Category: Ralph Haulk

I’m not picking on Corky personally, but on the assumptions and arguments which he makes, based on general assumptions rather than proofs.

For example, can we prove, by any physical method known, that there exists a decision procedure such that we can get from “here” to “God” in a proven fashion?

No, there is not, and since there is not, any attempt to try and organize according to “God’s will” results in confusion and enslavement to religious ideas. This is fully consistent with Romans 8:7.

I’ve stated it enough, and with no challengers.

I’ve also put it in other language. If we could create a decision procedure to get to God, that decision procedure would be subject to language, meaning it is also subject to algorithms and programming. Corky has presented the general “christian” argument that Paul says we can make a decision to “please God” by our efforts at being “born again”.

In fact, Paul didn’t say that. If he had, then there would be no confusion within Christianity, since all definitions could be reduced to finite, logical, rational processes, thus eliminating any confusion whatever regarding God. This is plainly shown false by Romans 8:7.

Marvin Minsky and Seymour Papert presented a paper on the relationship between the mind and the complexities of the brain, and concluded that the brain itself contained so many levels, and capacity for ‘framing” reality that the mind could not represent the workings of the brain due to its complexity, at that time, anyway.

That is also called the Church-Turing thesis, which states that the brain is nothing more than a computer subject to physical laws, and which may ultimately be mapped, but since the mapping process is subject to Godel’s theorem, it will never contain a consistent complete framework of the brain’s complexity.

That is, we can’t know our own mind, because we can’t understand how it works. or even more simply, the “software” of our mind cannot reach into the “hardware” of our brain and alter its programming.

The reason why that is so is because the “software” of the mind operates BECAUSE the “hardware” of the brain works as it does. The ‘software’ performs because the ‘hardware’ drives it.

Paul makes some interesting statements paralleling this point in Romans 7:14, RSV:

“We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.
“I DO NOT UNDERSTAND MY OWN ACTIONS”.

So, we have Paul here saying that the functions of his own physical brain could not be understood by the examination of his mind. Not so different from the conclusions of Minsky and Papert.

Verse 21: “So I find it to be law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand.
“I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members”.

Paul quite simply said he couldn’t keep the law. he said he had a carnal mind, “sold under sin”.
Corky implied that Paul taught we could make choices to keep the law, while Paul admitted that he, Paul, could not obey it. He couldn’t obey it because the mind is incapable of reaching into the brain and altering its main drives. The “law” of the brain works at odds with the ‘law’ of the mind, and as Paul plainly admitted he couldn’t understand his actions.

Is this a reason that men should be held in condemnation to “sin”? Of course not. If the mind cannot freely choose to perfectly keep the law in a moral fashion, then one could simply be “dead to the law”, free from the penalty.

As I wrote earlier, it is impossible for the mind to define truth. We simply can’t do it. Even assuming, therefore, that we COULD control our brains and never break any laws, we could not ever know in advance if the decisions we make will avoid “evil” results(Church’s theorem).

Paul clearly admitted this, simply by examining his brain by using his conscious mind, and realizing that there was another level over which he simply had no control because he could not understand it.

So, first of all, we can;t ever define truth in one package of decisions(Godel’s theorem), and second, we can’t know the overall results of the decisions we actually DO make(Church’s theorem).

Douglas Hofstadter, in the book Godel, Escher, Bach, describes it this way:”…it is perfectly obvious that a computer can be instructed to print out a sequence of illogical statements–or for variety’s sake, a batch of statements having random truth values. Yet in following such instructions, a computer would not be making any mistakes! On the contrary, it would only be a mistake if the computer printed out something other than the statements it had been instructed to print.. This illustrates how faultless functioning on one level may underlie symbol manipulation on a higher level–and the goals of the higher level may be completely unrelated to the propagation of truth.”

This, said Hofstadter, may be compared to “an incorrect belief held in the software of the mind, supported by the faultlessly functioning brain”.

The brain, by physical, “carnal” standards, functions “faultlessly”, yet will produce flawed concepts of truth, resulting in infinite interpretations of truth. And the mind simply cannot access that function to re-program the brain to drive toward truth, because the mind itself cannot define truth!

“There is no reason to believe that a computer’s faultlessly functioning hardware could not support high level symbolic behavior which would represent such complex states as confusion, forgetting, or appreciation of beauty. It would require that there exist massive sub-systems interacting with each other according to a complex ‘logic’. The overt behavior could appear either rational or irrational; but underneath it would be the performance of reliable, logical hardware”.

So, as Paul simply stated, “I do not understand my actions”.

Corky attempt to have his cake and eat it too. He proclaims that Paul is flawed because Christianity is confused. How? because Paul allegedly stated that we must somehow choose by “freewill” to somehow overcome the complexity of our mind and organize systems according to “God’s truth”. Corky is using the flawed premise of Christianity to demonstrate that the premise of Paul is also flawed, while Paul has directly contradicted the premise of Christianity., and so did Jesus in John 6:44 and Matthew 24

:23.

“No man can come to me unless the Father draw him…” Quite simply, and consistent with the developments of metamathematics, there exists no decision procedure by which we may get from “here” to “God”.

Christianity, therefore, represents confusion precisely because it teaches that we CAN make such decisions. In actual fact, we cannot.

Comments

I noticed Corky’s response in the article “The God Factory” and i will challenge him on his conclusions.

Corky states “What Paul was teaching was the renewing of the mind, the “born again” thing.

The assumption Corky makes, which Paul does not, is that we can, by some process of our own choosing, be “born again”. A flawed assumption at the best. Corky does what most people do when attempting to respond “about” something. If I can lead people to conclude that a specific point is made without actually pointing directly to the statement or its philosophical premises, then I can convince people that I have come to the proper conclusion.

First off, let me agree with Corky that there ,most likely was no Adam and Eve, and no “fall” in a magical Garden of Eden. However, dopes that make the philosophical conclusions Paul draws false? Not at all. There are many examples of Narcissism in which psychologists draw perfectly legitimate conclusions regarding the concept of Narcissism, yet we know there most likely never was a Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection.

Corky would be correct IF Paul had stated that being “born again” actually did lie within the power of our human choice, simply because, as i pointed out in the article regarding Turing, Godel, and Church, any attempt by any human mind to define truth will lead to an infinity if undecidable propositions, which means that any attempt to “decide” which is the true religion will result in thousands of undecidable ideas about Christianity, as we see today.

Therefore, Corky’s conclusions “about” Paul’s teachings is flawed because he ignores the central statement which Paul makes: the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, which, in itself, points to the obvious conclusion that all human attempts to represent God will result in exactly what we see today, over 38,000 versions of Christianity.

Corky has a bad habit of throwing in general ideas. “The idea is”. Whose idea? he doesn’t say. That’s like the expression ‘they say’. Who is “they”?

There is no “they”, and there is no human “idea” that can act as authority, for the very simple reason that the natural mind is enmity against God. Does that mean Paul’s premise is flawed? Not at all. Does it mean that Christianity is flawed? Obviously, since Christianity assumes that we CAN make “freewill” choices as to what is “God’s truth”.

As Corky writes: “The natural mind was not subject to the law of God, but the born from above mind was”.

The question that immediately presents itself is: what is a “born from above” mind? Who knows? I can’t define it, and neither can any other human to the satisfaction of giving a worthwhile answer. The term, therefore, is meaningless from any human definition, and any attempt to define it will produce the “confusion of Christianity” as Corky says.

Corky writes, “Therefore, you have to die and be ‘born again’. To be ‘in Christ’ instead of ‘in Adam’.

Is there a flawed conclusion in this? Not at all, since from a purely legal perspective, you would be free from law, which means you are free from the power of human laws that would attempt to punish you of its own power. There are no laws against a dead man. Does this mean you suddenly have the power to know truth? Of course not, nor does Paul say it does. he merely says there is no condemnation to those who follow Christ. Not only a sound but of reasoning, but quite useful in terms of the application of human law.

Corky quotes from the bible: “In Adam, all die, In Christ shall all be made alive”.

Again, let’s examine this purely from the standpoint of law. The penalty of sin(lawbreaking) is death. Therefore, by the act of one innocent man who was killed and declared it the right of all men to be presumed Innocent, then within that concept, all men will be made alive. Dead to the law, since law cannot punish a dead man. Alive by the recognition that we can not be held responsible simply by the power of law.

Corky further writes: “It all depends on if you are ‘in Adam’ as ‘the natural man’ or ‘in Christ’ as the ‘spiritual man’.”

Depends on whose conclusions?” By what human standards? By what authority? Name such an authority. You can’t. None exists. Therefore, I am “free in Christ” because I say I’m free in Christ. Now suppose I say I’m free with no need of Christ or any religion. That would be equally valid, since Jesus himself told us in Matthew 24;23 not to follow any person who said “here is Christ”. That is, we are free from the penalty of law, period, without a proper accuser.

“Just a bunch of hocus pocus since there never was an Adam and Eve in the magical garden…no ‘fall’…etc”.

I’m fine with that, since I believe it’s purely a myth invented by Persian influences.

Corky writes: All this talking around it with quotes from Jesus and Paul is just adding to the confusion that Christianity already is”.

I’m not “talking around” it, Corky. You are. I’ve directly shown that statements made by Paul and Jesus are fully consistent with logic. You have rather sloppily presented arguments “around” ideas taught by people who claim to represent Christ, when there is no possible evidence of such representation.

IF the natural mind is enmity against God and cannot be subject to God, what is the result? Exactly what we see today, showing that Paul’s statement is consistent with reality.

And if the natural mind cannot be subject to God, then there is logically no reason to follow any person who claims to represent Christ, which is what Jesus said in Matthew 24:23. Simple, direct logic, Corky, and you insist in “talking around it”, not me.

Logically, since there exists no authority to represent God, as we see plainly and logically from statements made by Paul, then there needs to be no “confusing Christianity” since there’s no need to follow any religion.

prove me wrong, Corky. And do it by actual logic, not simply implications and insinuations.

Comments

In “Corky’s” response in the comments section, he shows a keen insight into what I’ve been getting at in this whole process.

Jewish law had little to nothing to do with a “soul” that was immortal, to be “saved, by a “higher” doctrine as in traditional Christianity, but with the human body, the human mind, here and now, as we relate to this world around us.

The human body IS a “soul”, or at least that was the general assumption of the Jews.

Within the concept of law, the “redemption of the body” was the all important aspect of Jewish law. The “kingdom of God” was an earthly kingdom, to be established in obedience to God, representing all the people of the world.

There is no biblical evidence that Jesus changed that idea into a mystery religion of immortal souls to be saved and taken to heaven, or December 25th as a holy day of his birth, or of Easter, etc..

The teaching was merely about law, how we relate to it, what it means to us, here and now, and how we can claim it for ourselves on this earth. The total reversal of the idea of Jewish birthright was challenged right out of the gate by both Paul and Jesus, who told Nicodemus that unless a man is “born again” or “born from above”, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

Contrary to the general assumptions of traditional Christianity, this concept merely challenged the power of worldly government to control any human who chose to be “born of God”.

Dominic Crosson, for example, points out that a “son of God” by the usual standards, was a god-king who ruled over empires, born of a family of gods chosen to rule. Yet in John 1:12-13, we see a complete reversal of this process:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe n his name:
“Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.

When you compare this to what Jesus allegedly told Nicodemus, this is complete freedom from ALL human power structures, including the birthright of Israel itself. You are “born of God” and therefore outside the will of man, simply by your choice!

But if you’re born of God by free choice, how does that square with Paul’s teaching in Romans 8:29-30? It should be easily resolved. While any of us can make the claim to be ‘elect” or specially born of God, no human authority can say otherwise, because the ultimate choice lies with God! There can be no human authority that can represent such a power or control us in “God’s name”, yet each of us, as individuals, can claim the freedom of “sons of God” with none having the right or authority to challenge it! That’s individual sovereignty!

What this means, quite simply, is that we have the right to challenge all human authority systems in “God’s name”. Not only that, but every state constitution within the United States recognizes that fact!

While the mystery religions try to elevate Jesus into some kind of “Mithraized” divinity, the story itself merely tells of a man born of the humblest circumstances who, as Paul said, “thought it not robbery to be equal with God”.

The story is merely of a common man who claimed nothing that wasn’t claimed by all Jews who declared themselves to be the sons of God by virtue of the promise to Abraham. In fact, no man can make that claim for himself exclusively, as no one except God knows who that person is, as Paul plainly stated. The main difference, of course, is that it was offered to all humankind as an individual right to freedom before the law.

Let’s say Pilate wasn’t the benign servant of the people that the bible indicates. What it DOES indicate, and the point repeatedly made, is that a man was put to death for whom no crime could be attributed. When Jesus refused to answer his accusers, that was an ancient law recognized as the right against self incrimination. Israel recognized it, and Rome recognized it as the right to face the accuser(Acts 25:16). There was also the right to be informed of the crime accused of committing(Acts 25:27).

Rome also recognized a form of habeas corpus for Roman citizens as Acts 2:27-28 shows. These were all principles of law as recognized by both Jews and Rome(Isaiah 50:8, Isaiah 54:17).

The story is very simple, and need not require any “spiritual” justification to give it authority. Jesus was innocent, and the law put him to death with no justification. Therefore, he paid for no “sin” of his own, since ‘sin’ is defined as breaking the law(1 John 3:4).

Therefore, in the simplest possible fashion, of you were “born of God”, you were no longer subject to god-kings who only claimed that distinction, but you had the right to claim that same sovereignty! You had the presumption of innocence with God’s vindication( Isaiah 54;17), the right to face your accuser with God’s guarantee of protection(Isaiah 50:8), which we recognize in law today as the presumption of innocence!

The “kingdom of God” can be invoked, any time, any place, anywhere a person so chooses! We see this in Matthew 18:15-18, and in 1 Corinthians 6. Jesus pointed out in Matthew 18 that “whatever you(two or three of you) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose will be loosed in heaven”. That is the complete legal authority of ANY two or three people to agree among themselves!

What does our U.S. Constitution tell us? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. And what is due process of law? It is defined as law which traces to common law, “lawful judgement of peers”, rights that pre-existed the Constitution, as defined from Magna Carta. Historian Max DiMont points out that it was the Puritans and Quakers who took the principles of Magna Carta and “Hebraized” them, making them apply to all persons, not just Barons or leaders in government.

“Lawful judgement of peers” goes back to ancient times in the bible itself, guaranteeing the accused the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a legitimate accuser, not a paid advocate of government!

Jesus taught these things, said he would return, and did not return. Dies that make the principle itself false? Or does it mean that we now have the responsibility for ourselves to discover these principles and act on them as free individuals?

Jesus told the Jews of his day, “the kingdom of God is within you”. As Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas said, mea culpa(I am guilty) lies between a man and his God. It is a confession that cannot be extracted by any earthly power.

Corky has touched on a profound idea here, and the “redemption of the body” lies within your choice, my choice, and of any human who wishes for justice, mercy, and judgement on this earth.

The will and the power lies within you. Use it wisely.

0 Comments