Aye Aye Captain!

[rusra02]

Who wrote the Genesis and on what basis? Please

The first five books of the Bible are credited to Moses as writer. Moses wrote at God's command and I believe his words form part of "All scripture..inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righeousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

​

​

 

[paarsurrey]

The first five books of the Bible are credited to Moses as writer. Moses wrote at God's command and I believe his words form part of "All scripture..inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righeousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17)

​

​

Moses did not write Genesis, in my opinion:

"For much of the 20th century most scholars agreed that the five books of the Pentateuch—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy—came from four sources, the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly source, each telling the same basic story, and joined together by various editors.[10] Since the 1970s there has been a revolution in scholarship: the Elohist source is now widely regarded as no more than a variation on the Yahwist, while the Priestly source is increasingly seen not as a document but as a body of revisions and expansions to the Yahwist (or "non-Priestly") material. (The Deuteronomistic source does not appear in Genesis).[11]
In composing the Patriarchal history the Yahwist drew on four separate blocks of traditional stories about Abraham, Jacob, Judah and Joseph, combining them with genealogies, itineraries and the "promise" theme to create a unified whole.[12] Similarly, when composing the "primeval history" he drew on Greek and Mesopotamian sources, editing and adding to them to create a unified work that fit his theological agenda.[13] The Yahwistic work was then revised and expanded into the final edition by the authors of the Priestly source.[14]
This leaves the question of when these works were created. Scholars in the first half of the 20th century came to the conclusion that the Yahwist was produced in the monarchic period, specifically at the court of Solomon, and the Priestly work in the middle of the 5th century BC (the author was even identified as Ezra), but more recent thinking is that the Yahwist was written either just before or during the Babylonian exile of the 6th century, and the Priestly final edition was made late in the Exilic period or soon after.[5]
As for why the book was created, a theory which has gained considerable interest, although still controversial is "Persian imperial authorisation". This proposes that the Persians, after their conquest of Babylon in 538 BC, agreed to grant Jerusalem a large measure of local autonomy within the empire, but required the local authorities to produce a single law code accepted by the entire community. The two powerful groups making up the community—the priestly families who controlled the Temple and who traced their foundation-myth to Moses and the wilderness wanderings, and the major landowning families who made up the "elders" and who traced their own origins to Abraham, who had "given" them the land—were in conflict over many issues, and each had its own "history of origins", but the Persian promise of greatly increased local autonomy for all provided a powerful incentive to cooperate in producing a single text.[15]"

Book of Genesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Storm]

Why is only relevant to humans, existence doesn't need justification. IMO asking why something rather than nothing is silly.

Probably. So what?

After all, everyone here is presumably human, therefore the why is relevant.

 

[otokage007]

I believe the Bible does answer the question; "Why are we here?" We are here because God created us to live here. (Genesis 1:26-28)

The answers of the Bible, the answers of philosophers, and my answers, have exactly the same value: they are all assumptions not supported by evidences.

 

[jarofthoughts]

It makes a proposition that gnosticism is the only way of finding a true meaning for your life.... can you suggest a better way?

Yes.

Decide for yourself what you want your life to be about, and then pursue that goal.

For me that has led me to the purpose of learning and teaching.
Before I became a teacher I was a marketing executive (and also, while studying, a bouncer), but I am much happiest in a classroom full of pupils.
Of course, one should be prepared to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals, and for me it took a lot of work and a substantial cut in my paycheck.
But I am much more satisfied with my life now than I ever was in my old job.

This purpose is different for different people and what makes me happy might not make the next person happy.
For some it is music, or writing books, or designing things, or raising kids, or any number of things that may or may not be job related.
The point is that finding out is part of the journey and a goal in and of itself as you grow as a person.

I don't hold to the notion that humans have some overlying cosmic/magical/divine purpose or meaning to their lives.
That sounds a bit too much like 'woo' to me.

Sorry.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I believe the Bible does answer the question; "Why are we here?" We are here because God created us to live here. (Genesis 1:26-28)

And why on Earth should we take the Bible's word on the matter?

 

[Sir Doom]

WHY addresses an intelligence and its motivations.
HOW addresses mechanics.

This is why a vast majority of science is aimed at answering HOW and not WHY. There are of course social sciences, psychology, anthropology, etc. which are extremely interested in WHY. But those sciences are unique in that the intelligence is available for study. Namely us. Well, animals too. And it really wouldn't shock me much if there were plant psychologists, either...

Anyway...

To bring back a previous example...

We actually have no idea WHY the tides come in and out. We know HOW the tides come in and out. To answer WHY, we would have to first assume that there is an intelligence causing the phenomenon, then assume that it is causing it intentionally, then assume it is causing it purposefully, then we'd have to find the intelligence and conduct observations and/or interviews with it in order to discern WHY it makes tides come in and out.

Until then, we'll have to be content with the mechanics of it. And that means HOW.

Even if there is a god (which I believe there is) this does not mean that god is responsible for every phenomenon, and thus it may very well be that there are certain phenomenon that simply lack a WHY. Of course if there is no god, then nearly the entire universe would be one big WHY-less phenomenon.

 

[rusra02]

And why on Earth should we take the Bible's word on the matter?

I believe we should because the evidence supports the Bible's authenticity. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) The Bible is the only ancient religious text that I know of that answers the question of why we are here, and how we got here. The Bible, completed some 2,000 years ago, has proven to contain accurate history and accurate prophecies; in short, I believe the Bible is as Jesus stated: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

 

[jarofthoughts]

I believe we should because the evidence supports the Bible's authenticity.

What evidence?

The Bible, completed some 2,000 years ago, has proven to contain accurate history and accurate prophecies; in short, I believe the Bible is as Jesus stated: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

First; the Bible was clearly not completed 2,000 years ago.
Secondly; what accurate history, and even if that was true, what would that prove? The Quran contains equal measures of 'accurate history' and so does 'The Pied Piper'.
Thirdly; what accurate prophecies? And I don't mean vage nonsense such as 'two great nations will wage war' or somesuch. I mean prophecies that cannot be interpreted in any other way than to show that they were indeed accurate.

 

[rusra02]

What evidence?



First; the Bible was clearly not completed 2,000 years ago.
Secondly; what accurate history, and even if that was true, what would that prove? The Quran contains equal measures of 'accurate history' and so does 'The Pied Piper'.
Thirdly; what accurate prophecies? And I don't mean vage nonsense such as 'two great nations will wage war' or somesuch. I mean prophecies that cannot be interpreted in any other way than to show that they were indeed accurate.

If you are sincere about finding answers to the questions above, I believe you can find them at www.jw.org.

 

[Octavia156]

Yes.

Decide for yourself what you want your life to be about, and then pursue that goal.

Well that is a form of Gnosticism, interstingly you sum up the basis of Gnostic Thelema in one sentence, though I'd probably say discern for yourself what you want your life to be about, and then pursue that goal

Can you explain to me how the science can assist a person from discerning the purpose of hir life? The only way I can is if one was to apply the scienctific method to your own consicousness (i.e. your universe)... and if you are doing do you would be generating immeasurable incommunicable data - however they could certainly be repeated and outcomes predicted... Is this Science or Gnosis?

If I use myself as a lab rat and experiment with my own existance am I practising Science or practising Gnosticism?

This is the crux of it for me.... people could be asking WHY AM I HERE? and have a way of actually answering that question.

The method of Science, the aim of religion

For me that has led me to the purpose of learning and teaching.
Before I became a teacher I was a marketing executive (and also, while studying, a bouncer), but I am much happiest in a classroom full of pupils.
Of course, one should be prepared to make sacrifices in order to reach one's goals, and for me it took a lot of work and a substantial cut in my paycheck.
But I am much more satisfied with my life now than I ever was in my old job.

This purpose is different for different people and what makes me happy might not make the next person happy.
For some it is music, or writing books, or designing things, or raising kids, or any number of things that may or may not be job related.
The point is that finding out is part of the journey and a goal in and of itself as you grow as a person.

I don't hold to the notion that humans have some overlying cosmic/magical/divine purpose or meaning to their lives.
That sounds a bit too much like 'woo' to me.

Sorry.

I agree with everything you say up to the last paragraph.

Lets entertain the woo model for a second - you teach kids - you know better that anyone how each one is a little spark of potential, each one unique, they all have something special about them.

Your purpose in life surely relates to what you are good at - and what you are good at you enjoy.
In a woo based society, we could celebrate individual strengths, education could be bespoke, and the idea of "finding out why your here and going out and doing it" could be intrinsic to the way we think.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well that is a form of Gnosticism, interstingly you sum up the basis of Gnostic Thelema in one sentence, though I'd probably say discern for yourself what you want your life to be about, and then pursue that goal

Can you explain to me how the science can assist a person from discerning the purpose of hir life? The only way I can is if one was to apply the scienctific method to your own consicousness (i.e. your universe)... and if you are doing do you would be generating immeasurable incommunicable data - however they could certainly be repeated and outcomes predicted... Is this Science or Gnosis?

If I use myself as a lab rat and experiment with my own existance am I practising Science or practising Gnosticism?

This is the crux of it for me.... people could be asking WHY AM I HERE? and have a way of actually answering that question.

The method of Science, the aim of religion

Considering that there are several schools of thought (even within Thelema) subscribing to the label of Gnosticism, I think at this point I should ask you to define exactly what you mean by that and how it relates to the topic so that I can better relate to your point of view.

I agree with everything you say up to the last paragraph.

Lets entertain the woo model for a second - you teach kids - you know better that anyone how each one is a little spark of potential, each one unique, they all have something special about them.

Your purpose in life surely relates to what you are good at - and what you are good at you enjoy.
In a woo based society, we could celebrate individual strengths, education could be bespoke, and the idea of "finding out why your here and going out and doing it" could be intrinsic to the way we think.

If by special you mean that they are all individuals, then yes, I agree fully.
And of course, I do my best to help them develop their potential and overcome their shortcomings, but I'm not sure I would say that they are special in any other sense than that.
As for my own purpose, sure, we gravitate towards things that we enjoy doing, and it's no secret that people are often good at doing the things they enjoy. That is more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Octavia156]

Considering that there are several schools of thought (even within Thelema) subscribing to the label of Gnosticism, I think at this point I should ask you to define exactly what you mean by that and how it relates to the topic so that I can better relate to your point of view.



If by special you mean that they are all individuals, then yes, I agree fully.
And of course, I do my best to help them develop their potential and overcome their shortcomings, but I'm not sure I would say that they are special in any other sense than that.
As for my own purpose, sure, we gravitate towards things that we enjoy doing, and it's no secret that people are often good at doing the things they enjoy. That is more or less a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I use the term Gnosis to describe the kind of Knowledge (in this example self-knowledge) that cannot be physically demonstrated or communicated.

Subjective Knowledge as opposed to Objective 'Facts'. eg the colour RED as a gnostic experience vs a light rays of wavelength 600nm hitting your retina as a scientific phenomenon.


I teach kids who come from relatively poor backgrounds, the majority of which are not particularly academic and lack ambition. I hate that they are continually made to feel like failures because they are not good a certain key subjects, and I don't think we do enough to encourage individual strengths in our education system (its getting worse here )

So when I say we should be practsing both Science and Gnosticism I'm suggesting we should be focusing just as much attention on understanding our own self-fullfilling prophecy as understanding the physical world.

 

[Father Heathen]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

"Why" implies intent, and intent implies consciousness.

 

[MetalEverywhere]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

How would one confirm that the knowledge you know is true? If its impossible, wouldn't both parties still walk around like this? irate:

What if that's how I normally walk around? Why you so mean?

 

[outhouse]

I believe we should because the evidence supports the Bible's authenticity. (2 Timothy 3:16,17) The Bible is the only ancient religious text that I know of that answers the question of why we are here, and how we got here. The Bible, completed some 2,000 years ago, has proven to contain accurate history and accurate prophecies; in short, I believe the Bible is as Jesus stated: "Your word is truth." (John 17:17)

wrong on so many levels

the evidence points to the bible containing many factual errors, contradictions, and basic mythology.

it has never answered the questions of why we are here with any credibility

completed roughly 1600 years ago, not 2000, shows your ignorance on the topic at hand.

 

[outhouse]

Science can only answer the What and the How, but never the Why.

If this is true then... the only way to have a full understanding of existance is to practise Science and some form of Gnosticm?

One with out the other means your walking around like this ---> irate:

ill disagree.

Gnosticm has no place anywhere near science.


Gnosticm makes no attempt to answer any "why" in science.

 

[idav]

Yes but I am human - and therefore Why is relevant to me. I dont ask hwy something rather than nothing - i ask why something And nothing - and why me?

Does God even have a 'why' per universe, per individual? Why implies needs and wants, what would any God need or want, why would God ever need or want anything?

 

[jarofthoughts]

I use the term Gnosis to describe the kind of Knowledge (in this example self-knowledge) that cannot be physically demonstrated or communicated.

Subjective Knowledge as opposed to Objective 'Facts'. eg the colour RED as a gnostic experience vs a light rays of wavelength 600nm hitting your retina as a scientific phenomenon.

I am highly skeptical of what you call subjective knowledge, at least if it contradicts objective knowledge.
I'm well aware that our senses and our brains fool us all the time and that we, in fact, hallucinate to some degree constantly.
If you're thinking of the 'problem' with qualia, then it is true that science cannot fully explain how that works currently, but I hardly see that as an insurmountable problem at some time in the future.
To me, the things that cannot be physically demonstrated, even in theory, is nothing more than hogwash and wishful thinking.
Everything is physical on some level, and the fact that we see the color red when certain wavelengths of photons hit our retinas is just our brains way of labeling that wavelength of visible light.

I teach kids who come from relatively poor backgrounds, the majority of which are not particularly academic and lack ambition. I hate that they are continually made to feel like failures because they are not good a certain key subjects, and I don't think we do enough to encourage individual strengths in our education system (its getting worse here )

So when I say we should be practsing both Science and Gnosticism I'm suggesting we should be focusing just as much attention on understanding our own self-fullfilling prophecy as understanding the physical world.

While I applaud and agree on your overall point about individualizing education, I still do not hold to any sort of prophetic destiny for all.
People are not equal, not even if you sum up all their faculties.

For instance; what about the people who are born with severe mental disabilities?
Where is their divine destiny?
Where is their special area of expertise?

I'm sorry but there is no indication that neither our brains, nor the universe as such, is anything but physical in nature.

 

[rusra02]

wrong on so many levels

the evidence points to the bible containing many factual errors, contradictions, and basic mythology.

it has never answered the questions of why we are here with any credibility

completed roughly 1600 years ago, not 2000, shows your ignorance on the topic at hand.

The Bible was completed before the end of the first century C.E. (before the year 100). Many people claim the bible contains 'many factual errors, contradictions and basic mythology', but actual examples are not provided by those making these claims. Rather, their claim is simply a declaration of their own lack of faith.