Existence of the Divine

[Thunderbrd]

This is pretty much a "second dimension of time". This is not unproblematic at all and can lead to some strange things (you have no order relation on a plane, so the points in time are not ordered, that pretty much destroys causality as well as the concept of speed (no time differences), energy (is speed dependent), power (energy per time is certainly no longer well defined), etc.) and that is if you only have one such being, because for every additional being who can do this independently as well you add another dimension of time.

Would go a long ways to explaining the power of a divinity of course. Sure it opens a lot of cans of worms. But reality seems to be a huge open can of worms to begin with.

The bigger the Zero Point Energy, the bigger the chance we live in a "false vacuum" that could at any point in time spectacularly break down in the biggest natural disaster imaginable. One potential cause for the Big Bang was such a transition, in which case we can probably rule out living in a false vacuum. It is certainly not something we should hope for.

The fact that it doesn't means that once energy from the zero point is manifest it is stably manifest. The potential for 'collapse' must be as difficult to create as the potential for manifestation, so difficult in fact that under all processes observed so far, we have come to the conclusion that matter/energy as we know it can neither be created nor destroyed. However, we have not yet factored in the potential for 'consciousness' as a force to create and destroy at will, even though we have seen at the fundamental physics level how consciousness via expectation can alter results of tests intended to be impartially undertaken, suggesting that true impartiality is actually impossible. So the question becomes HOW does expectation warp these subatomic test results? I propose that belief warps reality to it and this is how zero point energy is accessed and made manifest and also broken down. AKA, we are on the verge of science proving magic exists and beginning to teach us how to use it, a natural given ability we all have because we have a true divine consciousness. However, as we begin to open our eyes to this amazing and seemingly limitless power, we must admit also that there have been others to reach this point ahead of us. There's always a bigger fish so we'll need to stay humble.

Why do I feel confused now?

lol... welcome to Eastern philosophy meeting Western pragmatism. It's ... well let's just say the Taoists insist that you really can't put to words the Tao for a reason. But sometimes you can find it in the heart of paradoxical thinking.

There is such a thing as a "degenerate circle", although I have to admit that definition is contested: http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/66132.html

yep... there are fundamental debates on subjects like these because we are operating where proofs can really not be shown, but perhaps they can be envisioned or experienced. Somehow. Like maybe through some spiritual experiences science cannot help us reliably replicate. And here's where I feel there IS a division between science and religion. Some religions attempt to guide us to an innate understanding, to get us around the confines of our logical mind.

This response is for all of the points you say are debateable. Of course they are. And it's when the debate is put to rest finally, and we KNOW these answers, whatever they may be, that we are really making progress and getting past our current known limitations.

They also hunted the horses that lived in North America to extinction, which also didn't help them with the Europeans.

In a much earlier time. And it may be bold to assume horses were hunted to extinction here. They just as likely failed to compete against other animals. The buffalo were hunted endlessly and did great here, perhaps due to a higher population rate. Sure NA's failed to domesticate horses in those formulative years on the continent, but they may have been a failing species already. I see it like our tech tree... when you are just starting out in an area and developing as a society, getting the meat and bone from a beast is all you can really think of. It's only later when you start to become more refined that you start considering any kind of deeper form of domestication. By then, horses, having had such a tenuous grasp on competitive survival vs other species here would've already been gone. Too bad.

But you're right that not having a good beast of burden did a lot to cripple the development of the NA technology. I think our mod even incidentally suggests that point as well.

I might be able to watch it some time, but I have already seen that there are some strong rebuttals as well. And usually being supported by David Icke is not a good thing.

It's not about something that I feel can be rebutted or who politically was promoting anything. It's ... if you know anything about astrology it just connects. It also goes a long ways towards explaining the church's (or the Bible's rather) motive to condemn astrology as a form of witchcraft to be avoided... because you just might see the truth of the origins of core Biblical narratives. This takes a lot of power away from priests to tell you what these tales should mean or where they come from. I would have those rebuttals onhand and see how they really hold up for you. Suspect the political intentions all you want but I strongly suggest considering what they have to say. If you can walk away with stronger faith for it, let me know how when you do. I have... in my own way. But I've never made believing what the churches explain to be a prerequisite for retention of what faith I have because I feel that the Divine truths related through the Bible are not the ones you think you see on the surface - and that there's a reason for that. It's not supposed to be an easily deciphered texts and it, itself, predicts that nearly all will follow a grand structure of lies that its words are manipulated to create, rather than the truths it's actually delivering.

aka, for all my 'challenges' to Christianity, I AM actually under it all as Christian as anyone can be... just... I don't agree with nearly any church viewpoints being promoted and hardly agree with anyone's interpretations of the Bible that I encounter. I do believe the book, or at least portions of it, are Divinely inspired, but what the Divine IS is something of a very debateable and still under exploration concept itself. If I challenge anyone's beliefs, it's only in hopes of shaking them free from the constraints of the lies I believe have been told and promoted to all of us through the manipulation of the impressions of the messages in the Bible. These, I believe, are the most insidious of them all.

Just to add another dimention to this discussion, Orthodox Jews have managed to have both ways: One of the basic laws of Jewish Halacha (religious laws) is that the Bible was given by God to his people, and that from this point on the rules of men are more important than the Biblical rules on their own. The interpetation is better than scripture. There is even a story in the Talmud (written at around 500AD), one of the main books of Halacha, about a time where there was a debate between the religious leaders on an issue (Is some guy's oven is Kosher or not, if you must ask) and the Holy Spirit sided with the minority opinion. Even with this Divine intervention, they accepted the majority ruling, because Man's interpretation is stronger than the word of the Holy Spirit itself. But, in the 19th century they started implementing a law called "New is forbidden by the Torah", which meant that from now on they do not accept any more new interpretations, and only the old ways are to be observed. That's why the Ultra Orthodox Jews still dress the way they did when they lived in small towns in Eastern Europe 200 years ago, for example.

So, in a way, they managed to both change the basic religious laws completely, while making their new interpretations "set in stone".

That actually makes so much sense it's hillarious! I did not know that but thank you for sharing. It's quite fitting.

Has anyone really considered what it means that Moses was able to talk Jehovah out of destroying all the Israelites and starting over with a whole new group of people when they defied him and built the sacred cow of gold at the base of the mountain to appease God, thinking he'd forsaken them because he and Moses were taking so long to confer? That a man, a human man, could come up with an argument that would change the mind of an all powerful, all knowing God?

Chew on that for a moment. The Bible specifically tells us that's the same God that was the father of Christ soooo... the same God that Christians and Jews and Islamic faithfuls all venerate. I find that to be a crux of a shift of worldview for me. I don't disbelieve the story at all actually... I take it, and all its implications, quite literally. And when you then explain the above, that the orthodox Jews would take the democracy of man over the will of God, with, apparently God's consent to do so, as the means to establish law... Worthy of thought is all I'm saying.

 

[tmv]

The fact that it doesn't means that once energy from the zero point is manifest it is stably manifest.

E = mc². Infinite energy means infinite mass, and now you're saying that it is stable? Instant Black Hole everywhere.

But sometimes you can find it in the heart of paradoxical thinking.

And sometimes you can use it to reach any conclusion: The page http://www.friesian.com/divebomb.htm shows the big problem of this approach - Once you don't rule out paradoxes anymore, "there will be dragons". In Mathematics, falsehoods can imply anything.

to get us around the confines of our logical mind

Now I'm picturing someone driving offroad because they don't want to be confined.

But you're right that not having a good beast of burden did a lot to cripple the development of the NA technology.

What's really strange is that there was an excellent beast of burden in South America: The llama. But the llama was never traded to another place. In the "Old World" the Romans imported silk over a greater distance than a potential llama trader would have had to cover, and silk doesn't walk itself.

This takes a lot of power away from priests to tell you what these tales should mean or where they come from.

Are you so sure about that? We already know that large parts of Genesis as well as the mass murder of babies (consider both Moses and Jesus) were motivated by stories of Mesopotamia, but it really doesn't change anything. Certainly not from my point of view, where educated authors could simply have used already known allegories to get a point across. And from a more literally minded point of view, why couldn't God have offered other people some parts of the Truth, so that they don't go completely astray?

On another point (regarding the literal point of view): If you tried to get information across to, say, ants, how would you tell them anything that isn't covered in "ant language"? Forget the translation losses, even in the original language of the Bible it was a human language, and a human language of the Bronze Age on top of it. Try explaining a modern concept in such a language (like the P-NP-controversy) and then try to imagine how a futuristic concept (accessible to an omniscient entity) could have been told to a human. How do you build a skyscraper when your only tool is a spoon?

 

[Thunderbrd]

E = mc². Infinite energy means infinite mass, and now you're saying that it is stable? Instant Black Hole everywhere.

Matter is energy trapped in a slower state, at which point it has different properties. At 0, energy is limitless and yet without existence in the classical state. Existence is a state which is just a property of nothingness anyhow. Matter and energy CAN be created and destroyed is what I'm saying. We just aren't finding anywhere to observe that process except at the very basic sub-molecular observational level.

And sometimes you can use it to reach any conclusion: The page http://www.friesian.com/divebomb.htm shows the big problem of this approach - Once you don't rule out paradoxes anymore, "there will be dragons". In Mathematics, falsehoods can imply anything.

Which is to say that the at the foundation of creation, all things are possible. Paradox is why all this can even exist.

Now I'm picturing someone driving offroad because they don't want to be confined.

It's not as clean and it can be dangerous to the vehicle but at least there is a surface off the road.

What's really strange is that there was an excellent beast of burden in South America: The llama. But the llama was never traded to another place. In the "Old World" the Romans imported silk over a greater distance than a potential llama trader would have had to cover, and silk doesn't walk itself.

I think some of that came down to politics. The South Americans were a much more hostile people.

Are you so sure about that? We already know that large parts of Genesis as well as the mass murder of babies (consider both Moses and Jesus) were motivated by stories of Mesopotamia, but it really doesn't change anything. Certainly not from my point of view, where educated authors could simply have used already known allegories to get a point across. And from a more literally minded point of view, why couldn't God have offered other people some parts of the Truth, so that they don't go completely astray?

Not clear on the point or question here.

On another point (regarding the literal point of view): If you tried to get information across to, say, ants, how would you tell them anything that isn't covered in "ant language"? Forget the translation losses, even in the original language of the Bible it was a human language, and a human language of the Bronze Age on top of it. Try explaining a modern concept in such a language (like the P-NP-controversy) and then try to imagine how a futuristic concept (accessible to an omniscient entity) could have been told to a human. How do you build a skyscraper when your only tool is a spoon?

Are you saying that if the tales of the Bible are mostly allegory it doesn't change your opinion of the message? Or that some stories that did actually happen are also, by nature of being Divinely crafted into reality, also carrying a host of allegorical messages along with them, both at the times of those events and in the retelling of those tales?

 

[tmv]

Matter is energy trapped in a slower state

Not quite: Matter is energy, there is no way to separate it. No pure matter, no pure energy. You could say that energy has a weight (it's just that for any kind of energy we are used to, the weight is ridiculously small - a normal human "contains" as much energy as a very big H-Bomb).

Existence is a state which is just a property of nothingness anyhow.

Where do you get this from and how can you test these statements to make sure that you are not barking up the wrong tree?

Paradox is why all this can even exist.

You say that existence implies a paradox (at least one), so if everything made sense the world would not exist (modus tollens)?

at least there is a surface off the road

And where is the "surface" in your case?

I think some of that came down to politics. The South Americans were a much more hostile people.

Possible. But it seems that long-range trade didn't exist at all, and the fact that the South American Natives didn't have the wheel (you can tell by the fact that the Incas had stairs in their roads) is certainly curious.

Not clear on the point or question here.

There are two possible cases, provided someone is a Christian: They can either consider the Bible the word of God (literal approach) or a set of witness accounts by human authors (historical criticism).

In case of historical criticism, the authors used already known ideas (e.g. Gilgamesh) to tell their story with a bit of allegorical additions (quite common both in that time and in that place from what we know - people back then would have known how to take this). In some texts important persons were almost killed as babies with some other babies actually dying => Moses, Jesus. Greeks expected any story about their ancient heroes to start with their childhood => Luke (writing mainly for Greek christians) wrote about Jesus' childhood.

Then there is the literal approach, where the Bible is expected to be true in a verbatim sense. In this case, the other people - after the Great Flood - are descendants from Noah and should still have a few "right ideas", even if they have a different religion by "now". Their scriptures would be "mostly wrong", but with a few parts of the truth still remaining, which could explain similarities to the Bible in this case.

Either way, knowing that there are similar stories outside of the Bible should not be considered a danger by the priests.

Are you saying that if the tales of the Bible are mostly allegory it doesn't change your opinion of the message?

Not much, I think. But in this paragraph I wrote about the literal approach, and why it's not quite so "literal" as many people seem to think. The definitions of the words you use are "frozen" theories To quote Plato's Phaedrus: Successful theories should "carve nature at its joints." By using a certain word you claim that that word's definition makes sense. And you can only use words (words that already exist) because you use written texts.

Sometimes the text just gets wordier: Imagine a (Bronze-Age) people where there is no word for human, only for members of your tribe (our-people) and for all the others (ugly, smelling troglodytes) - quite possible back in the day. Now the "modern" author just has to use both terms to tell the readers to treat all humans (in the modern sense) alike.

It is worse in the opposite case, where they use one word for things that are really different. If these people have always believed that diseases are some form of divine retribution they may never have developed different words for "sick" and "evil". Now try to tell them how to behave in a more "modern" manner. And the list goes on, any case where different things are given the same word is a nightmare, and describing entirely new concepts without visual aid is not that easy, either. You are confined to a language that is based on many wrong (and a few right) ideas, and you try to pass on some knowledge using these words. I daresay it's impossible to convey really complex messages without loss that way. And in this case, it might be impossible for every being, even an omniscient one.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Where do you get this from and how can you test these statements to make sure that you are not barking up the wrong tree?

Just a philosophical guess bro. Talking potentials and possibilities here. Imagination is a powerful thing. Let's just say I had a couple insight visions that covered this when I was young and we keep appearing to get closer to it being a real possibility that what seemed to be 'shared' with me in my imagination may prove to be true. A number of similar early life guesses about some things have already been proven so I'm learning that whatever I was tapping into as a kid may not be that far off. Also seems like i can't imagine something without someone else imagining it somewhere and putting it into a product before I can beat them to it... sigh. Makes me wonder if I'm tapping into a larger hive mind with imagination sometimes and that maybe nothing is actually generated in my thoughts... just found in the hive.

You say that existence implies a paradox (at least one), so if everything made sense the world would not exist (modus tollens)?

I suppose that's another way to put it. Think of the idea of any two opposing polarities and you will find that some of the essence of one exists in the other. Applied to physics, in the concepts of something vs nothing or 0 vs 1 and you may find that any and all binary systems, at the fundamental level, are theoretically expressing exactly the same thing on both sides, just flip sides. Flip the coin to the point, fast enough perhaps, such as where matter/energy becomes a wave rather than a particle, that it becomes a grey oneness between the two. Both are and are not at the same time and place. All consciousness then does seems to come in and allows a filter to distinguish the grand paradox. It's very hard to grasp and there are hundreds of logical deduction 'proofs' that fight the idea and yet even those can be unravelled eventually with enough similar thought. Man... it gets to a point where it can only be understood and never really explained explicitly without a failure to convey the concept.

Possible. But it seems that long-range trade didn't exist at all, and the fact that the South American Natives didn't have the wheel (you can tell by the fact that the Incas had stairs in their roads) is certainly curious.

Didn't have... didn't value. Tomato tomato. The wheel would not have had as much significance to a heavily hilled and mountain dwelling people who probably experienced too many disasters trying to use it.

Long range trade was, conversely, very strong centered on the ancient pueblo people. Artifacts at Mesa Verde, for example, where I visited early this year, shows that some very long range trades were being made. Mammoth and buffalo bones and artifacts at the site are proof as neither were in their local biome. They also had deepening ties to the Aztecs.

Mind you, they were also very defensive, perhaps paranoically so if you realize that must be the cause/need for their incredible cliff dwellings and stone masonry towers that still stand today that don't look made more for comfort than for making a stand to protect valuables when the need arose to do so. There was a strong degree of raider activity in that area I believe, which tends to happen when you have a huge advanced trade based civilization going.

Either way, knowing that there are similar stories outside of the Bible should not be considered a danger by the priests.

Depends on how much the priests want their subjects to believe that they are the only source of truth to refer to (thus how much power they are bidding for in social control currency.) Good breakdown btw.

In the way you put it, you don't seem to ascribe to the belief that God guided the hands that wrote the Bible directly, as the Bible claims?

If you believe this then you aren't as open to having your faith shattered by revelations of archaeological discovery and you won't have to try to force what we know to coincide with what the book states BUT you also may be too open minded to not drift from any faith or statements made in the book and may just consider your religion a set of suggestions rather than a viable guide to spiritual truth. If it's not the claims of God then it's the claims of Man and if it's the claims of Man then what validation does it really have at all?

 

[tmv]

Imagination is a powerful thing.

It's probably also a matter of mentality. Imagination, or at least unchecked imagination, is a bit less common here. A former (and by now late) German chancellor once said: "People who have visions should go see a doctor." (http://www.azquotes.com/quote/652138) While that is rather rude (and certainly going too far IMO), this is not an uncommon attitude here. Edit: [Europe's history is full of examples for visions going awry, for different reasons. Some of them unleashed hell on Earth. America's revolution was a success story pretty much out of a fairy tale, at least for Caucasians (remember that the colonists were the underdogs in that conflict), whereas European revolutions were usually horror stories. The French Revolution led to a reign of terror, followed by 20 years of war with the rest of Europe, the Russian Revolution created an oppressive regime that killed millions of people and lasted for 80 years, the German Revolution of 1918 was very unpopular, the "revolution" of 1933 created the most terrible regime known to us, and in all these cases these revolutions were spearheaded by people who claimed that they were led by visions. Many people are now very distrustful, which will certainly slow certain developments, but I don't think it can be helped.]

All consciousness then does seems to come in and allows a filter to distinguish the grand paradox.

A good reason for many people to detest the Copenhagen interpretation is that it seems to introduce some kind of mysticism (although conciousness is never mentioned in this interpretation, only observers - of any kind), but please keep in mind that this interpretation itself is not derived. Yes, this interpretation is prevalent in contemporary physics, or at least it was until recently (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/), but I think it is wrong. Unfortunately, many physicists don't care at all about interpretation and are content if the outcomes they calculated actually come to pass. I think that the many-worlds interpretation is much preferable, because it is the one interpretation that takes the equations seriously.

Long range trade was, conversely, very strong centered on the ancient pueblo people.

Alright, I didn't know that. I guess it shows that paranoia can really hurt you, especially in the long run.

Depends on how much the priests want their subjects to believe that they are the only source of truth to refer to (thus how much power they are bidding for in social control currency.)

Not really necessary in most cases. Most people (at least other than Jews) were illiterate back then. Take e.g. the Egyptian priests, who had the nilometers at their disposal, so they could tell in advance when a flood would occur (very important information for the peasants). Tell the people a few times in advance when the next flood happens and be always proven right, and they will never question you again.

In many cases the priests were the only ones allowed to make sacrifices, which also helps their social standing. In the end, it doesn't hurt them all that much if some morsels of truth are available in other countries.

Good breakdown btw.

Thank you.

God guided the hands that wrote the Bible directly, as the Bible claims

Where does the Bible make that claim?

If it's not the claims of God then it's the claims of Man and if it's the claims of Man then what validation does it really have at all?

As I already said: The authors are honest but erring. They also saw and heard incredible things and tell us about them in the way they understand them. The Bible is still extremely valuable as written tradition always is: It avoids the telephone game of oral tradition. Up until the written records are created errors can still be introduced, but afterwards they can be kept in check (somewhat similar to digitalization). We are living now 2000 years after the events of the gospels happened, but we can access records from when contemporaries of them were still around, mere decades after the events.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Where does the Bible make that claim?

For the New Testament one of the best is where Jesus tells the disciples that he must go away so the Comforter can come. Who will bring all things Jesus taught, his Commandments given to Him by the Father, to remembrance, John 12:49, which is reinforced in John 14:15 thru 21.

 

[Thunderbrd]

A good reason for many people to detest the Copenhagen interpretation is that it seems to introduce some kind of mysticism (although conciousness is never mentioned in this interpretation, only observers - of any kind), but please keep in mind that this interpretation itself is not derived. Yes, this interpretation is prevalent in contemporary physics, or at least it was until recently (https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/01/19/trouble-with-quantum-mechanics/), but I think it is wrong. Unfortunately, many physicists don't care at all about interpretation and are content if the outcomes they calculated actually come to pass. I think that the many-worlds interpretation is much preferable, because it is the one interpretation that takes the equations seriously.

I draw some of my thoughts on this from the book, the Tao of Physics. A read I would highly recommend to someone with your degree of insight on these subjects. It can say more to you than I and make the points much louder for you than it ever could have for me because I struggled with understanding the details of the scientific end of the two worlds of thought they were finding harmony between.

Alright, I didn't know that. I guess it shows that paranoia can really hurt you, especially in the long run.

Possibly. They abandoned the Mesa Verde region entirely at a point. Gradually over time they left the region in what they called 'the great migration'. The motives for doing so are not clear but there was the possibility that the area was beginning to fail to provide for the people due to drought, though why that would have them ALL leave is something hard to answer because it could have still supported a population, even if smaller. Something more... political... was at play. They left some very ambitious building projects, some of which are very hard to understand the motives of in the first place, behind in mid-completion during this stage. This was some few hundreds of years before Columbus and the plague that hit the East Coast that was mentioned in the article you shared.

There's very interesting mysteries to be solved there. The paranoia probably served them well at the time. It's hard to say who they were defending themselves against is the big mystery on that one. Possibly the Aztecs but it seems in a lot of ways they identified themselves as being in part Aztec themselves and had traded with the Aztecs so relations there may not have been as bad as one might assume. I'm sure the guys on the cutting edge know more than they are releasing to the public to chew on at the moment because they haven't quite put all the pieces together enough to put their careers on the line to say this is what they think took place or not yet.

In many cases the priests were the only ones allowed to make sacrifices, which also helps their social standing. In the end, it doesn't hurt them all that much if some morsels of truth are available in other countries.

This is true in some cases but don't minimize how savagely the Vatican managed to keep hold of the minds of everyone in Europe by having and maintaining and absolute stranglehold on the religious narrative. I mean, this is the kind of thing that the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition was all about.

All I'm saying it's obsessively important to religious leaders who guide their communities and nations by what they tell people their religions mean and imply.

For the New Testament one of the best is where Jesus tells the disciples that he must go away so the Comforter can come. Who will bring all things Jesus taught, his Commandments given to Him by the Father, to remembrance, John 12:49, which is reinforced in John 14:15 thru 21.

Thanks... I would never have found a reference. I've heard preachers discuss it in length. Do you happen to know where it talks about the intestinal discomfort you'd feel when reading the portion you're reading (or having read to you)? That was kinda impressive... I definitely felt what it was talking about when it was shared with me.

And then there's also the Bible code to consider, which is equally as fascinating.

As I already said: The authors are honest but erring. They also saw and heard incredible things and tell us about them in the way they understand them. The Bible is still extremely valuable as written tradition always is: It avoids the telephone game of oral tradition. Up until the written records are created errors can still be introduced, but afterwards they can be kept in check (somewhat similar to digitalization). We are living now 2000 years after the events of the gospels happened, but we can access records from when contemporaries of them were still around, mere decades after the events.

Such a perspective would undeniably allow a person to take it as just a personal account of history and would thus allow for all kinds of interpretations and most importantly the ability to take every rule or law as nothing more than a 'best suggested practice' handed to people at that time. It also does NOT then affix the idea that there is anything actually divine taking place, because of course, as Arthur C Clarke said so well about advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic...

 

[tmv]

For the New Testament one of the best is where Jesus tells the disciples that he must go away so the Comforter can come. Who will bring all things Jesus taught, his Commandments given to Him by the Father, to remembrance, John 12:49, which is reinforced in John 14:15 thru 21.

I agree that these passages strongly confirm what Jesus told his disciples, but I was talking about the question if the Bible was literally inspired. As I have already said that I trust the honesty of the writers, this also confirms direct quotes of Jesus within the Bible (and direct quotes of God speaking to the prophets in the Old Testament as well), but is there any claim in the Bible that the full text is divinely inspired?

I draw some of my thoughts on this from the book, the Tao of Physics.

Sounds interesting.

The paranoia probably served them well at the time.

The most devious traps are those that are short-term beneficial.

This is true in some cases but don't minimize how savagely the Vatican managed to keep hold of the minds of everyone in Europe by having and maintaining and absolute stranglehold on the religious narrative. I mean, this is the kind of thing that the Salem witch trials and the Spanish Inquisition was all about.

While the Salem witch trials have nothing to do with the Catholic church, I cannot deny that the Spanish Inquisition is a different matter. But we should keep in mind that back in the day the governments were not any more tolerant, and sometimes even more savage when it came to persecution. It is hard to believe, but the Inquisition was originally quite progressive, at least compared with persecution by the state. Things took a very sharp downward turn after the Black Death, which combined with the Little Ice Age easily convinced the people that they were under attack from supernatural forces. The Black Death alone killed one third of the European population, and if you think that was done intentionally - imagine something like 9/11, but killing 1,000 times as many people, which would be one third of New York City.

Such a perspective would undeniably allow a person to take it as just a personal account of history and would thus allow for all kinds of interpretations and most importantly the ability to take every rule or law as nothing more than a 'best suggested practice' handed to people at that time. It also does NOT then affix the idea that there is anything actually divine taking place, because of course, as Arthur C Clarke said so well about advanced tech being indistinguishable from magic...

As I conceded above, some parts of the Bible are direct quotes from God, and must be taken as such, as long as the sources are credible (which a Christian should not deny). Everything else is not unimportant, but gives us information how the writer understood the events he (I think the authors were exclusively male) personally experienced. We are speaking about witness accounts here, just like in a court of law (but perhaps more honest). If that was not a good reason to believe something, how could justice ever be done?

 

[Thunderbrd]

I agree that these passages strongly confirm what Jesus told his disciples, but I was talking about the question if the Bible was literally inspired. As I have already said that I trust the honesty of the writers, this also confirms direct quotes of Jesus within the Bible (and direct quotes of God speaking to the prophets in the Old Testament as well), but is there any claim in the Bible that the full text is divinely inspired?

There is but I am not well read of it enough to be able to guide someone to the verses that address that explicitly. I just know that it was stated outright somewhere... possibly a few places.

While the Salem witch trials have nothing to do with the Catholic church, I cannot deny that the Spanish Inquisition is a different matter. But we should keep in mind that back in the day the governments were not any more tolerant, and sometimes even more savage when it came to persecution. It is hard to believe, but the Inquisition was originally quite progressive, at least compared with persecution by the state. Things took a very sharp downward turn after the Black Death, which combined with the Little Ice Age easily convinced the people that they were under attack from supernatural forces. The Black Death alone killed one third of the European population, and if you think that was done intentionally - imagine something like 9/11, but killing 1,000 times as many people, which would be one third of New York City.

I was just referring to the Salem trials as an example of the point, a point you apparently understand. The clergies of many faiths have done a lot of horrifying things, savage things, to protect their ability to maintain that the proposed paradigm they presented to their faithful had no visible cracks in the logic or reliability of the tale. This is exactly what makes religion potentially a great danger as much as anything beneficial. Most forms of organized religion have incredibly powerful methods of closing the minds of their flocks to outside ideas for a very good reason.

Personally, I believe we'll never understand truth or anything like it until we embrace confusion and explore all things with an open and unbiased mindset, while well aware of the strategies used to close off the mind of the listener adn be wary of these as signs that you're about to be fed a line of horsecrap that you're supposed to swallow without question or challenge and it can get a bit uncomfortable to hostile if you don't.

As I conceded above, some parts of the Bible are direct quotes from God, and must be taken as such, as long as the sources are credible (which a Christian should not deny). Everything else is not unimportant, but gives us information how the writer understood the events he (I think the authors were exclusively male) personally experienced. We are speaking about witness accounts here, just like in a court of law (but perhaps more honest). If that was not a good reason to believe something, how could justice ever be done?

hmm... food for thought. While that addresses the historical accuracy, does it form good cause to use the religion to explain the moral code one should live by?

 

[tmv]

The clergies of many faiths have done a lot of horrifying things, savage things, to protect their ability to maintain that the proposed paradigm they presented to their faithful had no visible cracks in the logic or reliability of the tale.

I would mostly say that humans in general have a problem with power (a very important reason for me to be a libertarian), but you are right here. Clergies consist of humans. But religions based on scriptures have a big advantage here, in that the clergies cannot completely deviate from the original messages (they also cannot advance very much beyond it, unfortunately), as long as the members of the religion are literate. For a long time the insurance against making things worse (sorry for that clumsy expression, sometimes I am missing the proper terms) has been more important than the ability to make things better - just as for many centuries celibacy was a good thing for the Catholic church, because priests (and, more importantly, bishops and the pope) couldn't have legitimate children.

Personally, I believe we'll never understand truth or anything like it until we embrace confusion and explore all things with an open and unbiased mindset

An open and unbiased mindset will certainly help, but if confusion did these problems would never have come to exist in the first place. People have been confused for a very long time.

While that addresses the historical accuracy, does it form good cause to use the religion to explain the moral code one should live by?

Can we get anything better outside of a direct revelation? There is always the trust issue, even for adherents of the literal point of view (they think that the authors claim they were directly inspired).

 

[JosEPh_II]

I agree that these passages strongly confirm what Jesus told his disciples, but I was talking about the question if the Bible was literally inspired. As I have already said that I trust the honesty of the writers, this also confirms direct quotes of Jesus within the Bible (and direct quotes of God speaking to the prophets in the Old Testament as well), but is there any claim in the Bible that the full text is divinely inspired?

I think so but I would need to do some research on where, who and when. Of course the beginning of the Gospel of John shows who and when the stage was set for source and inspiration for the Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God." John 1: 1, 2. The english Word is the translation for the Greek (iirc) word Logos .

 

[JosEPh_II]

An open and unbiased mindset will certainly help, but if confusion did these problems would never have come to exist in the first place. People have been confused for a very long time.

"In him (the Word) was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:4,5.

 

[tmv]

The english Word is the translation for the Greek (iirc) word Logos .

That is correct, the word "logos" is the term in greek (which the Gospel of John was originally written in). Of course, "logos" has many meanings - Wikipedia (Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos) gives the following possible translations: "ground", "plea", "opinion", "expectation", "word", "speech", "account", "reason", "proportion", "discourse". I have seen once that the word "logos" was simply kept, but I cannot remember which translation that was. After the Vulgata used "verbum" for "logos", that can only be translated "word" or "verb", this translation was kept in the other languages.

From the text it should be assumed that John 1:1 - 18 is about the Son, not about the text of the Bible.

Edit: The page http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/theology/bible-inerrant.php does perhaps a better job of representing my side of the discussion (respect for the Bible without considering it inerrant).