₦airaland Forum

mazaje:
One thing that if find absurd with the theistic argument is that life has to be everlasting for it to be meaningful . . .Why should life have to be everlasting to be meaningful? It smacks of monumental egotism. Surely there is something monstrously egocentric in thinking that my life is of such transcendent significance that I should be an exception to cosmic laws, that my ego should survive when, animals, planets, stars, and even galaxies are no more.

Although I agree wih the part about being meaningful, I find it no more absurd that I am everlasting than finite.
Purely because you see finite with your eyes now, does not mean that infinity does not exist. Also, I do believe that exceptions already exist to the cosmic laws that you base your statement on - Pi for example.

I am always reminded of this when someone states that this is all there is and that when we die there is nothing:

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

Biblical scholars regard the triconsonantal root of hawah (הוה), as a more likely origin for the name Yahweh (יהוה); hawah literally means blow/fall, and thus Yahweh would be he who blows/he who makes certain things fall, which seems particularly fitting for a storm deity.

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

I was hoping Bastage could come up with a unique definition from his brain and not from a dictionary of wikipedia.

No need. See I know what it means.
In a conversation which is specifically about a god, you don't need to use the word "ontological". It will already be understood what you are speaking about. You can simply ask "What's the difference"? 

And how do you get from awe-inspiring to angry?

I am sure any literal observer would see that "awe terrifying" is synonymous with ANGER.

I'd suggest that the reason that nobody can get near to Yaweh is because he was a figment of Moses' imagination.
Below is the converstation between Moses and his followers.

"I have this great god. He is so cool."
"Can we see him?".
"No. You'll have to take my word for it".
"But your word is not all that".
"OK then. The god said we can't see him. Will you shut up now?".

You seem to love the word "ontological".

Do you actually know what it means?

Ummm, if Noah's Ark really did end up on the top of Mount Ararat, how did all of the animals get down to the ground?
And if the Chinese team have to take mountaineering gear, what about Noah and his family? Where they professional mountain climbers?

And if they found no pottery pointing to it being an old house, how come they found no pottery pointing to it being Noah's Ark? Noah and his family would have needed pottery to cook with wouldn't they? Or did they strap all that to their backs whilst they were mountaineering?

The whole story is a fake.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i74268

You've misinterpreted it but the passage you give is the example as to why the Christians used it as a prophecy.

From the depths of the grave,

It refers to returning from death. Not survival.

The answer is probably far more mundane than God needing to take a break.

Genesis was probably written and compiled in Babylon. Babylonian religion observed a day of rest known as the Shappatum. As the Hebrews were steeped in Babylonian culture and religion, they merely adopted it and turned it into the Sabbath.

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

Later it became more important. The Sabbath was used as one of the means for the religion to strengthen - every Jew was unified in the action of worshipping their god on that day. Not only that, but to stay fit and healthy, everyone needs a day off from time to time. Making it one of their god's laws meant that it couldn't be argued with.

Some would stick to it. After all, the NT has a pretty good story and there's nothing wrong with worshipping a guy who loved everyone.

But yes, I feel some would think they've been let of the hook and would wander off. After all, a lot of Christians (and Muslims) only worship their god because they're scared of what happens when they die. That's not entirely their fault - the churches have preyed on those fears for generations.

This whole thread is flawed.

If you believe that Jesus was crucified in the first place, you can only believe that he died.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote that Jesus was crucified and that he died. You've either got to take their word for it or just disown the whole lot. You may as well deny the fact that he was crucified in the first place. The crucifixion story has no more plausibility than the death by crucifixion part.

Arguing over wether or not crucifixion caused his death is pointless. You may as well argue that the guy didn't exist in the first place. It's part of the reason why Islam is so flawed where Jesus is concerned. You can''t have your cake and eat it by picking bits out of the Bible that you like unless they're backed up by physical evidence rather than belief. Otherwise you may as well throw the whole book into the trash.

InesQor:
It is the handling of man by God that keeps changing, IMHO and not God in Himself.

It's the other way around - man's handling of God. The Bible itself is the handling of man.
God didn't create Christianity. He is not Christianity - those are the "handlings of man". He is not the Christian god or the Muslim god - those are "handlings of man".
He is just God.

I disagree.

The Trinity is defined as being three persons in one god.

The persons aren't worshipped, the god is.

Look at it this way:

Say we worship H2O.
Ice, water vapor and liquid water are all H2O. The 3 are all distinct but they all the same chemical formula.
They're not worshipped in the sense that all are different substances. They're all worshipped because they are the same thing - H2O.

Personally, I don't dispute the fact that the Trinity was copied from other, older religions and philosophies but it in no way indicates polytheism today. As Kay17 says, it was adopted only after much debate. The people who adopted it did so on the understanding that it was a monotheistic creed.
Also, an important point: if a Christian believes that he worships only one god, it is impossible to tell him otherwise. If I pray and I decide that I am praying to just one god, nobody can tell me otherwise. You may say "Ah, but the Trinity is 3 seperate people" but if the Christian sees it as the "One", then any other statement about polytheism is irrelevant.

I have to say that it's an argument that annoys me when atheists use it because it has no basis in modern day Christianity. Sure, we can look back to the origins of Christianity and infer polytheism but it's relevance is nothing to the individual believer unless he actually chooses willingly and knowingly to follow a polytheistic belief now.

noetic16:
Are u so daft?  did I mention islam in any of my posts? . . . I limited my assertions to judaism and Christianity. how did u miss that?

I'm not daft. You are. Or do you now think that Islam is not an Abrahamic religion?
Let me remind you of what you said:

is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs.

Really? Islam not an Abrahamic religion then? What's the point in even arguing with you when you don't know the basics?

Says who? what happened to their (God) ontologies?. . .  , Two theists whose difference in opinion is the need for the worship of God. One believes that God ought to be worshipped and the other says No . . . .how EXACTLY does that define two different deities?
Dude, get real, u are confused.

No. You are confused. I've already explained how gods are given attributes by their followers. I've already explained how when you pile a different attribute on top of something time and time again, it comes to be something else. Something unrecognisable from the original. Maybe you're just too dumb to understand? Want me to repeat myself?

is the apostate killing not an ontological attribute/injunction of the muslim god? ,  . . why would u define the muslim god by its ontology, but the Xtian God by His followers? . .  . .do u think at all? 

This is basically the same drivel as your last quote. Yet here you actually use the words "muslim god". Would this be the same Abrahamic god as Yaweh or a different one? If it's the same one, why not just call it God? But you can't can you?
You've just totally contradicted your whole argument with those two words. If there is a Muslim god and a Christian god it cannot be the same god. You would not need to use the words Muslim, Christian or Jew. It would just be God!!!

U dont have the time to prove your RIDICULOUSLY UN-FOUND assertions, but u do have the time to post repeatedly. . . . .does this dude think he is addressing a bunch of skool kids? 
The onus is on you to PROVE ANY of your assertions using historical and theological evidences like u boasted.

So now you're too inept to type "History of religions" into Google? How many of the 2 million three hundred and ten thousand pages that are returned would you like me to quote?

IF the geographic location defined Yahweh in the desert as a desert God . . . .what does it define Yahweh as the moment they got to the promised land?

My god!! Am I really going to have to explain it to you again? Once the Hebrews became urbanised, the nature of their god changed. So much so that some continued changing it, eventually leading to the creation of Christianity.

The point is u made a baseless assertion to state that Yahweh was a desert God. .  .simply because that does not put into cognizance His other ontological attributes. If u choose to define Him by location. . .was HE served only in the desert?

Baseless?

"The earliest Yahwistic traditions reveal that Yahweh was a bedouin war god from the deserts of Edom and of the surrounding regions. His essentially warlike characteristics are demonstated by his name, by cultic celebrations of his mighty deeds, and by his ark."

http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

At your convenience u claim "Men said . ,  ." and at your inconvenience u claim "Yahweh said . . , " Dude, get real and stop running around in circles.

No. That's just pathetic - resorting to semantics because you have no other argument. But read my post again. Even there you are wrong.
Let me quote what I wrote:

Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god "has stated" that it's required.

Now go back to school and learn some grammar. Maybe it will tell you what the apostophes around "has stated" mean.

noetic16:
is this not dumb? The abrahamic religions are divided on the basis of beliefs. The jews (judaism) are still expecting a messaih, the xtians believe He has already come. . . , how EXACTLY does that show 3 different deities?. . . .  .quite evasive and silly.

How blind.
So you worship the same god as the Muslims? If so, you're about the first literalist that I've heard admit it.
At least you admit that there are different beliefs so 'll put it in simple terms for you - gods are defined by their believers - wether that be Allah, Jehovah, Yaweh or The Flying Spaghetti Monster. The believers define the god's attributes so that others can follow. Muslims don't have a problem with putting to death apostates because their god "has stated" that it's required. Yet the Christian god does not ask for the same punishment does he? What do you think? That there's a god who's got one rule for one lot of followers and then another rule for the next lot? There are thousands of other differences that are attributed to the god and force the different followers to follow different rules. With so many contrary attributes it is impossible for it to be the same god as it originally was. Don't be so ignorant. If there is no difference you may as well be a Muslim or a Jew.

What historical and theological analysis did u profer?   where is your logical rationale presented from history?  

Do you honestly think I've got the time to present the millions of pieces of evidence that depict religious and theistic evolution? Ridiculous. Go hit Google and look for yourself. I'm literally speechless that you would ask for evidence when it is everywhere.

This is plain silly.
You called Yahweh a desert God . . . .why should a God's ontology be defined by the place of worship? was Yahweh not worshipped in the promised land? is HE not being worshipped in cities all over the world today? are u this dumb?  

Again, you show absolutely and utterly no understanding of the subject whatsoever. A god's ontology isn't affected by where he sprang up? That statement totally disregards the contents of the very book that you profess to follow. Have you even bother reading Exodus or Deutoronomy? A nomadic people wandering through the desert with their god directing them and specifying actions that are specific to their environment. How can ontology do anything but be defined by the geographical and cultural origins of the god?

Why then did Yahweh call Himself the God of Abraham? and why did Abraham's descendants accept Him to be so?

Quite simply, he didn't. Men said that. And because men reinforced that statement through warfare, corruption and brain-washing, idiots like you continue propogating the lie.

idiot

https://baysideproducts.com/store/images/victoria_cheval_mirror.jpg

noetic16:
You have NOT said anything new or factual.
A. how did this God/Gods evolve?
B. whats the over-whelming difference in their ontologies?
C. why should your assertions be regarded as factual?

Are you being serious? It seems to me that you must be joking by asking those questions.
Otherwise how do you explain the 3 different Abrahamic religions?
If there were no difference, there would be one universal religion.
Please man, try to take things seriously. The answer is so huge and yet you can't see it!!!

1. The above is just a mere opinion influenced by anti-Bible sentiments

No. Through a thorough study of history and theology and not by taking the Bible literally. The latter would be totally illogical.

2. Why would u define a god/God by the people who worship Him?

Again, a crazy question. Organised religion sets the standards and tells you what you must believe. People tell you what God is about. For a literalist to dispute this fact is utterly ridiculous - their god is more defined by other people than any other sector.

why call Yahweh a desert God?

Because quite simply, that's what he was. Study your books and educate yourself. There is no disputing the matter.

is He not the same God being served today?

If he was, you would be making sacrifices, murdering, enslaving and pillaging.

3. Perhaps u dont understand the concept of a universal loving God. The same Yahweh who called a desert God, is the same universal loving God, with the same ontological will . . . . .His inability to withstand sin.

That's just religious claptrap.

Abraham, enoch, Isaac, Jacob, Noah NEVER practised judaism but knew El/ Elohim.

They sure did. But El wasn't Yaweh. He was the Canaanite god El. The Bible even tells you that Abraham was a Canaanite.

where is your ontological proof?

Archeology, history, general common sense.

another unfortunate display of ignorance.

I'd have to agree. But it's on your behalf.

nuclearboy:
@PastorAIO;

Are you numbered in the "hosts of hell"?

Did you not know that anyone who disagrees with DD's take on Christianity is numbered thusly?

BTW. Hi David.

can you enlighting me why xtians nowadays are practicing different from what jesus has practiced?

LMAO. This guy is getting even funnier.

Back to school for you.
Have you even read the New Testament? The whole purpose of the book is to explain the reason "why".

I love these guys who are saying that it is OK for Yarima because the Vatican State City has a consenting age of 12.

LOL. Tell me how many 12 year old girls make up the population of 800?

Mind, the choirboys are probably getting it from the Catholic priests but that's not really on topic.

LOL@ chakula.

Jews originally prayed that way, you fool. 

Or do you think that they all stood knocking their heads against The Wailing Wall?

The Old Testament is full of instances of the Hebrews praying in a position of prostration with their faces to the ground.


http://www.chayas.com/qidah.htm

And I thought I'd read all the craziness here on nairaland.

How does it feel to know that when you pray, you're actually just copying an ancient Jewish tradition? Come to think of it, that just about describes the whole of Islam. 

As you clearly don't want to answer my question, ignore the truth of my quotes and are hiding behind semantics, I reckon it's time I just ignore you. I have clearly stated what conclusion I have accused you of making yet you've totally ignored it and burbled on about Randall again.

There's no point talking to you as you evade the points put to you and just burble off at a tangent.

As I stated earlier, "elohim" and "el" were just generic terms for god/s that predate Judaism.

A long meaningless post consisting of nothing but semantics.

Here's my post where I accuse you of making conclusions.

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.

As you can see, it has nothing to do with Randall. It has everything to do with this:

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

The conclusion has nothing to do with Randall. It regards your belief in the literal Bible Flood story.


Why are you still deliberately ignoring my question?

And I'll repeat my statement yet again.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

Which part of that don't you understand? The very fact that you are giving the story some credence means that you have come to the conclusion that the literal Bible story is true.

So for all your denials, my assertion that you have made a conclusion is correct.
Got it?

By the way. I love how you've avoided answering my question three times now whereas I've answered yours three times (even if you're too dumb to understand that answer). Why won't you answer?

Deep Sight:
 1. Cultural: The wholesale adoption  of foreign cultures and religions may not always be well-advised if one considers the origin and history of such adopted worldviews.

Yes. But you're writing as if this is something that happened over-night. Although there are customs and traditions that may have been adopted in a short time-scale, we've got to realise that most of the major tenets took place over hundreds, if not thousands of years. To cap that, there was then an evolution and some adaptation - the NT being a case in point.

2. Historical: [/b] The negative history surrounding the evolution of Yahweh is a valuable insight into human nature. It shows us exactly how human beings are able to create dieties and nourish them into being worshipped globally.

I don't dispute that statement for one minute. In fact, I'll expand on it and say that the evolution is still going on with an expansion of human knowledge and with cultural input.

 3. Theological - Yahweh as defined in the old testament does not fit with any sound perception of the Uncaused Cause and Pinnacle of all existence which is defined as God; accordingly[b] he could NOT be God [/b] and this means certainly that the Judeo-Christian worldview might be seriously mis-footed.

I'd disagree with the first part of the statement. Yaweh does personify the "one god" if taken in the context of the worldview of the Hebrews in the era in which the religion originally evolved.
As for the second part. No. I don't believe that Christianity is mis-footed as badly as you propose. Yes, the literalists cling to the outmoded beliefs but, in general, most Christians have evolved their way of thinking as has the religion itself. To a point I agree with you that Judaism is entrenched in dogma but even there, we see that the vast majority of it's practitioners are what we would call "secular jews" - those who participate in the religion but don't hold all of the dogmatic views contained in the OT or Talmud.

Regarding Eastern religion, you've got to realise that they too had their rocky patches. If you read the Indian epics, you will see that there was plenty of fighting and pillaging taking place and to this day there are major problems within Hinduism just as there are with the other religions. Taoism, Buddhism and Confusionism are not religions - they are philosophies. Even so, many have died in their name. Taoism in particular is not a pacifist philosophy -  those that state so are no different from those who say that Islam does not have a place for violence. It should also be noted that there is a lot of Eastern philosophy in Christianity - there was a cross-pollination from Greek philosophy which itself was riddled with the former.

What conclusions have I drawn, Bastage? This was what I have said several times "baaa, baa, baaaa".

Are you usually this stupid?

Let me remind you what I said in my last post.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

Let me also repeat my question yet again:

How are eye-witness reports no good when the whole of the Bible is purported to be nothing more than the same?

viaro:
Randall drew a conclusion based on what - secondhand report, thanks.

Yet you're drawing on the conclusion based on what? Thirdhand? Forthhand? Thousands of years worth of editing and tweaking.
You don't see the irony there?

I don't have to struggle to laugh either. The very premise that someone believes that Noah's ark is a factual story as told in the Bible has me wetting my pants, let alone that someone may have "found" the ark.

And don't try escaping by stating that you made no conclusions. The very fact that you give the story a single piece of credence is enough to have you written off.

I still don't understand what your point is.

If it's to prove that Christianity is a failure because the early god of the OT was "evil" in Bible passages, it's not a very good argument. True, literalists will have a lot of explaining to do, but for the majority of Christians, the realisation that the OT is a book of politics regarding a people who were forced out of one land and who had to find a new home by way of warfare, means that you're only treading water.

Instead of just hitting us with passages that anyone can Google, what about giving us your interpretation?

What did you expect?

Yaweh was very likely based upon the Egyptian god Seth - the Hyksos people were expelled at the same time as the proto-Hebrews' "exodus" so they were probably one and the same. Both Seth and Yaweh were storm gods who were also gods of the desert and gods of high places.
The other similarities between the gods are striking. The Bible itself refers to the slaying by Moses of people making golden calves - the Apsis Bull - the arch enemy of Seth.
If Seth did morph into Yaweh then it's no suprise that his followers commited such acts.

Ironically, Seth seems to have been the basis for the Christian Satan.

And your point is?

That's what I just wrote.

In that specific passage it is plural.
But it should also be remembered that Elohim is also plural intensive with singular meaning.
There are instances where it refers to the "one" god and others where it refers to many.

noetic16:
El was always the same person as Yahweh/Jehovah, with the SAME ontology and personality. The problem is u never took time to study the bible.

I agree with PastorAIO. Your assertion does not take into account evolutionary factors within religion. The God of Abraham in the OT is of a different personality to that of Moses'. Take it further down the line and he's totally different from the god in the NT. The god evolved and morphed into another as his followers developed and expounded on their religion. There are many, many instances where religion has evolved and the nature of god has changed with them. Judeo/Vhristianity is no different and there is no logical reason why that should not be so.

I'd have to also disagree that the god of the early OT and that of later pages is of the same personality and ontology. Although there are some similarites, this would only be natural. But take a look further down the line to the NT and you can see that there is a clear difference - we go from warrior desert god to universal loving god - the two couldn't be further apart in character.
Similarites do not point to El/Jehovah being the same god. it's like saying that a banana is the same as an apple because they are both fruits when clearly they are two separate organisms with different attributes. As for using the name as evidence of an identical god? Let's not forget that the Christian god also had many others. And we can't read anything into the names El or Elohim as they predate Judaism and were just general terms for the name "god".


I too have read the Karen Armstrong book. Once cannot place ridicule at her doorstep as she is only repeating what many theologians have stated for years - there are many gods in the bible.
God is a belief. A theory. Non-believers often point that out yet totally ignore the facts that theories always evolve - even in such dogmatic practices as religion.