No Proof is NO PROOF for Inexistence of God.

reply to post by wildtimes

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by swordwords

 

(The allegoric interpretations of parts of the Bible by Philo and others were part of a campaign of disinformation intended to discourage any secular examination.)

Can you source this, please?

This idea is based on my own interpretations of Biblical allegory. I have identified Philo as a "John", and the role of a John is akin to a spy. (See Plato's Ion for some insight.) It is clear to me that Philo had real knowledge of allegoric principles, but he deliberately created misleading interpretations by employing metaphors to explain other metaphors. Philo's work also leaves the skeptic with the impression that one can make allegory mean whatever one wants it to mean, so naturally the skeptic may see no value in this approach since it appears so easy for others to discredit any interpretation they may make. The key to avoiding this trap, is to realize that each real world idea has multiple metaphors assigned to it, and therefore a multitude of false, but technically correct, interpretations, are possible. There is only one possible true interpretation and this is the one that will provide the strongest argument for the allegoric approach.

reply to post by swordwords


So it's just arbitrary conjecture?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by swordwords

 

Then what is "God" a metaphor for? What is the literal nature of its/his/her existence?

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

This is actually very close to the truth. Basically, God represents knowledge, however, one might also say that he only represents the knowledge that is "good". But "good" knowledge is normally allegorical, so underneath the "good" is "evil". This makes it hard to draw a clear line between "God" and "Satan" and this helps to explain why it is said in Exodus 33:20 "... no one may see me (God) and live". When God appears with different names, he is representing different collections or types of knowledge. (i.e. Elohim, Jehovah, Christ)

The various Greek and Roman gods were created in a manner to catagorize knowledge in a sort of Dewey Decimal System. For Alchemists, different types of "metal" were intended to do the same thing. (The "Philosopher's Stone" is nothing but an metaphoric thesaurus.) Kabbalists use the 10 (or 11) Sephiroth.

reply to post by swordwords


Do you have a source for this?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by swordwords

 

Do you have a source for this?

My sources are everywhere, but they require interpretaion, and I do not have the time or space to try to explain it all here. But, if you want a starting place to try it for yourself, start with the works of Josephus. It is his works that contain many of the elements that were used to create much of Gospel allegories. Josephus hid many things behind the "walls" that he admitted to constucting. (Some might say Josephus built enough walls to be considered a "mason".) If you sense that any of Josephus' tales seem difficult to believe, then they are probably allegory. You should also study Plato, especially Cratylus, and this will help in interpretation.

reply to post by swordwords


What led you to interpret these materials the way you did?

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

You state that 'we' don't have a problem imagining love. I don't imagine love.

Do you imagine anything that you can't touch or see? An intangible idea, something that only exists inside of you? That's what I'm talking about. Not just love.

edit on 20-2-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Love is felt, love is not an intangible idea - not here - but to you it may well be.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

Love is felt, love is not an intangible idea - not here - but to you it may well be.

When's the last time you held a chunk of love in your hands? Maybe sniffed it, licked it a little, to get a good taste? What color was it? Was it heavy, light? Did it burn you, or was it cold to the touch?

Or how about peace? Seen any peace lying around on the ground lately? I was thinking about looking on Amazon for some, I hear it gets free shipping...

Yeah. Not an intangible idea. ...Right.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Love is a verb, therefore an action.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Love is a verb, therefore an action.

Love is intangible. You cannot grab it or taste it. Intangible doesn't necessarily mean unreal.

Imagination is intangible, unless you exercise it and realize it. A lot like love. Love is what you do with it. Imagination is what you do with it. Doesn't matter what you do with a car or even if you don't know it exists. It still exists. Love cannot exist independent of your perception. If it doesn't exist in your mind, it's not real.

But a lot of people saw things in their heads that weren't real, and they MADE them real. A lot of people thought of things that were unheard of, and with a little investigation, they found new meaning in the universe, a deeper understanding. That's what I mean when I say that imagination makes us godly.

Without imagination, we would still be in the stone age. We would still be neanderthals.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Love is a verb, therefore an action.

Love is intangible. You cannot grab it or taste it. Intangible doesn't necessarily mean unreal.

I feel love.
I feel it in the body.

Have you really never felt love?

Love is real by John Lennon
youtu.be...

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Doesn't matter what you do with a car or even if you don't know it exists. It still exists. Love cannot exist independent of your perception. If it doesn't exist in your mind, it's not real.

A car cannot exist independent of your perception either.
Nothing can appear to exist without being perceived.
Love is perceived , it is not an idea.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I never claimed to have a PhD in either of those things, but my education in them (Which isn't by any means limited) far exceeds people's fuzzy warm feelings and justifications for their own deaths and stupid psuedoscientific nonsense.

What happens next is simple and I literally cannot believe I need to explain it: Those things die, and they break down and the cycle repeats itself. This is a well documented fact. As a very basic starting point for someone with your level of understand I'd suggest watching The Lion King, before reading about where coal, oil and much of chalk comes from as well as how fertilizer works as well as why poppys grow so well on old World War 1 killing fields.

Learning about the carbon and nitrogen cycles wouldn't hurt you either.

This will continue with energy being transferred from being to being, into heat and light (if you were to die in a fire) and all that fun stuff until the sun swallows the earth and we are spit out into the cosmos as solar radiation in 6 billion years.

I invite you to retort with you PhD in "feelings ousted through meditation" which "TOTALLY = REAL SCIENCE AND WORKS AS IRREFUTABLE PROOF FOR YORU CLAIMS" and wishy-washy guesswork (Read: nonsense) which gives your pointless existence some personal meaning. But nothing more.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

A car cannot exist independent of your perception either.
Nothing can appear to exist without being perceived.
Love is perceived , it is not an idea.

Dude, we all know you don't live in this reality. I don't even want to start this topic with you.

reply to post by sajuek


I have theories, ideas, and opinions. I have educated guesswork and substantial suspicions. In other words, I have everything I need to build a fairly solid case supporting whatever idea I happen to be defending at the time.

So no, I don't have any degrees. But I have a discerning mind that can ask more than enough annoying questions to make up for that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by swordwords

 

What led you to interpret these materials the way you did?

I first suspected the allegoric nature of the Bible while I still considered myself a Christian. I had found a parallel between Matthew’s account of Judas’ hanging and the “hanging” of Jeremiah when he was lifted out of the cistern where he had been imprisoned (Jeremiah 38:6-13). I had been led to this parallel by the “error” in which Matthew attributes a quote from Zechariah to Jeremiah (Matthew 27:9-10). I thought: Could this error have been an intentional effort to allude to Jeremiah’s hanging? I also noticed that it should not have taken 30 men to pull Jeremiah out of the cistern and therefore I suspected that the number “30” had to have some hidden significance. At this time I had no clue as to what this parallel could mean, but I felt reasonably sure that it was no accident.

Sometime after this discovery, and after I renounced Christianity, I found another parallel between the Gospel accounts and Josephus’ Autobiography, and then a word in this parallel led me to another parallel. I became certain that these could not be coincidental and that there was some hidden meaning linked to these parallels. The “silent” names of Josephus’ contemporaries (Tacitus and Tranquillus) caused me to suspect something even larger and this idea caused me to think about Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. This then drew me to take a look at Plato’s works for additional clues as to what might be occurring. Plato’s Cratylus, which discusses the “correctness of names” supported my suspicion that the names Tacitus and Tranquillus were intended to communicate something about the character of their writing. I also became convinced that not only was the Bible allegorical, but also many other works.

I then began to treat this allegory as a code to be broken. I used Plato’s principle of “correctness of names” to determine possible meanings of names and words and then I would study multiple occurrences of these words to see if they offered any clues that supported the possible meanings offered by correctness. As I discerned the hidden meaning of some words, I was able then to discern meanings of additional words that were related to the ones I had already learned. (Correctness did not work for everything.) It can be a long process and in some cases I have examined hundreds of occurrences of a particular word and been unable to gain more than a general meaning. (For example, I know that “birds” represent “cover” but it is extremely difficult to learn what a particular kind of bird represents.)

The parallels themselves also occasionally offered clues as to the meaning of particular words, but they also helped to establish context of the events that were being described allegorically. For example, Josephus’ claim to have received what appeared to be a mortal head wound (Wars, Book 5, Chapter 13, paragraph 3) connects him to the “Beast” in Revelation (Chapter 13:3). Without this connection, anyone attempting to interpret Revelation must resort to guessing. Context is extremely important since literal time means nothing when allegory is involved and literal history is also of limited value. I have been able to build a fairly complete context of early Christianity, and a limited context of the Books of Moses, but not much beyond those. Without sufficient context, I can only understand what has occurred, but not who, when, or where.

In short, I was led to interpret things this way by the clues in encountered. I never suspected or dreamed of what I actually found.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I was speaking to people at work yesterday and they said anyone who thinks love is an 'intangible idea' can't have any children.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by sajuek

 

I have theories, ideas, and opinions. I have educated guesswork and substantial suspicions. In other words, I have everything I need to build a fairly solid case supporting whatever idea I happen to be defending at the time.

So no, I don't have any degrees. But I have a discerning mind that can ask more than enough annoying questions to make up for that.

The truth feels much more comfortable than any idea or theory.
When it is already known that it is no more than 'guesswork' how can it ever be a solid case?
And 'defending' guesswork leads to fighting with others who might know more.

How can one be open to something new when they are defending something they are not sure about?

When the truth is known - when reality is seen for what it is - there is no need to defend or fight over ideas. Peace prevails.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by sajuek

 

I ask more than enough annoying questions

I've fixed your post for you.

And yes, I'll give you that much.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by swordwords

 

So it's just arbitrary conjecture?

No, I wish it was; I would sleep better. I use the word "interpretations" because that is the word usually applied to deciphering allegory, but actually I am code breaking. After seeing multiple indications that there was some hidden communication involved in Biblical writings, I simply took the logical step of attempting to discover those meanings. At first it was difficult because I did not have a proper context, but once I was able to establish a context through numerous observations, everything began to fall into place. I had no idea what I would find and I was constantly surprised at my discoveries. Also, prior to my deciphering of this code, I did not really believe in conspiracies of any sort, so I don't believe that I was in any way biased into finding something unpleasant, in fact, as a former Christian, any bias should have tended in the other direction. (Even as a non-Christian, I find myself clinging to the morality I learned as a Christian and I assume that most religious leaders are entirely ignorant of what the Bible really is.) I found what I found and if I attempt to change the context, it all falls apart.

I do not guess what a metaphor means. First, I look at the clues that I encounter and get a tentative meaning for a metaphor and then I test it in its various uses and contexts. The more metaphors I learn, the more certain I become of my findings because the messages I get continue to support and confirm each other. If I happen to be wrong about a metaphor, I discover it rather quickly. It is like a vast puzzle (of the type that Solomon and Hiram so much enjoyed) and when the pieces fit, you just know it. This puzzle actually covers more than just the Bible and it is the key to many of the conspiracies discussed on this site. Most of the mysterious claims by various groups make sense to me. I know their true context.