Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Mars Man]

Hi there Doc !! :wave: Nice to see you here !! That was nice input. I have told several people that I do feel that the NT best articulates some of these things I call 'universal humanisms' than the OT, the Mahabharata, Ramayana, and the Quran (which I know actually little of though--I need to study there more.) The 'Golden Rule' is one example. It doesn't matter if Jesus had actually said those verbatum words or not (although I wouldn't try to claim that I know he did), anyone could have, the idea is universal and is locked in with the social function of reciprocation. That was a nice post.

See you around !! :wave:

 

[Revenant]

From the little I have studied of the Bible's history, there seem to be no original manuscripts, and those manuscripts found differed with each other in a few places.

But from a Christian perspective, I would think it would be imperative to understand the background of the cultures, and the original tongues of the manuscripts, etc.

In one argument I read, the Mosaic law was abolished, and the few passages that mention homosexuality were actually speaking out against a religious practice of those days, in which a man would have sex with the priest. But the nuance, or full meaning of the words were lost, and simply carried over as homosexual relations. That could be a grave error, were this theory to have validity, which it seems for the most to have. There is but one passage in which the person putting forth the argument didn't seem to give a good argument on, although I never asked him for any clarification.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

From the little I have studied of the Bible's history, there seem to be no original manuscripts, and those manuscripts found differed with each other in a few places.

I think this is more or less the point I was trying to make in post #39 above. As the oldest extant fragment of the NT dates only from 130CE, we can't be sure that the NT existed before that date - until we find an older fragment.



For me Jesus' teachings boil down to the emphasis of moral sincerity over religious ritual. Jesus was a liberal. IMHO he taught that as long as you try to live a good life, and you are genuinely sorry when you hurt someone, you're OK. When Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "No-one goes to the father but through me", I think he meant, "I have shown you what a good life is. Live the best life you can and you will go to heaven", not "Follow all the rules and you will go to heaven".

So whether you are a Christian, a homosexual, a Pagan or whatever, if you treat people right you are living the way Jesus taught. If you practise Christianity and you follow all the dogma, but you exploit people or you're not sorry when you hurt someone, then you are no Christian in Jesus' eyes.

 

[Mycernius]

From the little I have studied of the Bible's history, there seem to be no original manuscripts, and those manuscripts found differed with each other in a few places.

Manuscripts or writings that differ can be found for various myths and legends. The Epic of Gilgamesh that we know today was pieced together from various bits of Assyrian, Babylonian texts left behind by scribes that used it to practice their writing with. Hence the disjointed text that we end up with today. In the same way the Bible is the same. A collection of disjointed texts written by different people thoughout the Jewish and Christian history. The difference between the Bible and Gilgamesh is that the stories from the Bible were kept alive by the Jewish peoples as they never really died out, probably because they were a more homogenous people. The Assyrian, Babylonian peoples did and we have less of there history to work with, probably to do with invading armies from other regions. Even so their myth and stories do make it into early Jewish myth by way of the Flood myth in Genesis.

 

[No-name]

There is a difference in the way Jewish scribes treated OT scripture- in the way it is preserved and copied, and in the way the NT books were copied and diseminated. I remember reading how there were significant numbers of pieces and fragments of text that confirm centuries of accurate transcription-- but I don't have a source for this.

 

[Mars Man]

These little banners that automatically fall into place are just great--in a very amusing sense. I know, it's good for the forum, and that's good--no complaint at all, just funny--somebody's watching. hee,hee,hee..... :hihi:

Revenant chan, (if I may) nice to see you again. If you were to check back a little bit, I think you could find a tidbit or two here and there on this thread about the collecting for and making the various recensions. ( see my #12 post, pg.1--canon, recension and #40 post, pg. 2, pgh. 1 and that by Tsuyoiko--as she had mentioned.) As Mycernius had pointed out, there are a whole lot of these things, and not only in Greek and Latin. We can find Syric, Coptic, Arabic as well. There are a large number of differences, but the vast majority do not change the English translation, and a voting, so to speak, is done to choose which word will go into the recension (I'm talking about NT only here) There are, or have been, at the same time, some major changes in the text since the original 1611 King James version came out. I hope to talk about those too when I start some biblical text discussion posts in the near future--some detail would be needed, I feel.

I don't have time to go any deeper than this right now. I will get back soon.
See all you wonderful people tomorrow morning (it's 4:07 pm Wed. now) :wave:

 

[Revenant]

Revenant chan, (if I may) nice to see you again.

Nice to see you also, hope that chan is due to our age difference.

As Mycernius had pointed out, there are a whole lot of these things, and not only in Greek and Latin. We can find Syric, Coptic, Arabic as well. There are a large number of differences, but the vast majority do not change the English translation, and a voting, so to speak, is done to choose which word will go into the recension (I'm talking about NT only here)

Curious, the original manuscripts were in greek and latin? The words in question when it comes to homosexuality in the New Testament were, well I'll just quote him, since it would take far too long to type it out in my own words.

The two lists are poorly translated in the cases of homosexuality. Three words are found in these passages that are used to relate to homosexual sex: Pornia, Arsenokoitas and Malakoi. Pornia means pervert. That's all it really means. It refers to sexual perversion, but makes no statement as to what that perversion is. It is far too general to relate to homosexual sex. Malakoi refers to softness or effeminacy, with implications of perversion. The term is used to refer to a man who is too passionate and emotional, and who acts upon these. It relates to the Grecian concepts of gender identity. The man was not to be emotional in this fashion. If one stretches the meaning of the word, examples are found where Malakoi may refer to the bottom partner of pederasty. This is a relationship wherein a teenage boy traded sexual favors with an older man in return for guidance and training. It was common within Greek society and accepted in Roman society. Arsenokoitas is a compound word derived from the Greek words for man and bed. While this sounds like a clear reference to homosexuality to our modern ears, there is a problem. The word does not appear at any point prior to Paul's letters. To our knowledge, he created the term himself. It's usage in all other cases I am aware of either represents something akin to an aggressive sexual predator or, more commonly, the top partner in pederasty. At most these verses could possibly have listed pederasty as a crime, but not homosexual sex alone. You cannot read into the text the fact that, because something condemned includes another thing, that other thing is automatically condemned as well. For example, a person who breaks the commandment about not bearing false testimony against one's neighbor must communicate to do so. Communication is not condemned, is it? The condemnation of pederasty cannot be clearly related, even in consideration of Jewish morals that Paul is familiar with, to a condemnation of homosexual sex. Look at http://www.clgs.org/5/5_4_3.html for further details on the specifics of Arsenokoites and Malakoi.

That's not the entire argument, but since we're discussing translations and such...

 

[Pararousia]

For me Jesus' teachings boil down to the emphasis of moral sincerity over religious ritual. Jesus was a liberal. IMHO he taught that as long as you try to live a good life, and you are genuinely sorry when you hurt someone, you're OK. When Jesus said (and I paraphrase) "No-one goes to the father but through me", I think he meant, "I have shown you what a good life is. Live the best life you can and you will go to heaven", not "Follow all the rules and you will go to heaven".

So whether you are a Christian, a homosexual, a Pagan or whatever, if you treat people right you are living the way Jesus taught. If you practise Christianity and you follow all the dogma, but you exploit people or you're not sorry when you hurt someone, then you are no Christian in Jesus' eyes.

Hello again ya'll ;o)
Lots has been said since my last contribution, so I'll just jump right in. Tsuyoiko, I think Jesus said what He meant, and meant what He said. He meant it so much, that He died on a cross to save us from our sins. He then, in fact, rose again on the 3rd day. This is what He came to do intentionally. Living "right" or even following the teachings of Jesus isn't good enough. We must be "born again" as Jesus said. Our sins have separated us from a holy God and the only way to be "right" before Him, the Creator, is through the finished work of salvation that Jesus did on the cross. You can read more about that in detail here: http://www.711.net/gospel/doyouknow.html

I have to admire the tenancity of those who spend so much time trying to prove the Bible wrong and that God doesn't even exist. Do you suppose that there are fish who try to prove to other fish that the ocean isn't wet? Of course, we humans are of such higher intellect than fish we would laugh at that silly of an idea!

There are countless articles on the internet that can be easily accessed that are wonderful counterpoints to the many attempts here to try to disprove the Bible. Try this one for example: http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm which addresses some of the questions raised about the reliability of the New Testament. Hundreds of scholars who have studied the original languages for all of their life have worked collaboratively to give us today the most reliable translations, coupled with archeological research and literary research. When one looks at their collective work, and still persists in arguing that their own research is more correct, I have to shake my head in amazement. Perhaps the oceans are as dry as the Sahara, but the easier explanation for me personally is to realize that the words of Jesus ring true again when He said: "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God". In other words a heart/intellect can be so dead that no amount of evidence would convince a person otherwise, even if one rose from the dead.

Consider these things:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists.
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God
(i.e., as an act of God to confirm a word from God).
6. The New Testament is historically reliable.
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about Himself;
b. His sinless and miraculous life;
c. His prediction and accomplishment of His resurrection.
9. Therefore, Jesus is God.
10. Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true.
11. Jesus taught that the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God
(and anything opposed to it is false). *

In the end, if you who disbelieve are right and I am wrong, I have lost nothing. I will die and return to dust. However, if I am right, and the Bible is true, I will most certainly find heaven as my eternal home because I have trusted Jesus. Either way, I'm good to go.

*http://www.impactapologetics.com/12points.asp

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Hi Pararousia, nice to see you here again :wave:

Living "right" or even following the teachings of Jesus isn't good enough. We must be "born again" as Jesus said.

I stick by my interpretation of Jesus' teachings as 'spirit over letter'. I really, truly feel that it diminishes the important lessons Jesus wanted us to learn if we think he would reject us for not believing in him. A good teacher gives credit for hard work, integrity, kindness. A good teacher expects us to question him. Jesus was a good man, and I don't believe good men condemn people unless they harm others.

I have to admire the tenancity of those who spend so much time trying to prove the Bible wrong and that God doesn't even exist.

I don't think anyone here is trying to prove either of those things. I think we are here in the spirit of healthy skepticism - and I mean by that open-minded questioning, not debunking. We are searching for the truth, not trying to prove anything. We don't have an agenda.

There are countless articles on the internet that can be easily accessed that are wonderful counterpoints to the many attempts here to try to disprove the Bible. Try this one for example: http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm

I don't think anyone here denies that the Bible is historically accurate in places.

In other words a heart/intellect can be so dead that no amount of evidence would convince a person otherwise

I agree. I mean no disrespect, but I would use a similar phrase to describe those who refuse to accept that science has disproved much of what the Bible claims. Consider all the evidence before you and truths will eventually come to light. I am still going through the evidence, and I hope to keep finding more truths. I found some truths in the Bible.

Consider these things:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.

Maybe I'll have time to come back to the others, but for now I'll just look at this one. Truth about some reality is knowable. Quantum Mechanics/Chaos Theory/Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle indicate that there are some things we can never know.

In general, the rest of your points employ circular reasoning - you are assuming what you are trying to prove.

Anyway, thanks for your comments - it's always good to hear from you for some balance to the discussion !

 

[Mars Man]

(sung to the tune of 'Hello Dolly')
Well hello, Pararousia, well hello, Pararousia, it's so nice to have you back where you belong,.... Nice to see the warmth and emotion of your voice again. Welcome back.

Before saying anything else, I would suggest that it may be good to go back and check up on what has happened in the meantime, if you haven't done so already, and I'm pretty sure that somewhere along the way--either in this present thread, or before the switch-- I pointed out the fact (and it is a fact) that I'm not trying to claim, and think no one else here is either, that the best recensions we have today are unreliable. I fully trust the Nestle/Aland recension to be a best possible rendering of what the original penning would have been. There is no conflict there. Please do confirm what the word recension means. I look forward to discussing things with you when you have the time.

Revenant chan !! Thanks. Well, not only I, but a fair number of artist friends I hang out with always use that ending to express closeness. It also suggests cuteness. I use it regardless of age, however, so to me it doesn't matter if you could be my daughter or my mother's age, to me, you are 'chan'. In honesty, it has been your posts, and wording, that has shown to me that 'chan' in you--and besides, the rythym fits well. I'd call Tsuyoiko chan also--the flow is not as smooth though. (Is that o.k. with you my Martian sister?)

The original pennings would have been in Greek, as far as it can be determinded. Scholarship has somewhat devalued the claims by two early Church Fathers that the original Matthew had been in Aramaic. (A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, by W.D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., vol I, pp8-17; De Viris Inlustribus (tanslated), chapter III in the work by E.C. Richardson, 1896, pp 8,9) Without doubt, there had been an oral tradition, and that would have most reasonably been in Aramaic first, then closely followed by Greek and Latin. As far as manuscripts that were used in compiling the recension of Nestle/Aland, the latin older versions appear to date back to the second century, but the more recent and more used vulgate (attributed to Jerome) goes back to the fourth/fifth century. Jerome also claimed to have seen the Hebrew Matthew, but it cannot be verified, and is doubted. The oldest of the Syric versions goes back to the 3/4 centurys while the best attested to, the Peshitta, is consided a 4/5 cerntury work. The coptic works go back to the 3 century. With all these, the recension was put together and the apparatus was built. There were a number of other sources used as well.

I wish all of you had a copy of at least one recension so you could see the points and questioned and doubted and known to be spurious wordings. As one example, you all may be very familiar with the John 7:53-8:11 passage. In the Tyndale Bible, and thus, of course, the KJV or 1611, and then in some others until it became clear, this run was taken to be as much a part of the original text as was, say 1 Timothy 3:16. In my 1988 ABS edition of the KJV, you still find it as it had been, but in the others I have, you'll find brackets and footnotes (which, may I add, are a bit weak). The Vatican 1209, as all of the earliest manuscripts, simply do not have that section. And the later versions that do, all have it differently so as to contradict the witness to the original. That John 7:53-8:11 is spurious, is very sure, AND, Pararousia, this is not just my pet idea, this is scholarship, and this is a known to be true fact.

That's just one addition to the many reasons why it's so imperative to be able to think about the original text in the original tongue, if at all possible, and just how the 'church' has let the public down in so many ways.

I hope to start that discussion on such matters soon. See you all :wave:
AGAIN, I'm glad you're back Pararousia, I had actually been a little concerned about your absence, honestly. :relief:

 

[Mars Man]

Maybe I'll have time to come back to the others, but for now I'll just look at this one. Truth about some reality is knowable. Quantum Mechanics/Chaos Theory/Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle indicate that there are some things we can never know.

You've got it !! By YHWH, you've got it. These very things are right in there with the 'randomness' of nature that I'm so into.

(can you believe I've made such a short post? Wow....)

 

[No-name]

I guess my weak point is my lack of any knowledge of Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew. I have even seen the parallel interlineal text and heard countless sermons with linguistic references. Things often just bog down in this type of analysis, and some people use their "knowledge" to tell people that the book doesn't say what it actually says.

Pararousia- you have again given an exceptional explanation of the Gospel exactly the way we American evangelicals understand it in general. Tsuyouiko's effort to make the gospel more ecumenical and universal runs counter to our more orthodoxed reading. I understand the disagreement, but reconciling it requires a much deeper level of biblical study.

 

[Mars Man]

Pararousia, I checked out that site which you gave most recently, and have no qualms about that at all. I am familiar with all the points made, and understand the degree of accuracy there. That site, also, however missed the largest point about history in the NT which all other such apologetics and religionists have missed, namely that for a writer to claim that they know, verbatum, what someone has said, and in writing lay down what those exact words are, that same writer is saying that that is history. do you understand this truth?

For anyone to quote a quote that any NT writer has written saying "Jesus said, "...........", that person is saying that those quoted words are historically true. So, with that, please, I'd like to offer one small way to check that out, to verify the truthfulness of the idea I'm presenting. Please take the time to go back and look at the posts about the sign that was supposedly placed above Jesus' head when on the stake. Then, please let me know what you think was actually, historically written on that board. I honestly hope that you take it to heart, simply for the sake of honesty, and love.

Revenant chan, I see a small, or maybe larger degree of stretching in that argument on the homosexuality thing. I'll get back with you a bit later on that if you don't mind. I tend to think that this is another great misconception (due to ignorance) by Christianity--including Paul himself--and, of course, Judism. Catch you all later !! :wave:

Please check it out thoughtfully Pararousia (may I add 'chan' there too?) I always want to be friendly

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Pararousia- you have again given an exceptional explanation of the Gospel exactly the way we American evangelicals understand it in general. Tsuyouiko's effort to make the gospel more ecumenical and universal runs counter to our more orthodoxed reading. I understand the disagreement, but reconciling it requires a much deeper level of biblical study.

I think most of the people here who are claiming that the Bible doesn't have all the answers have studied the Bible in some depth. They have also studied other religions and philosophies, and also science and history. I find with many Christians that this breadth of knowledge is lacking - the Bible is believed to be true, so it is unnecessary to look for truth anywhere else. This is particularly evident in the Creationist arguments against Evolution - they just don't know enough about it.

My philosophy is entirely different. I don't limit my search to any one place, but I crave and hunger for knowledge no matter where it comes from. When I try to pinpoint my rejection of Christianity it keeps shifting, because there were so many doubts in a short time. One of the first seeds was when I read Genesis all the way through when I was 11 or 12. I found it very unsuitable reading - the only conclusion I could come to was that those recommending I read it had not read it all themselves. Surely if they had read it they would know that (for example) a story of two girls getting their father drunk and having sex with him was unsuitable reading for a pre-teen! (Genesis 19:30-38).

Anyway, no matter how much I study the Bible - and I know nothing compared to my Martian brother - for me it will never be a substitute for scientific method. It is a fact that science has proven the Bible wrong and that science has revealed truth, so that's where I'll put my trust.

BTW Mars Man, you may call me chan if you wish, it makes me feel young. I will call you sensei!

Edit: I just saw this quote:
Faith is a vice.
It is a substitute for courage.
It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie. - Galendir (whoever that is)

 

[No-name]

Tsuyoiko-
I always appreciate your quest for knowledge and the tone and humor evident in your posts.

My statement- It wasn't meant as a slam to either one of you- I was just saying that the two viewpoints you guys have is difficult to reconcile- especially using the Bible- and would take a lot of work.

My whole view of science v. religion: they serve different but equally valid functions. Evolution is the appropriate scientific view of our origin, but it makes the Biblical one no less valid. I can believe in a faith sense that God created me, but also know in a real scientific sense that I am a biological product of my parents. The two do not contradict each other. I for one do not want science taught in churches, nor do I wish religion taught in science classes.

I still haven't gotten around to Gould yet. Is there a particular book I should read?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Sabro-sensei :wave:

I would recommend any book by Dr Gould, but the one most relevant to this topic is Rocks of Ages. Let me know what you think!

 

[Mars Man]

Revenant chan, I looked over the site which you had been embedded in that quote on homosexuality. The information on the site was more accurate, overall, than that quote. The NT use of porneia is better translated 'illicit' or 'unlawful' sexual act. Regarding the other points, the whole thing that can be learned is that we really don't know, here, just exactly what Paul (the more likely originator of 1 Co. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10) had had in mind, although I would argue for his strict standing within Judaism before becoming Christian (taking that all as general hisorical truth). In doing so, I would think that the more likely lean would have been against 'men lying with men'--as is clearly worded in the Hebrew text. If we take the argument that is in Romans 1:26,27, as a schematic for Paul's thought on this subject, then I would reason that more likely the historical person would have been against such a thing. The two afore mentioned verses--the only ones that use the arsenokoitai style--are actually up for grabs. I don't have the details on hand at the moment, but do recall a number of Greek words which for the NT writers had obviously been applied in a different sense from the world around them at that time. The site's article is very correct in saying that translators often tend to translate from modern modes of thinking and sometimes read too much into passages in the Bible. This word, arsenokoitas, should at best be simply 'lying with men', when carried over as an influence of the Hebrewism from where it more likely would have come.

For the Hebrew style one can check: Gen. 19:33,34,35 (as Tsuyoiko so painfully learned about early in life) 30:15, 39:7; Ex 22:19; Lev 18:22, 20:11-13, 18,20; etc.

The position you appear to have taken, sabro, on the science .vs. religion dialog, is called the 'contrast' position. I would suggest that such a position might eventually create a sullen view of taking in new knowledge and information. There is one further step called the 'contact' position, where there is an attempt to find any possible unified understanding of reality. I have tried to work in that framework, since I have found that the simple 'the Bible says so' doesn't work. I have found it as fulfilling as when I was involved with Christianity.

That article which Revenant had provided had pointed out a common misconception in Christianity which we have been touching on here as well, namely that the 'The-Bible-says-it,-I-believe-it,-and-that-settles-it' attitude is grossly mistaken. In my search for what's true (as Tsuyoiko mentioned) and for reasonableness and honesty, I have also found that attitude a stumbling block for learning more.

I have found that science can and does have a lot to say about subjects which writers of old didn't quite have a good grip on--such as the Genesis account of creation. (Of course if we were to take all of that as not being an attempt to narrate the historical steps of creation, but simply symbolism to teach some moral or spiritual truth, there would be no conflict--however then there never would have been any 'Creation .vs. Evolution' arguments to begin with.)

Pararousia, I hope to hear from on that 'sign' point, when you have the time.
See you later :wave:

 

[No-name]

Thanks Mars Man- I like the 'contrast position'. I also tried to reason it it from the point of view of pre-supposing the Genesis story and asking what it would look like. What should you find if the bible story is true? My thinking goes something like this: If God created the world in 6 days, would the soil have a complete and sustaining biology? Would the trees on that first week have rings? Would there be soil strata and a geological/biological history complete with fossils and formations and oil deposits? On that first day when light was created how old would the sun appear? (A new star would not be appropriate to support life on this planet.) Would Adam and Eve have belly buttons? And even though a creator of such a complex and intricate system would have intimate scientific knowledge of it, when confronted with Moses and his wandering horde, how would He share this with him, what kind of story would He tell?

I'm not certain why creationists assume that God would somehow make the world and show all the tool marks and pencil lines humans might end up with. You would never have ringless trees, or incomplete ecosystems, or a non-functional biology. You would expect viable soil, geological formations and sediments that seem to have taken millions of years to form. Why would he make it look six days old all those years ago? Why would he try to explain everything in exacting scientific detail to a pre-scientific people who wouldn't understand?

So it doesn't really matter if we did evolve at all. My faith in God is not based on scientific certainty.

Does this make any sense?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

You are making perfect sense Sabro. Your method sounds a lot like the scientific method used to test the theory of evolution. One of the common arguments of creationists is that evolution is not a scientific theory because it cannot be tested. True(-ish), we cannot test evolution in a lab in the same way in which you would mix sodium and chlorine in a test tube to see what happens. But evolutionists can theorise about what they would expect to see assuming the theory, then check if the fossil record matches those expectations.

You have really opened my eyes Sabro. I have never before met a Christian who is as sure in their faith, open-minded, prepared to accept criticism and able to explain their ideas clearly as you are. Before I heard your views I found it hard to understand how someone who understands and accepts the findings of science could also be a Christian, but you have made it clear to me. Thank you! :bravo:

 

[lexico]

Why would he make it look six days old all those years ago? Why would he try to explain everything in exacting scientific detail to a pre-scientific people who wouldn't understand ?

This, and the reasoning leading to it reflects some genuine thinking that makes good sense to me. It's almost like a scientific explanation I would like to give my children if they should ask. Thanks for sharing that.

So it doesn't really matter if we did evolve at all. My faith in God is not based on scientific certainty.

Does this make any sense ?

It makes very good sense to me. I believe the purpose of the original message was rather on a different plane from what an astrophysicist or a science historian might try to handle nature. Yet what appear to be identical are not identical in reality. It can either take a great amount of reasoning to manage the 'contrast position' or syncretic reasoning which is basically removing conflicts or presuppositions that assume conflicts and consider the whole to be harmonised. This should take away the majority of undue intellectual load.

As for 'contact position,' while it may be shown somehow, some day, that it is valid, I think it might just have too many incongruent points if the plane of knowledge is assumed to be identical. (But it would be great to formulate a Unified Theory.)

On a side note I could also question; why do we need a unified theory ? A mosaic of 'statements' that somehow hold together without a fundamental contradiction would not be problem at all. Nobody can prove the validity of "Occam's Razor" although inductive reasoning seem to support it.

Still inductive proofs do not constitute a proof as a proof is by definition dedective unless all combination of possible states are scanned and verified to be true.