The Bible As A Closed System

@boagie,

So if there were new words of wisdom to be imparted unto us, then it would be an open system, is what you are saying?

And if the rest of Christianity is willing to accept the teachings of a man over the teachings of the bible, then what good is the bible to us then? We may as well all convert to the church of Homer, and make up our own teachings that require no sacrifices or other prerequisites to gain entrance to heaven.

Don't get me wrong, I have no ill will against beliefs in God, Buddha, Vishnu, or even Atheism...I only have a minor bone to pick with organized religion as it stands in today's society.

@Aristoddler,

Aristoddler wrote:

So if there were new words of wisdom to be imparted unto us, then it would be an open system, is what you are saying?"

It would certainly indicate that Christianity is not a closed system if it was able to acknowledge the progress of the last two thousand years.Try on the science of today instead of insisting some fool made the sun stop in its path.

And if the rest of Christianity is willing to accept the teachings of a man over the teachings of the bible, then what good is the bible to us then? We may as well all convert to the church of Homer, and make up our own teachings that require no sacrifices or other prerequisites to gain entrance to heave.

Actually that is not my problem,the bible is little good to me the way it is presently taught,it is a myth which is nolonger viable.In understanding the nature of systems it might become apparent that a closed system is not a healthy guiding star for humanity at large,or if it can be shown to be of a different nature and viable, perhaps we would have to arrive at a different conclusion.What is the bone you have to pick with organized religion?

@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?

I believe it is an open system because it "absorbs" new languages, and therefore new syntax, at the input nexus, and at the output nexus it inspires new understandings, as it relates to the contemporary reader, (ie Revelations might cryptically describe modern Weapons of War), and it creates new converts.

BTW, if the wisdom is 2000 years old, does that disqualify it, or does it simply make it time-tested? In my opinion, true wisdom and righteousness does not change with political correctness, like a Harris Poll.

@Irishcop,

Irishcop,

Just saying it has not updated and cannot,characteristic of something closed.

Sat-Chit-Ananda[true being-true consicousness-true bliss].Here I believe is an example of a different religious tradition,the Hindu, which is indeed open.

The Study and Practice of Yoga - An In-depth Interpretation of Patanjali's Yoga Sutras

@boagie,

Hi all,

I have had a bit of a change in perspective, realizeing that, there really is no such thing as a closed system. There might appear to be at first, but that which is closed hypthetically, could not exist, there are only varying degrees of closure. All of reality is relational, that which is closed, would not be relative to anything. Can we use this new systems science to examine our world, its order, function and its relation/s to society. I think we can, but not without effort and apparently not without drawing a little hostility in the attempt.:eek:

@boagie,

Hi all!

So, an object [system] which exchanges no apparent, underline apparent, energy or substance with its environment is said to be closed--despite the reality that it is not closed. The same can be said of that system/ object that is said to be isolated, it is comparably isolated, relative to the majority of systems/objects, it is not isolated, it is not closed.

@boagie,

From Katherine

Quote:

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.

Would any sort of alignment rendered from personal choice indicate that the system is not enclosed? Interpretation of the word is required for the choice to align.

Other comments: It seems in general people are granting anthropomorphic features to the bible. For the bible to be closed, it would require either no interaction with humanity, or it would need to have a will of its own continuously exercising a non-human interventionist agenda. Any book of rules is meant to be an open system. It goes thou shalt/not ---> people do/do not -----> consequence pos/neg (at this point a certain karmic quality is witnessed, or not) ----> Judgement Pos/Neg. The crux that forces it to be open is "free will", assuming that you believe we have it. As some say Rules were meant to be broken.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

From Katherine

Would any sort of alignment rendered from personal choice indicate that the system is not enclosed? Interpretation of the word is required for the choice to align.

Other comments: It seems in general people are granting anthropomorphic features to the bible. For the bible to be closed, it would require either no interaction with humanity, or it would need to have a will of its own continuously exercising a non-human interventionist agenda. Any book of rules is meant to be an open system. It goes thou shalt/not ---> people do/do not -----> consequence pos/neg (at this point a certain karmic quality is witnessed, or not) ----> Judgement Pos/Neg. The crux that forces it to be open is "free will", assuming that you believe we have it. As some say Rules were meant to be broken.

GoshisDead,

I have already stated that there is no such thing as a closed system, but a system which is of its own nature unable to learn from its changeing context, is every close to the defination of a closed systems. The Bible has not incorporated any new knowledge in over two thousand years, and indeed it cannot, without violating its own constitution as the word of god.

@boagie,

Quote:

but a system which is of it own nature unable to learn from its changeing context, is every close to the defination of a closed systems

The human component of the system is able and has the nature to learn, evolve, and change.

The compilation of and the decision as to what should be in the bible was human.

The static nature of any part of a system provides stability to a system. It slows the evolution of a system. The Bible's purported accuracy as the word of God has very little to do with the system's function itself. The same sort static fuction is provided by geometry which would also be closed were it not for a human element.

@GoshisDead,

GoshisDead wrote:

The human component of the system is able and has the nature to learn, evolve, and change.

The compilation of and the decision as to what should be in the bible was human.

The static nature of any part of a system provides stability to a system. It slows the evolution of a system. The Bible's purported accuracy as the word of God has very little to do with the system's function itself. The same sort static fuction is provided by geometry which would also be closed were it not for a human element.

GoshisDead,

Interesting logic, the arrow is the target, a little of a Zen master. Actually there is a good deal of truth in what you say, but something which refuses to change, is neither adapted to the present nor the passed. Actually the bibles purported accuracy as god's word is stignation, there are all kinds of inferances here for things unchangeing and closed---unrealistic. If something were to become utterly closed, it would be devoid of all vitality, it would be dead, it would become non-existence, it would be biblical---just kidding!!

That arrow is the target thing, with this logic, your car would cease to be a car when you are not driving it, an unread book, would not be a book. In fact I think the concept of static is not something unchangeing, like the terms close system and isolated system these concepts are only useful theoretically and do not exist in reality. Something is static only relative to temporal relations it has with its environment, it has a greater duration then its context, but all things change, even if unpreceived.

@boagie,

Let me go back to the post of Justin that the Bible is a collection of books written by different authors with different intention, tradition and background. For the Bible to be a system, if it is even a system, all part of the bible must relate with each other parts. How is Genesis even connected to the Book of Revelation? This question is interesting since, semantically speaking genesis is the beginning ang the book of revelation deals about the end of the world. Is it a coincidence?

The bible to be a system, all books included in the bible must relate back to the Messiah. For the christians who believe that the Messiah already arrived, and fulfilled the promise and expected to return. In my opinion, the bible must be an open system then. for the christians and for the jews.

@midas77,

midas77 wrote:

Let me go back to the post of Justin that the Bible is a collection of books written by different authors with different intention, tradition and background. For the Bible to be a system, if it is even a system, all part of the bible must relate with each other parts. How is Genesis even connected to the Book of Revelation? This question is interesting since, semantically speaking genesis is the beginning ang the book of revelation deals about the end of the world. Is it a coincidence?

The bible to be a system, all books included in the bible must relate back to the Messiah. For the christians who believe that the Messiah already arrived, and fulfilled the promise and expected to return. In my opinion, the bible must be an open system then. for the christians and for the jews.

midas,

Actually it is a rather schizophrenic production, perhaps the unity it does display is due to the political powers at given times sorting and burning what displeased them---editing, the last alteration of the bible I believe was done by Sir Francis Bacon. As has already been stated there is no such thing as an utterly closed system, an utterly closed system would mean that that system is a totality with no relation to anything outside itself. While the bible might come close to that, it is not a closed system, there is in fact no example in all reality of a closed system--------that is, utterly closed. That which is called an closed system is one that is in relative isolation, having little in the way of relations outside itself.

@boagie,

Boagie,
First about system. I agree that "an utterly closed system would mean that that system is a totality with no relation to anything outside itself". If put this way no system can be closed, well except the all enclosing system of everything. In what way then can the bible be a closed system? As I understand from your previous posts, a closed system does not change while an open system changes. Are we dealing here for an allowance for change with-in the system? What I mean by this is, Is the system in itself admits change, hence, an open system. Or does it resists change, then a close system.

Second, the bible as an schizophrenic production. We must understand that the Bible is a collection of works that is gathered throughout several milleniums. As a collection it must have several authors. To simply label the bible as a "word of God" is the delusional part. It is not simply a "word of God". It is a literary masterpiece, which as a religious literature contains a central theme.

@midas77,

midas,

:)There is nothing which does not change, I suppose that is why there is no such thing as a totally closed system. To say that the universe is closed does not have any credibility, there is no indiction that it is a closed system. Your confusion is understandable as the title of the thread is the bible as a close system. Systems science does refer to closed systems but their meaning of such a system is that it is very limited, isolated if you like from having much in the way of relations. The argument that the bible is one of these closed systems is reasonable, as it is said to be the word of god and cannot change----that also makes it not unnatural but stagnant, as I imagine most closed systems are not all that vital. I do not think there is any system which resists change unless you considered the maintenance of an organsims health to be resistence to change. The understanding should go, our reality is systems within systems within systems within systems ect..,.

:)The bible, I have to admit there are some redeeming qualities that condition its toxcity, but, anything which has as many authors and editors dealing with hearsay through the ages has got to lead to a schizophrenic crack-up, it boils in contradiction, absurdities and delusions----- some nice poetry!

:)midas, If this business of systems interests you try googling cybernetics and/or general systems theory, also holistic thinking.

@boagie,

Quote:

Actually it is a rather schizophrenic production, perhaps the unity it does display is due to the political powers at given times sorting and burning what displeased them---editing, the last alteration of the bible I believe was done by Sir Francis Bacon.

To call the Bible schizophrenic is to call 1001 Arabian Nights schizophrenic, is to call the Vedas schizophrenic, is to call any collection of works by various authors schizophrenic.

The Bible, which ever version we sight, represents the scriptural base of some faith tradition, and contains a great deal of history regarding the changes in the faith of people.

The only unity is that the texts are considred by many to be of a spiritual nautre, to have some spiritual value. That's all.

Quote:

Systems science does refer to closed systems but their meaning of such a system is that it is very limited, isolated if you like from having much in the way of relations. The argument that the bible is one of these closed systems is reasonable, as it is said to be the word of god and cannot change----that also makes it not unnatural but stagnant, as I imagine most closed systems are not all that vital. I do not think there is any system which resists change unless you considered the maintenance of an organsims health to be resistence to change. The understanding should go, our reality is systems within systems within systems within systems ect..,.

One moment you claim 'The argument that the bible is one of these closed systems is reasonable', but then you go on to explain why there is no such thing as a closed system - and if no such thing exists, to say the Bible is such a thing is, at the very least, unreasonable.

The primary problem is using scientific terminology to characterize literature.

Quote:

The bible, I have to admit there are some redeeming qualities that condition its toxcity, but, anything which has many authors and editors dealing with hear say through the ages has got to lead to schizophrenic crack-up, it boils in contradiction, absurdities and delusions-----nice poetry!

So, any collection of stories is absurd and delusional? Honestly, Boagie, I understand your deeply rooted bias against religion, but you're reaching on this one.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas,

"One moment you claim 'The argument that the bible is one of these closed systems is reasonable', but then you go on to explain why there is no such thing as a closed system - and if no such thing exists, to say the Bible is such a thing is, at the very least, unreasonable." quote

:)If you read more carefully Thomas, you would see where I drew the distinction between what general systems theory calls a close system, and what normally would be invisioned by the term closed. General systems theory freely uses the term closed system assuming I suppose that people will have read enough about it to appreciate the difference.

:)We have dance around this issue enough to know we are not going to please one another. Christianity has become a political animal, and that is just the way I will treat it.

@boagie,

Quote:

If you read more carefully Thomas, you would see where I drew the distinction between what general systems theory calls a close system, and what normally would be invisioned by the term closed. General systems theory freely uses the term closed system assuming I suppose that people will have read enough about it to appreciate the difference.

You began the thread, only to admit that you yourself had not read much on the issue.

Which is why I worry that the whole point of creating the thread was to deride some faith tradition instead of discussing a worthwhile topic.

And so I must again state my concern that you are using general systems theory too liberally - the Bible is literature, not process of the scientific method.

The more I read on the matter, the more clearly I see that applying general systems theory to the Bible, or any other work of literature, is nothing short of silly - like trying to write a novel using musical notation.

Quote:

We have dance around this issue enough to know we are not going to please one another. Christianity has become a political animal, and that is just the way I will treat it.

Right, because you happily embrace the same logical fallacy every time you consider the faith tradition - you apply the mistakes of some to all, fallacy of composition if you'd like to look it up.

@Didymos Thomas,

Thomas, Have a good one! Smile

@boagie,

As usual Boagie I came late to this thread and all that is below is the result of reading to post 45 in this thread. (Continued at the bottom of this post).

I am huMAN (I do not like being gender specific) with an uderstanding and an intellect that can distinguish and therefore I wrote the Bible. If you consider something untrue or unlikely because science has its laws that must be obeyed then I can either find room to accept that, give doubt that keeps a question open or deny it flattly. Most human life can prove that it is, through the form of change from beast to human, you can call it evolution, I still call it change.

Boagie what have we learned in the past 2000 years that could change the bible. I am not saying that evolution does not happen but has science proven man is a part of it or simply just another lifeform that must be. Science with the knowledge of all its law can prove that light will only travel in a straight line (barring refraction) but God who is the creator knows that laws are subservient to Its will and hence without a law of desire, light can be bent and so God can lift the heaviest boulder in creation or that can be created. What here is closed, what is now, an open system.

The Bible. Is it two systems, old, new or one old and new, then again is it one without the other entirely, has it taken pagan links to raise its awareness, do all interpretations make it a whole, does translation impact a damage. Did Christ obey the Old Testament and the Ten Commandments, if Eve was not the sister to Adam from whence did she come, is sin punishable, is it punished. How can you answer all of this and remain true to your beliefs. How can you see the Bible as a closed system if you can find these questions in the Bible

Translation can make errors in word choices Irishcop but it doesn't add to the effect of determining it is an open system. Christianity is an ended system and was designed so. It has served its purpose which was to make aware what we know. Tomorrows world will have the interpretations that we place on its teachings as the reference to Christ is absorbed into the judicial systems our family constructs and proof of this is evident as it is not the reference that the Torah is. Many would wish it but it has ceased to be. Chistianity is an open system. Be that it is for inspection, interpretation, reference or simply to be melded into constructs without quotation from previos judgements.

If you want to ignore all that is said here I am not opposed to it being skipped. I wrote out while I was reading the thread and once it was concluded I felt that I might as well have my little piece and just 'Let It Be'.

@urangutan,

The bible is for indoctrination, not education. As was stated early this threads intentions was not to discuss the value of Christianity. It was clearly stated that those to emotionally envolved with Christian doctrine should perhaps forgo taking part. Very Happy

You never know though, a little grit in the right crustacean might produce a pearl. Wink

Philosophy Forum

The Bible As A Closed System

Quick Links

My Account

able2know