OT God(s) as Nature

filibuster

All that your mind is capable of has a location.

It would seem so , yet I have no proof of that . My mind is capable in creating the illusion of location (space) .

Do you reject that you are matter?

Not really....yet my mind seems to be something not really representing its matter , nor is my Self .

Books don't bother me. Religions bother me.

Perhaps just peoples

So we agree. What do we disagree about, again?

You put your emphasis of dis-agreement on scriptures while I am putting it on idiot peoples who are translating and interperting those scriptures and fantasise all sorts of things in their interest along with it .

I only relate a god-Earth because of the creationistic reality

creationist reality ? Existence is self-creative my friend .....

2)Do you realize how hilarious it is to say "everything that has existed and will exist" and "hippy-shit" in the same breath?

No I do not

Do you have a Tom Brokaw version of the 60's engrained into you?

I dont even know the guy

What do you think a "hippy" is? An LSD addict with chronic Chlamydia?

Something like that . A smelly ugly longhaired tree-lover ....
 
The only sites I know of are these:

Thanks for the sites , but I dont think they translate into european written symbols as well (for instance like "teva") .

Does anyone know of such translations with Arabic and Hebrew specifically ? I cant read the symbols :(

"Teva" implies drowning or sinking, because we are sunken into and swallowed up by this physical world.

Teva" also is related to the word "matbeah" - coin - referring to a coin that has an image impressed upon it. Similarly the natural world impresses; so much so that our senses are so stimulated that any inkling of anything beyond is naturally overwhelmed."

Things like this give my methods for understanding ancient semitic scriptures lots of potency and hope :)

77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things.
I am all: from me all has come forth, and to me all has
reached . Split a piece of wood; I am there. Lift up the
stone, and you will find me there." -Gospel Of Thomas

Yes Isa knew how things worked :)

What I meant was the exclusion of nature from existence , you know plants trees etc ....while it is EVERYTHING tat should be considered , like that what there is when a rock is lifted as Isa speaks .

Consequent Atheist , anything you wanna say ? U liked it better if it said Hbrw txt ?
 
Originally posted by one_raven
It seems to fit pretty well.

Has anyone else ever thought of this?
Has anyone taken the time to try and apply the theory to the whole (or at least much of the) Bible?

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
YES!!!
Exactly, I only recently thought of it though, it fits perfectly. Particularly genesis.

Heres what I think has happened. We all know that each book of the bible was written at different times, it wasn't just one piece of work from start to finish.
I think it is obvious that genesis was meant as a fable, I think it was written by an extremely profound philosopher, for the time(maybe the absolute dawn of civilisation, maybe he experienced the transition from hunter gatherer to civilisation) who was just symbolically telling the story of the history of the world.

The way it was written lead to future generations misinterpretting. Whoever wrote it did so in a way to make god seem like a man itself in order to make it easier to understand. Fables do this all the time. But people started thinking god really was this devine thing looking over them and they added on to the story over time. You can't blame them, genesis was the only thing they had that gave them "answers" as to why they were here which is a natural curiosity for the homo-sapien species, and if they interpretted it in the way they wanted they could make everything seem like it mattered. But the original author never intended for this, it was just a clever little tale.

The garden of eden was perfect, it was the world before man came about. Adam and eve or early man had the chance to live perfectly in this perfect world without sin and they did for a while(ie hunting and gathering... living like the animals) but they "bit the apple". What I see that as symbolizing is the rise of civilisation, the abandoning of nature. This gave man the ability to "sin", he now had a great responsibility because he had become his own god and was setting himself up to be the god of all things. Before "god" (or nature) was taking care of everything, but man took himself out of natures grasp.

It is not so unbelievable that one wise old man could notice this change and tell a story to paint the picture for everyone else. If he had been a hunter and gatherer himself he would have perhaps very much respected the way things were and seen "evil" in this new civilisation stuff.

Anything after the original story should not be paid attention to because it just so happens that they totally misunderstood what the original author was on about, and in reality just blew a whole heap of hot air about nothing for centuries. And whats really amusing is people lived their whole lives by a misinterpretation for centuries and still do.
At least that what I think of the whole thing.
 
Dr Lou,
My thinking was similar.


The book of Genesis can also, perhaps be seen as the development and life of man.
Not of mankind as a species, but the development of an individual.

The eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (it kind of annoys me when people refer to it as an apple, sorry) represents the end of innocence.
As in a child.
A child is innocent because he does not know what is right and what is wrong, but once he understands that, then he can be judged by his actions.
Since the child now knows the consequenses of his actions, he must be held accountable and accept responsibility for those actions.

Innocence, once lost, can't be regained.
Once someone knows the difference between right and wrong, he can no longer be shielded by ignorance.
Along those same lines, once you learn that someday you will die, you can never un-learn that.
When you are ignorant of mortality, you are (at least in your own mind) immortal.
Hence, the tree of life.
When they are banished from the immortal paradise of Eden, it represents them gaining knowedge of mortality.

A child learns the difference between good and evil and understands the implications of that.
With that understanding you also gain the ability to choose whether you will be good or evil.

Hence, knowedge gives us the gift of free will.

With knowledge comes power.
With power comes responsibility.

It was this thinking that made me start considering the Bible not as a book outlining the history of mankind, but as a book outlining the development and life of individual man.

I know I sound like I am running around in circles with this, but as I said, I haven't applied this all yet, it has just been a trickle in the back of my mind for years, and I haven't quite found a way to word it eloquently yet.
(So much for thinking with words, huh? ;))

(Edited the first line to clarify that I don't think this is the only option. It can very well be seen as the development of mankind and his role on earth as well. I just haven't made my mind up yet, and wanted to show my thought process.)
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by one_raven
Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
El/YHWH's roots in the Ugaritic pantheon suggest that the God of the Torah is a syncretic development rather than allegory or primitive pantheism/panentheism.
 
Re: Re: OT God(s) as Nature

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
El/YHWH's roots in the Ugaritic pantheon suggest that the God of the Torah is a syncretic development rather than allegory or primitive pantheism/panentheism.
Click to expand...

Do you have any information regarding this?
What evidence suggests that he is based on El?
 
Consuequent
No. I would simply think you pretentious.

I must have mis-understood you then , I thought your comment dealt with spelling etc .

Anyways , yes I might be pretentious wanting original Hebrew understanding of things , but dont you think that it is essential with the various mistranslations nowadays ? There are aspects of the Torah (some very essential lines) that really require original semitic understanding .

Dont you think so ? Im affraid otherwise we'll just end up "god-fearing peoples" and such lamo things .
 
Originally posted by Jihad_AlifLamLamHah
There are aspects of the Torah (some very essential lines) that really require original semitic understanding .
Click to expand...
It's rather hard to find an original semite these days. To what "very essential lines" are you referring?
 
Originally posted by one_raven
I have always has this underlying curiosity (or you can call it sneaking suspicion, maybe) that the God(s) of the Old Testament is/are the force(s) of Nature.

---

Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...

Sounds like Pantheism to me.
 
Consequent :
It's rather hard to find an original semite these days. To what "very essential lines" are you referring?

An original semite ? We dont need semites but understanders of semitic languages . Anyways lines like for instance "I am that I am" , I mean you agree with me that some lines have more/less relevance then others from theological perspective ? So I say to understand those correct we need to understand what exactly is written originally . Im not that famillar with Hebrew in this way , but i know with Arabic its a total mess sometimes and it HAS quite some relevance in a correct understanding .

Anyways I think its always best to understand philosophical text in its original language , to un-knowingly depend on translaters might bring you nowehere sometimes .
 
Re: Re: OT God(s) as Nature

Originally posted by DJSupreme23
Sounds like Pantheism to me.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no...

It can be seen as a interpetation of Pantheism or as Atheism.

If the Old Testament was written as a guide and a philosophy of life outlining the deveolpment of man and his role in nature and the importance of respecting the power living in harmony with nature it doesn't necessarily mean that nature was revered as a "God", because, like I said, I think it is wholly metaphoric.

The questions is:

Could that have been the misunderstood original intent of the writers of the Old Testament?

As it is currently believed, the writers of the Old Testament did not subscribe to Pantheism or Atheism.
I am suggesting that maybe they did.
 
Re: Re: OT God(s) as Nature

Originally posted by DJSupreme23
Sounds like Pantheism to me.
Click to expand...
The Torah sounds like henotheism to me.

Originally posted by one_raven
As it is currently believed, the writers of the Old Testament did not subscribe to Pantheism or Atheism. I am suggesting that maybe they did.
Click to expand...
Based on what evidence?
 
Re: Re: Re: OT God(s) as Nature

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
The Torah sounds like henotheism to me.
Click to expand...
I can definitely see that.

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Based on what evidence?
Click to expand...
None, really.
Based mostly on conjecture, personal interpretation and interpretations of others.

That is why I posted this here.
I was looking for evidence to either back-up or debunk the idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top