Names of God and Canaanite Myth

quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Names of God and Canaanite Myth

The names for God in the Bible come from older myths.

The Jews worshipped the entire Canaanite Pantheon before Abraham. After Abraham the Jews continued to return to worshipping the entire Pantheon.

This is why the Jews were ordered to destroy all of the Asherah Poles. Asherah was the "Queen of Heaven" and wife of El in the Bible.

See Deuteronomy 32 to see that the Most High El gave the nation of Israel to his Son Yahweh, when he divided the nations amongs his children. Note in the Canaanite Pantheon, Yah or Yaweh is the war god.

I will tell theists to look in peer reviewed papers, that I am not lying.

Note the Canaanite myths were the inspiration for the Greek myths.

So YHWH = Ares!

Why do atheist not challenge theists more often on their linguistic/comparative mythology? Why not challenge them more often on their mistaken cosmology?]They killed Copernicus because he told them God was a liar.


quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Asherah was mentioned in the

Asherah was mentioned in the bible and is a major goddess in the Canaanite Myths.


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 For one thing I lack

 For one thing I lack knowledge in this subject, so I don't feel comfortable making those claims without being able to support my claim.  Besides, I usually don't need to go this deep when I discuss something with a theist.  What I like to do is ask questions. What do you believe? Why do you believe that? Why should I believe that?  Remember, they are the ones making the claim and therefore have to justify their position if they want to argue.  Letting the conversation flow naturally like this also avoids a lot of misunderstandings about their beliefs, since it seems no two theists completely agree on every matter of religious belief.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Who killed Copernicus?

Who killed Copernicus?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The reason it isn't talked

The reason it isn't talked about that much is that many of us here already know this. But we do bring it up in individual posts.

I would say even the "expert" comic book fans in theology with degrees also know this but wont say it. Instead they write bullshit books on why the characters aren't the same. DUH DIPSHITS, but the inspiration came from somewhere.

But I do agree, it is not mainstream knowledge which it should be.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/MSmith_BiblicalMonotheism.shtml

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
I think that your right.

I think that your right. Joseph Campbell made this argument to me, when I was still a theist. (When I was watching one of his videos, he has been dead for a while). I automatically dismissed his claims as bullshit. It wasn't until I could no longer dismiss evolution that I finally decided to be an atheist and reread his works and discovered that his claim was true. 


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:Who killed

totus_tuus wrote:

Who killed Copernicus?

Copenicus? No one (he died of a stroke?

His theory? Well the Church tried...(Dogma over discovery)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
The Catholic Church burned

The Catholic Church burned Copernicus at the stake when he proposed that the earth went around the Sun. Galileo almost suffered the same fate but since he was a childhood friend of the pope, he did not get toasted.

Edit - it wasn't Copernicus, who was rge guy before that?


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:totus_tuus

jcgadfly wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Who killed Copernicus?

Copenicus? No one (he died of a stroke?

That's what I thought.  Must be someone else he's thinking of.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
quarkyphysicist wrote:The

quarkyphysicist wrote:

The names for God in the Bible come from older myths.

The Jews worshipped the entire Canaanite Pantheon before Abraham. After Abraham the Jews continued to return to worshipping the entire Pantheon.

This is why the Jews were ordered to destroy all of the Asherah Poles. Asherah was the "Queen of Heaven" and wife of El in the Bible.

See Deuteronomy 32 to see that the Most High El gave the nation of Israel to his Son Yahweh, when he divided the nations amongs his children. Note in the Canaanite Pantheon, Yah or Yaweh is the war god.

I will tell theists to look in peer reviewed papers, that I am not lying.

Note the Canaanite myths were the inspiration for the Greek myths.

So YHWH = Ares!

Why do atheist not challenge theists more often on their linguistic/comparative mythology? Why not challenge them more often on their mistaken cosmology?]They killed Copernicus because he told them God was a liar.

I agree Yahweh is an offshoot from Canaanite myths and legends. In the stories El is the king of the gods or is responsible in some way for creating the deities . El was supposedly the creator god but could only be approached through another god or goddess such as Athirat or Asherah. He was aloof from the world and most of the gods in it. The Ba'al cycle tablets found in Ugarith are documented in Psalm 74:13-14 which is the Hebrew version of the mythical story. Ba'al kills Litan the servant of Yamm as well as the twisty serpent with 7 heads or called Leviathan in the Hebrew version. In the Babylonian myth it is Marduk crushing Tiamat & Kingu.

Yahweh and Ba'al may in fact be the same god as they were both storm gods and gods of war, Ba'al means, Lord, Prince or simply master. His true name was never used. He has also been described as the same god in Akkadian/Babylonian myths as Hadad. Asherah was generally considered to be El's wife or consort though she also has been claimed to be Yahweh's. Eventually asherah became the name for any consort of a god. Ashtoret was said to be the daughter of El and Asherah and was considered to be the personal name of Yahweh's consort. She also has been named as the consort of Ba'al adding to the merging of Yahweh and Ba'al as perhaps the same god. Gods of Canaan, Sumer, Greece, and even Egypt were interwoven and generally considered to be the same.

The Hebrew Bible has many parallels to these myths and stories and connection as the obvious one above, as well as Genesis 3:22 when the man has become as one of us, which believers consider to be the angelic horde. In addition, Psalm 89:5-7 claimed originally to be "The heavens praise your wonders, O Yahweh, your faithfulness in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of gods is like Yahweh? A god feared in the council of holy ones, great and awesome above all that are around him?" Needless to say the KJV is nothing like that today.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Now that I remember that it

Now that I remember that it wasn't Copernicus. I think that one of Copernicus' teachers was burned at the stake for saying that the earth went around the sun. I can't remember who.  Thats why Copernicus didn't want to publish his results. George Rheticus helped get his work published. Thanks for correcting my faulty memory.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
quarkyphysicist wrote:Now

quarkyphysicist wrote:

Now that I remember that it wasn't Copernicus. I think that one of Copernicus' teachers was burned at the stake for saying that the earth went around the sun. I can't remember who.  Thats why Copernicus didn't want to publish his results. George Rheticus helped get his work published. Thanks for correcting my faulty memory.

No worries.  I was confused for a minute.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


quarkyphysicist
Posts: 14
Joined: 2010-04-16
User is offlineOffline
Being that your a theist,

Being that your a theist, Totus_tuus how do you feel about the connection between Judaism and the Canaanite Pantheon.

I think that the most obvious cry of myth stems from Samson. Being that Samas was a pagan god of the sun and Deliah's name means night. Do you still reject that this story is a pagan parable?

Samas is an Arkaddian/Bablyonian God not Canaanite though.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
quarkyphysicist wrote:The

quarkyphysicist wrote:

The Catholic Church burned Copernicus at the stake when he proposed that the earth went around the Sun. Galileo almost suffered the same fate but since he was a childhood friend of the pope, he did not get toasted.

Edit - it wasn't Copernicus, who was rge guy before that?

You are thinking of Giordano Bruno. Burned at the stake on 2-17-1600 for his view the Universe was infinite. See wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
quarkyphysicist wrote:Being

quarkyphysicist wrote:

Being that your a theist, Totus_tuus how do you feel about the connection between Judaism and the Canaanite Pantheon.

I think that the most obvious cry of myth stems from Samson. Being that Samas was a pagan god of the sun and Deliah's name means night. Do you still reject that this story is a pagan parable?

Samas is an Arkaddian/Bablyonian God not Canaanite though.

I've not studied it all that much, to tell you the truth.  I've just skirted around the edges of the history of ancient religions.  It wouldn't surprise me , though.  I think that a reasonable case can be made for the supposition that all religions sprang from an innate monotheism in Man.  I think that the story of the Tower of Babel is a recounting of this occurence to a degree.  More than a story of the rise of different langages, I think it reflects a split of cultures as a whole, inclding relgions.  Different social units had single gods emphasizing certain aspects of the one God represented by different aspects of nature.  As societies and civilizations began to merge gods were assimilated and peoples began to build pantheons as a compromise.  There is evidence that this happened in the "god swapping" between Greek and Roman mythology.

 

So, yeah.  I could deal with a connection between Judaism and the Canaanite Pantheon. 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4199
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:I think

totus_tuus wrote:

I think that a reasonable case can be made for the supposition that all religions sprang from an innate monotheism in Man.

i don't know what kind of case you could make, since pretty much all of history shows us that people groups move from polytheism to monotheism, not the other way around.  monotheism is essentially a product of civilization and urban concentration. 

for example, there is absolutely no evidence of monotheism in pre-prophetic israelite religion.  the pentateuch is a monolatrous document, despite what second temple and tannaitic period glosses would have us believe.  hellenistic religion went from strict belief in anthropomorphic gods to a type of gnostic monism and the allegorization of those gods.  vedic religion went the same route, from the sacrificial religion of indra and the devas and the imbibing of hallucinogenic soma in the rig veda, to the sophisticated mystical philosophy of the upanishads.  like yahweh before him, allah arose from a loose nomadic pantheon to become the one god of sophisticated urban merchants.  if you can find any evidence for an "inherent monotheism" outside the realm of latter-day philosophical wishful thinking, i'd like to see it.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:totus_tuus

iwbiek wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

I think that a reasonable case can be made for the supposition that all religions sprang from an innate monotheism in Man.

i don't know what kind of case you could make, since pretty much all of history shows us that people groups move from polytheism to monotheism, not the other way around.  monotheism is essentially a product of civilization and urban concentration. 

But all of history shows a movement from less complex to more complex whether in the realm of art, architecture, law or religion.  Which idea is simpler? A lone deity who is sovereign or a community of deities with differing personalities, responsibilities and interactions?  I would posit that the lone deity is much simpler.  The only indiciation we have in document form to support such a claim is the book of Genesis, but I think that examining trends in other fields of hman endeavor indicates that such a trend (ie, from monotheism to polytheism) is a distinct possibility.  What seems somewhat inexplicable to me is the rise of monotheism out of the trend towards polytheism and its stubborn persistence despite being surrounded by cultures embracing contrary beliefs.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:iwbiek

totus_tuus wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

I think that a reasonable case can be made for the supposition that all religions sprang from an innate monotheism in Man.

i don't know what kind of case you could make, since pretty much all of history shows us that people groups move from polytheism to monotheism, not the other way around.  monotheism is essentially a product of civilization and urban concentration. 

But all of history shows a movement from less complex to more complex whether in the realm of art, architecture, law or religion.  Which idea is simpler? A lone deity who is sovereign or a community of deities with differing personalities, responsibilities and interactions?  I would posit that the lone deity is much simpler.  The only indiciation we have in document form to support such a claim is the book of Genesis, but I think that examining trends in other fields of hman endeavor indicates that such a trend (ie, from monotheism to polytheism) is a distinct possibility.  What seems somewhat inexplicable to me is the rise of monotheism out of the trend towards polytheism and its stubborn persistence despite being surrounded by cultures embracing contrary beliefs.

Monotheism is not necessarily 'simpler 'when you include the dogma and doctrine surrounding it. That is where the complexity has manifest. The proposed nature of the God has become much more complex than the simple nature spirits, or merely more powerful versions of ourselves, of older polytheistic beliefs.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4199
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:But all of

totus_tuus wrote:

But all of history shows a movement from less complex to more complex whether in the realm of art, architecture, law or religion.  Which idea is simpler? A lone deity who is sovereign or a community of deities with differing personalities, responsibilities and interactions?  I would posit that the lone deity is much simpler.

then why doesn't the history of religions bear it out?  almost all of human spirituality can be traced back to animism.  i think it's a very simplistic belief to hold that every object and phenomenon is endowed with its own familiar that has needs and wants analogous to those of the believer.  on the contrary, to introduce the utterly foreign element of an inexplicable creator and sustainer whose ways are ultimately incomprehensible to the believer is, imo, much more complex.

totus_tuus wrote:

The only indiciation we have in document form to support such a claim is the book of Genesis

and genesis, which is ultimately inseparable from the JEPD narratives of the rest of the pentateuch, is a monolatrous document at best.  there is no explicit monotheism in genesis. 

totus_tuus wrote:

but I think that examining trends in other fields of hman endeavor indicates that such a trend (ie, from monotheism to polytheism) is a distinct possibility.

but we don't have to examine other trends, totus.  we can examine the trend of religious development itself quite easily.  in fact, as someone with an education in this area, i would say that religion is one of the areas of history that we have to do the least guessing about.  the progression is polytheism, to monolatry, to monotheism or monism, almost without exception (and i can't think of an exception).

totus_tuus wrote:

What seems somewhat inexplicable to me is the rise of monotheism out of the trend towards polytheism and its stubborn persistence despite being surrounded by cultures embracing contrary beliefs.

i am unaware of this trend "toward" polytheism.  polytheism is the starting point, and the trend is always away from it.  i know of no people who, having wholly embraced montheism, have "retrogressed" to polytheism.  the stories about the apostasies of israel reflect the conflicts between popular religion and the ideology of the priestly and/or prophetic caste, not the retrogression of popular religion itself.  once the jews began accepting strictly monotheistic (prophetic) yahwism en masse in the second temple period, there was never a mass apostasy to polytheism.  

EDIT: the "rise" of montheism is easily explained by the circumstances in which it invariably takes place, which i have mentioned above: urbanization, population concentration, cosmopolitanism, the rise of trade and the credit system: in other words, the world "getting smaller."  in these circumstances, it becomes easier and easier to see the world as being run by one overarching intelligence, and as new technologies explain more and more of the world, the many old familiars and gods that made things work become obsolete, just as the one god with his overarching intelligence is becoming obsolete.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
The historical sciences are,

The historical sciences are, of necessity, inexact sciences, especially when we delve into those periods where written records are lacking.  Even where contemporary, or near contemporary, accounts are found agreement as to the meanings of what we find are open to various interpetations.

I agree that the early Scriptures, especially Genesis and Exodus are monolatrous books.  The Psalms too acknowledge the existence of other gods.  In fact, I pray every morning from Psalm 95, "The Lord is God, the mighty God, the great King over all the gods."  Acknowledgements of other deities are to be found coming from the mouth of Jesus Himself.  St Paul addresses the issue as well.  But, to borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton, "In the ancient world demons often wandered abroad like dragons.  They could be positively and publicly enthroned as gods.  Their enormous images could be set up in public temples in the center of populous cities....some of the very highest civilizations of the world were the very places where the horns of Satan were exalted..."

That such is still the case I, personally, do not doubt.  But that's another story.

The story of Israel from Abraham on is a story of apostasy and return.  Gods do not need to be named as deities.  Man has managed to enthrone other things as gods.  Comfort, wealth, sexuality, power all have been enthroned by men over the ages.  If we do not worship a Divine we end up worshipping at least one of these.

Polytheism is not a thing of the past, it lives still in the popular culture.  To think that we've "outgrown" it is a very dangerous delusion.  Evil still walks and talks and has a name.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:The

totus_tuus wrote:

The historical sciences are, of necessity, inexact sciences, especially when we delve into those periods where written records are lacking.  Even where contemporary, or near contemporary, accounts are found agreement as to the meanings of what we find are open to various interpetations.

 

 

How do we know the US won the revolution of 1776?  Is there any doubt about it?

We have primary evidence - letters, documents, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. composed by the people who lived in the US and Britain of that time.

We have corroborary evidence - letters, documents, etc, composed by people of other cultures and nations discussing the revolutionary war and who won from other contemporary cultures.

We have secondary evidence - in the US we have a congress, not a parliament.  At base ball games we play The Star Spangled Banner, not God Save the Queen.  And so on.

 

Historical research requires the extensive use of documentation and physical evidence.  For example, there is no evidence - no latrines, middens, corroborary evidence from other cultures - that tens of thousands of people roamed the middle eastern desert for one year let alone 40 during the supposed time of Moses.  All we have is ONE document.  The only secondary evidence existant is the consequences of people believing this one document.  By modern historical research standards, the wanderings of the tribes of Israel is a legend, not a fact.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:  The

totus_tuus wrote:

  The Psalms too acknowledge the existence of other gods.  In fact, I pray every morning from Psalm 95, "The Lord is God, the mighty God, the great King over all the gods."  Acknowledgements of other deities are to be found coming from the mouth of Jesus Himself.  St Paul addresses the issue as well.  But, to borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton, "In the ancient world demons often wandered abroad like dragons.  They could be positively and publicly enthroned as gods.  Their enormous images could be set up in public temples in the center of populous cities....some of the very highest civilizations of the world were the very places where the horns of Satan were exalted..."

So you not only believe in the One god you also think there are others out there as well?

 

totus_tuus wrote:

Polytheism is not a thing of the past, it lives still in the popular culture.  To think that we've "outgrown" it is a very dangerous delusion.  Evil still walks and talks and has a name.

In religions such as your own which I take it to be Christianity. Mormonism, and  Hinduism as well. I consider what religion does with selling a fantasy as real to be evil and it too has a name. Deception, treachery, delusional, dishonest, and living in fantasyland.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:How do we know the

cj wrote:
How do we know the US won the revolution of 1776?  Is there any doubt about it?

None.

Quote:
We have primary evidence - letters, documents, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. composed by the people who lived in the US and Britain of that time.

And we're still unsure of the original intent of the writers in many cases.  Take a look at the reams written as to the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the government of the US on this site alone.

Bear in mind that this all took place less than 300 years ago.  Now multiply that confusion by 10.

 

 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You expect a theist to

totus_tuus wrote:

The historical sciences are, of necessity, inexact sciences, especially when we delve into those periods where written records are lacking.  Even where contemporary, or near contemporary, accounts are found agreement as to the meanings of what we find are open to various interpetations.

I agree that the early Scriptures, especially Genesis and Exodus are monolatrous books.  The Psalms too acknowledge the existence of other gods.  In fact, I pray every morning from Psalm 95, "The Lord is God, the mighty God, the great King over all the gods."  Acknowledgements of other deities are to be found coming from the mouth of Jesus Himself.  St Paul addresses the issue as well.  But, to borrow the words of G.K. Chesterton, "In the ancient world demons often wandered abroad like dragons.  They could be positively and publicly enthroned as gods.  Their enormous images could be set up in public temples in the center of populous cities....some of the very highest civilizations of the world were the very places where the horns of Satan were exalted..."

That such is still the case I, personally, do not doubt.  But that's another story.

The story of Israel from Abraham on is a story of apostasy and return.  Gods do not need to be named as deities.  Man has managed to enthrone other things as gods.  Comfort, wealth, sexuality, power all have been enthroned by men over the ages.  If we do not worship a Divine we end up worshipping at least one of these.

Polytheism is not a thing of the past, it lives still in the popular culture.  To think that we've "outgrown" it is a very dangerous delusion.  Evil still walks and talks and has a name.

 

hold unusual beliefs and this post bears that out. The theistic mind is a strange land. It's hard enough to understand the particles of reality without inventing some additional realm that's unprovable. As for enthroning and worshipping things other than gods, this is more of the subjective projection of the theistic brain. Worshipping a god, who you pray to and trust and love is not the same thing as enjoying the good things in life with a circumspect mind.

As for the horns of satan, there is no satan, there are no gods, there is nothing but your needful imagination.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:So

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So you not only believe in the One god you also think there are others out there as well?

Yes, I do.  More accurately, I believe that there are spirits who have been enthroned as gods.

Quote:
In religions such as your own which I take it to be Christianity. Mormonism, and  Hinduism as well. I consider what religion does with selling a fantasy as real to be evil and it too has a name. Deception, treachery, delusional, dishonest, and living in fantasyland.

At least we agree on evil walking, talking and bearing a name, we just think that the name is the other's worldview. 

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus wrote:cj

totus_tuus wrote:

cj wrote:
How do we know the US won the revolution of 1776?  Is there any doubt about it?

None.

Quote:
We have primary evidence - letters, documents, newspapers, pamphlets, etc. composed by the people who lived in the US and Britain of that time.

And we're still unsure of the original intent of the writers in many cases.  Take a look at the reams written as to the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the government of the US on this site alone.

Bear in mind that this all took place less than 300 years ago.  Now multiply that confusion by 10. 

 

I was not arguing intent.  I was arguing facts.  Big diff.  We have facts about the middle east - all those Jewish settlers after WWII had children that they encouraged to explore the surrounding lands.  And a lot of those children became archeologists and anthropologists who proceeded to survey those lands like they never have been before.  Fact - no evidence of Moses and tens of thousands of people roaming the desert for 40 years or even one year.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So you not only believe in the One god you also think there are others out there as well?

Yes, I do.  More accurately, I believe that there are spirits who have been enthroned as gods.

Quote:
In religions such as your own which I take it to be Christianity. Mormonism, and  Hinduism as well. I consider what religion does with selling a fantasy as real to be evil and it too has a name. Deception, treachery, delusional, dishonest, and living in fantasyland.

At least we agree on evil walking, talking and bearing a name, we just think that the name is the other's worldview. 

Are you talking about idolatry or the pantheon you call the saints?

Evil has a name - evil. It's manifest on both sides of the aisle.

The difference is that one side has a large, well funded establishment condoning and protecting it. On the other side are a bunch of atheists.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
So you not only believe in the One god you also think there are others out there as well?

Yes, I do.  More accurately, I believe that there are spirits who have been enthroned as gods.

In Islam they call them Jinn. In the Middle Ages they were demons and devils. In antiquity, there were gods, evil spirits, demons or devils.

Your god takes responsibility for them and has admitted to his liability. See Isaiah 45:7, JPS, "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things."

He also used these tools to get his way as in when an evil spirit from the Lord troubled Saul.

In all cases, it is ignorance and refusal to acknowledge responsibility for one's action. Those in the past with mental illness were considered to have an evil spirit or demon. One would hope you know better than these savage, ancients who attributed the unknown to supernatural causes like gods, demons or spirits.

Over the years this sort of ignorance has resulted in the terrorizing of countless innocents from the early Church to the Middle Age quest to eradicate heretics, and even into America. St Ambrose and St. Augustine advocated the use of violence, torture and terror in propagating the message of the Lamb of God who is loving. Kind of a mixed message.

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
In religions such as your own which I take it to be Christianity. Mormonism, and  Hinduism as well. I consider what religion does with selling a fantasy as real to be evil and it too has a name. Deception, treachery, delusional, dishonest, and living in fantasyland.

At least we agree on evil walking, talking and bearing a name, we just think that the name is the other's worldview. 

It's far more than the worldview of religion, it's the human desire to be powerful and important that supersedes the intention of any worldview. Religion provides a basis to enable persecution and evil. If you are not one of us is the message, you are scum to be eradicated. Our god will destroy you, but in the meanwhile, we will use the examples of our blessed saints and help the god by sending you to his judgment. This was the basis of the crusades and is the message of radical Islam. The Catholic Church continues to look for new sinister ways to enforce its will as ignorance has given way to knowledge. Interpretations and powerful personalities use deceptive methods that play on human weakness and desires for understanding.

You may be a really nice person that is fair and understanding who has only been either deluded or has grasped the beliefs as a means to deal with the world. I have only seen your Internet personality over the years and have no way to know if that is truly who you are or if as in most cases the real personality is submerged and unrevealed to the world. That you hold atheism to be an evil is sidestepping the real issue which man by his nature is a creature that fights for his survival and always has. Many cooperate, many follow, many try to be the tribal chief. Religion as a tool has done much damage from the time of the ancients until this very day. Pure disbelief has never done so. Belief that one has the right to force one's will on the rest of mankind can be done through many deceptions and with religion it has been used successfully in all cultures throughout the world from the ancient priests of the cavemen to the Imams who justify murder. This use of religion to control masses to propagate one's goals is what I consider the most evil and vile.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.