It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the god of the bible is an evil god

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
In my humble opinion the concept that most people describe as god is way beyond the comprehension of mortal man. No one can fully know the mind of god or even claim to understand it, no more then anyone claim absolute scientific knowledge of the universe. That right is reserved for god the infinite.
Also all this arguing over bible verses is pointless. The scriptures are flawed and should be rejected out of hand, after all the editing how can anyone claim to know truth from falsehood. Its possible to reject the trappings of superstition yet still retain spiritual faith. Clear your mind listen to your heart and you will feel the will of god.




posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO


The only thing you have supporting your view is the use of language in the bible.
Also you assume El of Abraham is the same El of the pagans.
You say over 1500 years interpretation changed, but assume that the interpretations could not be interpretting the same thing?




I would say that child sacrifice, high places and pillars of worship are pretty good evidence wouldn't you?

Of course, even though the Biblical evidence says that El was a pagan god, he couldn't have been could he? Not to the blind. No. I don't assume the interpretations mean the same thing. Heh. 90% of the time you literalists don't assume them to mean the same thing. You'll follow blindly for a few years until the Church brings out a new definition and then swallow it and carry on as if nothing ever happened. The evidence in the Bible is that interpretations change. I suppose you're going to tell me that Noah didn't come from Gilgamesh now are you? That the Earth stood still for Joshua's battle? That the Sun revolves around the Earth?

I love the accusations and being compared to a six year old. I'm not the one who has based his faith on a book which contains a million faults. I've pointed out the contradictions - the fact that you deny them makes you the one with the child-like outlook - hiding behind a pillow when things that scare you appear.

The onus is on me to prove? What? So that you'll believe what I'm saying? No thanks. Once people like yourself start beleiving, it looks like you can't stop - whatever the evidence to the contrary.

The "use of the language"? It's a book - it only contains words. I have taken those words in context with history. You have taken the words in context with nothing other than what the Church has told you.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
I love the accusations and being compared to a six year old.


The accusation of being more advanced than my 6 year old? My apologies if that offended you. In order to keep from offending you, I will never make such a claim again.

Since you are set in your ways, and you believe I am a sheeple that follows blindly, I can agree to simply disagree.



But I do have one question.


I would say that child sacrifice, high places and pillars of worship are pretty good evidence wouldn't you?


Since you claim the God of Abraham is not the same as the God of Moses, what child died in sacrifice to the God of Abraham?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seraphim_Serpente
Mute Halo - you are very wise my friend. AD5673 - OK lets break it down like this - try to wrap your mind around this: Lets say that ULTIMATELY in the ENTIRE UNIVERSE - which is Multidimensional & Infinite - there is One Supreme God & that we can never know ITS true Name. But here is the thing just take a look around - look at the Diversity of Life - look at all of the different types of People & Animals in existence in the World. They all Perceive Reality differently. So OK there is ONE Universal God - but they ALL PERCIEVE it Differently - they All call IT different names & Worship IT in different ways. IT - the One Supreme God - MANIFESTS ITSELF to us in a Multitude of different ways. Do you get it now? Obviously BOTH Good & Evil Exist - Just as Light & Darkness Exist. But these are Just Two Sides of the Supreme God - In Reality "GOD" is neither Good nor Evil - this is only our Worldly Perception!!!


well said. i personally also believe that god is neither good nor evil seeing how god is everything and good and evil are ultimately part of the same universal whole working together. the main reason i ultimately did this is post is because i allways hear fundamentalists saying that thier god is love, thier god is good, thier god is just ect ect. yet thier god takes on the characteristics of this cruel, closed minded, power hungry dictator. granted there are many different ideas of what love is, i personally believe that a loving god would be infinately forgiving and accepting of all his people, no matter how "bad" of a person they may be. then again what is good and evil. once again, its all about perception which leads me to believe that god does not judge us by our actions because good and evil are all part of the same universal whole. we just put different names on it. if there is anyone that judges us its our own selves and nobody else.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by mutehalo]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO


Since you claim the God of Abraham is not the same as the God of Moses, what child died in sacrifice to the God of Abraham?



The followers of Canaanite high god El are known to practice child sacrifice through evidence provided by archealogical discoveries. The readiness with which Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his child shows that he was no stranger to this sort of worship. Abraham also grew up in a home that worshipped idols - the Bible told us that his father made them. The references to paganism surrounding him aren't suprising when you realise that his whole background revolved around paganism. Seventy-five years of his life had been spent in it's presence.
What matters is not that Abraham did not sacrifice his child - what does matter is that obviously he was no stranger to the practice. It's also a practice which the Jews reverted to over and over again. The argument that god was merely testing Abraham is a poor one. Why use a mode of trial to prove worship that is the domain of other gods? "I'm a different god but first I'm going to prove your faithfulness by testing your ability to follow false gods"? It's not like this trial would have been unfamiliar to Abraham either. It wouldn't have been shocking or unexpected - the gods of his previous homes often required human sacrifice. As a test of faith it was a pretty poor one.
I guess a literalist would say that it was a test and a lesson to point out the differences between pagan gods and the new deity, but this doesn't make sense. Why should a man have to prove himself to his god? Especially an all-knowing, all powerful entity who would know what the end result was. If you follow the literate interpretation of the Bible, you can see that the whole episode was pointless.

But it's not entirely pointless if you look at it in a historical light. The evidence points to the early Hebrews being followers of pagan deities.
During the early days of the Israelites, when they were first taking possession of Palestine, the worship of various sun or fire-gods was common throughout Canaan. In fact, the word "Holocaust" derives from such practice. Even Solomon reverted to putting his children "through the fire". So did Ahaz and many others. They reverted to pagan worship - the origins of Judaism.
The Bible shows an evolution of religion. The god evolves too. He is taken from an earlier belief system, changed, adapted, given a new name and a new personality. He is a different god from the original. Abraham's actions are a hearkening back to the old god and the older methods of worship. The fact that he stayed his hand and spared his child doesn't mean that the old god didn't exist any more - it was merely evolving into something new - something different. One could argue that the essentials stay the same and therefore he is the same god but even this is not the case. The early Hebrews assimilated the mythology of other religions and over time changed it. There is an argument that the two gods, Yaweh and El, are merely a variation of the same god. But when a god is based on faith how is that logical? If there are differences in worship, characteristics and recognition of a faith, how can they be the same faith?

www.sulekha.com...

Fact: El was Abraham's god. Abraham came from a population centre where worship of El was paramount.

Fact: El was the Canaanite High god.

Fact: El displays a different personality to Yahweh. He is a personal god - appearing to Abraham and sharing a meal with him. Yahweh is nothing like this. There is a distance between him and Moses.

Fact: There are pagan elements to the worship of El.

Fact: The Jews often reverted to following other gods.

Fact: The words in the Bible support the existence of other gods. Yaweh attending a council of gods is just one example.

Fact: Many names took on the ending El. It is a name that is undoubtedly tied into Jewish belief.


The link below provides an interesting summary of some of the differences between El and Yahweh.

www.biblicalheritage.org...




[edit on 19-7-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
The followers of Canaanite high god El are known to practice child sacrifice through evidence provided by archealogical discoveries. The readiness with which Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his child shows that he was no stranger to this sort of worship. What matters is not that Abraham did not sacrifice his child - what does matter is that obviously he was no stranger to the practice. It's also a practice which the Jews reverted to over and over again. The argument that god was merely testing Abraham is a poor one. Why use a mode of trial to prove worship that is the domain of other gods? "I'm a different god but first I'm going to prove your faithfulness by testing your ability to follow false gods"?


A simple answer would have sufficed.
To paraphrase, your answer is "there were none"
You cannot have a child sacrifice without a child being sacrificed.

God of Abraham: no child sacrifice
Pagan God El: child sacrifice.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
A simple answer would have sufficed.
To paraphrase, your answer is "there were none"
You cannot have a child sacrifice without a child being sacrificed.

God of Abraham: no child sacrifice
Pagan God El: child sacrifice.



Religion is not a question with simple answers. If it were there would be no suffering in it's name would there?

But now we're getting somewhere. At least you recognise that the god El was a pagan god. Now maybe you can tell me why El is not Abraham's god when the Bible says that he is.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
I would like to know of the people responding to threads like this concerning God(Jesus Christ) who has read the Bible all the way through at least once? Both OT and NT

Yes. This has been discussed frequently. I own several Bibles and I've read it cover-to-cover at least five times. I completely understand the message.

In fact, it was reading the Bible that turned me into a Pagan.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Religion is not a question with simple answers. If it were there would be no suffering in it's name would there?

But now we're getting somewhere. At least you recognise that the god El was a pagan god. Now maybe you can tell me why El is not Abraham's god when the Bible says that he is.


You cannot prove a negative. Trying is futile.
"Proof" that a negative is true lies in the lack of evidence that the positive is true.

If you honestly have a desire to learn, I could explain how the God of Abraham and the pagan god El could have the same name. But that is simply the ability of language to describe something, no great conspiracy or belief system involved.

Edit: I would like to comment on the following:

Religion is not a question with simple answers. If it were there would be no suffering in it's name would there?


Put in simplest terms, my beliefs are "God is. Love God. Live God."
This same basic belief is shared by Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, and Buddhists, just replace God with whatever word is used to describe.

I do agree that if religions used simple answers there would be no suffering in its name. Unfortunately, simple answers lead to questions which lead to more answers which lead to more questions which lead to more answer...




[edit on 19-7-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
If you honestly have a desire to learn, I could explain how the God of Abraham and the pagan god El could have the same name. But that is simply the ability of language to describe something, no great conspiracy or belief system involved.



That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? A literalist relying on a new interpretation of a word? Whatever is the world coming to?

OK. Go for it. I'm all ears. (Well, actually eyes. This is the internet after all).


By the way. I didn't ask for proof. I asked for an opinion. I'm well aware that you can't prove anything, nor can I. We can only go off the evidence that we are given. The facts that I have given are evidence that goes towards proof - they are not proof in themselves. But there comes a time when there is enough evidence to form an opinion.

Edit in reply: My beliefs are similar. But I merely use the Bible as a guideline. I believe the OT can be disregarded by modern Christians in it's entirety as it was only used to consolidate the NT, and about the only things in the OT that are pertinent to Christianity are the prophecies of Jesus' arrival. Even the Commandments can be picked up elsewhere.

[edit on 19-7-2004 by Leveller]



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dr goodrich
hey bad kitty.
i have read some of the 'lost' books outside the bible.
it's funny, while they are not included, some of their content shows up in theology. like the whole story about satan's origin (not in THE bible).

i cant tell you how free i felt when i finally let go of the programing. no more wicked head chatter! not to mention it put full accountability on me for my own actions. i am not reasponsible for original sin folks, and you can quote me on that!
people who own their own behavior, do not need a saviour!

peace to you bad kitty!


Hey Dr. - peace to you as well. And you don't have to explain to me the great relief you felt when you "let go of the programming" - I felt it too and it is a huge relief!

But to your points above, the whole satan thing was one of the key things that made me question the whole biblical view. I mean, if satan was initially created by god, and god is all good, and evil did not exist before satan rebelled and was cast out of heaven - then where did satan even get the idea to rebel? Where did the evil thought come from? Did it come from god? If so, then god is both good and evil. Did satan invent it? If so then god created satan with all he is capable of so ultimately god created evil? Or, is there another god that has existed as long as the biblical god that influenced satan? In that case, then there is more than one god out there. Either way, the whole satan idea contradicts the basic premises of the bible, that there is only one god who is only good that created everything and is the most powerful force in the universe. Some part of this premis cannot be true if the satan story is true.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
That's a bit of a paradox, isn't it? A literalist relying on a new interpretation of a word? Whatever is the world coming to?


If I were a literalist, I would agree there would be a paradox. But if you look back through our discussion, the very first thing I did was ask you to look for other meanings in the words you were reading. (Thou shalt not have other gods before me) I even asked you to check the "Strong's definitions" of the Hebrew to see if there were other meanings.

I simply seek understanding. That I believe the bible has meaning has nothing to do with "literally" interpretting what was said.


OK. Go for it. I'm all ears. (Well, actually eyes. This is the internet after all).


Sure why not.

Language is used to describe things to relay an understanding to another person. Today there are more terms to describe things than there was 300 years ago (Transistor, automobile, train, etc.). In addition some words are used to describe things differently. (cool, gay, chill, etc.). Progressing forward in time, we see language expanding. Historically you can prove that language evolves as time progresses.

So lets go back 6000 years (or so) and say we are trying to describe something as "mighty" but there was no word to describe this concept.

The horse is "mighty".
The man is "mighty".
The sword is not as "mighty" as the pen.

In order to describe these things we need a word. Let's pick "bob".

The Horse is "bob"
The man is "bob"
The swords is not as "bob" as the pen.

Now the word exists in the Language.

Say Bill wanted to describe a being he made up five minutes ago to press the masses into servitude, he would pick the word that would best describe this made up being. Let's say he picked our word "bob".

If a being, which was slightly more powerful than human, came to Joe, Joe would pick the word that best described this being. Let's say he picked our word "bob".

If "an all power being" came to Frank, Frank would pick the word that best described this being. Let's say he picked our word "bob".

If the "beings" that came to Frank and Joe were to describe themselves, they would also use the word that best described themselves (so as to be understood by Frank and Joe). Let's say they picked our word "bob".

So what Bill, Joe, and Frank all describe as "bob" are not the same "bob being" but rather different "beings" that are described as "bob".

From this point language would progress, as is natural for language to do.
Eventually we may have terms such as bob'er', or bob'est', or bob's, or the bob bob (adj, noun).

Regardless of how the word is used later the origin of the word is to simply describe a concept. In the case of "bob" this concept was "mighty"


By the way. I didn't ask for proof. I asked for an opinion. I'm well aware that you can't prove anything, nor can I. We can only go off the evidence that we are given. The facts that I have given are evidence that goes towards proof - they are not proof in themselves. But there comes a time when there is enough evidence to form an opinion.


Opinions are not evidence, per se, as they depend on the perceived credibility of the person offering his opinion. If you believe me to be a few cards short of a full deck, then my opinions would hold the same weight with you. Based on my perception of your perception of me, I would be better off trying to prove a negative .



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 12:59 PM
link   
All very well and good until you see that El is a proper noun not a common one.

Here's another link that explains it.

www20.brinkster.com...



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I think god wasnt exactly the god! He sent his ONLY son to die for us! Why didnt he come down and die for us?



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by devil9t9uk
I think god wasnt exactly the god! He sent his ONLY son to die for us! Why didnt he come down and die for us?



It's always the sons who die and are ressurected.
El's son Ba'al did exactly the same thing. As did Osiris in Egyptian mythology and Dionysus and Mithras in Roman.

The son was always associated with birth/rebirth.

The fact that there is a recurring theme of sons giving their lives for humanity means that the Biblical Jesus was no different to previous pagan deities in that respect.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
All very well and good until you see that El is a proper noun not a common one.

Here's another link that explains it.


Except, in the Bible it is not used only as a proper noun.
Its most common use is to describe God. 213 of 245 times.
The other 32 times it is translated as gods, power, might, great, goodly, and a few others.

While I do allow that some of the other 32 uses could indeed be translated as "God" without problem, most can not.

.



posted on Jul, 19 2004 @ 10:31 PM
link   
In one of bad kitty's posts she mentioned that the oldest gospel was written in 70 AD and that was 708 years after Christ's death and resurrection. Without getting into a debate about that the calender could be off about 4 years, how does 70AD minus 33 AD equal 708 yrs. It's only 37 years.

Also the "discrepancies" in the Bible are only discrepancies until you find out how they relate to each other, then they cease becoming discrepancies.

God is jealous for us because He knows something many refuse to accept. He knows the unsaved are headed for everlasting seperation from Him by rejecting Christ. That's not what He wants and He is jealous in the sense that those He loves seek other "gods" and things and lies that lead to death. He alone can give eternal life now and everlasting eternal life for all eternity.

Having other "gods" before Him does refer to false gods who appear real. It also applies to us when we place ourself ahead of God. It can also refer to ANYTHING that people place as more important than Him. It could be football, TV, drinking, unhealthy sexual desires, money, power, food the list can go on and on.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leveller
Here's another link that explains it.
www20.brinkster.com...


First I have a confession, I haven't really bothered to click on any of the links you provided.


Second, during this lull in the conversation I finally clicked and read the link you gave above.

Third, I hope you bothered to cross reference these "facts"?

The primary difference between Western (Akkadian) and Eastern (Caananite) Semitic languages were the use of verbs. That page makes it sounds like they were talking a completely different language, they were not. Western semetic was spoke in what would today be Modern day Iraq. Eastern would be East of that.


But Ur is so close to the "border" where the languages split, it is likely he could have spoke any Semitic languages, or possibly multiple dialects.

Next, Hebrew is a Eastern Semetic language. The Ugarit tablets (1400 BC) they mentioned are a cuniform version of semitic (hebrew) called semitic (Ugarit). The language is so close that it shed light on words that had an uncertain meanings in the Torah.

I am really suprised they didn't mention the stories found on those tablets. Well. no I'm not as they would date pagan Caanite beliefs 400-600 years after Abraham (depending on who is doing the counting). Any anti-Bible/anti-catholic person can tell you how much of a mess cannonical beliefs can become in 400 years.

Really that's all I wanted to say, mentioning the "points" they made is moot. (one of those perception of credibility problems, I hope you understand)

.



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:17 PM
link   
you guys have forgotten the most important EL in the O.T.
EL o him.
yes boys and girls, that's plural for yaweh. congratulations! you are both right!



posted on Jul, 20 2004 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by IXRAZORXI321
i can't say that I agree with you but after reading some of the things on this website www.evilbible.com... I'm beginning to wonder.


does make one think, made me!



new topics




 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join