2
WindOnReed2
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit WindOnReed2's Xanga Site!

Name: WindOnReed2


Interests: life, love, 'wisdom,' philosophy, history (esp. ancient history, philosophy, and religion), Greek and Latin, psychology, consciousness, evolution, the role of will and the possibility of conscious/willed evolution, evolutionary potential, environmental issues, business ethics, music, piano, guitar, frisbee, writing, food, sex, sleep.
Expertise: none. but some older papers are on a website, www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity . Face book: ask.
Occupation: student
Industry: education


Message: message me
Website: visit my website
AIM: walksinsky
MSN: bodhi7442


Member Since: 6/5/2006

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Blogrings (10 of 18)
An Open Mind In A Closed World
previous - random - next

Journeyers to the East
previous - random - next

The Time is Now!
previous - random - next

Christianity is Not Intellectual Suicide
previous - random - next

Greek/Roman Mythology
previous - random - next

 Disappointed with Religion
previous - random - next

The Classical World
previous - random - next

Politics, Religion, and Philosophy
previous - random - next

Gnosticism
previous - random - next

Transhuman Future
previous - random - next

View all blogrings

Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site


Sunday, September 13, 2009

Principia, Existential Thoughts

(selections from J20071218)

No complete entities, other than all.

  • ‘all’ – a word for comprehensive unity. 
    • whether unity IS outside the head AS it ‘is’ inside the head may be questioned, but it seems a healthy idea.
    • Having a word for “the whole” does not make it an “accurate” idea.

I, as Manu, am not a complete entity, if an “entity” is understood as something separate from its surroundings.

This is similar to saying that “separation” is a relative term. 

I remember the first time I wrote on paper that I was not Manu anymore.  A budding consciousness of identity and lack of identity.  I am far older than Manu, although age may not be an unquestionably appropriate category, since I have also never been born.

“Ego-1” is “Manu”.  “Ego-1” may often most easily be identified with a person’s given name, birth name, the name a person is typically called by friends, family, acquaintances; it is a persona.

 

It is important that we grow out of Ego-1 as we grow up.  First Ego is a fine way of primary education, but it is incomplete.  We gain orientation and familiarity with our bodies, our families, clans, social circles, communities, cities, states, countries, world, etc., in continuously expanding circles.  We eventually are to realize that our “individuality” is, from some perspectives, an illusion – even if a fine one, a helpful one, a necessary part of a process, and not always or completely an illusion. 

 

The word “individual” is from Middle Latin “indīviduālis,” equivalent to Latin “indīvidu(us)”, meaning “indivisible.”  As we should know, we really ARE divisible, conventionally speaking.  We are not really “individuals.”

 

It is fine and well for someone to identify with first ego and say, “I am separate from you, from my environment.”  But eventually, it is important to learn that we are also NOT separate.

 

Here are some perspectives concerning you, ego-1, the conventional ego:

  • You are temporary.  i.e. Ego-1 is temporary.
  • You, as primary ego, will most likely die – that is to say, cease to exist in a way that retains your current distinguishing persona, traits, qualities, characteristics.
  • Even apart from dying, you are constantly changing.  In many ways, you are not the same you from one second/hour/day/year/decade/century to the next. 
  • You are a complex structure, consisting of many parts.  In some real sense, you are not one, but many.
  • Most of the time, your heart beats, your lungs breath, your blood circulates, your digestive system operates, and your cells function without conscious effort or guidance, so often without consciousness period.  Your consciousness (primary) is a mere part of the largely automated system that is your body, which itself is part of a larger system.
  • Body facts to illustrate the constantly changing nature of bodily ‘self’:
    • A 70 kg body would have approximately 7x1027 atoms - that is, 7 followed by 27 zeros. Of this, almost 2/3 is hydrogen, 1/4 is oxygen, and about 1/10 is carbon. These three atoms add up to 99% of the total.[1]
    • In a study published in the Annual Report for Smithsonian Institution in 1953, scientists found that 98 percent of our atoms are replaced each year.[2]
    • A typical human body is estimated to contain approximately 100 trillion cells.  So many of these cells are constantly being replaced.  Consider the following:[3]
      • The average age of all the cells in an adult's body may turn out to be as young as 7 to 10 years.
      • Cells from the muscles of the ribs, taken from people in their late 30's, have an average age of 15.1 years.
      • The average age of cells in the main body of the gut is 15.9 years.
      • The cells lining the stomach last only five days.
      • Red blood cells, after traveling nearly 1,000 miles through the circulatory system, last only 120 days or so on average.
      • The epidermis, or surface layer of the skin, is recycled every two weeks or so.
      • An adult human liver probably has a turnover time of 300 to 500 days.
      • The entire human skeleton is thought to be replaced every 10 years or so in adults.
      • The heart as a whole is generating new cells, but no one had measured the turnover rate of the heart's muscle cells by the time of this article.
      • Brain cells were under debate at the time of the article.  Some areas do generate new cells.  Cells from the visual cortex, however, seem to be as old as the person.
      • About the only pieces of the body that last a lifetime, on present evidence, seem to be the neurons of the cerebral cortex, the inner lens cells of the eye and perhaps the muscle cells of the heart.
    • Aging may occur because (a.) the DNA accumulates mutations and its information is gradually degraded, (b.) the DNA of the mitochondria lack the repair mechanisms available for the chromosomes, and/or (c.) the stem cells that are the source of new cells in each tissue eventually grow feeble with age.[4]
    • “People behave their birth age, not the physical age of their cells, [because] a few of the body's cell types endure from birth to death without renewal, and this special minority includes some or all of the cells of the cerebral cortex.”[5]
  • If you were without other humans, a.) you probably would not survive long, and b.) you probably would not reproduce.  You are not independent in any absolute or long-term sense.
  • You cannot live apart from air, water, food.  You are constantly in flux.  You are constantly exchanging material substance with your environment.  Thus, you are not separate from your environment, but you are part of it, and it is part of you.  Identity expands now. 
  • As much as you are your body, you are air, water, earth, chemicals, atoms, etc.
  • As much as you are mind, you are your body and your environment.  Your mind is not separate either.
    • Your consciousness itself, you did not choose, conventionally speaking.  Nor do you ultimately control it, conventionally speaking.  You are driven by desires for life, food, sex, pleasure, rest, love, et cetera.  You may say that you choose whether or not to pursue certain desires, but the desires themselves spring up within you beyond your choice or control.  No matter what you ever do, you are serving your chemistry, which is part of the universe’s chemistry.
    • Abstractly: What is in your mind is what is outside of it.
    • What is in your mind is what you see, hear, smell, taste, feel. 
    • And what do you see, hear, smell, taste, feel?  Your environment, self. 
    • Your character is a ‘creation’ of your environment.
    • Nothing is “your own.”[6]  Your body-mind-character self is a complex deriving from your parents and your environment.  i.e. You are an evolving morph of your parents and your environment in combination
    • If I am this sentence, I am inside you, part of you, or more simply … you.

 

You cannot wall yourself off from the This of which you are part.[7] 


While you cannot escape yourself, you are also elusive, slippery, ephemeral.  You are an oxymoron, a sharp dull.


What to learn?  Two things, or three:

  1. You do not exist.
    1. “It cut itself into smaller and smaller pieces, until it found that nothing was really there at all”
  2. You are everything, in the broadest possible sense.
  3. You do, of  course exist, and You are simply you.

 

And all are true, even if from different perspectives and definitions.

And I think all are critically important.

 

Ramifications:

  • We are all in This together.
  • We are not ultimately separable from one another.
  • The true best interest of the temporary “individual” is the best interest of the whole, atemporal/omni-temporal.
  • You have a part to play in everyone’s well-being, and everyone has a part to play in yours.

 

What am I saying?

 

Get beyond ego-1 and finder a greater self to serve.

Stretch.

- - - - -   - - - - -   - - - - -  


So are there two levels of consciousness? 

One - conventional,

One - that which is inherent in All?

 

The universe as a plant:  we are flowers of consciousness.

 

Nature sometimes seams to me to be all in a dream-like state, sometimes trying to wake up.  Nature seems to have forms of dementia, schizophrenia (in the etymological sense of the word – split mind). 

Her consciousness is split into so many pieces; each of our neural systems is part of it. 

Scattered, split. 

 

Is She awake, asleep? 


 - - - - -  


All the religions are attempts.  Let them offer windows, but not tie back.  Windows, not fetters.

As I said long ago, “words are not themselves the things to which the words refer,” but signs, symbols, indications.  All words are Game.  They are “true” only in that they are part of Truth.  Truth is only “comprehended” in part.  By necessity.  Truth as a whole is not an object to be grasped, but is the only subject, something we must be.  – and something we are, all the time, all together, in every way, without beginning, without end.

I liked it when the Old Boy said, “He who knows doesn’t say, and he who says doesn’t know.”


- - - - -

[1] Statistics from http://education.jlab.org/qa/mathatom_04.html .

[2] From http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583 .

[3] “Your Body Is Younger Than You Think.”  New York Times.  August 2, 2005.

[4] ibid.

[5] ibid.

[6] Except everything.

[7] Some people like to call This ‘God.’  Other people do not.  Either is fine.  Both are names for the metanomenal, in a sense.  If one adopts the “God” term, one should just be aware of the distinctions between this God and its lesser mythological/religious manifestations, which are mere personalities.


Friday, July 17, 2009

Existential Questions

1. Is life/existence ultimately undesigned or designed?

2. IF you imagine that all life is/was designed, was it designed by something (A) living or (B) non-living?


(A) If living, what designed that living designer?
. . . or does life not actually require a designer, and do you change your answer?

Must life ultimately be merely self-existent expression, with no design or reason behind it?




(B) If non-living, then it is dead, right?


. . .

Is it true that either path leads to the conclusion that existence can have no ultimate "reason" or "purpose"?  Is it true that All simply IS?



- - -

Likewise:

Can all design be designed?

Or must design itself be something ultimately self-existent, undesigned, without point/purpose?

Is purpose, if/wherever it does exist, merely existent and itself without purpose?

Does everyone conclude that such terms as "design," "meaning," "purpose," "reason" are only relative to certain contexts/scenarios/perspectives, inapplicable to the entirety?





Wednesday, July 01, 2009

God is pan-sexual


My girlfriend's friend's boyfriend posted three articles on facebook, and they are so entertaining that I knew I had to share them.

1. From The Onion,

"Transgendered Sea Anemone Denounced As 'Abomination' By Clergy"

"This filthy anemone, which exhibits both male and female characteristics, is turning our oceans' intertidal zones into dens of sin and perversion."  . . . 



which is a spoof related to these next articles.


2. From LiveScience.com, posted: 16 June 2009 12:02 pm ET

"Same-Sex Behavior Found in Nearly All Animals"

Examples of same-sex behavior can be found in almost all species in the animal kingdom — from worms to frogs to birds — making the practice nearly universal among animals, according to a new review of research on the topic.  

"It's clear that same-sex sexual behavior extends far beyond the well-known examples that dominate both the scientific and popular literature: for example, bonobos, dolphins, penguins and fruit flies," said Nathan Bailey, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Riverside.

. . .


3. From the SF Gate, July 1, 2009, an article by Mark Morford,

"Confirmed: God is slightly gay. "

. . .  [excerpt]

Because if homosexual/bisexual behavior is universal and by design, if gender mutability is actually deeply woven into the very fabric of nature itself, and if you understand that nature is merely another word for God, well, you can only surmise that God is, to put it mildly, much more than just a little bit gay. I mean, obviously.

But let's be fair. That's not exactly true. God is not really gay, per se. God is more... pansexual. Omnisexual. Gender neutral. Gender indeterminate. It would appear that God, this all-knowing and all-creating and all-seeing divine energy that infuses and empowers all things at all times everywhere, does not give a flying leather whip about gender.

Or rather, She very much does, but not in the simpleminded, hetero-only way 2,000 years of confused religious dogma would have us all believe.

. . .

[and another favorite quote from the article:

God's motto: Look, life is a wicked inscrutable orgy of love and compassion and survival instinct, shot through with pain and longing and death and suffering and far, far too many arguments about . . .

[and one more line:

. . .  as normal as a warm spring rain falling on a pod of giddy bottlenose dolphins having group sex off the coast of Fiji  . . .




Hope someone else enjoys the reading too.





Saturday, June 27, 2009

Moral Hypocrisy? -- Politics, Religion, Statistics


Charles M. Blow, Op-Ed Columnist for the NYTimes, wrote a very good piece for today's paper, and if you have time, you should read it. 

"The Prurient Trap," By Charles M. Blow, Op-Ed Columnist, NYTimes, June 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/27/opinion/27blow.html .

The piece does a good job NOT of attacking someone for having an extra-marital affair, which is a fairly common occurrence and usually a private matter, but of exposing the hypocrisy of those who use moral claims ostentatiously for political ends and do not practice what they preach.

That is to say, there is often a huge difference between rhetoric and behavior.

There are Democratic sex scandals to be sure, but Democrats didn’t build a franchise on holier-than-thou moral rectitude. The Republicans did. They used sexual morality as a weapon and now it’s shooting them in the foot.

Sanford's hypocrisy is bad enough.

Sanford voted to impeach Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky saga. According to The Post and Courier of Charleston, Sanford called Clinton’s behavior “reprehensible” and said, “I think it would be much better for the country and for him personally” to resign. “I come from the business side. ... If you had a chairman or president in the business world facing these allegations, he’d be gone.”  Remember that Mr. Sanford?

Yet so far, he says he has no plans to resign.  I actually do not think having an affair is any necessary cause for someone to resign, if he is still capable of doing his job,  ... BUT, does his failure to resign, in light of his own words, not render his previous rhetoric hypocritical?


Aside from that, one of the factual highlights of Blow's article is this graphic, which is indicative of the fact that the hypocrisy is NOT limited to the politicians, but is located among the voters themselves:
 




Graphic URL:  http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/06/27/opinion/20090627blowchart.html  .

The statistics and the article show that
  • And "subscriptions to online pornography sites were 'more prevalent in states where surveys indicate conservative positions on religion, gender roles, and sexuality' and in states where 'more people agree that ‘I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage.’ ' "

- - - - 

I am reminded of this article:

"Red Sex, Blue Sex: Why do so many evangelical teen-agers become pregnant?" by Margaret Talbot, The New Yorker, November 3, 2008 - http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/11/03/081103fa_fact_talbot .

Talbot's article fairly accurately describes the situations of places such as the small East Texas town where I grew up.  Fundamentalist evangelical Christians often oppose sex education, condoms, and birth control, and they preach against premarital sex as if it is something wrong and horrible that offends and angers what-they-think-of-as-a-righteuos-personal-God, BUT often their children still have sex before marriage anyway and are more likely to do so without protection.  When their children do get pregnant, they are more likely to feel pressure to get married young and have the baby, and they are more likely to end up divorced, because the marriages they enter are not well-chosen. 

I grew up in a crowd of evangelicals.  We all naively thought premarital sex was a great sin, trusting NOT in authentic communication from a real God, trusting NOT in nature or biology or logic, but trusting in tradition and the Bible and much pretense of communication with "God" out of youthful credulity and lack of education.  I honestly think that most of my fellow students had premarital sex anyway.  Those who did not, because they wanted so desperately "to please God," were at least in some cases over-eager to get married at a young age, and I know that there were plenty of divorces in the lives of youth-group members as they grew up.

- - - - -

I am also reminded of this short TED presentation:

Jonathan Haidt: “The real difference between liberals and conservatives,” a   
TED video, 19:14,  Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc

"Psychologist Jonathan Haidt studies the five moral values that form the basis of our political choices, whether we're left, right or center. In this eye-opening talk, he pinpoints the moral values that liberals and conservatives tend to honor most."

Haidt identifies five fundamental moral values shared to a greater or lesser degree by different societies and individuals: 

  1. Care/Harm for others, protecting them from harm.
  2. Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
  3. In-group Loyalty to your group, family, nation.
  4. Respect/Authority -- Respect for tradition and legitimate authority.
  5. Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

Haidt's Conclusion:  Americans who call themselves liberals tend to value Care and Fairness higher than In-group Loyalty, Respect-for-Authority, and Purity.  Americans claiming to be conservative put relatively less emphasis on Care and Fairness, and they put more emphasis on Ingroup Loyalty, Respect for Authority, and Purity.  BOTH groups give Care the highest over-all weighting, but conservatives value Fairness the lowest, whereas liberals value Purity the lowest.

Regardless of whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or whatever, this talk does an interesting job in explaining the similarities and differences in the general morality of Democrats and republicans.  Both groups have strong senses of morality, but they have different focuses.

Does it make sense to you?  What do you think about it?


More on morality:

Steven Pinker, “The Moral Instinct.” January 13, 2008. NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

"The Evolution and Relativity of Judeo-Christian Morality," an outline of mine,  - http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/EvolutionOfJudeoChristianMorality.htm

“Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior,” by Nicholas Wade, NYTimes, March 20, 2007, re: Dr. Frans de Waal, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html 

More on Sanford and "moral" scandals:

"A Nation of Candidates," by Gail Collins, Op-Ed Columnist, NYTimes
June 20, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/opinion/20collins.html

"Sanford Case a New Dose of Bad News for Republicans," By Jim Rutenberg, NYTimes, June 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25repubs.html

"Mysteries Remain After Governor Admits an Affair," By Robbie Brown and Shaila Dewan, June 25, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25sanford.html

“Genius in the Bottle,” by Maureen Dowd, Op-Ed Columnist, NYTimes, Published: June 27, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/opinion/28dowd.html






Monday, June 22, 2009

Biblical Cosmology and Its Problems


That the Bible has problems with its cosmology is an old and uninteresting fact to plenty of people.  However, I live in a world in which there are still too many other people who take the Bible far too seriously, making claims that it is perfect/inerrant.  It is with such fundamentalists in mind that I post the following:

3-tiered Cosmos:

Very many ancient people, including plenty of Jews and Christians and the writers of various books/verses of the Bible, believed in a 3-tiered universe:
  1. the heavens above,
  2. the flat earth below (a flat circle/disk or a flat square, although this changed with time),
  3. sheol/ hades/ hell/ tartarus beneath the earth.

e.g.

•    Php 2:10: "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth"

•    Rev 5:3: "no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth"


Every knee "under the earth"?

Really?

Heaven IS the sky in the Bible:


Ancient people believed God, or the Gods, lived up in the sky. In Hebrew, the word for sky is shamayim; in Greek the word is ouranos.  People did not have two different words for sky and heaven; they were the same place.  Only moderns make a distinction.  So when English Bibles translate shamayim and ouranos sometimes as sky and sometimes as heaven, they mislead modern readers into thinking there was a difference. In the Bible, the shamayim/ouranos is a place
  • where god lives;
  • where the angels live;
  • where the sun and moon move around;
  • where the stars are;
  • where rain, thunder, and lightning come from;
  • where there are storehouses of hail, snow, and wind;
  • where the clouds are;
  • where birds fly.

If you will do a search for the occurrences of shamayim/sky/heaven/ouranos in the OT and check out the original languages, you will see that this is the case.  Do you have a Strong’s concordance of the Bible? 


The Firmament:


Genesis 1:6–8:  “God [Elohiym] said, ‘Let there be a firmament [raqiya] in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.’ And God [Elohiym] made the firmament [raqiya], and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God [Elohiym] called the firmament Heaven [shamayim]. And the evening and the morning were the second day.”

The Hebrew word used for "firmament" is "raqiya,” an extended solid surface or flat expanse, considered to be a hemisphere above the Earth. The word is derived from “raqa,” meaning "beaten out" or to spread material by beating/hammering/stamping (like metal).  That’s why Elihu asks Job, “Can you beat out [raqa] the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal?” (Job 37:18). In the 400’s, Jerome used the Latin word firmamentum, “support, prop, mainstay; support group” to translate the word.

  • Genesis 1:14-17:  “And God [Elohiym] said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth": and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also.
  • The firmament has windows that El/Yahweh opens to let rain come down (Gen 7:11, 8:2). 
  • Job 28:32 speaks of “the storehouses of the snow” and “the storehouses of the hail” in shamayim.
  • Ezekiel 1:22:  “Spread out above the heads of the living creatures was what looked like a firmament, sparkling like ice, and awesome.”

Today we know this is erroneous.  The "heavens" are not a firmament.  The "heavens" are not a vault.

Shamayim/Ouranos/Sky/Heaven and Yahweh/El/God are above the earth:


  • Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”
  • Job 22:12, 14:  "Is not God [Eloah] in the heights of heaven [shamayim]?  And see how lofty are the highest stars!  . . .  he goes about in the vaulted heavens.'   (n.b. El/Eloah/Yahweh (god) is in the sky.)
  • Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God [El], the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”
  • “In them [shamayim], a tent is fixed for the sun, who comes out like a bridegroom from his wedding canopy, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. His rising is at one end of the heavens, his circuit touches their farthest ends; and nothing is hidden from his heat (Psalm 19:4-6).”  (n.b.  The sun moves in the heavens in circuit over the stationary earthGeocentric model.) 
  • Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”
  • Isaiah 40:22:  “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.”  This ancient Jewish writer pictured God sitting on a throne (like a human king) way up in the sky, so high that humans look like grasshoppers.
  • Isaiah 45:12, El says “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”
  • Isaiah 48:13, “...with my right hand I formed the expanse of the sky [shamayim] ...”
  • “You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God [El]; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain.  I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High God [Elyown]." (Isaiah 14:13-14).
  • Ezekiel 1:22-26; Ezekiel 10:1. Above the vault is a throne of sapphire (or lapis lazuli). Seated on the throne is “a form in human likeness,” which is radiant and “like the appearance of the glory of the Lord.”  Ezekiel saw a vision of God sitting enthroned on the vault of heaven.
  • Joshua 10:13.  “So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself . . . The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.”  This fits the ancient view that the sun and moon both move in the vault of heaven, while the earth is stationary.
  • Stars can fall from the sky to earth according to Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, Revelation 8:10, Revelation 9:1 and Revelation 12:4 (It is sometimes claimed that these "falling stars" are meteors, but such is a lame attempt at apologetics; the writers of these tales were ignorant and made no distinction; the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges "one-third of all the stars in the sky" in Revelation 12:4.  ).
    • Isaiah 34:4:  “All the stars of the heavens will be dissolved and the sky rolled up like a scroll; all the starry host will fall like withered leaves from the vine, like shriveled figs from the fig tree.
    • Daniel 8:10:  “It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.”
    • Mark 13:25:  “the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”
    • Matthew 24:29:  "Immediately after the distress of those days 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’”
    • Revelation 6:13-16:  “...the stars in the sky [ouranos] fell to the earth, like figs shaken down by a gale; the sky [ouranos] vanished, as a scroll is rolled up...they called out to the mountains and the crags, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One who sits on the throne...”
  • Shamayim has windows which God can open to let the waters above fall to the surface as rain (Genesis 7:11, Genesis 8:2, Isaiah 24:18-19, Jeremiah 51:15-16, and Malachi 3:10).
  • Job 28:32 speaks of “the storehouses of the snow” and “the storehouses of the hail” in shamayim.  And Jeremiah 51:16: “He brings up the mist from the ends of the earth, he opens rifts for the rain and brings the wind out of his storehouses.”  Ignorant ancient people, such as the writer of this book of the Bible, believed that there were storehouses of snow, rain, and wind up in the sky where God lived.
  • Tower of Babel story in Genesis 11:4-7:  "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens [shamayim], so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."  . . .  But the LORD [Yahweh] came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building.  The LORD [Yahweh] said, . . . “Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."
  • Exodus 19:11:  “be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD [Yahweh] will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
  • Exodus 19:20:  “The LORD [Yahweh] came down to the top of Mount Sinai and called Moses to the top of the mountain.”
  • Numbers 11:17:  “I will come down and speak with you”
  • Numbers 11:25:  “Then the LORD [Yahweh] came down in the cloud and spoke with him.”
  • Joshua 10:11:  “The LORD [Yahweh] hurled large hailstones down on them from the heavens [shamayim]”
  • 2 Kings 1:12:  “Then the fire of God [Elohiym] fell from heaven [shamayim] and consumed him and his fifty men.”

The New Testament is just as bad:

  • Luke 10:18:  He [Jesus] replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven [ouranos].”
  • In Acts, Jesus is depicted as rising into the sky until a cloud hid him from view (Acts 1:9-11).
    • This is comparable to other ancient people's beliefs about gods descending from the sky where they live, or heroic god-men ascending to heaven at or after their deaths. 
      • Example:  Romulus:  According to Roman histories written before Christianity developed, Romulus, the first king of Rome, son of God/Mars by the virgin Rhea Sylvia, ascended into heaven from a mountain when a cloud hid him from view.  Some sources said there was an eclipse of the sun at the same time.  Romulus subsequently appeared to a Roman senator and sent him with a message for his people explaining what happened and prophesying the future greatness of Rome.  Romulus was then known as the God Quirinus, and he received prayers on behalf of the city.  The story can be found in Livy (1st century BCE), Dionysius of Halicarnassus (1st century BCE), and Plutarch's biography of Romulus (c. 100 CE), and it is mentioned by Cicero (1st century BCE) and Ennius (239 - c. 169 BCE). 
      • Example:  Heracles:  According to ancient Greeks, Heracles / Hercules was son of God / Zeus by Alcmene.  Heracles went to Hades and back, and he brought at least one mortal back from death, Alcestis.  Heracles was tortured by a poisonous cloak and died painfully on a pyre, but he rose ino heaven to live forever as divine.  Greeks believed he was real.
      • Many Romans believed that Julius Caesar ascended to heaven and became divine after his death.  Augustus Caesar, his adopted heir, thus called himself "son of a God" and printed this on his coins.
      • The early Christian movement was compelled to invent a story at least as miraculous as these earlier stories.  How else could it trump the other superstitions of the day?
  • Revelation 1:7:  "Look he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him..."  (flat earth and imminent eschatology).

Yes, some really believed that divinity was anthropomorphic and lived up in the sky.

The earth is stationary:


  • 1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”
  • Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”
  • Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”
  • Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”
  • Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”
  • The following speak of earth's foundations:  2 Samuel 22:16, Job 38:4, Psalm 18:15, Proverbs 8:29, Isaiah 24:18, etc.


The earth is flat or a hill, not a sphere:


  • Daniel 4:10-11.  The king “saw a tree of great height at the center of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”  In the writer’s imagination, the earth is flat, so an extremely tall tree would be visible to “the earth's farthest bounds,” but this is impossible on a spherical earth.
  • Matthew 4:8: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory.”  Obviously, this would be possible only if the earth were flat.  Either the inventor of the story thought the earth was flat, or this was meant to be a symbolic parable and not a real event in a historical biography, or both.  Some say the sight was "spiritual," but if so, why would the "high mountain" be necessary?
  • Revelation 1:7: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him...” 
  • Jeremiah 51:16: “He brings up the mist from the ends of the earth.”


Hell is below the earth:


The Bible teaches that just as the sky/heaven is above the earth, so is hell below/within the earth. Consider the following:

  • Mt 11:23: "You will go down to Hades." (also Lk 10:15)
  • Mt 12:40: "For as Jonah was 3 days and 3 nights in the belly of the sea creature, so the son of man will be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth."
  • 1Pt 3:18-20: "He was put to death in the body but made alive by the spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago..."
  • Php 2:10: "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow in heaven and on earth and under the earth"
  • Eph 4:9-10: "What does 'he ascended' mean except that he also descended to the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the very one who ascended far above all the heavens in order to fill all things."
  • 2Pt 2:4: "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but sent them to Tartarus, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement." (Tartarus is the lowest region of the underworld in Greek mythology.)
  • Rev 5:3: "no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth"
  • Rev 5:13: "every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea"

Commentary:


Many ancient people, including the the writers of certain parts of the Bible, held such beliefs as these:
  • that hell was under the ground,
  • that the earth was stationary,
  • that God or the Gods or their angelic servants made the sun and moon move across the sky above the stationary earth,
  • that God or the Gods had emotions, senses, and personalities, just as humans do,
  • that God or the Gods lived up in the sky [although many had come to believe the more abstract and somewhat contradictory belief that God was everywhere, making it necessary to explain away older  references to a God who was not omnipresent (cf. Gen 11:4-7)]. 

If a single one of these is wrong, then the Bible contains error.

It was only 400 years ago (in the time of Copernicus, d.1543, and Galileo, d.1642, whose theories the Church at first condemned) that science overturned the geocentric/earth-centered model of the universe and began to drive ancient geocentric cosmology from human minds. 

[Earlier Greek discoveries had not gained sufficient acceptance.]

Now we know that the cosmology of the Bible (and much other ancient literature) is incorrect.  Most people nowadays will admit that the earth moves around the sun, but the fundamentalists need to face the facts that such truths contradict certain passages in the Bible and that the Bible was written by fallible humansThe same goes for the age of the earth and human origins, about which the ancient Christians and the writers of the Bible had no clue -- (cf. Genesis and Luke's genealogy of Jesus, with its 77 generations of humans from God to Jesus through Adam -- http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/OTChrono.html.).

Some, both ancient and modern, desire(d) to imagine heaven and hell as existing in some invisible dimension, but as demonstrated above, numerous passages in the Bible do say that heaven is above the earth and that rain, snow, angels, stars, the sun, and god are there, and multiple passages say that hell is below the earth.  The attempt to remove things to "another dimension" is an evasive effort to salvage primitive ideas by relocating them to an imaginary place inaccessible to scrutiny or evidence.

In Acts, Jesus is depicted as rising literally into the sky until a cloud hid him from view (Acts 1:9-11).  Did that really happen?  A cloud?  Why?   And in Revelation 1:7 a Christian writer says, "Look he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him..." Such descriptions are clues that the ascension and other stories are fiction, and at the very least should not be taken as literally true. 

It would be pointless for Jesus to have gone up into the sky; nothing is up there but air.  And if heaven were in some other dimension, Jesus could have simply disappeared into that other dimension; there would be no need for an ascension.  Over which country are Jesus, Romulus, and Hercules hovering in the clouds right now?  The fact that the Christian story depicts Jesus going up into the air to heaven simply betrays their ancient world view that heaven was the upper sky; and this is one of the many clues that the story is a fabrication along with other ancient stories of ascending man-gods like Romulus and Heracles.

Also, many early Christians, such as the writer of Revelation 1:7, thought Jesus would come back down in the clouds and that everyone would see him, and they thought he would come back so soon that his murderers would still be alive!

[n.b.  Many early Christians erroneously thought Jesus was coming back soon, within their lifetimes:  Mk 9:1;13:30; 14:61-62; 1 Thess 4:15-17; 1 Corinthians 1:7-8; 7:26, 29; 15:51-52;  Romans 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:7; Revelation 1:1-3;  3:11; 16:15; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20.  Now, believers often feel forced to try all kinds of re-interpretations of these embarrassments, just as with other problems.]   

They did not know the earth spun on its axis, and many did not know that the earth was an oblique spheroid; so they did not have a problem thinking everyone at the same time would be able to see Jesus come down from the heights of heaven.  Today, those Christians who still hold this belief feel forced to try to resolve the issue by saying, "Maybe it will somehow be a spiritual event that all will see in the spirit."  Idle and silly talk.  Spiritual clouds?   Cloudy ideas.  Then there are those, believe it or not, who have claimed that this was a prophecy of satellite television -- i.e. We will all see him on television when he returns (a view at times advocated by Pat Robertson in the 1990's, ignoring the imminent eschatology)!


Even those too fearful to admit the truth of these last points should admit that some aspects of the cosmology espoused by the Bible were/are erroneous if taken at face value.

 http://www.geocities.com/investigatingchristianity/  .







Next 5 >>