| the bible is fault y
Posted: 10/31/2006 10:31:29 PM | | I find it hard to believe that I have been studying religion for over 35 years and for the first time on this thread hear that Yahweh was a local storm God in Zorasterianism. I do not believe this for one second. Khrock, I would like to know how you came by this information. Please share your source. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 10/31/2006 11:48:02 PM | Actually more specifically RDToo, if you go back far enough, the God worshipped by the Israelites is termed "The Lord" but this is the same word as "Ba-El", one of the Sons of El. El is the Chief God of the Caananite pantheon. Generally in archaeological terms the ancient temples, of which the Israel temple bears the same overall design, are of the same group as a type that can be called Proto-Caananite. They all belong to the same cultural group.
There is also some discussion that the specific Ba-el or Lord of the Israelites was also the God of the Mountain that Moses went up, the mountain of the Midianites, and was YHWH. whose exact name is not known but has been come to be called Yahweh and was a storm god/thunder God.
Referring to enemy Gods as Baal in the Bible was common but in archaeological reality, it only means "The Lord" of a given city as gods literally were thought ot have power that physically emanated from their house. Depending on the time in history that you view the Israelite God this belief was also held. The view of modern Judaism does not extend even back as far as the second Temple. Prior to the Babylonian Captivity they (Israelities) could be best described as henotheists - IOW they acknowledged the real existence of other deities as real entities but simply believed their God "The LORD" to be supreme. Following the Captivity, by the time of the writing of Isaiah, a clear unwavering monotheism begins to emerge that has more in common with todays Judaism.
If you want to find sources on this, any good book on Near Eastern religions should help.
There is a wiki entry that lists a name or two and should follow up on a few references...the Ugaritic texts are a famous starting place
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugaritic
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1113436
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism#Israelite_beliefs_and_Judaism | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 11/1/2006 9:42:54 PM | | Fiddler, I am really not interested in revisionist history. It seems that some (ahem) scholar discovers something new every year or so which "just might be.....". I say poppycock. Show me the sources. Something that originates farther back than 1997. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 11/1/2006 10:26:59 PM | | Okay, not to kibbitz here, or nothing, but why is it that the "Grand Archaeological Discoveries" that support widely held interpretations of biblical history are valid, while the equally academic and scholarly work that turns up challenges to the literalist worldview are simply "revisionist history"? | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 11/1/2006 10:37:04 PM | In case you didn't read any of the links or follow up on them...
Oh who am I kidding...it's pretty obvious you didn't.
The Ugaritic texts were found in 1928. We're talking the era of the Valley of the Kings and just after Tut's tomb here...
People have been studying this for...what 7 decades? Revisionist history?
No offense but on this one, seriously...get your head out of your a**. This is real history. Real archaeology. To refer to this as "revisionist" does a serious disservice to the scholarship involved.
Here's a review of Smith's book from a writer at Loyola University
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/JHS/reviews/review031.htm
Do your own Google search on the Ugaritic Texts...don't just look at the work of one author...it's HARDLY the study of one author and it's hardly controversial...not by a long shot...just because you haven't heard of it...for some people this is EXTREMELY old hat in the Biblical studies and Near Eastern Religions community.
19-frigging28 Man!
Think about it.
Try a library.
Sheesh! Sorry if I seem like I am loosing patience here...but dude...this is not some obscure made up stuff...to those in the field this is really like nuts and bolts. | |
|
| the bible is fault y?
Posted: 3/14/2008 11:08:40 PM | And you're not bashing Loci when you say " Some don't realize that jesus was that love, but I can understand that. it will all get clear." ?
Do you have ANY idea how insulting and arrogant you have just been to Loci and so many others that don't share your view point?
That's the problem with many religions -Arrogance with the cloak of humility.
The USA is in the midst of what is partially a "holy war"(the Arrogance that we are a "godly" nation and right and we need to "save" others). In reality it's 99% greed over profit.(hidden in the cloak).
I can't think of one war in history that hasn't been fought over personal religious beliefs. If someone can please add.
This thread is most like the kids in the sandbox fighting over who is the most popular and leaving out the weak, meak and humble.
Religion IS POLITICS -with the arrogant cloak of humility.
And yes, the bible is faulty. so are every other religious books. If you believe differently you haven't studied enough.Until you can personally bring me a perfect person in the flesh, who couldn't servive in this world-stop being holier than thou. And please, no comments on Jesus having been here and i need faith. | |
|
| the bible is fault y?
Posted: 3/15/2008 11:56:35 AM | It's rather amusing to hear Loci being criticized for worshipping a white stag deity, while RD extolls the worship of *a book*. A book.... put together by a Roman council that selectively picked through oodles of Jewish scriptures and decided what should be included, and then discarded the rest as somehow irrelevant.
Moreover, where did those scriptures originate? They originated from the spiritual experience of the Jewish people as expressed through the filter of their culture and language.
Hmmm.... God in a box. How easily manageable. How smaller than life. How convenient. | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/15/2008 12:15:54 PM |
There is something I have noticed about ex-Christians, not just on this forum but elsewhere as well. They all seem to have been either Catholic or Pentecostal/Charismatic. .......
.........Anyone have any ideas or comments about this?
As far as Catholics go, why on earth would anyone want to stay with a church that condones child abuse & actively tries to circumvent the laws we have for prosecuting guys who stick their**** up littles boys butts?
We have intellectual vacuums that stay with the church & donate $$ of sundays to pay off the victims of the crimes that their religious leaders condone?
If there were actually a god looking down (& assuming he is smarter than the wilfully ignorant worshippers) it would seem that ANY member of the catholic church is ABSOLUTELY garanteed a place in hell & no amount of magic spells & chanting etc is going to save their sorry asses.
Any catholic with an IQ larger than their shoe size has to be saying to themselves "**** this, I'm OUTTA here!!" | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/15/2008 12:38:28 PM | Not me
I was, in turn, non-denominational, Pentecostal (way TOO weird for me) Maranatha (which I believe is a form of pentecostal) Seventh Day Adventist (true literalists but super nice people, the most "christian" of the bunch IMHO), Spiritualist and attended a few non-denominational churches. I also studied Rosicrucianism(still do), Jehovah Witness, Catholicism and some other more generic beliefs. I've had friends who were raised Mormon as well and I picked their brains.. My family is marginally Catholic so I picked their brains also since I was not raised in any faith...just a basic "treat other people nice" sort of thing.
Then I was curious about other belief systems and began to look into them.. but never joined/adhered to any since I left the christian church. I REALLY need to learn more about Judaism to understand modern christianity and scripture better (thanks MADFIDDLER) I am now eclectic... for lack of a better term. Maybe a true agnostic (?)
I've never been baptised... by my own choice. (long story) Though I have shared in communion.
I have met many christian people of all sorts.. some were fabulous and I am honoured to have known them...some were frightened and ignorant little 'bots who used religion to justify their shortcomings, and some were so apathetic to personal resposibility that they NEEDED someone to tell them what to think, how to behave and what to believe because they were too damn lazy to do this for themselves... or maybe too frightened to take responsibility for their own existance...who knows.
I will NEVER say that what each person experiences or believes isn't real to them.. or has no value.. I found some things of value everywhere and in each belief system. I also found a whole lot of fear and prejudice and nonsense. I found that following one's own heart is a very difficult thing.. and sometimes quite lonely.
So here I am.... but I don't like the term "non-christian"... that seems to imply "anti-christian" which in my case isn't true at all.
Peace | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/15/2008 1:46:52 PM |
So here I am.... but I don't like the term "non-christian"... that seems to imply "anti-christian" which in my case isn't true at all.
Only the religious among us seem to have words for people who don't do/think their way.
We don't describe Nuclear Physicists as (for instance) "non-proctologists" or "anti-proctologists"
& we don't describe Dentists as "non-cab drivers" or anti-cab drivers"
The mere existance of the word "atheist" is because the regious people needed a word to describe people who are different.
Here's a newsflash, We already have a word for the "non'religious". That word is "Rational". No one ever commits a crime because they are "too rational". | |
|
| Something I've noticed about ex-Christians
Posted: 3/16/2008 5:44:33 AM |
So here I am.... but I don't like the term "non-christian"... that seems to imply "anti-christian" which in my case isn't true at all.
I am in agreement with Ravenstar about the term, "non-christian", but perhaps for different reasons.
HHHHmmm....Christian / true christian / non-christian / anti christian /ex christian ,,,,,,when taken in toto..... seems to imply that christianity is somehow the default belief system among many alternative belief systems.....and that any belief system other than christianity is the be compared against the default belief system. I find that way to weird. Perhaps we should refer to christians as non buddhists or non atheists or non islamists....it makes just as much sense.  | |
|
| get stuff
Posted: 3/16/2008 8:01:07 AM |
Indeed I was Lutheran. It's a very vanilla religion, comforting to the old folks who don't want to put a lot of energy into their faith. I left because it was just too tame. Since then I've found voodoo, and let me tell you, that's some exciting religion! What other faith includes the creation of zombies? Now excuse me, I gotta go read some entrails.
Christianity has the zombie Lazarus as well as a zombie invasion of Jerusalem. 500 zombies descended upon Jerusalem after the zombification of Jesus. I got to admit that Christianity is a cool religion. It's got lots of zombies, but also talking animals (like asses and snakes), dragons, unicorns, and 4 legged flying monsters.
By the way, as per RD's theory I was a Catholic. I later became a Fundamentalist (though I didn't join any particular denomination). I've been an Atheist for over 10 years and don't see that changing any time soon (and even if it did I wouldn't become a Christian). | |
|
| Ex-Christians...
Posted: 3/16/2008 8:12:43 AM |
Therefore, to be "ex-christian" on would have had to adhere to those beliefs, and subsequently given up that belief structure for a different one (ie, buddhism, spiritualism, even atheism [yeah I know you atheists hate to admit it])
What belief structure is inherent to Atheism? Atheists are unified in one thing, and one thing only: The lack of belief in any god or gods. Atheism is a belief structure the same way that bald is a hair color. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 8:22:58 AM |
I find it hard to believe that I have been studying religion for over 35 years and for the first time on this thread hear that Yahweh was a local storm God in Zorasterianism. I do not believe this for one second.
That's not what he said. He said that Judaism is Reformed Zoroastrianism with a Canaanite bent (Yahweh was Canaanite, not Zoroastrian). I disagree, though. I think Judaism is a Reformed Canaanite with a Zoroastrian bent. It's not clear exactly where Yahweh comes from, but he was merged with the Canaanite El, Ba'al and Ashterah became false gods and their followers the object of persecution, and Yahweh/El took on properties of Ahura Mazda and Angra Mainyu. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 9:47:18 AM | | Jmars, if you can accept the idea of a God who set all things in motion, then it is easier to accept the idea that He made sure whatever He wanted to communicate to us made it into the "Book" regardless of what the Roman Church Council decided. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 11:25:26 AM | RDtoo, and if you can accept the idea of a God who set all things in motion, and who created us in his own image, I can scarcely see why anyone would chose to trust in a dusty old tome -- written by a specific culture of humans for a specific culture of humans, and then selelctively picked over and ultamtely deprived of context, and then translated and retranslated with the usual corresponding loss of sense -- over and above their own God-Given common sense and conscience and sense of wonder.
I'll take the White Stag if its all the same to you. And even if it isn't all the same to you for that matter. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 1:46:14 PM | Wow...I believe in the god of ressurrecting long dead moldy threads...
 Aiiieee! Flee! *munch munch* Brrraaaaiiinssss...braaainsss... | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 2:55:47 PM |
chelloveck said: HHHHmmm....Christian / true christian / non-christian / anti christian /ex christian ,,,,,,when taken in toto..... seems to imply that christianity is somehow the default belief system among many alternative belief systems.....and that any belief system other than christianity is the be compared against the default belief system. I find that way to weird. Perhaps we should refer to christians as non buddhists or non atheists or non islamists....it makes just as much sense. To you maybe. But it would be less accurate. And that's the issue with words. The more accurate one should be the one used. Whether you take offence at that or spin it into another Straw Man is totally irrelevant (all words chosen with absolute precision).
someone said: Therefore, to be "ex-christian" on would have had to adhere to those beliefs, and subsequently given up that belief structure for a different one (ie, buddhism, spiritualism, even atheism [yeah I know you atheists hate to admit it])
CountIbil responded: What belief structure is inherent to Atheism? Atheists are unified in one thing, and one thing only: The lack of belief in any god or gods. Atheism is a belief structure the same way that bald is a hair color. A nice example. Limey's lack of understanding of the English language notwithstanding, "atheism" is a compound word that simply means "belief in no god(s)" (or "no belief in gods"). I'm with the Count on this one.
To the "someone": All that is required to be an "ex" anything is for that previous state to have ended. No new replacement state is required (think: "ex-wive", "ex-girlfriend", "ex-Marine", "ex-manager", "ex-football player", ex-runner", etc.)
As for the unifying of atheists, it's interesting that someone who came a-humping my posts caused me to think of why the need to do so. Then I remembered the disagreement. She described herself as an "atheist" and I pointed out that she was in fact angrily opposed to religion and theism, making her an "anti-theist", she stated that the definition of "atheism" is "against belief in gods". So you see, even among "atheists" there are those who use the word inaccurately. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 3:12:50 PM |
A nice example. Limey's lack of understanding of the English language notwithstanding, "atheism" is a compound word that simply means "belief in no god(s)" (or "no belief in gods"). I'm with the Count on this one.
Perhaps you can enligten us with the word we use for people who don't believe in astrology or alchemy?
"ex-Marine",
uh oh, NOT a good choice for an example, I'm sure some former jar-head will be along shortly to explain why..
& to quote someone who's name escapes me:
"We're ALL atheists, I just happen to believe in one less god than you do" | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 4:01:07 PM | | I am a christian, I believe in God. And if you do not accept my faith, then you do not accept me as a person. As well I go to church. If you have a problem with that, it is your loss. Just move on..Bye bye.. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 4:15:55 PM | Romantic Optimist said
To you maybe. But it would be less accurate. And that's the issue with words. The more accurate one should be the one used. Whether you take offence at that or spin it into another Straw Man is totally irrelevant (all words chosen with absolute precision).
I am indebted to the optimist for his exactitude of word definitions and his fine grasp of rhetoric.
I could be concluded that the world is composed of.....pre-christians, christians and ex-christians... a christian-centric world! | |
|
| |
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 4:33:05 PM |
I am a christian, I believe in God. And if you do not accept my faith, then you do not accept me as a person.
Don't be so hard on yourself, I'm sure you're a nice person during your more lucid moments | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 6:35:33 PM |
So you see, even among "atheists" there are those who use the word inaccurately.
Very true. Almost every Agnostic I've talked to turns out to be an Atheist, though they'll fervently deny it. I think we need a new word for Atheist. | |
|
| the bible is fault y
Posted: 3/16/2008 11:31:29 PM | First of all, I'd like to address the statement "better to be free willed than a slave and servant of God."
If you really read the bible you would know we were created with a free will. God doesn't want people to serve him out of fear or robots who just go around saying "I love you God, I love you God". We have always had the will to choose our own path. No one makes you do anything. You do what you do out of free will. When you choose to do the wrong things, eat the wrong things, drink the wrong things, you pay for it with death. You get sick, you age, you die. God doesn't force anyone to serve him.
When the earth was created it was made to be self sufficient and to keep us very well fed and cared for. We had a only one tree that we weren't allowed to eat from and that was the tree of knowledge. If Adam and Eve hadn't disobeyed and eaten from the tree of knowledge they would have been able to eat from the tree of life and lived forever. But they chose to listen to the serpent and disobeyed. This is just an example of what we have even today. We can live our lives according to our own purposes and lean unto our own understanding, which is flawed. Our quality of life suffers because we always make the wrong choices. It's not because God is out to get us or that he doesn't like us. It's because WE don't know what's best for ourselves.
We've polluted the earth and made it what it is today by being greedy and trying to get more of everything for ourselves. We're the ones to blame for the world being the way it is. Not God. We caused pollution and war and we all share in the responsibility for the millions of babies being aborted because people want to do the dance but they don't want to pay the piper.
Look at history. You'll see that before every bad thing happens there is a warning. Don't do this or this will happen. We do it anyway. And we suffer the consequences. | |
|
Home
login 
