U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-18-2013, 09:37 PM
 
1 posts, read 15,144 times
Reputation: 10

Advertisements

Thank you for sharing. It reminds me a lot of the Bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-18-2013, 10:01 PM
 
40,209 posts, read 26,826,705 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post

DISCRETE AREA OF DISCUSSION

MysticPhD’s theory in post #57 that “Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges. “

Data sets : In post # 57, you said to mike555 : “ There is so much wrong in your theology, Mike [...] Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges. When we do not control our carnal drives and discriminate for it . . . we produce evil.

Differing Theory : Any theory where “Satan is a diffuse set of genetic physical characteristics” which all mankind have (if it’s fair to describe it that way...) is quite interesting and it changes philosophical and religious and ethical dynamics. For examples :

If evil, in your model of “satan as a fallen angel” (evil) exists inside the individual as a physical genetic phenomenon, does your theory propose that “good angels” exists inside of mankind as a similar genetic phenomenon as well?

Does your theory relieve any philosophical and moral dilemmas of the existence of evil? Does it cause any new ones?

Does your philosophical/material theory of Satan as the "reptilian brain" have any philosophical superiority over the original judeo-christian models for satan?

Allegorism vs literalism : The characteristics which distinguish one christianity from another is often what the earliest judeo-christians took literally versus what differing christian movements took literally (and what both took metaphorically).

Certain things must BE literal in order to have any religious power, purpose, utility, and motivation.
If there is no God and no heaven, no one need work toward a relationship with God or work toward a place in heaven. In the same proposition, Philosophers who teach college philosophy may argue about the reality of reality, but all of them still want to cash their paychecks on payday. Thus, we may differ on what we feel is literal and fundamental and what is metaphorical and spiritual but we depend upon certain realities to exist.
You have addressed many issues in this one post that could take multiple posts and threads to respond to. But this paragraph reveals the main point that underlies the confusion about carnal/physical and spiritual/cognitive interpretation. As you strongly assert here . . . it is the actual reality that is controlling . . . so it must always be adjudicated at the physical level of reality. God must exist, there must be a water-of-life within us that springs unto eternal life, there must be an adversary within us that opposes our better nature(Satan) in carnal matters, etc. The issue, then . . . is how this reality would be communicated to primitive and ignorant savages. Without a knowledge of brain structure and function the real physical explanations would be unintelligible . . . hence the need for metaphors, allegory, parables, figurative speech, etc. to convey the basic ideas (the "carnal milk"). That these basic ideas are later confirmed by current knowledge of the actual physical reality is quite validating of scripture and Divine inspiration.
Quote:
I’ve noticed that your interpretations also seem to assume certain literalness and certain metaphoricals to exist (as do all of us...).

For example, regarding John 4:13-14 “Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.”

You quoted this verse and interpreted it in post #8 of a different thread thusly : "This water of life within us that relates to our ability to achieve rebirth must refer to the fluid surrounding our brain. It is truly a water of life. However, at the time of Christ and John the Baptist, this was not exactly common knowledge. If God's consciousness really is available to inspire our consciousness and those of the early "prophets," it is not inconceivable that this basic idea would be communicated (received) in terms that would make sense to such primitive minds. Submersion into river water seems an obvious analogue. “ (MysticPhD - different thread)

a) In this prior case
, your theory that the “water of life” Jesus referred to was the literal and physical cerebrospinal fluid which surrounds our physical brain.

While this is an incredibly “physical” allegorical interpretation, the early Christians would have interpreted it much less “physically” and less “literally” and much more "spiritually" than you did, (as it relates to "the water of life". While their interpretation in this case is LESS literal and more spiritual, yours was MORE literal/physical and less spiritual.


b) In this present case, your current theory assumes “ Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges “.

In this case, your theory shifts the literalness from a literal Judeo-Christian “Satan” which becomes metaphor and, in your theory, literal component of Satan resides in the physical brain of all individuals. It remains a carnal and "physical" theory. Your theory has no less a physical locus than the early judeo-christians. It's simply in a different and diffuse physical local.

In this way, the sort of interpretations you are offering are not particularly “spiritual”, but instead, they simply shift the physical locus from a literal Satan to a literal and physical human brain and the cerebrospinal fluid. This is significant, especially if your rule concerning scriptures is that “They are ALL to be read and interpreted SPIRITUALLY . . . NOT carnally or temporally” (MysticPhD in post # 67)
Your arguments incorrectly identify the spiritual and carnal issues in interpretation. They are not simple and a great deal of knowledge about the "solid food" of reality is needed to see the actual purpose of the rhetorical devices used to communicate the "carnal milk" to our ignorant ancestors. In the final analysis the principles disguised within the rhetorical devices must actually map onto physical reality to validate their Divine origin during a time of complete ignorance about them.The knowledge about the complicity of the cerebro-spinal fluid ("water-of-life") in the development of emotional maturity and self-control (ability to control our baser urges) was unknown when the scriptures were written. The existence of the reptilian brain (Serpent) as the indiscriminate source of all our drives was unknown at the time the scriptures were written. That the first lesson in achieving self-control involved gaining a knowledge of Good and Evil to use to discriminate FOR the Serpent is the first lesson presented in the Bible is profound validation of the actual reality governing human misbehavior.
Quote:
I also very much agree with you regarding your specific point that one cannot always maintain that stories in early texts are “literal historical fact”.

However, as I am trying to point out, your interpretations are relieving the stories in the early texts of “literal physical facts”. The unwritten rule that a “physical” literalness of “satan” in your theory is acceptable while the “historical” literalness of “satan” in christianity is to be avoided seems inconsistent and arbitrary. Especially since the physical/temporally existing brain as satan theory does not follow your rule that texts “are ALL to be read and interpreted SPIRITUALLY . . . NOT carnally or temporally.
I hope you see that it does as explained above.
Quote:
Your own interpretation that John 4:13-14 is speaking about the temporal and carnal (physical) "cerebro-spinal fluid" and your theory that “Satan” is actually a temporal and quite carnal (physical) “Serpent (reptilian brain) “ that exists in the carnal skulls of all individuals is a different theory than any of the early Judeo-Christian texts describe.

Yet, you are able to read the biblical text and come away with a very discrete and detailed interpretation to the point of expressing satisfaction “That such an early and primitive story would contain truths about the structure of our brain and its functioning thousands of years before we ever discovered those functions validates their God-inspired content, IMO. YMMV “ (MysticPhD in post # 67).

Upon what data set are you able to give your own personal interpretation such a great priority over the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christian interpretation?
I am so busy at work that I am writing between appointments and need to stop (I lose train of thought each time I return to the computer...) and let you offer your data set to us.

At any rate MysticPhD, I am quite interested in your theory; it’s origins and reasoning and to know what sort of data underlies this theory. I appreciate your time in presenting this theory and supporting data to us.
Clear
νεδρνεω
My data set and rationale comprises study of the extant sciences and the "spiritual fossill record" for over 40+ years, Clear. I have tried to compress SOME of it into my Synthesis . . . which you may wish to read. I can be counted upon to fill-in any specific detail or questions you might have piece-meal as time permits.

My Synthesis1

My Synthesis2

My Synthesis3

My Synthesis4

My Synthesis5
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:36 PM
 
20,461 posts, read 9,870,635 times
Reputation: 1686
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
I made no mention of the Leviathan of Job being Satan, nor have I heard that claim made.
In certain passages it has to do with a Devil (an accuser) and in others, itís simply a great whale? However, as a transliterated Hebrew word, livyathan carries the meaning of "twisted or coiled." For simplicity, as you may know Ė some things that are twisted or coiled, such as an F5 tornado, can be adversarial to human life. In Job 3:8, it denotes a serpent or dragon, which according to tradition is an enemy of truth. Itís like that of turbulence or turmoil that may cause confusion. Especially, when you have lost everything that was dear to you. But remember, itís not all about you or what you may think and write.

Quote:
But Satan as the ruler of this world (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) and who influences rulers (1 Chronicles 21:1-5) was the power behind the throne of Tyre. In Ezekiel chapter 28, verse 12 shifts from the human ruler of Tyre to Satan. Descriptions are given which could apply to no human ruler. The human ruler of Tyre was not created perfect. Nor was he ever blameless in his ways. Every human being is born with a sin nature and spiritually dead. Neither was the human ruler of Tyre ever an appointed Cherub who covers. The reference being to what is represented on the lid of the ark of the covenant where two cherub angels covered the Mercy seat which itself represented the reality in heaven. One of the duties of Cherubim is to cover and protect. Cherubim were stationed at the entrance to the Garden of Eden to guard it (Genesis 3:24). The Cherubim who guard the Mercy seat in heaven are perhaps to be thought of as in the manner of an honor guard. A ceremonial function. One similarity between the human ruler of Tyre and Satan was that they were both judged for their pride. Pride was Satan's original sin.
I would say that you are forgetting about Adam, which basically is a reference to Mankind who were living in the Garden of Eden, until they ate from the tree of [their own] knowledge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:14 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,771,223 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I've never had someone call me a demon in a more polite and veiled manner.
My thought exactly when I read the comment by TwinSpin was how smoothly it was executed. Yep, Thrill, why would the demons bother one of their own? (Kidding, on my part).

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2013, 04:20 AM
 
Location: Florida
5,965 posts, read 5,771,223 times
Reputation: 1595
Quote:
Originally Posted by twin.spin View Post
Jesus was more blunt ... is that what you prefer?
Jesus said there are types of children:
  1. children of God
  2. children of the devil
and Jesus said those who are children of the devil are so ...
"Because you are unable to hear what I say.
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your fatherís desires.
He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.
When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! " John 8:43-45
and Satan is called a "roaring lion"
"Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour" 1 Peter 5:8
which everybody knows that a lion doesn't attack one of it's own.

It's as obvious as it can get that Jesus knew what he was saying (John 8:43-45). And if one reads all the scriptures about Satan and yet comes away with all the bravado you are doing, then what can be concluded of your statements?
Twin - will you never learn that the world is not black on one side and white on the other? That you cannot separate the sheep and the goats. Why can't you? Because there is both a sheep and a goat inside of you and everyone else - there is a child of the Father and a child of the devil within you and everyone else who is earth BOUND. It is only in your mind - your perception that you are separate from others by luck, a good choice, or God's decree. It's not as simple or as complicated as you make it. Can you hear this? Depends on which part of you is tuned in. Most of the time your devil child is the one that speaks here on the board -- you keep that child of God within you under lock and key and will not let him out to pasture. Ever get tired of it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2013, 12:23 PM
 
284 posts, read 252,914 times
Reputation: 48
Just a simple note to readers re : the discussion on a comparison of early Judeo-Christian worldview of Satan as a discrete and actual individual as compared to MysticPhD's theory that "Satan is within all of us as the Serpent (reptilian brain) that manifests as the source of all our animal drives and urges “.

If you have interest in understanding MysticPhD's concepts, I think it will be important to read his syntheses he suggests at the end of his post #82. I am only a little over 1/3rd of the way through his syntheses (approx 16 pages if margins are minimal) but they are, I think, essential if we are to understand his data set and point of view. I admit to enjoying his wonderful exposition of chemistry and physics and feel like it is, so far, a refresher course (and update) from college days. At this point I am not far enough into his syntheses to see how his syntheses will correlate to his theory and may have to keep up some PM's with him behind the scenes so as to better understand his theory (in order to make any valid comparison). I expect to finish them today and discuss points on Sunday the 20th.

Mystic - thank you for being willing to answer my questions in PMs.

Clear
ειειτζειω
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2013, 08:52 PM
 
284 posts, read 252,914 times
Reputation: 48
Hi MysticPhD :

I admit that, when reading the wonderful commentary on physics and theories, I was entranced and loved that part of your syntheses. I simply kept reading between appointments and finished it.

As long as you remained within your expertise in explaining chemistry and physics I thought your syntheses were quite wonderful. However, once the syntheses left the area of expertise and wandered into discussions of human behaviors, anatomy and physiology (which are not your expertise) then disaster struck and the quality of the syntheses fell apart and was characterized by speculative theorizing regarding parallels based on mere assumptions and inaccurate data. The scientific part was great, the religious part was not.


The supporting data I kept expecting to see was replaced by faulty speculations and tenuously created parallels :
For example, a wonderful Einsteinian theory of cancelling curvatures was presented and then you offered us a speculative parallel saying : “That sound a lot like the merging of two “opposing” energy events, perhaps like the negative drive energy generated by our animal nature meeting an “opposing” positive drive energy in our consciousness generated by our soul. Think about it!” This sort of Jumping from accepted physics to complete speculation in an instant without data that connects the two differing concepts because they “sound similar” is NOT good supporting data for a interpretive religious theory.

I had thought that, if you were going to criticize Mike555's historical interpretation (which has deep, solid historical support), then I thought your theory should have had some basis upon which it could claim validity and superiority that justified dismissing a competing Judeo-christian theory. (or at least justify itself)

I have also been guilty of criticizing Mike555 on other points of historical importance. In this case however, I believe Mike555's supporting data is far superior in it’s depth of obvious historical support, historical parallels and firm historical connection to a longstanding, coherent theory of the nature of a Satan as an individual inside the Judeo-Christian worldview than a “reptilian brain as a satan within us” theory supported by mere whisps of data and linguistic parallels.

You sometimes simply announce a religious speculation as a given rather than support it with sufficient explanation and data. For example, you say : “The “spiritual template” revealed in our “spiritual fossil record” suggests that it takes at least ONE of us to achieve “perfect resonance” with God’s consciousness to connect the cumulative output of humanity - (our collective consciousness) to God’s consciousness.” But you never justify nor support this speculation with any supporting explanation or supporting data.

This bare “announcement” of a new doctrine without support may simply confuse theists unless accompanied by adequate explanation and sufficient supporting data. (As opposed to simply announcing a speculation as a new “truth”).

As another example, you speculate that “Our soul is a spiritual embryo in the womb of our brain”, but again, there is no supporting data or explanation.

Even explanations you do offer are often based on vague parallels, some of which rely on a shape of part of the brain (the cerebellum and it’s appearance of a “tree of life”) or part of the brain that appeared “serpentine” in shape to early influential medical authors (the “serpentine” brain). Medically, the description of this part of the brain as “serpentine” in shape had no intended moral implications or relationship to “lucifer” as a serpent in the Garden of eden. It was simply a description of a “shape” and anatomical “resemblance”.

As another genre of mistakes in interpretation, you speculate for example, that “sincere speculation is what true “prophesy” is, as Paul in I Corinthians 14:1 said”. However, neither english nor greek Paul ever said this. In such cases, the theories based on such faulty interpretation cannot help but be skewed and faulty themselves.

The examples you offer based on “medical physiology” of the brain and glands and behaviors are often exagerated and sometimes quite incorrect. Here again, incorrect speculations are used to support other speculations. Statements such as “...for several weeks thereafter, an infant is not capable of anything requiring consciousness” are completely incorrect (and that is not the only example).

MysticPhD, it pains me to offer these criticisms to someone I honestly respect. Also, I honestly and truly was quite impressed with and enjoyed the parts of your Syntheses that dealt with area of science you were familiar with. I hope you can forgive me for offering criticism to your theory.

I honestly read your entire 22 pages of syntheses and enjoyed the discussion of physics (in which area your expertise FAR surpasses mine). However, I think your theory that satan is the “serpentine” portion of the brain in individuals is not nearly so well founded as the early Judeo-Christian worldview of Satan as an individual. If you are going to keep this theory as a working model then I think it will need a lot of work.


In any case, I wish you a good spiritual journey and I do not want to imply that you or anyone else should not create models of understanding. I think creating models is GOOD, not bad.
I would STILL encourage others to read the syntheses (especially the later 2) to see whether they think I was fair or unfair in my opinions.


Clear
ειειτωσεω

Last edited by Clear lens; 10-19-2013 at 09:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 01:22 AM
 
40,209 posts, read 26,826,705 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clear lens View Post
Hi MysticPhD :

I admit that, when reading the wonderful commentary on physics and theories, I was entranced and loved that part of your syntheses. I simply kept reading between appointments and finished it.

As long as you remained within your expertise in explaining chemistry and physics I thought your syntheses were quite wonderful. However, once the syntheses left the area of expertise and wandered into discussions of human behaviors, anatomy and physiology (which are not your expertise) then disaster struck and the quality of the syntheses fell apart and was characterized by speculative theorizing regarding parallels based on mere assumptions and inaccurate data. The scientific part was great, the religious part was not.
It am pleased you actually read the Synthesis. I am disappointed you were not able to make the connections from the science and reality to the rhetorical devices that were necessary to try to communicate that reality to our ignorant primitive ancestors. You are still focused on whether or not the stories as written were believed by our ancestors as written. Of course they were. There was no way they could have understood them any other way given their complete lack of knowledge about the requisite science and reality. The stories were necessary rhetorical devices to convey the deeper truths about our reality . . . something you did not seem to pick up on. Abstract thinking and parallels are not a common skill set . . . so I am not bothered by your failure to comprehend the linkages to our reality in the analogies. The information is considerably compressed and was compiled in a very short period of time. It relies significantly on the inferential abilities of the readers to a great degree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 08:38 AM
 
9,898 posts, read 6,765,572 times
Reputation: 2488
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It am pleased you actually read the Synthesis. I am disappointed you were not able to make the connections from the science and reality to the rhetorical devices that were necessary to try to communicate that reality to our ignorant primitive ancestors. You are still focused on whether or not the stories as written were believed by our ancestors as written. Of course they were. There was no way they could have understood them any other way given their complete lack of knowledge about the requisite science and reality. The stories were necessary rhetorical devices to convey the deeper truths about our reality . . . something you did not seem to pick up on. Abstract thinking and parallels are not a common skill set . . . so I am not bothered by your failure to comprehend the linkages to our reality in the analogies. The information is considerably compressed and was compiled in a very short period of time. It relies significantly on the inferential abilities of the readers to a great degree.
I believe it is nearly impossible to give up a belief system that was acquired since childhood. In the end this belief system becomes part of that person. This belief is integrated to a zillion additional patterns of reasoning and it may even assume a role in the personality of a person. This has nothing to do with intelligence or inability to grasp new concepts.

Since you like science: Lets look at Isaac Newton, considered in most polls to be the most intelligent person that ever lived. He was so smart that he invented calculus to explain his thought process. Despite his genius mind Newton was also an alchemist which is not solid science. Alchemy is to chemistry as astrology is to astronomy. But, Newton cannot be blamed because he was a man of his era.


Newton was also a believer and considered the priesthood when he was at Cambridge which to this day remains an institution where most buildings are named after saints. And I believe this will remain this way even if England becomes 100% atheist.

I remember having a nightmare with the devil as a six year old kid. My father came to my bedroom and without hesitation told me that the devil did not exist. My dad was everything to me and I went back to sleep with all the confidence in the world. At that point my dad gave me a powerful child imprint that prevented me from following the path of many who to this day believe in Satan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2013, 06:52 PM
 
40,209 posts, read 26,826,705 times
Reputation: 6060
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658 View Post
I believe it is nearly impossible to give up a belief system that was acquired since childhood. In the end this belief system becomes part of that person. This belief is integrated to a zillion additional patterns of reasoning and it may even assume a role in the personality of a person. This has nothing to do with intelligence or inability to grasp new concepts.

Since you like science: Lets look at Isaac Newton, considered in most polls to be the most intelligent person that ever lived. He was so smart that he invented calculus to explain his thought process. Despite his genius mind Newton was also an alchemist which is not solid science. Alchemy is to chemistry as astrology is to astronomy. But, Newton cannot be blamed because he was a man of his era.

Newton was also a believer and considered the priesthood when he was at Cambridge which to this day remains an institution where most buildings are named after saints. And I believe this will remain this way even if England becomes 100% atheist.

I remember having a nightmare with the devil as a six year old kid. My father came to my bedroom and without hesitation told me that the devil did not exist. My dad was everything to me and I went back to sleep with all the confidence in the world. At that point my dad gave me a powerful child imprint that prevented me from following the path of many who to this day believe in Satan.
I understand what you are saying, Julian . . . but it really IS a matter of knowledge and intelligence as well. The specific reason is revealed in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It am pleased you actually read the Synthesis. I am disappointed you were not able to make the connections from the science and reality to the rhetorical devices that were necessary to try to communicate that reality to our ignorant primitive ancestors. You are still focused on whether or not the stories as written were believed by our ancestors as written. Of course they were. There was no way they could have understood them any other way given their complete lack of knowledge about the requisite science and reality. The stories were necessary rhetorical devices to convey the deeper truths about our reality . . . something you did not seem to pick up on. Abstract thinking and parallels are not a common skill set . . . so I am not bothered by your failure to comprehend the linkages to our reality in the analogies. The information is considerably compressed and was compiled in a very short period of time. It relies significantly on the inferential abilities of the readers to a great degree.
And in:

1Corinthians 3:2

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

Last edited by MysticPhD; 10-20-2013 at 07:41 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top