“Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight” Part 2

 God went to them and sought them out because they had hid themselves.
Of course God knew exactly where they were but it’s imagery for the behaviour and motivations of shame.
And it’s silly behaviour. If God was angry or wanted you gone you’d know it. If you can tell me He’s displeased with me He can tell me Himself; He is God after all.
The death that man experienced then was the death of innocence and the birth of body-issues and insecurities which is another word for lack of trust.
So David is speaking from the depths of this death, under the ministry of condemnation that was going to be replaced by truth, grace and righteousness.

And it was here in this spiritual context that David spoke from.

This is a case of what statements in scripture have interpretative authority over what statements.

Here David’s statement concerning whom he had acted against are not to be taken in a canonical sense. There is this danger in reading the bible (it’s not actually that dangerous really; just if you look at the bible in this way you will never understand it) to take everything it says as literal truth.

David wasn’t there, just about to go into Bath-sheba and thinking “God I’m doing this against you!”

So not even David meant it in the plainest sense.

He meant it in the obvious sense. The sense the person who sent it to me thinks it has.
That he was, without even realizing it, actually sometimes whilst actively fighting it thwarting the plans of Elohim.
Which is clearly wrong.


“Against You, You only, have I sinned, And done this evil in Your sight” Part 1

First of all who is speaking in the Psalm? It is David.
David is a man and like all men his sentiments can be misleading. He had committed evil but not to God.
Bear in mind that the old testament was written before the truth became known. Or was even in the world.
The truth that was Jesus. His character, decisions, actions all displayed the Father’s attitude and if David had known Jesus he wouldn’t have felt guilty before God.
Jesus who came for the sinners. Who hung around with sluts and drunkards, who was friends with them AND tax-collectors!
Do you think they would have enjoyed his company, sought Him out if He’d always been condemning them?
No! Of course not.
There was one group that Jesus condemned vigorously though. The religious elite.
In fact I don’t recall ever reading an account in which Jesus got angry or even rebuked someone for being drunk or committing adultery.
Look at the samaritan woman, the way He used His knowledge of her adultery to befriend her and give her and her town the Good News.
“the law was given by ,Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” John 1:17
That means that the law was not the truth nor was the truth in it. The law’s purpose was to bring everybody into condemnation.

“Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory?

For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
Indeed, in this case, what once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it.
For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” 2 Corinthians 3: 7 – 11
That condemnation/guilt is what David is expressing here. But it is not the truth concerning God’s attitude towards David.
In fact it is the death that man died the day he ate of the tree gaining knowledge of his own inadequate, impotent and awkward self in the light of the fullness that is the Father.
Man experienced shame for the first time when they ate of the tree.

The fall of “The Fall” Part 2

Point 1: God’s intention in creating man is to fashion a creature, a visible and animate thing, to bear His name.


A creature to be as like the invisible Yahweh as it is possible for a visible thing to be.


Point 2: After eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil it says “and the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked” Genesis 3:7


Therefore prior to their act of disobedience they were blind and did not know but after it they saw and they knew!


Point 3: The serpent didn’t lie. Adam and Eve did not die on that day. At least not in the plainest sense of “day” and “dying”.


Also God Himself confirms the Serpent’s other declarations.



So the Snake said: “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes  shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” Genesis 3:5

And God said: “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”


So here we have it. Through our disobedience we became more like God which was God’s intention when he sat down to create man.


Truly all things are from God, through God and to God.


If you find this hard to accept and you still claim to hold the Bible as authoritative then I don’t really see how you will ever understand the Bible.


The hardest part of understanding scripture is the process of extricating it from its traditional and orthodox context.


The art is one of letting it say what it says. Not trying to wrestle it into saying what you want it to say.


The reason people find the book so enigmatic is that it refuses to bend to orthodoxy.


Statements like “All things are lawful” and “The law came to make sin increase” persist in obstinately saying the same liberating (truly liberating) thing.


So what stays and what goes?


“The Fall” falls of course.


The fall of “The Fall” Part 1

The good news is that God. Yahweh is in the process of creating man.


This can be seen in the correct interpretation of the supposed “Fall”.


I will be bold and say that I believe that man was more after the “fall” than he was before it and by more I mean more like God.


I can understand how this may shock some people because the traditional interpretation has been that man by being disobedient to God threw a spanner in His works.


The biblical account, even given the most literal reading of the text does not support this view.


In fact there are declarations God makes in Genesis that emphatically negate the interpretation designated “The Fall”.


“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” Genesis 1:26


So here we have God’s purpose in the creation of man. Man is to be the very image of God, the likeness of Him who is invisibly omnipotent.


The common interpretation that states that God’s work with man was finished with Adam, that it was from this finished and good state that man fell makes a fool of God!


It has him running around inanely after us constantly frustrated by our propensity to fuck shit up.


It makes God a failure… a sinner.


He set out to create a perfect creation but alas the very workmanship of His hands, by unaccountable means has risen up against Him. It has escaped His influence and now it runs amok whilst God helplessly stumbles after it trying desperately to save a few people from the punishment He Himself ordained.


Oh what a stupid God the mainstream God is! When brought into the clear light of day we see it for the flaccid impotent wreck of a concept that it is. It truly calls good bad and bitter sweet!


Anyway onwards with the exegesis:


After the events of “The Fall” God makes a declaration. Now this declaration is strange and makes no sense given the traditional view of “The Fall”.


“Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil” Genesis 3:22


Here we have Yahweh expressing emphasis concerning the fact that man had become more like God! This was no fall but an ascent!


What a foreshadowing of the law! The command “do not eat” wasn’t meant to be kept and neither is the law; both fulfil their function when we fail to keep them.


This is the bind that orthodoxy has concerning verses like this.


Here we have a statement from God Himself saying that the humans after eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil were more like God than they were before.


That is to say they were more complete, more finished than if they had remained obedient.

To be continued….


I lived my life
Trying to control
But really

it wasn’t easy;
I struggled and strived
denied myself my…
Self. Tried to be…
someone else.

I didn’t know it
but the truth is
that laziness
is the way to
the truest self

The easiest path
is the easiest path
you want to walk it.

people strive
to be what they are not.

They live a lie of strife
a life of effort
for no reward.
No-one claps
there is no applause
and if there was
so what?

what can I do with applause?

This need we have
to convince people
to proove ourselves right
is nothing but a
struggle to hand over
our freedom to
come under

See when you see
that seeing is a slow
slow journey to

All people walk it
few of them know it
and eventually
everyone knows this.

If only for the moment
when your grandma dies
and leaves a wound and
you know, you
really know that
what matters doesn’t matter
that these standards
don’t matter!

That mattering can
smatter itself
across the cistern.

That what “matters”
has placed a barrier
between me and you
between me and my family
because I fail
I try and I fail
To live up to the

I feel guilt
that I’m not
what they admire
what they respect.

And this guilt
with downcast eyes
and stammering lips
weaves a disguise
before our very eyes
that hides from us both
the ones we want to know.

Not secretly
but openly
a family is fed upon
by a guilt
that restrains the lips
from uttering trivialities
and we watch
as our loved ones
disappear into

But death comes
and it shows us
through the tears
in the heart of the wound
that nothing matters
like we think it matters.

That my flaws are
just excuses for conversation
just things to say, admit
not to hide and justify.

That by being me
without restraint
is the way into the bosom of my family
because we’re all of one stock,
one blood, one lineage
let us compare notes
not give advice.

Let us come together
find what we have in common
uncover the stutters
and how we have dealt with them;
The social dis-ease
the low self-esteem
that doesn’t go
however we seem.

For me personally
it surrounds woman.
I hanker
for the female

The feisty female
solicits my advances;
but I stay back
In my eyes
I’m despised.

How could a woman
with hips and thighs
ever want to stare into these eyes?

I know,
I know,
I could wear a disguise
of adidas
and live a life
of work and strife
but that would
lead to a ball and chain
not a woman who’s mine
and who wants me.

Not some fiction
I create just to get
a whiff of fanny.

The square circle AKA free-will

I believe that our decisions are manifestations of our character.


The beauty of this view is that it makes irrelevant the nature of this “Character”. It could be a spiritual – by which I mean non-physical – thing; a physical thing – say the organisation and activity of the brain; it could be a purely conditioned thing. It doesn’t matter.


Whatever it is.


This is because to establish blame there must be a person, self or character who is blamed.


The choice itself is a verb, an activity and thus it’s meaningless to claim it is responsible. It is an action done by a subject and as such it is the subject who is the proper object of judgment if there is any proper object of judgment.

I think that no matter what system you adhere to – spiritual, theistic, atheistic – or any conceivable system free-will is inconsistent – if there is a self there cannot be free-will and if there isn’t a self there cannot be free-will.

The sound a gull’s wings make.

Peace is the sound a gull’s wings make.

It’s not a sound that is heard with the ears;

it’s a sound that is seen with the eyes.

It’s difficult to sustain peace;

peace is not something that is sustained.

Peace is something that is unveiled.

It comes when you stop looking for it.

It is in the moment when you see light glint off the exhaust pipe of a dirty lorry.

It comes unbidden in the sound of children tantruming in public.

It glares off the bald pates of the OAP’s wandering the aisles of asda.

It lies embedded in the crease your jeans make when you sit down.

It’s in the sound of the words of a domestic argument.

It is the heart of anger and the sweetness of melancholy.

It is there when it seems it isn’t as well as when it seems it is.

It waits for you to rest, to sit down, to stand up.

It waits for you to see – to really see – with eyes that aren’t trying to see anything.

Peace is the sound a gull’s wings make.

A little something On swearing!

Today I saw a parent punishing a kid for swearing. I didn’t; that’s just a fabrication to justify a rant on how being offended at swear-words is a manifestation of pavlovian conditioning.


So Pavlov got a dog and he found that if you make a noise and then give the dog a treat the dog salivates. Eventually the noise itself will make the dog salivate.


In the same way if the dog hears a noise – or makes a noise – and then you give it a punishment – like smacking it or washing its mouth out with soap – then eventually the noise itself will produce the sensation of aversion without the punishment.

This is exactly what is happening when you feel shock at words like CUNT or FUCK. When you were little and you said those words – you were punished (sometimes by being forced to orally copulate with a bar of soap) so now whenever you hear the word you feel aversion that you call shock.

There’s nothing intrinsically painful in the auditory sensation of FUCK. A baby doesn’t feel offended by it. You were taught/conditioned/trained/BRAINWASHED into feeling pain at the word.



On anarchy


Just saw this and thought I’d have a little rant.

Morality is useless in reality; there is only might.

I mean sure you can put your hand up in class and point out the fact that the teacher isn’t conforming to some arbitrary moral standard but if the teacher’s got the ruler and you don’t want a smack what the teacher says goes end of!

Morality is a shield that only works against people who are also cowering behind it.

Try telling a psychopathic murderer that murdering is wrong and then you can cry on my shoulder after he’s brutally massacred your family.

This facet of anarchism makes me laugh. It attempts to defame government by appealing to a moral standard that needs an institution like the government to back it.

This is the plain truth:

You have no natural rights.
The rights you think you have are secured by government.
If you want to be free of any form of coercion you gotta be fucking mighty.
This is reality.

Oh and if you want to see anarchism in practice look around you.

In a state without a government he who has the most of what everyone wants and can defend it rules and molds society how he sees fit… pretty much what we have.

Most of anarchism is really people saying they don’t like this goverment and they want a new government set up how they’d like and this new government they call anarchism.