RE: My Formal Introduction To Steemit Community
Hi Philip, That is a monumental post. I tend to think that your realisations, while revelatory to you personally, are a much traveled road.
You've obviously done a lot of writing over the years to set out your thoughts; I wonder what reading you've done. I tend to think you will find many kindred souls out there, as well as serious scholarship on the matter. To be more than a lone voice shouting in the wind, you need to engage with the ideas of others and situate your work in context with the work of others.
Now, you may have done this, but it's not mentioned in your post here. You refer only to your own personal experiences and writings. I didn't see anything of what you may have read, or what other like-minded, or other-minded authors you have researched or engaged with.
Please take this as advice, rather than just criticism (though I hope that it is constructively critical advice). I've spent some years teaching philosophy at a university, so you can even look at it as freebie professional advice.
Good luck to you!
well... I've posted what I have written in the religion section hoping to stir up some conversation there, but haven't gotten a response yet. Concerning interesting reads, I might recommend the Bible Unearthed by Israel Finklestein... he sits at the head of the archelolgy department at the University of Tel Avi. For anyone who wants to get their historical model of Israel as represented in the Old Testament shattered, this book will do it. Bart Erhman is pretty good when it comes to textual criticism. There is so much information out there that completely destroys the Bible as an accurate historical document, it is rather mind blowing , if you want to go looking for it.
If you're waiting for substantive response to your ideas, steemit might not be the best place. I'm only new here too, but so far I have the impression that the system encourages a lot of fast interaction - upvotes, resteems, "Hi, your post is good! Follow me back!" as I think you're already noticing with the majority of replies here. In depth interaction may be possible, but I think we'll have to spend time and effort and time waiting for those with similar interests, who are willing to spend the time (again) to find each other and read, think and engage.
As for your subject matter, what are you aiming at? Why is the historical accuracy of the Bible important? Surely, it's the message that's important; messages can be conveyed through allegory, often better than through truth. Are you trying to convince others? (tip: you will never convince anyone who believes - they will always shift the goal posts, no matter what evidence you present) or are you still trying to convince yourself?
Has your loss of faith in institutions and literal translations also caused you to question your faith more broadly? In the wake of the beliefs you have lost, are you still trying to work out what to replace them with? (Disclaimer: I am an atheist.)
I don't consider myself an atheist. Theologically speaking I might consider myself a Deist of whom Thomas Jefferson and many of the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution. I would probably say I lean towards gnosticism which the Rome had to destroy , in order that ecclesiastical order would reign supreme. That is very clear in the historical record which I cover in what I have written. The human machine and brain is such incredibly refined piece of machinary to say that we all what happened by accident.
I'm not an American, so not familiar with the particular religious beliefs of US founders. Gnosticism covers a wide range of beliefs (as does Christianity itself); does your version include Christ? The historical record of Roman Catholic intolerance of anything they considered heresy is widely known and accepted.
I will take issue with you on your last comment, though. The "happened by accident" line is one often put forward by 'intelligent design' proponents, but it's what is known in philosophical terms as a 'straw man argument'. That's where you misrepresent your opponent's argument to make it easier to refute.
Evolution does not advance by accident. It is a teleological process: the goal being survival. Each singular mutation may be accidental, but which mutations make it through to the next generations is not an accident.
Just imagine you had a jar of different coloured jelly beans. You hate yellow jelly beans - this gives yellow jelly beans a high chance of surviving. You take out a handful. You eat most jelly beans, but throw the yellow ones back. You come back later, take another handful, throw the yellow ones back, and so on. After a while, any colour other than yellow will be very difficult to find. Uniformity has been created from diversity by way of a targeted campaign carried out on each random sample.
In this process, the jelly beans you take out on each occasion is like the mutations: what is in your hand is random. But the survivors that live on are not determined randomly, they are determined by selection - being non-yellow takes that bean to an early death, removing it from the 'gene pool'.
The brain is incredible machinery, and it is difficult to comprehend how it could be the result of natural processes. But, if you think about it, a creator is even more incredible. I've never understood why people think that coming up with something even more incredible is a good way to explain the first incredible thing.
Very thoughtful exchange beachhermit! On teleology: you are suggesting that the drive is completely natural? Unlike, say, Ken Wilber, who asserts some mysterious eros?
And what about the idea that humans are not dealing with God per se; but rather, intermediary beings whether E.T. or Archons. In such a case God would not be relevant, but maybe some kind of impersonal nondual ground.
If you're interested head over to Integral World and read some of Joe Corbett's metaphysical speculations as far as new ideas in science.
Oh, yes, Philip, I've long considered Christian Gnosticism ( not to be confused with Judaic Gnosticism) as being a more coherent view of the Kristo's, but there are problems with that, too; namely, even a Gnostic Jesus who wasn't born of a Virgin, or die on the cross for sin had to have existed as a human! And, there is mounting evidence no such person existed, period........It wouldn't necessarily mean Gnosticism isn't true, but would really muddy the waters as far as trying to figure out the who of all these shenanigans.....
A longtime Christian friend of mine showed up last year claiming Alpha-Draconian lizards and Grey aliens are responsible for all this religious madness (control mechanisms....
Let's not say mounting evidence. I would be more inclined to say overwhelming evidence is that the Gospel records are complete and total fabrication out of Rome. There is an interesting book which I have not read – called “Cesars Christ” which aligns the ministry of Jesus with the intinerary of Titus when he came and conquered Jerusalem.
You can really begin to see into Roman history from their point of view . The way it really it was back then. Christians view the Roman times through the Gospels… they make the categorical error of assumimg it is an accurate historical record.
The reality is Roman had a problem with the Judeans who would not bow their knees to them so they had the Romanized Jew --- Josephus—totally connected on the inside aristocracy of Rome to put together a story. We are constantly being fed stories by the FakeNews network , right. The doctrine of eternal torment—let’s keep them in fear Ecclesiastis says: “There is nothing new under the sun.” It’s same old, same old, same old.” The question is how do we get off the fucking merry-go-round.
Gnosticism is about direct experience with the cosmoslogical Chrsit... who is seated at the right-hand of the Most High. Churches can screw up your thinking but you just can't through the baby out with the bath water. You'll just have to follow my next post. Our authority is truth... wherewe find it, Light exposes darkness,
Okay, I'll bite as long as everyone understands that my positions on these topics are always framed as metaphysical speculation and not as assertions of spiritual fact.
Do we imagine that God is an amputee? I think not! What, then, sits at the left hand of God?
I would argue Sophia! The 'nothingness/ground of all being' first brought into existence duality: the male and female principle! The Logos (male) and wisdom (female/Sophia). aka: Jesus and *Sophia--The two original Gnostic Aeons.
Of course, "somewhere along the line something went wrong and I swore I heard an angel singing a mournful song" (copywrite@andrewmarkmusic:)
But that's a whole other post to do with the problem of evil (theodicy).
It's clear that some Jews were equally involved in establishing Roman canon. My bet is they were involved with the creation of Islam, too....(again, another post).
The situation is obviously complex. My bet is that this is where the idea of Lucy/fer comes from......
Hi Andrew. Thanks. It seemed to make sense when I wrote it but it was getting pretty late; so nice to learn that it resonated with someone.
I'm not familiar with Ken Wilber, but is it something like a Gaia hypothesis, where some sort of collective spirit guides for the good of the planet?
There are so many ways to provide an over-arching story that ties together what we see: gods, aliens, spirits. I think that those stories are there because, just as nature abhors a vacuum, the human mind abhors a lack of purpose. We are desperate to tie the strings together in neat, elegant bows.
When I was in my teens, I sometimes thought how wonderful it would be to have the surety that belief brings. The Hari Krishnas always look so happy banging their drums and dancing down the street; evangelicals take enormous comfort, even in hard times, that things are as they are for the best of reasons. I never could bring myself to believe wholeheartedly in anything, though.
I believe in what is measurable. I acknowledge that there are plenty of things we can't explain yet, but if it's a choice between saying, "I don't know" and "something mysterious and invisible did it", I go with the first choice every time.
Concerning evolution I've never really considered it. You’ve got two camps -- the creationists and evolutionists. You are no doubt familiar with Zacharia Sitchen and the Annunaki and that we the human race are actually the result genetic manipulation of Neandrathal man. Look at where we are in genetic science where can actually begin to design our children in advance. Mind blowing concept isn't. Nothing has changed and the Annunaki needed intellegent yet obedient slaves to mine gold for them. There are just so many unanswered questions out there, sometimes I just don't know where to go when I am minining for truth. Thanks for extending your hand and showing an interest in what I've put together. I really want to create a community here on line which I've never done before. Right I got to figure out a way to start generating some income. I’ve just suffered a huge loss on my crytos – fortunately, not all, but right now it is proceed with caution.
Evolution is a fact although we still do not know what was there or what happened at the very beginning of the scientific worldview (known as the big bang).
Yes, I read all of Sitchen in the '90's. I consider the God hypothesis to be consistent with alien overlords. But as far as proof of that assertion? It doesn't fare much better than religious claims.
Yes, well, we are all being demonetized by the billionaires as they suck up the 'wealth of the commons' into their pockets.....