Which God?

[Amethyst]

The Christians that come here tend to force the our arguments to be "God" or "Not God". And the sites purpose is not to give any ultimate answers to that question, but that Christianity's version, or the Bible God, is something that we all left and don't believe in anymore.

 

It's not the Atheist.Net site, like you said, but the Not-Christian-Anymore.Net web site.

 

Right. I'm agnostic because I don't think the existence of god can be proven or disproven using any scientific test. But I'm not going to join a cult just in case. I figure if there is a deity, he, she, or it will realize that we are decent people and won't torture everyone for all of eternity. And if there isn't, we won't care either way when we die, because we'll be dead. But whatever happens to us after death happens to all of us, not just a certain select few chosen ones.

 

Oh, and I tried the taking the Bible as metaphor thing, but I realized that if I couldn't believe for sure that Jesus existed, then I really couldn't keep considering myself a Christian. I was hanging onto the label becuase I didn't want everyone I knew to hate me. But they haven't rejected me yet.

[DanInPA]

If any "sacred writing" is the the "word of god" to his people (us), then why wouldn't he make understandable for everyone?

 

Does he like to fuck with us, and only enlighten those who can dredge their way through the bullshit?

 

Does he enjoy seeing the majority burn in eternal torment?

 

Why not just appear to us face to face the way he did so many times in the OT?

[BlueGiant]

You'd think that a god that knew humans so well would make something completely unambiguous to us should it have decided to directly communicate through printed word.

 

I also fail to see what your posting has to do with the OP, Ssel.

[Ouroboros]

You'd think that a god that knew humans so well would make something completely unambiguous to us should it have decided to directly communicate through printed word.

Correct, and why couldn't he talk individually or give a revelation to each person, just like he did with Saul/Paul? Paul was an ardent persecutor of the Christians, and yet God supposedly revealed Jesus to him, so why would anyone of us be less important to him? Why do we need faith to know which God, while Paul was a hater and a killer but got God's help? Maybe we have to start killing Christians for God to show up?

 

I also fail to see what your posting has to do with the OP, Ssel.

Well, it is Lion's Den after all.

[Ssel]

And of course, like hundreds of others before and like many to come, you have the one true understanding?

 

Haha... well, of course not, Bruce

We ALL know that only CRAZY people believe in anything new.

 

like hundreds of churches before you and like many to come,

"if we don't already know it, it can't be known"

[NotBlinded]

[And of course, like hundreds of others before and like many to come, you have the one true ™ understanding?

Like all the others you just won't get it until you get it. Once the mystery of <whatever interpretation> is revealed then you'll finally get what jesus really meant to say. So believe it so that you can learn to believe it.

 

mwc

My understanding of what Ssel has been saying is that it doesn't matter where the allegories come from, but that there is wisdom in all of them from any religion or philosophy that tries to connect the person to the essence of what is. That essence cannot be described as anything other than what exists already in each and every thing. When Ssel said, "I generally feel like I'm trying to explain the potential of electronics and technology to a 12th century jew and he says, "well just EXPLAIN IT!" as he prepares to look for scriptural proof of its potential." I think what was meant was that reality and religious texts don't contradict when the words are understood as allegory. They both can exist. I could be wrong though.

[Ssel]

I think what was meant was that reality and religious texts don't contradict when the words are understood as allegory. They both can exist.

You said it in a nutshell

 

The problem is "unscrambling the egg" of confusion surrounding which metaphors might really apply and which don't. It takes a LOT of understanding of the words being used in older scriptures to make them finally all come together. This isn't a task for someone who just wants to know NOW!.

Learning to program a computer requires the same type of thing. What you might assume a word to mean often doesn't fit what the computer means. It takes a lot of study to see how all of the words fit into a program. The fact the words have been confused so as to make the scriptures unreadable is a modern day issue. Are you going to blame the ancients for not making a language that no one could EVER redefine? Scramble the words in science, and see what happens in a generation or 2. They have done this in the field of logic. It takes time to straighten such things back out and most ppl today simply don't want to take the time. It's more fun to merely say the those old dudes were dumb, let's start everything from scratch because we b smarter now.

 

Starting over will merely take everyone through the same course. But I DO know a way to make it shorter.

[NotBlinded]

I think what was meant was that reality and religious texts don't contradict when the words are understood as allegory. They both can exist.

You said it in a nutshell

 

The problem is "unscrambling the egg" of confusion surrounding which metaphors might really apply and which don't. It takes a LOT of understanding of the words being used in older scriptures to make them finally all come together. This isn't a task for someone who just wants to know NOW!.

Learning to program a computer requires the same type of thing. What you might assume a word to mean often doesn't fit what the computer means. It takes a lot of study to see how all of the words fit into a program. The fact the words have been confused so as to make the scriptures unreadable is a modern day issue. Are you going to blame the ancients for not making a language that no one could EVER redefine? Scramble the words in science, and see what happens in a generation or 2. They have done this in the field of logic. It takes time to straighten such things back out and most ppl today simply don't want to take the time. It's more fun to merely say the those old dudes were dumb, let's start everything from scratch because we b smarter now.

 

Starting over will merely take everyone through the same course. But I DO know a way to make it shorter.

I indeed want to know and I have plenty of spare time. What good is the arrival if the trip was ignored?

 

I don't have many sources on this and I am not quite sure where to look. You say you do know a way to make it shorter, perhaps you can expound on this? Not that I want to rush my trip , I just would like to have more roads to travel.

[Ssel]

The problem is "unscrambling the egg" of confusion surrounding which metaphors might really apply and which don't.

-----

I indeed want to know and I have plenty of spare time. What good is the arrival if the trip was ignored?

 

I don't really recommend the unscramble method, but you can do both simultainiously if you have nothing better to do.

 

Passions guide and beguile the mind. When you WANT something to NOT be true, your mind will be encouraged to find ANY means to resist it as a fact. When you WANT something to BE true, your mind is encouraged to find any means to accept it as a fact.

 

What they have ALL been really telling you is to STOP WANTING for or against any truth and let the truth come to you. But then you have to ask “How can I do that?”

 

The easy burden way is to absolutely insist that the things you accept as truth and certainly the things that you SAY aloud are things that you have scrutinized SO strongly in your own mind, that you can’t think of ANY way it could possibly be wrong. If something raises a new question about something you have already accepted as a truth, then revisit your scrutiny on that issue to make absolutely certain that you could never be wrong.

 

Now I mentioned this first because you wish to see how the Bible actually IS correct if understood properly. But no one finds what is right if they merely seek for all the excuses to proclaim it wrong. So avoid WANTING in either direction. Instead WANT for extreme certainty and accuracy. But get good at the mindset of accepting nothing until you can KNOW it to be true. This takes that little bit of quiet time that you force yourself into by refusing to SAY anything that is not provably accurate. This requires a lot of clear definitions, btw. And it doesn't forbid questions, but the words of the question might bring an incorrect answer.

 

In some of my posts, I have pointed out some of the actual metaphors that make it all come together. Don’t merely take my word for such, examine those metaphors to see how they might properly fit and don’t reject anything until you know for sure what MUST be the entire story. That requires a LOT of time and thought which is “probably not true”, but not ready to trash yet. The same basic metaphors work throughout example;

"water" = issues/concerns this includes rivers of concerns, seas of concerns, rain, and clouds.

The baptism story mentions a "river". So consider the metaphor and read the story again. There will be more that show up as you read.

 

You can easily spot WHEN to look for a metaphor by noting that something seemingly impossible is being spoken of. "Jesus walked on the sea"

 

Metaphors are based on the concept similarities between things.

Issues flow - water flows

blood is an issue of the heart - a serious personal issue not merely "water"

"blood is thinker than water"

[NotBlinded]

The problem is "unscrambling the egg" of confusion surrounding which metaphors might really apply and which don't.

-----

I indeed want to know and I have plenty of spare time. What good is the arrival if the trip was ignored?

 

I don't really recommend the unscramble method, but you can do both simultainiously if you have nothing better to do.

 

Passions guide and beguile the mind. When you WANT something to NOT be true, your mind will be encouraged to find ANY means to resist it as a fact. When you WANT something to BE true, your mind is encouraged to find any means to accept it as a fact.

 

What they have ALL been really telling you is to STOP WANTING for or against any truth and let the truth come to you. But then you have to ask “How can I do that?”

 

The easy burden way is to absolutely insist that the things you accept as truth and certainly the things that you SAY aloud are things that you have scrutinized SO strongly in your own mind, that you can’t think of ANY way it could possibly be wrong. If something raises a new question about something you have already accepted as a truth, then revisit your scrutiny on that issue to make absolutely certain that you could never be wrong.

 

Now I mentioned this first because you wish to see how the Bible actually IS correct if understood properly. But no one finds what is right if they merely seek for all the excuses to proclaim it wrong. So avoid WANTING in either direction. Instead WANT for extreme certainty and accuracy. But get good at the mindset of accepting nothing until you can KNOW it to be true. This takes that little bit of quiet time that you force yourself into by refusing to SAY anything that is not provably accurate. This requires a lot of clear definitions, btw. And it doesn't forbid questions, but the words of the question might bring an incorrect answer.

 

In some of my posts, I have pointed out some of the actual metaphors that make it all come together. Don’t merely take my word for such, examine those metaphors to see how they might properly fit and don’t reject anything until you know for sure what MUST be the entire story. That requires a LOT of time and thought which is “probably not true”, but not ready to trash yet. The same basic metaphors work throughout example;

"water" = issues/concerns this includes rivers of concerns, seas of concerns, rain, and clouds.

The baptism story mentions a "river". So consider the metaphor and read the story again. There will be more that show up as you read.

 

You can easily spot WHEN to look for a metaphor by noting that something seemingly impossible is being spoken of. "Jesus walked on the sea"

 

Metaphors are based on the concept similarities between things.

Issues flow - water flows

blood is an issue of the heart - a serious personal issue not merely "water"

"blood is thinker than water"

Thank you, I understand completely what you are saying.

 

Jesus walking on water is a metaphor for us being able to stand above (walking on) our emotions (water) and finding peace.

[Ssel]

Jesus walking on water is a metaphor for us being able to stand above (walking on) our emotions (water) and finding peace.

Well, your not being careful. Your adding more than that one statement said.

"Jesus walked on the water."

That didn't say that YOU could. In fact, you CAN, but that statement didn't say so.

Similarly Moses (via God) "parted the red sea" = "Moses parted the sea of red waters" and the Israelites walked upon the firm ground BETWEEN the great walls of red sea water" (what is meant by "red"? what is meant by the firmament between the walls?)

 

"Walking ON" does not mean the same as "above" although they are related. The statement refers to Jesus supporting his weight via the waters. This becomes metaphorically "Jesus stood on the water without being supported by the usual things." This is relevant when you see why the statement was ever made and by whom.

 

And also it is demonstrated in the story that it requires peace before you can avoid drowning (Peter's experience)

 

Take a little more care, the details add up and the entire project of unraveling is a LONG endeavor.

 

Moses' Staff caused the waters of Egypt to flow as blood. What was a "staff"?

 

Jesus cleaned Peter's sandals. Jesus turned the water into wine.

 

Jesus caused the blind man to see.

 

Moses' Staff became a serpent. What is a serpent?

 

Moses' Staff guided the Israelites across the parted red sea.

[Cerise]

Didn't we already have people who do this for a living (religion)? I.E. Quakers?

 

People have emotions. If you've found a way to stop WANTING, then I would immediately type some words on your keyboard and interface with you that way, for you are a computer, and not a person.

 

The very act of interpretation requires ideologies upon ideologies. You aren't going to get away from them, no matter how hard you try.

[NotBlinded]

Moses' Staff caused the waters of Egypt to flow as blood. What was a "staff"?

 

Jesus cleaned Peter's sandals. Jesus turned the water into wine.

 

Jesus caused the blind man to see.

 

Moses' Staff became a serpent. What is a serpent?

 

Moses' Staff guided the Israelites across the parted red sea.

Staff = Creative force

 

When the Christ-nature and man (human kind) are united, such as the marriage feast at Cana, the Christ nature in man shines. At this point, water (the emotions) are automatically turned to wine (intuition).

 

Jesus called the blind man to see, to see Christ in himself.

 

[Ssel]

Didn't we already have people who do this for a living (religion)? I.E. Quakers?

Try to do what?

 

People have emotions. If you've found a way to stop WANTING, ...

Can't peole WANT to be very accurate before they speak or accept belief??

 

The very act of interpretation requires ideologies upon ideologies...

No, I don't believe so. It requires only that SOMEthing be bevieved before something ELSE is interpreted. That first something need be no more than common sense.

 

If you have proof for that assertion of what can NOT be done, I'd glad to hear it.

[NotBlinded]

Didn't we already have people who do this for a living (religion)? I.E. Quakers?

 

People have emotions. If you've found a way to stop WANTING, then I would immediately type some words on your keyboard and interface with you that way, for you are a computer, and not a person.

 

The very act of interpretation requires ideologies upon ideologies. You aren't going to get away from them, no matter how hard you try.

Actually, I don't think it means to deny emotions, but to calm them.

[Amanda]

Hi Ssel! I have some aspects that I've considered about these occurrences. Can you see any relavence in these analogies, and if not... can you tell me why?

"Jesus walked on the water."

I suspected it was his spirit walking on the sea because of these verses:

 

Mt 14:26 And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying *, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.

 

Mr 6:49 But when they saw him walking upon the sea, they supposed it had been a spirit, and cried out:

 

And I thought water was a 'life giving' resource. The sea is huge, is water and salt. Salt I thought, was as man is the 'salt' of the earth... what gives flavor. Or sometimes I thought salt was used as what preserves the dead, as how they preserved meats. Like when Lots' wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, living in the past, perseving what is dead, causes one to not be able to move forward.

Similarly Moses (via God) "parted the red sea" = "Moses parted the sea of red waters" and the Israelites walked upon the firm ground BETWEEN the great walls of red sea water" (what is meant by "red"? what is meant by the firmament between the walls?)

I thought the word red has the english meaning 'reed'. See definition:

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew...488&version=kjv

[Ssel]

In my interpretations you will find that I get very technically precise. Seeking extreme accuracy is the path that will get you there. But to do that, one must disqualify anything that isn't readily certain. One can not use thoughts of "spirits" until they have absolute certain understanding of exactly what a spirit IS. If this is not done, then you will find yourself wandering in circles in the desert.

 

I offered to help guide through this desert to those willing to uphold to my (1) step posted earlier which required that nothing be said at all by the “climber” (one willing to stop throwing stones long enough to develop a solid understanding of their own) until he could absolutely be 100% confident of its factual nature - Totally un-doubtable. If one is to climb a mountain, he must be certain of each step. In the metaphorical interpretation world, one can not know that a particular interpretation is correct until the entire story has been interpreted sufficiently. This is a drawback and thus most people don’t bother.

 

During the postings, of course, I expect questions (since they are not statements of fact) and I expect thoughts posed as "possibilities" which makes a statement far more likely to be exactly accurate. In this way, the discussion can continue with the climber still held to the effort of being 100% absolutely accurate in everything stated.

 

Some of your questions are good interjection into the thread in that they reveal other possible thoughts which may or may not be accurate in the long run, but until they are scrutinized by the climbers, they are NEVER to be dismissed.

 

The ultimate sin in this type of discussion is to toss an idea away before it is absolutely proven to be wrong beyond any possible doubt.

 

 

I found that the analogy for water is "life giving". The interesting metaphor here is that Jesus is walking on the sea, water with salt. Man is to be the salt of the earth, gives the earth flavor, or can be what preserves the dead as it was used to preserve meats too.

the specific water being address is, in fact, the "waters(issues) of life". I also suggest that "walking" meant that each step he took in his teachings were all about the issues of life as opposed to how to gain more riches or more fame (or more women). The Jews were accustom to being able to cause infighting for who should be the leader of a independent group. With Jesus this tactic was ineffective. The "Staff of Moses" wasn't working to create conflict and argument within.

 

"Salt" is a little better understood as the stabilizing element. This understanding works well with all of its metaphorical uses. It isn't about taste, but stability. It doesn’t burn with passion. It prevents rotting and growth of undesirable agents.

 

 

consider;

red = anger

staff = supporting/guiding device (even in corporate America…a manager’s “staff”)

 

The Staff of Moses is a very significant understanding in the entire story. As you put each piece together, you will see exactly how the Staff worked as both a weapon and a guide ("do these things so that this weapon can not be used against you"). But look into where the staff came from and that mysterious bush. How did it turn into a serpent? How did it part the red sea? All of these things can be seen without the use of faith in the supernatural.

 

 

It seems that once Peter allowed his awareness to be on the turbulence around him, this is when he fell.

I would state it more as his concern and insecurity. By "taking Jesus' hand", his inner feelings of security returned and he could then handle the dubious task of standing on mere water alone.

 

Jesus caused the blind man to see.

What kind of "blindness" are they talking about? (mental/spiritual or physical?)

 

What is a serpent?

This takes a little more understanding. A "serpent" is a chain of events which sneaks up on a prey then strikes such that the prey can no longer run because the venom (poisoning effect) is within. This concept is used throughout the scriptures from beginning to end.

 

_______-

 

I'm not merely attempting to lecture on what I believe the accurate interpretations to be. I am helping whoever (the climber) to guide themselves to build their OWN understanding. But I am INSISTING on never using any presumptions of magical events or unknown entities or easily doubtable notions. One can understand the entire thing without ever getting into any faithful beliefs in anything but reasonable common sense. But ONLY if they are willing to stay away from accepting as premise, doubtable facts.

[Ssel]

Are you a Gnostic? They believed too that spiritual path is discovered through self, not what someone else says that it should be.

Serenity, in your "Any Gods?" response, you state something very similar to what I said very many years ago, "If God wants me to know that He is there, then I'm sure he has the power to arrange it. I am not going to close my eyes just because I don't yet have the evidence." I continued later to think "I am going to refuse to accept or deny ANYthing until I KNOW without any doubt at all that I am not incorrect." This led directly into a Buddhistic type stance where I did just as you here about, sit (or lay in my case) and refuse to accept even the slightest notion of any importance of ANYthing until it is beyond doubt.

 

Many would assume that such would merely lead to a waste. And in very many cases I would agree. I don't preach for people to do that. Although something similar can be done which gets the person to the same goal without quite that extreme. And THAT is what we are discussing here.

 

The Gnostic, as with all older cults and religions obtained connotations which eventually came to imply more specific definitions of exactly what they stood for. The most outstanding characteristic is the one of a belief that they CAN, in fact, KNOW of God. In this respect, depending on the detail of "God" your referring to, I share that aspect. But the other characteristics, legitimately attached or not, I do not share.

 

I am the same with most religions. I can support a great deal of their correct wisdoms, but before the top of the mountain is reached, I find myself saying "yes, but right HERE, is where you went wrong." In the case of Jesus, I don't find myself saying "HERE is where you went wrong at any point." Instead, I find myself saying "There needed to be more emphasis on THIS aspect and THAT" But the guy only had 3 years and no Internet, give Him a break. I can easily believe that if He had been given more time, then even what I have come to see that is beyond what is taught, He would have revealed because it is directly in line with what He was already saying.

 

So, in the long run, I am ALL of the above, more, and none. I am what I am, I stopped looking for what group or category that I might belong to.

 

I DO offer the experience and guide to say with strong confidence that a person CAN indeed KNOW what the God story is ALL about IF they are willing to climb the mountain that I climbed. And at that point, they might see even more than I see. But the truth is, you don't have to see much more. The answer to ALL of the questions get answered.

 

I suggest that people climb more straight up rather than try to prove how righteous other peoples paths may have been before them. Hear what they have to say, but if you're climbing a mountain, you never take a step with the assumption that it is safe just because the person before you stood there. You TEST every step with YOUROWN weight very carefully, else at some point, down you go.

[Cerise]

Didn't we already have people who do this for a living (religion)? I.E. Quakers?

Try to do what?

 

People have emotions. If you've found a way to stop WANTING, ...

Can't peole WANT to be very accurate before they speak or accept belief??

 

The very act of interpretation requires ideologies upon ideologies...

No, I don't believe so. It requires only that SOMEthing be bevieved before something ELSE is interpreted. That first something need be no more than common sense.

 

If you have proof for that assertion of what can NOT be done, I'd glad to hear it.

 

The Society of Friends tried, for a while, to re-interpret the bible as metaphor. Just as many many sects afterwards re-interpreted the bible, and just as many more sects will try to reinterpret the bible in the coming centuries. What you are suggesting is in no way a new phenomenon. Nor is it something that I am unfamiliar with (though you do sound as though you think you have some NEW and ORIGINAL thing to tell us, don't you).

 

People can want to be accurate all they like. This doesn't not guarentee them any kind of accuracy, however. Especially when it comes to matters of interpretation.

 

And if you think the idea of "common sense" isn't wrapped in tri-plicate in ideology well...

 

I offered to help guide through this desert to those willing to uphold to my (1) step posted earlier which required that nothing be said at all by the “climber” (one willing to stop throwing stones long enough to develop a solid understanding of their own) until he could absolutely be 100% confident of its factual nature - Totally un-doubtable. If one is to climb a mountain, he must be certain of each step. In the metaphorical interpretation world, one can not know that a particular interpretation is correct until the entire story has been interpreted sufficiently. This is a drawback and thus most people don’t bother.

 

 

That's because it doesn't work. You imply a closed and conclusive reading or interpretation. As long as we approach text through time as interpretive communities, there is no closed system. You wish to climb a mountain that is forever shifting, and yet you want to be 100% sure of all the steps.

 

How will you know when you have interpreted sufficiently? And has that ever happened with ANY text in the history of texts? Have we ever gotten to a text that could no longer be interpreted in any other way?

 

I would submit that we have not and will not, as long as history happens.

[Antlerman]

What I meant by "erroneous premise" was that the Bible can’t be read literally.

It is written in serious, yet consistent metaphor for reasons.

Until you understand the exact metaphors being used, the scriptures make very little sense to any rational person.

 

BUT, once you actually see them and put it all together, THEN it becomes VERY consistent and more importantly it becomes HIGHLY relevant to the obvious intention and purpose of its writing.

 

You can only know when you have it right, when all of the pieces finally and really fit together into a truly rational, and relevant story. Then you can see WHY things were said, and you can discuss the real strategies and concepts being fought over. You can even begin to see how they play into a predictable pattern.

 

Once you understand it, you see VERY clearly that it is ALL about strategies and concepts. It is about creating nations and destroying them. It is about creating the worst of the worst and surviving the worst of the worst. It is about creating unity and creating dissention. And if you climb high enough on that mountain of understanding, you see that it, and all else that man must deal with is merely about the simple mental affect known as "lust of the mind" (not sexual, more like "luster" which blinds him from seeing reality).

 

Hi Ssel. I've been distracted lately and need to play a little catch up here. If I hit something that's already been addressed, I apologize.

 

Firstly, does this argument sound familiar: "I see order in the world, therefore there must be an intelligent designer behind it. You can't find a watch in the jungle and think it 'just happened'."? Now I see this in your above statements: "When I approach the bible with the perception of metaphors, all the pieces fit perfectly together and makes total sense. Therefore, it shows an intential, delberate design in its formation." Am I stating that correctly, or am I overstating what I seemed to have been getting from this?

 

Of course my response would be that this is about someone’s perception, and not some causal reality. Do you recall having seen the photograph of the "face" in the billowing smoke from one of the World Trade Towers after the attack on 9/11, that was circulating around in all the tabloids and wherever else? People were believing it was the face of the devil and whatnot. Its reality was our perceptions of trying to see familiar objects in random matter, faces being a particular object that we seem keenly oriented to psychologically. Same thing here. You are seeing the order that appeals to you. Others do not, but it is not due to being "uninitiated" or lacking the “special key” to knowledge (as you put it: “Until you understand the exact metaphors being used, the scriptures make very little sense to any rational person”). This sounds like the same approach the mystery cults used where the truth became “perfectly clear” to the initiated. They came and went.

[Ssel]

People can want to be accurate all they like. This doesn't not guarentee them any kind of accuracy, however...

I would submit that we have not and will not, as long as history happens.

You can’t

You CAN

You CAN’T

I HAVE

But you can’t, people have tried

But I HAVE, I don’t care WHAT people have tried

But it can’t be done, it’s too hard

But I HAVE, so it can’t be THAT hard.

Still, you merely think you have, it can’t be done

Well, yes, “thinking” IS an important part of it, and I DID

You can’t

I have

 

Exactly where do you think this argument is going?

 

Realize that if you were to go back 300 years and propose the notion of science, you would get that exact same response – “it can’t be done. The universe can not be understood. Stop trying.”

 

But exactly where does that leave everyone? An acceptance of a dark unknown? And maybe you think that somehow a demand for reasoning is going to overcome everyone suspicions of that dark unknown? Your argument is self-defeating unless it is your intention to KEPP people worshipping some invisible thing out there that MIGHT cause good or bad things to happen.

 

Science was founded on the notion of being extremely careful with any and every accepted step. A controlled and visible demonstration was the measure of solidity. In the beginning it could easily be argued that such measures would NEVER grow into anything useful. But it did.

 

The world of Logic is very similar and even more foundational than science or mathematics. By very, VERY carefully accepting ONLY that which is unquestionable (just as the scientist), one begins with nothing which appears useful. But keep building, with each assertion being VERY certain, and the mountain begins to grow. It is a proven theory.

 

Your method is to accept that “they” tried it and they failed, so give it up. And exactly where would THAT lead?

 

My method is to, if you have interest, make SURE that each step you take is very well founded (same of the scientist). Even if you don’t get to some perfect understanding of all things, you will certainly get further than merely worshipping the unknown.

 

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don’t. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can’t then start a thread on “Can scientists govern Society” and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN’T and what MUST happen instead. You won’t like where your nay-saying must lead.

 

In addition, you can not disprove the Bible until you have disproved it both literally AND metaphorically. The literalness is a silly child’s game. That leaves the metaphor to be resolved. IF in fact with the utmost care being given, nothing can be resolved, THEN you have your proof. The problem is, I have already done it, so such arguments that “it can’t be done” are totally futile to me. They serve only to attempt to disinspire others from trying, so that they stay in darkness, easily persuaded by their uncertainty and fear of the unknown. You are VERY sadly mistaken if you think that reasoning will take over from there.

 

Why not let those interested in doing so give it a shot? They might finally prove that sure enough, it CAN’T be done. But at least you would then have your proof.

[Ssel]

First, let me say that your comments reflect a careful thinking person, I have an appreciation for such.

Now I see this in your above statements: "When I approach the bible with the perception of metaphors, all the pieces fit perfectly together and makes total sense. Therefore, it shows an intential, delberate design in its formation." Am I stating that correctly, or am I overstating what I seemed to have been getting from this?

I am not attempting to prove “Intelligent Design” in this thread. A few people stated that they were interested in the metaphorical aspects of interpretation. I have stated several times, that such an endeavor is time consuming and not really necessary as there are other means to find wisdom. But who am I to dictate to others what they SHOULD or should NOT be interested in doing?

 

Thus, instead, I offered 3 bits of advice;

1) be VERY careful concerning presumptions of what exists as you interpret

2) Don’t expect any complete revelation of any significance until the ENTIRE picture is assembled.

3) I offer a few fundamental concepts to help get the journey on it’s way. It is a LONG journey, so a little help getting started shouldn’t hurt.

 

I am NOT dictating that their results MUST be identical to Mine. Rather, that they be very certain of each and every small step. Realize how much you DON’T know before building a solid understanding of ANY thing.

 

1) Hypothesis – A metaphorical study can reveal a clearly assembled picture of what the Bible was talking about.

2) Theory – This metaphorical picture will yield a useful tool for understanding many social concerns.

3) Experiment – Let someone besides myself DO it and see where it leads.

 

Consider it all a scientific experiment.

 

Its reality was our perceptions of trying to see familiar objects in random matter, faces being a particular object that we seem keenly oriented to psychologically. Same thing here. You are seeing the order that appeals to you.

Granted that if we were merely talking about a face in the clouds, then it could easily be dismissed as mere personal perception and not really relevant. On the other hand, if that “face in the clouds” were to reveal Einstein’s general theory of relativity to someone who knew nothing of such things, then the event could certainly not be ignored as mere personal aberration.

 

The significance of the result is what finally reveals the issue. I propose that the results, if done carefully, will yield VERY significant understandings of social strategies concerning the creating and destroying of nations, families, and humanity in general. It will reveal things that will either help or hinder in real life concerns as well as world wide fundamental strategies for humanity.

 

The result isn’t merely a face in the clouds. It is rather a discussion of very serious and useful strategies involving social warring and protection against enemies. And if this is true, then the book has gained not merely consistency in its writing, but also substantial support as to WHY it was written in the first place.

 

The notion that SO many people throughout history can be suede SO easily by mere hoax and charisma is a far stretch. This study will reveal WHY it gained so much acceptance as well as where such things must lead.

 

Why not allow the experiment to continue?

[Ouroboros]

...

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don’t. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can’t then start a thread on “Can scientists govern Society” and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN’T and what MUST happen instead. You won’t like where your nay-saying must lead.

...

 

A very interesting question Ssel, I will start a thread about that.

[Cerise]

You can’t

You CAN

You CAN’T

I HAVE

But you can’t, people have tried

But I HAVE, I don’t care WHAT people have tried

But it can’t be done, it’s too hard

But I HAVE, so it can’t be THAT hard.

Still, you merely think you have, it can’t be done

Well, yes, “thinking” IS an important part of it, and I DID

You can’t

I have

 

Exactly where do you think this argument is going?

 

I don't really know, but then, I think you look rather foolish having a mini-argument with your own sense of self-importance here.

 

You are NOT the messiah Ssel, so stop trying to snow-job us. We don't like the merchandise and we aren't interested in buying.

 

Realize that if you were to go back 300 years and propose the notion of science, you would get that exact same response – “it can’t be done. The universe can not be understood. Stop trying.”

 

What you're doing isn't science. What you are doing is interpretation. There is no comparison between the two. In 300 years a text will STILL be reinterpreted long after it is determined that dropping a glass means it will hit the ground eventually. We don't conclude things like textual interpretation. And you're talking to someone who is and will be doing textual interpretation and literary criticism for a living, so quite patronizing me. Frankly, I find it irritating.

 

But exactly where does that leave everyone? An acceptance of a dark unknown? And maybe you think that somehow a demand for reasoning is going to overcome everyone suspicions of that dark unknown? Your argument is self-defeating unless it is your intention to KEPP people worshipping some invisible thing out there that MIGHT cause good or bad things to happen.

 

I intend to do nothing to anyone. Believe fruit-loops rule the world, for all I care. But leave me and mine the hell alone.

 

Science was founded on the notion of being extremely careful with any and every accepted step. A controlled and visible demonstration was the measure of solidity. In the beginning it could easily be argued that such measures would NEVER grow into anything useful. But it did.

 

Neil has already shown you know very little of science. So please stop trying to teach me its history.

The world of Logic is very similar and even more foundational than science or mathematics. By very, VERY carefully accepting ONLY that which is unquestionable (just as the scientist), one begins with nothing which appears useful. But keep building, with each assertion being VERY certain, and the mountain begins to grow. It is a proven theory.

 

Interpretation is not logic. Just who are you trying to kid here?

Your method is to accept that “they” tried it and they failed, so give it up. And exactly where would THAT lead?

You can make all the new interpretations of the bible you want. That doesn't mean you will eventually arrive at the ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION, by any means. I would have thought, with all this talk of history, you would have realized that by now.

 

My method is to, if you have interest, make SURE that each step you take is very well founded (same of the scientist). Even if you don’t get to some perfect understanding of all things, you will certainly get further than merely worshipping the unknown.

 

And into worshipping the known? How about no worhsip at all? I'm fine where I'm at currently. If the situation changes I'll certainly let you know.

 

If you are one of those many who think that as soon as you can get all of those foolish and hateful Christians out of the way, then science and reasoning will simply step up to plate and make the world a better place, then you have some SERIOUS reconsidering to do. Science CAN NOT govern society, even if they wanted to. And real scientists don’t. If you want the proof of exactly WHY they can’t then start a thread on “Can scientists govern Society” and I will quickly show you exactly why they CAN’T and what MUST happen instead. You won’t like where your nay-saying must lead.

 

You because I think YOU'RE a fraud doesn't mean I don't think faith has its time and place in society-building. I'm not nay-saying anything except the idea of YOU being the hodler of all knowledge neccessary to live. Get over your damn self, would you.

In addition, you can not disprove the Bible until you have disproved it both literally AND metaphorically.

 

And how can you disprove a metaphor, exactly? Or disprove an interpretation of a metaphor? Meaning making is not fully contained within a text, but within readers of texts and textual communities. You can no more have the true meaning of a text, then you can contain every psyche on the planet, past present and future. The very fact that others CAN interpret the same text differently disproves your claim that you have resolved everything.

 

The literalness is a silly child’s game. That leaves the metaphor to be resolved. IF in fact with the utmost care being given, nothing can be resolved, THEN you have your proof. The problem is, I have already done it, so such arguments that “it can’t be done” are totally futile to me. They serve only to attempt to disinspire others from trying, so that they stay in darkness, easily persuaded by their uncertainty and fear of the unknown. You are VERY sadly mistaken if you think that reasoning will take over from there.

 

Why not let those interested in doing so give it a shot? They might finally prove that sure enough, it CAN’T be done. But at least you would then have your proof.

 

Arrogance. Was pride not the first sin? Or perhaps you can explain that metaphor away into nothing as well.

 

You are not the light anymore then Lucifer or Jesus. Stop trying to lead us. We are not sheep to be led by such as you.

[Ssel]

I can’t even imagine myself being a Messiah. But it seems that to you, if a man knows something that isn’t common knowledge, then he is a messiah. Which means there had to be at least 10,000 of them over the past 2500 years, so what difference would it make if there was one more?

 

What are you afraid of, Cerise? Why must everyone think only as you? (using the word “think” loosely), Why must Amanda and notblindedbytheblight never explore a thought outside your range of comfort? And when did they and you become an “us”?

 

They asked questions, I responded accordingly. Why does such frighten you SO much? Why must they be only another in your church of closed eyes and minds? I didn’t see any sign when I came in here that said “We are the alliance of the Non-thinkers”. So what is so terrifying about them wanting to explore their thoughts? You sound SO much like the churches a few hundred years ago, “DON’T THINK it will only lead you into a TRAP.”

 

My advise has consistently been to BE VERY CAREFUL and don’t assume. How can you justly argue with that? Did they ask you for your input? Did they ask you for guidance in their endeavor? Where would you guide them or any one, to “we can't know anything, don’t try to think.”? Jealousy maybe?

 

Give your ranting and spewing a break, let someone at least ATTEMPT to think. If it doesn’t lead them anywhere, then it doesn’t. What’s the problem?