youkrst wrote: there were many Jesus' about and many others not called Jesus who could easily have been somehow incorporated or related in some way to the whole christian bag.but i don't really have any interest in that compared to what really gets me riled up.

people trying to tell me i need the blood of Jesus to cleanse me from all sin literally, that demons are fallen angels and all the other hogwash that descends when you try to take mythology as history.
then they tell me there is no significance to all the bits of the Bible that CLEARLY come from somewhere else and i am a crazy ass scum dog myther, apparently because i studied mythology hard and they seem to lack the wherewithal to get a clue.

So, you catch no flak from me for those ideas. I am interested to hear the juicy bits from many perspectives.

We don't generally believe that all the stories about Pythagoras are true. The question is, was there a Pythagoras ?

youkrst wrote:to me this an almost boring subject, i'm a typical mythologist, history is a far second in catching my attention.
i dont care who said it, is it any good
i take the Hitchens approach
i couldnt care less if there was a historical socrates or not, i love the food for thought, thats why i'm here, to learn from the masters of myth, the masters of metaphor, whether it was historical socrates or plato just used that character as a mouth piece is less interesting to me than the ideas themselves.

Not meaning to be cheeky, but if you don't care who said it, it seems literalism is just insignificant to you, not a cause for hostility.

youkrst wrote: likewise i feel sorry for people who embrace the letter being deaf to the spirit.
to me stubborn literalism is like a slap in the face. my service of love is to continue to point out that there is a metaphor afoot.

So, both a slap and sad? I guess that works.

youkrst wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:I think that is working off a pretty shallow idea of what it means to declare that we are saved by faith, but then I understand that you didn't mean it seriously.

i meant it deadly seriously
if we had evidence we wouldn't need faith and so what would these verses mean
blessed are they who have not seen but believed or
your faith has made you whole
why the hell would i need faith if i had evidence! "

Well, at the risk of being repetitive, faith at the time meant something more like trust than like conjecture, or assent to a proposition. The most helpful image is "having faith in a witness" in a trial. Do you believe them?
Do I believe Jesus saying "Rise up and walk?"

The volitional element is more important than the issue of evidence. Most of the decisions we make in life (and an even larger share in Jesus' day) are made with incomplete information. The question in whom we place our trust (e.g. Caesar or Christ) is more important to our wellness than our capacity for believing things most people consider unbelievable. Of course the second can give us a powerful placebo effect, but the first can lower our blood pressure, increase our ability to process information, increase our capacity to be patient with the people around us, etc., etc.

It is a blessing (not the same as salvation) to be able to choose what is right and good over what is calculating and acquisitive, and yes, we lose that blessing if we just have it made into one more calculation for us. That is the sense in which faith needs to be less than a matter of convincing persuasion in order to have its effect.

youkrst wrote: but i will never tire of pointing out that almost the entire western world was so unbelievably thick that it took as history obvious religious metaphor
of course the BS machine knows how to push the right buttons so we can't take all the credit and many a deception is a two way contract.

It seems to be possible to perceive and respond to the metaphorical dimension even while believing that the metaphor is captured in a true story. That is, even if the Good Samaritan story had started out, "I met a guy last week who remembers coming down from Samaria . . . " we can still get the point.

So my idea is that there is a bridge to be crossed, and on one side people are obsessed by the need for the security of historical accuracy, and going over the bridge their mind is gradually freed to accept the metaphorical dimension, and when they get to the other side, they identify with the metaphors whether or not they are found in a true (i.e. factually accurate) story. They are free of the need for the story to be "real".

It would seem that "professionalism" (you refer to the BS machine, but I think most clergy are buying into the stories for the right reason) tends to push us all toward taking things literally. After all, "you need this" has to compete with the plumber for people's money, even if what they need is to quit obsessing on their money.

DB Roy wrote:Flann 5 wrote:
So you know why your mythicist approach with me has been a dismal failure? And why everybody here trying to explain things to me have utterly failed.




Because it allows you to deny deny deny. I can dumps myths in your lap all day and all you have to do is say, "I disagree." "That's not the same a Jesus" "Dr. Tard on tektonics says that's bullshit." So we're not going play that. We're going to talk about what appears in the NT and you're going to explain how it works which should be a piece of cake for you.

Anyone following this thread knows I don't just "deny,deny,deny" but give reasons and arguments against Christ myth theory and astro-theology. And that's what J.P.Holding does, showing the habitual failure of mythicists to provide primary sources for their claims while relying on the likes of Gerald Massey.

He also demonstrates the obvious absurdity and forced nature of the astro-theological applications to the gospel narratives. Ad Hominem's don't refute his arguments.

DB Roy wrote:Quote:
It's so complex,deep and wonderful that it's like playing a violin to a stray mutt. I couldn't grasp how you can explain in astrological lingo how the 'celestial powers' crucified the sun in the sub lunar realm.
Go ahead and explain it D.B.




You just said you can't grasp it so we won't talk astrology. We'll talk astrophysics. Now explain the star of Bethlehem as a historical occurrence.

No,you said I couldn't with your stray mutt analogy. Obviously you want to avoid applying what was your astrological slant on Paul's words. Why? Because as Holding shows it's ridiculous when it's advocates actually do this.
I understand very well these astro-theological interpretations, but they are not the masterpiece violin concerto's you say they are.

DB Roy wrote:Quote:
Yes this must be the hidden meaning of Paul when he distinguishes the transcendent God from the creation,sun,moon and all, in Romans one.




Well, then, if Paul said that it must be right. But back on the issue of the star of Bethlehem, would please explain the movements of this star in a manner than can allow us to conclude that it is historical?

Again, you were the one trying to say Paul was talking about gnostic archons and ancient solar deities. I just showed that he definitely was not, but the opposite. In response like a child, you don't want to play that game or tune any more.

DB Roy wrote:So, once again, from Matthew 2:

7 Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8 He sent them to Bethlehem and said, “Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you have found him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.”

9 After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was.

Now, Flann, the nearest star to us, other than the sun, is over 4 light-years away. A light-year is about six trillion miles. So this star would be close to 30 trillion miles away. Since the star of Bethlehem was not this particular star then it had to be even further away. Now, Matthew says it was in east and moved ahead of the magi until in stopped over the place where the child was. So I want you to explain to me how this could possibly be a historical account. Tell me how a star tens of trillions of miles away moved through the heavens and then stopped. Because we know if it remained seemingly motionless over the infant then it was, in fact, in geosynchronous orbit. Moreover, how could it stop over the infant at that height? Something that far away appears to be in the same spot in the sky relative to all observers for hundreds of miles. If appeared above Jesus, it appeared above people for hundreds of miles around in exactly the same manner.

DB Roy wrote:Oh, yes it does. Matthew says it moved AND stopped. Now, Flann, you're going to make me believe you don't even know what's in this book you claim you believe so much and yet you're an expert on paganism.

You are correct D.B. that the passage says the star moved,and I was wrong to suggest it didn't. Henry Morris in his article suggested it didn't say that it moved, but I should have checked for myself.

There are some possible naturalistic explanations. I don't think them absolutely necessary as I don't share your worldview and wouldn't feel obliged to explain the resurrection of Christ, or the glory of the Lord that shone around at the nativity in a naturalistic way.

The narrative says that the star had appeared to the magi,strongly implying it had not been there before this.
This at least says it wasn't one of the usual stars they normally saw.

The usual English translation is "We have seen his star in the east." It's reasonable to accept the translation but a literal translation is; "We have seen his star in it's rising."

There are various naturalistic theories such as wandering stars,a super nova or a comet. One that may be a good one is a comet which Colin Nicholl has written a book on,and seems well researched.

Whether the magi would call a comet a star, I don't know. Apparently ancient Chinese astronomers did refer to comets at times as new stars or guest stars which they also did for super nova.

In any case here's Nicholl discussing his book and ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mT-8O8S_Fw

Nicholl actually ties his comet explanation for the star of Bethlehem in with Revelation 12 and gives an astrological interpretation for Rev.12. Whether he is right about the comet I'm not sure, but I part company with him on his interpretation of Revelation on exegetical grounds.

DB Roy wrote:Quote:
You either have a universe from nothing or something. If nothing, you can't get a universe.




Okay, then, it wasn't from nothing. Big Bang doesn't discount that. It just says the universe started off as a singularity. That singularity could have an infinite past or time could be a loop so that it always happens. So much for that.

I don't see how the singularity could have an infinite past. This explodes into our universe. An infinite past can never reach the point where it does this. It just can't get there from an infinite past.
How could time be a loop? Landroid says the latest view is that the universe is heading for an eternal state of slowly vibrating strings if I remember right, so no repeat performances or bounces.

DB Roy wrote:We already went over this, Flann, it's called the First Cause Argument. Maybe you should have read it before you posted this because that argument determines that god can't get you out of infinite regress. Why? Because the theist has to say that god is a necessary cause--he has to exist. The universe was a contingent cause--and being contingent, it came into existence at a certain time, a certain way but these aren't fixed. The universe could have existed in any number of ways or come at any other time or even not have come at all. So God creating the universe is not good enough. He had to have created it at a certain moment. He would have had to decide to do this before the actual creation. But before he can do that, there had to be conditions that existed prior to his deciding to create a universe. But before that, there had to be conditions for the conditions that caused God to decide to create the universe and so on and so forth. Infinite regression. Sorry.

The universe is contingent not necessary,I agree. The question is contingent on what? If it's not a necessary cause for it's existence then why does it exist rather than another or none?
The only necessary cause and condition is the existence of God himself. The relationship of God to time is not a simple question. My view is that God is bound by neither time or space and created time,space and the universe.
We tend to think from a materialistic perspective of time beginning with the big bang but God created angels before this and they exist in time.
Since God is not bound by time there is no temporal regress with God in creating anything. I know you don't believe the bible but when Christ ascended to heaven,I don't imagine he had to travel for light years at the speed of light to get beyond the known universe to heaven.
Time is relative and if God created everything he's certainly not bound by these things.

DB Roy wrote:Well, no. When the universe was a singularity, there were no laws of physics as we know them. I'll let Stephen Hawking explain:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

In other words, there is no causal connection between the present universe and what existed prior to the Big Bang. It didn't come from nothing, it came from something indefinable, unmeasurable. Time began at the Big Bang--no God required.

O.K. D.B. but are you saying that the universe has no cause? That doesn't seem reasonable. No cause for the constituent material of the singular state? And voila! it just created physical laws and order by random explosion.

Hawking cuts out time prior to the big bang but surely there is a causal connection to the singular state and constituents of dense matter for the explosion?
To say it can't be measured is not the same as saying there is no causal connection.
Nothing caused the big bang? What was the something indefinable and not measurable,and where did it come from D.B.?
This looks similar to Krauss' sleight of hand except you are substituting a completely vague something, for nothing.

Harry wrote:if you don't care who said it, it seems literalism is just insignificant to you, not a cause for hostility.

well i didn't mean i dont care at all, i just meant it's a very distant second as a concern compared to the content of the idea itself.

so no, not insignificant just less significant. (to me, not empirically)

as for a cause for hostility, i would have thought that no surprise.

just look at the trail of human wreckage 12,742 miles wide left in the trail of the good ship literalist orthodoxy.

it might be better if i dont give examples because i have some, that as you can imagine, would ruin your day even more than watching "jesus camp"

i'm surprised hostility toward literalism isn't even stronger on my part considering the abuse i've gone through, and i got off light compared to some. i escaped with my life for a start.

for example the literalist doctrine of demon possession alone i have personally witnessed causing untold damage to people i know, and that's just a tiny fraction of a fraction.

just the idea that man is literally born in sin, in sin did our mothers concieve us, and all our righteousness is as filthy rags.

it's a sin just to exist?!??! what a sick doctrine.

so yes. i am hostile to any form of BS that enslaves people in mind forged manacles, literalism is no exception.

summed up i suppose by sting

poets priests and politicians
have words to thank for their position
words that scream for your submission
and no-ones jamming their transmission

but when their eloquence escapes you
their logic ties you up and rapes you.

well at any rate

So my idea is that there is a bridge to be crossed, and on one side people are obsessed by the need for the security of historical accuracy, and going over the bridge their mind is gradually freed to accept the metaphorical dimension, and when they get to the other side, they identify with the metaphors whether or not they are found in a true (i.e. factually accurate) story. They are free of the need for the story to be "real".

that is pretty much a mystery religion you've described there.

initiated into the story then later brought in to the inner court by the hierophant.

the widows second mite, the second mile, first natural then spiritual.

christians are decieved into thinking that there is no inner court, those "gnostic" guys are all satan inspired heretics, so a mystery religion that could liberate becomes an iron cage in which you starve to death.

i can acknowledge good things all day, but it seems christians have a big problem admitting that there are huge unworkable flaws in their belief system. and it's ruining peoples lives.

what trail of dead bodies and suffering? surely sweet jesus couldn't be associated with mind control cults, oh well he could, but surely our doctrine isn't at fault... no no... we couldn't be harming people by telling them demons are fallen angels, satan is a very powerful fallen angel and rules the world, man is born in sin and has nothing good in him, no this couldn't be potentially catastrophic to mental health at all... no

praise you Jesus, thankyou Lord



early days yet.

Harry wrote: After all, "you need this" has to compete with the plumber for people's money, even if what they need is to quit obsessing on their money.

Jesus, some churches money is all they talk about, certainly "silver and gold have i none" is no longer the norm for "men of god"

i have a sense of humour and religion has given me many a laugh, but not nearly enough to make up for what i have had to witness in terms of literalist mind fuckery.

i would say the only good literalist is a dead literalist but metaphorically speaking there is no other kind, as the bible also says...

THE LETTER KILLS BUT THE SPIRIT GIVES LIFE

ie. literalism kills your growth, it's high time you literalists went on to completion, but your ears are dull of hearing and your necks are stiff indeed, your eyes are dim to blindness.

the historical Jesus idol is the pseudo christ.

In America's Heartland, Building One Home For Three Faiths

A mosque, a church and a synagogue go up on the site of an old Jewish country club ...
It sounds like the setup to a joke — but it's not. It's actually happening in Omaha, Neb. The Tri-Faith Initiative may be the first place in history where these three monotheistic faiths have built together, on purpose, with the intention of working together. The project has inspired some, and antagonized others.

..."Right now, worldwide, what we see when we look at the three Abrahamic faiths," he says, "is that the progressive end of all three of those faiths actually have more in common with each other than they may have in common with the extreme ends within their faith."

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/17/460149212 ... ree-faiths

I heard this story on the drive home today and that quote has stayed with me. Hope they can make this happen despite history and the threat of attacks. These actions might prove more about the value of religion than most arguments or history would suggest.

youkrst wrote:i'm surprised hostility toward literalism isn't even stronger on my part considering the abuse i've gone through, and i got off light compared to some. i escaped with my life for a start.
for example the literalist doctrine of demon possession alone i have personally witnessed causing untold damage to people i know, and that's just a tiny fraction of a fraction.

I don't know if you feel like telling about this (just the main points would be fine) but even if not, I would welcome any sources who give the general idea of what damage gets done by supposed exorcism.

youkrst wrote:christians are decieved into thinking that there is no inner court, those "gnostic" guys are all satan inspired heretics, so a mystery religion that could liberate becomes an iron cage in which you starve to death.

My own particular take on it is that gnosticism has the flaw of elitism. I am a bit of an elitist myself, so no great damage, but I prefer the non-dualist way of putting things together (I am a fan of Fr. Richard Rohr) at least in part because Rohr and his friends at Center for Action and Contemplation go out of their way to repudiate "superiority" over those at earlier stages in spiritual progress.
The problem with elitism is not that it is incorrect, or somehow evil. The problem is that the reason for emphasizing it makes for bad sociology, in which the people who aspire to higher truth tend to be those who also still aspire to superiority. I have seen some who escape that, but it seems to me I have seen more who don't.

youkrst wrote:the historical Jesus idol is the pseudo christ.

I dunno. I have trouble putting the pieces together in such a way that says literalists are suffering mainly from the illusion that Jesus is historical. Seems to me that if you delete the notion of literal truth from the religion of most literalists, what you are left with is a wasteland empty of ideals, not a harmonious dance around the Nature-worshipping maypole.

Flann 5 wrote: So you know why your mythicist approach with me has been a dismal failure? And why everybody here trying to explain things to me have utterly failed.

Yes and you know too.

Anyone following this thread knows I don't just "deny,deny,deny" but give reasons and arguments against Christ myth theory and astro-theology. And that's what J.P.Holding does, showing the habitual failure of mythicists to provide primary sources for their claims while relying on the likes of Gerald Massey.

Now you know that's a lot of crap. It doesn't take a genius to see that Jesus is being likened to a solar deity in NT. "I am the light of the world"? In Matthew when Jesus dies, the earth goes dark? I mean, is this rocket science? And I don't need to quote Gerald Massey or anyone else. From now on, as I said, I'm going to hit you where you live. Go to the attachments and then tell me that Christians don't regard Jesus as the sun. You say we all know that you don't deny deny deny? Okay then, let's see you and Mr. Holding not deny deny deny your way out of this one.

He also demonstrates the obvious absurdity and forced nature of the astro-theological applications to the gospel narratives. Ad Hominem's don't refute his arguments.

I just gave you two examples from the narratives.

Obviously you want to avoid applying what was your astrological slant on Paul's words. Why? Because as Holding shows it's ridiculous when it's advocates actually do this.

Sure it is.

I understand very well these astro-theological interpretations, but they are not the masterpiece violin concerto's you say they are.

No, you don't understand because you don't want to. You've heard them, that's all, and then your deny reflex kicks in and you desperately google up another Holding apologetic special that nobody but Christians put any stock in.

Again, you were the one trying to say Paul was talking about gnostic archons and ancient solar deities. I just showed that he definitely was not, but the opposite. In response like a child, you don't want to play that game or tune any more.

For once, you're right. I don't.

You are correct D.B. that the passage says the star moved,and I was wrong to suggest it didn't. Henry Morris in his article suggested it didn't say that it moved, but I should have checked for myself.

You should do the same before linking us up to Holding. Sorry, ad hominem attack.

There are some possible naturalistic explanations.

No, there aren't. You're putting your faith in crap that was written by people who, as Lewis Black so sagely put it, were ten hairs away from being a baboon. So don't act so surprised to find yourself in the wrong. I would say get used to it.

I don't think them absolutely necessary as I don't share your worldview and wouldn't feel obliged to explain the resurrection of Christ, or the glory of the Lord that shone around at the nativity in a naturalistic way.

Translation: It was a miracle, folks! God can do anything he wants to!

Why can't you just admit the account cannot be true as written? Oh, that would be because then you're opening the door to wondering we should believe anything in those stories. Welcome to my world.

The narrative says that the star had appeared to the magi,strongly implying it had not been there before this.
This at least says it wasn't one of the usual stars they normally saw.

Weren't you the one who referred me to a link from ICR saying it was supernova? I guess you dropped it when I pointed out that supernovas don't through move the skies and then stop anymore than regular stars to.

The usual English translation is "We have seen his star in the east." It's reasonable to accept the translation but a literal translation is; "We have seen his star in it's rising."

There are various naturalistic theories such as wandering stars,a super nova or a comet. One that may be a good one is a comet which Colin Nicholl has written a book on,and seems well researched.

So the Magi were following a rising star?? Boy, were they dumb!

I've seen two comets in my life and I'd have to conclude that if the Magi--superb astronomers in their day--didn't know a comet from a star or a supernova, they need to go back to astronomy 101. And have you ever seen a comet. Flann? They move so slowly that it takes several days to even plot its direction with the naked eye. And even if it moved with any real speed at all, it doesn't then suddenly stop. No cigar for you.

Whether the magi would call a comet a star, I don't know. Apparently ancient Chinese astronomers did refer to comets at times as new stars or guest stars which they also did for super nova.

The Chinese were better astronomers than the Magi were. If the Magi knew the difference, the Chinese certainly knew it.

In any case here's Nicholl discussing his book and ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mT-8O8S_Fw

Nicholl actually ties his comet explanation for the star of Bethlehem in with Revelation 12 and gives an astrological interpretation for Rev.12. Whether he is right about the comet I'm not sure, but I part company with him on his interpretation of Revelation on exegetical grounds.

FLANN! Comets don't move through the sky and then stop!! For someone who claims he has a no reputation for denial, you're doing a bang-up job and of not proving it!

I don't see how the singularity could have an infinite past. This explodes into our universe. An infinite past can never reach the point where it does this. It just can't get there from an infinite past.

Since there was no time before the Big Bang, such speculation on your part is just that speculation. It's not an infinite past until time comes about. Before that, it's just indefinable.

How could time be a loop? Landroid says the latest view is that the universe is heading for an eternal state of slowly vibrating strings if I remember right, so no repeat performances or bounces.

None of this is proven, Flann. It's all speculation. There may be no repeat performance but then again there may be. All astrophysicists do is gather what data they can and try to guesstimate what's happening. We know so very little that we end up revising our theories every few years. There is no evidence whatsoever that time is circular, it's just something some astrophysicists came up with to caution others not to jump onto "The Big Bang is the beginning of everything" bandwagon. Why? Because nobody knows, Flann. Not even you!

The universe is contingent not necessary,I agree. The question is contingent on what? If it's not a necessary cause for it's existence then why does it exist rather than another or none?

Obviously, it's supposed to be contingent on the will of god. But that god willed it means it had to have happened at a certain moment. There had to be a moment when God decided to will the universe into existence. That it exists the way it does or exists at all is why its called contingent--it exists but it could as well not have but is entirely dependent on the conditions that preceded it. As I pointed out, once we admit the universe is contingent and there had to be a moment when God decided to create it, then there had to another moment prior to that where god a had a thought that led him to think about creating the universe but before that God had to have had a thought that led to him having a thought that led to him thinking about creating a universe and so on. And since your god is eternal, this chain of thoughts continues ad infinitum. Saying god is eternal works against itself. In trying to prove such a god created the universe, you end up having to admit that he didn't.

The only necessary cause and condition is the existence of God himself.

According to this argument, yes, God is the only necessary cause. The problem is, there is no such thing as a necessary cause. We suppose it only to account for God. It is entirely an ad hoc proposition. When a proposal is ad hoc it has very little chance of being true.

The relationship of God to time is not a simple question. My view is that God is bound by neither time or space and created time,space and the universe.

Again, to act BEFORE there was time is completely outside our experience and not anything we can imagine. It's completely divorced from our universe and so it becomes questionable that such a God could have created our universe.

We tend to think from a materialistic perspective of time beginning with the big bang but God created angels before this and they exist in time.

That's obviously a totally subjective statement and no one is required to believe it--not even you.

Since God is not bound by time there is no temporal regress with God in creating anything. I know you don't believe the bible but when Christ ascended to heaven,I don't imagine he had to travel for light years at the speed of light to get beyond the known universe to heaven.

To say God is not bound by time is to posit the existence of a being that cannot be imagined except as an abstract exercise. Time and space are one in the same. If God is unbounded by time, he's unbounded by space. What does that even mean?? As for how Christ ascended to heaven, we're going to discuss that in a little bit.

Time is relative and if God created everything he's certainly not bound by these things.

Time was created by the Big Bang. God didn't create it. I can accept on purely speculative reasons that God is unbounded by time because he somehow preceded it but he didn't create time.

O.K. D.B. but are you saying that the universe has no cause? That doesn't seem reasonable. No cause for the constituent material of the singular state? And voila! it just created physical laws and order by random explosion.

Since all the physical laws we know of did not exist at the Big Bang but only after then we have no reason to believe the universe was caused. The universe and time sprang into existence at the same instant. They're not caused because nothing that existed before was in any way connected to it and can't measured or tested in any way.

Hawking cuts out time prior to the big bang but surely there is a causal connection to the singular state and constituents of dense matter for the explosion?

Well, if you can establish what they are, tell Hawking and you'll likely become a candidate for a Nobel prize.

To say it can't be measured is not the same as saying there is no causal connection.

You can when there was no time. Cause-and-effect is bound up inextricably with time. We can't separate them. There is always a cause that occurs in one moment and then the effect in a subsequent moment. Now how does cause-and-effect work when there is no such thing as time? How you do you measure that? How can you even say that it is cause-and-effect since it would be unrecognizable as such? An an example, I light a candle and it burns to a nub in 5 minutes. That's cause-and-effect. if I light a candle and it melts to a numb at the exact instant I lit it, how could that be cause-and-effect? The heat had no time to melt the candle and the candle had no time to melt. So is that causality? Not in my book. But then my book isn't the bible.

Nothing caused the big bang? What was the something indefinable and not measurable,and where did it come from D.B.? This looks similar to Krauss' sleight of hand except you are substituting a completely vague something, for nothing.

See my above comment.

Yes, Jesus is not the sun which is why the sun is shown shining behind Jesus as he hangs on the cross. And read the inscription!

"Love has set me in a furnace. He has set me in a furnace of love."

Flann 5 wrote:

Harry Marks wrote: evidences of gnostic influence, or at least of the sort of spiritual elitism that gave gnosticism a bad odor among the bishops who relied on a popular base.

Your position here is a milder version of Robert's which is that the parables were or became grounds for spiritual elitism, and for Robert not you, hidden coded gnostic truth and astrological meanings to do with a pagan solar deity, and ages such as Pisces and Aquarius. It's Robert's position I want to address here in relation to the use of parables by Jesus. This is a central plank of the whole codes and hidden meanings thesis of Robert's along with the elite initiates and ignorant masses explanation.

The elitism in ancient Gnosticism reflects its links to Platonic philosophy, with Plato’s Republic and other dialogues core Gnostic texts. For Plato the Gnostic watcher-philosopher kings form a social elite in his ideal society. His model was picked up by George Orwell in 1984 with the social model of the Inner Party (1%), Outer Party (10%) and Proles (90%).

The problem the ancient Platonic Gnostics had with their idea of a mystery elite controlling the church was that it ran into immediate conflict with the power of the emperor, the real military and economic elite. The church could only prosper in subordination to the state, reconciling the rival Lordship of Christ and Caesar. Orthodoxy achieved this by the expedient of insisting that Christ’s rule was otherworldly. Gnosticism was suppressed by the alliance of throne and altar who opposed its seditious implication of a secret society controlling the church. Luther addressed the same problem in suppressing the radical messianic sects of his day through a spirituality that subordinated church to state.

Flann 5 wrote: Jesus says those outside the disciples are excluded from the mystery of the kingdom of God. What is this?

The mystery of the Kingdom of God is the fact that theological myth is actually based on real ancient scientific astronomy. Observation, by people the ancients called seers, meaning those who see, is the explanation for the real power and glory that order the universe, forming the allegorical concept of God. This is a teaching open to anyone with capacity and interest to understand it, but it creates big stumbling blocks for crass literalists who insist that God must be a personal entity and who cannot see that tradition can be wrong. The “actual elites” naturally support messages that support political stability, and are naturally hostile to a proposed Gnostic spiritual elite who appear as rivals for power. The Gnostics could not back their pretender claims with power, wealth, connections and weapons, so their claims to elite status were suppressed, along with their teachings which had provided the actual blueprint for the Gospels.

Flann 5 wrote:code advocates need to demonstrate how these interpretations of the parables which the gospel writers provide, match their gnostic self realization or astro-theological explanations.

It is simple if you have eyes to see, as Jesus put it. Stories such as the loaves and fishes are parables for the observation of the sky, and the dawning of an imagined new age of universal abundance based on the slow perceived shift of the stars. Most believers in God are neurally prevented from seeing this simple natural meaning by the weight of traditional views, which have so strongly suppressed understanding of the real astral blueprints of Christian mythology.

The Star in the East, discussed more recently in this thread, also matches directly to the widespread ancient method of using constellations as the basis for myths. The three wise men are the Belt of Orion, the star in the east is Sirius, which follows them to the west, and the manger is on the deck of the constellation of Noah’s Ark (Argo), which is visible in the Middle East at Christmas, rising at midnight, following the line from Orion’s Belt through Sirius.

Flann 5 wrote: I obviously see no need to find explanations for the supernatural but accept the miraculous as it's presented.

Gretta Vosper’s book With or Without God http://www.amazon.com/With-Without-God- ... 0062294857 helps to explain why the conventional church attitude about miracles is leading to the emptying of churches. Rational people believe that claims that conflict with the consistency of science must have some other motive. In this case the critics of the church are correct: belief in the supernatural is solely a method to support the political power of church hierarchies, and has no grounds in reason or evidence, which should be our highest values. Miracles are parables, not evidence that God breaks the laws of nature. Belief in the supernatural is entirely unethical.

you can't see me, i'm hiding behind... errr ..not the sun, spica, what spica



damn, sprung again... oh well, better sing a song

Sunny, thank you for the smile upon your face.
Sunny, thank you for the gleam that shows its grace.
You're my spark of nature's fire,
You're my sweet complete desire.
Sunny one so true, I love you.

Harry wrote:I don't know if you feel like telling about this

yeah, it might be a bit personal for a public forum, but i can easily find equivalents and perhaps in time bring out the insights i gained from my time in crackerbox palace.

i'd like to do the subject some justice rather than my usual off the cuff style, so i hope to return to this soon.

got a bit on today.

btw: really dug the Richard Rohr (call no man father) always a relief to see someone with half a clue.

go out of their way to repudiate "superiority" over those at earlier stages in spiritual progress.

of course, is an adult superior to a child? in some ways perhaps, in others no. all in all, all is one.

Harry wrote:My own particular take on it is that gnosticism has the flaw of elitism.

people can def. be elitist but gnosticism isn't necessarily.

it's what it means to you, you say mexico to some people and they think of sombreros and mariachi, to others it means a James Taylor tune, and to some others something altogether different.

"gnostic" can summon to my mind everything from sublime to ridiculous and all points in between.

it's what you think it means to you, but i can certainly provide many examples of gnosticism that are def. not elitist.

people always resent know it alls, and when someone knows more about your religion than you do it's an easy out to call them elitists.

some gnostic texts are to me very elite, you know, they are like the hendrix of wisdom lit. but hendrix was no elitist.

it takes one to know one.

The problem with elitism is not that it is incorrect, or somehow evil.

we are talking about elitism now not gnosticism, dont conflate the two.

I have trouble putting the pieces together in such a way that says literalists are suffering mainly from the illusion that Jesus is historical.

yeah, theres a lot more to it than that, all things are connected, one thing leads to another. But just think, if you think of Jesus as this historical reality that will be like a stauros in your eye blinding you to the connotation, the denotation kills but the connotation gives life.

Seems to me that if you delete the notion of literal truth from the religion of most literalists, what you are left with is a wasteland empty of ideals, not a harmonious dance around the Nature-worshipping maypole.

WTF!?!? a rephrase possibly?

anyways, love ya Harry, here's to a great day for us all.