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 » Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:06 pm

:?: Religion, science and philosophy are the primers for mankind's awareness, but that is all they are. Nonetheless, mankind thinks and believes they are the basis for their living, achievements, sucess whether good or bad, and on and on and on. But as all situations, circumstances, condition and even the enviorn, they come and go fluently in all individuals lives unnoticed because the attitude of memory keeps one locked into that which was. Repetition of all we do is repetitive of all that is.

The Circle [form] is absolute only because the definition of the circle [unknown metaphor] is recognized only by individual concepts and beliefs. It is those definition which makes the the void -that which is in the middle and on the outside of the definition - appear to be the more than the equal of the definition. But it is the definition - the metaphor - which makes the circle visible because therein lies the form - the myth. Had there been no myth, there would be no metaphor, and all would be void. So the reality of the circle is the definition because it is the only form there is. And thus that reality is comprehended when it is realized the voids which surround the outer and inner perimeters of the definition are not divided because they are linked by definition.

All are one metaphor because it is the metaphor of the form which gives the void within and without their definition of dimensions. Take away the definition of the circle and there is nothingness. But how can the circle be removed without removing the void, for it is the circle which gives the void form and makes all relative to the definition.

It is the attempt to remove - separate - the existence of the form of definition which cause the chaotic quantum world of dualiam. For religion, science, and philosophy to say that which is the definitive perimeter of the circle, and that within and without the definitive circle has no meaning, when the reality all can only relate to the circle because of the form they bear as the void.

The circle is the metaphior which makes all things metaphors for the circle is a continuum of one definition. The One definition is a continuum of itself. This is the truest.......and only state of awarness man can touch as a human. .

Aireal you have not
removed the Metaphor from your statement, but it does not "void the notion that creation is created in the Creator." ]
because you did not deal with the metaphor itself. the metaphor is at the very end of the following:
"in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth," because everything created in Gen. 1 was created on the breath of Spirit's utterance "Let there be."
jufa
Never give power to anything a person believe is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:30 am

Aireal wrote:Everyone seems to misunderstand my concept of "literal" vs "mythological" take on the Bible.



People who try to discredit the Bible freely jump from myth to literal interpretations to make their point, and no one complains because Bible bashing is cool.

The only reason I applied science to the Bible is because people try to use science to disprove the Bible. I figured, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander." Tit for Tat and all that. :wink:


Little Feather

Good ! :D

As they say, 'you must have the right tool for the job'. Science can do brilliant things, so can we humans but it never really compares to the works of the One.
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:47 am

Aireal wrote:

Porcupine
The old "If God is all powerful, can he himself make a rock so large he cannot lift it?" is what is known as a logical fallacy. Here is why. God is infinite, so to make a rock that large would require that the rock be infinite also, leaving no room for God. God would have to become the rock. There is no room to lift the rock for it takes up all of infinity, plus a rock can not lift itself. etc. etc. There is no solution to this paradox.

Circular logic is what my logic professor would have called it. As flawed as the person who first thought it up. Which might have been George Carlin the comic, that was where I first heard it. In which case it was meant only as a joke.

In the Bible God reveled the truth of himself and told the John not to reveal it. For "If the truth of God were to be reveled, all would believe." There would be no need of faith. I seek that basic truth, and if I ever do find it, I will not tell a soul. :shock:


Little Feather
Sorry to 'butt in' Little Feather, but I'm not sure if there is a circularity in that paradox above. May I put in my 'two cents worth'? If the infinite 'noun' (or as physicists probably take it: position) has ANY qualities, it has 'verb' attached to it such as: being able to do something or not. It is the quality or 'verb' in the question that throws us off ballance since we can not remove it from the 'noun' of infinity as THERE IS NO SUCH EXISTING THING as a 'noun' of infinity, infinity never ends by term of definition. Yet we have a name for it!!!! :shock:

In other words, if we can think of infinity as existing ever so faintly like an idea, this very thought must have adjectives and hence verbs attached to it and then the paradox is reducible to particular qualities. But we can not think of the inifinite, hence we have a paradox by our own attempt to name something that does not have particular existence.


This is why I've said, the infinite never the less would have to have matching capacities to 'look within'. (That is, whatever we can think of being infinite would have qualities attached to it in our own mind.)Then there is no circularity, and hence no such rock that God creates and can not lift eventually. The English version of Genesis starts with 'at the beginning there was the Word'. I would love to re-write is stating : At the beginning there was THE VERB.

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

Post by noman » Wed Aug 22, 2007 3:25 am

People who try to discredit the Bible freely jump from myth to literal interpretations to make their point, and no one complains because Bible bashing is cool.

- Aireal


This is a common complaint about Campbell. He tried to emphasize the problem with literal interpretation. But that doesn’t mean he didn’t understand and greatly appreciate the symbolic interpretation. In fact, it is this idea of throwing out the baby with the bath water, (or as I like to say, throwing out the Christ child with the holy water), that characterizes Campbell’s philosophy. We don’t need to abandon our inherited mythology simply because we can no longer believe in its literal truth – but only to recognize its symbolic import. In much the same way that each generation attempts to extract what is good from their parents and discard what is wrong or outdated.

- No Man
tat tvam asi
Associate
Posts: 470
Joined: Sat Apr 29, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Eternity

Post by tat tvam asi » Wed Aug 22, 2007 12:43 pm

"The eternal" is a better term for what people have been calling "The infinite". God symbolizes that which is eternal, such as "I was, I am, I will be", or "I am yesterday, today, and tomorrow". This is existence itself doing the speaking here in the story lines.

Existence is the mystery. Existence is the God of mythology. "Can existence pick up a rock..." Put the question into it's proper mythological context and then see what sense can be made of it.

Existence says, let there be this and let there be that - when we choose to personify existence. All in all existence is the creator of all things of course - the evolution itself. Existence 'is' the waves, and the particles, and the resulting atoms, and the suns and stars made of atoms, which create the carbon atoms of which the planets are made, which form into living matter, which has gained the ability to contemplate 'itself', which finally realizes that it, the living matter, 'is' existence itself, which leads to evolving religious statements by the living matter such as "tat tvam asi" and the later, "I and the father are one". Existence is clearly realizing itself through our religious and scientific realizations here on earth. The same applies to any other place in the whole of existence where life and awareness is taking place. This must extend to infinity. No matter where experiencing is taking place it is ultimately 'existence itself' having the 'experience'. This is very simple. That's why people struggle to understand God - the natural tendency to over complicate things. :lol:

tat tvam asi/space
User avatar
Clemsy
Working Associate
Posts: 10645
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 6:00 am
Location: The forest... somewhere north of Albany
Contact:

Post by Clemsy » Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:30 pm

This is very simple. That's why people struggle to understand God - the natural tendency to over complicate things.
Tat, from one perspective, this is well said. From another, however, this isn't very simple... it's quite complex and the natural tendency is to over simplify.

Let me explain.

One human tendency that makes me pull my hair and gnash my teeth is that of getting lost in the symbol, the mask, the metaphor. For many people, it would seem (and I discussed this around here somewhere some time ago... the Language and Metaphor thread, methinks), abstract reasoning is too far a reach... to complex a concept. The symbol/mask/metaphor is a brick wall such that it's concrete interpretation often is stripped of its referrant.

So the Prince of Peace becomes a God of War.

Old Glory becomes the standard for xenophobia, ethnocentrism and national security.

This is serious, and points to the root of many serious problems: many people either can't, or won't, see below the surface of the symbols for what they supposedly hold dear.

Cheers,
Clemsy
Give me stories before I go mad! ~Andreas
jufa
Associate
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 5:07 am
Contact:

Post by jufa » Wed Aug 22, 2007 6:24 pm

One human tendency that makes me pull my hair and gnash my teeth is that of getting lost in the symbol, the mask, the metaphor. For many people, it would seem (and I discussed this around here somewhere some time ago... the Language and Metaphor thread, methinks), abstract reasoning is too far a reach... to complex a concept. The symbol/mask/metaphor is a brick wall such that it's concrete interpretation often is stripped of its referrant.
Getting lost in the symbols; in literal meanings I have found to also be the brick wall of confusion. Symbols, as I grasp Campbell's telling of them, are not put forth as abstract concepts. To my understanding they are put forth as a road map to explain the literal meaning of writings which are directional metaphors.

For example when the literal meaning of eternality is used in Scriptural writing, the human tendency is to interpret it as beyond the moment of life now. When Campbell speaks of eternity, he concludes if one does not get it now, then they have lost out on the eternality of reality.

This is what cause me to understand
This is serious, and points to the root of many serious problems: many people either can't, or won't, see below the surface of the symbols for what they supposedly hold dear.
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 » Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:21 pm

"Tat, from one perspective, this is well said. From another, however, this isn't very simple... it's quite complex and the natural tendency is to over simplify.

Let me explain.

One human tendency that makes me pull my hair and gnash my teeth is that of getting lost in the symbol, the mask, the metaphor. For many people, it would seem (and I discussed this around here somewhere some time ago... the Language and Metaphor thread, methinks), abstract reasoning is too far a reach... to complex a concept. The symbol/mask/metaphor is a brick wall such that it's concrete interpretation often is stripped of its referrant." - Clemsy


I agree with the above statement, but I'm still left wondering whether I'm being too simple? God and existence seemed complex to me, at first, but as the words are narrowed down the complexity of it all seems to become more and more simple the deeper I go as the many become only one. Here's an example that I should have posted earlier:

MYTHOLOGY/RELIGION

Joseph Campbell - "How, in the contemporary period, can we evoke the imagery that communicates the most profound and most richly developed sense of experiencing life? These (modern) images must point past themselves to that ULTIMATE TRUTH which must be told: That LIFE does not have any one absolutely fixed MEANING. These (modern) images must point past all meanings given, beyond all definitions and relationships, to that really ineffable MYSTERY that is just the EXISTENCE, the being of ourselves and of our world. If we give an exact 'meaning' we diminish the experience of its real DEPTH."

Here, we have existence itself being described as the mystery of being. All spin aside, am I in error here with this interpretation that reality is actually quite simple rather than complex? I don't mean to be trying to negate the spin on my first statement I just want to know if the spin perspective out performs my original statement in the grand scheme of things?

Do the masses have a natural tendency towards simplicity, or a natural tendency towards complexity? This is a tough one. I'm not sure which would better apply to the general masses. Personally, I feel that people first move towards being overly complex and then have to simplify things from there. We seem to move from visualizing many towards visualizing one, such as the evolution from polytheism towards strict monotheism over time.

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

Post by Evinnra » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:06 am

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

Post by jufa » Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:07 am

Do the masses have a natural tendency towards simplicity, or a natural tendency towards complexity? This is a tough one. I'm not sure which would better apply to the general masses. Personally, I feel that people first move towards being overly complex and then have to simplify things from there. We seem to move from visualizing many towards visualizing one, such as the evolution from polytheism towards strict monotheism over time.
Tat, what is not understood when reading Campbell is his singularity of purpose in order to expose to the mass the collective universal thinking will always be the complexity which hinders the simplicity of living.

Man's odyssey, regardless of what appears is individual. And it is only when the individual take it upon himself to break away from the collective universal human thought of conformity, as Campbell states he did by being a maverick, does one come to realize the true odyssey is the journey. If infinity is beyond the comprehension of infinity, then it has to be the simplicity of the journey which cracks the shell of human complex thoughts and guides one on a simple journey of eternality now.

The goal of individual is in finding when they ends and the kingdom of the unconditioned mind in them begins.
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 » Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:57 am

" 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


Evinnra, how could I even begin to disagree :?: :lol:

We are most certianly existing in the field of paired opposites. I'm basically asking, "Is it this, or is it that?" with my questioning. I know the truth is going to found by moving towards the middle way isn't it? I was just wondering if anyone would present a senario where one negates the other.

In the case of polytheism we have a complex system of many Gods all under one creator God, which is more complex than one Creator God with no other Gods in monotheism. So we clearly move from complex to simple in the evolution of western religion. But people do over simplify as Clemsy stated and stop short of going beyond the masks of God. It may seem complex to go past the masks of God, but it's actually simple in the long run. So both perspectives are at play.

Existence is both one thing and the many things at the very same time. So it's both simple and complex at the same time from any given perspective. It depends on which one we focus on.

tat tvam asi/space

tat tvam asi/space
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Thu Aug 23, 2007 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Aireal
Associate
Posts: 156
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:58 pm
Location: Mayfield, Ky.

Post by Aireal » Thu Aug 23, 2007 6:16 am

Sometimes I think I speak a different language and need a translator here to understand the philosophy here. Philosophy is not my strong point. Even on the WSM forum, I could not understand some of the posts of others there, try though I might.

Jufa
Zero, only obtained the meaning it has in math today in the 15th century, not counting the Mayan culture who had the modern concept long before that. I had to do some research to find the meaning you used for it. I think I got it now. The concept of it relating to a circle and nothing predates the 15th century, so this is new to me. I did not take such things into account in my post, forgive my ignorance in this matter.

This is at the heart of why I have trouble getting my ideas across, we speak a different language so to speak.

Evinnra
You are correct, there is no "circularity" to the paradox, in the manner you mean it. In logic the term "circular logic" is broadly tied to any logic which can not be proved by logic alone. If I knew a better term to use, I would, but I use the terms I was taught in college, even if they are not quite correct.

Plus I am a man of science, the use of elegant English to express myself is hard for me. I do not think in English. I think in pictures, stories, and a dozen dead languages plus a few obscure living ones. My friends and family are used to me mixing languages in a single sentence as I speak. If they do not understand they say, "Again, in English this time." English is such a strange language!

Noman
I have been trying to read up on Campbell in my spare time, what little I have, and I like what I find. A brilliant man. But I think he and I have a different concept of "Literal" interpretation. I only use the Hebrew and Greek texts, not any English translations. I do this with all Holy Texts. I learn the language it was wrote in to study it. That is "Literal" for me.
Then I look at the myth and symbolism of the culture it came from to try and understand what they meant. This way I do not get too lost in an overload of symbolism from many cultures.

As I believe the Koran, Buddhism, Native American, and other beliefs are all valid, I can not be a "literal" believer in the Bible per say, as that is against the "literal" interpretation of the Bible. I just respect all Holy Texts, and treat them as such, I hope.

Little Feather
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:27 am

Aireal wrote:Sometimes I think I speak a different language and need a translator here to understand the philosophy here. Philosophy is not my strong point. Even on the WSM forum, I could not understand some of the posts of others there, try though I might.


Evinnra
You are correct, there is no "circularity" to the paradox, in the manner you mean it. In logic the term "circular logic" is broadly tied to any logic which can not be proved by logic alone. If I knew a better term to use, I would, but I use the terms I was taught in college, even if they are not quite correct.

Plus I am a man of science, the use of elegant English to express myself is hard for me. I do not think in English. I think in pictures, stories, and a dozen dead languages plus a few obscure living ones. My friends and family are used to me mixing languages in a single sentence as I speak. If they do not understand they say, "Again, in English this time." English is such a strange language!


As I believe the Koran, Buddhism, Native American, and other beliefs are all valid, I can not be a "literal" believer in the Bible per say, as that is against the "literal" interpretation of the Bible. I just respect all Holy Texts, and treat them as such, I hope.

Little Feather
Little Feather,

You have used the correct term 'circularity' in one sense, since in philosophy the term relates to two statements that can not be explained without referring to each other. Noun and verb are inexplicable without each other. Yet, when it comes to talking about infinity, the term/concept/quality by its own inability to create a real noun - that can exist outside of our mind - stops the circularity as we glare at the fact that it is purely a conceptual noun. But our minds do exist, the minds potential to form 'impossible' or even 'contradictory' images does exist - in our head - hence we are compelled to 'react' to these concepts. The circularity stops only because we face the fact that this concept is internal and forever divisible yet the only 'real thing' we can access.


Talking about the difficulty of expressing one's self: English is not my first language either. I regularly beat my self up about my clumsy expression that does not do justice to the ideas within. Nothing we can do about this conundrum, except keep trying to communicate them.


Evinnra :)
Evinnra
Associate
Posts: 2102
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:12 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by Evinnra » Fri Aug 24, 2007 1:44 am

tat tvam asi wrote:" 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


Evinnra, how could I even begin to disagree :?: :lol:

We are most certainly existing in the field of paired opposites. I'm basically asking, "Is it this, or is it that?" with my questioning. I know the truth is going to found by moving towards the middle way isn't it? I was just wondering if anyone would present a senario where one negates the other.

In the case of polytheism we have a complex system of many Gods all under one creator God, which is more complex than one Creator God with no other Gods in monotheism. So we clearly move from complex to simple in the evolution of western religion. But people do over simplify as Clemsy stated and stop short of going beyond the masks of God. It may seem complex to go past the masks of God, but it's actually simple in the long run. So both perspectives are at play.

Existence is both one thing and the many things at the very same time. So it's both simple and complex at the same time from any given perspective. It depends on which one we focus on.

tat tvam asi/space

tat tvam asi/space

Tat,

I'm not so sure about the suggestion that finding 'the middle ground' IS the truth, as the PROCESS of trying must BE equally truth preserving in itself. So, we could dice this up over and over again, I have no answers yet. [Perhaps never will. :? ] But I'll think about your 'polytheist' analogy, as it brings up a wealth of ideas to contemplate.

Evinnra :)
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 3:34 am

In general evolution we see a clear cut case of the simple becoming complex.

However, in terms of religious evolution, I'm thinking that worshipping many Gods is far more complex than narrowing it down to one. So we would see a movement from complex to simple. But the one God idea, gains in complexity as it moves forward through time and the new additions to the basic format pile up. So really we have simple to complex to simple to complex to simple to complex, as I analyse this further.

This reasoning itself can seem complex, but it can seem simple as well. If I shoot for a middle way, then that is what comes of it.

You know how in the book of revelation, as we move towards the last of the early churches mentioned in the first chapters, God is upset with that particular church because they are neither 'hot nor cold'. I believe God suggests that he will spew them out of his mouth for being neither 'hot nor cold'. Could this be a reference to God prohibiting the 'middle way'? Buddhism and the like?

He's clearly saying that he will not tolerate neutrality. That's an interesting perspective to consider here as well. Yahweh, the spokesman in that particular verse, did actually originate as a pagan deity from polytheistic dessert wandering times (I was, I am, I will be).

Why would this tribal wanderer pagan deity, which rose to the ranks of supreme deity in Judaism over time, hate neutrality so very much? Some might see that as suggesting that before the end of time, people will want to make a move towards neutrality, right before YHWH comes down on the world with wrath. This is a biblical claim of course, bringing this conversation back on topic once again. I would think that history has proven that the 'middle way', or neutrality towards religion is certainly becoming quite popular in this day and age. Hence Joseph Campbell's comparative world mythology. Are we the evil, or are we the good? Is the neutralizing religious power of the metaphorical interpretations evil? If not, then perhaps old Yahweh was out of alignment with the truth. Perhaps the serpent was trying to save man after all, as the Gnostic's seemed to suggest. I wonder about that sometimes.

tat tvam asi/space
Last edited by tat tvam asi on Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Locked