ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Christianity, the Bible & Jesus

Nature of Reality, Will the Real YHWH Please Step Forward, 1) Premise

Updated on January 27, 2015

"Jehovah" is German, This is the Hebrew, transliterated YHWH herein

Teaching Systems

I am going to use here a series of illustrations only to serve as an illustration about how ideas spread through some teaching system. This assumes a person had an idea or learned something from somewhere and then taught it to other who also believed it to be true, and taught others, and so forth.

Here is the first and it represents four different ideas taught to other people over some time period:

So time progresses downward, and the width at any given point illustrates the number of people influenced, that is, they believe it to be true.

Let the bottom line represent current time, today, and the spreading direction could represent people groups, or other ideas.

Note that the purple thought system terminated, no one any longer believes this set of ideas. It could be, say, the spherical universe model by Pythagoras (500BC), then promoted by the naturalist Lucretius (95-55BC) then the Greco-Roman scientist Ptolemy (c160AD) and then which evolved slowly through the sciences until 2003 when the WMAP satellite proved beyond doubt that the Biblical model stated in Psalms and Isaiah, that the universe was more or less flat (shaped like a Bedouin tent and stretched out) was the correct model.

Thinking people mix ideas together

Teaching systems, say, a religion or denomination, interact and exchange ideas as time moves forward. However, if one is absolutely, one ought not contaminate it with outside thoughts or ideas, particularly about God.
Teaching systems, say, a religion or denomination, interact and exchange ideas as time moves forward. However, if one is absolutely, one ought not contaminate it with outside thoughts or ideas, particularly about God. | Source

Interacting thoughts, ideas, doctrines

Think about that, it is actually an important point.

Isaiah claimed 3000 years ago, and then David reiterated that the universe was flat! The world almost universally followed the Greek idea that it was spherical until 2003 when the WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) proved these obscure ancient Hebrews were correct. How did they get that information?

We humans need to improve our models and so ideas overlap periodically, which is to say that one model influences the other to some degree. This has even happened between the evolutionists and the creationists.

In order to make this so you can see them overlap I will made the triangles somewhat transparent and where they overlap represents areas the ideas influenced each other, or, at least where one influenced another, producing a third set of ideas.

So, the same triangles, but 50% transparent, and the orange one has overlapped the green, and forms a third triangle, a conglomeration or amalgam of the two ideas represented by the orange and green.

Ideas form complexes with other ideas

Source

Complex thoughts

Read this illustration as five unique ideas taught to others over a certain period of time, the blue starting third, and not influenced by others, but continuing until today. The purple starting later, did not spread as much, but then died out. The green starting later also and then a subgroup influenced by the orange belief or vice versa, and the orange belief starting first and also continuing to today.

Remember, these represent groups of people. Some of the orange and green are the original ideas, some are mixtures.

Note that this deals only with the purity of the belief, or its mixture with other beliefs, not with the truth or falsity of the beliefs. And pick a subject in schools, this chart can be used to illustrate how the ideas spread and influenced each other.

Reality, especially in religion, is much more complicated and more like this third illustration. Much more complex over time.

Here, ideas spring to life within and without any core belief. Some take a small piece of the other and then simply die, or, have a life of their own that continues on, be they weak or strong, true or false.

Allow an example of an idea which was just a bot off but which we live with every day. When we realized that magnets oriented themselves toward the poles, we called the end that pointed north the "north pole" of the magnet. This fixed forever our concept of magnets, but did it ever occur to you that what we call the "North Magnetic Pole" of the earth must then be a south pols of a magnet? Why? Because that's how magnets line up, the north poles are attracted to the south pole. Take a compass close to a bar magnet and test this, the "North" pole will point to the south pole of the bar magnet. That's how magnetism works, so, if we had thought this out we would have called this a south pole on the magnet. Do you see how ideas become entrenched and we simply forget to correct ideas?

Now, let’s limit our idea to beliefs about gods.

Of gods and man

This can represent different religions, say, Christianity and then other concepts pop up, say, the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. It happened in Islam as well where one splinter group breaks off periodically claiming their own prophet was the final word from god, and this happens in all beliefs, sciences, ideas, even recipes. But note on the orange triangle above, how many different ideas have sprung out, each claiming to be the true belief.

Before you become riled up about this, realize there are some 600 different Baptist sub-denominations, and so, this diagram is an extreme oversimplification.

Further, let’s assume for now that the orange triangle is the truth. Necessarily then, the other impinging ideas are deviations of the truth, some contamination by an untrue idea either from the outside or inside.

What process can be derived from this to understand the original idea, and, in the case of the “true” orange triangle, to determine the truth?

It seems obvious that you need to go back to the original ideas, the origins to see if something, some idea is indeed the pure idea. Whether it is a true idea or not is a different matter.

In Islam, you would return to the Koran and the statements from Mohamed. The question is, what did he teach, and in what context? Here I cannot help you, I have not read that much, and so, it is merely an academic question, or process.

In Mormonism, it would be the original writings of Joseph Smith and his teachings, all of his original writings, correct? He claimed to be the prophet who heard directly from God.

You are faced with this dilemma: If the original idea is not acceptable, why believe any of it or any of its variations?

“Because I like it,” is a very poor and irrational answer.

Before you get the idea this is only true in religion, be mindful of the fact that the Global Warming lunacy started in 1922, and in the recent history there is strong direct proof that the core group of believers lied about the data, and yet it is growing like a cancer and the data continues to be misrepresented.

Remember this before you reject religion for science.

Because you like or dislike something does not make it true or false.

The Architect

Accepting a mixed idea would be similar to an architect coming into a partly constructed building, tearing part of it out then continuing the project with his ideas because the blue prints were lost. He stops and someone else continues on in the same manner, more blue prints being made, and so on, and so forth, but the cornerstone still says “Built by Jerry Architect” even though the building looks nothing like the blue prints placed in the time capsule and in fact you would see architectural styles from each person who redesigned it. But each architect claimed to be following the original architects ideas, and claims his birthright.

Irving Gil, Frank Lloyd Wright, Arts & Craft Movement

We live in San Diego. Many old houses were built by Irving Gill. We drove past one on Coronado Island last week. We could see elements of his former mentor Frank Lloyd Wright’s Prairie style mixed into the Arts & Crafts style house. It is fantastic work, but you can see the cross influence or the various people who he had worked with. There is not a pure form in architecture, it is a continuum of change.

Truth is not like this. Neither are ideas.

You cannot simply take someone’s idea, change it at will and call it the same idea, at least not truthfully. (This isn’t true with a style of something like architecture. Arts & Craft style incorporates a lot of differing elements.)

Of Rome

A better illustration might be the architecture of Rome where there are layers and layers of architecture, both literally and figuratively.

Fortunately we do have some of the original works, or at least trustworthy copies of the originals to understand what the Bible, what Mohamed, and what Joseph Smith taught. We can go back and see what the original ideas were and then see if we reason that they are true or false. If false, you ought not believe them at all, if true, then the original ought not be altered.

Note here that this is a method for finding, not the truth about gods or religions, rather, it is what the original was, what it intended in the original documents, what was the origin of the idea, thought, or belief system in a world where everyone wants to be the originator of the truth and be followed by everyone else.

This is used only as an illustration for you to start thinking about how you came to believe what you believe, and then consider if this is the original belief or some variant.

If it is original, then, using rational thought, is it reasonable to believe it is true?

Here I do not mean is it popular. I don’t mean, does it fit the current mode of thinking, nor does it conform to the philosophy called naturalism or scientism, both failed philosophic outlooks.

At this writing we are approaching Christmas, and here, let me merely paraphrase the verse where the Angel appeared to Mary who fell down to worship and he immediately said, “Get up, I am not worthy to be worshipped.”

So it is here. I am not attempting to start a new belief system, denomination or religion. If you knew me really well, you would soon realize I don’t have the personality for that, people grow tired of me.

Evangelical Doctrinal Error

All I am doing with this is pointing out a huge doctrinal error (many actually) that killed the god of the evangelicals, or, perhaps it is more accurate to say they deposed YHWH and replaced him with a god they designed.

It will be helpful for your understanding if you first understand that the tem “evangelical” springs from Calvinist reformed Presbyterians at Princeton University, and so, here especially I will use the term in that narrow manner.

It has evolved into broader use today to mean that group of Christians who evangelize, that is, directly and deliberately spread the gospel, and here I have no objection. If it is true, then you ought to tell others about it because it deals with eternal life.

But I will use the term in more or less its original sense, but also realize denominationally, and through the education processes, most of these are directly related to that original group and my triangle illustration above is very applicable to them. It can also be extended back to Rome.

But why stop there, it can be extended back, not to Israel, rather, to Greece, and that is the point.

As is true in many groups, most of the rank and file persons attending a typical evangelical church will hear some of the things I will object to below but never think them through, they simply and slowly just assimilate and they go about their daily lives without realizing the contaminated nature of what they are hearing, that the god they have heard about on Sunday is not the God of the Bible whom we will refer to as YHWH only for clarity and specificity. Like the apple and orange illustration used previously, the description is used to determine who you are talking about, even in theology.

© 2015 Ronald A Newcomb

Comments

Submit a Comment

No comments yet.

working