»THE MATRIX AND BIBLICAL UNITARIAN UNIVERSALISM«

Hello, Dub329! Thanks for asking! The Concordant Method of translation was discovered by the late A. E. Knoch. The Translation was finished in 1926. It was started in 1909.

The word AION (Eon) is well translated in this version. Most of the Bibles translated as Forever. But AION and AIONOUS don't refer to an eternal time. They are related to PERIOD of TIME or AGE. The Greek word for Eternity is AEI and for Eternal is AIDIOS. This last word is used in the Bible as eternal. AION and AIONOUS are the most dangerous word in the Bible. They originate Eternal Torment or Hell in the wrong translations.


Another accuracy of the Concordant is Sabbaton, which is correctly translated as Sabbaths, not as first day of the week. So it is clear that Sunday is not the Day of Worship. One more difference is in II Corinthians 5:19. The wrong translations say RECONCILIATION, but the Concordant is correct when it says CONCILIATION. In Matthew 24:12 the wrong translations say Evil or Wickedness, but the Concordant says correctly Lawlessness.


The Concordant is more accurate in its renderings because it tries to use the same translation all of the time for the same Original Word. Most of the translations of the Bible are interpretations, not translations. You can have a free copy of the Concordant Literal New Testament at

Another important difference in the Concordant Bible is the accurate translation of Ephesians 3:6, where it is revealed the Mystery of Christ. Most of the translations are inaccurate in translating this verse, and it is not clear to understand what the Mystery is.

Accurately translated, as the Concordant does, we get an Universalist message, that both Jews and Gentiles are to be saved just the same as joint members, joint partakers and joint inheritors of the blessings promised in Jesus Christ. This is a big difference in translation although it is a simple word: joint.

Readers of an unaccurate translation can't understand the Mystery, but in the Concordant Bible it is loud and clear. Cristorly

I wasn't accusing you of anything, but you I can see now that you are not really giving the good news of Christ. You're saying "Christ is good," but you're also saying "this is the only way to follow Christ", "I know the way and you should do it". We all die to follow Christ, and we don't add jargon, only quote God's word in our hearts. If you really think all this stuff you write is totally right, than you are fading away from the unviversal Christian truth "pick up your cross daily and follow me". I don't mean to negate you, but your pompous quoting of your own system is nausiating.

Amen, theson.

Your words are like the self-defeat prophecy. You are self-incriminatory when you open your mouth full of "christiandom hatred". From the abundance of your heart yells out your mouth. I'll keep it simple. God is Omnipotent and God is Love, so God CAN SAVE and WILLS to SAVE all created beings (I Timothy 2:4, Romans 5:18, II Corinthians 5:19, I Corinthians 15:20-28, Titus 2:11, Colossians 1:20, Ephesians 1:9-11). Please explain away to the audience Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Proverbs 16:33. Or explain to the audience why at the close of the Millennium God will release again and willingly the Devil again. Why? Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

Christendom is wrong. Christianity is right. Most of christendom become baby faces on Sundays and little devils during the rest of the week. They go to Heaven on Sundays and live in a real hell the rest of the week. They say that they love all the people, but they don't want God to save all the people.

They become very wicked just when they hear the idea that God is going to save everybody. Christ said on the Cross something like this: Father, forgive them because they don't know what they are doing. If the Father always answers the prayers of Christ, so the Father forgave all those criminals, the very killers of Christ, the biggest sin on Earth, to kill the Son of God. I leave this subjet as homework. See you. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

You should really think about becoming a shrink, you know, you have an answer to everything, yet, wow, even though he does, amazingly at the same time is completely full of crap. I don't question your motives, but you don't care to listen to anything except your own doctrine. Why not be honest and say "I know everything"? No one has all the answers except Christ, who we follow, you know, I wasn't attacking you before, but you're ridiculous, you know everything, and I'm saying that you're full up crap now because you make about 10,000,000 assumptions in your head every second and call it fact, but, you're a brother, so I would just say be slow to speak and don't claim you have the answer to everything and put some energy into being real.

MATTHEW 12:34-37

I finally realized you're right about everything. How can I possibly make a point and not be met with a system with abounding in being right?

I finally realized you're right about everything. How can I possibly make a point and not be met with a system with abounding in being right?

I have given a lot of information about my system of beliefs. I hate to repeat myself. My business is to debate. My occupation is to debate for the love of debate itself. But I don't to meet arguments, I love ideas. You have many arguments, but I don't see your idea. You didn't answer about Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Proverbs 16:33.

You say that Christ does know everything and that is not right. Christ said that He doesn't know everything, et al, the end of the world. Yahweh is the only one who knows everything and He reveals His truth to the ones that He pleases. You are trying to discard me joyfully with a dirty word, but my ideas are standing tall and clear in this forum. I don't have to say one more word. I don't have to repeat myself.

I guess that netizens like FatPie42, Silent Warrior and Dub329 are truth lovers and they discuss ideas, not just arguments. A writer said that if you don't have your own ideas you will eventually contradict yourself. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

Would you have violence in your suggested movie? The Matrix Trilogy surely did, but it is not as gruesome as most other films.

Hello, Dub329! The main idea since my first post as the title explains it is Universalism. I mean to write a script based on Biblical Unitarian Universalism so I said in my first article that The Matrix missed the point in this respect. My idea is clear and God willing I will continue working on such a script on my own as I see that few are interested in that kind of movie due to the hidden prejudices against a God of unconditional love in Crist Jesus. Thanks a lot, Dub329, for your clear-cut feedback.


This is a forum about a movie, not about secondary arguments regarding anybody's personal beliefs. My belief system is coherent and there are many other beliefs systems that are also coherent. There is no real winner when we speak about different beliefs. The real winner is TIME, which will tell at the end who is correct and right.


All of us are interested in meaning, so we must have a meaningful system of beliefs for ourselves and for everyone who asks us about our system of beliefs. If we are wrong, our duty is to revise and change accordingly our system of beliefs. That's all. There is nothing personal about being able to change our minds. Thanks a lot, Dub329, for your valuable feedback. Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus Universal. Cristorly

I need to re-read all of your posts before I can comment any further. I admit I skimmed them and found a few things which I disagree with. Will comment later. Didn't mean to offend you, christorly

Hello, Taisou! No problem. I understand that not everybody is reading everything. Most of the people don't read the biblical verses that I quote, so I have to explain them again. Since the beginning I am quoting Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6 and Proverbs 16:33 and I have the feeling that few have read them. Any interpretation of the Bible has to explain those verses in a coherent way.

I also asked why God releases the Devil once again at the close of the Millennium and there was no answer. Those are forbidden matters in most of the Christian circles because they don't want to admit Universalism. Thanks, Taisou, for your feedback. Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

In case any of you are wondering why cristorly's response differs from my question a bit, it is probably because I changed it right after I made it. I admit I don't like telling other people what to do, but to clear up any confusion, I basically advised everyone to avoid ad hominem arguments and form reasonable and relevant arguments so as to allow for conversation.

Christorly, I recommend you make your scripture references link to Biblegateway or another online (multi-version) Bible resource. Many readers are not in arms length distance to the Good Book from where they are viewing from.

Hello, Taisou! Thanks for telling me about the referencing problem. I don't know how to do it. Would you explain me how to link the Bible verses to BibleGateway.Org. Or maybe GospelCom.Net? Or any other Bible portal where the procedure of linking is easy. The Bible version doesn't matter. It could be any Bible. Thanks, Taisou! Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

1. Open a second browser window and go to bible website and bring up the quote you want to use. Copy the URL that's found in your browser's address bar.

2. In this site's message window, type the chapter:verse you want to show.

Genesis 1:1

3. Highlight the verse you just typed in and click the URL button found on the left.

4. Put your cursor between the L in URL and the ] symbol. Type = and then Paste the url in that you copied a second ago. It should look like this after you submit the post

biblegateway.com...

Hello, Taisou! I guess I can only quote one version not a multi-version with the procedure you just told me to follow. Any way I will quote King James Version 1611 in the future and I hope that there is no problem with the forum members in case they prefer another version. Thanks for the info, Taisou! Cristorly

RBC MINISTRIES (www.rbc.net), the same people that publishes The Daily Bread, has a series of pamphlets called "10 Reasons to Believe". One of them is titled: "10 Reasons to Believe Why Real Christians Look Like They Are Not". I have noticed that the members of this thread that are not pretending to be known as Christians are more Christians than the ones yelling out their Christian identity.

We should be truth lovers. That's what matters the most in this thread. If I am wrong, please lead me to the truth with sound arguments against my ideas.

At the tip of the tongue of most thinkers there is the idea that God is responsible for the acts of His creatures in one way or another, but they are afraid to speak their minds. The reason behind it lies in the fact that they don't see the ultimate goal of God behind EVIL, behind the DEVIL, behind CHAOS, behind ENTROPY. If they would see the end of the WISDOM of God, they surely wouldn't be afraid to speak their minds.

This world would be Universalist in that case. Imagine such a world. There wouldn't be self-righteousness, no condemnation, no ego fights, no war, no hunger. Why? Because there wouldn't be no angst, no anxiety, no greed, no power play, no running around to be right or wrong. There wouldn't be any shrinks either.

That would be a much better society. The prophecy is against such an utopy, so let's take it easy, let's enjoy our peace, our joy, our happiness in the unconditional love of God here and now. Most of the people won't accept Universalism and that is a subtle way of committing suicide. Not physical suicide, but psychic suicide in the present world.

Thanks a lot for following this thread to everybody, with no exception. Blessings and happiness in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

Hey again to everyone, and my apologies for my absence recently. I have wanted to be here to continue our philosophical discussion, but I've been so busy.

I've been reading over the posts that have been made while I was gone and was disgusted (but not surprised) by the malice coming from self-proclaimed Christians.

This discussion is a debate, and Cristorly has merely put forth his beliefs. He is calling them 'correct,' but that is obvious - they are his own, and therefore are correct for him. He has found a philosophy that works and is attempting to show others in the hopes that they will find salvation within it. If you have your own, show it - but do not insult another. That is surely against the word of Christ. This thread is a debate between differing but all-encompassing outlooks on existence, and, as Cristorly put it, is merely another portion of all of our collective roads to the ultimate truth.

Philosophers are truth seekers. They are not false prophets, and they certainly do not worship the ego. They realize that they know very little about the world around them, and this is the driving force behind their pursuit of truth. There is so much we don't know - should we merely accept that and continue with our lives? That is the danger of slave morality and blind religious faith.

I also wanted to respond to something that was said a ways back about relativism being potentially dangerous. I can see the logic - that a relativist can pretty much do anything and justify it ethically based on 'perspective.' But that is not entirely true. When making ethical decisions, a relativist must consider the situation from his one and only true perspective. That is to say: although he recognizes someone may see the situation differently, he is aware of what his personal 'correct' choice is. And if he searches deep down, he will find it. As such, a relativist can justify murder superficially. But, if he is moral, he can never sincerely justify it, even using the relativist manifesto.

That is why relativism and absolutism come hand in hand.

Hello! Bright insight, Silent Warrior, into relativism and absolutism. There are many movements at the same time, but there is no movement all the same. For example, the archi-famous elevator. The elevator is going up. One person is holding a briefcase. He drops it. Is the briefcase going up or down? This is mind-boggling (?). An eye opener when we look at it from the Buddhic point of view.

If I say that I am lying, am I speaking the truth, yes or not? Both answers are correct from different perspectives. If I show you my closed hand you say that it is a fist, but if I open it you say it is a hand. If I ask questions opening and closing my hand against your answer, you will never be right, because I will close my hand when you say it is a hand, etc.

That's not the problem when you think hard into it. Absolute and Relative coexist as a unity. That's all. The real problem is immortality. Eternal life. Everlasting life. Permanence. Eternity. Rumi says something like this: Strong men like truth, children want candy.

If my position as Universalist is right, Silent Warrior, everybody in this movie forum about The Matrix will live forever and all live together in Paradise. If I am wrong, God will send me to Hell. Not because of my lie, because I am honest about my beliefs after 12 years of studying the Bible. God will send me to Hell because of all my evil as a person now. Because of my greed, my hatred, my envy, my tyranny, my lust, my hunger for recognition, my ego, my daily sins of everyday life.

My point is that ventriloquism is very common in Religion. I am against Religion. I am in favor of Spirituality. Relational Spirituality. A Cross: Vertical relationship between God and me; horizontal relationship between my closest neighbor and I. And any relationship implies a risk. A communicational risk of not been understood. I have found Universalism as the answer that it is hidden in the Bible.

Universalism is not my sin, Silent Warrior. Universalism is my virtue, because I am speaking in favor of all creatures. That is absolute LOVE. No strings attached. No hidden costs. Unconditional LOVE. That can't never be a sin to the eyes of all loving God revealing His infinite LOVE in the person of Jesus Christ on the Golgothic Cross of Calvary.

They don't like my pompous way of speaking. They don't like my broken English. But I appreciate their feedback. I came here to talk about a movie, about a script that I would like to write in my native Spanish, not in English. I have found myself arguing about Philosophy, Psychology and Theology.

I am enjoying the twist, but for me it is unexpected. Why? When I found Universalism at the beginning of last year, I got extremely excited. As the year past away I learned that most of the people prefer fables and second handed opinion rather than to go deep inside of the pages of the Bible. They prefer to sit down and listen to a preacher for an hour and them repeat what he said without even thinking about. That happens when they speak about the Millenniun as a hope for Manking. They don't even pay attention when John says that God is going to set free the Devil at the end of the Millenniun. They don't stop to think about the responsibility of God regarding our teaching of Good and Evil.

Thanks, Silent Warrior, for your loving and understanding feedback. Thanks for your valuable insight. There is one thing that you have been mistaken all your life, and that is that you don't have to go to college to learn Philosophy. Blessings in Christ Jesus. Cristorly

SilentWarrior wrote:

When making ethical decisions, a relativist must consider the situation from his one and only true perspective. That is to say: although he recognizes someone may see the situation differently, he is aware of what his personal 'correct' choice is. And if he searches deep down, he will find it. As such, a relativist can justify murder superficially. But, if he is moral, he can never sincerely justify it, even using the relativist manifesto.

I still see a contradiction here. It seems that you argue that murder is justified for a person if a person's nature is immoral. On the one hand, this implies that morality is not truth but preference, but the fact that you use the word "moral" without defining it proves that it is something standard. However, if, perhaps, you are using the word for lack of a better one, and that "moral" is relative, then you are either implying there are no moral truths---which is an objectivist claim, not a relativist one---or that a belief held by an individual is true because the individual holds it. I will assume is second implication is what you were arguing and continue.

I disagree, for this undermines not only philosophy but spirituality, as both seem to be a quest for an Absolute that not only transcends the world of illusion but shows some things to be less illusory than others, or else one could not measure spiritual progress unless it was somehow permissible to contradict profound or divine writings and thoughts on the matter---writings that are laws for people making choices as individuals but nontheless having a common ground.

The idea of believing in both also confuses me. Both are needed, but I am not altogether sure both can displace each other. To believe both seems to allow them to displace each other. A yin yang is not gray, it is made of black and white. Neo is not good and evil at the same time, in regard to how others percieve his nature and in regard to his nature or perception of his nature. He chooses the good, not both good and bad. One can see both, even respect both, but to believe both seems as self defeating as relativism by itself.

Regardless of how inclusive we may be, surely there is nontheless a Truth which must not support certain beliefs certain people hold. How then, can there be divine punishment if every course of action is, in a sense, correct?

(Please remember, I intend my posts for conversation and insight, not ridicule! )

Hello! I spoke at one time in this thread against dualism. I hope to remember well that I did. If not, I repeat myself, Dub329.

Yin and Yang are incomplete without BALANCE, the divisory line between the serpents. In the Star of David there are two triangles, one is Good and the other is Evil. But in the center of intersection there is polygon of BALANCE. There is always Positive, Negative and Neutral.

I said that when all Evil finishes at the end of times, then we will only have AFFIRMATIVE, NOT POSITIVE. We will live in a world where we don't need to make telephone calls like in The Matrix to get from one place to another. If we say: I want to go to Europe, we will get there right away, like in Richard Bach's books. We will live in a here and now absolutist universe, where there is AFFIRMATIVE THINKING AND ACTION. Then dualism and trinitarianism will cease. We will live in an UNITARIAN universe.

We have to go from DUALISM to TRINITARIANISM back to UNITARIANISM.

This means that Dualism is Relativism, Trinitarianism is Absolutism-Relativism and Unitarianism is Absolutism.

In this order of ideas there is Ethics, Moral and Deontology combined as an unitary whole. Ethics is related to choosing among Good, Evil and Neutral. Moral is the norm behind the act. And Deontology is the duty to behave ethically following the best system of Moral. When the combination is perfectly blended then we have an AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. This is ideal to be accomplished in the future.

Now we are imperfect beings. I read Silent Warrior comments taking into account that Ethics is not the same as Moral. But I sensed that it was lacking the Deontological aspect, compromise, duty. My definitions are discretionaries, not traditional because I have realized that the traditional definitions are not right to the point.

So in order to stop being Dualistic, which leads to error very frequently, we have to be Trinitarian first, which is good in our imperfect world now. We have to go from Dharma and Karma and jump into Satori (awakening). Satori is the quantum leap missing in all the dualistic systems of beliefs, especially the Orientalist systems that traditional Hinduism and Buddhism.

In orther to find Nirvana you have to experience Satori, that is to say you have to stop being Dualistic.

Dualism is Evil thinking. We have to think in terms of Dharma, Karma and Satori, I repeat. We have to be Absolutists, Relativists and Absolutist-Relativists (this last one is neutral ground, indifferent perspective).

So Dub329 has to include three terms into the proposition: Ethics, Moral and Deontology. He has to include duty, compromise, not only Good-Evil-Neutral and NORM of ACT.

At the end of times we will realize that the Trinitarian world is indeed an Unitarian universe. We won't be positive, we will be affirmative. Thanks in Christ Jesus. Cristorly