God's Wife Asherah

Create a topic and discuss! No subject is off limits, but moderators have the right to remove asshat posts. What's an asshat post? Selling stuff, trolling, harassing--the usual stuff you don't want to see either. Happy posting!
searchengineguy
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by searchengineguy »

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:24 pm
Hey SEG, would you agree that science is man made and so it changes?
Yep. Just like your gods.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:21 pm
So, would you therefore conclude that scienceis entirely subjective with no external referent?
No, scientific results should be objective, regardless of who conducts the experiment. Science doesn't need a god for an external referent. Science changes when new knowledge is brought forward, tested and if the results are repeatable we accept it as being true, replacing the old knowledge. Religion doesn't work that way. New knowledge is frowned upon and your Bible can't ever be wrong.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by searchengineguy »

Hey Moon, would you agree that of the millions of gods that man has created, every single one of them has changed? Even your god?
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

searchengineguy
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by searchengineguy »

A better question might be: Do you think whatever your god commands—whether to love your neighbor or to beat your wife or to murder unbelievers—is “moral” simply because he said so? If it is, that is the essence of subjectivity.
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:15 am
searchengineguy wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 8:06 am
I don't know how the first chapter in the book of Genesis is connected to the last chapter in the book of Revelation. You could say that ANY verses in the Bible, it's all interpretation and subjective. Sorry for the butchering, but you'll get over it!
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Thu Jan 09, 2020 6:10 pm
It is not subjective in any meaningful sense of that much abused word. It is collective as judgements about canon and interpretation always have been.
searchengineguy wrote:
Fri Jan 10, 2020 10:40 am
Moon, of course it is subjective, that's why there are over 45,000 versions of Christianity! They all have there own opinions and interpretations.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 4:54 pm
Your argument seems to be that if there are a lot of different opinions about something this implies that the thing is subjective. This argument is clearly invalid since one can think of all kinds of counter examples. Take mathematics for example that is not universaly regarded as subjective and yet there are thousands of philosophies of number. Or take money; there are many theories about what money is and how it is created. Now in both these two examples there are some theories that emphasise the subjective nature of the phenomena involved more than others but it is simply not the case that the diversity of opinion itself prooves that the phenomena the opinions are about must be subjective in nature.
See:
Religion Is Super Subjectivism
First of all I want to note that you have once again done something that you do quite often. First you present an argument leading to a conclusion. Secondly when someone shows that the argument is not valid you replace it with a completely different argument leading to the same conclusion without ever acknowledging that your original argument has failed. You argued that because Christians have many different opinions Christianity must be subjective. I countered this by giving examples of other spheres where there are different opinions where you are not drawing that conclusion. Instead of admitting the failure of your argument or trying to defend it you simply switch to a new argument, in this case one that is not your own.

Having said that I don't mind discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand if that is what you want to so. Let's take it piece by piece:
Craig Biddle April 20, 2017
Many people regard religion as the opposite of, and the antidote to, subjectivism. In fact, however, religion is a form of subjectivism. Indeed, it is the most extreme form of all.

To see why, consider the nature of secular subjectivism, both personal and social, and compare them to religion.

Personal subjectivism is the notion that truth and morality are creations of the mind of the individual, or matters of personal feelings or opinion. Social subjectivism is the notion that truth and morality are creations of the mind of a collective (a group of people), or matters of social convention.
In the past you have always argued that morality is subjective; have you changed your mind and become an objectivist or do you not actually agree with this part of the argument. If you reject this part then since the rest depends on it the argument fails. Quite clearly though I think there is a subjective aspect to morality; feelings, hopes, aspirations, empathy, these are subjective phenomena that play a part in morality; I don't think these can be totally excluded; so there is a subjective aspect to morality. For an alternative perspective on this readCarl Rogers essay 'Do we need a reality' which you will find in this collection https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carl-Rogers-Re ... 648&sr=8-1 The concept of social subjectivism is an oxymoron. Clearly there are aspects of morality that are a consequence of agreement in a group. For example most people would agree that it is dangerous and immoral to speed on the road but the speed limit is set by social consensus.
The personal subjectivist says, “If I say something is true, then it is”—or “It’s right because I say so”—or “It’s good because I feel that it is”—or the like. The social subjectivist says, “If my group says something is true, then it is”—or “It’s right because my tribe says so”—or “It’s good because that’s the consensus”—or the like.
If I experience something as true then it is true for me; that is Rogers point and as the Thomas theorem states 'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences'. For an overview of this perspective see Berger and Luckmann's 'The Social Construction of Reality' https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Constru ... 188&sr=8-3
In short, subjectivism is the notion that an idea is true or an action is moral because someone or some group says so.
No, it isn't. The statement that something is true is secondary to the experience of it as true whether by the group or individual.
With that in mind, what does religion say about the source of truth and morality?
many things. You canot treat all religion as homogenous in this way.
Religion is the idea that a God exists and demands our faith and obedience.
No. Religion canot be that as there are non-theistic religions.
He is alleged to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who is the creator of the universe, the source of all truth, and the maker of moral law. According to religion, if God says something is true or right or good, then it is—by virtue of the fact that he said so.
This is another misunderstanding. The Ochamites say this but that is one possible view. Here is an alternative: God creates a cosmos and within that cosmos there are human beings. They are ways of human functioning that are optimal and ways that are not. You will notice that this second claim, which has always been part of natural law theory, is quite similar to what Rand says. We can reverse engineer this optimal behaviour or in some instances God can tell us what it is, but in no case it it simply a matter of being the case because God says so. That is like saying the manufacturer's instructions for a machine are simply arbitrary fiats.
Well, we can see one level of subjectivity right there. Truth and morality are whatever God says they are. But the subjectivity involved in religion goes further.
No. This is a misunderstanding for the reason's given above.
In order to accept that God’s say-so is the standard of truth and morality, you have to accept the say-so of religionists who say that it is. “God exists and His word is the truth.” How does the religionist know this? He “knows” it because he said so—or, as he will put it, “because I have faith,” which means: “because I accept ideas in support of which there is no evidence.” And he expects you to accept it because he said so. (Otherwise he would present evidence.)
And now we see a profound problem with this kind of objectivism, its failure to comprehend the views of the other. A theist may say just accept this or he may present a case, which you can accept or reject. There is just no way he is bound to say 'believe this because I say so' nor is it the case that the theist believes because he himself says a thing is true. No case has been presented why this must be the case it is simply asserted.
Seen in this light, religion—or “supernatural” subjectivism—is significantly more subjective than secular subjectivism. It is super subjectivism.
At this point this just looks like self serving nonsense, but then for Rand self serving is unavoidable.
None of this is to say that people don’t have a right to be religious. They do. People are (or should be) free to believe in God and to practice their religion—as long as they do not enact any religious laws or commandments that call for murder, rape, or other rights violations.
Isn't he generous!
But people are not free to be religious without being subjectivists. Religion is not only a form of subjectivism. It is the most subjective form of all.
Case not proved.
Where is your proof that God exists?
No you have leapt to the assumption that we can only have grounds to believe what we can prove. That is not only false but it has been proved to be false (in 1929).
You and other Christians here DO believe on faith alone, even despite evidence to the contrary.
This is assertion not argument.
You believe that a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago got re-animated from a god's magic and he is still alive today. You believe that he actually walked on water. You believe on faith alone that a huge number of slaves got emancipated from a cruel unnamed Egyptian pharaoh, wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years and got fed by your god from food falling from the sky. Need I go on?
No. We have discussed all this before. You find it impossible to reflect what Christians believe without adding your own distorted interpretations. When you can present what we believe as we believe it you will be ready to criticise it. Again I encourage you to read that essay by Rogers.
It depends whether you think that your religion was subject to religious syncretism or not. I think that there is clear evidence that it was, what do you say?
I say you had better begin by explaining what you mean by syncretism.
I don't make decisions about anything using faith alone (like you do), it's an incredibly poor tool to work out what is the truth.
We have been over this in great detail. When we had the thread on this everyone involved explained to you that they did not take the approach you were attacking, none the less you continue to criticise this position that no one holds. If you were producing some kind of argument that although people were claiming not to hold this position they did hold it really, then you might have a case but you are not; you are simply stating that people hold this position, that faith in isolation is a route to truth, in spite of their clear rejection of that. So let me be clear once again: I have absolutely no idea what it would be like to make a decision by faith alone; I don't do it and I don't know of anyone who does do it.
How about anyone that believes in the Apostles' Creed without any supporting evidence?
In order to believe the creedhe would need to use his reason to understand it. Therefore it would not be by faith alone.
You were invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and the Argument from Ignorance when you said, "I don't know of any serious scholar who thinks he is mythical". There could be lots of "serious" scholars that you aren't aware of! How about if I say that the existence of Moses was lacking in historical evidence, so I don't believe it was the truth?
You might find, say, a journalist using the term mythical of Moses but you are not going to find anthroplogists or students of literature using it in that slipshod way. How about if you do say that? You are certainly free to chose criteria for belief.
That would only make sense if you could present evidence that Moses only believed in one god. It gets thrown out the window with the verses depicting him believing in other gods.
Suppose a Christian were to say the Christian God is better than the Muslim God. You might take that to imply that both God's exist but more likely he would be comparing two concepts. The distinction between conceptualisation and instantiation is a very sophisticated one. People struggle to make it but itwas not until the early twentieth century with the development of logical languages that this could be made clear. But if the distinction itself is very hard to make clear in ordinary language then reading that distinction, which may not have existed in people's minds because they had no lnguage to express it, back into statements made in earlier eras is very precarious.
He still could have made the distinction of expressing them as "false" gods. But he didn't. He supposedly said, "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods,..." not Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other FALSE gods, which means he thought other gods existed, but they weren't as great. Why would he say that God is greater than something that doesn't exist? What would be the point of that?
The point would be to compare two ideas or behaviour sets. Language does not work in the way you assume it does. Peopledon't put everything into clear forms that exclude possible misunderstandings at times in the unspecified future. If they did it is doubtful their contemporaries would understand them
There is realy no need for this kind of textual nihilism. Of course scribes will try to interpret a disputed text in line with what they think it is likely to have said but that is true in the present as well as the past. Textual studies are an attempt to get past that. If you were to say on the basis of our limited number of texts and the variations no one knows what, say, Plato thought people would laugh at you, same applies here.
Except that generations of evangelical scribes didn't fiddle with what Plato wrote to suit their agendas.
I do not know where you are getting these generations of evangelical scribes from. The evangelical movement began in the nineteenth century and most evangelicals would accept the masoretic text for the Hebrew which they would have no opportunity to tinker with (it's a Jewish work). For the Greek, the textus receptus was produced by Erasmus of Rotterdam who was not an evangelical (read his debates with Luther if you think so) and the revised text was the Work of Westcott and Hort who were liberal Catholics. None of those responsible for the transmission of the texts prior to these editions could fairly be described as evangelicals.
I was using it in the sense of having an agenda of promoting Christianity. From Wiki:
The term may also be used outside any religious context to characterize a generic missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose.
Okay, so your argument is that the scribes that transmitted the scriptures were Christians and therefore distorting its message. I think you are saying this was a deliberate conspiracy of some kind. Do you have evidence to support that claim rather than a more general claim that scribes tend to interpret a text in terms of what they think it likely to say, which would apply in the other cases where you say it wouldn't.
You're not saying that animists didn't believe in lots of gods are you?
I am saying animism is distinct from polytheism which was the term you used. Go back and take another look at Tyler.
I know it is distinct from polytheism, but both include belief in many gods.
Not really. Animists don't necessarily believe in gods at all though animism could exist alongside god beliefs. And as you said later polytheism emerged from earlier polytheism that claim is irrelevant. And to make it clear I think Tyler's views are not tenable but if you are going to make a case for that kind of position you do need to understand it.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 8:04 pm
Hey Moon, would you agree that of the millions of gods that man has created, every single one of them has changed? Even your god?
Even if this were true how could anyone know. You are talking about changes in a concept but how do you distinguish between changes that happen but mean the concept is still essentially the same and changes that mean there is now a different concept. Take Aristotle's concept of an unmoved mover, assuming you accept that is a concept of God or of a god then that concept as a concept has remained unchanged over millennia. But is its adaptation to the Christian God by Aquinas a change in the concept or the creation of a new concept. The question you are asking seems meaningless to me.

User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by Moonwood the Hare »

searchengineguy wrote:
Mon Jan 13, 2020 1:29 am
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 1:24 pm
Hey SEG, would you agree that science is man made and so it changes?
Yep. Just like your gods.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:21 pm
So, would you therefore conclude that scienceis entirely subjective with no external referent?
No, scientific results should be objective, regardless of who conducts the experiment. Science doesn't need a god for an external referent. Science changes when new knowledge is brought forward, tested and if the results are repeatable we accept it as being true, replacing the old knowledge. Religion doesn't work that way. New knowledge is frowned upon and your Bible can't ever be wrong.
What is the point of telling me what science should be when this is utterly different from what science actually is; only an ignoramus could think this idealized concept of science fits the facts. The external referent for a science would be the phenomena that science deals with: the fact that there have been many different and changing concepts of say gravity does not imply that gravity is purely subjective but rather that different concepts have been applied in order to understand it.

You say new knowledge is frowned upon in religion so here is a challenge. Name any example of a religious person frowning upon new knowledge and I will give three examples, from the same era, of religious people who embrace that same knowledge. That should be enough to show your claim is bogus. However I want your own examples, no cutting and pasting.

searchengineguy
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by searchengineguy »

Moonwood the Hare wrote:
Wed Jan 15, 2020 1:15 pm
First of all I want to note that you have once again done something that you do quite often.
You are being hypocritical here. What you do quite often is ignore my poignant questions (like what is your evidence for any gods existing?) and usually switch to referring me to some dusty old Christian book that doesn't interest me in the slightest.
First you present an argument leading to a conclusion. Secondly when someone shows that the argument is not valid you replace it with a completely different argument leading to the same conclusion without ever acknowledging that your original argument has failed.
Yeah? Let's see how that pans out for you.
You argued that because Christians have many different opinions Christianity must be subjective.
Incorrect. My argument was that because of the 45,000 denominations of Christianity all having different opinions on how to interpret "God's word" that it must be entirely subjective - which it clearly is. Especially if members of the same church can't agree on basic tenets.
I countered this by giving examples of other spheres where there are different opinions where you are not drawing that conclusion. Instead of admitting the failure of your argument or trying to defend it you simply switch to a new argument, in this case one that is not your own.
Oh wot crud! Here's how it went:
Moonwood the Hare wrote: ↑Sun Jan 12, 2020 10:21 pm
So, would you therefore conclude that scienceis entirely subjective with no external referent?
I gave this very concise answer that you refused to answer:
No, scientific results should be objective, regardless of who conducts the experiment. Science doesn't need a god for an external referent. Science changes when new knowledge is brought forward, tested and if the results are repeatable we accept it as being true, replacing the old knowledge. Religion doesn't work that way. New knowledge is frowned upon and your Bible can't ever be wrong.
Having said that I don't mind discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand if that is what you want to so. Let's take it piece by piece:
Craig Biddle April 20, 2017
Many people regard religion as the opposite of, and the antidote to, subjectivism. In fact, however, religion is a form of subjectivism. Indeed, it is the most extreme form of all.

To see why, consider the nature of secular subjectivism, both personal and social, and compare them to religion.

Personal subjectivism is the notion that truth and morality are creations of the mind of the individual, or matters of personal feelings or opinion. Social subjectivism is the notion that truth and morality are creations of the mind of a collective (a group of people), or matters of social convention.
In the past you have always argued that morality is subjective; have you changed your mind and become an objectivist or do you not actually agree with this part of the argument.
I DO agree with it
If you reject this part then since the rest depends on it the argument fails. Quite clearly though I think there is a subjective aspect to morality; feelings, hopes, aspirations, empathy, these are subjective phenomena that play a part in morality; I don't think these can be totally excluded; so there is a subjective aspect to morality. For an alternative perspective on this readCarl Rogers essay 'Do we need a reality' which you will find in this collection https://www.amazon.co.uk/Carl-Rogers-Re ... 648&sr=8-1 The concept of social subjectivism is an oxymoron. Clearly there are aspects of morality that are a consequence of agreement in a group. For example most people would agree that it is dangerous and immoral to speed on the road but the speed limit is set by social consensus.
The personal subjectivist says, “If I say something is true, then it is”—or “It’s right because I say so”—or “It’s good because I feel that it is”—or the like. The social subjectivist says, “If my group says something is true, then it is”—or “It’s right because my tribe says so”—or “It’s good because that’s the consensus”—or the like.
If I experience something as true then it is true for me; that is Rogers point and as the Thomas theorem states 'If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences'. For an overview of this perspective see Berger and Luckmann's 'The Social Construction of Reality' https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Constru ... 188&sr=8-3
Aren't you arguing that morality is objective and comes from your gods?
In short, subjectivism is the notion that an idea is true or an action is moral because someone or some group says so.
No, it isn't. The statement that something is true is secondary to the experience of it as true whether by the group or individual.
Sorry, I don't agree. How do you know it's moral or immoral if someone doesn't tell you it is?
With that in mind, what does religion say about the source of truth and morality?
many things. You canot treat all religion as homogenous in this way.
Yes, but I think she was talking holistically.
Religion is the idea that a God exists and demands our faith and obedience.
No. Religion canot be that as there are non-theistic religions.
Again, I'd think that you would agree that idea is generally the case.
He is alleged to be an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being who is the creator of the universe, the source of all truth, and the maker of moral law. According to religion, if God says something is true or right or good, then it is—by virtue of the fact that he said so.
This is another misunderstanding. The Ochamites say this but that is one possible view. Here is an alternative: God creates a cosmos and within that cosmos there are human beings. They are ways of human functioning that are optimal and ways that are not. You will notice that this second claim, which has always been part of natural law theory, is quite similar to what Rand says. We can reverse engineer this optimal behaviour or in some instances God can tell us what it is, but in no case it it simply a matter of being the case because God says so. That is like saying the manufacturer's instructions for a machine are simply arbitrary fiats.
You're stretching a long bow there. Ask most Christians whether it is arbitrary if God says something is true or right or good and there are good arguments where God is wrong. I've never heard a Christian doubt the word of God - unless his faith is smashed. Can you think of any verses in the Bible where God has ballsed it up?
Well, we can see one level of subjectivity right there. Truth and morality are whatever God says they are. But the subjectivity involved in religion goes further.
No. This is a misunderstanding for the reason's given above.
I think she is spot on for reasons explained.
In order to accept that God’s say-so is the standard of truth and morality, you have to accept the say-so of religionists who say that it is. “God exists and His word is the truth.” How does the religionist know this? He “knows” it because he said so—or, as he will put it, “because I have faith,” which means: “because I accept ideas in support of which there is no evidence.” And he expects you to accept it because he said so. (Otherwise he would present evidence.)
And now we see a profound problem with this kind of objectivism, its failure to comprehend the views of the other. A theist may say just accept this or he may present a case, which you can accept or reject. There is just no way he is bound to say 'believe this because I say so' nor is it the case that the theist believes because he himself says a thing is true. No case has been presented why this must be the case it is simply asserted.
You are arguing for me here.
Seen in this light, religion—or “supernatural” subjectivism—is significantly more subjective than secular subjectivism. It is super subjectivism.
At this point this just looks like self serving nonsense, but then for Rand self serving is unavoidable.
It made a lot of sense to me.
None of this is to say that people don’t have a right to be religious. They do. People are (or should be) free to believe in God and to practice their religion—as long as they do not enact any religious laws or commandments that call for murder, rape, or other rights violations.
Isn't he generous!
I would go further and get them to stay away from kids and swaying government on the basis of their silly "holy" instructions.
But people are not free to be religious without being subjectivists. Religion is not only a form of subjectivism. It is the most subjective form of all.
Case not proved.
Pfft!
Where is your proof that God exists?
No you have leapt to the assumption that we can only have grounds to believe what we can prove. That is not only false but it has been proved to be false (in 1929).
In the 5 or so years that we have spoken hear, you have never presented any evidence or even any reasons why you believe in the existence of God. Is it really that embarrassing?
You and other Christians here DO believe on faith alone, even despite evidence to the contrary.
This is assertion not argument.
I can trawl up evidence where this is the case, but there is no point. You will believe in your faith no matter what I say. I am a lot more open minded than that. Give me some verifiable evidence of ANY god from any era of man's existence and I will get down on my knees and pray my head off.
You believe that a dead Jew from 2,000 years ago got re-animated from a god's magic and he is still alive today. You believe that he actually walked on water. You believe on faith alone that a huge number of slaves got emancipated from a cruel unnamed Egyptian pharaoh, wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years and got fed by your god from food falling from the sky. Need I go on?
No. We have discussed all this before. You find it impossible to reflect what Christians believe without adding your own distorted interpretations. When you can present what we believe as we believe it you will be ready to criticise it. Again I encourage you to read that essay by Rogers.
And I encourage you to read all of Carrier's books.
It depends whether you think that your religion was subject to religious syncretism or not. I think that there is clear evidence that it was, what do you say?
I say you had better begin by explaining what you mean by syncretism.
Read all about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_syncretism
I don't make decisions about anything using faith alone (like you do), it's an incredibly poor tool to work out what is the truth.
We have been over this in great detail. When we had the thread on this everyone involved explained to you that they did not take the approach you were attacking, none the less you continue to criticise this position that no one holds. If you were producing some kind of argument that although people were claiming not to hold this position they did hold it really, then you might have a case but you are not; you are simply stating that people hold this position, that faith in isolation is a route to truth, in spite of their clear rejection of that. So let me be clear once again: I have absolutely no idea what it would be like to make a decision by faith alone; I don't do it and I don't know of anyone who does do it.
How about anyone that believes in the Apostles' Creed without any supporting evidence?
In order to believe the creedhe would need to use his reason to understand it. Therefore it would not be by faith alone.
You were invoking the "No True Scotsman" fallacy and the Argument from Ignorance when you said, "I don't know of any serious scholar who thinks he is mythical". There could be lots of "serious" scholars that you aren't aware of! How about if I say that the existence of Moses was lacking in historical evidence, so I don't believe it was the truth?
You might find, say, a journalist using the term mythical of Moses but you are not going to find anthroplogists or students of literature using it in that slipshod way. How about if you do say that? You are certainly free to chose criteria for belief.
That would only make sense if you could present evidence that Moses only believed in one god. It gets thrown out the window with the verses depicting him believing in other gods.
Suppose a Christian were to say the Christian God is better than the Muslim God. You might take that to imply that both God's exist but more likely he would be comparing two concepts. The distinction between conceptualisation and instantiation is a very sophisticated one. People struggle to make it but itwas not until the early twentieth century with the development of logical languages that this could be made clear. But if the distinction itself is very hard to make clear in ordinary language then reading that distinction, which may not have existed in people's minds because they had no lnguage to express it, back into statements made in earlier eras is very precarious.
He still could have made the distinction of expressing them as "false" gods. But he didn't. He supposedly said, "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other gods,..." not Now I know that the LORD is greater than all other FALSE gods, which means he thought other gods existed, but they weren't as great. Why would he say that God is greater than something that doesn't exist? What would be the point of that?
The point would be to compare two ideas or behaviour sets. Language does not work in the way you assume it does. Peopledon't put everything into clear forms that exclude possible misunderstandings at times in the unspecified future. If they did it is doubtful their contemporaries would understand them
If that's the case, what's the point of paying any attention to the Bible at all if you don't understand what people in those days thought or believed in?
There is realy no need for this kind of textual nihilism. Of course scribes will try to interpret a disputed text in line with what they think it is likely to have said but that is true in the present as well as the past. Textual studies are an attempt to get past that. If you were to say on the basis of our limited number of texts and the variations no one knows what, say, Plato thought people would laugh at you, same applies here.
Except that generations of evangelical scribes didn't fiddle with what Plato wrote to suit their agendas.
I do not know where you are getting these generations of evangelical scribes from. The evangelical movement began in the nineteenth century and most evangelicals would accept the masoretic text for the Hebrew which they would have no opportunity to tinker with (it's a Jewish work). For the Greek, the textus receptus was produced by Erasmus of Rotterdam who was not an evangelical (read his debates with Luther if you think so) and the revised text was the Work of Westcott and Hort who were liberal Catholics. None of those responsible for the transmission of the texts prior to these editions could fairly be described as evangelicals.
I was using it in the sense of having an agenda of promoting Christianity. From Wiki:
The term may also be used outside any religious context to characterize a generic missionary, reforming, or redeeming impulse or purpose.
Okay, so your argument is that the scribes that transmitted the scriptures were Christians and therefore distorting its message.
Not just Christian scribes.
I think you are saying this was a deliberate conspiracy of some kind.
Absolutely! Don't you think that there was political and theological control over what was written and preserved? If you don't you are very naive.
Do you have evidence to support that claim rather than a more general claim that scribes tend to interpret a text in terms of what they think it likely to say, which would apply in the other cases where you say it wouldn't.
Back atcher - Read most of Bart Ehrman's books on this subject.
You're not saying that animists didn't believe in lots of gods are you?
I am saying animism is distinct from polytheism which was the term you used. Go back and take another look at Tyler.
I know it is distinct from polytheism, but both include belief in many gods.
Not really. Animists don't necessarily believe in gods at all though animism could exist alongside god beliefs. And as you said later polytheism emerged from earlier polytheism that claim is irrelevant. And to make it clear I think Tyler's views are not tenable but if you are going to make a case for that kind of position you do need to understand it.
Yes, Animists don't necessarily believe in lots of gods and spirits (aren't they the same thing?), but mostly they did. Even in Daniel, the people worshiped "the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone" (Daniel 5:4).
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

JTH
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:21 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by JTH »

searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 pm
JTH wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 am
As you agree with this, why does it bother you that people have a belief not as same as you? Why would very eagerly attack it?
It doesn't bother me at all if you have a different belief if it is sound and backed up by convincing evidence. It does bother me if you believe in fairy tales based on nothing but faith and try to push it on me.
Hence, what do you expect to get out of my answer to this question?
If I gave you just one instance of God changing, would your opinion change?
A truthful answer, which you haven't supplied yet.
But, You’re welcome to change my mind!

God of Israel is I AM #changemymind
Cool. Let's see what your answer is -
If I gave you just one instance of God changing, would your opinion change? Yes or no?
It certainly sounds like it bothers you!
One, it is NOT mere fairy tale.
The most recent survey on religions of the world population would disagree with you too.

Two, Christianity has strong evidences. More evidence than science can give for its ever-changing statements. All kinds of evidence are still visible to this day about Jesus’ life on earth and his resurrection.

You believe in science that basically says “everything came out of nothing” - now that is a fairy tale!

You yourself said so in ur convo with @moonwoodthehare:
Science changes when new knowledge is brought forward, tested and if the results are repeatable we accept it as being true, replacing the old knowledge.
Which means, there will be further changes and what science tells us now is Probably not true!

Just coz you’re not open enough doesn’t mean the evidence for God itself is not convincing. Again, the major chunk of world’s population would agree with me. You don’t mean to say that billions of people are wrong, do u?! Even if there would come a day the majority of the world would refuse to believe in God, that still wouldn’t change the truth.

This is what I mean when I say God doesn’t change, his standards never change either. Because He IS THE TRUTH! (John 14:6) Truth doesn’t change. It can’t be bent to fit different peoples’ ethics.
It doesn't bother me at all if you have a different belief if it is sound and backed up by convincing evidence. It does bother me if you believe in fairy tales based on nothing but faith and try to push it on me.
When you think that ALL the evidence in the world is not convincing enough for you, what makes u think that I who believe in all the evidence pointing to God would be convinced by one statement you’re going to make as truth? If u really had a “convincing” argument, wouldn’t u have made it by now?!
But like I previously said you’re welcome to #changemymind
I’m curious what you have to say.

And no one here is “pushing it” on you. You’re here by YOUR OWN free will.

searchengineguy
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2019 9:26 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by searchengineguy »

JTH wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 am
As you agree with this, why does it bother you that people have a belief not as same as you? Why would very eagerly attack it?
searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 pm
It doesn't bother me at all if you have a different belief if it is sound and backed up by convincing evidence. It does bother me if you believe in fairy tales based on nothing but faith and try to push it on me.
JTH wrote:
Thu Jan 16, 2020 10:56 pm
Hence, what do you expect to get out of my answer to this question?
searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 pm
A truthful answer, which you haven't supplied yet.
searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 pm
If I gave you just one instance of God changing, would your opinion change?
searchengineguy wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 pm
Cool. Let's see what your answer is -
If I gave you just one instance of God changing, would your opinion change? Yes or no?
JTH wrote:
Sun Jan 12, 2020 7:50 am
It certainly sounds like it bothers you!
Again, it doesn't provided your belief is sound and backed up by convincing evidence.
One, it is NOT mere fairy tale.
Ok, sorry. Yes, not a fairy tale, but a series of stories from over 2,000 years ago.
The most recent survey on religions of the world population would disagree with you too.
I don't understand what you mean here.
Two, Christianity has strong evidences. More evidence than science can give for its ever-changing statements. All kinds of evidence are still visible to this day about Jesus’ life on earth and his resurrection.
It depends what you mean is strong. Do you think the evidence for Jesus is stronger than gravity for example? If it is, let's see what you have got. There are no eyewitnesses of Jesus and no contemporary documentary evidence of his existence for many decades after his supposed life.
You believe in science that basically says “everything came out of nothing” - now that is a fairy tale!
I don't believe that btw, and neither do most atheists that I know.

You yourself said so in ur convo with @moonwoodthehare:
Science changes when new knowledge is brought forward, tested and if the results are repeatable we accept it as being true, replacing the old knowledge.
Which means, there will be further changes and what science tells us now is Probably not true!
The scientific method is the most reliable mechanism that we have for explaining what the truth is in our everyday lives. Of course there will further changes in our knowledge, that doesn't mean what everything that science has explained in the past was in error.
Just coz you’re not open enough doesn’t mean the evidence for God itself is not convincing.
I'm very open to convincing evidence of God, have you got any?
Again, the major chunk of world’s population would agree with me. You don’t mean to say that billions of people are wrong, do u?!
Look up "Argumentum ad populum". It works in reverse too. The majority of the world's population don't think that the arguments of your god existing are convincing enough. That should tell you something.
Even if there would come a day the majority of the world would refuse to believe in God, that still wouldn’t change the truth.
That day is already here!
This is what I mean when I say God doesn’t change, his standards never change either. Because He IS THE TRUTH! (John 14:6) Truth doesn’t change. It can’t be bent to fit different peoples’ ethics.
Truth always changes. My coffee cup was full ten minutes ago. Now it's empty. Your god changed too. The cruel, bloodthirsty warlord of the OT turned into the lamb of the NT.
It doesn't bother me at all if you have a different belief if it is sound and backed up by convincing evidence. It does bother me if you believe in fairy tales based on nothing but faith and try to push it on me.
When you think that ALL the evidence in the world is not convincing enough for you, what makes u think that I who believe in all the evidence pointing to God would be convinced by one statement you’re going to make as truth? If u really had a “convincing” argument, wouldn’t u have made it by now?!
But like I previously said you’re welcome to #changemymind
I’m curious what you have to say.
You haven't given me any convincing evidence yet? You first then I will tell you mine.
And no one here is “pushing it” on you. You’re here by YOUR OWN free will.
Correct, I just don't like theists in general pushing it onto me, kids or the government. We can't they all pray in private like it says in their own Bibles?
“One would go mad if one took the Bible seriously; but to take it seriously one must be already mad.”
Aleister Crowley

JTH
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 5:21 pm

Re: God's Wife Asherah

Post by JTH »

@searchengineguy
Two, Christianity has strong evidences. More evidence than science can give for its ever-changing statements. All kinds of evidence are still visible to this day about Jesus’ life on earth and his resurrection.
It depends what you mean is strong. Do you think the evidence for Jesus is stronger than gravity for example? If it is, let's see what you have got. There are no eyewitnesses of Jesus and no contemporary documentary evidence of his existence for many decades after his supposed life.
Did u know that eye witnesses don’t tend to live for 2000ish years?!
Read this book before u answer further on evidence for Jesus.
Cold-Case Christianity: A Homicide Detective Investigates the Claims of the Gospels by J. Warner Wallace
Read about the author first of course .
You believe in science that basically says “everything came out of nothing” - now that is a fairy tale!
I don't believe that btw, and neither do most atheists that I know.
But if u don’t believe in a God who’s the creator, what is ur stance on existence then?

Post Reply