Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 03-28-2009, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

There is nothing in the text you idolize that states other nations should worship the Hebrew god.

Yes, there is. Its one of the 7 Noahide laws encumbent on all, declared before the advent of religions.

The 7 Noahide laws encumbent on all, declared before the advent of religions?

Where the hell do you come up with this loony crap Joseph?

Here are "The 7 Noahide laws";

1.Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.
(There can't be any such thing as "idolatry" without religions, and the restrictions that religion imposes)

2.Birchat HaShem: Prohibition on blasphemy and cursing the Name of G-d.
(There can't be any such thing as committing "blasphemy", or "cursing the name of G-d" without religions existing, and religion having a name of a G-d, to blasphemy,
or to curse, and religiously imposing religious restrictions around the name of the G-d of that religion.)

3.Shefichat Damim: Prohibition on murder.
(a restriction that can be religious and/or civil)

4.Gezel: Prohibition on robbery and theft.
(religious and/or civil)

5.Gilui Arayot: Prohibition on immorality and forbidden sexual relations.
(immorality, usually defined by religious prohibitions. "forbidden sexual relations" the same,
usually religion commandeering government enforcement to impose a religions religious prohibitions)

6.Ever Min HaChay: Prohibition on removing and eating a limb from a live animal.
(a religious enactment by religion)

7.Dinim: Requirement to establish a justice system and courts of law to enforce the other 6 laws.
(a religious requirement of the Jewish religion)

Five of these 7 Noahide laws are religious restrictions by nature, and the other two, (#3 & 4 above) if they are imposed and enforced under religious jurisdiction,
or by means of a religion commandeering the government for such purpose, are also then become religious restrictions.

kcdad · 03-28-2009, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Species8472

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

From a Hebrew scriptural perspective, the Hebrew god is not the god of all nations, it's the god of Israel.

The attitude of the OT towards other people is quite arrogant in this respect. Israel is the chosen, the rest are just trash. Even Jesus expressed the same attitude at times. It wasn't until Paul that it was accepted to convert us heathens. There is little in the OT, or even the gospels, to defend Christianity today.

Until the Babylonian captivity, the Jews thought their God was greater than all other Gods. (obviously that demands an understanding that there are OTHER Gods.) Suddenly, in coming back to a land that was "infested" with Greeks, and other strangers, they realized that if their God was continually getting beat up by other Gods, theirs wasn't the greatest God, and yet they desperately had to believe that their God was, (How could there be a "lesser" God?) SO.... the Gods are NOT fighting it out between each other, there CAN BE only one God, and we are getting our butts kicked around because we are not good,not lawful, not righteous, not clean or faithful enough to that one God. NOW they have to rewrite all their great stories and Ezra comes to the rescue to rewrite the entire Bible from a MONOTHEISTIC perspective... that is why there is such confusion in the early stories, about god or gods, angels, demons, nephilim etc...

kcdad · 03-28-2009, 06:46 AM

Being Chosen...
from http://www.aish.com/literacy/concept...sen_People.asp
"So Abraham came to a belief in God, and took upon himself the mission of teaching others of the monotheistic ideal. Abraham was even willing to suffer persecution for his beliefs. After years of enormous effort, dedication and a willingness to accept the responsibility to be God's representative in this world, God chose Abraham and his descendents to be the teachers of this monotheistic message.

In other words it is not so much that God chose the Jews; it is more accurate that the Jews (through Abraham) chose God.

Choseness was not part of God's "original plan." Initially all of humanity was to serve the role of God's messengers, but after the fall of Adam, humanity lost that privilege, and it was open for grabs. Only Abraham chose to take the mantel. If others would have (and they were offered the choice), they too would have joined in this special covenant which was sealed upon the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai."

I think the thing to understand is that through Abraham, his descendants become the chosen people... God didn't choose them, ABRAHAM did by choosing to worship HIS God and have children. God does not choose, humans choose.
As you probably already noted, I don't think God chose Abram, either. It is a rather idiotic notion that God would or would not choose anyone when you think about it.

Species8472 · 03-28-2009, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kcdad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Species8472

The attitude of the OT towards other people is quite arrogant in this respect. Israel is the chosen, the rest are just trash. Even Jesus expressed the same attitude at times. It wasn't until Paul that it was accepted to convert us heathens. There is little in the OT, or even the gospels, to defend Christianity today.

Until the Babylonian captivity, the Jews thought their God was greater than all other Gods. (obviously that demands an understanding that there are OTHER Gods.) Suddenly, in coming back to a land that was "infested" with Greeks, and other strangers, they realized that if their God was continually getting beat up by other Gods, theirs wasn't the greatest God, and yet they desperately had to believe that their God was, (How could there be a "lesser" God?) SO.... the Gods are NOT fighting it out between each other, there CAN BE only one God, and we are getting our butts kicked around because we are not good,not lawful, not righteous, not clean or faithful enough to that one God. NOW they have to rewrite all their great stories and Ezra comes to the rescue to rewrite the entire Bible from a MONOTHEISTIC perspective... that is why there is such confusion in the early stories, about god or gods, angels, demons, nephilim etc...

It is in my opinion the most plausible explanation in one way or another, yes.

Likewise for the gospels in the new testament, they were written and also rewritten to accommodate the new beliefs of the early church.

Sheshbazzar · 03-28-2009, 10:23 AM

And it must be noted that according to the texts hundreds of thousands among those Hebrews and Jews thought almost any "other Gods" were superior preferable to YHWH the butcherer of infants.
They did not willingly "choose him", and even most of those who did "choose Him", only made that "choice" under the most extreme duress, that if they -did not- "choose him", they, their wives, and their children would be massacred by his religious goon squads,
if not by Him himself in one of his well known fits of wrath.

So yeah, there was some "choosing" going on, and one might well wonder how many among these victims of religion actually "chose" to die for their freedom of belief, and for the integrity of their conscience, rather than submitting to living under that nightmare of religious fanaticism imposed by Moses and his goon squads?

IamJoseph · 03-28-2009, 06:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Every so often, an archeological find is reported that someone, somewhere, can match to an event or location in the Bible.
For the most part, even skeptics of the more outrageous contents of the Bible are perfectly willing to admit that the thing was written some time ago, and the authors wouldn't have been completely ignorant of the world around them at the time.
Historical elements in a book written during history aren't really worth getting excited about, for either side.
There was a King Darius, and the daric coin was named after him, and a character in the Bible was paid in darics. No one has a problem with that. Of course, the daric payment is for an event that supposedly preceded Darius' birth, and many people have a problem with that.:huh:

But back to the finds. The Faithful like it when archeology shores up their interpretation of the Bible. And they probably should. The finds are something the critics can't ignore, they're cataloged and verified and show up in those heathen secular museums and all that shit.

But isn't there an important distinction right there? The very unearthing of history that the Faithful celebrate is different from the scriptural account. It's received differently, handled differently, interpreted differently.
Maybe the biblephile should really examine the differences to see just why ruins under dirt are better history than words written on scrolls.

I mean, say my kid tells me about his day out with Grandpa. They went to the circus, they went to Hooters, they went to the zoo and a tiger escaped and grandpa chased it back into his cage with his cane, then they went to State Street and grandpa talked to a lady who was very hot and wore only her underwear. If independent research reveals to me that there is, indeed, a zoo in town, and there is a tiger exhibited there, it is a far cry from validating the tiger-escaped story, even if i can find no way to prove that the outstanding tale never happened.

Getting it right means completing the statement.

Sure, there is much veracity in this - many believers have an intense desire to vindicate their beliefs, and many cross over all reasonable tresholds to conclude in their favor. It is natural, and a syndrome most displayed by christianity and islam - and least displayed when it concerns the Hebrew bible. This syndrome is also rampant with Evolutionists.

But pound for pound, there is no writings in existence who's texts and narratives are more vindicared than the Hebrew - by period of time, volume of works and cross-nation and scientific verification.
Let's not forget to conclude in the correct perspective.

The issue of Darius is hardly dependent on a coin: the book of Esther reads like last Sunday's newspaper, every stat is historical, and the Jews were exiled there in 586 BCE - and returned 70 years later and rebuilt the second temple - which muslims claim never existed! Hello?

IamJoseph · 03-28-2009, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

The issue is governed by 'THERE IS NO OTHER' - also mathematically a sound advocation;

============================

Mathematically sound? Are you insane? Almost nothing you say makes a goddamn lick of sense.

Yes, mathematically sound. Whoever, whichever place you backtrack to - it will eventually lead to ONE indivisable and irreducable factor. Monotheism is mathematically sound.

THE BUCK STOPS WITH 'ONE'. :wave:

Keith&Co. · 03-28-2009, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

But pound for pound, there is no writings in existence who's texts and narratives are more vindicared than the Hebrew - by period of time, volume of works and cross-nation and scientific verification.

Scientific verification that cattle looking at striped sticks have striped calves?
Scientific verification of giants? Demonic possession? A global flood?

Historical verification of cities that were 'utterly destroyed and never to be rebuilt' that are inhabited today?

And you claim that the Hebrew Bible is the least affected by a desire to take shortcuts to produce 'verification?'

Amazingly large mote you've got in your eye, there.

IamJoseph · 03-28-2009, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by IamJoseph

Yes, there is. Its one of the 7 Noahide laws encumbent on all, declared before the advent of religions.

The 7 Noahide laws encumbent on all, declared before the advent of religions?

Where the hell do you come up with this loony crap Joseph?

Here are "The 7 Noahide laws";

1.Avodah Zarah: Prohibition on idolatry.
(There can't be any such thing as "idolatry" without religions, and the restrictions that religion imposes)

I concede the point in your favor.

I should have qualified, not of any existing religion, or that idolatory was a generic syndrome with humanity prior to the Noahic advocation of Monotheism. One can see here why the Jews became 'chosen'; the other nations found Monotheism too restricting, abstract and in contradiction of the nation's laws. Death sentences were mandated against Monotheism, and Abraham fleed his country for that reason. Here, Abraham contemplated this issue for a long time, till it became an obsession, then a compulsion - just as Einstein and Galeleo would have done - till they introduced new paradigms coming out from them.

The command of chosen is to spread the word [light] by example - not by the rake or sword, which eventually ends up in false beliefs and intense hatred.

IamJoseph · 03-28-2009, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith&Co.

Scientific verification that cattle looking at striped sticks have striped calves?

Yes, much science is embedded therein. The impircal premise started at such points.

Quote:

Scientific verification of giants? Demonic possession? A global flood?

Giant and demonic possession are authentic, historical, contemporary cutural premises; the flood was limited to one region ['then known world'], and Noah's possessions [domestic animals] only. The story's opening preamble! The texts also introduce Mount Ararat for the first time, with aerial mapping veracity - and again vindicating this was a regional flood. Tasmania and New York did not yet exist [grammar rules].

Quote:

Historical verification of cities that were 'utterly destroyed and never to be rebuilt' that are inhabited today?

Like Jericho, Sodom and Ghomorah. There are 100s of nations which don't exist today, but did exist before. Consider Moab, Median, Ancient Egypt, Pompey, Babylon - and not to forget the Roman Empire.

Quote:

And you claim that the Hebrew Bible is the least affected by a desire to take shortcuts to produce 'verification?'

'Short cuts' refers to exacting and pristine texts [grammar], which cannot be prosed better - not a means of falsification. Aside from the few FX examples [like the sea splitting] - there are literally millions of provable historical stats in the Hebrew bible's words and verses. Proof of the historical stats do not become false because of some miracles being inexplicable.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2009, 06:46 AM	#233
kcdad Banned Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: illinois Posts: 688	Being Chosen... from http://www.aish.com/literacy/concept...sen_People.asp "So Abraham came to a belief in God, and took upon himself the mission of teaching others of the monotheistic ideal. Abraham was even willing to suffer persecution for his beliefs. After years of enormous effort, dedication and a willingness to accept the responsibility to be God's representative in this world, God chose Abraham and his descendents to be the teachers of this monotheistic message. In other words it is not so much that God chose the Jews; it is more accurate that the Jews (through Abraham) chose God. Choseness was not part of God's "original plan." Initially all of humanity was to serve the role of God's messengers, but after the fall of Adam, humanity lost that privilege, and it was open for grabs. Only Abraham chose to take the mantel. If others would have (and they were offered the choice), they too would have joined in this special covenant which was sealed upon the giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai." I think the thing to understand is that through Abraham, his descendants become the chosen people... God didn't choose them, ABRAHAM did by choosing to worship HIS God and have children. God does not choose, humans choose. As you probably already noted, I don't think God chose Abram, either. It is a rather idiotic notion that God would or would not choose anyone when you think about it.

03-28-2009, 10:23 AM	#235
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	And it must be noted that according to the texts hundreds of thousands among those Hebrews and Jews thought almost any "other Gods" were superior preferable to YHWH the butcherer of infants. They did not willingly "choose him", and even most of those who did "choose Him", only made that "choice" under the most extreme duress, that if they -did not- "choose him", they, their wives, and their children would be massacred by his religious goon squads, if not by Him himself in one of his well known fits of wrath. So yeah, there was some "choosing" going on, and one might well wonder how many among these victims of religion actually "chose" to die for their freedom of belief, and for the integrity of their conscience, rather than submitting to living under that nightmare of religious fanaticism imposed by Moses and his goon squads?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.