The Bible As A Closed System

[boagie]

The bible as a closed system,well,the defination of an open system is a system which has an exchange with its environment.I do not think the bible has this mutual exchange for indeed the bible cannot change, being the word of god as many believe.I suspect there must be some indetectable mutual exchange between the Christian faith and the world at large,other wise it is difficult to understand how it remains in existence or even more startling, that it is in the forefront of political turmoil.What do you think,is the bible a closed system,if not what qualities does it share with an open system.Reality is about change but what of that which does not change or rather successfully resists all change.I shall elaborate a little more if need be,but doubt it will be necessary,I can see the dust on the horizon of a huge herd of Christians coming this way.

Yes,the devil made me do it!!


Sorry fellows,it just dawned upon me that this may need to be move,whatever you think best!

[Irishcop]

The Bible isn't a system, Boagie.
System (from Latin systēma, in turn from Greek σύστημα systēma) is a set of entities, real or abstract, comprising a whole where each component interacts with or is related to at least one other component and they all serve a common objective. Any object which has no relation with any other element of the system is not part of that system but rather of the system environment. A subsystem then is a set of elements, which is a system itself, and a part of the whole system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System
Every division or aggregation of real entities into systems is arbitrary, therefore it is a subjective abstract concept.
An entity is something that has a distinct, separate existence, though it need not be a material existence. In particular, abstractions and legal fictions are usually regarded as entities. In general, there is also no presumption that an entity is animate. Entities are used in system developments as models that display communications and internal processing of say documents compared to order processing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entities

The Bible cannot be regarded as an entity, it is the product of an entity. If you want to rephrase and re-target your intended victim, which I presume is Christendom, then you really should.

[boagie]

Hi Irishcop

Irish,I do not think there is anything which is not a system,so your protest needs more support

"What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner."



Are you saying the bible is the vehicle of said system and not part of it? A rock is a closed system,how unlike a rock is the bible and/or Christianity Irish.Actually another Christian on this site stated the Christianity is conditioned by its context, if that were true,that would indicate change both of environment/context and Christianity as a system,which would indicate if we could observe a changed state within it,an open system.Actually perhaps Christianity does change, I am recalling your statement about there being differences between the old and new testament,but these by some at least, are said to be two parts of the one system.

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Hi Irishcop

Irish,I do not think there is anything which is not a system,so your protest needs more support

"What is religion? There are many definitions for the term "religion" in common usage. On this web site, we define it very broadly, in order to include the greatest number of belief systems: "Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life." Thus we include here all of the great monotheistic religions, Eastern religions; Neopagan religions; a wide range of other faith groups, spiritual paths, and ethical systems; and beliefs about the existence of God(s) and Goddess(es). We recognize that most people define "religion" in a much more exclusive manner."



Are you saying the bible is the vehicle of said system and not part of it? A rock is a closed system,how unlike a rock is the bible and/or Christianity Irish.Actually another Christian on this site stated the Christianity is conditioned by its context, if that were true,that would indicate change both of environment/context and Christianity as a system,which would indicate if we could observe a changed state within it,an open system.

"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
Thus, by your definition of religion, are you conceding that Science, is also a religion with some people (a "belief system", if you choose)? If you are not, would mind indulging me, and disqualify it by one of the above criteria you have set?

I contend the Bible, is an item of the system environment, not a system of itself. I have shown definitively that it, (and a rock) are not systems. They are simply disqualified by the absence of an entity. However, for the sake of argument, if a rock were a system, it definitely would not be a closed system, on the basis that an outside entity or system, could effect it. Newtonian Law, erosion, chemical reaction, thermal reaction effect the rock.
The Bible likewise could be effected, and has been effected by another system . It has been translated into most languages from its original texts. Those translators were not in the bible, were not original authors, nor were they necessarily even Christian or Hebrew.
The Bible and the rock are also disqualified as systems because it does not satisfy the requirement of having a set of entities. There is fundamentally only one Bible for the purpose of this discourse. There is no "s" at the end of "rock".
Had you included, all terrestrial elements comprising the Earth's system environment, then it would be correct to say the Earth is a system, but incorrect to say it is a closed system.
Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

[boagie]

Irishcop,


Science is indeed a system,just not a religion,faith enters not in this speculative enterprize,the findings of science are always tentative until a better idea,a better model for what reality might look like is found.Why do the faithful always attempt to bounce themselves off science,why do we not try and stick to the topic.

"I contend the bible,is an item of the system environment,not a system of itself." All things are systems of the environment even to the extent of incompassing the entire universe.You say a rock could not be a system on the bases that an outside entity or system could effect it." The defination for a open system is that there is an exchange between the said system and its environment,the rock is effected by gravity but it does not contibution an exchange back into its the environment,a mutualism you might say.As far as the identity of the bible is concerned, I think it qualifies in all the following catagories.

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

types: abstract identity
physical identity
thing

The last known person to edit the bible was Francis Bacon.Christianitys' origins are a complex of influences from many past cultures,the one we know most about is the pagan contribution giving us the date of Christs birth and the hoilday known as Christmas from the pagan hoilday for there god at the time of the coming of the light.

You silver tongued devil you,you know only to well I would never say the world is a closed system,you know this from previous conversations."There is fundamentally only one bible".Perhaps, but there are many many holy texts of the same character.

So,Irish,what is this, I cannot say thing,that would mean identity.So the bible then for you is not to be found or fall into catagory whatsoever? How do you locate it Irish,it apparently has no characteristics to qualify it as a thing.

Lastly you seem to be asking that we do an indepth study of the bible and it systems,and your conclusion presently is what,that it is a totality in and of itself?


Honk if you love Jesus!! Sent your donations to,"Son's Of The Morning Light",a signed blank check made out to boagie!!

[Irishcop]

Originally Posted by boagie

Irishcop,


Science is indeed a system,just not a religion,faith enters not in this speculative enterprize,the findings of science are always tentative until a better idea,a better model for what reality might look like is found.Why do the faithful always attempt to bounce themselves off science,why do we not try and stick to the topic.

Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine

"I contend the bible,is an item of the system environment,not a system of itself." All things are systems of the environment even to the extent of incompassing the entire universe.You say a rock could not be a system on the bases that an outside entity or system could effect it." The defination for a open system is that there is an exchange between the said system and its environment,the rock is effected by gravity but it does not contibution an exchange back into its the environment,a mutualism you might say.As far as the identity of the bible is concerned, I think it qualifies in all the following catagories.

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

types: abstract identity
physical identity
thing

Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers.

The last known person to edit the bible was Francis Bacon.Christianitys' origins are a complex of influences from many past cultures,the one we know most about is the pagan contribution giving us the date of Christs birth and the hoilday known as Christmas from the pagan hoilday of for the coming of the light.

Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.

You silver tongued devil,you know only to well I would never say the world is a closed system,you know this from previous conversations.There is fundamentally only on bible,perhaps but many many holy texts of the same character.

I do know that, and therefore I never said you thought the world was a closed system. Where did you come up with this notion that I did? I never attributed any of the following to you, when I said....
Had you included, all terrestrial elements comprising the Earth's system environment, then it would be correct to say the Earth is a system, but incorrect to say it is a closed system.

So,Irish,what is this, I cannot say thing,that would mean identity.So the bible then for you is not to be found or fall into catagory whatsoever? How do you locate it Irish,it apparently has no characteristics to qualify it as a thing.

Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?

Lastly you seem to be asking that we do an indepth study of the bible and it systems,and your conclusion presently is what,that it is a totality in and of itself?

You missed my whole point. Here it is again ....

Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

*Totality Boagie, that your god and your closed system from past conversations.

[boagie]

[quote=Irishcop;3337]Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine

Irishcop

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?


The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.


"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.


Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.


Editing/translating of the bible:Whatever,it really isn't of great importance to me.


We are agreed, the earth is an open system.


"Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?"

Now that is a revealation,everything in the world is in a system of environment or EVERTHING IN THE WORLD IS IN THE WORLD----yes indeed I caught that one Irish!

With the totality you have invested in there would by no subject,so there would be nothing.Perhaps we could move on,I think it is established now that the bible,Christianity is a system.

[Irishcop]

[quote=boagie;3339]

Originally Posted by Irishcop

Here is your own definition:
"Religion is any specific system of belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life."
.... I see no reference to "faith", your words...not mine

Irishcop

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?


The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.


"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.


Again, I didnt say "edit", I said "translate", however you are incorrect with your facts. The Bible has been edited into a score of "modernized" or "standardized" versions and they are still being churned out, and in my opinion much inferior than the King James Version.


Editing/translating of the bible:Whatever,it really isn't of great importance to me.


We are agreed, the earth is an open system.


"Again more words I never said. I plainly said the Bible is an item of the system environment, did you miss the bold italics?"

Now that is a revealation,everything in the world is in a system of environment or EVERTHING IN THE WORLD IS IN THE WORLD----yes indeed I caught that one Irish!

With the totality you have invested in there would by no subject,so there would be nothing.Perhaps we could move on,I think it is established now that the bible,Christianity is a system.

Boagie, would it be too much to ask, if you would stay on your ADHD meds and focus on what is actually going on in the classroom?
You are either skipping your Ritalin Rx, or you banged your head and forgot your Ritalin, because you are jumping around unfocused and perceiving everything in this thread with an almost schizophrenic disconnect.

Your getting petty on me Irish,because I failed to say faith is it somehow now in doubt for you?

Its not petty, its your own definition and I accepted it. However, if you can't disqualify Science as a religion in some people, using that definition, it speaks volumns about Science, as well as your ability to change your mind in the face of your own logic, does it not?

The rock has gravity, it pulls on the Earth too. The hill of rocks has the accumulation of gravity, the strata, the continent, the planet, the solar system, the galaxy, the local cluster, the universe..... all pull on each other, and then cumulatively. Logically, the string doesn't end until you reach totality, and totality must be a closed system*. Defer to Twain's analogy if you like.

What has Twain's analogy got to do with this,even in a petty way? I am going by the defination given in general system theory about what is a closed system.I however do not have a lot of investment in Christianity's being a closed system but it is a system,and its function as near as I can descern is to create believers.

Come on Boagie, you are an intelligent man, I know you can get this, and also how it correlates to my God, or even your on Totality (Spinoza's?) god, and Twain's analogy.

That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)

"Then its a subjective value and only fit for poets and philosophers."

No, it is a subjective value and only fit for those in possession of consciousness.

Even if everyone perceiving it had the same consciousness, it would still be subjective, because it is intrinsically a perception value, not an absolute value.

We have definately not established the Bible is not a system, even after showing that fact in terms of your own logic.

[boagie]

Irish,

I think civil discourse is over.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

The bible must be an open system as it was written by men with limited knowledge. For it to have any lingering relevancy it must have been written so that it sets precedents and ideals that can be projected onto situations that were not fathomable when it was written.

Originally Posted by Irishcop

The Bible cannot be regarded as an entity, it is the product of an entity. If you want to rephrase and re-target your intended victim, which I presume is Christendom, then you really should.

What do you propose actually is an entity? If we can distinguish what is not an entity, then we should be able to identify what is an entity.

Thus, by your definition of religion, are you conceding that Science, is also a religion with some people (a "belief system", if you choose)? If you are not, would mind indulging me, and disqualify it by one of the above criteria you have set?

It does not qualify for any of these criteria: belief about deity, often involving rituals, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of life. Namely, all of them.

Boagie does not wish to attack Christianity, but it seems quite obvious that you wish to attack science. It shows a general ignorance pertaining to science that you don't even realize that this is not even close to fair turnabout.

I contend the Bible, is an item of the system environment, not a system of itself. I have shown definitively that it, (and a rock) are not systems. They are simply disqualified by the absence of an entity.

You have only shown that you do not understand the wikipedia articles that you posted.

An entity has a distinct existence in that it exists independently of anything else, it is not like a quality which is dependent on something else for its existence. A book is an entity because you can say "this is a book". When you refer to the bible as an item, you refer to it as an entity.

When we have a system, we simply have a collection of interacting entities, with entities being concepts, things, beliefs, whatever.

When something is an entity within the system environment but not a part of the system, it is something related in some way to the system but has no interaction with it.

The bible could never be considered an item outside of a system, because it would have to be completely unrelated to all other things. It can be considered an entity because it has a distinct existence, we can look at it and say here is a bible, by itself. It is also a system, as it is a collection of interacting words, stories, guidelines, predictions, and instructions.

A rock is a system of all of those atoms that constitute it.

Had you included all the entities and systems mentioned in the Bible, and it's readers regardless of whether they were believers or not, and the churches, and the entities and systems effected by any of the aforementioned, you would have a Closed System, because that would include everything.

Does it include a recipe for a quiche?