first post and word of thanks from former fundie - Page 10

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Bob from NJ

First off, I can't stand to see creatures suffer, even insects (which are possibly the most brutal of all life-forms on earth) and I'm having some trouble typing now...

I killed a lot of animals by throwing them into a fire. I am not happy about it. And the animals by themselves are not exactly detestable. I can not call them insects, though they may seem at first glance to be similar to an insect. They are a strange creature who is indigenous to a certain area, like on a particular mountain, which I happened to be fond of camping on. They are a relative to crabs and are actually closer to a crab than to the spiders that they look from a distance to be. I had a particular spot on the mountain that I liked and cut into the ground some to make a level spot to sleep on, whenever I was out there, which was quite frequent when the weather was nice. They thought the little dug-out spot was perfect for them to colonize. They would all get together in a big clump and make clicking sounds with their legs, probably bumping up against each other. Kind of disturbing to have all that going on inches away from your face while you are trying to sleep. I had a little campfire set up, with two vertical posts coming out of the ground and a chain hanging between them. Then I had a big pot with a wire handle that I would suspend from the chain, over the fire. You would think that your food would be safe from these funny little creatures, but no, and I had to eat in darkness to not see the little legs sticking out from my food. I eventually got rather ruthless and when I saw one headed for the pot, I would knock it off, into the fire. It just turned out to be a bad combination, between man, and strange crablike denizens of the wild.(think Lost in Space, the movie)

To address your post, I would have to say that I do not approve of someone frying bugs to make a video, and find it rather repugnant. As for Jesus frying people, I don't think it will happen the way a lot of Christians envision it as happening. The fire is a refining fire. It is a term that is illustrative of a concept, and not to be taken in a literal sense, as being something that tortures people forever, even if it seems to be saying so. John said, "there is one who comes after me who will baptise with fire." That means the Holy Spirit, for those who accept it. For those who do not, there is a figurative fire which means total annihilation.

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Arkyrion

According to the Bible, the angels and demons have no free will. Free will is one of the things that sets humanity apart from the rest of God's creation, according to my former denomination. If that is the case, and angels have no free will and are mindless automatons in the service of God, how does one explain Lucifer's fall?

Angels were created for specific purposes to serve God. They are of a high order of existence which enables them to be in close proximity to God, since they need to instantly be in communication with God. This gives them an opportunity to know the mind of God, and to them, it is law. God does not force compliance against the will of the Angels and they obey by their choice. Of course the downside of non-compliance is very disadvantageous to those who choose such a route. One who did make such a choice was Satan.
Humanity is distinct from angel-kind by not being for the service of God, but to be planted in the universe to evolve into the gods of the physical world. Fallen man has an advantage over fallen angels in that man is created in God's image and are so covered by a plan of redemption, for God's own sake.

Cynic · 4th November 2009, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Angels were created for specific purposes to serve God. They are of a high order of existence which enables them to be in close proximity to God, since they need to instantly be in communication with God. This gives them an opportunity to know the mind of God, and to them, it is law. God does not force compliance against the will of the Angels and they obey by their choice. Of course the downside of non-compliance is very disadvantageous to those who choose such a route.

So, your god has slaves. How nice for him.

Fiona · 4th November 2009, 10:46 AM

I am sorry, Ethnikos, but I think your forte is creative writing rather than religious studies.

ORUgrad · 4th November 2009, 12:42 PM

So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind.

ORUgrad · 4th November 2009, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by Arkyrion

Greetings. Like many of you who have already told your stories, I too was raised in a strict Fundamentalist home. I accepted blindly, with the Child-like faith that is so vaunted by the church, that God loves us and sent his son to die for us. It wasn't until a year or two ago that I finally began to seriously question my beliefs (a special thanks to Pure Argent for sparking that doubt). Why would a just and loving God punish his creations because they were tricked, in their innocence, by yet another of God's creatures? And why, if God is good, does evil exist? If God created everything, he must have created evil. And why did God order his "chosen" people to embark on a campaign of conquest and genocide?

When I approached my pastor with these questions, I was given what I now know to be the typical bilk of those trying to justify the actions of their God. "God is ultimately just beyond human standards. God allowed evil to exist. God allowed evil to come into the world so that he could redeem us." At the end of the meeting, I had no answers and more questions. According to the Bible, the angels and demons have no free will. Free will is one of the things that sets humanity apart from the rest of God's creation, according to my former denomination. If that is the case, and angels have no free will and are mindless automatons in the service of God, how does one explain Lucifer's fall?

From there, I began to further explore the Scriptures, finding again and again how the God of the OT continually showed himself to be no more than a two-year throwing his toys around when they displeased him. I refused to follow a God like that.

Now, I still consider myself to be a Christian, but only in the sense that I follow the teachings of Christ (as they apply to humans, not those including God).

And thanks to all of you here on the JREF forums who have helped me further cement my beliefs.

Hi Ark, nice post. Congratulations for coming to your senses. Any religion that values blind, unthinking following needs to be rejected. Thinking for ones self is hard work when you have grown up around people who not only do not teach critical thinking, but see it as sinful. Call yourself whatever you like and don't feel like you have to take a position on everything. Just enjoy using your brain.

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind.

I think I am exercising what freedom my mind opportunes me, to look for real evidence, not good arguments. I already have arguments, in my own mind, but to go out with just wild speculation is not very effective. I just got three fat books in the mail, today, that I need to start digging into, like, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Anyway, I can quote the blurb on Amazon for the book I mentioned earlier today, about the Religion of Israel.

Originally Posted by the Religion of Israel

We shall see that Israelite religion was an original creation of the people of Israel. It was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew; its monotheistic world view had no antecedents in paganism.... It was the fundamental idea of a national culture, and informed every aspect of that culture form its very beginning. --from the introduction

Apparently this is the claim that Kaifmann makes and tries to prove in his book. If it is true, I think it is significant and lends a lot of credence to the Idea that the god of the Israelites is in fact God.

Fiona · 4th November 2009, 03:19 PM

I thought akhenaton was the first monotheist we know about?

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I thought akhenaton was the first monotheist we know about?

That's cool. I started a thread on him, in another forum, a while back, and I started laughing while listening to a guest author on Coast to Coast talking about the same stuff I had in my thread, but he had actually missed a couple of things that I had caught.
OK, my answer to that is, it was not successful.
Another argument could be made about Islam. I might be taking a risk at being too critical and might want to leave it at saying, not original.

Fiona · 4th November 2009, 03:41 PM

I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true

ORUgrad · 4th November 2009, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true

I was going to ask the same thing Fiona. Why would the claim of originality indicate truth? Is a world wide flood story original? Are the details of Jesus birth, life, and death original? No. So I guess they are not true then, right Eth?

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true

Your post is a good example of why my thesis is not easily supportable. It takes some further evidence to make it so. One of the things probably necessary would be to show that it was in a way, homegrown, to the extent that a core population in support of this concept had a minimal opposition to its acceptance. People not accepting it, would have been classifiable as "foreigners", which is another concept, one which you do not subscribe to.

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

. . .Why would the claim of originality indicate truth?. . .

One could suppose that if there was a god who cared whether or not anyone acknowledged him as being God, he would establish some sort of priesthood who worshipped him. Seeing as there is a multiplicity of gods and priesthoods already existing, one might further suppose that the one true religion could be singled out by its uniqueness.

Fiona · 4th November 2009, 04:19 PM

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Your post is a good example of why my thesis is not easily supportable. It takes some further evidence to make it so. One of the things probably necessary would be to show that it was in a way, homegrown, to the extent that a core population in support of this concept had a minimal opposition to its acceptance. People not accepting it, would have been classifiable as "foreigners", which is another concept, one which you do not subscribe to.

Once again I do not follow your thought, Ethnikos.

Are you saying that if this particular monotheism arose as a consensus within this particular population that somehow makes it true?

If that is what you are saying then I do not see the logic.

Would you consider the proposition that monotheism of that sort is quite common in the ancient world? That many cities and communities had their own "god"?. This seems to be true of the israelites as much as anyone else if I am to accept "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". They were perfectly well aware that other people had done just what they had done: made up/adopted/ been inspired by a god whom they worshipped

In face of that a people can do one of two things: they can live and let live: or they can suppress other beliefs.

A lot of the ancient world seems to have done the former. That is what I would expect to be the common case, because most people are reasonable, most of the time. So you would continue to worship your own god and allow others to do the same. Over time you would perhaps come to accept many gods: and put your own as the most important in relation to your community or city.

Some folk seem to have done the latter. Why they did so is a mystery: why does anyone become a fanatic? It happens.

People then were not much different to people now: or at least I see no reason to suppose they were.

How does any of that relate to truth?

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

That many cities and communities had their own "god"?. This seems to be true of the israelites as much as anyone else if I am to accept "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". They were perfectly well aware that other people had done just what they had done: made up/adopted/ been inspired by a god whom they worshipped

That would be something that would need to be addressed. Did that in fact happen. One that I can think of would be Assur, the former capital of Assyria, which took its name from the god, Assur. Here's what Wikipedia says about it.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Assur is also the name of the chief deity of the city. He was considered the highest god in the Assyrian pantheon and the protector of the Assyrian state. In the Mesopotamian mythology he was the equivalent of Babylonian Marduk.

So they were not monotheistic. A question could be, Was Israel different than Assyria, in regards to their respective gods? I think the evidence will show that they were different. That God was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God.

Fiona · 4th November 2009, 04:51 PM

Bit of a leap there, Ethnikos: I have no reason whatsoever to think "that god was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God". I have every reason to believe that that that tribe wanted to be boss tribe and was extremely intolerant

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Once again I do not follow your thought, Ethnikos.

Are you saying that if this particular monotheism arose as a consensus within this particular population that somehow makes it true?

If that is what you are saying then I do not see the logic.

It's a little bit technical. What I am working on currently is the question of El. Was El also YHWH? If so, He was believed in by the Canaanites before the introduction of the later name YHWH, and would indicate a continuity of a worship, that would seem to be a requisite for that god to be the True God. Fortunately, one of the books I got today was written by someone eminently qualified to deal with that question. In the Acknowledgements, he states how he wrote the article for the god El, in the Eardman's Dictionary of the Bible. He claims that El is in fact the same god as the later Israelite God.

Here is something to consider in Numbers 23:8 where Balaam is having a problem making Balak happy, "How can I curse one whom God has not cursed, or how can I denounce one whom the Lord has not denounced?" where it says, God, here, it is El, and in the same verse, you find, the Lord, which is translated from YHWH. Two gods? or are they both the same god?

Ethnikos · 4th November 2009, 05:01 PM

Originally Posted by Fiona

Bit of a leap there, Ethnikos: I have no reason whatsoever to think "that god was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God". I have every reason to believe that that that tribe wanted to be boss tribe and was extremely intolerant

That's fine. If you ever feel like presenting any further information to kind of flesh that out a little bit, feel free to do so. That's what I am trying to get at. Everyone has some sort of perception about how everything happened and why, and it is hard to get any sort of agreement. I'm not all that big on agreements and that is not necessarily a goal with me. I have found myself in disagreement with myself enough times, to not hold any stock in agreements in general. To me, the thing to do is stay clear of the speculative sort of stuff out there that sells popular books and keep with the serious academic stuff, at least long enough to get a better understand in of the lay of things, before launching into new speculation.

Ethnikos · 5th November 2009, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind.

If anything, my books would serve to work against most sorts of theories I might come up with. For example, I was bringing up Y. Kaufmann's claims back in post #358 about the uniqueness of the religion of Israel. (btw: I found out that the book I looked up on Amazon, from this author was a condensation of Kaufmann's 8 volume history) So, I got, yesterday, as one of the three books, Cross' book, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. He takes Kaufmann's huge work as an example of the type of flawed theories that could be advanced, and gain ground, in the past, before the archaeological information that we have today, was available. So there goes a chunk of the core of my thesis. To quote Cross:

Originally Posted by Cross

. . .More serious, the religion of Israel is conceived as a unique or isolated phenomenon, radically or wholly discontinuous with its environment. In extreme form these views root ultimately in dogmatic systems, metaphysical or theological, and often serve an apologetic purpose. Yehezkel Kaufmann's monumental attempt to write a history of the religion of Israel comes under this criticism. The empirical historian must describe novel configurations in Israel's religion as having their origin in an orderly set of relationships which follow the usual typological sequences of historical change. Kaufmann's insistence that Israelite religion "was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew" violates fundamental postulates of scientific method.

Well, someone's opinion. But someone who has to be respected, and not discarded, out of hand, because one does not immediately agree with him. So, he devotes one whole book to back up his position, and I suppose one could take that into consideration when forming a world view and how to place Israel and its god into it.

4th November 2009, 09:37 AM	#361
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Bob from NJ First off, I can't stand to see creatures suffer, even insects (which are possibly the most brutal of all life-forms on earth) and I'm having some trouble typing now... I killed a lot of animals by throwing them into a fire. I am not happy about it. And the animals by themselves are not exactly detestable. I can not call them insects, though they may seem at first glance to be similar to an insect. They are a strange creature who is indigenous to a certain area, like on a particular mountain, which I happened to be fond of camping on. They are a relative to crabs and are actually closer to a crab than to the spiders that they look from a distance to be. I had a particular spot on the mountain that I liked and cut into the ground some to make a level spot to sleep on, whenever I was out there, which was quite frequent when the weather was nice. They thought the little dug-out spot was perfect for them to colonize. They would all get together in a big clump and make clicking sounds with their legs, probably bumping up against each other. Kind of disturbing to have all that going on inches away from your face while you are trying to sleep. I had a little campfire set up, with two vertical posts coming out of the ground and a chain hanging between them. Then I had a big pot with a wire handle that I would suspend from the chain, over the fire. You would think that your food would be safe from these funny little creatures, but no, and I had to eat in darkness to not see the little legs sticking out from my food. I eventually got rather ruthless and when I saw one headed for the pot, I would knock it off, into the fire. It just turned out to be a bad combination, between man, and strange crablike denizens of the wild.(think Lost in Space, the movie) To address your post, I would have to say that I do not approve of someone frying bugs to make a video, and find it rather repugnant. As for Jesus frying people, I don't think it will happen the way a lot of Christians envision it as happening. The fire is a refining fire. It is a term that is illustrative of a concept, and not to be taken in a literal sense, as being something that tortures people forever, even if it seems to be saying so. John said, "there is one who comes after me who will baptise with fire." That means the Holy Spirit, for those who accept it. For those who do not, there is a figurative fire which means total annihilation.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 4th November 2009 at 10:00 AM.

4th November 2009, 10:31 AM	#362
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Arkyrion According to the Bible, the angels and demons have no free will. Free will is one of the things that sets humanity apart from the rest of God's creation, according to my former denomination. If that is the case, and angels have no free will and are mindless automatons in the service of God, how does one explain Lucifer's fall? Angels were created for specific purposes to serve God. They are of a high order of existence which enables them to be in close proximity to God, since they need to instantly be in communication with God. This gives them an opportunity to know the mind of God, and to them, it is law. God does not force compliance against the will of the Angels and they obey by their choice. Of course the downside of non-compliance is very disadvantageous to those who choose such a route. One who did make such a choice was Satan. Humanity is distinct from angel-kind by not being for the service of God, but to be planted in the universe to evolve into the gods of the physical world. Fallen man has an advantage over fallen angels in that man is created in God's image and are so covered by a plan of redemption, for God's own sake.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment

4th November 2009, 10:41 AM	#363
Cynic Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Pittsburgh, PA Posts: 453	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Angels were created for specific purposes to serve God. They are of a high order of existence which enables them to be in close proximity to God, since they need to instantly be in communication with God. This gives them an opportunity to know the mind of God, and to them, it is law. God does not force compliance against the will of the Angels and they obey by their choice. Of course the downside of non-compliance is very disadvantageous to those who choose such a route. So, your god has slaves. How nice for him.
	__________________ Words have no power to impress the mind without the exquisite horror of their reality. -- Edgar Allen Poe

4th November 2009, 10:46 AM	#364
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	I am sorry, Ethnikos, but I think your forte is creative writing rather than religious studies.
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

4th November 2009, 12:42 PM	#365
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93	So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind.
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93

4th November 2009, 12:49 PM	#366
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93	Originally Posted by Arkyrion Greetings. Like many of you who have already told your stories, I too was raised in a strict Fundamentalist home. I accepted blindly, with the Child-like faith that is so vaunted by the church, that God loves us and sent his son to die for us. It wasn't until a year or two ago that I finally began to seriously question my beliefs (a special thanks to Pure Argent for sparking that doubt). Why would a just and loving God punish his creations because they were tricked, in their innocence, by yet another of God's creatures? And why, if God is good, does evil exist? If God created everything, he must have created evil. And why did God order his "chosen" people to embark on a campaign of conquest and genocide? When I approached my pastor with these questions, I was given what I now know to be the typical bilk of those trying to justify the actions of their God. "God is ultimately just beyond human standards. God allowed evil to exist. God allowed evil to come into the world so that he could redeem us." At the end of the meeting, I had no answers and more questions. According to the Bible, the angels and demons have no free will. Free will is one of the things that sets humanity apart from the rest of God's creation, according to my former denomination. If that is the case, and angels have no free will and are mindless automatons in the service of God, how does one explain Lucifer's fall? From there, I began to further explore the Scriptures, finding again and again how the God of the OT continually showed himself to be no more than a two-year throwing his toys around when they displeased him. I refused to follow a God like that. Now, I still consider myself to be a Christian, but only in the sense that I follow the teachings of Christ (as they apply to humans, not those including God). And thanks to all of you here on the JREF forums who have helped me further cement my beliefs. Hi Ark, nice post. Congratulations for coming to your senses. Any religion that values blind, unthinking following needs to be rejected. Thinking for ones self is hard work when you have grown up around people who not only do not teach critical thinking, but see it as sinful. Call yourself whatever you like and don't feel like you have to take a position on everything. Just enjoy using your brain.
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93

4th November 2009, 02:51 PM	#367
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by ORUgrad So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind. I think I am exercising what freedom my mind opportunes me, to look for real evidence, not good arguments. I already have arguments, in my own mind, but to go out with just wild speculation is not very effective. I just got three fat books in the mail, today, that I need to start digging into, like, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. Anyway, I can quote the blurb on Amazon for the book I mentioned earlier today, about the Religion of Israel. Originally Posted by the Religion of Israel We shall see that Israelite religion was an original creation of the people of Israel. It was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew; its monotheistic world view had no antecedents in paganism.... It was the fundamental idea of a national culture, and informed every aspect of that culture form its very beginning. --from the introduction Apparently this is the claim that Kaifmann makes and tries to prove in his book. If it is true, I think it is significant and lends a lot of credence to the Idea that the god of the Israelites is in fact God.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 4th November 2009 at 02:53 PM.

4th November 2009, 03:19 PM	#368
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	I thought akhenaton was the first monotheist we know about?
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

4th November 2009, 03:31 PM	#369
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Fiona I thought akhenaton was the first monotheist we know about? That's cool. I started a thread on him, in another forum, a while back, and I started laughing while listening to a guest author on Coast to Coast talking about the same stuff I had in my thread, but he had actually missed a couple of things that I had caught. OK, my answer to that is, it was not successful. Another argument could be made about Islam. I might be taking a risk at being too critical and might want to leave it at saying, not original.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 4th November 2009 at 03:34 PM.

4th November 2009, 03:41 PM	#370
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

4th November 2009, 03:55 PM	#371
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93	Originally Posted by Fiona I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true I was going to ask the same thing Fiona. Why would the claim of originality indicate truth? Is a world wide flood story original? Are the details of Jesus birth, life, and death original? No. So I guess they are not true then, right Eth?
ORUgrad Scholar Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 93

4th November 2009, 03:56 PM	#372
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Fiona I do not see the relevance of "not successful"? If you mean that that particular monotheism did not succeed in abolishing other people's gods you are correct: nor did any other monotheism. But since you are opposed to suppressing other people's gods I do not see why that is an indication that a monotheism which did "succeed" is good, or that that is an indication it is true Your post is a good example of why my thesis is not easily supportable. It takes some further evidence to make it so. One of the things probably necessary would be to show that it was in a way, homegrown, to the extent that a core population in support of this concept had a minimal opposition to its acceptance. People not accepting it, would have been classifiable as "foreigners", which is another concept, one which you do not subscribe to.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment

4th November 2009, 04:00 PM	#373
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by ORUgrad . . .Why would the claim of originality indicate truth?. . . One could suppose that if there was a god who cared whether or not anyone acknowledged him as being God, he would establish some sort of priesthood who worshipped him. Seeing as there is a multiplicity of gods and priesthoods already existing, one might further suppose that the one true religion could be singled out by its uniqueness.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 4th November 2009 at 04:02 PM.

4th November 2009, 04:19 PM	#374
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	Originally Posted by Ethnikos Your post is a good example of why my thesis is not easily supportable. It takes some further evidence to make it so. One of the things probably necessary would be to show that it was in a way, homegrown, to the extent that a core population in support of this concept had a minimal opposition to its acceptance. People not accepting it, would have been classifiable as "foreigners", which is another concept, one which you do not subscribe to. Once again I do not follow your thought, Ethnikos. Are you saying that if this particular monotheism arose as a consensus within this particular population that somehow makes it true? If that is what you are saying then I do not see the logic. Would you consider the proposition that monotheism of that sort is quite common in the ancient world? That many cities and communities had their own "god"?. This seems to be true of the israelites as much as anyone else if I am to accept "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". They were perfectly well aware that other people had done just what they had done: made up/adopted/ been inspired by a god whom they worshipped In face of that a people can do one of two things: they can live and let live: or they can suppress other beliefs. A lot of the ancient world seems to have done the former. That is what I would expect to be the common case, because most people are reasonable, most of the time. So you would continue to worship your own god and allow others to do the same. Over time you would perhaps come to accept many gods: and put your own as the most important in relation to your community or city. Some folk seem to have done the latter. Why they did so is a mystery: why does anyone become a fanatic? It happens. People then were not much different to people now: or at least I see no reason to suppose they were. How does any of that relate to truth?
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

4th November 2009, 04:43 PM	#375
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Fiona That many cities and communities had their own "god"?. This seems to be true of the israelites as much as anyone else if I am to accept "thou shalt not have any other gods before me". They were perfectly well aware that other people had done just what they had done: made up/adopted/ been inspired by a god whom they worshipped That would be something that would need to be addressed. Did that in fact happen. One that I can think of would be Assur, the former capital of Assyria, which took its name from the god, Assur. Here's what Wikipedia says about it. Originally Posted by Wikipedia Assur is also the name of the chief deity of the city. He was considered the highest god in the Assyrian pantheon and the protector of the Assyrian state. In the Mesopotamian mythology he was the equivalent of Babylonian Marduk. So they were not monotheistic. A question could be, Was Israel different than Assyria, in regards to their respective gods? I think the evidence will show that they were different. That God was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment

4th November 2009, 04:51 PM	#376
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	Bit of a leap there, Ethnikos: I have no reason whatsoever to think "that god was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God". I have every reason to believe that that that tribe wanted to be boss tribe and was extremely intolerant
Fiona Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 4,894	__________________ To see you, who you wanted to be, amongst the bastards out there. Damn you, Fiona - MattC. Damn you, Fi - SkeptikKhatt Damn you, anoiF - CriticalSock You are become Fiona, destroyer of threads! -realpaladin

4th November 2009, 04:54 PM	#377
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Fiona Once again I do not follow your thought, Ethnikos. Are you saying that if this particular monotheism arose as a consensus within this particular population that somehow makes it true? If that is what you are saying then I do not see the logic. It's a little bit technical. What I am working on currently is the question of El. Was El also YHWH? If so, He was believed in by the Canaanites before the introduction of the later name YHWH, and would indicate a continuity of a worship, that would seem to be a requisite for that god to be the True God. Fortunately, one of the books I got today was written by someone eminently qualified to deal with that question. In the Acknowledgements, he states how he wrote the article for the god El, in the Eardman's Dictionary of the Bible. He claims that El is in fact the same god as the later Israelite God. Here is something to consider in Numbers 23:8 where Balaam is having a problem making Balak happy, "How can I curse one whom God has not cursed, or how can I denounce one whom the Lord has not denounced?" where it says, God, here, it is El, and in the same verse, you find, the Lord, which is translated from YHWH. Two gods? or are they both the same god?
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 4th November 2009 at 05:17 PM.

4th November 2009, 05:01 PM	#378
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by Fiona Bit of a leap there, Ethnikos: I have no reason whatsoever to think "that god was not satisfied with being a "highest god" but wanted to be exclusively, God". I have every reason to believe that that that tribe wanted to be boss tribe and was extremely intolerant That's fine. If you ever feel like presenting any further information to kind of flesh that out a little bit, feel free to do so. That's what I am trying to get at. Everyone has some sort of perception about how everything happened and why, and it is hard to get any sort of agreement. I'm not all that big on agreements and that is not necessarily a goal with me. I have found myself in disagreement with myself enough times, to not hold any stock in agreements in general. To me, the thing to do is stay clear of the speculative sort of stuff out there that sells popular books and keep with the serious academic stuff, at least long enough to get a better understand in of the lay of things, before launching into new speculation.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment

5th November 2009, 10:53 AM	#379
Ethnikos Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: USA Posts: 1,582	Originally Posted by ORUgrad So, Eth, now you seem to be saying you are not sure if YHWH is god but you are reading books and looking for arguments to convince you since you have a fuzzy idea about it in your head. Why would anyone go looking for reasons to believe YHWH was god? How odd. And just because Israel was perhaps monotheistic doesn't mean their god is real! If I said I believe in mail fairies that bring my mail to me but I don't have a clear idea why but I am reading books so I will know what arguments to make, you would think I was a bit delusional wouldn't you? Sounds like you have your mind made up and are looking for "proof". That is not evidence of a free mind. If anything, my books would serve to work against most sorts of theories I might come up with. For example, I was bringing up Y. Kaufmann's claims back in post #358 about the uniqueness of the religion of Israel. (btw: I found out that the book I looked up on Amazon, from this author was a condensation of Kaufmann's 8 volume history) So, I got, yesterday, as one of the three books, Cross' book, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. He takes Kaufmann's huge work as an example of the type of flawed theories that could be advanced, and gain ground, in the past, before the archaeological information that we have today, was available. So there goes a chunk of the core of my thesis. To quote Cross: Originally Posted by Cross . . .More serious, the religion of Israel is conceived as a unique or isolated phenomenon, radically or wholly discontinuous with its environment. In extreme form these views root ultimately in dogmatic systems, metaphysical or theological, and often serve an apologetic purpose. Yehezkel Kaufmann's monumental attempt to write a history of the religion of Israel comes under this criticism. The empirical historian must describe novel configurations in Israel's religion as having their origin in an orderly set of relationships which follow the usual typological sequences of historical change. Kaufmann's insistence that Israelite religion "was absolutely different from anything the pagan world ever knew" violates fundamental postulates of scientific method. Well, someone's opinion. But someone who has to be respected, and not discarded, out of hand, because one does not immediately agree with him. So, he devotes one whole book to back up his position, and I suppose one could take that into consideration when forming a world view and how to place Israel and its god into it.
	__________________ God did not spare the angels who sinned, but threw them into hell and locked them up in chains in utter darkness, to be kept until the judgment Last edited by Ethnikos; 5th November 2009 at 11:00 AM.