Why did God call Lot rightious?

Christians, atheists, theists and skeptics: make your best case here.
Forum rules
Keep it real, minimal cutting and pasting please: we want to hear what YOU have to say!

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:31 am

searchengineguy wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Just saying I read it means nothing.
Yes I get that, but are conveniently ignoring the totality of her vast education and experience in the field. As I continue to state, how many in her field have the ability to read and write competently in those six very relevant languages, attended those schools and worked on the numerous archaeological sites in the regions that she has? You are an educated man Moon, but she seems to have a lot more relevant qualifications in this field than yourself or most others in her field of study and yet you scoff at her and compare her to low rate amateurs?

She has no doctorate and fluffs out her CV with claims to have read books. It reminds me of the host of a talk show who said 'You have read those great books . . . (reals off list of literary classic, audience gasps) . . . my next guest . . . has also read those books.' We know you are so impressed by her claims that you just believe things because you think she said them. If this stuff impresses you then you may continue to find it hard to see why others don't. It's for the tourists really.
I wasn't trying to compare people in the ancient world from perceptions of my own age and culture. I'm saying that Christianity was just another mystery religion that had borrowed most of their ideas from other cults. Even personal gods aren't a new idea. Baha'i and Hinduism for example have them too.

Then, as I keep saying, this has no relation to the actual comments you made about people in earlier eras being superstitious because they lacked scientific knowledge. If you just try to have some kind of connection between what you say and what you mean it will really help people understand you. 'Personal gods' is another of those clumsy modern concepts. I agree there are broad similarities between different ideas about an ultimate being; I am not sure why you think this is a problem for Christianity. You may remember me encouraging you to read Keith Ward's Images of Eternity which explores this idea in considerable depth.
Of course they knew where babies came from, but they didn't understand the whole biological process and made things up after reading the literature around them which was full of conjecture and whimsy.

The idea that understanding the details of the biological processes somehow rules out the possibility of extraordinary events won't fly. Firstly those trained in the relevant biology have a much better idea of how something like a virgin birth might happen through natural processes than people in the ancient world. Secondly, suppose a particular event, the supposed action of God cannot be explained using current biological theories; this only argues against its possibility if we already have a philosophical or religious commitment to a naturalist worldview - we have to be convinced that only events that can be explained by natural science can happen and no increase in scientific knowledge can tell us that. Furthermore most of the supposed similarities with ideas from contemporary literature are highly speculative and abstract, some like the supposed similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are just made up.
If it truly was the works of a divine supreme being, you would expect to find mentions of wisdom far beyond what ancient men and women knew at that time.

Common sense tells me that wisdom far beyond what people knew in any era would be of no use to them. Suppose someone were to present you with wisdom far beyond what is known today, you would struggle wouldn't you? You flounder around when presented with ideas that have been common in the academic world for decades.
The Bible fails to deliver anything like that, but tries very hard to on prophesies that fail and don't actually work. It brings nothing new to the table of any consequence.

The Bible and the Christian religion is not really claiming to bring something new or novel. You seem to feel that only the new and novel is worthwhile and I find this odd because when presented with unfamiliar ideas you seem to find them really hard to assimilate.
Which half of me do you say is not educated?

You have demonstrated yourself to be remarkably gullible, accepting without question ideas that would be rejected by those with a smattering of background knowledge. And it is this background knowledge I find to be missing. You present arguments that you have lifted from somewhere else and rarely seem to have done even minimal research, or looked at alternatives or criticism
Maybe not for yourself and elite others, but the messages are very unclear for the layperson. The buck stops with your god for allowing that to happen if you believe he was the inspiration.

All of us are dependent to some extent on those with expert knowledge in fields that are not our own. When you talk of God allowing that to happen you seem to be demanding a very high level of control over what people can believe. It seems again like you are hankering after fundamentalism.
I think you must been it's one of the worst fiddled books. At least the Jews attempted preservation, the Christians were a whole different kettle of fish.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Are you talking about the OT or NT? If OT then you need to understand that this high level of preservation was a relatively late development. If NT then even between the variants there is some diversity but I can't think of cases where this effects the core message.

Both. The Sermon on the Mount for example has very confusing passages, bad ideas and poor morals IMO.

And what has your fatuous opinion to do with the preservation of the text?
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Rian » Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:00 pm

This is quite late, but I was busy with family festivities with another nephew getting married, and with job interview and relocation stuff for my husband's new job back in California - he started Monday! I'm staying back in Arizona with the two youngest kids while they finish off the semester, then will move back to California. Yay!!!

Rian wrote:Utter bullcrap, KTR, and all your tap-dancing can't disguise it, and you know it.
Keep The Reason wrote:
No tap dancing. But of course you'd call a step by step rationale as "tap dancing" since you can't actually respond to the premise. Yawn. Go away, nit. Adults are talking. If you can't discuss it without your usual tactics, then you're just clutter. Scat!


Well, that's a disgusting attitude. The way you treat people with different viewpoints is getting worse and worse. And I bet you call yourself tolerant! Very hypocritical, let alone ridiculous.

I don't use "tactics". I do use logic, and point out when your statements are lacking logic, sometimes in strong language. But I don't use arrogant, condescending rhetoric, attacking the person, like you just did. Wow! You're a good advertisement against atheism when you speak like that, btw. Seriously - "adults are talking"??

Rian wrote:An assertion is an assertion, period. You NEVER were able to point to ANY reputable source - not a SINGLE ONE - that backed up your bizarre claim that if an assertion is made in response to another assertion, the second person magically escapes the responsibility of burden of proof.

KTR wrote:So I was looking over this website about debating: ...


Which would be relevant if we were on your debating forum in a formal debate, which we aren't. We're talking about logical arguments, and your hypocrisy and lack of any kind of support when you demand that people support their claims, and then you move goalposts and tap-dance around and conjure up all kinds of special pleading to try to get around supporting claims that you make.

(and btw, that article supports my claim when it says, speaking of responses, that "Those responses are then arguments in their own right". Exactly!!! That's what the people on that thread were trying to tell you!! )

KTR wrote:and I realized that I am not merely making an assertion but I am in fact attacking the premise and the warrant of the god claim by offering my comparison

Well, at least you admit you're making an assertion!

It's certainly good to examine a premise - in fact, that's in countless books on logic, and it's something that I've always taught my kids. Attack it if you think it's unfounded. But that's totally irrelevant to whether or not your idea of a counter-assertion getting a free pass is valid. Even the article you linked to denies this.

from the link wrote:1. Attack the premises: If the premise of the argument is untrue then the logic doesn’t matter because it is operating off of an assumption which is unrelated to the real world (or the world in which the case is set) and is therefore irrelevant to the round.

Absolutely true, and supported by books on logic.

KTR wrote:That is precisely true of the god claim being made. Without proof of its validity, the theist is by definition defending an untrue proposition and all bets are off.


This is a ridiculous statement, but it's still irrelevant to what we're talking about. Your statement has nothing to do with the question at hand, which is whether or not a person making an assertion of their own, in response to a previous assertion, is obligated to support their assertion. The link that you provided supports my claim about this, not yours.

You are also often confused about how proof works. You seem to think that if something can't be proven true, then it is untrue (as evidenced by your statement above). You also seem to frequently think that if YOU think something is untrue, then it MUST be untrue. The former is just absurd; the latter is arrogant as well as silly.

KTR wrote:How do we know it's untrue? Because the theist cannot prove it's true.

Seriously?! Seriously?! Do you seriously think that's a valid conclusion you're drawing? See above. Of course it's not valid.

KTR wrote:For all intents and purposes, the claim dies aborning -- just like my claiming something wholly unproved and unprovable (by my own definitions no less, i.e., many theists insist god is not even provable in the first place), like "Blitmorphs exist" is untrue unless I supply some support for the claim.

You also confuse "untrue" with "unlikely" or "undemonstrated to me".

from the link wrote:2. Assertions don’t hold much weight so it’s important to explain why you can get to the conclusion you want to reach. If you disprove the warrants then the other team is just left with two unconnected statements: a fact about the world and something that they would like to achieve, but no way to bridge that gap.

I agree with this. However, it also has nothing to do with the question at hand about your unproven assertion that someone making a response assertion doesn't need to provide proof for it.

KTR wrote:While I'm not inclined to list ALL the disproofs, there are many.

Clearly, you are not aware of the definition of "disproofs".

KTR wrote:In each case, the presenter of the god claim has to overcome all of these objections, and not only can't they do it, they haven't been able to do it for thousands of years.

Clearly NOT true, as many people have become Christians.

KTR wrote:At some point, a line needs to be drawn where theists are told, "You know what? You've had more chances than can even be counted. We can conclude you're just making it up at this point."

Who is this "we" that you're talking about, and why do you think they have any kind of authority to decide on what the actual truth is that applies to all people? Unless you just are saying that atheists believe that there's no God/gods, in which case I agree with you.

Again, if, in any other circumstance, you came along some thing that was asserted as true for thousands of years and consistently kept failing to be proven otherwise, you'd likely abandon it a loong looong time ago.

If I didn't see evidence that I thought was good, I would think that it most likely isn't true, sure. However, I wouldn't set myself up as some kind of authority on the truth for the universe, as you seem to often do.

Rian wrote:Plus you can't prove which claim came first, anyway! Maybe the first assertion was some caveman talking to another and saying, "you know, Grog, I look around, and this is all there is!" and Grog, in response to that assertion, says, "I disagree - I think there are powerful beings behind all that we see". So for all YOU can prove, YOUR assertion came first and then by your bizarre logic, the theists don't have to support their assertions!
KTR wrote:
Your example doesn't work but you never really understood the "first assertion" model anyway.

I most definitely do understand it! It's one of the goofiest examples of special pleading that I've ever seen!

KTR wrote:Not-Grog's "first assertion" isn't at all controversial ...

Special pleading.

KTR wrote:... and it's not adopting a rejection of some unseen, unspoken realm that wasn't vocalized by Grog.

Special pleading.

KTR wrote:Not-Grog is in fact making a demonstrably true statement.

Are you SERIOUS???!!! Of course it isn't demonstrably true! How would they know?!

KTR wrote:As far as Not-Grog and Grog can see, this is all there is.

It's all that they can see. That's different than all that there is.

KTR wrote:If Grog disagrees that there is something more, he has to prove that statement.

Yes, because people making a counter-assertion realize that it's still an ASSERTION and should be proven to be believed as truth.

Not-Grog CAN prove "this is all there is" simply by walking around and showing Grog -- this is all there is. He can point to the sky and say, "There's more up that way too, and that's part of the 'this is all there is'". He can do the same with the oceans, rivers, caves, etc. Everywhere he looks and goes, Not-Grog's premise, "This is all there is" is by definition true, and demonstrably true. Even if they wind up walking around the entire planet, the "this is all there is" claim is ALWAYS DEMONSTRABLE.

Are you claiming that they can walk around the entire planet? If so, then I might admit your claim. If not, then he can't prove that's all there is.

Only until Grog pipes up about unseen powerful beings "somewhere else" is the entire thing thrown into the shit-can.

He just responded with a counter-assertion. By your definition, it shouldn't need to be proven.

Not-Grog has made an assertion about the state of existence, and he should be required to prove it, too, and he can't.

Not-Grog has every right to ask where these powerful beings exist, but if all Grog can do is mouth empty assertions about books and magical things and magical places that he cannot demonstrate are true in any way, that's ON HIM.

Sure, just like Not-Grog's empty assertions are ON HIM. You're just doing more special pleading here.

Not-Grog is NOT obligated to prove Grog's nonsense is not untrue.

Ditto with Grog regarding Not-Grog's nonsense.

KTR wrote:Once again, there's this completely undemonstrable claim: an assertion for the very first time ...

... and even MORE special pleading!!!

KTR wrote:... about this strange and invisible thing-a-ma-jig that needs to be evaluated and weighed --and for which a conclusion is to be made: Is Grog right about this powerful being claim he has made for the FIRST TIME? Or is he filled to the brim with "bullcrap"? How can we tell?

We can tell only when GROG can PROVE HIS ASSERTION IS TRUE. He doesn't get to say to Not-Grog "Prove it ISN'T true". HE'S made the FIRST ASSERTION of the "THING".

I never said that Grog gets to say "prove it ISN'T true." I just said (along with every other educated person on the thread about this) that anyone making an assertion should be willing to prove it. YOU are the one doing all the special pleading.

First assertion isn't JUST about who speaks up first, although it certainly can be, it's also about who makes the unprovable claim first.

And can you prove this with any kind of link or reference to a logic book? What is this "first assertion" thing, besides something in your mind?

KTR wrote:Finally, if the "prove the unproved isn't untrue" standard is made into a principle of argument, then every argument will merely spiral into absurdity:

A: "God doesn't exist"

T: "Yes he does. Prove he doesn't."

A: "I have proof he doesn't. Prove I don't."

T: "I have proof you don't have proof he doesn't exist. Prove I don't."

A: "I have proof that you don't have proof that I don't have proof that he doesn't exist. Prove I don't"

Ad so on, ad infinitum. The whole line is absurd.

Yes, it is! That's why I never said it. I'm not sure why you even brought it up.
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby searchengineguy » Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:38 pm

Moonwood the Hare wrote:She has no doctorate ...It's for the tourists really...

God, you are talking like an intellectual snob! You have again ignored all of her linguistic and other academic qualifications/skillsets. What languages do you know besides English, Woo Woo and Punk Rock? Here are some notable characters that were also self-taught: Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln, Arthur C Clarke, SEG and Richard Branson. Do you also think they are under achievers?
I wasn't trying to compare people in the ancient world from perceptions of my own age and culture. I'm saying that Christianity was just another mystery religion that had borrowed most of their ideas from other cults. Even personal gods aren't a new idea. Baha'i and Hinduism for example have them too.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Then, as I keep saying, this has no relation to the actual comments you made about people in earlier eras being superstitious because they lacked scientific knowledge. If you just try to have some kind of connection between what you say and what you mean it will really help people understand you.

Let me remind you of how it went;
I said,
SEG wrote: I suppose superstition was the norm for those ancient people as they didn't know much about science and the natural world.

You replied,
Moonwood the Hare wrote:This is really an attempt to squeeze the perceptions of people in the ancient world into categories derived from your own age and culture. This suggests that you have not learned the first lesson we can take from history - that our own age and culture is another age and culture like every other and not as we naively think the true and right way of perceiving the world.

Again, I wasn't trying to compare people in the ancient world from perceptions of my own age and culture.

Moonwood the Hare wrote: 'Personal gods' is another of those clumsy modern concepts. I agree there are broad similarities between different ideas about an ultimate being; I am not sure why you think this is a problem for Christianity.

It's a problem as it's nothing new and there's nothing special about your god compared to other gods. They are pretty much the same.

Moonwood the Hare wrote: You may remember me encouraging you to read Keith Ward's Images of Eternity which explores this idea in considerable depth.

Sure, so does Richard Carrier, though you probably don't think he is a "real" scholar either
Of course they knew where babies came from, but they didn't understand the whole biological process and made things up after reading the literature around them which was full of conjecture and whimsy.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The idea that understanding the details of the biological processes somehow rules out the possibility of extraordinary events won't fly.

Who said that?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Firstly those trained in the relevant biology have a much better idea of how something like a virgin birth might happen through natural processes than people in the ancient world.

Pardon? A virgin birth is ridiculous. Anyone that knows basic biology concepts knows that. Unless you are talking about artificial insemination, which still includes a "defilement".

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Secondly, suppose a particular event, the supposed action of God cannot be explained using current biological theories; this only argues against its possibility if we already have a philosophical or religious commitment to a naturalist worldview - we have to be convinced that only events that can be explained by natural science can happen and no increase in scientific knowledge can tell us that.

Sorry you have lost me.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: Furthermore most of the supposed similarities with ideas from contemporary literature are highly speculative and abstract, some like the supposed similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are just made up.

Sure I accept that. But there are lots of ones that stick. Plus that era was full of mythical and legendary writings like the "Ascension of Isaiah" and Romulus.
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2 ... pared.html

1 Missing body.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5; Matt
28:11-14; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3;
John 20:2-10

2 Prodigies.
Livy 1.16.1; Ovid, Metam. 14.816-17;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt
27:51-54; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45

3 Darkness over the land.
Ovid, Metam. 14.816-22; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6;
Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt 27:45;
Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44

4 Mountaintop speech.
Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24; Matt 28:18-20

5 Great commission.
Livy 1.16.7; Ovid, Metam. 14.811, 815;
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Plutarch, Rom.
28.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant.
rom. 2.63.4; Matt 28:18-20

6 Ascension.
Livy 1.16.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Luke 24:51;
Acts 1:9

7 Son of god.
Livy 1.16.3 Matt 27:54; Dionysius of
Halicarnas- sus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2; Mark
15:39; John 20:31

8 Meeting on the road.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4;
Luke 24:13-35; Acts 9:3-19

9 Eyewitness testimony .
Cicero, Resp. 2.10; Livy 1.16.1-8; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch, Rom. 27-28;
Luke 24:35; 1 Cor 15:3-11

10 Taken away in a cloud.
Livy 1.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Acts 1:9

11 Dubious alternative accounts.
Livy 1.16.4-5; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5-6, 8;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; 2.63.3; Matt 28:11-14

12 Immortal/heavenly body.
Livy 1.16.8; Ovid, Metam. 14.818-28;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.6-8; 1 Cor 15:35-50;
1 Pet 3:18

13 Outside of the city.
Livy 1.16.1; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6; John 19:17

14 The people flee (populifugia).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.5;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Matt (26:56);
28:8; Mark (14:50); 16:8

15 Deification.
Livy 1.16.3; Cicero, Resp. 2.10.20b; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.5-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7;
28.3; Matt 27:54; Rom 1:4

16 Belief, homage, and rejoicing.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch,
Rom. 27.8; Matt 28:9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:27

17 Bright and shining appearance.
Plutarch, Rom. 28.1-2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Matt 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 9:3; Rev 1:16

18 Frightened subjects.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Livy 1.16.2;
Plutarch,Rom. 28.2; Matt 28:5, 10; Mark
16:8; Luke 24:37-38

19 All in sorrow over loss.
Livy 1.16.2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.2; Luke 24:18-24

20 Inspired message of translation
Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4

Oh and a fine article from one of your favs: http://www.truthbeknown.com/dionysus.html

I've got no problem admitting there is a lot of conjecture that is a big stretch. I'm simply saying that the fanciful ideas that we find in the Bible have all been told before and it very much seems that the stories have been borrowed from previous ones. Of course there is no way of proving that, but if you read Carrier's books, especially OTHOJ I think he provides a very good case when you consider all of the facts and it is worthy of consideration.

If it truly was the works of a divine supreme being, you would expect to find mentions of wisdom far beyond what ancient men and women knew at that time.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Common sense tells me that wisdom far beyond what people knew in any era would be of no use to them. Suppose someone were to present you with wisdom far beyond what is known today, you would struggle wouldn't you?

Yes, no doubt. I would imagine that this Supreme Being would let ancient people know easier to understand wisdom first of all then work up to what the best minds of the time could handle. One of the first things would be to dismissed the bad advice Jesus gave about not washing your hands before eating. See Luke 11:38
The Bible fails to deliver anything like that, but tries very hard to on prophesies that fail and don't actually work. It brings nothing new to the table of any consequence.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The Bible and the Christian religion is not really claiming to bring something new or novel. You seem to feel that only the new and novel is worthwhile and I find this odd because when presented with unfamiliar ideas you seem to find them really hard to assimilate.

Don't we all at some stage? The problem with the Bible is that not only does it not give us any new information, it gives a whole lot of wrong information and doesn't change, which causes problems even up to today . Eg. "Do not suffer a witch", "spare the rod and spoil the child" .
Which half of me do you say is not educated?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:You have demonstrated yourself to be remarkably gullible

Pfft! Not anywhere near as gullible as you! I don't believe in miracles or fanciful stories found in the Bible like Exodus, Noah's Ark, the zombie army and the so called resurrection without a shred of evidence beyond the Bible and a few short dubious passages written decades later that you seem lap up. I'm known by my friends as being a little too skeptical on certain subjects. You are the only one I know in my life that has called me gullible, but your title certainly sticks for good reasons.
Maybe not for yourself and elite others, but the messages are very unclear for the layperson. The buck stops with your god for allowing that to happen if you believe he was the inspiration.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:All of us are dependent to some extent on those with expert knowledge in fields that are not our own. When you talk of God allowing that to happen you seem to be demanding a very high level of control over what people can believe. It seems again like you are hankering after fundamentalism.

Nope, I hate it, wrong again.
I think you must been it's one of the worst fiddled books. At least the Jews attempted preservation, the Christians were a whole different kettle of fish.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Are you talking about the OT or NT? If OT then you need to understand that this high level of preservation was a relatively late development. If NT then even between the variants there is some diversity but I can't think of cases where this effects the core message.

Both. The Sermon on the Mount for example has very confusing passages, bad ideas and poor morals IMO.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:And what has your fatuous opinion to do with the preservation of the text?

Hahahar! The SOTM has "core messages" that are a great example of how preservation of the texts fails and are not entirely new ideas anyway.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Rian » Mon Mar 20, 2017 6:21 pm

searchengineguy wrote:One of the first things would be to dismissed the bad advice Jesus gave about not washing your hands before eating. See Luke 11:38

Have you read the whole story, or did you just get the verse out of some list of talking-points? Where does he say to not wash your hands before eating? Could you please read the whole incident plus the parallel incident in Mark 7, do 5 minutes of google study, and tell me what you think the point of the story is?
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby searchengineguy » Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:04 am

Rian wrote:
searchengineguy wrote:One of the first things would be to dismissed the bad advice Jesus gave about not washing your hands before eating. See Luke 11:38

Have you read the whole story, or did you just get the verse out of some list of talking-points? Where does he say to not wash your hands before eating? Could you please read the whole incident plus the parallel incident in Mark 7, do 5 minutes of google study, and tell me what you think the point of the story is?

Yes I read the whole story and it always seemed weird that the creator of the universe was ignorant about germs. It describes Jesus's belief in Mark 7:1-8, 14-15, and 21-23. It doesn't say that he says those exact words, but he was saying that nothing that goes into you body can harm it after hearing that the Pharisees are in the habit of washing their hands often before meals.

7:1 Now when the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem gathered around him,

7:2 they noticed that some of his disciples were eating with defiled hands, that is, without washing them.

7:3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they thoroughly wash their hands, thus observing the tradition of the elders;

7:4 and they do not eat anything from the market unless they wash it; and there are also many other traditions that they observe, the washing of cups, pots, and bronze kettles.)

7:5 So the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with defiled hands?”

7:6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied rightly about you hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me;

7:7 in vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrines.’

7:8 You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition.”

7:14 Then he called the crowd again and said to them, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand:

7:15 there is nothing outside a person that by going in can defile, but the things that come out are what defile.”

7:21 For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder,

7:22 adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.

7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”

When he says "Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters, not his heart but his stomach, and so passes on?" He is declaring all foods are clean. Then later he says, "What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man."

It seems to me that that this story is a contradiction; He says In Luke 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void." In Matthew 5:17-18, (in Sermon on the Mount), he says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.", but here he is saying not to bother with ritual cleanliness of your food.

The last part is where he tries to impress people by curing a deaf and dumb guy with the comical pagan trick of sticking his fingers in his ears, spitting on him and touching his tongue.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:08 am

searchengineguy wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:She has no doctorate ...It's for the tourists really...

God, you are talking like an intellectual snob! You have again ignored all of her linguistic and other academic qualifications/skillsets. What languages do you know besides English, Woo Woo and Punk Rock? Here are some notable characters that were also self-taught: Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln, Arthur C Clarke, SEG and Richard Branson. Do you also think they are under achievers?

Does she have academic qualifications above degree level? I could not discover any. Your list is eccentric. Einstein had a doctorate and his work was peer reviewed and tested; in what remote way is that similar to Murdock's slovenly approach? None of the others, with the possible of Arthur C Clarke, are engaged in making claims on technical subjects on which they have no formal qualifications without adequate peer review. I don't know enough about Clarke other than as a science fiction writer to comment further on him.
I said,
SEG wrote: I suppose superstition was the norm for those ancient people as they didn't know much about science and the natural world.

You replied,
Moonwood the Hare wrote:This is really an attempt to squeeze the perceptions of people in the ancient world into categories derived from your own age and culture. This suggests that you have not learned the first lesson we can take from history - that our own age and culture is another age and culture like every other and not as we naively think the true and right way of perceiving the world.

Again, I wasn't trying to compare people in the ancient world from perceptions of my own age and culture.

You are using modern concepts of superstition and science and claiming that in the absence of science people would be superstitious. What aside from assumptions derived from your cultural perceptions could lead you to this conclusion? Why would you think science would dispel superstition? Ideologues have argued this but the evidence does not back it up as far as I know. What evidence or arguments would you provide to suggest science would drive out superstition or that people lacking science would tend to be superstitious. At a more basic level what do you actually mean by superstition?
It's a problem as it's nothing new and there's nothing special about your god compared to other gods. They are pretty much the same.

If you are saying the God Christians believe in is the same as the gods of pagan polytheism I would suggest the following differences
1. The Christian God creates the cosmos. It depends on him utterly. The gods of pagan polytheism are dependent on the cosmos. They come into existence once the cosmos is a going concern.
If you are saying Christianity is not unique in being based on the belief in a Creator then you are correct. This seems to be one of the oldest religious beliefs of mankind. This is not a problem for Christianity.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: You may remember me encouraging you to read Keith Ward's Images of Eternity which explores this idea in considerable depth.

Sure, so does Richard Carrier, though you probably don't think he is a "real" scholar either

If Carrier says the basic idea of a creator is common to Judaism, Islam, Christianity and in a more diverse form Hinduism I would agree, if he says the creator in these religions is the same as the gods either of paganism or of Hinduism I would say he is making a crass error. Carrier is an unusual case. He got a doctorate but then chose to pursue a career independent of mainstream academia, preferring to be subbed by his wife who he later dumped and his fans. He has tried to get peer review for some of his work but it is difficult because on the whole he is not recognised. In some ways I admire this attempt to democratise knowledge but as with any patronage it creates the problem that you tend to reach the conclusions you are paid to reach. He is similar in many ways to those creationist scientists who get doctorates then publish few or no peer reviewed papers. They have the qualifications all the way to doctorate but no career as such and no recognition.
Of course they knew where babies came from, but they didn't understand the whole biological process and made things up after reading the literature around them which was full of conjecture and whimsy.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The idea that understanding the details of the biological processes somehow rules out the possibility of extraordinary events won't fly.

Who said that?

I thought you were saying that people in ancient times believed in a virgin birth because they lacked knowledge of science which would rule out any events that did not fit in with it i.e. extraordinary events. I was not meaning other kinds of extraordinary events, ones that are unusual but fit with current scientific theories.
Pardon? A virgin birth is ridiculous. Anyone that knows basic biology concepts knows that. Unless you are talking about artificial insemination, which still includes a "defilement".

No. In some species parthenogenesis is highly possible. In mammals it is possible but normally the offspring would be female. Parthenogenesis in mammals with a male offspring is very unlikely but given the right genetic abnormalities not impossible. https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+8-2+Berry.pdf
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Secondly, suppose a particular event, the supposed action of God cannot be explained using current biological theories; this only argues against its possibility if we already have a philosophical or religious commitment to a naturalist worldview - we have to be convinced that only events that can be explained by natural science can happen and no increase in scientific knowledge can tell us that.

Sorry you have lost me.

Claims about whether events precluded by scientific theories can happen are not themselves scientific claims but must by definition stand outside science. Therefore increase in scientific knowledge does not increase capacity to judge if events precluded by science can happen.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: Furthermore most of the supposed similarities with ideas from contemporary literature are highly speculative and abstract, some like the supposed similarities between Christianity and Mithraism are just made up.

Sure I accept that. But there are lots of ones that stick. Plus that era was full of mythical and legendary writings like the "Ascension of Isaiah" and Romulus.
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2 ... pared.html

1 Missing body.
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.3-5; Matt
28:11-14; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:3;
John 20:2-10

2 Prodigies.
Livy 1.16.1; Ovid, Metam. 14.816-17;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt
27:51-54; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45

3 Darkness over the land.
Ovid, Metam. 14.816-22; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6;
Plutarch, Rom. 27.6-7; Matt 27:45;
Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44

4 Mountaintop speech.
Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24; Matt 28:18-20

5 Great commission.
Livy 1.16.7; Ovid, Metam. 14.811, 815;
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Plutarch, Rom.
28.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant.
rom. 2.63.4; Matt 28:18-20

6 Ascension.
Livy 1.16.6; Ovid, Metam. 14.820-24;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Luke 24:51;
Acts 1:9

7 Son of god.
Livy 1.16.3 Matt 27:54; Dionysius of
Halicarnas- sus, Ant. rom. 2.56.2; Mark
15:39; John 20:31

8 Meeting on the road.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4;
Luke 24:13-35; Acts 9:3-19

9 Eyewitness testimony .
Cicero, Resp. 2.10; Livy 1.16.1-8; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch, Rom. 27-28;
Luke 24:35; 1 Cor 15:3-11

10 Taken away in a cloud.
Livy 1.16.1; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.2-6; Acts 1:9

11 Dubious alternative accounts.
Livy 1.16.4-5; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5-6, 8;
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.2-6; 2.63.3; Matt 28:11-14

12 Immortal/heavenly body.
Livy 1.16.8; Ovid, Metam. 14.818-28;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.6-8; 1 Cor 15:35-50;
1 Pet 3:18

13 Outside of the city.
Livy 1.16.1; Plutarch, Rom. 27.6; John 19:17

14 The people flee (populifugia).
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom.
2.56.5;Plutarch, Rom. 27.7; Matt (26:56);
28:8; Mark (14:50); 16:8

15 Deification.
Livy 1.16.3; Cicero, Resp. 2.10.20b; Ovid,
Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of Halicarnassus,
Ant. rom. 2.56.5-6; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7;
28.3; Matt 27:54; Rom 1:4

16 Belief, homage, and rejoicing.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 2.63.3-4; Plutarch,
Rom. 27.8; Matt 28:9, 17; Luke 24:41, 52; John 20:27

17 Bright and shining appearance.
Plutarch, Rom. 28.1-2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Matt 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29; Acts 9:3; Rev 1:16

18 Frightened subjects.
Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511; Livy 1.16.2;
Plutarch,Rom. 28.2; Matt 28:5, 10; Mark
16:8; Luke 24:37-38

19 All in sorrow over loss.
Livy 1.16.2; Ovid, Fasti 2.475-511;
Plutarch, Rom. 28.2; Luke 24:18-24

20 Inspired message of translation
Plutarch, Rom. 28.3; Acts 1:4-8; 2:1-4

If I were to make a list of differences between the stories of Jesus and Romulus it would be about six times as long as the list above. To just mention a few obvious ones: Jesus did not have a twin brother who he killed. He was not raised by wolves, or any other animals, he did not forget the circumstances of his birth and later have to be reminded of them, he did not found a city and on and on. The problem with this kind of exercise is that you have to work at a very abstract level. I want to make it clear I am not in any way opposed to a protomyth theory. I love the writings of Joseph Campbell and have certainly enjoyed Fraser and Graves. However a protomyth could be archetypal in the Jungian sense rather than transmitted: it would mean people tend to use certain images rather than seeing myths having a common origin. Problems start to arise when the protomyth theory is conflated with theories about origin because people try to prove these theories solely by pointing to similarities between tales and with the very weak scholars this can often mean ignoring the facts about how a story was conducted and transmitted. So if in its completed form a story has certain features and you want to argue these had a certain source you need to be able to say at what point or points the supposed influence happened.
Oh and a fine article from one of your favs: http://www.truthbeknown.com/dionysus.html

This is a good example of someone failing to do this. Let's give her a bit of free publicity
Dionysus: Born of a Virgin on December 25th, Killed and Resurrected after Three Days
by D.M. Murdock/Acharya S
Dionysus shares the following attributes in common with the Christ character as found in the New Testament and Christian tradition.

This is just confused. Is she saying the New Testament writers were influenced by the myth of Dionysus or that later Christian traditions were? She seems to be conflating both and this leads to the ambivalence about when this supposed influence happen. We know for example that the story of the virgin birth is part of the Christian from the NT onwards whereas the stories of Jesus being surrounded by animals at his birth enter the tradition at least a century later. So for both these to have come into the stories associated with Jesus from the story of Dionysus would mean that this story was influencing the Christian tradition at least two historical points, as though this story was being constantly referred back to by multiple writers or tellers. That seems monumentally implausible and the implausibility increases. since to meet all these supposed similarities we have to posit many other points where the influence is assumed to have taken place. As though the Christian tradition was full of people constantly referring back to a myth they never mention. Be honest, does that seem likely to you?
• Dionysus was born of a virgin on "December 25th" or the winter solstice.
• He is the son of the heavenly Father.
• As the Holy Child, Bacchus was placed in a cradle/crib/manger "among beasts."
• Dionysus was a traveling teacher who performed miracles.
• He was the God of the Vine, and turned water into wine.
• Dionysus rode in a "triumphal procession" on an ass.
• He was a sacred king killed and eaten in an eucharistic ritual for fecundity and purification.
• The god traveled into the underworld to rescue his loved one, arising from the land of the dead after three days.
• Dionysus rose from the dead on March 25th and ascended into heaven.
•Bacchus was deemed "Father," "Liberator" and "Savior."
• Dionysus was considered the "Only Begotten Son," "King of Kings," "God of Gods," "Sin Bearer," "Redeemer," "Anointed One" and the "Alpha and Omega."
• He was identified with the Ram or Lamb.
• His sacrificial title of "Dendrites" or "Young Man of the Tree" indicates he was hung on a tree or crucified.

To take the first couple of alleged similarities. There is nothing in the story about Dionysius being born of a virgin in either account of his birth. Nor about his being born on December the 25th. He was born after Zeus had sexual relations with his mother according to the best known tale. So why does Murdock claim this? Following the link she gives on this we find an e-book published in 2009 which suggests at one point that Dionysius' mother may have been a virgin by virtue of her union with Zeus - huh! This says the fact she was not a virgin shows she may have been a virgin. The winter solstice is not December 25th and if you follow the link Murdock gives you find a reference to a book published in the seventies which asserts that Dionysus was born on "December 25th or the winter solstice" but gives no primary references and no explanation. Many of her other 'references' are of the same kind. She is entitled of course to her own opinion; she is not entitled to her own facts.

If you seriously think this is a fine piece of work you only demonstrate your monumental ignorance.
I've got no problem admitting there is a lot of conjecture that is a big stretch.

No shit!
I'm simply saying that the fanciful ideas that we find in the Bible have all been told before and it very much seems that the stories have been borrowed from previous ones.

Yes. That's hardly a startling claim. The form of may of the stories in the New Testament derives from the Old Testament. But you are giving as an example a writer who bundles together the New Testament and later traditions, and who fails to provide adequate references to show borrowings.
Of course there is no way of proving that, but if you read Carrier's books, especially OTHOJ I think he provides a very good case when you consider all of the facts and it is worthy of consideration.

Few of those competent to judge seems to agree but it is quite obvious he is in a different league to D M Murdock.
If it truly was the works of a divine supreme being, you would expect to find mentions of wisdom far beyond what ancient men and women knew at that time.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Common sense tells me that wisdom far beyond what people knew in any era would be of no use to them. Suppose someone were to present you with wisdom far beyond what is known today, you would struggle wouldn't you?

Yes, no doubt. I would imagine that this Supreme Being would let ancient people know easier to understand wisdom first of all then work up to what the best minds of the time could handle. One of the first things would be to dismissed the bad advice Jesus gave about not washing your hands before eating. See Luke 11:38

The reason the Jews of Jesus time wash their hands has to do with ritual purity. That is what Jesus comments address. It has nothing to do with the germ theory of disease.
To clarify. According to Jesus the religious leaders are saying - what goes into your mouth (whether you follow the rituals regarding food) makes you unclean (sinful before God) while he (Jesus) says what comes out of your mouth (the things you say that show the kind of person you are) make you unclean (sinful before God).
Again you are taking concepts from your culture and reading them back and arguing that God should have been referencing your culture. But the issues prevalent in your culture were mot the issues of Jesus' day.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:The Bible and the Christian religion is not really claiming to bring something new or novel. You seem to feel that only the new and novel is worthwhile and I find this odd because when presented with unfamiliar ideas you seem to find them really hard to assimilate.

Don't we all at some stage? The problem with the Bible is that not only does it not give us any new information, it gives a whole lot of wrong information and doesn't change, which causes problems even up to today . Eg. "Do not suffer a witch", "spare the rod and spoil the child" .

Most sensible people see the Bible as a religious text not an encyclopaedia. I think you make a very reasonable critique of the fundamentalist theory of scripture but have failed to seriously address other approaches.
Pfft! Not anywhere near as gullible as you! I don't believe in miracles or fanciful stories found in the Bible like Exodus, Noah's Ark, the zombie army and the so called resurrection without a shred of evidence beyond the Bible and a few short dubious passages written decades later that you seem lap up. I'm known by my friends as being a little too skeptical on certain subjects. You are the only one I know in my life that has called me gullible, but your title certainly sticks for good reasons.

But your friends probably do not know that you believe things simply and solely because some very dodgy bloggers appeared to say so. We have attempted to discus some of these issues but you constantly attribute interpretations and theories I do not hold to me.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:All of us are dependent to some extent on those with expert knowledge in fields that are not our own. When you talk of God allowing that to happen you seem to be demanding a very high level of control over what people can believe. It seems again like you are hankering after fundamentalism.

Nope, I hate it, wrong again.

You may hate it but seem to constantly imply that Christianity could be a valid belief system only if the fundamentalist views you attack were valid. Or that you could accept Christianity only if God acted in the way fundamentalists depict him acting. So you say if there were a God he would have done this that and the other miraculous intervention in history. The basic difference between you and the fundamentalists is that both are saying if there were a God he would have acted like this - then you say but he didn't so no God and the fundie says but he did so God. I say - why should you think he must.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby searchengineguy » Fri Mar 24, 2017 6:57 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Does she have academic qualifications above degree level? I could not discover any. Your list is eccentric. Einstein had a doctorate and his work was peer reviewed and tested; in what remote way is that similar to Murdock's slovenly approach? None of the others, with the possible of Arthur C Clarke, are engaged in making claims on technical subjects on which they have no formal qualifications without adequate peer review. I don't know enough about Clarke other than as a science fiction writer to comment further on him.

They were all self taught, just like her, including Einstein. His home schooling was helpful for his mathematics. How come you are avoiding recognising her linguistic achievements and archaeological experience? That's mainly why I admire her work.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:You are using modern concepts of superstition and science and claiming that in the absence of science people would be superstitious. What aside from assumptions derived from your cultural perceptions could lead you to this conclusion? Why would you think science would dispel superstition? Ideologues have argued this but the evidence does not back it up as far as I know. What evidence or arguments would you provide to suggest science would drive out superstition or that people lacking science would tend to be superstitious. At a more basic level what do you actually mean by superstition?


If this is a serious question, superstition is woo woo that is based on irrationality. With science you can test and measure what you are not sure about and find out answers using experiments instead of using blind faith to come to your conclusions. Superstition according to wiki:
is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and religions, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.


Moonwood the Hare wrote:If you are saying the God Christians believe in is the same as the gods of pagan polytheism I would suggest the following differences
1. The Christian God creates the cosmos. It depends on him utterly. The gods of pagan polytheism are dependent on the cosmos. They come into existence once the cosmos is a going concern.
If you are saying Christianity is not unique in being based on the belief in a Creator then you are correct. This seems to be one of the oldest religious beliefs of mankind. This is not a problem for Christianity.

Nope, there were lots of pagan creation gods. For example The Egyptian god Ptah created the world by masturbation. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

Moonwood the Hare wrote:If Carrier says the basic idea of a creator is common to Judaism, Islam, Christianity and in a more diverse form Hinduism I would agree, if he says the creator in these religions is the same as the gods either of paganism or of Hinduism I would say he is making a crass error.

No I don't think he says that, they're not the same, just like Christianity isn't the same as the mystery religions that ran amok in the same era. Christians, Jews and Muslims have their own creation god and mystery religion that are very similar to the rest. Here are some pagan words that you may hear at your Sun-day worship:
Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/Sunworship.htm

1. Angel/Angels from Greek Word "Angelos" meaning "messenger/messengers. Angelos was the name of a Greek god associated with Sun-worship.

* Malakh/Malakhim from Hebrew word meaning "messenger/messengers;" has no association with Sun-worship.

2. Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

* Shabbat/Sabbath is the Hebrew word pertaining to Yahweh's 7th day of rest. It is the 4th Commandment (Exodus 29:8-11), and a sign for all Israelite generations (descendants) found in Exodus 30:13 & 17, Ezekiel 20:12 & 20.

3. Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from "Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord." The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute name for YHVH (Yahweh).

* YHVH (Yahweh) is the Name given to Moshe/Moses in Exodus 3:15. It is the Name of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which appears in the Hebrew manuscripts, and is to be known by His people throughout all generations. 1 Cor 8:5 admonishes YAHWEH'S people to know only the Father and no other "gods" or "lords."

4. Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS" and Latin "Iesus." "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity. This goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu." During the era of Roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis." Many converted to Constantine's religion that mixed paganism with the Messianic faith that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use the sunburst emblem known as the "Eucharist" which to this day contains the Greek letters "IHS" for "IHSOUS." Further research reveals that the name "Jesus" is also linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" who was the Greek interpretation of the Egyptian Sun-god "Amen-Rah."

* Yahshua/Yahushua/Yahoshua, is the correct Name for the Savior. In all spellings and pronunciation, the Name is rendered to mean "salvation of YAH" or "YAH'S salvation/Savior." The Name in its fullest translation means, "He (YAH) shall save His people from their sins," Matthew 1:21.

5. God, Gad, Gud are all interrelated names. God was a common Teutonic-Germanic word that was applied to superhuman beings of heathen mythologies. Later the word "God" was adopted by Christianity as the generic name for the Supreme Being. It has become the most popular translation for the Hebrew word "Elohim." As a result, most of Christendom believes that the Name for Elohim is "God" and does not know that the personal Name of the Father is YAHWEH. Gad was the Babylonian/Canaanite/Syrian deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune," also called "Meni," the god of "Destiny" who was regarded as the "Lord Moon." The city of Gad was named after this deity. Gad was identified with Jupiter, the Sun-deity, and applied to Nimrod whose general character was that of a Sun-god or Sun-divinity. Gud was the Anglo-Saxon name for "good god" vs. an "evil god."

* El/Eloah/Elohim are the proper Hebrew terms in the singular "El/Eloah" meaning "Mighty One" and plural "Elohim" meaning "Mighty Ones." NOTE: Traditional Rabbinical Judaism still uses the substitute titles of "Adonai, HaShem, G-d" for the Name YHVH. Even though the four letters known in Greek as the "Tetagrammaton" appear in the Scrolls, the tradition of not speaking the Name came into being during the Rabbis' exile into Babylon. It was learned from the Babylonian religious practice of not speaking the names of their Sun-deities for fear that their names were too "holy" and would bring disaster on their nation if they did so. The practice of not speaking a deity's name, hiding it from the people, and substituting titles for the name is called the "art of ineffability" and is based purely on fear, superstition, and manmade tradition.

6. Church comes from the Anglo-Saxon root word "circe," and stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe," the daughter of "Helios," the Roman Sun-god adopted from Greek mythology. Linked to this goddess in Celtic pagan worship is the name "Kirce." From her name comes the word "kirch" which pertained to the building dedicated to pagan Celtic worship and rituals. The Greek word "kuriakon" was used for the building or "house of Kurios (Lord)."

* Kahal or Kehelat are the proper Hebrew words pertaining to a public place of assembly or congregational place worship dedicated to Yahweh. Ekklesia is the Greek word used in the Brit Chadasha/New Testament for the assembly of the "called out ones," but is never used in reference to a building, only denoting the people who have assembled.

7. Christ/Christian come from the Greek word "Christos" meaning "anointed/anointed one," and was used in the pagan Greek and Roman religions to give reference to their Sun-god, "Helios." Roman Emperor Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." Christos originates from the Greek word "Chrestos" which means "good" and alludes to the Greek/Roman god "Chrestos." "Chrestos" can be seen on a Mithras (Roman cult) relief in the Vatican. "Chrestos" as reverenced by Greeks and Romans was none other than "Osiris," a Sun-diety of Egypt. Heretic Gnostics during the time of circulation of the New Testament scriptures also used the title of "Christos" for their purposes. Christian comes from the Greek word meaning "good men," but was derogatorily applied in mockery to Messianic believers because they worshipped "Mashiach/Messiah of Israel" or the "anointed one of Israel" and not the "anointed" Greek god "Chrestos."

* Mashiach/Messiah/Messianic are the proper Hebrew words that should be used in reference to the "anointed one" of Yahweh, Yahshua Ha Mashiach, (Yahshua, The Messiah), Son of Yahweh, our Savior. The English term Messianic comes from the title "Messiah" and pertains to followers of the "Messiah" of Israel who worship Yahweh, and abide in His Word, Torah.

8. Amen comes from the name of the Egyptian god of life and procreation; identified with the Sun-god as a supreme deity called "Amen-Ra/Amen-Rah/Rah." * Omaine is the Hebrew pronunciation for prayer ending; does not pay homage to a pagan god.

9. Fish Symbol was used as a derogatory slur against "Messiah" in conjunction with using the word "christos" as a mockery of "Messiah." Originally used as a symbol for the Greek fish-deity "Dagon" labeled with the phrase that made up the mystical name of "ICTHUS" which was one of the names of the Greek/Roman Sun-god called "Bacchus/Dionysus/Tammuz," the symbol became a slur against Messianics and then found on synagogues and artifacts. The five Greek letters of "ICTHUS" mean "Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter" translated as "Jesus Christ the Son of God the Savior" and reverenced by the Roman Catholic Church. "Iesous" is the name adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity linked to the Egyptian goddess "Isis" who had a son "Isu."

10. Cross was used as a symbol of the Babylonian/Chaldean Sun-god, the mystical "Tau." The original form of the "T" became the emblem of the Greek/Roman Sun-god "Tammuz."

11. Crucify/Crucifixion comes from the Latin word "Crux" and only appears in the Roman Catholic translation of the Greek manuscripts called the Roman Vulgate. The Greek language did not have a word for "crucify" or "crucifixion." The Greek word used in the manuscripts was "stauros" which implied "impaled on a pole or stake" not a cross.

12. Divine/Divinity, Deity, Theos are all related words. The Greek words "dios" and "Theos," and the Latin word "deus" all refer to pagan gods: Greek "Dieus/Zeus, Teutonic-Germanic "Ziu," Roman "Diovis/Jovis/ Jupiter/Zeus were all names for Sun-god deities that "shine, have brightness."

13. Glory comes from the Latin word "gloria" which is identified with the Sun as being radiant, shining, brilliant, bright as the sun. "Gloria" was a Roman goddess that was half-naked and held the zodiac signs.

14. Halo comes from the Greek/Roman Sun-god "Helios." Romans applied the word "gloria" to be a sunburst or ring of light around the head of "Helios." The use of halos around the heads of angels, the Madonna and Son, and Catholic saints has been extremely popular in paintings, artwork, and statuary connected to the Roman Catholic religion for centuries. The Roman Catholic Church still uses the "gloria" sunburst in the Eucharist.

15. Easter originated from the pagan festival in honor of "Eostre," a Teutonic-Germanic dawn, spring and fertility-goddess. "Eostre" comes from the Greek dawn, spring and fertility-goddess named "Eos." This same dawn, spring and fertility-goddess "Eostre" was also known as "Eastre" and "Ostara," and dates back to the ancient Babylonian/Canaanite cultures where she was known as "Astarte" (Ashtaroth/Ashtoreh poles). In Ninevah, this same goddess was known as "Ishtar." The idolatrous worship of this goddess revered as the "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures in Jeremiah 7:18. The worship of this "goddess" spread throughout all the cultures of the world. She is found in India as the Hindu dawn-goddess "Usha/Ushas," and in Western cultures and religions of today, including Christianity, called "Easter."

16. Christmas - 25th of December was the largest pagan festival dedicated to the birthday of the Sun-god deity celebrated by the Mithras (Roman) religion known as "The Nativity of the Sun." Mithraism was the major rival of the Messianic faith in 321 AD

17. Holy, Holiday, Holy Spirit are all interrelated and come from the Hindu religion. The words are derived from "Holi" which is the great Hindu spring festival held in honor of "Krishna," the Hindu Sun-god.

* Kodesh (set-apart in English) is the proper Hebrew word meaning to be "set-apart" unto Yahweh.

* Ruach Ha Kodesh is the proper Hebrew reference to the Ruach/Breath or the Spirit, the invisible presence of YAHWEH. It is the set-apart presence of Yahweh.

18. Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblos/Biblion" which refers to the Egyptian papyrus reed which the Greeks called "Byblos/Byblus." The papyrus reed was shipped from the Egyptian City "Biblis" named after its female Sun-deity. It was imported through the Greek seaport called "Byblos" named after its Phoenician Sun-deity "Byblis/Byblos" believed to be the granddaughter of Apollo, the Greek Sun-diety.

NOTE: The word "Bible" was first used in 400 AD

* "The Scripture" can be used without any reference to pagan worship.

19. Grace comes from the Greek word "charis," and the Latin word "gratia." "Charis" was a Greek deity, the wife of Vulcan. From the goddess "Charis" comes the Greek "Charities," three female deities, daughters of "Helios," the Greek/Roman high Sun-god.

* Chesed or favor are better words both in Hebrew and English, and can be used without reference to paganism.

20. Hades was the Greek supreme deity of the underworld and also known as a Sun-deity. The word "Hades" became used for the word "grave," and is usually mistranslated as "hell" by translators.

* Sheol is the proper Hebrew word for the "grave" or world of the dead.

* Gehenna is the Greek word for the place or state of everlasting punishment.

21. Hallowed comes from the description of the pagan English fall festival of Halloween or Hallow-even. The festival portrays the Sun-image of the "KromKrauch" who was worshipped at this seasonal festival.

22. Sacred comes from the word "Sakra" pertaining to the Persian/Roman god "Mithra/ Mithras." "Sakra/Mithra/Mithras" became the Sun-deity called "Sol Invictus," the unconquered Sun-deity. "Sol Invictus" remains in the Roman Catholic Church today.

23. Sanctified comes from the Latin word "sanctus" which comes from the Greek word "sancus" used expressly for the Greek Sun-god "Apollo."

* Kodesh is the Hebrew word for "set-apart" pertaining to the things of Yahweh, including His invisible presence.

24. Sacrifice, Sacrilege, Sacrament are all words derived from the word "Sakra" that pertains to the Persian and Roman god "Mithra/Mithras" who became the Sun-deity called "Sol Invictus" which remains in the Roman Catholic Church even today. Sacrifice means "rob." Sacrilege and Sacrament do not appear in the Greek manuscripts.

* Atonement. Offer, Offering are words that can be used without reference to pagan worship and falsehood.

25. Obelisks, Spires, Steeple, Church Towers all come from the pagan worship practices of Babylon and Egypt called Sun-pillars. These are objects are shaped in various tall aspiring shapes appearing to reach up to the heavens. Ancient Babylon built Sun-pillars that held phallic (male genitalia) symbolism incorporated into their pagan worship. Egypt also built obelisks as part of their Sun-worship. Exodus 23:24 states that YAHWEH commanded the Israelites to break down these pillars. An obelisk or Sun-pillar still stands at the entrance of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome which was erected as a memorial to the merger of Sun-worship and the Messianic faith to become Rome's "universal" church or "universal worldwide religion." Church steeples, towers, and the Washington monument are modern day replicas of the original obelisks, which stood for Sun-worship.

26. Luck and Fortune are words that originate from the Sun-deity "Lucifer." Luck is the abbreviation of the name "Lucifer." The idea of having "Luck" and "Good Fortune" is unscriptural and points to belief in Gad, the Syrian/Canaanite deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune."

27. Names of Days and Months on the Gregorian calendar are derived from Roman and Teutonic-Germanic names of pagan deities. The traditional Jewish calendar contains Babylonian names.

28. Baal, Bel, Babylon are all interrelated words pertaining to chief Sun-deities of pagan Sun-worship. Baal means to "shine," also used for "Lord/husband." Bel is another name for Satan. Babylon was the ancient Canaanite city where Sun-worship began and from there spread to all ancient cultures of the world and remains in the world today as the counterfeit religion of Satan under the guise of the Roman Catholic Church and its off-shoot religions (daughters) including Christianity.

29. Amen, The word A-men, is usually associated with the closing of prayer. Many people (not knowing better) will usually pronounce this word as "A" sounding like the word "Ape" plus "men." This is error. Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were "Amen" and his consort Ament. Their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem.


Of course they knew where babies came from, but they didn't understand the whole biological process and made things up after reading the literature around them which was full of conjecture and whimsy.

Moonwood the Hare wrote: No. In some species parthenogenesis is highly possible. In mammals it is possible but normally the offspring would be female. Parthenogenesis in mammals with a male offspring is very unlikely but given the right genetic abnormalities not impossible. https://www.scienceandchristianbelief.org/serve_pdf_free.php?filename=SCB+8-2+Berry.pdf

Yes, I agree with you it's very unlikely. C'mon Moon, if a teenage girl came to you and said that her pregnancy was due to God and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying? The Christian story re virginity came much later and was probably based on a mistranslation anyway.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Claims about whether events precluded by scientific theories can happen are not themselves scientific claims but must by definition stand outside science. Therefore increase in scientific knowledge does not increase capacity to judge if events precluded by science can happen.

Yeah sure.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:As though the Christian tradition was full of people constantly referring back to a myth they never mention. Be honest, does that seem likely to you?

No, I'm not advocating that it was some sort of conspiracy theory. The stories evolved from bits and pieces of other stories that were about at the time and previously. Nothing was exactly the same, but all the storylines had already been been explored.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The reason the Jews of Jesus time wash their hands has to do with ritual purity. That is what Jesus comments address. It has nothing to do with the germ theory of disease.
To clarify. According to Jesus the religious leaders are saying - what goes into your mouth (whether you follow the rituals regarding food) makes you unclean (sinful before God) while he (Jesus) says what comes out of your mouth (the things you say that show the kind of person you are) make you unclean (sinful before God).
Again you are taking concepts from your culture and reading them back and arguing that God should have been referencing your culture. But the issues prevalent in your culture were mot the issues of Jesus' day.


Sure, I realise that was what the story was about, but Jesus gave terrible advice that a lot of people would have taken as literal. An all knowing and wise god should have known better.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:But your friends probably do not know that you believe things simply and solely because some very dodgy bloggers appeared to say so. We have attempted to discus some of these issues but you constantly attribute interpretations and theories I do not hold to me.

Sorry but even after all this time, I don't really know how much of this that you actually believe to be true. I'm guessing that you think that your god somehow floated down to Earth, became flesh as his own son inside a virgin girl, got killed correcting the loophole that he made up, then became alive again after being dead for three days. Finally floating back up to the sky to be at his own side again?

That you don't believe the other silly stuff?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:You may hate it but seem to constantly imply that Christianity could be a valid belief system only if the fundamentalist views you attack were valid. Or that you could accept Christianity only if God acted in the way fundamentalists depict him acting. So you say if there were a God he would have done this that and the other miraculous intervention in history. The basic difference between you and the fundamentalists is that both are saying if there were a God he would have acted like this - then you say but he didn't so no God and the fundie says but he did so God. I say - why should you think he must.

If he were a true god he would make it obvious and not hide. Pray doesn't work. Your holy book is full of contradictions, bad advice and poor morals.

Honest question - how do you think that you are different from a fundie? It seems to me that you just believe in less than they do?
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sat Mar 25, 2017 10:56 am

searchengineguy wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:Does she have academic qualifications above degree level? I could not discover any. Your list is eccentric. Einstein had a doctorate and his work was peer reviewed and tested; in what remote way is that similar to Murdock's slovenly approach? None of the others, with the possible of Arthur C Clarke, are engaged in making claims on technical subjects on which they have no formal qualifications without adequate peer review. I don't know enough about Clarke other than as a science fiction writer to comment further on him.

They were all self taught, just like her, including Einstein. His home schooling was helpful for his mathematics. How come you are avoiding recognising her linguistic achievements and archaeological experience? That's mainly why I admire her work.

None of them are recognised as authoritative or reliable because they are self taught. I have across a lot of people who were home schooled and who struggled with basic maths so it is no guarantee. The real question whether self taught or not is always whether you can receive recognition and acceptance according to the criteria in the relevant sphere of knowledge. Einstein did. Murdock didn't. You believed something extremely improbable to be true simply and solely because you thought Murdock asserted it and have since been trying to defend her. Are you now saying you believed her because of her linguistic achievements and archaeological experience? Would you always believe anything, however improbable seeming, said by anyone who spoke several languages and had been in her role on digs or are there other factors in play?
If this is a serious question, superstition is woo woo that is based on irrationality.

I take woo woo to mean things you don't approve of; I have never yet seen any valid concept of woo woo. And if this is your definition then I see no reason for thinking people who lived long ago were more irrational than people living today. How would you justify this assumption?
With science you can test and measure what you are not sure about and find out answers using experiments instead of using blind faith to come to your conclusions.

Sometimes you can but not all science is experimentally based. And no one seriously regards science as the only valid way of knowing. Almost no scientists act as if it was in daily life.
Superstition according to wiki:
is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and religions, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.

The quote is baloney and a good example of why you should not rely on wiki as an alternative to thinking for yourself.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:If you are saying the God Christians believe in is the same as the gods of pagan polytheism I would suggest the following differences
1. The Christian God creates the cosmos. It depends on him utterly. The gods of pagan polytheism are dependent on the cosmos. They come into existence once the cosmos is a going concern.
If you are saying Christianity is not unique in being based on the belief in a Creator then you are correct. This seems to be one of the oldest religious beliefs of mankind. This is not a problem for Christianity.

Nope, there were lots of pagan creation gods. For example The Egyptian god Ptah created the world by masturbation. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

The first thing you need to understand is that I am not denying that many beliefs and especially really ancient ones assert that there was a creator. This as I said seems to have been a very ancient belief, possibly,according to the culture circles theory, the oldest religious belief of mankind. This creator is known by many different names. Sometimes this God is demoted or partly demoted as happens in the case of Zeus whose name is cognate with theos,deus and devs (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit). Sometimes a lesser god is promoted as seems to have happened in the Norse pantheon when Odin replaces Tyr, the ancient sky God. This also seems to happen in the religion of the Hebrews when Yahweh, the tribal God of Israel is identified with Elohim the sky father. But in pagan 'creation' stories you will find that generally there is something there already which the gods make the world from and something from which the gods come. In the case of Hindu beliefs the history is more complex. There is evidence of early belief in a single creator but also, after the arrival of the Aryans of a merging of belief systems to produce non-dualism. The gods are then seen as varying manifestations of an underlying non-dual reality which some see as being in some sense one with the cosmos.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:If Carrier says the basic idea of a creator is common to Judaism, Islam, Christianity and in a more diverse form Hinduism I would agree, if he says the creator in these religions is the same as the gods either of paganism or of Hinduism I would say he is making a crass error.

No I don't think he says that, they're not the same, just like Christianity isn't the same as the mystery religions that ran amok in the same era. Christians, Jews and Muslims have their own creation god and mystery religion that are very similar to the rest. Here are some pagan words that you may hear at your Sun-day worship:
Source: http://assemblyoftrueisrael.com/Documents/Sunworship.htm

1. Angel/Angels from Greek Word "Angelos" meaning "messenger/messengers. Angelos was the name of a Greek god associated with Sun-worship.

* Malakh/Malakhim from Hebrew word meaning "messenger/messengers;" has no association with Sun-worship.

2. Sunday was the day set aside in the Mithra (Roman) cult as its official day to assemble together to worship its Sun-deity. Roman Emperor Constantine legislated Sun-day as a day of rest dedicated to the Greek and Roman Sun-god, Helios. Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." The Roman Catholic Church venerates Sun-day as its Sabbath even today, and has handed it down to Christianity.

* Shabbat/Sabbath is the Hebrew word pertaining to Yahweh's 7th day of rest. It is the 4th Commandment (Exodus 29:8-11), and a sign for all Israelite generations (descendants) found in Exodus 30:13 & 17, Ezekiel 20:12 & 20.

3. Lord comes from the old English spelling of "Lard" which comes from "Lar/Larth Lares," Estruscan and Roman deities associated with Sun-worship. The Greek word "Kurios" was originally a title for the Greek and Roman Sun-deity "Helios" and was called "The Kurios (Lord) of Heaven and Earth." The Hindu god "Krishna" is also known as "Lord." The title "Lord" was eventually applied to all heathen deities. Most Bible translators continue to use the title "Lord" as a substitute name for YHVH (Yahweh).

* YHVH (Yahweh) is the Name given to Moshe/Moses in Exodus 3:15. It is the Name of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, which appears in the Hebrew manuscripts, and is to be known by His people throughout all generations. 1 Cor 8:5 admonishes YAHWEH'S people to know only the Father and no other "gods" or "lords."

4. Jesus comes from the Greek name "Iesous/IHSOUS" and Latin "Iesus." "Iesous" is adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity. This goddess was linked to the Egyptian "Isis" who had a son named "Isu." During the era of Roman Emperors, there were numerous worshippers of "Isis." Many converted to Constantine's religion that mixed paganism with the Messianic faith that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church continues to use the sunburst emblem known as the "Eucharist" which to this day contains the Greek letters "IHS" for "IHSOUS." Further research reveals that the name "Jesus" is also linked to the Greek Sun-god "Zeus" who was the Greek interpretation of the Egyptian Sun-god "Amen-Rah."

* Yahshua/Yahushua/Yahoshua, is the correct Name for the Savior. In all spellings and pronunciation, the Name is rendered to mean "salvation of YAH" or "YAH'S salvation/Savior." The Name in its fullest translation means, "He (YAH) shall save His people from their sins," Matthew 1:21.

5. God, Gad, Gud are all interrelated names. God was a common Teutonic-Germanic word that was applied to superhuman beings of heathen mythologies. Later the word "God" was adopted by Christianity as the generic name for the Supreme Being. It has become the most popular translation for the Hebrew word "Elohim." As a result, most of Christendom believes that the Name for Elohim is "God" and does not know that the personal Name of the Father is YAHWEH. Gad was the Babylonian/Canaanite/Syrian deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune," also called "Meni," the god of "Destiny" who was regarded as the "Lord Moon." The city of Gad was named after this deity. Gad was identified with Jupiter, the Sun-deity, and applied to Nimrod whose general character was that of a Sun-god or Sun-divinity. Gud was the Anglo-Saxon name for "good god" vs. an "evil god."

* El/Eloah/Elohim are the proper Hebrew terms in the singular "El/Eloah" meaning "Mighty One" and plural "Elohim" meaning "Mighty Ones." NOTE: Traditional Rabbinical Judaism still uses the substitute titles of "Adonai, HaShem, G-d" for the Name YHVH. Even though the four letters known in Greek as the "Tetagrammaton" appear in the Scrolls, the tradition of not speaking the Name came into being during the Rabbis' exile into Babylon. It was learned from the Babylonian religious practice of not speaking the names of their Sun-deities for fear that their names were too "holy" and would bring disaster on their nation if they did so. The practice of not speaking a deity's name, hiding it from the people, and substituting titles for the name is called the "art of ineffability" and is based purely on fear, superstition, and manmade tradition.

6. Church comes from the Anglo-Saxon root word "circe," and stems from the Greek name of the goddess "Circe," the daughter of "Helios," the Roman Sun-god adopted from Greek mythology. Linked to this goddess in Celtic pagan worship is the name "Kirce." From her name comes the word "kirch" which pertained to the building dedicated to pagan Celtic worship and rituals. The Greek word "kuriakon" was used for the building or "house of Kurios (Lord)."

* Kahal or Kehelat are the proper Hebrew words pertaining to a public place of assembly or congregational place worship dedicated to Yahweh. Ekklesia is the Greek word used in the Brit Chadasha/New Testament for the assembly of the "called out ones," but is never used in reference to a building, only denoting the people who have assembled.

7. Christ/Christian come from the Greek word "Christos" meaning "anointed/anointed one," and was used in the pagan Greek and Roman religions to give reference to their Sun-god, "Helios." Roman Emperor Constantine worshipped "Christos Helios" which means "Christ-The-True-Sun." Christos originates from the Greek word "Chrestos" which means "good" and alludes to the Greek/Roman god "Chrestos." "Chrestos" can be seen on a Mithras (Roman cult) relief in the Vatican. "Chrestos" as reverenced by Greeks and Romans was none other than "Osiris," a Sun-diety of Egypt. Heretic Gnostics during the time of circulation of the New Testament scriptures also used the title of "Christos" for their purposes. Christian comes from the Greek word meaning "good men," but was derogatorily applied in mockery to Messianic believers because they worshipped "Mashiach/Messiah of Israel" or the "anointed one of Israel" and not the "anointed" Greek god "Chrestos."

* Mashiach/Messiah/Messianic are the proper Hebrew words that should be used in reference to the "anointed one" of Yahweh, Yahshua Ha Mashiach, (Yahshua, The Messiah), Son of Yahweh, our Savior. The English term Messianic comes from the title "Messiah" and pertains to followers of the "Messiah" of Israel who worship Yahweh, and abide in His Word, Torah.

8. Amen comes from the name of the Egyptian god of life and procreation; identified with the Sun-god as a supreme deity called "Amen-Ra/Amen-Rah/Rah." * Omaine is the Hebrew pronunciation for prayer ending; does not pay homage to a pagan god.

9. Fish Symbol was used as a derogatory slur against "Messiah" in conjunction with using the word "christos" as a mockery of "Messiah." Originally used as a symbol for the Greek fish-deity "Dagon" labeled with the phrase that made up the mystical name of "ICTHUS" which was one of the names of the Greek/Roman Sun-god called "Bacchus/Dionysus/Tammuz," the symbol became a slur against Messianics and then found on synagogues and artifacts. The five Greek letters of "ICTHUS" mean "Iesous Christos Theou Uios Soter" translated as "Jesus Christ the Son of God the Savior" and reverenced by the Roman Catholic Church. "Iesous" is the name adapted from the name of the Greek goddess of healing "Iesos/Iaso," the daughter of Apollo, the Sun-deity linked to the Egyptian goddess "Isis" who had a son "Isu."

10. Cross was used as a symbol of the Babylonian/Chaldean Sun-god, the mystical "Tau." The original form of the "T" became the emblem of the Greek/Roman Sun-god "Tammuz."

11. Crucify/Crucifixion comes from the Latin word "Crux" and only appears in the Roman Catholic translation of the Greek manuscripts called the Roman Vulgate. The Greek language did not have a word for "crucify" or "crucifixion." The Greek word used in the manuscripts was "stauros" which implied "impaled on a pole or stake" not a cross.

12. Divine/Divinity, Deity, Theos are all related words. The Greek words "dios" and "Theos," and the Latin word "deus" all refer to pagan gods: Greek "Dieus/Zeus, Teutonic-Germanic "Ziu," Roman "Diovis/Jovis/ Jupiter/Zeus were all names for Sun-god deities that "shine, have brightness."

13. Glory comes from the Latin word "gloria" which is identified with the Sun as being radiant, shining, brilliant, bright as the sun. "Gloria" was a Roman goddess that was half-naked and held the zodiac signs.

14. Halo comes from the Greek/Roman Sun-god "Helios." Romans applied the word "gloria" to be a sunburst or ring of light around the head of "Helios." The use of halos around the heads of angels, the Madonna and Son, and Catholic saints has been extremely popular in paintings, artwork, and statuary connected to the Roman Catholic religion for centuries. The Roman Catholic Church still uses the "gloria" sunburst in the Eucharist.

15. Easter originated from the pagan festival in honor of "Eostre," a Teutonic-Germanic dawn, spring and fertility-goddess. "Eostre" comes from the Greek dawn, spring and fertility-goddess named "Eos." This same dawn, spring and fertility-goddess "Eostre" was also known as "Eastre" and "Ostara," and dates back to the ancient Babylonian/Canaanite cultures where she was known as "Astarte" (Ashtaroth/Ashtoreh poles). In Ninevah, this same goddess was known as "Ishtar." The idolatrous worship of this goddess revered as the "Queen of Heaven" is mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures in Jeremiah 7:18. The worship of this "goddess" spread throughout all the cultures of the world. She is found in India as the Hindu dawn-goddess "Usha/Ushas," and in Western cultures and religions of today, including Christianity, called "Easter."

16. Christmas - 25th of December was the largest pagan festival dedicated to the birthday of the Sun-god deity celebrated by the Mithras (Roman) religion known as "The Nativity of the Sun." Mithraism was the major rival of the Messianic faith in 321 AD

17. Holy, Holiday, Holy Spirit are all interrelated and come from the Hindu religion. The words are derived from "Holi" which is the great Hindu spring festival held in honor of "Krishna," the Hindu Sun-god.

* Kodesh (set-apart in English) is the proper Hebrew word meaning to be "set-apart" unto Yahweh.

* Ruach Ha Kodesh is the proper Hebrew reference to the Ruach/Breath or the Spirit, the invisible presence of YAHWEH. It is the set-apart presence of Yahweh.

18. Bible comes from the Greek word "Biblos/Biblion" which refers to the Egyptian papyrus reed which the Greeks called "Byblos/Byblus." The papyrus reed was shipped from the Egyptian City "Biblis" named after its female Sun-deity. It was imported through the Greek seaport called "Byblos" named after its Phoenician Sun-deity "Byblis/Byblos" believed to be the granddaughter of Apollo, the Greek Sun-diety.

NOTE: The word "Bible" was first used in 400 AD

* "The Scripture" can be used without any reference to pagan worship.

19. Grace comes from the Greek word "charis," and the Latin word "gratia." "Charis" was a Greek deity, the wife of Vulcan. From the goddess "Charis" comes the Greek "Charities," three female deities, daughters of "Helios," the Greek/Roman high Sun-god.

* Chesed or favor are better words both in Hebrew and English, and can be used without reference to paganism.

20. Hades was the Greek supreme deity of the underworld and also known as a Sun-deity. The word "Hades" became used for the word "grave," and is usually mistranslated as "hell" by translators.

* Sheol is the proper Hebrew word for the "grave" or world of the dead.

* Gehenna is the Greek word for the place or state of everlasting punishment.

21. Hallowed comes from the description of the pagan English fall festival of Halloween or Hallow-even. The festival portrays the Sun-image of the "KromKrauch" who was worshipped at this seasonal festival.

22. Sacred comes from the word "Sakra" pertaining to the Persian/Roman god "Mithra/ Mithras." "Sakra/Mithra/Mithras" became the Sun-deity called "Sol Invictus," the unconquered Sun-deity. "Sol Invictus" remains in the Roman Catholic Church today.

23. Sanctified comes from the Latin word "sanctus" which comes from the Greek word "sancus" used expressly for the Greek Sun-god "Apollo."

* Kodesh is the Hebrew word for "set-apart" pertaining to the things of Yahweh, including His invisible presence.

24. Sacrifice, Sacrilege, Sacrament are all words derived from the word "Sakra" that pertains to the Persian and Roman god "Mithra/Mithras" who became the Sun-deity called "Sol Invictus" which remains in the Roman Catholic Church even today. Sacrifice means "rob." Sacrilege and Sacrament do not appear in the Greek manuscripts.

* Atonement. Offer, Offering are words that can be used without reference to pagan worship and falsehood.

25. Obelisks, Spires, Steeple, Church Towers all come from the pagan worship practices of Babylon and Egypt called Sun-pillars. These are objects are shaped in various tall aspiring shapes appearing to reach up to the heavens. Ancient Babylon built Sun-pillars that held phallic (male genitalia) symbolism incorporated into their pagan worship. Egypt also built obelisks as part of their Sun-worship. Exodus 23:24 states that YAHWEH commanded the Israelites to break down these pillars. An obelisk or Sun-pillar still stands at the entrance of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome which was erected as a memorial to the merger of Sun-worship and the Messianic faith to become Rome's "universal" church or "universal worldwide religion." Church steeples, towers, and the Washington monument are modern day replicas of the original obelisks, which stood for Sun-worship.

26. Luck and Fortune are words that originate from the Sun-deity "Lucifer." Luck is the abbreviation of the name "Lucifer." The idea of having "Luck" and "Good Fortune" is unscriptural and points to belief in Gad, the Syrian/Canaanite deity of "Good Luck" or "Fortune."

27. Names of Days and Months on the Gregorian calendar are derived from Roman and Teutonic-Germanic names of pagan deities. The traditional Jewish calendar contains Babylonian names.

28. Baal, Bel, Babylon are all interrelated words pertaining to chief Sun-deities of pagan Sun-worship. Baal means to "shine," also used for "Lord/husband." Bel is another name for Satan. Babylon was the ancient Canaanite city where Sun-worship began and from there spread to all ancient cultures of the world and remains in the world today as the counterfeit religion of Satan under the guise of the Roman Catholic Church and its off-shoot religions (daughters) including Christianity.

29. Amen, The word A-men, is usually associated with the closing of prayer. Many people (not knowing better) will usually pronounce this word as "A" sounding like the word "Ape" plus "men." This is error. Among the gods who were known to the Egyptians in very early times were "Amen" and his consort Ament. Their names are found in the Pyramid Texts, e.g., Unas, line 558, where they are mentioned immediately after the pair of gods Nau and Nen, and in connection with the twin Lion-gods Shu and Tefnut, who are described as the two gods who made their own bodies, and with the goddess Temt, the female counterpart of Tem.


I'm afraid this is just more of the kind of pseudo-intellectual junk that for some reason impresses you. It goes nowhere and shows nothing. I am not responding in detail since you tend to ignore me when I do so.
Yes, I agree with you it's very unlikely. C'mon Moon, if a teenage girl came to you and said that her pregnancy was due to God and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

You are confusing historical probability with metaphysical probability. Of course it is historically unlikely that is part of the point.
The Christian story re virginity came much later and was probably based on a mistranslation anyway.

I discussed this at length here sometime ago. Best articles on this are by the Orthodox scholar Eric Jobe. https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/593-2/ https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/615-2/ https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/making-sense-isaiah-714-young-woman-virgin-part-3/
No, I'm not advocating that it was some sort of conspiracy theory. The stories evolved from bits and pieces of other stories that were about at the time and previously. Nothing was exactly the same, but all the storylines had already been been explored.

Almost all serious scholars now agree that the major influence on story forms in the NT is the OT. The attempts to show pagan influences, with very few exceptions, have the appearance of desperation. Murdock's list of demonstrably spurious claims is an extreme example.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:The reason the Jews of Jesus time wash their hands has to do with ritual purity. That is what Jesus comments address. It has nothing to do with the germ theory of disease.
To clarify. According to Jesus the religious leaders are saying - what goes into your mouth (whether you follow the rituals regarding food) makes you unclean (sinful before God) while he (Jesus) says what comes out of your mouth (the things you say that show the kind of person you are) make you unclean (sinful before God).
Again you are taking concepts from your culture and reading them back and arguing that God should have been referencing your culture. But the issues prevalent in your culture were mot the issues of Jesus' day.


Sure, I realise that was what the story was about, but Jesus gave terrible advice that a lot of people would have taken as literal. An all knowing and wise god should have known better.

A lot of people would? The Church has never understood this in that way. If you think it has, show me!
Sorry but even after all this time, I don't really know how much of this that you actually believe to be true. I'm guessing that you think that your god somehow floated down to Earth, became flesh as his own son inside a virgin girl, got killed correcting the loophole that he made up, then became alive again after being dead for three days. Finally floating back up to the sky to be at his own side again?

That you don't believe the other silly stuff?

What you are doing here is to put the Christian story into your own derisive terminology. Hence it is not something I or any Christian would recognise their self as believing. If you are unable to express a person's beliefs in terms acceptable to that person that is a clear indication you have not correctly understood them.
If he were a true god he would make it obvious and not hide. Pray doesn't work. Your holy book is full of contradictions, bad advice and poor morals.
In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.

Honest question - how do you think that you are different from a fundie? It seems to me that you just believe in less than they do?

It is typical for a fundamentalist to see their sacred text as a kind of encyclopedia - a source of all kinds of knowledge. I see it as religious book,given a guide to ultimate reality, God, and how we are to relate to that.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:44 am

SEG I've noticed a pattern.
1. SEG posts a link orcuts and paste a chunk from another site containing wrong information or invalid reasoning
2. Someone,often me points this out
3. SEG drops the matter presumably because he knows nothing about the subject in hand beyond what was in the link or paste
4. SEG posts another inane link or paste
You rarely or never acknowledge these errors and often don't enter discussion. When you do enter discussion this is usually because you are on a topic covered in one of the books you have read and even then if things stray to far from your familiar territory you are lost again. I mean when you post a link saying Dionysus like Jesus was born of a virgin on the 25th December and someone points out this is not in any version of the myth do you become silent simply because you are ignorant on the matter? I get the impression you had never even read the myth of Dionysus before you published that post. It creates the impression that either you just believe whatever you read on atheist blogs or you just don't care if it's true or not because your real purpose is to take a rise out of Christians and if one silly claim does not work you find another. After having so many of your arguments taken down do you not think it's time you started reading around and maybe checked some writing by people who don't share your views? Perhaps all believers are not as ignorant and silly as you assume.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby searchengineguy » Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:32 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:None of them are recognised as authoritative or reliable because they are self taught. I have across a lot of people who were home schooled and who struggled with basic maths so it is no guarantee. The real question whether self taught or not is always whether you can receive recognition and acceptance according to the criteria in the relevant sphere of knowledge. Einstein did. Murdock didn't.

Agreed. but of course we are talking about entirely different scholarships and sciences. History isn't an exact science, which I'm sure that you will agree with me and the study of Christianity has distinct biases. You can have all of the relevant degrees and still be rejected as a teacher in the most notable schools, then frowned upon if you don't teach in those schools! You can be the best scholar in your field and not believe in the historic Jesus of the Bible and afraid to voice your opinion because you will lose your income stream and career opportunities. Which other historic or scientific field hold those sort of biases?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:You believed something extremely improbable to be true simply and solely because you thought Murdock asserted it and have since been trying to defend her.

Ah, no. Firstly it wasn't extremely improbable as pagan influences including strange statues are rife throughout Christianity. You added to my argument when you volunteered that your own church has pagan-like statues in it that you hadn't bothered to thoroughly research their origins. Secondly I didn't simply and solely believe it because I thought Murdock asserted it. I already was aware that St Peter was symbolised as a cock or cock crowing because of that silly story of denying Jesus in the high priest’s courtyard. I've actually got some photos of this when we visited Fatima in Portugal last year.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Are you now saying you believed her because of her linguistic achievements and archaeological experience? Would you always believe anything, however improbable seeming, said by anyone who spoke several languages and had been in her role on digs or are there other factors in play?

Now you are just being tiresome.
SEG wrote:If this is a serious question, superstition is woo woo that is based on irrationality.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I take woo woo to mean things you don't approve of;

No, I don't approve of Donald Trump and he is unfortunately real. I don't approve of things that people accept as true without any scientific basis and make out that we should accept them as part of the reality of our lives. This is as good a definition as any: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/woo_woo

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I have never yet seen any valid concept of woo woo. And if this is your definition then I see no reason for thinking people who lived long ago were more irrational than people living today. How would you justify this assumption?

Sure, I think it is a given that people of long ago were more irrational because of superstition/religion. It's a lack of knowledge that caused them to be like that.
With science you can test and measure what you are not sure about and find out answers using experiments instead of using blind faith to come to your conclusions.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Sometimes you can but not all science is experimentally based. And no one seriously regards science as the only valid way of knowing. Almost no scientists act as if it was in daily life.

I somewhat agree, but look what science has brought us in contrast to religion.
Superstition according to wiki: is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology and religions, like omens, witchcraft, and prophecies, that contradict natural science.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The quote is baloney and a good example of why you should not rely on wiki as an alternative to thinking for yourself.

Why do you say it's baloney? It looks pretty valid to me. See the whole article here and tell me how it is invalid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition
Moonwood the Hare wrote:If you are saying the God Christians believe in is the same as the gods of pagan polytheism I would suggest the following differences
1. The Christian God creates the cosmos. It depends on him utterly. The gods of pagan polytheism are dependent on the cosmos. They come into existence once the cosmos is a going concern.
If you are saying Christianity is not unique in being based on the belief in a Creator then you are correct. This seems to be one of the oldest religious beliefs of mankind. This is not a problem for Christianity.

SEG wrote:Nope, there were lots of pagan creation gods. For example The Egyptian god Ptah created the world by masturbation. Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Creator_gods

Moonwood the Hare wrote:The first thing you need to understand is that I am not denying that many beliefs and especially really ancient ones assert that there was a creator. This as I said seems to have been a very ancient belief, possibly,according to the culture circles theory, the oldest religious belief of mankind. This creator is known by many different names. Sometimes this God is demoted or partly demoted as happens in the case of Zeus whose name is cognate with theos,deus and devs (Greek, Latin and Sanskrit). Sometimes a lesser god is promoted as seems to have happened in the Norse pantheon when Odin replaces Tyr, the ancient sky God. This also seems to happen in the religion of the Hebrews when Yahweh, the tribal God of Israel is identified with Elohim the sky father. But in pagan 'creation' stories you will find that generally there is something there already which the gods make the world from and something from which the gods come. In the case of Hindu beliefs the history is more complex. There is evidence of early belief in a single creator but also, after the arrival of the Aryans of a merging of belief systems to produce non-dualism. The gods are then seen as varying manifestations of an underlying non-dual reality which some see as being in some sense one with the cosmos.

Sure, but you would have to admit that there were a lot of very similar stories in Pagan cults that were later appearing in the Christian scriptures. The Christian authors would have been heavily influenced by the mystic religions and wandering messiahs that were abundant during those times.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:If Carrier says the basic idea of a creator is common to Judaism, Islam, Christianity and in a more diverse form Hinduism I would agree, if he says the creator in these religions is the same as the gods either of paganism or of Hinduism I would say he is making a crass error.

No, he is careful to say that they aren't the same as the mystery religions. Christianity WAS a mystery religion.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I'm afraid this is just more of the kind of pseudo-intellectual junk that for some reason impresses you. It goes nowhere and shows nothing. I am not responding in detail since you tend to ignore me when I do so.

In summary it is clear that a lot of Christian terms have pagan roots. Can we agree on that?
Yes, I agree with you it's very unlikely. C'mon Moon, if a teenage girl came to you and said that her pregnancy was due to God and that she was still a virgin. Would you believe her? Or would you think she was lying?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:You are confusing historical probability with metaphysical probability. Of course it is historically unlikely that is part of the point.
SEG wrote:The Christian story re virginity came much later and was probably based on a mistranslation anyway.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I discussed this at length here sometime ago.

Yes, I remember you didn't budge from Captain Howdy's arguments on this.



"Groan" I thought you didn't like bloggers? In his own words, "...I am the least of Ph.D.s, newly minted, sans tenure-track position, and without a weighty CV. My word doesn’t count for much, nor should it probably "

No, I'm not advocating that it was some sort of conspiracy theory. The stories evolved from bits and pieces of other stories that were about at the time and previously. Nothing was exactly the same, but all the storylines had already been been explored.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:Almost all serious scholars now agree that the major influence on story forms in the NT is the OT. The attempts to show pagan influences, with very few exceptions, have the appearance of desperation. Murdock's list of demonstrably spurious claims is an extreme example.

Are you aware that arguments from authority fail if they have a strong bias? You can't ignore the pagan influences, they are part of your Christian indoctrination down to the holidays that you celebrate. You can't deny that the biggest holidays, Xmas and Easter both were borrowed from them!
Moonwood the Hare wrote:The reason the Jews of Jesus time wash their hands has to do with ritual purity. That is what Jesus comments address. It has nothing to do with the germ theory of disease.
To clarify. According to Jesus the religious leaders are saying - what goes into your mouth (whether you follow the rituals regarding food) makes you unclean (sinful before God) while he (Jesus) says what comes out of your mouth (the things you say that show the kind of person you are) make you unclean (sinful before God).
Again you are taking concepts from your culture and reading them back and arguing that God should have been referencing your culture. But the issues prevalent in your culture were mot the issues of Jesus' day.


Sure, I realise that was what the story was about, but Jesus gave terrible advice that a lot of people would have taken as literal. An all knowing and wise god should have known better.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:A lot of people would? The Church has never understood this in that way. If you think it has, show me!

Ask any fundy if he believes it was literal advice. A random search found this article where the author wasn't sure if Jesus believed that hand washing was a bad thing or not:
https://emilycheath.com/2012/09/06/jesus-says-dont-wash-your-hands-sermon-for-september-2-2012/

SEG wrote:Sorry but even after all this time, I don't really know how much of this that you actually believe to be true. I'm guessing that you think that your god somehow floated down to Earth, became flesh as his own son inside a virgin girl, got killed correcting the loophole that he made up, then became alive again after being dead for three days. Finally floating back up to the sky to be at his own side again?


Moonwood the Hare wrote:What you are doing here is to put the Christian story into your own derisive terminology. Hence it is not something I or any Christian would recognise their self as believing. If you are unable to express a person's beliefs in terms acceptable to that person that is a clear indication you have not correctly understood them.

Ok, I'll put it another way - Do you believe in the Nicene Creed? I expect you would say yes? I would expect you to believe all of the miracles attributed to Jesus? All the rest of the stories with legendary and folk content, I just don't know.

Moonwood the Hare wrote:It is typical for a fundamentalist to see their sacred text as a kind of encyclopedia - a source of all kinds of knowledge. I see it as religious book,given a guide to ultimate reality, God, and how we are to relate to that.
[/quote]
Ok thanks for sharing
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby searchengineguy » Sun Mar 26, 2017 4:56 am

Moonwood the Hare wrote:SEG I've noticed a pattern.

That's great, I wish you would notice a few more about contradictions, errors, pagan similarities etc that you dismiss so easily.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:1. SEG posts a link orcuts and paste a chunk from another site containing wrong information or invalid reasoning

A sweeping statement that remains an assertion until you produce evidence. Otherwise it's an Ad Hom
Moonwood the Hare wrote:2. Someone,often me points this out

You mean you make assertions
Moonwood the Hare wrote:3. SEG drops the matter presumably because he knows nothing about the subject in hand beyond what was in the link or paste

Extra Ad Homs
Moonwood the Hare wrote:4. SEG posts another inane link or paste

*Yawn*
Moonwood the Hare wrote:You rarely or never acknowledge these errors and often don't enter discussion.

Incorrect.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: When you do enter discussion this is usually because you are on a topic covered in one of the books you have read and even then if things stray to far from your familiar territory you are lost again. I mean when you post a link saying Dionysus like Jesus was born of a virgin on the 25th December and someone points out this is not in any version of the myth do you become silent simply because you are ignorant on the matter?

I've never agreed that this was true! Citation please!

Moonwood the Hare wrote:I get the impression you had never even read the myth of Dionysus before you published that post. It creates the impression that either you just believe whatever you read on atheist blogs or you just don't care if it's true or not because your real purpose is to take a rise out of Christians and if one silly claim does not work you find another.

Finished skiing on that slippery slope?

Moonwood the Hare wrote:After having so many of your arguments taken down

Citation again and I think you are calling the kettle black. Why don't you just post, "I don't like what SEG is saying as he doesn't know anything but I do?" Really Moon, I think you are the one getting desperate here.
Frisbeetarianism: is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck.
- George Carlin.
User avatar
searchengineguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2822
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 2:04 am
Location: Sydney Australia
Affiliation: Strict Atheist

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Jesus Raves » Mon Mar 27, 2017 12:05 am

Not exactly ad hominem. He's not saying you're wrong because you retreat, merely that you retreat. His argument is that you don't actually know as much as you pretend to know, and that you retreat -- if true -- is completely valid in an argument related to whether or not you're knowledgeable in these areas. In fact, you're being actively dishonest when you claim not to copy and paste text from other sites. We endured a weeks-long dilemma over your plagiarism, and the deceptions were clearly illuminated. You shoved out a beloved member of this community with your continued resistance to owning up to that like an adult. You could at least have some grace and cop to it now. Besides, pretty sure Moonwood was referring -- at least partly -- to when you copy and paste text along with citations or quotes; therefore, he wasn't necessarily accusing you of plagiarism anyway.
User avatar
Jesus Raves
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2557
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:52 pm
Location: Missouri, USA
Affiliation: Humanest

Re: Why did God call Lot rightious?

Postby Moonwood the Hare » Mon Mar 27, 2017 5:00 am

searchengineguy wrote:
Moonwood the Hare wrote:SEG I've noticed a pattern.

That's great, I wish you would notice a few more about contradictions, errors, pagan similarities etc that you dismiss so easily.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:1. SEG posts a link orcuts and paste a chunk from another site containing wrong information or invalid reasoning

A sweeping statement that remains an assertion until you produce evidence. Otherwise it's an Ad Hom

I gave an example later in the post
Moonwood the Hare wrote:2. Someone,often me points this out

You mean you make assertions

No, I present arguments as I did with Murdock's blatant falsehoods about Dionysius, her lack of correct and adequate referencing and her failure to make clear what her theory actually is. None of which you responded to in your reply. Instead you posted yet more links to other arguments. There is no point posting links if you are unwilling to discuss the content.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:3. SEG drops the matter presumably because he knows nothing about the subject in hand beyond what was in the link or paste

Extra Ad Homs

It's not an ad hominem argument. Every claim or argument about the person presenting an argument is not an ad hom. It becomes one only if I use it instead of responding to your argument.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:4. SEG posts another inane link or paste

*Yawn*

Not exactly how I feel when you do it. Yes it is tedious but also mildly exasperating.
Moonwood the Hare wrote:You rarely or never acknowledge these errors and often don't enter discussion.

Incorrect.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that there are convincing proofs that Jesus is a transliteration of a Jewish name and does not derive from Zeus.
Moonwood the Hare wrote: When you do enter discussion this is usually because you are on a topic covered in one of the books you have read and even then if things stray to far from your familiar territory you are lost again. I mean when you post a link saying Dionysus like Jesus was born of a virgin on the 25th December and someone points out this is not in any version of the myth do you become silent simply because you are ignorant on the matter?

I've never agreed that this was true! Citation please!

You linked to an article by D M Murdock and said it was a fine article. I don't know what you could have found to admire about it apart from its content. It was brief and poorly referenced so it cannot have been the style or academic acumen. Why would you say it was a fine article and not endorse its content? What is the point of linking to an article if you don't endorse its claims? Why should I bother to respond to things you post if you are just going to deny having said what they say?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:I get the impression you had never even read the myth of Dionysus before you published that post. It creates the impression that either you just believe whatever you read on atheist blogs or you just don't care if it's true or not because your real purpose is to take a rise out of Christians and if one silly claim does not work you find another.

Finished skiing on that slippery slope?

Your response above only serves to confirm what I have been saying. Why link to a claim that Dionysus like Jesus was born of a virgin if you don't even think that's true?
Moonwood the Hare wrote:After having so many of your arguments taken down

Citation again and I think you are calling the kettle black. Why don't you just post, "I don't like what SEG is saying as he doesn't know anything but I do?" Really Moon, I think you are the one getting desperate here.

I've pointed to two; there are many more. You simply don't seem to notice when your so called facts are refuted. It is not only that you are ignorant but also that you seem to make no effort to educate yourself.
All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.
User avatar
Moonwood the Hare
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4769
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 10:24 am
Affiliation: Christian - pretty traditional

Previous

Return to General discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aaron, Baidu [Spider] and 2 guests