The Bible As A Closed System

@boagie,

As for me, I have not had a problem with the concept of Christianity being a system as it clearly is. I had misgivings about the Bible being a system.
However, that was not a defensive knee-jerk. It simply was an initial disagreement in definition.
I only took exception when I was openly misinterpreted, presumed to be ignorant and openly insulted. But I can give as good as I get, then get on fine. Very Happy

@Irishcop,

Irishcop wrote:

As for me, I have not had a problem with the concept of Christianity being a system as it clearly is. I had misgivings about the Bible being a system.
However, that was not a defensive knee-jerk. It simply was an initial disagreement in definition.
I only took exception when I was openly misinterpreted, presumed to be ignorant and openly insulted. But I can give as good as I get, then get on fine.

Irishcop.

So Irish,what are your thoughts on whether these things are closed systems,open systems or systems of some other nature.What makes me suspect that the bible is a closed system is it has not absorbed any new scientific knowledge of the past two thousand years.Science should not be surprized that the bible/Christianity does not embrace evolutionary biology.I assume here as well that the institution of Christianity is of the same nature,one being the theory followed by the method of Christianity.This is relatively new ground to most people,although general systems theory has been around quite some time,it does not seem to have become yet a household word.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

If the bible were an open system, wouldn't it be open to interpretation?
The commandments were written in stone, not papyrus.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of negotiations with a force who has already flooded the Earth, rained fire on cities, created the plagues of Egypt, and declared Armageddon on the planet.

I think that people who try to negotiate, or otherwise alter the wording of the bible...are trying to justify their own needs over what has been set out for them by the teachings of the bible.
If I tell my son that he will lose dessert if he misbehaves at the table, and then he cries when the punishment is due to be paid; too bad, he knew the consequences, and no amount of negotiation or justification is going to change my mind. If he tries to tell me that what I said has loopholes, then he's going to be sorely disappointed when he gets punished on top of it all for disrespecting me.

Awesome post. The entire premise of the Bible is that there is an Ultimate Authority and that Authority has an opinion and is willing and able to act on it. Those who adhere to its teachings (ideally) do so to align themselves with what it says. There is no room to align it with our ideology or judge it based on trendy morality.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine, Smile

The subject of the thread is of the nature of systems and what type of systems are said bible and/or the institution of Christiainity,if you wish to discuss something of a different nature please do so in another thread. Wink

@boagie,

Boagie,

It was a statement affirming that the Bible is indeed a closed system, not influenced by anything outside of itself (with the exception of things that would go entirely too deep and off topic for our discussion purposes here). A discussion regarding the Bible or Christianity or God is entirely ridiculous without some understanding of the subjects themself. That's when I interject. Wink

I truly do not mean to threaten you so much.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

Boagie,

It was a statement affirming that the Bible is indeed a closed system, not influenced by anything outside of itself (with the exception of things that would go entirely too deep and off topic for our discussion purposes here). A discussion regarding the Bible or Christianity or God is entirely ridiculous without some understanding of the subjects themself. That's when I interject.

I truly do not mean to threaten you so much.

Katherine, Smile

Yes indeed, you are on topic,it is wonderful to hear a Christian admit it is a closed system.No a dialogue about the bible,christianity and god as functional entites/as systems or parts thereof is not rediculous.It is perhaps forbidden to believers, but there is no such restriction to others.So it is off topic to get into the merits of the bible,Christianity and/or god.In a more detail study one might consider these things in reguards the quality of its functions,as often things are defined by their function/s.Actually these things would have commonalities with other belief systems,and it would be interesting to see what Christianity has in common with other closed systems.Sorry if I read you wrong,perhaps we could start again? What I am saying is,this is to be an objective look at the bible/Christianity as a system,I do not think a believer can be objective-------am I wrong?

@boagie,

I wonder if an athiest can be objective. If one has already deciced that there is not a Creator, I would claim the most rational conclusion is that there is one, can you really be objective about world around you without this understanding?

We all know the main flaw with the scientific method is the preconceptions the one observing the process already holds. I would think that would be a disadvantage no matter which side of the discussion you find yourself.

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

I wonder if an athiest can be objective. If one has already deciced that there is not a Creator, I would claim the most rational conclusion is that there is one, can you really be objective about world around you without this understanding?

We all know the main flaw with the scientific method is the preconceptions the one observing the process already holds. I would think that would be a disadvantage no matter which side of the discussion you find yourself.

Katherine, Smile

Are you signing off then? Katherine,being open to the wonder is a little different than delusional pretense,in fact it rather closes that door of wonder does not.You have the answers to the origin of all things don't you,there is really nothing to wonder about,this big daddy figure has it all wrapped up.Tell me Katherine, what other beliefs do you have about things which are entirely unfounded,do you believe in ghosts,visitors from another planet,there are very passionate texts written about these things,but no evidence in their support.

You are right if you are inferring that there is no such thing as complete objectivity,and with this particular topic it seems near impossiable for the faithful to take part without emotional termoil.The topic is, what kind of system might the bible and/or Christianity fall under.With more difficulty then is reasonable we have come to the conclusion that said subjects are indeed systems,the bible being a closed system,is then Christianity a closed system? The flow of information with the bible is one way,it has not incorporated any new knowledge in the last two thousand years.It is I think, a closed system.

@boagie,

Why would you say that?

@Katherine phil,

Katherine wrote:

Why would you say that?

Katherine,

Because you made it sound like an irrational quest.Actually the topic at hand is more straight forward then is appreciated,general systems theory is real science and I do not believe there is anything which is not a system of one sort or another.The goal here has been simple,what form of system do these things fall under.I stated earlier I had no wish to discuss the merits of the bible or Christianity,I just want to know what kind of systems are these things and perhaps learn something about their functions.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

Are you signing off then? Katherine,being open to the wonder is a little different than delusional pretense,in fact it rather closes that door of wonder does not.You have the answers to the origin of all things don't you,there is really nothing to wonder about,this big daddy figure has it all wrapped up.Tell me Katherine, what other beliefs do you have about things which are entirely unfounded,do you believe in ghosts,visitors from another planet,there are very passionate texts written about these things,but no evidence in their support.

You are right if you are inferring that there is no such thing as complete objectivity,and with this particular topic it seems near impossiable for the faithful to take part without emotional termoil.The topic is, what kind of system might the bible and/or Christianity fall under.With more difficulty then is reasonable we have come to the conclusion that said subjects are indeed systems,the bible being a closed system,is then Christianity a closed system? The flow of information with the bible is one way,it has not incorporated any new knowledge in the last two thousand years.It is I think, a closed system.

For being in such emotional turmoil, I seem to be the one maintaining the most objectivity here and displaying the least emotion. Wink

And not only am I open to wonder, I am fully immersed in it! But in a careful and studious way, not an abstract and unfounded one.

Have we changed the subject to 'is Christianity a closed system'? That's hard to say. It is essentially a relationship between man & God. That is mutually beneficial. But Christianity being an open system between itself and the rest of the world. . . in its purest form it should impact the world in a positive way and not be impacted by the world in a negative way. Does the world impact the church, yes. But that is not the way it should be in its ideal sense. Does that mean we should reject science and new thought, absolutely not and we haven't as a whole. Like I've said, science is a wonderful tool and i am thankful for it, it just should be kept in perspective with what we know to be true. Not because I have any answers, but because I serve the One who does and as the Creator of the world, He has the best answers.

Actually, Christianity has grown quite a bit in the last 2000 years. Like science, thinkers have built on the ideas of their predicessors and we have some amazing texts. To say otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the history of our faith. Our theory of genetics was actually started by a monk! :eek:

@Katherine phil,

Katherine,

Actally my statement about the difficulty with this subject do to religious emotions is not entirely directed at you,it becomes problematic when one comes anywhere near a sacred cow and apparently this one is mooing quite nicely.

" it just should be kept in perspective with what we know to be true."

That is the point isn't it, what do we know,if you have faith that something is,you do not know.

The topic is again,what type systems are the bible and/or Christianity.We would avoid a great deal of turmoil and confusion I think if we just stick to the topic.Gregor Mendel wasn't he that prince that could not sleep because he had a pea in his bed?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

The topic is again,what type systems are the bible and/or Christianity.We would avoid a great deal of turmoil and confusion I think if we just stick to the topic.

I gave an answer directly on topic.

Quote:

Gregor Mendel wasn't he that prince that could not sleep because he had a pea in his bed?

Something like that, I think. Wink

@Katherine phil,

\
Katherine,

The point is I think to be objective you must leave faith out of it.Just cold hard analysis of what is,not what might be,might be covers infinity.We just want to know what kind of systems these things are,and what conclusions we might draw from that knowledge.I think we have agreed that they are closed systems, what might that infer about its functions and utility to the given society.What do these have in common with other closed systems.How can a closed system be in touch with the world?Is its only concern is its own existence and nothing more.

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Irishcop.

So Irish,what are your thoughts on whether these things are closed systems,open systems or systems of some other nature.What makes me suspect that the bible is a closed system is it has not absorbed any new scientific knowledge of the past two thousand years.Science should not be surprized that the bible/Christianity does not embrace evolutionary biology.I assume here as well that the institution of Christianity is of the same nature,one being the theory followed by the method of Christianity.This is relatively new ground to most people,although general systems theory has been around quite some time,it does not seem to have become yet a household word.

Hello, Boagie,
I think you are assessing attributes to things that cannot possess them. The Bible is a book that can absorb matter such water, for example, but cannot absorb anything intangible, such as knowledge, without being re-written. It would therefore cease being the Bible and become something more, or something less than the original design.
Likewise, science cannot be surprised, or feel emotion, or balance a check book, because it is simply a collection of knowledge, supposition, conjecture, facts and theories. Only the scientists have those attributes. Your error is profound when considering what nature of system something is.
However, I would venture to say the Bible is somewhat of an open system, being that it has been open to many interpretations, both in the literal meaning language translation, and in the figurative, meaning the understanding derived by reading it. Therefore, the Bible is open, at the input nexus of translation into a new language, and the output nexus of the reader's understanding.
The spiritual body of Christ, likewise is an open system, IMO. There are new members entering into the church all the time. Likewise, one member, Judas left it.
Is that fair to say?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Katherine,

Yes indeed, you are on topic,it is wonderful to hear a Christian admit it is a closed system.No a dialogue about the bible,christianity and god as functional entites/as systems or parts thereof is not rediculous.It is perhaps forbidden to believers, but there is no such restriction to others.So it is off topic to get into the merits of the bible,Christianity and/or god.In a more detail study one might consider these things in reguards the quality of its functions,as often things are defined by their function/s.Actually these things would have commonalities with other belief systems,and it would be interesting to see what Christianity has in common with other closed systems.Sorry if I read you wrong,perhaps we could start again? What I am saying is,this is to be an objective look at the bible/Christianity as a system,I do not think a believer can be objective-------am I wrong?

(Boagie, if I read you correctly, your own inobjectivity is striking here. You have a preconcieved notion that a believer cannot have an objective notion as to whether the Bible is open or closed?)
Whether it is, or it isn't does not change the believe in the Bible, nor its fundamental cannons. It is what it is, a system that the faithful believe in, and whether it holds the properties of an open or closed system has no bearing on the believer who is integral to the system, or the message it contains.
Here you have two believers on the same page, with opposite views as to whether it is open or closed. It couldn't matter less to me, if the Bible conforms to one or the other, except that the discussion is hinged on the minutia of categorizing it.
Whichever it is, does not make it intrinsically good or evil, correct or erroneous, nor would either conclusion shake the foundations it's laid upon.

@Irishcop,

Hello Irish!! Smile

My errors are always profound Irish,the fact that the bible cannot absorb new knowledge and maintain itself is one very strong reason to consider it a closed system.As to talking about science,when I said science should not be surprized that Christianity does not accept evolutionary biology I of course meant the scientific community,which most definately has feelings about such a reality.I am afraid translation of something into another language does not constitute a necessary characteristic of an open system.

Perhaps the bible is only a closed system looked at from a particular circumstance/perspective,certainly its inability to learn, to absorb new knowledge makes it appear to be just that,a closed system.This intake of believers,is certainly that, an intake,but first it creates these believers,indeed it is nothing without them.To be quite honest it remains a little cloudy as to what type of a system Christianity is.I wish someone with more back ground in general systems could help us out here.I shall do some more reading and try to get a clearer take on it.One thing is certain,it is a system,and as such it should be understandable under a certain catagory of structure and function---------got to run!

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Hello Irish!!

My errors are always profound Irish,the fact that the bible cannot absorb new knowledge and maintain itself is one very strong reason to consider it a closed system.As to talking about science,when I said science should not be surprized that Christianity does not accept evolutionary biology I of course meant the scientific community,which most definately has feelings about such a reality.I am afraid translation of something into another language does not constitute a necessary characteristic of an open system.

Perhaps the bible is only a closed system looked at from a particular circumstance/perspective,certainly its inability to learn, to absorb new knowledge makes it appear to be just that,a closed system.This intake of believers,is certainly that, an intake,but first it creates these believers,indeed it is nothing without them.To be quite honest it remains a little cloudy as to what type of a system Christianity is.I wish someone with more back ground in general systems could help us out here.I shall do some more reading and try to get a clearer take on it.One thing is certain,it is a system,and as such it should be understandable under a certain catagory of structure and function---------got to run!

I maintain that translation from one language into another renders the system open. Students of foriegn language, (and perhaps you've been one), can certainly understand that translation from one language into another is problematic regarding the text continuity to some degree, whereby some words and some idioms do not translate exact meaning or nuiance.
The systemic error can be reduced by always translating from the original content, as with the King James Version.
Also, research in the vernacular evolution over the millenia, must be conducted. Those changes are most certainly a source of alteration at the input nexus and/or the output nexus, albeit minimal, they must be applied if a text is to be understood better by the readership. For instance the meaning of "awful" has flipped 180 degrees since it's Old English meaning, where it would be "awesome" if employed today, or the reader should be aware that the vernacular has changed, when they stumble across it.

I suppose in that context, the Bible does infact absorb more than water, in that it absorbs the minute changes in the vernacular each time it is translated.

@boagie,

Interesting to see how this topic has developed.

Here's a quick and simple question though; In a sentence, can you explain why or why not you feel the bible is or is not a closed system?

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

Interesting to see how this topic has developed.

Here's a quick and simple question though; In a sentence, can you explain why or why not you feel the bible is or is not a closed system?

Aristoddler,

Yes,the feeling is it is a closed system because it does not absorb new knowledge,it has not incorporated any new found wisdom in the past two thousand years.By defination an open system has a mutual exchange with it environment,this of course does not occur with the bible or Christianity in general.This is why the Pope's recent acknowledgement of the reality of evolutionary biology is so shocking,but it remains to be seen if the authority of the Pope is enough to make Christianity incorporate it----it would be a first.

Philosophy Forum

The Bible As A Closed System

Quick Links

My Account

able2know