Instructions for Netscape users or users of other browsers will be posted on the feedback section of this site - it seems to me that using ‘instant messenger' and requesting addition to the conversation using the conference call feature might be a viable option. As of September, 2000, when I am writing this, you can consider the implementation of Firetalk for those not using Explorer 4 or higher to be in ‘beta mode.')

      On the index pages of this site (the menus) you will have the option of downloading a text based version of the index. The graphical index pages I think are easier to navigate, but they make use of the Table command, and employ one command that is unique to HTML version 4 (which means newer browsers only). If you are using an older browser the tables on the index pages will probably not turn out properly and you might want to use the text based index pages instead.

      Now a word about the links to Bible quotes on this site. I have included a free version of the Bible for the purposes of illustrating the points I make on the Bible pages of this site. Anyone who wishes more information on a particular controversy I bring to your attention, can follow the quick links to the appropriate book and passage. (Some pages might still contain my older blue links that have not been manually converted to live links to the Bible version, a process that is very time consuming, and takes me away from productive work. In these cases you will have to manually surf to the passage in question, at least until I get all the links converted. I added this translation late in the process, and this makes these conversions to live links necessary.) This Bible version (the World English Bible project, based on the ASV of 1901) is just one translation of many, and I encourage everyone to never rely on a single translation (since every translation has bias, and often this bias becomes evident when you investigate the most controversial passages - sometimes, depending on the bias of the translators, these passages will be translated in such a way as to try to play down the controversy and conflicts in scripture - or in the case of the NIV translation, certain passages will even be completely nullified and translated OPPOSITE to what they actually say, a truly notorious practice, but it does show a lot of nerve, and does solve the problems of scripture contradictions rather handily, don't you think?) There may be problems with the translation I have posted here, but it is free, and not copyrighted, so I have included it here for illustration purposes only.

      On the feedback section of this site I am willing to publish email dialogues and also any ‘essay' type responses this site generates. I should say that I am not particularly enthused about getting embroiled in the type of ‘Biblical apologetics' debates a site of this type is bound to generate. My response is more than likely to center on the emotionalism of the person trying to ‘explain' away a certain contradictory doctrine or harmonize inconsistent history (using the Bible as crutch to support a weakened and shaky faith. Rather than get embroiled in dialogues over the harmonization of passages, I would probably respond to such debates by encouraging people to have faith, genuine faith, and stop being so emotionally threatened by the truth). As for the type of hostile responses of anger and outrage that I have received for my other efforts in the past, well once again I will regard such responses as the reactions of a person with particularly weak and shaky faith, and will once again focus on faith and the need for faith. Furthermore, when people are damaged by their experience in this place, and find themselves hardened, unable to love for example, they often panic and then become extremely dogmatic about some religious traditional approach to ‘salvation' and react with fury to the least critique. In this case, my response would be that people once again have some faith, repent, heal, and stop relying on dogma, face the truth about their own hardened condition, and thus begin with repentance, which is the first step towards any healing. After all, the fact that someone is sinful and hardened in a place like this is no surprise, and furthermore, we say that the righteous will live by faith and this means first that a person understands that God has handed people over to sin so that they might harden and learn to reject sin. To have faith then means that a person understands and believes that repentance results in healing and reconciliation over time. This is preferable to what I consider a fearful reaction of panic and a descent into futile dogmatism which will then be called ‘salvation' while the actual hardening and ruin is skillfully avoided and never addressed-a really untrusting and paranoid response of fear, in my estimation. (Angry and rigid dogmatism does not result in healing but only prolongs the process of sinful hardening, thus resulting in more reactionary dogmatism, more prolongation of hardening, and so forth, in a viciously circular process of destructive religious habituation.) I just mention this to point out that reacting to this site by ‘harmonizing' scripture or ‘apologizing' for scripture, is more than likely going to generate the types of responses I outline above. However things work out, the feedback pages will be where you will find whatever dialogue this site generates.

      This site is evolving and growing and if the issues I discuss here are of interest to you, I encourage you to return periodically and check the updates page (as I am writing this I currently have a number of projects in progress, but like everyone else, I have to work for a living and so on and it can take weeks of research and work to compose even a single page on this site.) Because HTML is a responsive medium a person can publish what they have and continually update their publication, which is what I plan to do. As well, with Firetalk it is possible to 'Cyber-Church' so you might consider returning to the site for that reason as well.

      You can click the link below to proceed to the next page, where I share more of my personal experience, and where you will find small animation files (some of the links may not be active yet, as these animation files are extremely time consuming to make and may not all be complete by the time you are reading this - it takes hundreds of frames to make even the short animations found on this site - and if there is an easier way to do this than making these animations frame by frame, I haven't found it. Check back later if they are all not working today.) You will also find the links to the archive of newspaper articles relevant to my testimony, any testimony I might receive from others who were present during the events I describe, updates on the disciple search, among other things.