Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about others but I am here saying that I do have a concept of God to which there is a corresponding entity, God, and my concept of God is maker of everything that (everything) has a beginning.
Okay... let's run with that.
Do you also hold the complimentary position that God is not the maker of anything that has no beginning?
Um... debate is fun. Discussing philosophy is fun and interesting. Just because I'm an Atheist who enjoys debate doesn't mean I 'secretly' believe in your god.
Does that mean that I shouldn't take a World Religions class in college because I'm an Atheist? If belief in 'god' is so obvious, why do Atheists exist in the first place? Honestly, I rarely even mention religion or 'god' in my everyday life. It just doesn't come up because I don't know a whole lot of believers anymore. I come on here to debate simply because its fun
Yes, debate is fun. But why debate what you don't believe in and rarely ever even mention? "Rarely even mention"...now THAT'S about as disinterested as you can get.
Hmmmmmm, with all the myriad of subjects and issues there is to engage in "fun debate" about...you chose one that has a focal entity you believe doesn't exist, and hardly mention. One would wonder why one might do that. I mean, I don't log into forums to debate the existence of the Big Bad Wolf and the Three Little Pigs. Do you debate the existence of anything else you don't believe exists beyond a passing mention?
I believe you don't "secretly believe in God". I also know something that IS a secret to all the Atheists that come onto this forum...That which you deny the existence of compels you to do so. And there isn't anything you can do about it...because it is the force of God within you that is subliminally compelling you to be here discussing God.
How many times did you read the name "God" to read my post?
Not nearly as many times as I read the name god in a classical mythology course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eskercurve
A lot of Atheists have already discussed and studied religious texts and saw the similarities and blatant and obvious copying of ideas and concepts across cultures to know that anyone who honestly believes in God buys into those fairy tales and thus is useless to discuss with them as they've never seriously questioned God.
Good point. Here's an excellent example:
Quote:
I have not cursed a god.
I have not killed people.
I have not robbed.
I have not committed adultery.
I have not coveted.
I have not told lies.
I have not trespassed.
Recognize that? No, it isn't the 10 Commandments, it's from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, written more than 1,000 years before Joseph allegedly went to Egypt.
Neither Yahweh nor the Hebrews were very original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Cite a source for that. On my own I find apparently an "El Shaddai" is mentioned in Ugaritic, but that it's exactly a fertility god is theoretical.
Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Journal of Assyriology, Journal of Semitic Studies, Journal of Near Eastern Studies et al. Take your pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Possibly the Ugaritic did stumble on some right ideas or possibly their ancestors worshiped Ugaritic deities at various points.
Possibly? There are inscriptions circa 800 BCE referencing Yahweh and Asherah. That would be more than 1,000 years after the city of Ugarit and the Ugarit language died. There was a nice lecture on it at Hebrew Union University.
Ugarit has also allowed for all the emendations. One of the Psalms was always translated "silver lips" which made no freaking sense whatsoever, until French and Israeli archeaologists found the original Ugarit Psalm which says "like silver" and then the Psalm made sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Things do not become facts because you say they are facts. Sure rules may evolve over time because the world changes. Rules necessary for survival in one period may no longer be relevant later.
As always source please.
In other words, you've never read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy, and done a comparative analysis.
The difference between the first 4 books and the Deuteronomic Histories is that history plays by the rules Jeremiah outlined in Deuteronomy 28-32, which is that if Israel is faithful it prospers, if it is unfaithful, it is cursed, defeated and ultimately exiled.
The emphasis of Deuteronomy is on the exclusive worship of Yahweh, whereas prior to that, Yahweh was simply one of many gods worshipped.
Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers allow worship and sacrifice at any sacred site, but in Deuteronomy this changes to only worship and sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem. That is a very effective way to do a number of things, primarily control the religion by ensuring the exclusive worship of Yahweh, and by pumping money into the economy of the capital city, since everyone must now come to Jerusalem during Passover and Yom Kippur to sacrifice.
The old places, Beth-el, Dan, Hebron, Schekem and about a dozen or more other places are "off-limits" now.
The emphasis also shifts from the Abrahmic Covenant to the Davidic Covenant.
You also see a shift in theology. When you're unfaithful to Yahweh, your punished, but in the latter prophets it is when you neglect the widows, orphans and poor that you are punished. That's a fundamentally huge shift in theology.
Another fundamental shift in Deuteronomy is the introduction of the mashiah (hence 'messiah,' translated into Greek as 'xristoj,' hence 'Christ')
While I'm on the subject, nowhere in the text does the word Mashiah exist. It is always mashiah, and it simply means an "anointed one." Cyrus the Mede who ruled from Persia was a mashiah, and specifically the mashiah and prince mentioned in Daniel 9:25.
There can be more than one mashiah, and there typically were. At one time, there were over 100 mashiahim, for example during the Jewish Wars 66-70 CE. The three most famous were John Christ of Gishala, John Christ Bar Giora and Simon Christ the Idumean.
John Christ Bar Giora was taken to Rome in chains by Titus.
All of the Hasmonean kings were mashiah, since they were all also high-priests.
Jeremiah uses Moses as the archetype for the mashiah.
Dueteronomy had to be re-written and heavily edited because of what happened.
King Josiah and the nation was faithful to Yahweh, and what happened?
Josaih gets riddled with flaming arrows, decapitated and mutilated, his army is destroyed at Har Meggido, then Pharoah Neco marches on Jerusalem, annihilates the army there, and takes Josiah's son (now king) as captive.
That's what you get for being faithful to Yahweh.
Obviously, that won't do, and no one will be signing up to be so abused, so Deuteronomy had to be edited and re-written in part to lay the blame on Mannaseh, a king most wicked in the eyes of Yahweh.
The funny thing is, Mannaseh prospered. Anyway, Yahweh delayed punishment on the king most wicked Mannaseh and saved it up to punish Josiah, the king most righteous in the eyes of Yahweh.
And why punishment? Why kill Onan for spilling his seed on the ground and killing all the others?
There's no heaven and there's no hell. Yahweh cannot punish you after you die, so you must be punished in the "here and now."
You can obviously see how far Judaism has evolved in religious thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Where in the New Testament?
I don't remember and don't want to be nauseated to re-read it, but it's something about you can't worship two gods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Still "elohim" could have been used to mean lesser non-divine beings in service of a deity. I tend to use the word "angel" to mean "lesser non-divine beings created by God" which is maybe not literally correct. Maybe this seems unlikely to you, but your idea doesn't strike me as inevitable.
Well, you are catholic and reading the New American Bible which is crap.
Genesis 6, the NAB renders it "sons of heaven" which is grossly incorrect. "Sons of heaven" would be bene-shamaya, but the text says bene-elohim.
Accordingly, bene-elohim would be rendered "sons of god," which means Jesus could not possibly be the only begotten son so that John 3:16 is nonsense, or "sons of gods" in which case proves the Hebrews were not monotheists, rather they were polytheists or henotheists.
The phrase bene-elohim is an archaic phrase from Shumerian. It appears only 5 times in the Old Testament, twice in Genesis 6 and the other three times in Job, which the Hebrews plagiarized from the original Job account as written by the Shumerians circa 4000 BCE (you can read S N Kramer's translation), or possibly from the later Akkadian Job written around 3200 BCE.
There's also a partial text of the Eblaite Job version written circa 2800 BCE. Eblaite was a short-lived language.
The only thing Hebrew about Job, is the name of Job's three daughters, which was probably an insertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryrge
So, if you are an atheist then state your concept of God whichever you are objecting the existence of, but don't bring in spaghetti unless your mind is so dense and incoherent for lack of intelligence.
You sound like a broken record and just don't get. Atheists do not believe in a god-thing, and therefore have no concept of god.
If it will shut you up, then I'll play along for shats and giggles.
This arrogant usurpation of the default God ("Nature") has gone on long enough . . . especially when it has NO scientific basis whatsoever.
You're asking for a scientific basis to prove the existance of something that's inherantly non-falsifiable, and by definition, not a scientific concept.
Call it a cracker, or call it a cookie, but choose one.
This thread is about God, specifically, God of theists like Christians, Muslims, Jews, and I define God in concept as the maker of everything that (everything) has a beginning.
How can you atheists show intelligence in reacting to my concept of God Who to me also on my thinking has a corresponding reality or substance in objective existence, instead of resorting to evasions by bringing in spaghetti, etc.?
One tip: examine the concepts connoted in the words used by me in my definition of God, and keep away from emotionalism by which you hope to inflict some emotional hurt on theists, like calling God spaghetti, no matter that you go into all kinds of deviant directions to show that you are justified in calling God spaghetti, because the name God is already known since when man discovered God, first the concept, then the existence.
In an intelligent exchange when a party brings in another name to talk about the object of conversation he is into malingering if nothing else, because bringing in another name when the name is already accepted everywhere and everytime, that is into malingering or malicious diversion, deviation, evasion, and (look it up) tergiversation.
Now, I know that a sociology professor of the University of Minnesota made a poll of how Americans generally regard atheists in their midst, the finding is that Americans generally hold atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst.
Why this finding? because they can't even talk with atheists without atheists resorting to name-calling like insisting that God is spaghetti as far as they (atheists) are concerned, when even people who are non-Christians in other lands who also use English know God already has a name, God, and there is no need to use another name unless you are into malicious malingering.
So, what will it be, you atheists want an intelligent exchange on God or you just want to dwell on hostile emotionalism with name-calling?
This thread is about God, specifically, God of theists like Christians, Muslims, Jews, and I define God in concept as the maker of everything that (everything) has a beginning.
You said that already.
And I asked a question as a result: Do you also believe the compliment of that assertion, i.e. that god is not the maker of anything that does not have a beginning?
You said you wanted an intelligent discussion. Please, start by answering the question.
Ryrge, the only one doing any name calling is you...Why can't you understand that atheists have and believe in NO god....Do you believe that there are thousands of gods, or just the one you believe in? If you only believe in the one, then aren't you an atheist regarding all the others?
This thread is about God, specifically, God of theists like Christians, Muslims, Jews, and I define God in concept as the maker of everything that (everything) has a beginning.
How can you atheists show intelligence in reacting to my concept of God Who to me also on my thinking has a corresponding reality or substance in objective existence, instead of resorting to evasions by bringing in spaghetti, etc.?
One tip: examine the concepts connoted in the words used by me in my definition of God, and keep away from emotionalism by which you hope to inflict some emotional hurt on theists, like calling God spaghetti, no matter that you go into all kinds of deviant directions to show that you are justified in calling God spaghetti, because the name God is already known since when man discovered God, first the concept, then the existence.
In an intelligent exchange when a party brings in another name to talk about the object of conversation he is into malingering if nothing else, because bringing in another name when the name is already accepted everywhere and everytime, that is into malingering or malicious diversion, deviation, evasion, and (look it up) tergiversation.
Now, I know that a sociology professor of the University of Minnesota made a poll of how Americans generally regard atheists in their midst, the finding is that Americans generally hold atheists to be the most distrusted minority in their midst.
Why this finding? because they can't even talk with atheists without atheists resorting to name-calling like insisting that God is spaghetti as far as they (atheists) are concerned, when even people who are non-Christians in other lands who also use English know God already has a name, God, and there is no need to use another name unless you are into malicious malingering.
So, what will it be, you atheists want an intelligent exchange on God or you just want to dwell on hostile emotionalism with name-calling?
Ryrge
I agree with this. I've never had an intelligent conversation with Atheist online anywhere. With the very exception of June 7th. A true Atheist. I find I have a better chance in real life. Like I mentioned before, the internet is just a place where people can be anything they want to be and can say anything they want to as well. So they take the opportunity and roll with it. Full grown adults acting like high school students. Naming calling, making fun of others 24/7, being sarcastic, conversing everyday about the very topic they do not believe in. It's all very immature and childish monkey behavior to me. And it's sad that these full grown adults are the same ones that claim they are the "sane and intelligent" ones. Whatever.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
