tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post6750341807527886147..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: A Comparison of Exodus to Egyptian HistoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4008263664091520852010-05-11T23:37:34.430-04:002010-05-11T23:37:34.430-04:00Jwest said,
"I'm thinking that the autho...Jwest said,<br /><br /><i>"I'm thinking that the author of that article isn't very familiar with Egyptian history"</i><br /><br />Believe me, if it's on this site, the author of the article, doesn't CARE what Egyptian history is. They only care to amke irrational assumptions, leaps and assertions that God doesn't exist and the history of Israel and especially that recorded in the biblical text doesn't exist...That's the extent of it.<br /><br />Thanks for adding a true dimension to this historical narrative.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41235046833193919592010-05-11T23:35:05.579-04:002010-05-11T23:35:05.579-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-25753955528982465322010-05-11T18:49:55.222-04:002010-05-11T18:49:55.222-04:00While the article may be well written, it does con...While the article may be well written, it does contain a few errors.Akhenaten had no desire to set up a monotheistic religion. He never claimed that other gods didn't exist, only that there was one supreme god superior to all the other gods.Historians claim that Akhenaten was so pre occupied with a new religion that he abandoned the Egyptian armies fighting the Habaru in Canaan. The truth is that He refused to send troops because of a famine that had been ravaging Canaan and Syria for years.Akhenation lost daughters to the plague.<br /> Akhenaten was errased form history because the loss of all the Egyptian city states in Canaan was a black mark on the Egyptian gods, most especially Aten. While the idea of monethism may have been present there is no proof that Akhenaten diod not get the idea from the Hebrews instead the other way around. There were no monotheistic Atenists,other than perhaps Akhaneten. The Egyptian priests were not very agreeable with only one supreme god.They blamed the plague and the loss of Canaanite territory on Aten.<br /> The plague was still rampant through the reign of Akhenaten's son.Hittite military carried it back to Hatti where Royal family members aslo died.<br /><br />"Now when his majesty appeared as king, the temples of the gods and goddesses from Elephantine [down] to the marshes of the Delta [had... and] gone to pieces (or fallen into neglect). Their shrines had become desolate, had become mounds overgrown with [weeds]. Their sanctuaries (or chapels) were as if they had never been. Their halls were a footpath (or trodden roads). The land was topsy-turvy and the gods turned their backs upon this land."<br /><br /> That particular texts is referring to the past when the Hyksos rulled the Nile delta and had no particular interest in the egyptian gods or theit temples. The land was topsy turvy because of the Egyptian Ahmose who destroyed the city of Aviris when He ran the Hyksos out. The queen Hatheshepsut left a similiar inscription in the 13th century bc.<br /><br /> If you want to accuse someone of copying texts form another nationality, blame Seti for copying from the records of either Joshua or the Amarna tablest which are similiar but occured long befor Seti.<br /><br /><br /> There are many Egyptian words that are similar to Hebrew simply because both languages originated from the Semitic root language just as Arabic did. The similarity of Egyptian names to Israelite names means little in most cases.The word Yahuda is a Semitic word. The name Bar Yuseph in Egypt is also Semitic.<br /><br /> Did the Hebrews borrow historical events and words for the Egyptians? According to archeologists, it was the other way around. The written history of any nation only goes back so far. That's why they call any area before that prehistory. The written history of the Hebrew Semites goes back over 6,000 years.<br /><br /> I'm thinking that the author of that article isn't very familiar with Egyptian history. It was common for an Egyptian King to dismantle buildings and monuments of predecessors and use the material to build their own. Most Kings did it, including Akhenaten and Ramesse the great builder.Ramesses even went so far as to take out the names of predecessors and chisel in his own, giving Him the nickname of the "Great Chiseler" by archeologists.<br /> It didn't take much for the Egyptians to disvow the god of a predecessor and try to erass their name from history. They refused to continue commerating a god that would bring disaster upon them.<br /><br /> Anyone who wishes to become an atheist should become one based on something other than the history of one nation being similiar to another nation. Perhaps the Egyptian stole the idea of a water god from the Akkadians. Maybe they stole the name of the Salt Sea in Egypt from the Canaanites.jwesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16414416129458753696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68000886847317949912008-11-21T05:47:00.000-05:002008-11-21T05:47:00.000-05:00Pish on the Yahud priests as origin idea.Mark Smit...Pish on the Yahud priests as origin idea.<BR/><BR/>Mark Smith is, I believe, likely right in tracing "Yahweh" to the old Midianite verb HWY, which means "to storm/blow/thunder."<BR/><BR/>In other words, Yahweh was a Midianite Zeus, like his Greek counterpart on Olympus, sitting on a dormant volcano, Sinai.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51101555192264289142008-06-23T20:41:00.000-04:002008-06-23T20:41:00.000-04:00"Excellent information Drow Ranger. Add some insig..."Excellent information Drow Ranger. Add some insight to these radicals."<BR/><BR/>You seem to like the fact that Dow Ranger pushed the date so far back that in discounts the dates as given in Genesis. How strange that you say I'm a radical for looking for a time period that jives with the Biblical time frame and you accept without evidence that which denies the Bible.<BR/><BR/>Seems like rather light weight, circumstantial evidence anyway.<BR/>There are pictures of the vizier and future pharaoh Ay being bowed down to as if to a king. He held the same position as Joseph with the same duties. <BR/>The dream of the fat a lean years is a rather common literary or mythical device that is mentioned in the Book of the Dead (ChristianeDesroches Noblecourt) and not as amazing as it is portrayed to be. Any pharaoh would be familiar with its meaning.<BR/>The whole city of Akhetaten was build with bricks so that is not so uncommon either.<BR/>Point is, you are trying to find another time period that fits for you and are overlooking the fact that you are choosing a period that conflicts with Biblical dates because you find an account of a vizier treated like a king, Asiatic slaves and a common myth. None of this was uncommon in Egypt in most any period but in grasping for this you choose to contradict the dating of the Genesis account.<BR/>You just strained at a gnat and swallowed a camel.<BR/>How does that taste?<BR/>Sorry, I couldn't resist using poor taste, but I am confused as to why the 18th dynasty is so unacceptable. Canaan was a territory of Egypt and there are communications to prove it. If Israel was established in the 12th dynasty then what became of it in the meantime. The first mention that we have archaeologically was just after the 18th dynasty. If I was a Christian I would love to find that there is at last some real, historical, and archaeological evidence that supports the Bible in some sort of fashion, even if it is not literal. It would be better than no evidence at all, or contradictory insinuations that conflict with the Bible.Trouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10728387496683503438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68781380000807903122008-06-23T18:38:00.000-04:002008-06-23T18:38:00.000-04:00Excellent information Drow Ranger. Add some insigh...Excellent information Drow Ranger. Add some insight to these radicals. <BR/><BR/>Good job, I'll be looking up the info.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18320806902208484062008-06-23T13:40:00.000-04:002008-06-23T13:40:00.000-04:00That's nice but it's completely incorrect. All th...That's nice but it's completely incorrect. All the evidence points to Israelite presence in Egypt in the 12th Dynasty, not the 18th.<BR/><BR/><B>Sesostris I is known to have had a vizier, or prime minister, named Mentuhotep who possessed extraordinary power Egyptologist, Emille Brugsch, writes in his book Egypt Under the Pharaohs, ‘In a word, our Mentuhotep…appears as the alter ego of the king. When he arrived, the great personages bowed down before him at the outer door of the royal palace.’13 Brugsch’s description appears to corroborate Joseph’s status in Genesis 41:43, ‘He (Pharaoh) had him ride in the second chariot which he had; and they cried out before him, ‘Bow the knee’: and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.’<BR/><BR/>Joseph’s ultimate claim to fame was his ability to interpret dreams. The Egyptians attached significant importance to dreams. Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s perplexing dreams to mean that seven years of plenty would be followed by seven years of the most severe famine. Convinced by Joseph’s interpretation, Pharaoh appointed Joseph to supervise the gathering of grain during the seven years of plenty.<BR/><BR/>Two clues from Egyptian inscriptions appear to confirm the Genesis account. First, a large relief on ‘Hungry Rock’ states, ‘…Because Hapy [the river god] had failed to come in time in a period of seven years. Grain was scant, kernels were dried up, scarce was every kind of food…’14<BR/><BR/>Second, a tomb belonging to Ameni, a provincial governor under Sesostris I, says:<BR/><BR/>No one was unhappy in my days, not even in the years of famine, for I had tilled all the fields of the Nome of Mah…thus I prolonged the life of its inhabitants and preserved the food which it produced.12</B><BR/><BR/>You wouldn't expect to find Israelite evidence in 18th Dynasty items because they were already long gone.<BR/><BR/>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1682<BR/><BR/>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4857<BR/><BR/><B>Dr Rosalie David, in charge of the Egyptian department of the Manchester Museum, writes about Semitic slavery in Kahun during the second half of the 12th dynasty:<BR/><BR/>It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined … The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.15<BR/><BR/>The Bible makes it quite clear why the Israelite slaves resided in Egypt:<BR/><BR/>Now there arose a new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph, and he said to his people, ‘Look, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we’…Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens…And they made their lives bitter with hard bondage… (Exodus 1:8-14).<BR/><BR/>Dr Rosalie David also writes about the slave presence at Gurob, Egypt:<BR/><BR/>The scattered documentation gives no clear answer as to how or why the Asiatics came to Egypt in the Middle Kingdom…There is nevertheless firm literary evidence that Asiatic slaves, women and children were at Gurob.16<BR/><BR/>Another piece of circumstantial evidence that supports the biblical account is the existence of pyramids built with mud bricks and straw during this dynasty. Amenemhet III, a pharaoh whose statues are sour-faced and cruel-looking in appearance, was likely the Pharaoh who answered the complaining Hebrew supervisors, ‘You shall no longer give the people straw to make brick as before Let them go and gather straw for themselves (Exodus 5:7).’</B>Drow Rangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05002367011933665749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15912173547079193022008-06-18T19:56:00.000-04:002008-06-18T19:56:00.000-04:00Harvey Burnett wrote:-"Once again, I will blame th...Harvey Burnett wrote:<BR/><BR/>-"Once again, I will blame this on your inability to accurately read and interpret biblical narratives"<BR/><BR/>What evidence do you have that Yahweh spoke to Moses Harvey? The only evidence you have is that the author of the story said that he did. This kind of 'he said she said', 3rd hand testimony would not be accepted in any court of law in the country. Do you believe that Allah spoke to Mohammed? If not why not? Do you believe that the god Chemosh really spoke to the king of Moab? If not why not?<BR/><BR/>Just because the author of this story SAID that Yahweh spoke to Moses, does not automatically make it true. Fictional people are made to speak to one another all the time in fictional stories. I also don't believe that Ret Butler ever really said "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn", to to Scarlet O'Hara in 'Gone With the Wind', and for the very same reason.<BR/><BR/>-"Has murder or killing (other than self-defense) been sanctioned in your area or part of the world? Are there laws ON THE BOOKS against murder and killing where you live?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, and if any religious leader in my country ordered his followers to slaughter 3000 members of their own families because he claimed that God told him to, he would be locked away in a lunatic asylum for the term of his natural life.<BR/><BR/>-"WHY is the judge exempt UNDER THE LAW when ordering capital punishment aka ordering THE DEATH of certain criminals and individuals found guilty of their actions?"<BR/><BR/>Australia did away with capital punishment decades ago, following the philosophy that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.<BR/>But even if we did still have the death penalty, any judge who ordered the massacre of 3000 people because they made a statue, would be immediately struck off the bench and punished to the full extent of the law.<BR/><BR/>-"The same is TRUE of Moses. He was the leader/prophet/judge under God and HIS law and acted out of RIGHTEOUSNESS indignation not self and self-will or for selfish reasons."<BR/><BR/>This story is more than likely pure fiction. It was probably written by Hilkiah and his cronies as a polemic against the temple at Bethel. <BR/>By the way, the people who flew those passenger jets into the twin towers of the World Trade Centre were acting out of righteous indignation as well. Does this mean that that you agree that they were right to do so?<BR/>My wife and I had been standing at the top of one of those towers only twelve months prior to when those religious fanatics crashed their planes into them. <BR/>3000 people died as a result of their little fit of 'righteous indignation', just as 3000 people supposedly died as a result of Moses' little hissy fit. <BR/>Fuck religious intolerance and fuck 'righteous' indignation!<BR/><BR/>-"This is the KJV which seems to clear up much of your confusion regarding who is actually being referred to"<BR/>"Your version quotes: [5] Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!"<BR/><BR/>It's not MY version. I had nothing to do with translating that passage, it was translated by a team of qualified Bible scholars. <BR/>The RSV and the NASB are generally acknowleged be the most accurate translations on the market. I quoted the RSV.<BR/>"The Revised Standard Version (RSV) is... perhaps the clearest and... most authoritative of all the English-language Bibles. For these reasons, it is the Bible of choice for serious study...The main advantages of the RSV Bible are that it is a very clear, very scholarly, widely accepted word-for-word translation. " - Rev. Bill McGinnis.<BR/>In contrast, the King James version is notoriously unreliable, and is rarely if ever used by Bible scholars. It is also the only translation that I'm aware of (apart from the 'New KJV'), which translates 'holy ones' as 'saints'.<BR/><BR/>-"Note that YOU insert "gods" after beings in effort to support your point that this verse is referring to competitive supernatural beings."<BR/><BR/>Not "competitive supernatural beings" Harvey, but members of Yahweh's polytheistic 'Divine Council'. <BR/><BR/>-"You fail to understand that heaven is full of company Rev. 4:8-11"<BR/><BR/>I don't care what the author of Revelation had to say. That has nothing whatsoever to do with either Psalm 82 or Psalm 89. They were written by completely different authors who were separated by centuries of theological development.<BR/><BR/>-"Additionally you fail to understand that God called his host "sons" Job. 2:1 "1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD."<BR/><BR/>In the Old Testament, Satan is portrayed as a servant of Yahweh, not a competitor. He is portrayed as mankind's accuser in the Divine Council of Yahweh. His job was to act like a kind of prosecuting attorney. Not once in the Old Testament does Satan disobey Yahweh's instructions. As this passage also indicates, he is portayed as being one of Yahweh's sons.<BR/><BR/>"If you were a doctor your name would be Kevorkian(sp) because YOU'RE KILLING ME with your ERRONEOUS and FALLACIOUS interpretations!"<BR/><BR/>They're not MY interpretations. They are the interpretations of qualified Bible scholars.<BR/><BR/>-"Once again to think “holy ones” mean some pantheon of gods...It actually refers to the PEOPLE OF GOD who trust in HIM for righteousness MEANING…Saints aka Holy Ones."<BR/><BR/>As I mentioned before, the word 'saints' is a mis-translation which only appears in the KJV and the New KJV. How many 'people of God' do you know who hang around up in heaven, and participate in 'Divine Councils'? Give me a break Harvey.<BR/><BR/>-"You also indicate that Rahab is supposed to have some special implication to polytheism. In V.10 Rahab is figurative language for EGYPT who was defeated at the hands of God."<BR/><BR/>Rahab is the name of the mythical chaos dragon whom Yahweh is supposed to have defeated at the foundation of the world. She is the functional equivelant of 'Tiamat'.<BR/><BR/>"In Hebrew thought, however, the most prominent concept of chaos is that of the primeval disorder that preceded God's creative activity. When “darkness was upon the face of the deep,” God through His word destroyed the forces of confusion (Genesis 1:2). Throughout the Scriptures, chaos is personified as the principal opponent of God. In ancient Semitic legends, a terrible chaos-monster was called Rahab (the proud one), or Leviathan (the twisting dragon-creature), or Yam (the roaring sea)." - Holman Bible Dictionary<BR/><BR/>"Another example is from Psalm 89, a hymn to God as the defender and supporter of the Davidic monarchy and therefore of Israel. First, God is exalted as the creator. God who has conquered and subdued the chaos, again in the figure of the dragon Rahab (Psa 89:9-10): "You ruled the raging of the sea; when its waves rise, you still them. You crushed Rahab like a carcass, you scattered you enemies with your mighty arm." Then the psalm continues to affirm God’s presence with the king, again using the imagery of conquest of the power of chaos represented by water (v. 25): "I will set his [the king] hand on the sea and his right hand on the rivers." - (Genesis Bible Study Lesson Three: Creation 1, God and Boundaries) - Dennis Bratcher<BR/><BR/>-"NO. You have said that they were the gods of Israel that were taken either out of Egypt or from Canaanan and that the practices were somehow sanctioned by God and the people until the was somehow changed or revised by the priests...DON’T change on me now!...You’re changing again Mr. Chameleon"<BR/><BR/>What an absurd accusation to make. <BR/>I defy you to show me where I ever wrote anything LIKE that. <BR/>I said that the Israelites had always been polytheistic up until the time that the high priest of the Yahwist cult mysteriously<BR/>'found the book of the law' in the Jerusalem temple, after it had supposedly been lost for for over 800 years. <BR/>I also said that nobody had ever heard of this law until Hilkiah claimed to have 'found it' in the temple. I also suggested that it was probably a forgery written by Hilkiah himsef, in order to boost the prestige of the Yahwist priesthood, and to do away with any competition from other religions. <BR/>Hilkiah's forgery obviously worked, because it motivated King Josiah to exterminate the pagan priests and to ban the worship of all gods other than Yahweh. I also pointed out that after King Josiah's untimely death, the Israelites reverted straight back to their traditional polytheistic ways. <BR/>How you came to misunderstand what I actually said to the extent that you claim, simply beggars my imagination. <BR/><BR/>Dingo~ You said this to Scott, “There is a perfect example of this principle in action in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah was trying to convince the people of Jerusalem to abandon the worship of Ashera, the 'Queen of Heaven'”... The goddess Asherah (1 Kin. 15:13; 2 Chr. 15:16; Asherahs, Judg. 3:7) was portrayed as the wife of El (or sometimes Baal) in Canaanite mythology. Asherah was a favorite deity of women...That is inaccurate, this referred to the goddess Anat."<BR/><BR/>So what? They were essentially all the same goddess. They were simply worshipped under different names in different countries. Ashera was also addressed as the queen of heaven as was the Egyptian goddess Isis.<BR/>It was the women who confronted Jeremiah, and it was the women who 'wove hangings for the Ashera' and burned incence to her within the Jerusalem temple.<BR/><BR/>2 Kings 23<BR/>[6] And he brought out the Asherah from the house of the LORD, outside Jerusalem, to the brook Kidron, and burned it at the brook Kidron, and beat it to dust and cast the dust of it upon the graves of the common people. <BR/>[7] And he broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes which were in the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the Asherah. <BR/><BR/>Compare this with the passage in Jeremiah 44.<BR/>[17] But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. <BR/><BR/>And why wouldn't El's wife qualify for being addressed as the 'Queen of Heaven'? Catholics even to this very day, refer to the virgin Mary as 'Queen of Heaven', and she wasn't even married to Yahweh when he supposedly had his wicked way with her. : D<BR/>Anyway, it doesn't matter whether the women of Jerusalem were worshipping Isis, Ishtar, Anat, Ashtoreth, Astarte, or the Virgin bloody Mary, it was the PRINCIPLE that I was referring to, not the details.<BR/> <BR/>-"The worship of Baalistic gods in general including Asherah was for farming and crop productivity. There was no known “salvation” offered other than whatever the deity was being worshipped for." <BR/><BR/>The priests of Yahweh promised and threatened exactly the same things as the priests of those other gods Harvey. If you insist on asserting otherwise, then please back it up with some evidence. I'm afraid that empty assertions don't cut any ice with me.<BR/><BR/>-"You have set forth that “EL” was representative of the God of the Bible because the root “EL” can be associated with his the God of the Bible’s name in many<BR/>instances...The highest Canaanite god was El, whose son was Baal." <BR/><BR/>The Bible itself states that Yahweh was one of the sons of El. What more proof do you need? I've already quoted the relevant verse to you, and the fact that you have chosen to ignore it is not my problem.<BR/><BR/>-"Some scholars have held that the plural represents an intensified form for the supreme God; others believe it describes the supreme God and His heavenly court of created beings...In any event, Elohim conveys the idea that the one supreme being, who is the only true God, is in some sense plural."<BR/><BR/>My point exactly. Except that originally Yahweh's heavenly court consisted of Yahweh, his wife Ashera and their sons, just as El's heavenly court consisted of El, his wife Ashera and their sons.<BR/><BR/>-"In any event, Elohim conveys the idea that the one supreme being, who is the only true God, is in some sense plural."<BR/><BR/>You're damned right it's plural. It's plural in the sense that the word Elohim means GODS (plural), not GOD (singular). It's only Christian apologists such as yourself who seem to have a problem with this concept.<BR/><BR/>-"No more than a Yugo is a Lexus simply because both are called cars than is God associated in ANY way with Baal..." etc.<BR/><BR/>The word God is merely a title, or a job description. It's not a proper name. The appropriate phrase to use when discussing individual gods would be to say 'the god Yahweh', or 'the god Chemosh', or 'the god El'.<BR/>Using the generic word 'God' with a captal G to describe any individual god intentionally confuses the issue at hand. It's much the same as saying something like "my favourite brand of washing powder is Washing Powder".<BR/><BR/>-"Your premise and your basis for suggesting these fanatical notions are TOTALLY ridiculous and not based on any acceptable method of interpretive science."<BR/><BR/>Harvey, I suspect that you wouldn't recognise an 'acceptable method of interpretive science' even if it walked up behind you and bit you on the butt.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16477598454798444562008-06-17T18:55:00.000-04:002008-06-17T18:55:00.000-04:00There are times that people are sentenced TO DEATH...<I>There are times that people are sentenced TO DEATH...But the LAW is NOT to kill or murder...WHY is the judge exempt UNDER THE LAW when ordering capital punishment aka ordering THE DEATH of certain criminals and individuals found guilty of their actions?</I><BR/><BR/>So why did God force humans to do his dirty work?<BR/><BR/>01. Unlike human law makers who can't be everywhere at once and lack the skills / equipment / knowledge to actually administer capital punishment in a humane way, God has no such limitations. Of course, a God who didn't actually exist would find it rather difficult to do his own dirty work. <BR/><BR/>02. Humans misinterpret God's laws. It's not a question of "if" it happens but how often. As such, God runs the risk that humans will kill someone he didn't intend to punish. Clearly, God, who is supposedly omnipotent and omniscient wouldn't accidentally kill the wrong person. I guess accidental death isn't a concern for God. <BR/><BR/>03. Why condition people to kill others unless it's absolutely necessary? It's traumatic and desensitizes people to acts of violence and murder. Not exactly a good strategy to reduce incidences of violence and death perpetrated by others.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54074010776384376232008-06-17T04:57:00.000-04:002008-06-17T04:57:00.000-04:00Dingo~ "In the story, it was Moses who wasn't plea...Dingo~ "In the story, it was Moses who wasn't pleased with the making of the golden calf. Yahweh (being nothing more than a monstrous fiction) had nothing to do with it."<BR/><BR/>[Once again, I will blame this on your inability to accurately read and interpret biblical narratives:<BR/><BR/>Ex. 32:9-10 ~ “And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.”<BR/><BR/>By the way the "my wrath may wax hot against them" means before HE(GOD) becomes MORE upset or angry at them than he already was. Further in the same chapter:<BR/><BR/>Ex. 32:14 ~ "And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people"<BR/><BR/>Very important here that the technical sense of the word "repented" as it applies to God here means to turn from, however unlike human repentance there is an absence of sorrow, remorse or guilt. Linguistics say that there was quite no word equivalent to describe what God actually does when he "repents" only that it is not the same as the repentance of mankind. <BR/><BR/>Now, you’re right in a sense, Moses displayed righteous indignation, (v.19) the same type that Jesus displayed when he expelled the money changers from the temple (John 2:13-16). This led Moses to order the 3,000 killed. <BR/><BR/>However, you raise the question of the righteousness of God, Moses and the narrative by setting up one of the weakest SCAMS I’ve ever heard. <BR/><BR/>You say that God had just gave Moses the Commandments and # 6 said, “Thou shalt not kill” You go on to basically say...see I told ya the bible is a contradiction...OK<BR/><BR/>Has murder or killing (other than self-defense) been sanctioned in your area or part of the world? Are there laws ON THE BOOKS against murder and killing where you live? <BR/><BR/>In contrast, does CAPITAL PUNISHMENT exist there also? It may not, BUT in many places where there are laws against killing and murder there are also laws in favor of capital punishment...for example in Illinois and Texas the laws of Capital Punishment exist, as well as laws against murder and killing. <BR/><BR/>There are times that people are sentenced TO DEATH...But the LAW is NOT to kill or murder...WHY is the judge exempt UNDER THE LAW when ordering capital punishment aka ordering THE DEATH of certain criminals and individuals found guilty of their actions?<BR/><BR/>The same is TRUE of Moses. He was the leader/prophet/judge under God and HIS law and acted out of RIGHTEOUSNESS indignation not self and self-will or for selfish reasons.<BR/><BR/>Your misleading in this area is intentional and is TOTALLY ABSURD.<BR/><BR/>EOS aka End Of Story] <BR/><BR/>Dingo~ "How is this verse (among the many others I quoted for you) anything BUT polytheistic?<BR/>Here's another example just for good measure.Ps.89"<BR/><BR/>[This is the KJV which seems to clear up much of your confusion regarding who is actually being referred to:<BR/><BR/>Ps. 89: 5-14 ~ "5And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O LORD: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints." <BR/><BR/>Your version quotes: [5] Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!<BR/><BR/>You think “Holy Ones” refer to some other supernatural beings. It actually refers to the PEOPLE OF GOD who trust in HIM for righteousness MEANING...Saints aka Holy Ones.<BR/><BR/>V6.For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD? <BR/><BR/>Your version quotes: [6] For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings (gods) is like the LORD, <BR/><BR/>Note that YOU insert "gods" after beings in effort to support your point that this verse is referring to competitive supernatural beings. <BR/><BR/>You fail to understand that heaven is full of company Rev. 4:8-11 ~ "And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. 9And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever, 10The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, 11Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created."<BR/><BR/>Additionally you fail to understand that God called his host "sons" Job. 2:1 "1Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD."<BR/><BR/>But ONE of you biggest failures here is to understand that "mighty" was the generic form of El which is often used in a general sense. You try to make "mighty" the overarching part of the scripture when that’s not the focul point of the verse. The latter part of the verse asks who among them all can be likened (placed in a similar class or category) of The Lord? <BR/><BR/>Clearly you misinterpret once again and miss the complete meaning due to your iesegesis of scripture. If you were a doctor your name would be Kevorkian(sp) because YOU'RE KILLING ME with your ERRONEOUS and FALLACIOUS interpretations! <BR/><BR/>Look further:<BR/><BR/>7God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. <BR/><BR/>Your version says: [7] a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him?<BR/><BR/>Once again to think “holy ones” mean some pantheon of gods...It actually refers to the PEOPLE OF GOD who trust in HIM for righteousness MEANING…Saints aka Holy Ones.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the verses drive home the point that THERE IS NO COMPARISON to God AT ALL! ANYWHERE. <BR/><BR/>8. O LORD God of hosts, who is a strong LORD like unto thee? or to thy faithfulness round about thee? 9Thou rulest the raging of the sea: when the waves thereof arise, thou stillest them. 10Thou hast broken Rahab in pieces, as one that is slain; thou hast scattered thine enemies with thy strong arm.” <BR/><BR/>You also indicate that Rahab is supposed to have some special implication to polytheism. In V.10 Rahab is figurative language for EGYPT who was defeated at the hands of God. <BR/><BR/>Your IESEGESIS of TEXTS...IS NOT the proper way to understand the bible and besides it shows your anti-God bias, not very becoming of you. So far as Ps. 82, I already answered your ridiculous assertions earlier, there’s nothing new...Live with it!] <BR/><BR/>Dingo~ "And what do you mean when you say that I "finally admit" that the Israelites were worshipping Canaanite gods? That's what I've been saying all along! :O"<BR/><BR/>[NO. You have said that they were the gods of Israel that were taken either out of Egypt or from Canaanan and that the practices were somehow sanctioned by God and the people until the was somehow changed or revised by the priests...DON’T change on me now! I’ve asserted that you were WRONG from the beginning. I've also pointed out that although the people got caught up in idolatry against the command of the Lord, God was NEVER PLEASED WITH SUCH AND INDICATED HIS DISPLEASURE EVEN BEFORE THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE. You’re changing again Mr. Chameleon] <BR/><BR/><BR/>[Also let me correct a few things that you seem to proliferate here that I have paid little attention to:]<BR/><BR/>Dingo~ You said this to Scott, “There is a perfect example of this principle in action in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah was trying to convince the people of Jerusalem to abandon the worship of Ashera, the 'Queen of Heaven'.”<BR/><BR/>[Anat is sometimes identified with the “queen of heaven,” to whom the Jews offered incense in Jeremiah’s day (Jer. 7:18; 44:17–19, 25). But some scholars identify the “queen of heaven” with the Assyro-Babylonian goddess Ishtar. Anat was the patroness of sex and passion; lewd figurines of this nude goddess have been discovered at various archaeological sites in Palestine.<BR/><BR/>The goddess Asherah (1 Kin. 15:13; 2 Chr. 15:16; Asherahs, Judg. 3:7) was portrayed as the wife of El (or sometimes Baal) in Canaanite mythology. Asherah was a favorite deity of women. Some of the wives of David and Solomon worshiped her (1 Kin. 15:13), as Ahab’s wife, Jezebel, also probably did (1 Kin. 16:31–33). King Asa suppressed the worship of Asherah (1 Kin. 15:13), and King Josiah destroyed “the articles that were made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven” (2 Kin. 23:4). The worship of Baalistic gods in general including Asherah was for farming and crop productivity. There was no known “salvation” offered other than whatever the deity was being worshipped for. <BR/><BR/>“The word "Asherah" also refers to a wooden pole, or cult pillar, that stood at Canaanite places of worship—perhaps the trunk of a tree with the branches chopped off—and associated with the worship of the goddess Asherah”. ~ Youngblood, Ronald F., General Editor; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, Consulting Editors, Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1995.<BR/><BR/>Again you said: "There is a perfect example of this principle in action in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah was trying to convince the people of Jerusalem to abandon the worship of Ashera, the 'Queen of Heaven'."---That is inaccurate, this referred to the goddess Anat. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, your linguistics problem:<BR/><BR/>You like to use parallels as if a parallel prove your language assertions that God and EL were the same being, or at least similar beings. <BR/><BR/>I must offer this to clear up the understanding of the names of God. I’ve noticed that you offer a very convoluted and INACCURATE view of the useage of names and how they were constructed. You have set forth that “EL” was representative of the God of the Bible because the root “EL” can be associated with his the God of the Bible’s name in many instances. Let’s look at this for a minute: <BR/><BR/>Names of God and use of EL ~ a root name for God in the Old Testament is El. By itself it refers to a god in the most general sense. It was widely used in ancient eastern cultures whose languages are similar to Hebrew and therefore may refer either to the true God or to false gods. The highest Canaanite god was El, whose son was Baal. <BR/><BR/>This is a common biblical word and name. In the Bible the word is often defined properly by a qualifier like Jehovah: “I, the LORD (Jehovah) your God (Elohim), am a jealous God (El)” (Deut. 5:9).<BR/>Abraham planted a tamarisk tree at Beersheba “and there called on the name of the LORD (Yahweh), the Everlasting God (El Olam) (Gen. 21:33). Jacob built an altar on a piece of land he purchased at Shechem and called it ELElohe Israel (“God, the God of Israel”), commemorating his wrestling with the angel at the place he called Peniel (“the face of God”), and receiving his new name Israel (Yisrael “God strives”) (Gen. 32:28–30; 33:20). El Shaddai (God Almighty), signifying God as a source of blessing, is the name with which God appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. 6:3).<BR/><BR/>Elohim is the plural form of El, but it is usually translated in the singular. Some scholars have held that the plural represents an intensified form for the supreme God; others believe it describes the supreme God and His heavenly court of created beings. Still others hold that the plural form refers to the triune God of Genesis 1:1–3, who works through Word and Spirit in the creation of the world. In any event, Elohim conveys the idea that the one supreme being, who is the only true God, is in some sense plural.<BR/><BR/>The appearance of El with many biblical words and even aspects of God’s nature are NO MORE than neologisms which are COMMON to many cultures and peoples and especially those of the Bible because of close proximity and similarity of linguistic constructs. Neologisms are something that we do every day when we use words such as data-base, and home-run. The industrial revolution and the computer “boom” gave way to many neologisms in current use today that did not exist together prior to this time. <BR/><BR/>You CLEARLY misuse and abuse the Biblical text to proliferate untruths, lies and anti-God dogmas with your preselect iesegesis of scripture and assumption of borrowing based on parallels which is the ABSOLUTE worst way to properly contextualize history and gain true meaning of texts. No more than a Yugo is a Lexus simply because both are called cars than is God associated in ANY way with Baal of the Canaananite religion, Ra of Egypt or any other deity of antiquity simply because they were called gods…<BR/><BR/>Your premise and your basis for suggesting these fanatical notions are TOTALLY ridiculous and not based on any acceptable method of interpretive science.]<BR/><BR/>Now I really am committed to not doing this so please make your assertions without asking me to respond.<BR/><BR/>Celtics take it at home GAME 6 Baby!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13052543231715709012008-06-16T23:13:00.000-04:002008-06-16T23:13:00.000-04:00Hi Jennifer.On your blog you wrote:"Toward the end...Hi Jennifer.<BR/><BR/>On your blog you wrote:<BR/><BR/>"Toward the end of this page "The Great Hymn to the Aten" is mentioned, and it's similarity with Psalm 104. As I read it and thought of what the Aten meant to Akhenaten (if the interpretation is correct), I thought it sounded just like what King David would write. It seems, according to these different sources, that the Aten was just the symbol of the reality which lay beyond. It seems he was not worshiping the sun, but he was worshiping some being who's essence seemed to him to be similar to the sun just as the Israelites chose a bull."<BR/><BR/>I'm glad that you can see the similarities between 'The Great Hymn' and Psalm 104.<BR/>I'm also glad you recognise that to Akhenaten, the sun disk was probably just a symbol, or manifestation of Aten, rather than actually being Aten himself.<BR/>Of course, being an atheist, I draw different conclusions from all of this than you do. :) <BR/>I guess it's just a case of 'different strokes for different folks'.<BR/><BR/>-"...makes one curious to know more about what else has been edited and erased in secular history, if there is such a thing."<BR/><BR/>Probably quite a bit.<BR/>History is generally written by the winners, and this is especially true of religious history and/or propaganda. This would also include the Bible. <BR/><BR/>Edward O. Wilson once wrote - "Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals."<BR/><BR/>How true those words ring when we look around us today, or honestly study the history of religions and cultures.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17770793542575433532008-06-16T22:32:00.000-04:002008-06-16T22:32:00.000-04:00Scott wrote:-"But why did the Israelites worship t...Scott wrote:<BR/>-"But why did the Israelites worship these other Gods? At the time, everyone thought the Gods were integral to the day to day workings of the world. People aligned themselves with a particular God as a protector and facilitator. Their worship ensured their God of choice would give them good weather, bountiful crops, etc. But, when things inevitably go wrong (as we know the weather, crops and natural disasters are controlled by complex natural processes, not Gods) they turn to other Gods in hope of better results. We see examples of this kind of behavior in the OT. <BR/>And,<BR/>-"This is how all protection rackets work. Pay us and we'll protect you. However, if you don't pay us, don't be surprised if bad thinks happen to you."<BR/>And,<BR/>-"And what would the perceived absence of God's presence be? The presence of drought, poor crops, disasters, etc. despite worshiping God. They switched sides because they felt their current God simply wasn't fulfilling their part of the bargain."<BR/><BR/>There is a perfect example of this principle in action in the book of Jeremiah, where Jeremiah was trying to convince the people of Jerusalem to abandon the worship of Ashera, the 'Queen of Heaven'.<BR/><BR/>Jeremiah 44<BR/>[15] Then all the men who knew that their wives had offered incense to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who dwelt in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah: <BR/>[16] "As for the word which you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you. <BR/>[17] But we will do everything that we have vowed, burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our princes, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no evil. <BR/>[18] But since we left off burning incense to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine." <BR/>[19] And the women said, "When we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out libations to her, was it without our husbands' approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out libations to her?" <BR/>[20] Then Jeremiah said to all the people, men and women, all the people who had given him this answer:<BR/>[23] It is because you burned incense, and because you sinned against the LORD and did not obey the voice of the LORD or walk in his law and in his statutes and in his testimonies, that this evil has befallen you, as at this day." <BR/><BR/>'Divine protection rackets' and 'dualling gods' indeed!<BR/><BR/>Scott hit the nail squarely on the head with his analogy. <BR/>"That's a nice country you've got there. It'd be a shame if anything bad happened to it."<BR/><BR/>'Don Yahweh' has a nice ring to it. I can almost hear the Italian accordian music playing in the background as I type. :DDingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23894213623019730022008-06-16T21:57:00.000-04:002008-06-16T21:57:00.000-04:00Harvey wrote:-"what happened Dingo?...GOD wasn't p...Harvey wrote:<BR/><BR/>-"what happened Dingo?...GOD wasn't pleased with the act of erecting the calf AT ALL... if it was El and El was God, as you persist in saying, there would have been NO anger from the Lord, no reason to change or kill anyone..."<BR/><BR/>In the story, it was Moses who wasn't pleased with the making of the golden calf. Yahweh (being nothing more than a monstrous fiction) had nothing to do with it.<BR/>(Not that I believe that any of this ever actually happened.) <BR/>The story was obviously written by the Jerusalem priests as a polemic against the priests and the golden bulls in the temple at Bethel in Northern Israel, which at the time that this was written, was in competition with the Jerusalem temple for the minds and money of the people.<BR/>Oh, and as a side note, this story gives the lie to your previous assertion that the Israelites didn't possess weapons when they fled from Egypt during the exodus, because the story maintains that they had weapons enough to butcher 3000 of their own people.<BR/><BR/>-"These accounts demonstrate Israel's strong conviction that God cannot be lowered to the level of a pictoral presentation. God as soveriegn Lord allows NO PHYSICAL IMAGE of himself and any human effort to create such an image invites his judgement" <BR/><BR/>It demonstrates the convictions of the Yahwist priests who wrote them, not the convictions of the common people.<BR/><BR/>You appear to have a distorted view about the function of idols and graven images in ancient religions Harvey. Most of the people who used idols as part of their worship routines, no more believed that their idols were actually THE gods, than most Christians do when they kneel before their crucifixes in their churches today. The idols were viewed simply as AIDS to worship. The idols were not actually the OBJECTS of worship. Can you understand that?<BR/><BR/>-"Dingo~ "Just quoting contradictory verses to me will not make the polytheistic ones go away."<BR/>"You NEVER follow the complete story and certainly don't know what you're reading as I've PROVEN...Like I said there is no argument here, you have NONE."<BR/><BR/>Then I'll ask you once again Harvey; What part of "Ps.82:1 "God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment" don't you understand?<BR/>How is this verse (among the many others I quoted for you) anything BUT polytheistic?<BR/>Here's another example just for good measure.<BR/>Ps.89<BR/>[5] Let the heavens praise thy wonders, O LORD, thy faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones!<BR/>[6] For who in the skies can be compared to the LORD? Who among the heavenly beings (gods) is like the LORD,<BR/>[7] a God feared in the council of the holy ones, great and terrible above all that are round about him?<BR/><BR/>You appear to be in deep denial about these verses Harvey.<BR/><BR/>-"OK Dingo...according to you the slaves of the Hyskos were Hyskos themselves...YOU ARE A FARCE! Just unbelievable!"<BR/><BR/>This makes absolutely no sense to me Harvey. I never said that, and I'll thank you for not putting words into my mouth which I never uttered.<BR/>I'd also ask you to keep a civil tongue in you head if you don't mind.<BR/>What I DID ask you was whether YOU were asserting that the Hebrews were actually the slaves of the Hyksos.<BR/>And what's so unusual about a people keeping other members of their own people as slaves anyway? The Israelites owned Israelite slaves didn't they?<BR/><BR/>-"Let's see that's one right, maybe two in about the last 200 tries...Israel walked out, the Hyskos capital wasn't totally abandoned after the Hyskos were expelled...The slaves<BR/>remained...but you'll give that no creedence"<BR/><BR/>Once again you're not making any sense Harvey. The Israelites walked out but the slaves remained? How do you know that? What does it even mean? :-/<BR/><BR/>-"What did they see in the BOOK OF THE LAW that told them to follow through with the reform Dingo? If worship of Canaanite god's (which you finally admit to) were allowable there would have been no reason to change...It speaks for itself..."<BR/><BR/>What they saw in the 'book of the law' was basically what we read in Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy, with all their talk about tearing down pagan alters, and burning the Asheras, and slaughtering the pagan priests, and all the other violent and ridiculous nonsense which is commanded in those revolting books. That's why Josiah took such extreme measures to purge Judah of all pagan influences. Hikiah, and the other Yahwist priests who wrote this stuff, really were nasty pieces of work.<BR/>And what do you mean when you say that I "finally admit" that the Israelites were worshipping Canaanite gods? That's what I've been saying all along! :O<BR/><BR/>-"this adds no value to anything but it reaffirms your hate for God and selfish and self preservationaist nature aka SIN NATURE"<BR/><BR/>Oh, I can just FEEL the love oozing out of you Harvey. If you had lived back in those days, I suspect that you would have been one of the people waiting eagerly on the front line, ready to stone me. <BR/>"I'd like two points, two flats, and a packet of gravel please." - Life of Brian :-D<BR/><BR/>-"That's what unbelievers do...worship themselves and flesh...SIN NATURE...what's why we need a savior and HIS name is Jesus!"<BR/><BR/>I don't worship anything or anyone Harvey, least of all myself.<BR/><BR/>-"Now you're going to use poetic analogy to prove your point. That's OK, but read it in light of the text it was referring to."<BR/><BR/>Has it ever occurred to you that Aten being represented by a Sun disk, might also be poetic analogy Harvey? Or in your mind, is poetic analogy only allowed in your own religion.<BR/>Like I said to you before, the 'idols' that people supposedly 'worshipped' were generally not themselves the objects of worship, but were merely representations of a higher spiritual reality which were used as aids to worship.<BR/>And before you go accusing me of claiming that those gods really existed, I don't mean for you to take my use of the word 'reality' literally. :-)<BR/><BR/>-"God would be a Quadrazillion-eyed being with wings and feathers...THAT'S HOW YOU INTERPRET WHEN YOU THINK IT BOLSTERS YOUR POINT...NOW THAT'S FUNNY!"<BR/><BR/>The description of Yahweh as having wings and feathers (which is not uncommon in the Bible), is probably an analogue of the Persian high god Ahura Mazda. Feel free to look it up. <BR/>Ahura Mazda was represented as a 'King of kings', riding on a winged sun disk. <BR/>Do a simple 'google image seach' and you'll see what I mean.<BR/><BR/>-"Do I exist in your imagination Dingo?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not even going to dignify that ridiculous question with a response.<BR/><BR/>-"No Dingo, between the two of us, I'm the only one that will consider sound scholarship, given to reason, and know how to interpret what I read in the Bible and weigh out ALL evidence objectively without an antisupernatural bias"<BR/><BR/>When it comes to doing science or history, I follow the principle of 'methodological naturalism'. It works, and it's how we've managed to progress our way out of the dark ages. Therefore I'll stick with it if you don't mind.<BR/><BR/>-"When you LOVE unrighteousness (as you do) you're given over to it...You love to hate and disbelieve..."<BR/><BR/>It should be apparent to anyone reading this thread that it's YOU who seems to be doing most of the hating Harvey, not me.<BR/>And what does it mean to "love unrigteousness" anyway?<BR/><BR/>-"and by the way that's the ONLY reason you can't obtain the blessing and peace of God...Unbelief."<BR/><BR/>How can I force myself to believe something that I don't believe? Are you suggesting that I should lie to myself? That would hardly be honest would it?<BR/><BR/>-"Fear of penalty keep you from running a Stop sign when you don't see the police. In fact that same fear make you file your taxes on time and you may have never received a call from the IRS EVER in your life...but you comply."<BR/><BR/>You take a very childish approach to the subject of ethics and morality Harvey. Has it ever occured to you that we atheists are capable of obeying the law because by doing so it benifits everyone in our community, not just ourselves. If there wasn't a big stick looming over you, would you run riot and selfishly do anything you wanted? If so, then please don't abandon your religion, because you would end up being a menace to society.<BR/><BR/>-" I have a GREAT and WONDERFUL hope. The anti-Christ advocate has NONE."<BR/><BR/>You have a great and wonderful DELUSION Harvey, and society would probably be better off without it. What we atheists have is REALITY, and I'd rather choose reality any day.<BR/><BR/>-"Anyway, back to the game CELTICS RULE!"<BR/><BR/>Only in your dreams Harvey.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13286540427733410752008-06-16T19:58:00.000-04:002008-06-16T19:58:00.000-04:00Scott, I used to be confused about the difference ...Scott, I used to be confused about the difference between "works" and expressions of faith in acts of love. And I used to be deceived into thinking that it was better to be humanistic and avoid the involvement of authority in my life, never realizing or coming to terms with the dissonance between the romantic notions of "the goodness of mankind" and the "evil of mankind".<BR/><BR/>Consider this: Jesus's most stern words were reserved for the following personalities: Empowered, status seeking, Clean cut, church going, charitable, prayerful, familial, law abiding, moral,community minded folks - yet He deemed them the "sons of Hell". Would you be able to tell why that was? Would you be able to approach these people and confront them and on what basis? They weren't breaking any laws - yet I tell you and I tell you the truth - there is a difference between God's righteousness and self righteousness. <BR/><BR/>Yet by His grace God has lowered the nets, even to the religious hypocrite.I do not condemn those who use Jesus's name with hypocrisy because He Himself viewed such with compassion while letting us know it is a way of alienating ourselves from Him.<BR/><BR/>Scott, you can believe it possible to be compassionate without the aid of divine inspiration - I used to. I preferred it that way, but never examined why.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, that's enough for now - bye! 3MManifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-40546875837012771802008-06-16T18:48:00.000-04:002008-06-16T18:48:00.000-04:00Jesus said that He knew when to lay His life down ...<I>Jesus said that He knew when to lay His life down and when to take it up - that is the Way of the spirit - it is not under compulsion to gratify the demands or sensitivities of others - one can be compassionate but manipulated to be involved in situations that are an ill fit. </I><BR/><BR/>Again, great advice. If it's really worth following, then it's true independent of the existence of God or Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Or are you saying that Jesus has to use divine revelation to reveal exactly how to be compassionate in every situation?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54035586972499878422008-06-16T18:43:00.000-04:002008-06-16T18:43:00.000-04:00As I've demonstrated there is only ONE true and li...<I>As I've demonstrated there is only ONE true and living God and he is in control of ALL things. If in your statement you mean by "control", that that natural disasters are somehow beyond his ability to stop, maintain or otherwise regulate, I disagree.</I><BR/><BR/>Harvey, I think it's perfectly obvious what I mean. Yet you continue to avoid the obvious by attempting to sidetrack the discussion.<BR/><BR/>Are you implying that God is constantly manipulating the weather or causing natural disasters, such as the earthquakes and tsunamis? Is God actively causing crops to fail or flourish depending on those who worship him or not? We've identified natural processes that influence these events and they are relatively uniform instead of being controlled by some mysterious force. There are no Gods to be found. <BR/><BR/><I>My claim is that the narrative states that God spoke to man's conscience and hearts plainly and thereby gave him the ability to relate and communicate with HIM, however SIN birthed within the hearts of individuals caused then to turn their hearts and practices away from the True and Living God.</I><BR/><BR/>Care to actually address the issue at hand? An omnipotent God would have known these "false gods" had nothing to do with controlling the environment. Otherwise, they wouldn't be false, now would they? <BR/><BR/><I>I propose that the voice, command and direction of God was not unusual or strange to his people and that the command to worship God ONLY was not something that caught the people by surprise. </I><BR/><BR/>I'm proposing the same thing. This is how all protection rackets work. Pay us and we'll protect you. However, if you don't pay us, don't be surprised if bad thinks happen to you. If these Gods were false, they couldn't keep their promises. God, being omnipotent would have known this, yet he failed to expose them for the phonies they supposedly were. Again, why didn't he?<BR/><BR/><I>The problem WASN'T that God did not know how to differentiate himself from false God's or that he didn't send the necessary information clearly...The problem was (Is) that man, due to the absence of God's perceived presence chose to serve images that they could see, touch and feel and enter into the area of divination. There are a number of reason for this </I><BR/><BR/>And what would the perceived absence of God's presence be? The presence of drought, poor crops, disasters, etc. despite worshiping God. They switched sides because they felt their current God simply wasn't fulfilling their part of the bargain. Are you sure you're not trying to make my point for me?<BR/><BR/><I>Partially because there is a spiritual reality that undergirds the physical and natural life that we live, which seeks it’s place in communion with God....</I><BR/><BR/>Just because we're looking for God doesn't mean he actually exists. You'll need to do more than simply assert this as fact. <BR/><BR/><I>even if that place is to deny God.</I><BR/><BR/>Let me guess, the denial of the existence of Zeus, aliens or Santa Clause proves they exist too?<BR/><BR/><I>disagreements don't change the spiritual reality that we are not merely physical beings and the people of that day’s desires were similar if not more pronounced than ours. </I><BR/><BR/>You've put the cart before the horse. Spiritual reality is precisely what's in dispute here. You're making assertions based on circular references and an argument from ignorance.<BR/><BR/><I>There were 430 years that separated between the call of Abram and the exit from Egypt. After the patriarchs died (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) there easily would have been exposure to false systems of worship and idolatry as evidenced and witnessed in Egypt. </I><BR/><BR/>So why didn't God use this as a perfect example of how these false Gods were just that, false, and failed to protect them as promised? Could it have been that God's record really wasn't that good either?<BR/><BR/><I>God dealt with his people by displaying the results (end) of following "dumb idols" and what they could expect his reponse to be to their sins. </I><BR/><BR/>You mean by beating his chest and making his own protection offer the Israelites "could not refuse?" Really makes sense, doesn't it?<BR/><BR/><I>In short, the whole premise of your question is wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>In other words, I'm simply not supposed to be asking these questions. They are off the table and not open to rational discussion.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50677037708162438692008-06-16T16:52:00.000-04:002008-06-16T16:52:00.000-04:00Harvey,Nice to hear kinder notes from you."1 Jn.4:...Harvey,<BR/>Nice to hear kinder notes from you.<BR/><BR/>"1 Jn.4:3- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." "<BR/><BR/>I want you to try to understand me. There is a difference between not believing in the existence of God or Jesus and what this verse is talking about.<BR/>This verse, as and example, refers to the ongoing debate between those who thought that Jesus came in the flesh and those that thought that he was spirit. I, as well as others on this site, think that he did not exist, or if he did, he was simply a man. Therefore, it's not like he was god or he was man, but he was not, period. It's not heads or tails, it's a nice cold beer. <BR/>By the way, I don't believe in Satan either.<BR/>I can understand if this is inconceivable to you but please leave me out of your mythology. I like it better when treated kindly.<BR/>Either way, 15 years ago sounds about right for lighting you up on the court. Then I would have broken your ankles with my deadly cross-over dribble but now I would probably just try to stave off a heart attack. I'd still beat you though. I can bring it from downtown. ;-DTrouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10728387496683503438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42926585856505070292008-06-16T14:40:00.000-04:002008-06-16T14:40:00.000-04:00Lee,I haven't read through all of the comments so ...Lee,<BR/>I haven't read through all of the comments so excuse me if I am repeating what has already been said.<BR/><BR/>Very interesting perspective. I wrote about this in much less detail <A HREF="http://fromthepier.blogspot.com/2008/01/akhenaten.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>, with a different perspective. <BR/><BR/>I think a very important and overlooked aspect to this is that history has been written, re-written and continues to be subject to the biases and perspective of the writers. Akhenaten was the second Pharoah, if I remember right, to have his/her record scratched. There is a whole section of the Code of Hammurabi scratched out...makes one curious to know more about what else has been edited and erased in secular history, if there is such a thing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65828009835733946042008-06-16T13:29:00.000-04:002008-06-16T13:29:00.000-04:00Scott- "We know that Gods and Goddesses do not con...Scott- "We know that Gods and Goddesses do not control the weather, crops and cause natural disasters. These were explanations created by a superstitious culture who simply didn't have enough information at the time to come up with a better answer."<BR/><BR/>[The problem is that I won't agree to certain aspects of your arguments so that you can make a point. These assumptions you make here do not include the God of the bible. You assumption is not what I affirm. <BR/>As I've demonstrated there is only ONE true and living God and he is in control of ALL things. If in your statement you mean by "control", that that natural disasters are somehow beyond his ability to stop, maintain or otherwise regulate, I disagree...Secondly, the God of the bible WAS NOT created by the imagination of man. God created man, not the other way around. So in short we miss each other because it appears that you sneak subtle affirmations in your line of reasoning that do not pan out in a biblical world-view and that do not match my biblical realities. Therefore the point is sabotaged along the way many times.]<BR/><BR/>Scott~ "But does he tell the Israelites this? No he does not."…"If God knew these "false Gods" were just made up by the Israelites, why didn't he just come out and say so? Why would he leave this out, yet threaten them with the same exact punishment or reward they expected from other Gods." <BR/><BR/>[Now that's making big assumptions about what God did not revealed to man in the Pre-Pentateuch age of conscience. My claim is that the narrative states that God spoke to man's conscience and hearts plainly and thereby gave him the ability to relate and communicate with HIM, however SIN birthed within the hearts of individuals caused then to turn their hearts and practices away from the True and Living God. <BR/><BR/>Gen:4:26 ~"26And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD." <BR/><BR/>As I stated, early as Genesis (pre-Pentateuch) we see the concept of worship and communication with God taking place. This was the introduction of a community practice of worship where “men began” to "call upon the name of the Lord".<BR/><BR/>Next progression wee see is the individual relationship:<BR/><BR/>Gen. 5:24 ~"4And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him."<BR/><BR/>The direction of God was clear to man even BEFORE there was a written narrative. Written narratives were not as valued as personal experience which is EXACTLY the opposite of our modern culture in many respects. <BR/><BR/>I propose that the voice, command and direction of God was not unusual or strange to his people and that the command to worship God ONLY was not something that caught the people by surprise. <BR/><BR/>This is further demonstrated by Abram's response to God in Gen. 15 when God spoke to Abram. Until that point, Abram understood the Mesopotamian bilateral covenant of agreement whereby 2 parties acted an participated. The blood covenant was understood to be of the highest order but BOTH parties had to participate. That understanding of “blood covenant” emanated from Gen. 3:21 when God made “coats of skins” for Adam and Eve to cover their nakedness as they exited the Garden. <BR/><BR/>God INTRODUCED a totally new unilateral covenant of agreement that did not require Abram's participation, done in terms that he could understand through "blood" which was accepted "by faith". The “by faith” part was not a spiritual concept up until that time, and was not a normal part of what Abram understood in association with “worship”.<BR/><BR/>This act, for Abram, sealed the fact and thought that there was only ONE true and Living God to be worshipped above all that was "called" God. You never see him, his sons, or their family worshipping or bowing themselves to ANY OTHER GOD. Why? Because the message had ALREADY been communicated. <BR/><BR/>The scope of God's message and directions are confirmed in:<BR/><BR/>Is. 48:16 ~ "Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me"<BR/><BR/>God's requirements were "not spoken in secret" he plentifully spoke to the conscience of man as it pertains to following the True and living Lord. <BR/><BR/>The problem WASN'T that God did not know how to differentiate himself from false God's or that he didn't send the necessary information clearly...The problem was (Is) that man, due to the absence of God's perceived presence chose to serve images that they could see, touch and feel and enter into the area of divination. There are a number of reason for this <BR/><BR/>1- Partially because there is a spiritual reality that undergirds the physical and natural life that we live, which seeks it’s place in communion with God, even if that place is to deny God. Although the antisupernaturalist doesn't agree, disagreements don't change the spiritual reality that we are not merely physical beings and the people of that day’s desires were similar if not more pronounced than ours. <BR/>2- There were 430 years that separated between the call of Abram and the exit from Egypt. After the patriarchs died (Abraham, Isaac & Jacob) there easily would have been exposure to false systems of worship and idolatry as evidenced and witnessed in Egypt. <BR/><BR/>There's more I could say, but to suggest that God did not address that other “god's” had no power was already a foregone conclusion. God dealt with his people by displaying the results (end) of following "dumb idols" and what they could expect his reponse to be to their sins. <BR/><BR/>People chose what "floated their boat" JUST like people do today...NO DIFFERENCE.<BR/><BR/>Hab. 2:18-20~ "18What profiteth the graven image that the maker thereof hath graven it; the molten image, and a teacher of lies, that the maker of his work trusteth therein, to make dumb idols? 19Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! Behold, it is laid over with gold and silver, and there is no breath at all in the midst of it. 20But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him."<BR/><BR/>1 Cor. 12:2 ~ "Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led."<BR/><BR/>In short, the whole premise of your question is wrong. I believe the most plausible retort is that Israel was monotheistic BEFORE the experience in Egypt and their monotheism had NOTHING to do with Aten priests, and that Moses was a conduit whereby the "written" narrative took shape. Further, I believe that Dingo and many others improperly interpret historical narratives such as Kings, Chronicles, Ezra etc as Law when that is not the proper interpretive for such books. They carry law and reveal certain aspects of God's nature and actions, however the primary use of such works are to reveal and document both God’s response to the sins of man (including idolotry) and man's response to the call of God.]<BR/><BR/>Now, I’ll conclude my time here and leave you guys to hash out and debate the details...because I believe we’ve looked at this from about every way possible and I’ve outlined my position clearly. I’ll await for and read your responses but I won't respond unless you ask me to. I appreciate the dialogue.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14473861761184396222008-06-16T13:23:00.000-04:002008-06-16T13:23:00.000-04:00Harvey Burnett wrote:-"You're a lost cause for all...Harvey Burnett wrote:<BR/><BR/>-"You're a lost cause for all practical purposes but I LOVE to be hated for Christ sake- LOL"<BR/><BR/>I don't hate you Harvey. I've told you that already.<BR/><BR/>-"but why spend so much time especially in this thread if I'm wrong...y'u-know why?"<BR/><BR/>Because it's fun and it's intellectually stimulating.<BR/><BR/>-"No need to...their work speaks for itself...and accolades mean NOTHING...I know PLEANTY of U Profs. that are OFF the deepend...totally backwards...your assumption of title MEANS NOTHING! I'm totally unimpressed...besides you don't know my credentials or what I may NOT have said in any internet profile.]"<BR/><BR/>Have you read their work Harvey?<BR/>Qualifications in a specialised field such as archaeology mean plenty. Would you take your children to some unqualified quack doctor, or would you prefer to take them to someone who knows what they're doing?<BR/>You're right Harvey, I don't know what your qualifications are, that's why I asked you the question.<BR/>I also noticed that you didn't answer me.<BR/><BR/>-"What the HECK qualifies you Dingo? Are YOU and archaeologist...are YOU and ancient historian? what QUALIFIES YOU?"<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not a qualified archaeologist or an ancient historian. That's why I listen to what the professionals have to say, rather than just blowing them off and pretending that I know as much as they do about their chosen field.<BR/>It would be nice if you had the humility to do the same.<BR/><BR/>-"I've got MUCH more scholorship that supports my position over a LONGER peoriod of time and many of them were not believers until they examined the archaeological proofs. What's even better my scholarship isn't revisionary, radical or make-believe scholarship as FINK and his bunch..."<BR/><BR/>The creationists and the flat-earthers have a very similar attitude towards new learning as you do. Thank goodness they're in the minority.(at least in my country) <BR/>I'd pit Finkelstein's knowlege of Palestinian archaeology against yours or mine any day of the week. <BR/>How many professional archaeologists do you know who have converted to Christianity because of the archaeological evidence that's been presented to them? I'm betting none.<BR/><BR/>-"What UNBIASED opinions have you offered...let me count...NONE! Get off the weed Dingo"<BR/><BR/>He (Finkelstein) has also stated; <BR/>"I can separate my convictions about my culture and my identity on the one hand from my research on the other. I think this is critical for archaeology. If you cannot make this separation you are finished. Unfortunately, most people who work in biblical archaeology fail to make this separation. It’s a serious problem.”<BR/>New Scientist No. 2658 ( May 31, 2008 )<BR/><BR/>There's one example for you right there Harvey. You do realise that he's Jewish don't you? <BR/>And there's no need for personal insults Harvey. You appear to be a bit upset. Have I touched a nerve?<BR/><BR/>-"Dingo you said this~ "The texts say that the Israelites were forbidden from making any graven images whatsoever."<BR/>YOU either LIED or HAVE NO IDEA what you're reading...Who said it Dingo?...God! YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND IT...GET OVER IT!]"<BR/><BR/>You have just provided a litany of contradictory verses Harvey, and of course I am aware of them.<BR/>I've been saying all along that the Bible contradicts itself, and the verses you quoted are living proof of that.<BR/>I have read the Bible cover to cover Harvey. How many of your congregation can say the same? <BR/> <BR/>While we're on the topic of Moses contradicting his own instructions, here's another little gem for you to ponder. <BR/><BR/>One of the Ten Commandments says "You shall not kill", yet as soon as Moses gets to the bottom of Mount Sinai, after only having just received the ten commandments, he orders his followers to slaughter members of their own families.<BR/>Here are the passages in question. <BR/><BR/>Commandment No. 6<BR/>Exodus 20<BR/>[13] "You shall not kill". <BR/><BR/>Exod.32<BR/>[19] And as soon as he (Moses) came near the camp and saw the (golden) calf and the dancing, Moses' anger burned hot, and he threw the tables out of his hands and broke them at the foot of the mountain. <BR/>[25] And when Moses saw that the people had broken loose... <BR/>[26] then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, "Who is on the LORD's side? Come to me." And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together to him. <BR/>[27] And he said to them, "Thus says the LORD God of Israel, `Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbor." <BR/>[28] And the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses; and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.<BR/><BR/>Not one killing, not two killings, but THREE THOUSAND!!! <BR/>So much for "You shall not kill". What a joke!<BR/><BR/>Both Yahweh and Moses either had split personality disorders, or virtually no short term memory. Either way, they both appear to have been mentally ill.<BR/><BR/>What kind of weird fantasy world are you living in that you can swallow such glaring contradictions without questioning them? <BR/>I wish that you could somehow come to grips with the fact that more than one person wrote the Bible. <BR/>The authors of the Bible didn't all think the same things, that's why it's so chock full of contradictions such as these.<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned. More to come.DingoDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18386229762871857788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31142049772365782872008-06-16T13:11:00.000-04:002008-06-16T13:11:00.000-04:00Scott wrote: "That's great advice, M3. However, su...Scott wrote: "That's great advice, M3. However, such advice was 'revealed' long before Jesus was born, by people who didn't believe in the existence of God or Gods."<BR/><BR/>The purpose of God's love is so that we do not perish - I was capable of giving compassion as a nonbeliever, but I was perishing inwardly and my boundaries were trampled. Jesus said that He knew when to lay His life down and when to take it up - that is the Way of the spirit - it is not under compulsion to gratify the demands or sensitivities of others - one can be compassionate but manipulated to be involved in situations that are an ill fit. And sometimes my "solutions" were not sensitive or foresighted and created more problems than peace - <BR/><BR/>At any rate, Scott, good talking to you! 3MManifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-10930532089214075212008-06-16T10:38:00.000-04:002008-06-16T10:38:00.000-04:00Trou~ Based on your last response...YOU'RE not all...Trou~ Based on your last response...YOU'RE not all that bad! OK, I'll lighten up a little bit...for the record I do care...so far as the HELL part, but I don't care more than you do...Anyway,<BR/><BR/>Now an anti-Christ advocate is a mouthpiece for the anti-Christ agenda, and since his agenda is against God and against Christ, unfortunately you guys fit the bill well. That terminology may sound offensive but think it through in light of this:<BR/><BR/>1 Jn. 2:22-23 "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."<BR/><BR/>1 Jn.4:3- "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."<BR/><BR/>2 Jn. 2:7- "7For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist"<BR/><BR/>Now I'm not callin' you the devil...just an advocate for his reign in the world...redeemable? Yes. Hopeless? NO. Sorry but accurate.<BR/><BR/>So far as the game is concerned...I'll let you know when I come your way, you'll be looking up a lot at the bottom of my shoes-(LOL-LOL!) in small print...(maybe 15 years ago-LOL)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as with most of you that I've had dialogue with...we're good!District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6281504396647961452008-06-16T03:43:00.000-04:002008-06-16T03:43:00.000-04:00The truth was revealed in Jesus, the Messiah, who ...<I>The truth was revealed in Jesus, the Messiah, who the OT people did not yet have. Jesus said it was wrong to spend time conjecturing about people's wrongdoings or sin when bad things happened to them - He was leading us to know that we ought to respond with compassion rather than wondering if God was punishing people.</I><BR/><BR/>That's great advice, M3. However, such advice was 'revealed' long before Jesus was born, by people who didn't believe in the existence of God or Gods.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-22821510973666023302008-06-16T03:33:00.000-04:002008-06-16T03:33:00.000-04:00Scott~ (concerning the techniques that God uses in...<I>Scott~ (concerning the techniques that God uses in communicating what not to do to people)"Does this sound like the actions of an omnipotent, omniscient being or one of many competing creations of a superstitious culture?</I><BR/><BR/>Harvey, <BR/><BR/>Let me reformulate my comment as you seem to have completely missed the point I was making. Because you've jumped to the conclusion that I'm questioning God's use of punishment and reward in general. Instead, I'm questioning why God, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, didn't simply expose all of these "other" false Gods as the phonies you claim he supposedly knew they were. <BR/><BR/>We know that Gods and Goddesses do not control the weather, crops and cause natural disasters. These were explanations created by a superstitious culture who simply didn't have enough information at the time to come up with a better answer. This being the case, there would be times where people would still experience drought, poor crops, disasters, etc., despite following the rules of their particular false God. Often, such results would often lead them to seek the favor of other Gods in times of trouble or confusion. <BR/><BR/>With me so far?<BR/><BR/>But, when the supposed one true Christian God reveals his will to humanity about these false gods, what does he tell us? Being Omniscient, he too would have known that these "false gods" had nothing to do with the weather, crops and fortunes of the people who worshiped them. <BR/><BR/>Right?<BR/><BR/>But does he tell the Israelites this? No he does not. <BR/><BR/>instead, he beats his chest and, in a shocking case of originality, threatens to - you guessed it - negatively influence the weather, crops and fortunes of the people who worship other gods. <BR/><BR/>Doesn't this seem the least bit conspicuous to you? <BR/><BR/>If God knew these "false Gods" were just made up by the Israelites, why didn't he just come out and say so? Why would he leave this out, yet threaten them with the same exact punishment or reward they expected from other Gods. <BR/><BR/>So he could pray on their superstitions? Does this seem like a moral thing for God to do? Does it sound like a solution formulated by an omniscient being? I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>However, as Dingo has illustrated, the Bible fails to explicitly indicate these false Gods were complete fictions. Instead, it depicts them as rival Gods who compete for the same mindshare and exhibit the same methods of reward and punishment. Conveniently, the Abrahamic God just happens to be more powerful and "rules" over the rest. Not much of a surprise here. <BR/><BR/>In fact, It seems clear the Bible couldn't dispense of the whole idea of a world run by supernatural beings who control the weather, crops and disasters. Otherwise, it would alienate the whole cultural foundation of supernatural reward, punishment and struggle for power. And that's bad for business. <BR/><BR/>This is similar to moderate Muslims who do not completely denounce the radical aspects of Islam, as it would undermine the entire idea of divine revelation.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20611446654414398742008-06-16T01:39:00.000-04:002008-06-16T01:39:00.000-04:00Your behavior on this blog does reveal who you are...Your behavior on this blog does reveal who you are. You are rude, lack reading comprehension, behave like a bully and for someone who believes in hell you sure could give a rat's ass if any of us ended up there. I really believe you just like to think you are right. You couldn't really believe in hell or you would lose a lot more sleep than you do for someone who claims to love like you do.<BR/><BR/>So go ahead and play the fool with your derogatory name calling if it makes you feel good but just do us all a favor and understand something. We are not anti-Christ. We just don't believe there ever was or is or will be a Christ. We can't be anti-something-that-doesn’t-exist. Are we anti-Zeus or anti-tooth fairy? So get that through your head. We don't believe there is a god, we aren't anti-Christ but anti-what this belief does to some people as most of us have experienced. We don't believe in hell or heaven for that matter so quit trying to get us to go to one place or the other.<BR/><BR/>It’s funny/strange that you use the primordial slime crack which just shows everyone your ignorance by acting as if the default position on abiogenesis and evolution is creationism. You must be smart enough or aware enough to realize that you are in the minority view. I would suspect you are in the minority as to your religious beliefs also. <BR/><BR/>I do commend you for your generosity within your community, however. I like to hear that you are helping those in need. You undoubtedly do more in this regard than I do, although I've opened up my home before and helped people in need (not of my family), sometimes anonymously. <BR/><BR/>It's good to hear that you like basketball. Good thing you are thousands of miles away or I would educate you old school. lol ;-D<BR/><BR/>Well that’s 2 things that I like about you. That leaves you just below my mother-in-law on my likeability scale. You need to try harder.Trouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10728387496683503438noreply@blogger.com