Why the biblical religions are dangerous?

page: 18
23
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
@ Leahn

Yes, you are quite right in understanding the definition of "belief" but your comprehension is atrocious. Please read this very carefully.

My original words were --

"I can prove neither of those events but I can believe those events. Belief in a Creator and proof of a Creator are altogether two different sources of the mind."

"I can prove neither of those events" ( I have no proof of either one of those events) -

"but I can believe those events" ( have faith without proof of those events). Belief and faith are interchangeable in many cases and is valid in this case.

Let us apply that same logic in this next statement. " I cannot prove that there is a God but I believe there is a God" -- ( I can't prove there is a God but I have belief or faith that there is a God.)

You have the right to call people names but that only shows your ignorance. Mind you, I do not imply that you are stupid or that you are an idiot but only that, in this case, you are ignorant. You are without justification, in this case, in name calling and only shows me your true nature.


Your post I replied to was written: "Without proof, I see no reason for belief." That's what I replied to.

Belief requires neither proof, nor reason. Belief is a choice.

On the other hand, faith does require proof.




posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Which speaks to your ability to critically discern the facets of reality. If it had any foundation whatsoever, it would not be faith. Faith is the opposite of knowledge.

Knowledge - having every empirical reason to believe in something.

Faith - having no empirical reason to believe in something and doing it anyway.


It seems that you know neither what is belief, nor what is faith, nor what is knowledge.



My point is that it's very silly to hold a belief without sufficient evidence supporting the validity of said belief.


So would you like to believe. It is your choice. Albeit a self-contradicting one, but as I said before, such details are irrelevant.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Now you're just shifting focus. You're the one that stated

"Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war"

. You're wrong, intellectually dishonest and you're the one beating a strawman. It makes no difference whether or not Yahweh was recognized by the Canaanites before Babylonian captivity.


Of course, it does. The claim was that Yahweh was the *canaanite* god of war. It makes all the difference in the world if there is no mention of Yahweh anywhere in what we have left of canaanite culture.

And the captivity was Egyptian, not Babylonian.


Originally posted by windword
The early Israelites were polytheistic.


No such thing as "early Israelites."



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seede
And your grammar teacher taught you - "there is no such thing"

The meaning of Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion. It may also be belief that is not based on proof.

You seem to have a glass house.


I believe that the expression "there is no such thing" was learned from discussing with Americans on public forums. I actually had to relearn a lot of grammar after I started discussing in places like this. Not all of the bad habits were unlearned.

The idea that faith means belief without proof comes from atheist propaganda. Such idea was declared by Carl Sagan. It has no basis whatsoever on etymology or even common everyday use of the word.

Faith is confidence based on past evidence of truthfulness.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
How can it (lack of evidence/proof/"truthness" for something) be a requirement of belief (so it doesn't move into the realm of knowledge) .....and yet be irrelevant to it.....all at the same time? Contradiction?


Belief has no requirement. It is what is not belief that has requirements.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
If something is shown to have "truthness" it stops being a belief, according to yourself. Seems to make its "truthness" relevant, by those standards?


Not to belief, since once truthness is demonstrated, it ceases to be belief, and becomes knowledge.

I believe I see your point. I believe you are trying to say that truthness is relevant to demonstrate something to not to be a belief. But that would be a negative proof. You do not have to demonstrate a negative.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Otherwise, what's the point in facts at all?
edit on 17-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


Facts are... hard. It is very difficult to demonstrate something as a fact. Most of the time, it is effectively impossible to do so.

A wise man once said that the only thing we can certainly know as a fact is the existence of our own minds. I disagree but he is widely regarded as being correct on such matter.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by windword
Now you're just shifting focus. You're the one that stated

"Again, there is no solid evidence linking Yahweh as a god of war"

. You're wrong, intellectually dishonest and you're the one beating a strawman. It makes no difference whether or not Yahweh was recognized by the Canaanites before Babylonian captivity.


Of course, it does. The claim was that Yahweh was the *canaanite* god of war. It makes all the difference in the world if there is no mention of Yahweh anywhere in what we have left of canaanite culture.


No. The claim is, the hypothesis of this thread is, "Biblical religions are dangerous", because of the cult of Yahweh.



And the captivity was Egyptian, not Babylonian.



Originally posted by windword
The early Israelites were polytheistic.


No such thing as "early Israelites."



Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh the national god of Israel and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon in the period before the Babylonian captivity.

Archeological evidence reveals that during this time period the Israelites were a group of Canaanite people. Yahweh was seen as a war god, and equated with El. Asherah, who was often seen as El's consort, has been described as a consort of Yahweh in numerous inscriptions.
en.wikipedia.org...(Canaanite_deity)








edit on 17-5-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
No. The claim is, the hypothesis of this thread is, "Biblical religions are dangerous", because of the cult of Yahweh.


So you deny that the OP said that Yahweh was the canaanite god of war?


Originally posted by windword
en.wikipedia.org...(Canaanite_deity)


I read the wikipedia article. I was already well-aware of it. I am also well-aware of the fact that this article is disputed, as it is shown on its talk page. It is highly speculative and poorly sourced.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by windword
No. The claim is, the hypothesis of this thread is, "Biblical religions are dangerous", because of the cult of Yahweh.


So you deny that the OP said that Yahweh was the canaanite god of war?


The OP's opening post contained over 5000 words. Way down the post, was the phrase "Yahweh was a Canaanite God..."

Before that, the OP says this:



1. the old testament documents their god yahweh as being the most murderous and evil of gods in history if we take the bible as 100% truth, and that is counter to what modern day theologians have to say about the same god, who the basis of their religion is off of...they would have us believe that this god was always the same, and is all these good things, but the bible itself is telling on this, one only has to read it to find it out, and look objectively instead of through the rose colored glasses of doctrine and dogma...


This is the crux his post.


Originally posted by windword
en.wikipedia.org...(Canaanite_deity)


I read the wikipedia article. I was already well-aware of it. I am also well-aware of the fact that this article is disputed, as it is shown on its talk page. It is highly speculative and poorly sourced.

Then you are also aware of the discussion that encompasses the two scribes P and J, and the introduction of the Yahwehists.

The fact that the Hebrews were polytheistic supports, in part, the OP hypothesis of an evolving concept of the Hebrew God, and the convergence of the gods into one.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by windword


So you deny that the OP said that Yahweh was the canaanite god of war?


The OP's opening post contained over 5000 words. Way down the post, was the phrase "Yahweh was a Canaanite God..."


So, that's your best shot? Quote mining in order to not to give up a point? Really?


Originally posted by windword
Before that, the OP says this:


1. the old testament documents their god yahweh as being the most murderous and evil of gods in history if we take the bible as 100% truth, and that is counter to what modern day theologians have to say about the same god, who the basis of their religion is off of...they would have us believe that this god was always the same, and is all these good things, but the bible itself is telling on this, one only has to read it to find it out, and look objectively instead of through the rose colored glasses of doctrine and dogma...



A statement for which he offers no solid evidence. Did you see any comparisson with other gods? A chart, maybe? I see nothing. I see an overeaching statement for which no evidence whatsoever is provided, and then such statement, assumed as true, being used as a basis for the rest of his argument. If that's the crux of his post, then he has no post.


Originally posted by windword
Then you are also aware of the discussion that encompasses the two scribes P and J, and the introduction of the Yahwehists.

The fact that the Hebrews were polytheistic supports, in part, the OP hypothesis of an evolving concept of the Hebrew God, and the convergence of the gods into one.


Yes, and I have already addressed it. The is no such thing as "early Israelites." Israel did not exist before they returned from Egypt, and when they returned, they were already monotheistic.

The world is full of people making outrageous declarations about the Bible, and what's in it, including the origins of Judaism, and getting their 15 minutes of fame from it, and then disappearing into obscurity when the next person makes another outrageous claim.
edit on 18/5/2013 by Leahn because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by windword


So you deny that the OP said that Yahweh was the canaanite god of war?


The OP's opening post contained over 5000 words. Way down the post, was the phrase "Yahweh was a Canaanite God..."


So, that's your best shot? Quote mining in order to not to give up a point? Really?


WHAT??? Your the one who asking what was in the OP, and then when I go back to the OP, in order to point to the topic and title of this thread, "Why the biblical religions are dangerous?", you accuse me of quote mining! LOL. You showing you desperation now, and just trying to change the subject.



Originally posted by windword
Before that, the OP says this:


1. the old testament documents their god yahweh as being the most murderous and evil of gods in history if we take the bible as 100% truth, and that is counter to what modern day theologians have to say about the same god, who the basis of their religion is off of...they would have us believe that this god was always the same, and is all these good things, but the bible itself is telling on this, one only has to read it to find it out, and look objectively instead of through the rose colored glasses of doctrine and dogma...



A statement for which he offers no solid evidence. Did you see any comparisson with other gods? A chart, maybe? I see nothing. I see an overeaching statement for which no evidence whatsoever is provided, and then such statement, assumed as true, being used as a basis for the rest of his argument. If that's the crux of his post, then he has no post.


Off topic! OP's talking about the Biblical god, Yahweh. There is lots of solid evidence to his claims. You just don't like it!



Originally posted by windword
Then you are also aware of the discussion that encompasses the two scribes P and J, and the introduction of the Yahwehists.

The fact that the Hebrew were polytheistic supports, in part, the OP hypothesis of an evolving concept of the Hebrew God, and the convergence of the gods into one.


Yes, and I have already addressed it. The is no such thing as "early Israelites." Israel did not exist before they returned from Egypt, and when they returned, they were already monotheistic.


No you haven't addressed it. Of course there are "early Israelites"! I'm not talking about pre-Egyptian Hebrews, I'm talking about those of the Exodus. Archaelogical evidence proves that they were, the early Israelites, inconveniently polytheistic!




The world is full of people making outrageous declarations about the Bible, and what's in it, including the origins of Judaism, and getting their 15 minutes of fame from it, and then disappearing into obscurity when the next person makes another outrageous claim.


There are a lot of people going around spouting off outrageous claims about the bible, like it's the "word of God" too! It is full of historical inaccuracies and plagiarism. The Ten Commandments are rewrite of the Egyptian Book of the Dead, and the story of the flood is borrowed from Babylonian mythology.

The Biblical Hebrew god, Yahweh, is a composite of more than one god's attributes. extra DIV



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn

Belief has no requirement. It is what is not belief that has requirements.


Belief is simply an acceptance that something is true. A personal, inner process.

(although there is more scope, such as belief in the "poetic sense")

The rest is a complication you create around the definition, for obvious reasons. Such as giving false justification for (attempting to) ridicule someone for challenging a belief.

Entire fields of academia (cognative science, philosophy etc.) as well as the English dictionary definitions (when not cherry picked), if not common sense, disagree with your limited personal interpretation.


Not to belief, since once truthness is demonstrated, it ceases to be belief, and becomes knowledge.


Claiming "belief" in the reality of some version or other of god, doesn't exempt scrutiny and examination of the reasons for such, any more than claiming belief that earth revolves around the sun. The difference being that one is does withstand scrutiny and has become well accepted (yet just like god it still requires belief, to be accepted personally). Claiming belief in imaginary gods, doesn't place it beyond scrutiny or elevate such belief to a special position.

ps. Perhaps your grammar teacher might have used "truthfulness", instead of "truthness"?

edit on 18-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Exodus 15:3 The Lord is a man of war; the Lord is His Name.

Isaiah 42:13 The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war:



Yahweh was introduced to the Israelites as a “divine warrior [god] from the south.

Yahweh and Baal co-existed and later competed as “warrior-gods"


The Origins of Biblical Monotheism ISBN 0-19-513480-X
en.wikipedia.org...



Yahweh was not always God in Israel and at every social level.  Rather, initially he belongs only to the storm and war gods like Baal, Anath, Hadad, Resheph and Chemosh


Theologies of the Old Testament ISBN 0 576 08812 X
 www.staff.uni-marburg.de...



If you go back to the poems that most scholars consider the oldest pieces of the Bible, there’s no mention of God creating anything. He seems more interested in destroying............What some believe to be the oldest piece of all, Exodus 15, is an ode to Yahweh for drowning Eygpt’s army in the Red Sea.



Yahweh was not yet a cosmic creator.


Wright, Robert (2009) The Evolution of God ISBN 0-316-73491-8
en.wikipedia.org...(journalist)



Among the functions of Yahweh called into play by Israel’s needs, the leading place in the earlier times was held by war…Hence, Yahweh is constantly represented as a war-god.
As the leader of a nation of war, Yahweh was credited with the military practices of the day.He shrank not from drastic and cruel measures.


Prof. J.M.P. Smith - Religion and War in Israel - The American Journal of Theology



Yahweh was a warrior God (Exod. 5:3, Isa. 42:13)…The Israelites, quite like the pre-Islamic Arabs, even carried their God with them into conflict on occasion (Num. 10:35-36).


press.princeton.edu...
en.wikipedia.org...



The first stage is God’s appearance as a warrior who fights on behalf of his people Israel against their flesh-and-blood enemies.



The Ark of the Covenant is the symbol and banner of God’s presence in battle (1 Sam. 4:4, 2 Sam. 11:11), and this connection between the Ark and the presence of God in war is made already in the desert in Num.10:35


God is a Warrior ISBN 0-310-49461-3
en.wikipedia.org...


In other passages in the Bible, a longer version of the name, the Lord of hosts, could also be translated as “the one who created the heavenly armies.” This would suggest that Yahweh was first and foremost a warrior God.


Encountering Ancient Voices - A Guide to Reading the Old Testament
www.smp.org...


Yahweh, prior to becoming Yahweh the national god of Israel and taking on monotheistic attributes in the 6th century BCE, was a part of the Canaanite pantheon.......................Yahweh was seen as a war god


en.wikipedia.org...(Canaanite_deity)

A nice summation of this primitive war god of superstition.
www.loonwatch.com...


It certainly does seem that Yahweh was a primitive war god, that later evolved into a mythological creator, a panacea/ sky fairy.

edit on 18-5-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Biblical Religions are written by Men.
Not only Men, the politicians of their day.
That is all.



posted on May, 18 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
Yes, and I have already addressed it. The is no such thing as "early Israelites." Israel did not exist before they returned from Egypt, and when they returned, they were already monotheistic.


"Finkelstein and Silberman argue that instead of the Israelites conquering Canaan after the Exodus (as suggested by the book of Joshua), most of them had in fact always been there; the Israelites were simply Canaanites who developed into a distinct culture."

The Bible Unearthed, p. 118.
en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps you could look over earlier posting on page 15 which disputes your beliefs as unfounded and discredited by archaeology. It seems the relevant scholars (ie. who are not also complete religious delusionals) realize that they were never in Egypt as per biblical claims. No no plagues, no exodus, no crossing the red sea or wandering the desert.....it didn't happen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 19 2013 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leahn
Of course, it does. The claim was that Yahweh was the *canaanite* god of war. It makes all the difference in the world if there is no mention of Yahweh anywhere in what we have left of canaanite culture


and there we have the motive for wiping out the entirety of canaan, to hide the truth that yahweh was a canaanite deity, the god of war...but what they did was fail to realize they were not thorough enough, and so now we do have evidence being unearthed all the time that completely blows this argument of yours out of the water...that and canaanite culture still flourished through the time of alexander the great...but they also mixed it with assyrian and other traditions...people do not stay in the boxes we create for them...they are not stereotypes like video game villains and heroes...they change, adapt, adopt, and intermix and intermarry...something the tyranny of the judahites attempted to curtail...in effect they were trying to call normal human behavior perverse, just as any racist...and they also overlooked the truly perverse actions of their own heroes...including murder and incest...

but they still could not control people...which means their power (which they attributed to god) did not come from god, but men, driven by political motive, which back then was also religious motive, the two were almost synonymous...and they used the excuse of god, to justify genocide among other terror tactics...but clearly this kind of tyranny cannot come from a benevolent creator...it is the antithesis of one...so their god was not what the bible claims he is...their god was an impostor...it is really simple...

also wanted to mention, just becasue you do not want to look at the evidence, which was so neatly posted here by Cogito, Ergo, Sum...does not mean it doesnt exist, any more than not wanting to believe what i posted exists...it is here in black and white...it is also talked about by others with evidence to back it up...stuffing your fingers in your ears and screaming does not prove any point, just shows ignorance...

but i understand, because the psychology of religion is designed to force people into ignorance, and it is successful in that respect still to this day...
edit on 19-5-2013 by studythem1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
active topics
 
23
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum