3 ms·

By grain I meant a grain in an entire granary. They are quite tall tales. It doesn't mean those tales weren't borne of actual human experience. To fear is to f

by meric 10y ago

By grain I meant a grain in an entire granary. They are quite tall tales. It doesn't mean those tales weren't borne of actual human experience. To fear is to fear the universe, obviously. When you are angry, the universe is angry, since you and the universe is inseparable. Every foot in the universe are one of the feet of the universe. You quoted an English bible. Did the early Christians believe God, spoke, English? Of course not. The God they believed in merely expressed the idea of seperating the waters. One could say the universe expressed the idea of splitting the waters by splitting the waters, and it was so. Do the nerves in your toes know what lies in your brain? Perhaps each neuron is its own brain? Anyway, it is a fun exercise, I did not say all statements, and I did not say it would make complete sense, merely more sense. But thanks and upvoted for quoting those passages. It was fun reading the substitutions you've made.

dalke 10y ago
Ahh, the "religion as metaphor" approach. The Bible mentions Claudius, therefore that kernel of truth ... tells us nothing, because we can't tell which tales are "borne of actual human experience" any more than we can do the same with Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. In context, Job is an honorable man and someone to emulate. If I fear the universe, then I fear the wheat, and a mouse, my neighbor, and my nose, and the water I drink, and my children. Is that really someone to emulate? Not according to Psalm 118:6: "The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?". How can someone be afraid of the universe, but not afraid of mortals in the universe? Your interpretation of God = Universe is inconsistent with the God of the Bible. FWIW, some of the other gods mentioned in the Bible are Remphan, Jupiter, Baal, Mercurius, and Diana. So a phrase like Deuteronomy 6:14 "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you" doesn't make sense as "Do not follow other universes, the universes of the people around you." That makes less sense than God as an entity distinct from the universe. (And an entity with the ability to have a hand write 'Mene, mene, tekel upharsin' on a wall, using a human hand.) Yes, I used an English translation of the Bible. I could have used Swedish, but I doubt you know Swedish. Do you think I'm so ignorant as to think early Christians thought God spoke English to the early Jews? Then you slip into solipsism, which is even less interesting than the metaphor argument. One can say many things. One can say the universe started as a cosmic egg in floating in non-existence before opening up to produce the 8 heavenly worlds and one earthly one. But you didn't. You started with, and stayed close to, the monotheism associated with the Christian Bible.
- meric 10y ago
  Yes I did. I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I can't find the Bible interesting in telling me how a group of people thousands of years ago thought of the world. As I'm not Christian because I can't bring myself to believe in the Bible as it is, of course my interpretation is different to ordinary Christians. If I could interpret a way to be consistent with other Christians and still have it make sense to me, I'd be a Christian. I don't know why you talk like interpreting the Bible in anyway at all to be useless or even harmful. Even when I do it for fun. There are Christians, there are non-Christians like me, and then there are people like you who insist there's nothing good about the Christians. You even find the idea that they are able to pass down the bible for two thousand years abhorrent. I had the Quran in mind when I wrote some of those statements, then I realised some people here might be more familiar with Jesus so I added a line about Jesus. It's a fun exercise, to make some statements make more sense. Nothing more. Once upon a time I tried to find a way to believe in the bible and Jesus (well the Abrahamic religions in general), and that was as close as I got. Why does even saying the bible interesting as a text substitution exercise offend you? Clearly you're not a Christian, so it's not the fact that I'm changing the bible.
  - dalke 10y ago
    I am pointing out intellectual dishonesty. You cannot replace "God" with "Universe" for most religious texts and get a meaningful, or even more consistent, interpretation. The exercise cannot even be applied to most polytheistic religions - you conveniently stayed within the Abrahamic faiths. Nor can you reconcile omniscience with special relativity. Certainly you can cherry-pick phrases, but it makes no more sense to substitute God with "Universe" than with "Merlin" or "my dog Spot." The result sounds ineffable, but it's as fundamentally sound as numerology. If you read the Bible as a story of ancient culture, which I encourage you to do, then you malign the culture by misreading what they wrote. You instead end up reading reflections of your own thoughts of the world, so of course that interpretation is going to make more sense to you. And yes, self-delusion can be fun. If you really want to understand what those early Jews were trying to pass on, learn more about the Mesopotamian mythologies, and archeology, and the political dynamics of around 600 BC. BTW, I am not "offended." I am annoyed. Those are different emotions. I am also annoyed that you make false assertions about me, when my own HN history shows just how false that is. I would be intellectually dishonest should I believe it impossible or "abhorrent" to pass down a faith tradition over dozens of centuries. The 2,000+ year history of Christianity, the 2,500 year history of Buddhism (200 years with a written canon), the 2,600+ year history of Judaism, and the 3,000+ year old history of Hinduism - the Bible, Torah, Pāli Canon, and Upanishads, respectively - are all trivial counter-examples. On what basis did you conclude that I reject any of that history?

by meric 10y ago

dalke 10y ago

Ahh, the "religion as metaphor" approach. The Bible mentions Claudius, therefore that kernel of truth ... tells us nothing, because we can't tell which tales are "borne of actual human experience" any more than we can do the same with Paul Bunyan and Pecos Bill. In context, Job is an honorable man and someone to emulate. If I fear the universe, then I fear the wheat, and a mouse, my neighbor, and my nose, and the water I drink, and my children. Is that really someone to emulate? Not according to Psalm 118:6: "The LORD is with me; I will not be afraid. What can mere mortals do to me?". How can someone be afraid of the universe, but not afraid of mortals in the universe? Your interpretation of God = Universe is inconsistent with the God of the Bible. FWIW, some of the other gods mentioned in the Bible are Remphan, Jupiter, Baal, Mercurius, and Diana. So a phrase like Deuteronomy 6:14 "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you" doesn't make sense as "Do not follow other universes, the universes of the people around you." That makes less sense than God as an entity distinct from the universe. (And an entity with the ability to have a hand write 'Mene, mene, tekel upharsin' on a wall, using a human hand.) Yes, I used an English translation of the Bible. I could have used Swedish, but I doubt you know Swedish. Do you think I'm so ignorant as to think early Christians thought God spoke English to the early Jews? Then you slip into solipsism, which is even less interesting than the metaphor argument. One can say many things. One can say the universe started as a cosmic egg in floating in non-existence before opening up to produce the 8 heavenly worlds and one earthly one. But you didn't. You started with, and stayed close to, the monotheism associated with the Christian Bible.

meric 10y ago
Yes I did. I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't mean I can't find the Bible interesting in telling me how a group of people thousands of years ago thought of the world. As I'm not Christian because I can't bring myself to believe in the Bible as it is, of course my interpretation is different to ordinary Christians. If I could interpret a way to be consistent with other Christians and still have it make sense to me, I'd be a Christian. I don't know why you talk like interpreting the Bible in anyway at all to be useless or even harmful. Even when I do it for fun. There are Christians, there are non-Christians like me, and then there are people like you who insist there's nothing good about the Christians. You even find the idea that they are able to pass down the bible for two thousand years abhorrent. I had the Quran in mind when I wrote some of those statements, then I realised some people here might be more familiar with Jesus so I added a line about Jesus. It's a fun exercise, to make some statements make more sense. Nothing more. Once upon a time I tried to find a way to believe in the bible and Jesus (well the Abrahamic religions in general), and that was as close as I got. Why does even saying the bible interesting as a text substitution exercise offend you? Clearly you're not a Christian, so it's not the fact that I'm changing the bible.
- dalke 10y ago
  I am pointing out intellectual dishonesty. You cannot replace "God" with "Universe" for most religious texts and get a meaningful, or even more consistent, interpretation. The exercise cannot even be applied to most polytheistic religions - you conveniently stayed within the Abrahamic faiths. Nor can you reconcile omniscience with special relativity. Certainly you can cherry-pick phrases, but it makes no more sense to substitute God with "Universe" than with "Merlin" or "my dog Spot." The result sounds ineffable, but it's as fundamentally sound as numerology. If you read the Bible as a story of ancient culture, which I encourage you to do, then you malign the culture by misreading what they wrote. You instead end up reading reflections of your own thoughts of the world, so of course that interpretation is going to make more sense to you. And yes, self-delusion can be fun. If you really want to understand what those early Jews were trying to pass on, learn more about the Mesopotamian mythologies, and archeology, and the political dynamics of around 600 BC. BTW, I am not "offended." I am annoyed. Those are different emotions. I am also annoyed that you make false assertions about me, when my own HN history shows just how false that is. I would be intellectually dishonest should I believe it impossible or "abhorrent" to pass down a faith tradition over dozens of centuries. The 2,000+ year history of Christianity, the 2,500 year history of Buddhism (200 years with a written canon), the 2,600+ year history of Judaism, and the 3,000+ year old history of Hinduism - the Bible, Torah, Pāli Canon, and Upanishads, respectively - are all trivial counter-examples. On what basis did you conclude that I reject any of that history?