Its impossible to prove Biblical claims

What needs do mythology and religion serve in today's world and in ancient times? Here we discuss the relationship between mythology, religion and science from mythological, religious and philosophical viewpoints.

Moderators: Clemsy, Martin_Weyers, Cindy B.

jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:32 am

The complexity of worshipping many Gods compared to worshipping one is that each God worshipped represent one particular phase in the universe of one.

To use the Book of Revelation brings no clarity to what you are seeking for two reasons. One is stated above, as each church represents particular problems which has to be dealt with from the inside.

Second, the Book of Revelations is a Book of symbolism which are metaphors not of a God being angry, but the telling of man's betrayal of himself by becoming self-centered in his own subjectivity; burying the Christ mind in his own divided interpretations of abstraction. Abstractions which nullified the human mind of truth; replacing truth, as you are attempting to so do here, in man's mind with outlines of inventions sealed in darkness.

The solution of the churches, and men individually is found in the 3rd Chapter of Revelations. That solution does not deal with neutrality - neturality is just another form of tolerance to humanism - it deals with becoming centered in thought from worshipping many Gods, to worshipping the one God who will bring forth the New City of No More.

This wandering pagen deity you speak of became supreme because of the priest, rabbi's, and Le'vi's prejudice of Goddess' and even Mother Earth.

What you present here is the same as priest, ministers, philosophers, rabbi's, new agers, Buddhism, and all atheist, theist, and even the Gnotic's believe and teach today: that God sent man forth from the Garden, and drove him from Eden. God did not expel man from Eden. God only sent man forth from the presence of "the tree of life." Man exiled himself from the Garden. But if one would take note, man still has access to the "tree of dualism." This is why Campbell states man serve a religion in exile.

To become centered equalize simplicity and complexity.
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:01 pm

When we strip old YHWH down to the core, as I was on about in the first place by suggesting that God symbolizes existence itself, then perhaps YHWH's wrath makes a little more sense.

Existence is existing on the basis of paired opposites and the conflicting energies between the paired opposites. The point may well be as simple that. If conflict were to actually cease in world, perhaps existence would cease to exist - God would cease to exist.

I don't take the bible literally of course Jufa, I'm just running through some creative thinking processes about alternative interpretations of the bible. Luckily there's no possible way to ever actually get rid of the conflicting energies of the universe and of life, therefore the world will always be in some form of conflict as a direct result of these conflicting energies of the universe - no one will ever fully agree with another and so on.

This is why it is said to be 'wise' to accept the world as it is, rather than what one thinks that it should be - world affirmation. I'm sure that you're hip to world affirmation Jufa with all the Campbell reading that you've accomplished.

I'm trying to see where it would go if some one were to suggest that it's evil for everyone to get together and stop all world conflict and create a Global community? Revelation seems to state that 'The world will cry out for peace, then all out war will follow'. The world is calling out for peace right now isn't it? I wonder whether there's a universal prohibition against having an actual 'peace on earth', due to the foundation of existence as being a conflicting energy process?

tat tvam asi/space
Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal » Fri Aug 24, 2007 5:15 pm

Tat

Here is my take on the neither 'hot nor cold'.

We see this in the "Sunday" Christians today. They are not "on fire for God". They are not doing good works or spreading the word.
But they are not so "cold" that they do not think about God the rest of the time. They only do what they feel they have to do. Obey the 10 commandments, etc. They are just trying to play it safe. Hedging their bets on the afterlife so to speak.

Had they completely fallen away, he could call them back to him, like a shepherd calling to a lost lamb.

Just like milk, which tastes good when hot or cold, but when lukewarm is not very tasty, God will spew them out of his mouth.

So my view of this has much in common with Jufa's post.

On the Gnostic belief of the serpent trying to save man. I wish I could remember the name of the book. It was first wrote in French I believe about the turn of the last century, late 1800 to early 1900. I read an English translation as a child.

In it God and Satan keep flopping roles. Satan started hating mankind and was trapped on Earth with them. Over time he began to care for these humans. God in the meantime grew more distant, and cared less about man from his lofty viewpoint.

Satan leads a rebellion and over throws God, casting him down to earth.
God begins to care for the humans again, and Satan grows distant and uncaring from his lofty viewpoint, and the process repeats.
I think it may have been inspired by the Gnostic beliefs somewhat.

Also I have no problem with the idea that the worship of one God came out of the pagan worship of many gods.

Why, because at the core of many such pagan beliefs is the concept that the many gods came from one creator god.

In the Egyptian creation story, a single creator god gave birth, it a sort of virgin birth way through masturbation, to the main gods of Egypt. But this creator god was not worshipped to the degree the lesser gods of Egypt were.

The Greeks also had the same idea. They even built a temple to this "Unknown God" so as not to offend him.

The list goes on and on from ancient Sumeria to some Native American belief systems.

The common thread seems to be that man considered this One God as too distant to care for lowly humans, so gods closer to them were worshiped as they were seen as more accessible and caring towards humans.

The fact that this belief in a single creator god lasted until the time of Christ, Paul preached to the Greeks at the Temple of the Unknown God, suggests that there was always a small sect that followed the worship of a single creator god even among the pagan religions. This is also seen it the cuneiform texts that relate to Abram exile from Sumeria. There is also some evidence to suggest that the Egyptians believed the Hebrews worshiped the creator god of their creation myth.

Sadly the Egyptian government will not allow anyone to see the steeles and other evidence that supports the Bible in this manner. So we must rely on the translations and rubbings made by those who first found them, before the Egyptian government sealed them away. The Egyptian government will not allow digs at any site they think may support the Bible.

This mentality is common in the middle east. Digs are not allowed in Muslim controlled sections of Jerusalem either. It was the Muslim's who walled up the gate the messiah was supposed to enter the city through in an effort to stop his return. Oddly the name Jerusalem means "The new city of peace" though it has seen little peace in its time.

Little Feather
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:40 am

Thanks Aerial.

I know about Nieth, trust me, I have an extremely interesting study entitled "The Science of the Dogon: decoding the African mystery tradition" - I strongly recommend that you Google the book.

Your physics knowledge may well lend a helping hand to Laird Scranton's research into the "scientific notion" that he has found in both the modern Dogon cosmology, as well as the ancient Egyptian cosmology. I'm going to post a few interesting points about his research in a new topic.

My reading of revelation was merely a take on how Campbell said that every once in a while a prophet or mystic sees the symbols as saying something totally different, and it has to do with an immediate response from you to life. I was playing around with that general idea. I'm trying project a likely future where the second coming of the Christ is simply a time when the world will have caught up to the state of self-realization that the Buddha, or the Christ had experienced long ago - ahead of there time. I'm on chapter 4 right now and I'm trying to utilize some the knowledge that I continually gain from interacting with everyone.

tat tvam asi/space
User avatar
bodhibliss
Working Associate
Posts: 1659
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 5:00 am

Post by bodhibliss » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:21 pm

Aireal wrote:Tat

The Greeks also had the same idea. They even built a temple to this "Unknown God" so as not to offend him ... >>snip<< ...
The fact that this belief in a single creator god lasted until the time of Christ, Paul preached to the Greeks at the Temple of the Unknown God, suggests that there was always a small sect that followed the worship of a single creator god even among the pagan religions.
A thought-provoking post, Little Feather, about creator gods that demonstrates the gray areas that fall under the label of polytheism.

However, Agnostos Theos, the Unknown God whose altar St. Paul mentions in Acts 17, does not stand for a single creator god the Greeks worshipped above all others, any more than the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier represents a single fallen soldier whose name has slipped our mind.

The altar to the Unknown God on Mars Hill was suggested by Epimenides, the Cretan philosopher, several hundred years before Paul's birth, and stands in for all gods the Greeks might not have heard of - they're essentially covering the bases in case they left anyone out.

Paul's mistake is in claiming this collective "Unknown God" refers exclusively to the Creator God of the Jews (sort of like saying the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier was built for Bob Smith - tends to defeat the purpose),

when it also refers to Indra and Brahma and Edshu and a host of gods of foreign peoples the Greeks had little or no direct contact with - and was an altar where barbarians and others could worship their own particular deities when in Athens.

Hence, the Greeks weren't trying to avoid offending "the" Creator God whose name cannot be pronounced, but rather were trying to avoid offending all sorts of deities, minor and major, who might cause trouble if they felt slighted.

Paul of Tarsus didn't get this - but then, he just doesn't seem to get Epimenides at all.

Besides coming up with the idea of an altar to "the Unknown God," Epimenides is best known for illustrating the self-referential paradox in logic.

Epimenides said "Cretans alway lie" - yet Epimenides was a Cretan. If Cretans always lie, then Epimenides is telling the truth - but if he is telling the truth, then Cretans don't always lie, which means the statement must be false, which would mean he is lying, which confirms the truth that Cretans always lie, and so he's telling the truth, which would mean he is lying, and so on, ad infinitum ...

Apparently Paul's brain doesn't bend that far, as noted in Titus 1:12-13, when he refers directly to Epimenides' statement:
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply ...
Paul misses the point, just as he misses the point of the altar to the Unknown God, in both cases taking Epimenides literally - and that, in a nutshell, is the problem Joseph Campbell had with the prevailing Judeo-Christian mindset, that tendency to miss the subtle nuance, strapping on instead the straitjacket of only one historical, literal, pre-determined rendering.

namaste,
bodhibliss
User avatar
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman » Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:22 am

On Simplicity and Complexity
Hmmm.... I would think the capacity to simplify and complicate SIMULTANEOUSLY is what makes existence. I could be wrong of course, but something about the quality of opposing tendencies within an entity that seems to create 'action'. How about this idea gentlemen?"

- Evinnra
I once read, (on a bathroom wall), that ‘an artist is a person who can simplify complex ideas – an intellectual a person who can make simple ideas complex.’ I still get a grin thinking about this statement. So sophomoric.

But in a different vain, I notice humans tend to swing like a pendulum – when life gets too complicated, we tend to look for ways to simplify – and visa versa. We like to sway between dying of boredom and having a nervous breakdown.
So we clearly move from complex to simple in the evolution of Western religion.

- Tat
I’m not convinced that religion has become less complex. It’s true, the Cross and the Crescent have come to dominate. But within Christianity there are myriads of denominations and syncretization with native religions. Society is larger and more complex. And I expect religion to accommodate.

At the same time, I follow your train of thought, Tat. The Western tendency has been toward a unifying – just like in physics. Western Religion and Science, though barely on speaking terms now-a-days, are closely allied in this one respect: the belief that unity underlies Truth. Even we Campbelites sometimes speak about ‘the new mythology’.
In general evolution we see a clear-cut case of the simple becoming complex.

-Tat
I’ve read that this is a popular misconception about the ‘force’ of evolution. Evolution favors survival and propagation, and it is just as easy for species to evolve toward less complexity when the situation favors it. There are less than 6000 species of mammal and over 350,000 species of beetles. We tend to take notice of complex creatures like ourselves. We marvel at the complexity even to convince ourselves that nature intended us. But this is a anthropocentric view.

We are, freaks of nature. ‘The human being is a very strange animal’, Campbell once said. We are the most complex creatures. E.O. Wilson called us ‘the bulged headed winners of Natures lottery’.

And I think mythmakers are like the artists mentioned by the bathroom sage I quoted at the top of this post – people who simplify the complex.

* * * * * * *

Interesting Bodhi and Aireal.

Yes, the Unknown Soldier could very well have been the most cruel and cowardly scoundrel in the entire army for all we know – not the supreme warrior.

And the Greek’s unknown deity, (who was unknown to me), appears to be a wild card that St. Paul knew how to play - as an ultimate trump card.

- NoMan
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Tue Aug 28, 2007 1:07 pm

"I’ve read that this is a popular misconception about the ‘force’ of evolution. Evolution favors survival and propagation, and it is just as easy for species to evolve toward less complexity when the situation favors it. There are less than 6000 species of mammal and over 350,000 species of beetles. We tend to take notice of complex creatures like ourselves. We marvel at the complexity even to convince ourselves that nature intended us. But this is a anthropocentric view." - Noman

Science philosophy:

I'm specifically referring to the accepted big bang evolution model here with the statement, 'In general evolution everything moves from simple to complex'.

To start off, we have the entire universe as being smaller than a single atom, which is far more simple than the universe of today - far less properties to consider than right now.

Then, the simple universe expands outward multiplying itself into a complexity of different aspects of itself, such as the variety of sub-atomic particles and atoms and elements. The simple, and perhaps the one, became the complex, or rather the many.

Then, from this original universal simplicity, which became complex over time, we see the mysterious emergence of the first living cell, which is only one. One cell is very simple.

Then, from this one simple living cell, all of the many different living cells that exist today have emerged, which are complex as a group of many. So once again we see the simple becoming the complex and then making a move toward simplicity once again only to become complicated again...

These multiple living cells, which are very complex in number, begin to render a mythologizing from the body itself, which is made of many complex cells acting as one simple living being. The Gods are in the plural at first, having a creator God representing existence itself, followed by many different sub gods which represent the various aspect of existence - this seems complex. There are many Gods to consider here all under the powers of the one creator God, just as there are many cells to consider all forming together to make one body.

However, these many cells, rendering images of many different Gods who are 'of' the one original creator God, start to render the notion of only one God existing. The other gods, as was the case in the emergence of monotheism, began to be disregarded as being 'make believe gods' and not real, as the western religious evolution makes a move towards a religious simplification of God - Elohim to Yahweh perhaps.

Then, after the singular God idea takes root and the many different names of God are put into one main name, the religious view of the one existing God begins to render an assortment of differing ways of understanding the one simplified God, so the simplified monotheism begins to move towards being complex again. Now, perhaps, we will move towards simplifying the many different complex sects of say Christianity, as the motion continues on. But rest assured, however simple we would make it, it is almost certain that it would become complex once again.

This business of simple to complex seems like the tides of the ocean going back and forth...


Alternative science philosophy:

In an infinite cosmos, which has always existed, there was no original singularity or any sort of point where the wave medium existed without the existence of many wave centers (particles) in the one wave medium. So in this cosmological reading the universe is simple, as it is a mysteriously existing wave medium without any real origin. The simple wave medium, which is the one thing that exists, has a complex system of wave interaction taking place at all times causing the perception of many different things existing - basically a simple wave medium forming complex forms and images out of itself.

So this space wave cosmological model is basically like what Evinnra was getting at with her post. There was never a time when we can isolate the simple from the complex and say one came before the other, the two aspects simply co-exist in a system of inter-connectedness and in an inter-dependency at that. So this alternative philosophy of science would account for why we observe an interwoven system of 'simplicity and complexity' existing side-by-side in everything that exists, depending on which aspect we choose to focus on and concerning any given thing that exists. The one simple living cell is made up of many complex spherical standing wave centers (particles) itself. We can't be certain that the earth is the only place within an infinite amount of space where this wave process has ever occurred before. So we can't speak in terms of the actual first living cell to emerge in the whole of existence, only the first cell to emerge on this particular planet which is itself existing within an infinite amount of space with an infinite amount of possibilities. The first living cell is both simple as well as complex SIMOTANEOUSLY.

Co-existence is the ultimate perspective of reality here according to this alternative science philosophy, good job Evinnra. Co-existence is the ultimate perspective of the standard model science as well, so double good job. :lol:


tat tvam asi/space
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:50 am

noman wrote: On Simplicity and Complexity
Hmmm.... I would think the capacity to simplify and complicate SIMULTANEOUSLY is what makes existence. I could be wrong of course, but something about the quality of opposing tendencies within an entity that seems to create 'action'. How about this idea gentlemen?"

- Evinnra
I once read, (on a bathroom wall), that ‘an artist is a person who can simplify complex ideas – an intellectual a person who can make simple ideas complex.’ I still get a grin thinking about this statement. So sophomoric.

But in a different vain, I notice humans tend to swing like a pendulum – when life gets too complicated, we tend to look for ways to simplify – and visa versa. We like to sway between dying of boredom and having a nervous breakdown.

Indeed, however religions are like any systems of mythology in the sense that they are all far too complex to change as rapidly and effectively as humans can. 8)

Gentlemen, the quality and depth of posts on this thread leave me without words to express. I'll have to print them out and think about them for some time. Thank you all so much. :D

Evinnra
User avatar
noman
Associate
Posts: 670
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 8:26 am

Post by noman » Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:37 am

To start off, we have the entire universe as being smaller than a single atom, which is far more simple than the universe of today - far less properties to consider than right now.

… Then, from this one simple living cell, all of the many different living cells that exist today have emerged, which are complex as a group of many. So once again we see the simple becoming the complex…

- Tat
“Emergence” – an idea from evolutionary biology in which simple forms morph into complex is well established. I can’t imagine anyone but a madman or a creationist challenging it.

But – as a thought experiment, Tat – I’d like you to consider an alternative. How could a universe – however you imagine it – begin at its most complex state and result in a simplified form of intelligent life?

I really want you to think about this…

Think of a universe that is extremely complex at its conception – and as eons and eons of time pass it becomes less and less complex to the point that the equivalent of human brains and human consciousness is possible.

We simply, (or complexly) don’t know how to think in these terms.

And I think, the reason we can’t think in this way is because we see the universe via a complex brain; that is, through the most complex system we know of. We’re being anthropocentric.

If you were looking at the universe as an average hydrogen molecule in the average star in one of the 50 billion galaxies of the visible universe would you still contend that the universe is getting more complex? It’s bigger than it was 10 billion years ago. But is it more complex? Certainly most of the matter in the universe is either in the form of hydrogen, helium, or plasma – none of which are terribly complex compared to a human brain.

A black hole is really very simple. Even physicists say, ‘black holes have no hair’. They have mass – and they have spin – and according to Hawking they have evaporation. But they are awfully simple compared to us.

It’s true, all life on earth emerged from a single cell. But by this method you could just as well say that all humans emerged from a single human. All languages must have emerged from a primordial language. In the late nineteenth and early to mid twentieth century philologists were searching for the proto language from which all other languages sprang.

And it is possible, to think, that all religions emerged from a primordial religion. For me, this is the essence of Campbell’s quest. Revealing the basic structure – the foundation – of religion. A unified field theory of religion you might say.

And going from polytheism to monotheism in the West is really nothing more than this same yearning. Ignatius of Antioch c. 100 CE began to speak of a universal or ‘catholic’ church. I doubt that he had visions of world domination. That would come later. But the intention is the same: to make an increasingly complex world simpler. To unify. So I see the move from polytheism to monotheism not so much as morphology from complexity to simplicity, but as a response to an increasingly complex and interactive world.

- NoMan
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:55 pm

“Emergence” – an idea from evolutionary biology in which simple forms morph into complex is well established. I can’t imagine anyone but a madman or a creationist challenging it. But – as a thought experiment, Tat – I’d like you to consider an alternative. How could a universe – however you imagine it – begin at its most complex state and result in a simplified form of intelligent life? I really want you to think about this…
Think of a universe that is extremely complex at its conception – and as eons and eons of time pass it becomes less and less complex to the point that the equivalent of human brains and human consciousness is possible" - Noman

That's tough to imagine. With regards to WSM cosmology space is a simple substance in which spherical shaped standing waves can form, communicate between wave center / particles, and form more complex wave structures that result in what we see as the materical universe and life. Simple becomes complex.
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bhagavan Das
Associate
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:58 am

Continents made by dispersion of Earth’s gravitation

Post by Bhagavan Das » Fri Dec 09, 2011 10:50 am

Continents made by dispersion of Earth’s gravitation
In attempt to trace human origin further , following a reason and contemporary astronomy continents were together, that might gave more insight why there is the biggest pyramid in Bosnia, then belief that Earth is flat gains of significance because there are indications there continents were made of an external comet.
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
This understanding is entirely in synchronism with Darwinian Theory of Evolution, comets carry small forms of lives like viruses, therefor continental life developed from water.
Sources:
How the Earth Was Made – History Chanel documentary
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Fri Dec 09, 2011 2:33 pm

...and from where did viral life evolve in order to be on a comet in the first place, get to earth over time, and provoke continued evolving on this planet?
"Scholars conjecture that a sense of divinity in Nature co-evolved with the first emergence of human consciousness, perhaps 100,000 years ago. The earliest god was Nature."

As far back as we are able to look into the past, says historian Colin Wilson, "human beings seem to have worshipped nature, and connected it to a higher spiritual reality, which they called god or the divine."
Bhagavan Das
Associate
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:58 am

Post by Bhagavan Das » Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:41 pm

from Monsanto of course
cadfael
Associate
Posts: 264
Joined: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:17 pm

Post by cadfael » Sat Feb 09, 2013 9:06 pm

We have faith in our reason and experience. Astronomers and Cosmologist can become greatly enthusiastic about their theories. There are moments of faith, but the most intelligent theorists will admit their speculation along with the emperical evidence. We cannot make no definitive conclusions about the past. I would also add the past regarding Jesus. The same can be said for Julius Ceasar. We do have our interprataions based upon what we prefer to believe.

cadfael
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:35 am

How can one compare that which cannot be grasped by the mind? Men are always giving a subjective viewpoint of faith, and what faith is.

The dichotomy of faith being blind or a bridge equalizing ones dual personalities is achieved simply by stepping into ones potential of righteousness. This stepping into can be seen in individuals through out scared writing. To understand faith of ones self, and activate it principle and pattern, one would have to understand the metaphorical mystery of God and have a mind imbued with truth which challenges one to find logical existence to exist. One can only speak of faith one way, and that is through conscious acknowledgment it is a mystery also, as God is a mystery. And when this is done consistently, as the Master demonstrated, there one finds not only faith, but its Spirit principle
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Locked