Gobal approach to knowledge part II

Ralph Hood Jr. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga,

In part 1 I said I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

By "gloal approach" I mean one thatmakes useof science, logoc and phenomenoloy, As opposeto atheists on the net who escrew logic as meaningkess because God argumets use logicadof courseshutterifear atpersonalexperemce. The global approch includes more than hyst scientiic data.

II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.

III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prov.I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

We are free from the need to prove when we know in deep and priovate way and are backed upn ithis by logicand obetiove sc9entiic ev9oence that gives usthecojjfience to beieve. The skeptiocosimmoted confrot theevidence but wedo notneedto prove God exists. We nly needtowarramt belief and thatis cdoewhen thethreeapproaches bac each other.

Objectve scoemtofoc evidense is great for understanding things at a basuc kevek. Theoroblem is itislimited to the physical ademprical. It can't measure feelimg or deal with meaning or expain why we are here. Some ,ateroalists may assume that weknow there'so way andis they think isproven by the ability of science to uderstandpphys8capeocesses that the starsand theeearth andbrought life,everytyungis explaied because thats a;; there is. Since it doesn't answer questions meaningand purpose but only assumes thyere'sothingmore, but limitsinquary towhathey can ccrol, thereisno real insidght, We need expeeiexe and logic ro expKub. Dr, James Tour an Israeli scietists speaks about his born again experiece and how he felt the presence of God as palapable and present right in fromt of him. The things he says about that are exactly what I experienced when I speak about the presemnce of God. For Tour's commemts see the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeuW2UPa1Lw

This experience and the scientific evidence is what my first book was about.(The Trace of God) Such experieinces are common yet in general people fear them because we fear feelings. If one read the scientific work I don't see how one could keep form beliving.

Why should we assume that such experiences are experiences of the divine? The first reason is because the content of the experience is largely that of the divine. Even when the experience is interpreted by the receiver not be about God the receiver has been known to act in way consistently with belief in God, and the experience described is the same experience as those described by those who say ‘this was God.’ Ergo it’s just a matter of interpretation. The vast majority of those who have these experiences do believe they are about God.[1] Secondly, there is a voluminous and ancient tradition of writing about experiences by people from all over the world, and the brunt of this tradition is that it’s an experience of the divine. Literary and philosophical works such as Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill,[2] The works of W.T. Stace[3] and many other such writings which catalogue the writings of these experiences, and many more works of the experiences of individual mystics by the mystics themselves. Thirdly, grounded in empirical evidence, the universal nature of such experiences implies the experience of a source external to the human mind encountered by all who have such experiences. When I say “external” I mean it originates externally but is experienced internally. This includes human brain structure and brain chemistry as a conduit not that it circumvents natural processes. The works of W.T. Stace are very influential. He shows that, as Ralph Hood Jr. put it, “within and eventually outside of the great faith traditions mysticism has flourished.”[4] Stace offers five characteristics that demonstrate the commonalities to mystical experience; these are characteristics that are found universally in all cultures and in all forms of mystical experience:

The contemporary interest in the empirical research of mysticism can be traced to Stace’s (Stace, 1960) demarcation of the phenomenological characteristics of mystical experiences (Hood, 1975). In Stace’s conceptualization, mystical experiences had five characteristics (Hood, 1985, p.176):

1. The mystical experience is noetic. The person having the experience perceives it as a valid source of knowledge and not just a subjective experience.
2. The mystical experience is ineffable, it cannot simply be described in words.
3. The mystical experience is holy. While this is the religious aspect of the experience it is not necessarily expressed in any particular theological terms. 4. The mystical experience is profound yet enjoyable and characterized by positive affect.
5. The mystical experience is paradoxical. It defies logic. Further analysis of reported mystical experiences suggests that the one essential feature of mysticism is an experience of unity (Hood, 1985). The experience of unity involves a process of ego loss and is generally expressed in one of three ways (Hood, 1 976a). The ego is absorbed into that which transcends it, or an inward process by which the ego gains pure awareness of self, or a combination of the two.[5]

In speaking of “mystical experience” we are not talking about visions or voices. We are not talking about miracles or God speaking to people. We are talking about “the sense of the numinous,” a sense of presence, a sense of undifferentiated unity of all things. The claim is often made that this is an unmediated experience of reality. The veil is taken back on the thing behind the façade and reality is experienced directly. The notion of an unmediated experience is debatable and not essential to an understanding of the experience. A couple of examples might be helpful. It’s helpful to understand that mystical experiences come in two forms, introvertive and extrovertive. Intorovertive experiences are without time and space; they are not keyed to any external landmark or visual que. They seem to be beyond word, thought, or image. Extrovertive experiences are often keyed to a land mark and seem like projecting a sense onto the image of nature. For example the sense that God is pervading the physical space in nature around which one views a scene in nature. Or a sense that all the natural landscape around forms some sort of whole that’s meaningful and indicative as an understanding of all reality.

Common Core Vs. Perennial Philosophy

Hood takes these kinds of statements as phenomenological and descriptive of a personal experience. The true nature of that experience as unmediated is not important. The issue is that its universality, since it should be culturally constructed is indicative of more than just a trick of brain chemistry or cultural constructs. Ralph Hood Jr. argues for what is called “the common core hypothesis.” This is not a perennial philosophy one often finds discussed as part of mystical experience. The distinction is hat perennial almost construct a separate religion out of mystical experience and puts it over against faith traditions. The common core hypothesis merely recognizes that there is a common core experience that is universal to mystical experience, and thus it can be argued that it’s an experience of some reality external to just human brain structure. Yet it doesn’t try to collapse faith traditions into a particular theological formulation. Moreover, the common core hypothesis just takes the common core as a phenomenological reality not a theological or ontological demand about reality. Yet mystical experience “promotes a special type of human experience that is at once unitive and nondiscursive, at once self fulfilling and self-effacing.”[6] Introvertive mystical has been identified as “pure consciousness.” This kind of experience lacks content and can’t be tied to a cultural construct or personal influence.[7] While it is the case that these kinds of experiences are interpreted in various ways, and it is the case that various theological explanations tailored to a given tradition are advanced for these, as many as there are mystics to have the, the real diversity comes not from the experience but from the explanations attached to the experiences.[8] Much of the discussion about common core is tied to the texts of a given literature. There various bodies of mystical literature, the important once for our purposes is the empirical. This is a measurement based empirical scientific literature such as the work of Hood.[9]

Many names loom large in that body of literature; Greeley, Maslow, Wuthnow, Nobel, Lukoff and Lu, none more prolific or significant than Hood.Ralph Hood entered the field in the early 70s when he was a young man. Since that time he has done a huge a mount of research and is best known for developing what is called ‘the Mysticism scale,” or “M scale.” This is a 32 item questionnaire that is scored in a particular way and is calculated to test the veracity of Stace’s theories. In other words, if actual modern mystics around the world experience the things Stace thought they do, in the way Stace thought they experienced them (see the five point list above) they would answer certain questions in a certain way.[10] Hood’s work in the M scale is becoming the standard operating procedure for study of mystical and religious experiences. It hasn’t yet been understood by everyone so we find that people evoking religious experience by manipulating stimulation of the brain don’t use the M scale for research and thus can’t prove they are evoking real mystical experiences.[11] Dale Caird said that “research into mystical experience has been greatly facilitated”[12] by Hood’s M scale. Caird did one of the studies that validated the M scale. Burris (1999) has shown that the M scale is the most commonly used measurement for the study of mysticism.[13]

The M scale enables us to determine the validity of a mystical experience among contemporary people. In other words, did someone have a “real mystical experience” or are they just carried by the idea of having one?[14] There are two major versions of the M scale, what is called “two factor” solution and a three factor solution. The two factors are items assessing an experience of unity (questions such as “have you had an experience of unity?”) and items refereeing to religious and knowledge claims. In other words questions such as “did you experience God’s presence?” Or did you experience God’s love?” In each section there are two positively worded and two negatively worded items.[15] The problem with the two factor analysis is that it tried to be neutral with Langue, according to Hood himself. It spoke of “experience of ultimate reality” but with no indication that ultimate reality means reality of God. As Hood puts it, “no langue is neutral.”[16] One group might want ultimate reality defined as “Christ” while others who are not in a Christian tradition might eschew such a move. In response to this problem Hood and Williamson, around 2000, developed what they termed “the three factor solution.” They made two additional versions of the scale one made reference where appropriate to “God” or “Christ.” They had a “God” version and a “Chrsit” version and both were given to Christian relevant samples. The scales were “factor analyzed” that just means they weighed each difference as a factor such as it’s mention of God or mention of Christ. In this factor analysis, where the scale referred to “God,” “Christ” or simply “reality” the “factor structures were identical.” This means the respondents saw “God,” “Christ” and “ultimate reality” as coterminous, or as the same things. That means Christians who have mystical experience understand God, Christ, and Reality as reffering to the same things.[17] For all three versions matched Stace’s phenomenologically derived theory. “For all three intervertive, extrovertive and interpirative factors emerged.”[18] That means respondents were answering in ways indicative of having both types of mystical experience and deriving interpretive experiences from it, they understood their experiences in light of theological understanding. The only exception was that the introvertive factors contained the emergence of ineffability because there was no content to analyze. Of course where the scale has been validated the same technique was used and tailored to the tradition of the respondent. Buddhists got a version appreciate to Buddhists and Muslims got one appropriate to Islam, and so on. The same kinds of factors emerged. This demonstrates that mystical experiences are the same minus the details of the tradition, such as specific references to names. In other words Buddhists recognize Buddha mind as ultimate reality, while Vedantists recognize Brahmin as ultimate reality, Christian recognize Jesus as Ultimate reality, Muslims recognize Allah as ultimate reality, but all say they experience ultimate reality. This is a good indication that the same basic reality stands behind this experience, or to say it another way they are all experiences of the same reality.

Hood wrote a Text book with Bernard Spilka[19]Hood and Spilka point three major assumptions of the common core theory that flow out of Stace’s work: (1) Mystical experience is universal and identical in phenomenological terms. (2) Core Categories are not always essential in every experince, there are borderline cases. (3) Interovertive and extrovertive are distinct forms, the former is an experience of unity devoid of content, the latter is unity in diversity with content. The M scale reflects these observations and in so doing validate Stace’s findings. Hood and Spilka (et al) then go on to argue that empirical research supports a common core/perinnialist conceptualization of mysticism and it’s interpretation.

The three factor solution, stated above, allows a greater range of interpretation of experience, either religious or not religious. This greater range supports Stace’s finding that a single experience may be interpreted in different ways.[20] The three factor solution thus fit Stace’s common core theory. One of the persistent problems of the M scale is the neutrality of language, especially with respect to religious language. For example the scale asks about union with “ultimate reality” not “union with God.” Thus there’s a problem in understanding that ultimate reality really means God, or unify two different descriptions one about God and one about reality.[21] There is really no such thing as “neutral” language. In the attempt to be neutral non neutral people will be offended. On the one had the common core idea will be seen as “new age” on the other identification with a particular tradition will be off putting for secularists and people of other traditions. Measurement scales must sort out the distinctions. Individuals demand interpretation of experiences, so the issue will be forced despite the best attempts to avoid it. In dealing with William James and his interpreters it seems clear that some form of transformation will be reflected in the discussion of experiences. In other words the experiences have to be filtered through cultural constructs and human assumptions of religious and other kinds of thought traditions in order to communicate them to people. Nevertheless experiences may share the same functionality in description. Christians may want the experiences they have that would otherwise be term “ultimate reality” to be identified with Christ, while Muslims identify with Allah and atheist with “void.” The expressed is important as the “social construction of experience” but differently expressed experiences can have similar structures. Hood and Williamson designed the three factor analysis to avoid these problems of language.[22] This is a passage from my own work, The Trace of God[23]:

In a series of empirical measurement based studies employing the Mysticism scale introvertive mysticism emerges both as a distinct factor in exploratory analytic studies[24] and also as a confirming factor analysis in cultures as diverse as the United States and Iran; not only in exploratory factor analytic studies (Hood & Williamson, 2000) but also in confirmatory factor analyses in such diverse cultures as the United States and Iran (Hood, Ghornbani, Watson, Ghramaleki, Bing, Davison, Morris, & Williamson. (2001).[25] In other words, the form of mysticism that is usually said to be beyond description and beyond images, as opposed to that found in connection with images of the natural world, is seen through reflection of data derived form the M scale and as supporting factors in other relations. Scholars supporting the unity thesis (the mystical sense of undifferentiated unity—everything is “one”) have conducted interviews with mystics in other traditions about the nature of their introvertive mystical experiences. These discussions reveal that differences in expression that might be taken as linguistics culturally constructed are essentially indicative of the same experiences. The mystics recognize their experiences even in the expression of other traditions and other cultures. These parishioners represent different forms of Zen and Yoga.[26] Scholars conducting literature searches independently of other studies, who sought common experience between different traditions, have found commonalities. Brainaid, found commonality between cultures as diverse as Advanita-Vendanta Hinduism, and Madhmika Buddhism, and Nicene Christianity; Brainaid’s work supports conclusions by Loy with respect to the types of Hinduism and Buddhism.[27]

The upshot of this work by Hood is two fold: on the one had it means there is a pragmatic way to control for the understanding of what is a mystical experience and what is not. Using Stace as a guide we find that modern experiences around the world are having Stace-like experiences. Thus Stace’s view makes a good indication of what is and what is not a mystical experience. That means we can study the effects of having it. Now other scales have been attempted and none of them had the kind of verification that the M scale does, but taken together the whole body of work for the last fifty years or so (since Abraham Maslow) shows that religious experience of the “mystical” sort is very good for us. People who have such experiences tend to find positive, dramatic, transformation in terms of outlook, mental health and even physical health.

Over the years numerous claims have been made about the nature of spiritual/mystical and Maslow's “peak experiences”, and about their consequences. Wuthnow (1978) set out to explore findings regarding peak experiences from a systematic random sample of 1000 persons and found that peak experiences are common to a wide cross-section of people, and that one in two has experienced contact with the holy or sacred, more than eight in ten have been moved deeply by the beauty of nature and four in ten have experienced being in harmony with the universe. Of these, more than half in each have had peak experiences which have had deep and lasting effects on their lives. Peakers are more likely also, to say they value working for social change, helping to solve social problems, and helping people in need. Wuthnow stressed the therapeutic value of these experiences and also the need to study the social significance of these experiences in bringing about a world in which problems such as social disintegration, prejudice and poverty can be eradicated. Savage et al., (1995) provided clinical evidence to suggest that peakers produce greater feelings of self-confidence and a deeper sense of meaning and purpose. Mogar's (1965) research also tended to confirm these findings.[28]

There is much more to this essay, for the rest click on link: http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-m-sacle-and-universal-nature-of.html


Notes

[1] Joseph Hinman, Trace of God:Rational warrant for Belief. Colorado Springsmm,2014.
[2] Evelyn Underhill, Mysticism: A study on the Nature and Development of Man’s Spiritual consciousness. New York: Dutton, 1911.
[3] W.T. Stace, Teachings of the Mystics: Selections from the Greatest Mystics and Mystical Writers of the World. New American Library 1960. A good General overview of Stace’s understanding of mysticism is Mystical Experience Registry: Mysticism Defined by W.T. Stace. found onine at URL: http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/learn/experts_define/stace.shtml
[4] Ralph Hood Jr. “The Common Core Thesis in the Study of Mysticism.” In Where God and Science Meet: How Brain and Evolutionary Studies Alter Our Understanding of Religion. Patrick Mcnamara ed. West Port CT: Prager Publications, 2006, 119-235. Google books on line version: URL http://books.google.com.cu/books?id=0bzj3RtT3zIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=true visited 8/20/2012
[5] Robert J. Voyle, “The Impact of Mystical Experiences Upon Christian Maturity.” originally published in pdf format: http://www.voyle.com/impact.pdf. google html version here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:avred7zleAEJ Voyle is quoting Hood in 1985, Hood in return is speaking Stace. :www.voyle.com/impact.pdf+Hood+scale+and+religious+experience&hl=en&gl =us&ct=clnk&cd=2&ie=UTF-8
[6] Matilal (1992) in Hood, ibid, 127.
[7] Hood, ibid.
[8] ibid.
[9] ibid.
[10] JL Hinman, the Trace of God, Studies chapter, also Hood ibid, 128.
[11] Find, John Hick
[12] Dale Caird, “The structure of Hood's Mysticism Scale: A factor analytic study.”journal for the Scientific study of religion 1988, 27 (1) 122-126
[13] Burris (1999) quoted in Hood, ibid, 128
[14] Hood, ibid, 128
[15] ibid.
[16] ibid, 129
[17] ibid
[18] ibid
[19] Bernard Spilka, Ralph Hood Jr., Bruce Hunsberger, Richard Gorwuch. The Psychology of Religion: An Empirical Approach. New York, London: the Guildford Press, 2003.
[20] Ibid, 323
[21] ibid
[22] ibid, Hood in McNamara.
[23] Find trace of God J.L. Hinman, fn 47-50 are original fn in that source
, [24] Ralph Hood Jr., W.P. Williamson. “An empirical test of the unity thesis: The structure of mystical descriptors in various faith samples.” Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 19, (2000) 222-244.
[25] R.W. Hood, Jr., N.Ghorbani, P.J. Waston, et al “Dimensions of the Mysticism Scale: Confirming the Three Factor Structure in the United States and Iran.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40 (2001) 691-705.
[26] R.K.C. Forman, Mysticism, Mind, Consciousness. Albany: State University of New York Press, (1999) 20-30.
[27] F.S. Brainard, Reality and Mystical Experience, Unvisited Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. (2000). See also D.Loy, Nonduality: A Study in Comparative Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Humanities Press.
[28] Krishna K. Mohan, “Spirituality and Wellbeing: an Overview.” An Article based upon a Presentation made during the Second International Conference on Integral Psychology, held at Pondicherry India 4-7 January 2001, published in hard copy, Cornelissen, Matthijs (Ed.) (2001) Consciousness and Its Transformation. Pondicherry: SAICE.On line copy URL: http://www.ipi.org.in/texts/ip2/ip2-4.5-.php website of the India Psychology Institute. Site visited 9/3/12.

A Global approach to knowledge, Part I

I. A Global approach to knowledge enables us to understand the inadequacy of the scientifically based view that writes God out of the picture.

II. Understanding the need for the global approach to knowledge gives us the understanding of the link between ground of being and the divine.

III. Understanding these two points gives us the basic realization of the reality of God that frees us from the need to prove

. Since Laplace uttered those fateful words, “I have no need of that [God] hypothesis” God has been disassociated from science. Just why he uttered them is another matter but the upshot seems to be that those who find their hobby if not their profession in doubting the reality of the divine do so on the grounds that its not “officially backed” by science. The constant refrain of atheists heard around the net every single day “there’s no proof for YOUR God” echoes the call for scientific evidence as the only form of knowledge. The success of the “Back to God movement” in philosophy, stunning though it has been, nevertheless is tainted with the dismissal on the part of atheists, skeptics, and some agnostics that God arguments are not “scientific.” The God argument as a species is broadly criticized for not being science and for being philosophy. The point of this work is to demonstrate the notion that belief in God is rationally warranted, but that it need not be demonstrated with scientific rational. The purpose here is to forge a new apologetics.

This new apologetics focuses upon knowing in a deep personal way that can’t be denied by the one who comes to know, rather than wasting one’s time trying to prove things to those who do not wish to know. What we need to do is to make the proper tools availed to the seeker, to do that we have to disabuse seekers of the benighted notion that the only way to know something is through scientific data. The aim here is to demonstrate the basis for a phenomenological and existential realization of the reality of God and how to put oneself in a position where that realization becomes real to the experincer and can be validated by logic, reason, and other sources in a global understanding of all our knowledge.

As the alternative to the atheistic view of scientism I will propose a theological approach centering upon phenomenology, and culminating in theological method. The point is to produce an apologetical approach that makes the process of God realization transparent to the seeker. The way to do this is to understand the connection between an understanding of human being and it’s relation to being itself. I will defend a notion similar to that of Paul Tillich’s idea that God is being itself, or the ground of being; that I equate with the super essential godhead of Dionysus the areopagite. Tillich said that if you know being has depth you can’t be an atheist. He equates the depth of being with the realization that God is the ground of being.[1] Thus, if he’s right, all one need to do is to understand what that means, then observe the depth of being. Understanding the relationship between the ground of being and the question of the divine, from the outset, is crucial because how we understand the concept of “God” will make all the difference in what we seek and what we find, and what we reject. If we are looking to prove the existence of a big man in the sky and we don’t understand the concept of God as the ground of being, or being itself, we are going to miss the whole point of belief and write God off because there’s no big man in the sky. Being is all around us and we are in it, so we tend to take it for granted and we are going to miss what being is and how that relates to God if we don’t understand Tillich’s concept.

A silly little analogy that I use to illustrate this notion is about a fish scientist who was hired by the high council of Tuna to find the strange substance humans believe in called “water.” The fish had never seen any water so they wanted to know what it is. The fish scientist examined every puddle and depression he could find but found no water. He eventually concluded that humans are deluded about water because he could find no examples of it. Of course that’s because it never dawned on him that this state of normality in which he is submerged and is surrounded by all the time could be illusive substances humans’ thrive on, water. As a fish empiricist our scale clad investigator was certain that what he was looking for had to be an object that he could see, he forgot to look at the substance he was always looking through. So it is with being, we write it off as “just what is” and go on looking for this “God” who can’t be found because we don’t understand he’s nearer than our inmost being. Such is the pitfall of scientific empiricism.

the best apologetics website on the net

https://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2021/05/welcome-to-religious-priori.html The religious a priori is an apologetics website. It is designed to present an intellectual defense of the christian faith, We have a huge amount of material. It's an excellent resource for anyone seeking to defend faith.It covers every major issue from the historicity of Jesus to science and religion.  Books Frederich Schleiermacher, (1768-1834) in On Religion: Speeches to it's Cultured Despisers, and the Christian Faith. (aka The Glaubenslehre) sets forth the view that religion is not reducible to knowledge or ethical systems. It is primarily a phenomenological apprehension of God consciousness through means of religious affections.... in the Christian Faith he argues that there is a greater sense of unity in the life world and a sense of the dependence of all things in the life world upon something higher.

Merry Christmass!

Back to blogging next week

the Israel in Egypt debate

My friend "I'm Skeptical," who is a valued member of my blogger community,l did a comment on my position about the Exodus it calls for an involed amswer. So I am amsweromg it here

: The thesis I will defend: I don't know about miraclesor pleagues, orr Mses or partimgofthe seabut I am arguimg simply that there are good reasons to suspect that some Hebrews were at one time slaves in Egypt.

Skep: Archaeological data? You mean because there were 4-room reed dwellings in Egypt, and Israelis also used 4-room dwellings? But we don't know who built them or who lived in them. So your contention is that they could have been made by Israelis, but there is no proof of that, and they could just as well been made by native Egyptians.

It is the opinon of professional archaeolosits. they could compare with other Egyptian dwellings, and if the only one's like that are cannonite. that's reaspn to think Cannanites were there. That's not the only support.

Skep: Furthermore, there is not one single written record to corroborate that, in a land where they kept records of everything.

I think there is. One source, Dr. Douglas Petrovich’s book Origins of the Hebrews:claims new evidence Proving Hebrews lived in Egypt,But how would they know? Are they going to say "the people who will become the nation of Israe"? they would not know. Remember I am not defending the pleagues or any of the detials of Exodus.

Skep:There is no record of the mass enslavement, or the exodus, no names mentioned. There are no artifacts left behind that are distinctly Israeli. There is nothing in the archaeological record that clearly indicates their presence there.

I am not defindibg their mass enslvement but they could have been in Lowli position they would latter descriobe as slavery the Israelites I mean.There references to the Eperou which may be Hebrew. But if they were just canonites the Egyptions would have no resom to call them Israelites.
>

Skep: If there had been millions of them enslaved in Egypt, there would be some trace of that. If those millions made spent 40 years in the Arabian peninsula, there would be some trace of that. But there's nothing. That's archaeological data. And that's why the greater archaeological community doesn't believe it.

I never said there were millions, the Bible doesn't say that either,but how would they have a trace? If therewas No Jospeh and no Moeses how are goigto identify a bucg if Cabbiutes as futrue Israelites? The appeal to "they greater cheologocal community" is ideological not logical. Foirst the gratercomunity ismade up of secularmimded people who ho rleigious alloence. They have o stidiedit, they haveproofit's not true, they only react it an ideologocal princkple they clig to naterialist assumptions.

Hey Skep please try to remember this. I have ebough respet for archaeology and scientific method to doubt theexistenceo of Jophen and Moses,or at least to ut the in a faith only caegry. But there is noway they can bw there no Hebrews im Egyt. Skepers: "Let's face it. This is a mythological story, and whatever happened way back in pre-history, that might have been the seed of the myth, is lost to us." Now you need to face the reality about myth: they are often based upon truth. I think there is alost no dfference i what I am saying and your statmemt: "...and whatever happened way back in pre-history, that might have been the seed of the myth, is lost to us." is that I stick on a probability argummt that soe Hebrews were iEgypt at sme t,oe, nothing e. You aresso hyterical about the Buble you can'taccepttheinocous posiotoon

. the thing you have never answered, why is the sojourn i Egypt so foundational to thwe Hews? why do

The True Religion of The Bible

Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou is billed as having peeled back the the mythological "biases" of the Bible to expose the "likely archeological truth behind the text."[1]  This euphemism "bias" is their term for lie. Since she doesn't believe in God (her own admission) she assumes the roots of biblical history are merely like all other ancient world mythology. In other words that's all the bible is, just another set of myths illuminating the misconceptions of ignorant and primative people. Her method does revolve around the assumption that since there is no God the truth behind the bible must be the same as that of any culture and ut's mythology..Now her work is extremely interesting to listen to. It  is very popular.It also gives great comfort to atheists. It has the efect of saying"ah ha just what I always suspect about the Bible."=

I have no doubt that the people who wrote the bible lived in the same mythological universe as the Ugaretic or Canaanite or any other anciet world people. Yet she overlooks the fact that the OT is offered as an alternative to pagan mythology. Despite the cultural background of the Bible, God,rather than erase the Pagan milue, speaks through it. The voice of God resounds above the pagan historical epoch and cuts a clear path from the shadows and types to Jesus and the empty tomb.

Let's look at a couple of examples: Genesis 1:6-8,  it states: "And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. God called the vault 'sky.' And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day."[2] He is not talking about dividing oceans from contenants on earth. He's talking about waters above the earth.For the ancient world the fermament was a vast dome that streached over earth and was behind the sky.It had doors in it and through those doors angels shoveled water which was rain, or snow. That's the way the authors of Genesis saw the world. In Canaanite mythology the battle between Baal and Yom is referenced.God did not instruct mankind in the nature of the universe,so without changing their understanding he just spoke his will anyway.

Ugaritic mythological tablets describe the activities of the main gods and goddesses of the Canaanite pantheon. Although there existed no single state theology, the major gods reflect local geographical concerns about the fertility of the earth and the importance of water as well as relationships to the sky and the underworld. The universe was believed to be ruled in tandem by the older god El and a main warrior-god, Baal, surrounded by a council of deities and a lower level of attendant gods. The divine council included the older generation of the god El and his wife Athirat, known in the Bible as Asherah[3],

El was a Cannanite God his cult pre dates ancient Israel. That  does not mean that the ancient Israelites thought they worshiped that same El, nor does it mean that the El mythos is the basis of Israelite worship. They used the name El because it was like our term "God," it can be used by any number of cultic practitioners. If God is real they must have applied that name to him because it is a general term much like our term God.

"While the cosmologies of other ancient societies share much in common with biblical cosmology (the ordering of chaotic waters, rival serpents, judgment of humanity by flood), key differences surround the nature of the creator. For instance, the Egyptian creator, Atum, is not an uncreated, eternally preexistent being (like Yahweh). Atum created himself from the chaotic waters. Atum is the first self-caused cause, which is a form of pantheism."[4] The common cultural background was neither misunderstood by proto Israel nor was it something they fled

.

"No doubt there is a common cultural heritage behind the first chapter of Genesis. But this legacy or common cultural baggage wasn't "misunderstood" by the author of Genesis 1. It was "reinterpreted", reconfigured in an enduring, perpetual process of cultural assimilation and differentiation, the very lifeblood of religious exegesis. Some people call this the 'invention of tradition'. I prefer to see it as traditional inventiveness.[5]

Here are three examples of God speaking to authors of the OT that are not derived from pagan mythos.

Genesis 12:1-7

12 The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,     and I will bless you; I will make your name great,     and you will be a blessing.[a] 3 I will bless those who bless you,     and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth     will be blessed through you.”[b] 1 Kings 19:11-14

Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.

Then a voice said to him, “What are you doing here, Elijah?”

  This passage tells us God does not speak through fireworks and big events but to the heart. That is not derived from myth, There is no myth of God speaking to the heart and there are no prophets in mythology.

jer 20; 7-9

7You deceived[a] me, Lord, and I was deceived[b];     you overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long;     everyone mocks me. 8 Whenever I speak, I cry out     proclaiming violence and destruction. So the word of the Lord has brought me

    insult and reproach all day long. 9 But if I say, “I will not mention his word     or speak anymore in his name,” his word is in my heart like a fire,     a fire shut up in my bones. I am weary of holding it in;     indeed, I cannot.

This is really anti-mythological because it records the psychological feelings of the first person on the purpose who must speak the word of God. It's a psychological experience he can't shut up. There is nothing like that in mythology, This totally authentic historical rendering of ancinet's Israelite relationship with God on a personal level.

Notes

[1] Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou, "The REAL Israelite Religion: Interview with Dr. Francesca Stavrakopoulou" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-nM3-QE2V4&t=240s Dr. Stavrakopoulou, professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at Exeter University, and star of the BBC's "Bible's Buried Secrets", Digital Hammurabim 2021..

[2]NIV.

[3] Ira Spar, "The Gods and Godesses of Canaan," Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, the Met april 2009 https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cana/hd_cana.ht.

m [4]The Buble Project,"Does the Bible Borrow From Other Creation Stories?" Ancient Cosmology Episode 2m May 24, 2021 https://bibleproject.com/podcast/does-bible-borrow-other-creation-stories/.

[5] Ibid.

Don't be fooled by Trump's Lies

God did not want Israel to have a king because God ran things. But Israel wanted a king so God gave them a kigm the kings of Israel were terrible. Here is a fine summary of this segment of the Bible.[1] We see this same thing today in the evil Trump. Every time I see people hoodwinked by histories asserting he has a divine calling and he's helping christianity I think here is a deluded person who has not read the bible. We see the same thing in Trump's election as the setting up of Saul as King. God allowed the King Even though he was a disaster. ;listen to that guy's summary lt's a real good summary. Trim[ sahs I am the only one who can fix it." Obviously thatis bull shit, Trump has solved nothing, he created the mess at the border. He uses it as his major issue. but he created it too, The flow of illegal migration had declined a trickle and Trump got it going by talking about closing the border.[2] See my essay "Trump's war on breathing"[3] hid quashing of environmental regs costs thousands of lives in air pollution. Trump put up a big thing about supporting the coal industry he called it clean coal.That is the most vociferous of fossil fuel pollutants, It's too expensive to scrib the coal and it's the number one killer in air pollution.   When Trump was President he used Department to justice to cover up his election losses and tried to ignore the outcome.[4] He has no understanding of fairness nor does he accept democracy as a valule.NPR:"Senate report details Trump's efforts to use DOJ to overturn election results"

An interim report from the Senate Judiciary Committee provides the most detailed look yet at former President Donald Trump's attempts to enlist the Justice Department in his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election. The report from the panel's Democratic majority documents the chaotic final weeks of Trump's presidency following his loss to Joe Biden, and how Trump tried to force Justice Department officials to help him keep his grip on power. Department leaders ultimately resisted Trump's pressure, but it took threats of mass resignations across the department to get him to back down. A key moment that emerges in the report is a Jan. 3 meeting in the Oval Office between Trump and senior Justice Department leaders, including then-acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and his top deputy, Richard Donoghue.

Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost the election POLITICS. Trump continues to lie, says 'real insurrection' happened when he lost election Rosen told the committee that Trump opened the three-hour meeting by saying: "One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren't going to do anything to overturn the election."   He is essentually saying forget the will of the people, make me king. He wants to be dicktator. Hw is still in full control of the repubs, Dutch tight control the got no votes to remove him from office. A vote for the repubs is a vote for Trump. Trumpies are always saying he had doe so much for Christianity when he had done nothing,Nonefthen has ever told me what he's done. Don't hoodwinked by this lying bag of hot air. He's done nothing to help anyone. He is a criminal. notes [1] Spoken Gospel, Pod cast, 1 Sam 8=12 "Israel demands a King," not date Bible study, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jil42Tx7C4 [2]ALAN BERSIN, NATE BRUGGEMAN and BEN ROHRBAUGHm Politico Magazube, "Yes there is a criss on the boarder anditis Trump;s Fault" April 05, 2019, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/05/border-crisis-donald-trump-226573/ [3] Joseph Hinman, "Trump's war on breathing," Metacrcok's blog,October 06, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/10/trumps-war-on-breathing.html [4] Joseph Hinman, "Trump Used DOJ to overtrun election results." Metacrock's blog, October 13, 2024 https://metacrock.blogspot.com/2024/10/trump-used-doj-to-overturn-election.html