Against gods, goddesses, and syncretism.

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Against gods, goddesses, and syncretism.
Against the gods… and godesses. Against syncretism.

A list of interchangeable mother-goddess names (something for worshippers of the “sacred feminine” or “the goddess” to consider):
–Ishtar (Babylon)
–Asherah/Ashtoroth/Ashtoreth/Astarte/Ashtart (Phoenicians/Arameans/Mesopotamia)
–Aphrodite (Greek)/Venus (Roman)
–Inana (ancient Sumeria)
–Anat (Canaan)
–Isis (one title: “queen of heaven” – see Ishtar listing) (Egypt).
–Perhaps Cybele/Artemis/Diana are interchangeable with the rest, as well (see below).
Most certainly there are other mother-goddess concepts which would be interchangeable with these. It is easy to see why God punished the Israelites for worshipping these false gods and goddesses, when you learn what this study reveals about how these goddesses and their god counterparts were/are worshipped. Such forms of worship do not celebrate or respect femininity, but disgracefully and without honor trample it in the mud. The male gods (Baals) are often counterparts to the mother-goddesses, and Satan is considered the ruler of them (Matthew 10:24-28; Luke 11:14-26). When all is said and done, he will be thrown down (read Revelation). All who go after the Baals and their mother-goddesses would do well to remember this and turn back.

Important. For those of you who have read Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code” and perhaps a book like “Secrets of the Code” edited by Dan Burstein (if you haven’t, you’re not missing much) – I highly recommend you read “Breaking the da Vinci Code” by Darrel L. Bock, Ph.D (Thomas Nelson, 2004). If you’re planning on reading “The Da Vinci Code” – I recommend you read Bock’s book first, and perhaps after, as well. I ignored Dan Brown until my brother loaned one of his novels to me sometime before Thanksgiving… right after I finished a study on early Gnosticism (see my “Against Gnosticism” thread). Perfect timing.

One listing you won’t find mentioned in the Bible is “Baphomet” – an idol (said to come from the god Pan, a god whom a city formerly known as Paneas, an ancient name now known as Banias, was named after, a city then called Caesarea Philippi in Matthew 16:13, according to the Zondervan NASB study note on that verse) worshipped by a “secret” society which worships the “sacred feminine” – always a mask-phrase for “female sexuality” (as if pornography weren’t habitual enough for some, cults like this turn sex into ritual and try to blend it with spirituality – ensuring a loyal, sex-addicted congregation who will take their secrets with them to the grave, if they die still enslaved). This particular “secret” society was led for many years by a fool referring to himself as the “Great Beast 666” (see Revelation 13; refer to my “Against Gnosticism” thread for references to “antichrist” and “antichrists”), set up for the purpose of spiritual rebellion. Out of His enduring, patient love, God allows it, just as He allowed, for a time (more than once), the spiritual rebellion of the Israelites… there is a lesson to be learned that so far remains a mystery to this mystery cult, and all other mystery cults. I pray they learn soon, as I did, that it isn’t too late to turn back and make a fresh start (Judg 10:13-16). Not that it will be easy. The Lord disciplines those He loves (Psalm 119:71-72; Job 2:10; Isaiah 35:4; Proverbs 3:12; Psalm 30:5; Psalm 51:8).

Greek pantheon … Acts 17:16-34 (Mars Hill in Athens). In “Eternity in their Hearts,” Don Richardson points out that it was a Pythian oracle (see Acts 16:16, the slave-girl had a “python” spirit which Paul cast out), who told Nicias to seek Epimenides in Crete. This is not the only instance when God used a pagan to get His message across. See Numbers 22-24 (Balaam). Richardson also points out that Epimenides “used Zeus as a personal name for the Almighty in another part of the very poem which Paul the apostle quoted in Titus 1:12!” He explains the changes that “Zeus” went through which no longer make it eligible as a name for God, making it necessary for Paul to use the term Theos, and John to use the terms Theos and Logos, instead (“fulfilling rather than destroying something valid in Greek philosophy” – emphasis Richardson’s). Such changes in meaning (like the change in “Zeus”) also threatened Christian terms in the early years of Christianity, necessitating the early theological councils (such as the one held at Nicaea) of the church fathers. I can quote more at your request, but I strongly recommend you buy the book.

Zeus…Hermes. Zondervan NASB study notes on Acts 14:8-18 – Zeus (the Roman Jupiter) was the patron god of the city, and his temple was there (Lystra). People who came to bring sacrifices to Zeus apparently decided to make an offering to Paul and Barnabas instead. The identification of Zeus with Barnabas may indicate that his appearance was more imposing, and Paul was identified as the god Hermes (the Roman Mercury/Mercurious) because he was the spokesman (see 28:6). This incident may have been occasioned by an ancient legend that told of a supposed visit to the same general area by Zeus and Hermes. They were, however, not recognized by anyone but an old couple. So the people of Lystra were determined not to allow such an oversight to happen again.

Aphrodite – Zondervan NASB study bible notes on 1 Cor 10:14 – flee from idolatry. Like that described in Ex 32:1-6. Corinthian Christians had come out of a background of paganism. Temples for the worship of Apollo, Asclepius, Demeter, Aphrodite and other pagan gods and goddesses were seen daily by the Corinthians as they engaged in the activities of everyday life. The worship of Aphrodite, with its many sacred prostitutes, was a particularly strong temptation. Ichthus: See above, “Interchangeable mother-goddess names” and note on Judges 2:13 below.

Ishtar – Jer 7:18; 44. Zondervan NASB study bible note on Jer 7:18 – children…fathers…women. Entire families participate in idolatrous worship. cakes. See 44:19. queen of heaven. A Babylonian title for Ishtar, an important goddess in the Babylonian pantheon (see 44:17-19,25) (see also the above ‘interchangeable mother-goddess names’: Isis, and the info. on Asherah below). drink offerings to other gods. And sometimes to the queen of heaven herself (see 44:19,25). to spite me. See Deut 31:29.

Bel “lord” (Babylon) – Patron god of Babylon (Is 46:1; Jer 51:44), Merodach (Marduk) title (Jer 50:2). Zondervan NASB note Is. 46:1 Bel.The name “Bel” is equivalent to Canaanite “Baal” (see below) and means “lord.” Nebo. Nabu, the god of learning and writing who was the son of Marduk. Strong’s USGB: King Nebuchadnezzar’s name means “Nebo, defend the boundary”.
[/quote]

The New Testament word for hell – the Greek word transliterated “Gehenna” – has its roots in this very thread. See the references in this thread to “Topheth” in the notes on Jer 7:31 and Is 30:33. This is an excerpt from Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament): Gehenna (#1067) – Mk. 9:43, 45, 48*; Neh. 11:30; Josh. 18:16; 2 Chr. 28:3*; Jer. 7:31*,32 (– the valley of the son of lamentation, or of the sons of lamentation; according to the common opinion [Grk] is the name of a man; Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem [yet apparently beginning on the W. see Josh. 15:8; which was so called from the cries of the little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch, i.e. of an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 K. 23:10*, also see note on 1 Kin 11:5*, which shows a link with the goddess Ashtoreth), that they cast into it not only all manner of refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted with putrefaction, it came to pass the that place was called [Grk] [this common explanation of the descriptive gen. [Grk] is found in Rabbi David Kimchi (fl. C. A.D. 1200). Some suppose the gen. to refer not to purifying fires but to the fires of Moloch; others regard it as the natural symbol of penalty (cf. Lev 10:2; Num. 16:35; 2 K. 1; Ps 11:6; also Matt. 3:11; 13:42, etc.). …and then this name was transferred to that place in Hades where the wicked after death will suffer punishment: Matt 5:22*,29-30; 10:28*; Lk 12:5*; James 3:6*; Matt 23:33; [Grk], worthy of punishment in Gehenna, Matt 23:15*.

Going back to pagan idolatry, or trying to blend it with Christianity, is warned against in the New Testament. See the first three posts in my “Against Gnosticism” thread. See also references in Revelation 2 to Jezebel (an epithet recalling the Jezebel of the OT; see 1 Kings 16:21; 2 Kings 9:22,30-37) and the Nicolaitans, who promoted the syncretism of paganism and Christianity (also see listings on Artemis and Aphrodite, found above). Any time we try to do things apart from God, who is Truth and Love, we mess it up, and it becomes perversion of truth, and corruption of love. Those who forget or ignore the lessons learned in history, are doomed to repeat and relearn them. It isn’t too late to remember and know God. If He hasn’t introduced Himself to you personally – He is with you right now… just acknowledge it and accept Him as a permanent resident in your heart. This thread provides examples of what God is not – but there is plenty in the Word which explains who God is. Check it out. A good starting point is my thread “The Abrahamic Covenant – Backbone of the Gosepl.”

In addition to “Breaking the Da Vinci Code” by Darrel L. Bock, Ph.D (Thomas Nelson, 2004), I highly recommend “Eternity in their Hearts,” by Don Richardson (Regal, 2005).

[ Disclaimer: “god” should be understood like “Santa” when the god being represented is not a demon or Satan, but is instead a figment of the imagination (like Santa). Note: this study does not name every god (little ‘g’) named in or outside the Bible, but it is against them, too. ]

2

The same could be said for the ways the pre-Captivity Jews followed JHVH: wholesale massacres, genocide, cruelty on a scale most people could not even imagine today. But that is hardly an indictment of modern Judaism, which has changed a great deal. (Even the brutalities inflicted by Israel on the Palestinians are as nothing compared to what their ancestors did to the Amalekites and the Phillistines.)

There is nothing else besides these words in your entire long post, Ichthus, that has any relevance for a moden Neopagan. Suffice it to say that today’s Goddess-worshipers are not sacred prostitutes, do not castrate themselves in Her service or ritually whip themselves bloody, do not practice human sacrifice or even animal sacrifice, and in general live in the 21st century not in the early Iron Age.

If you really wish to try to discredit the idea of syncretism, or of the Masks of God, this is not the way to go about it.

3

– Nav

The Hebrews were merciful compared to how their neighbors waged war. Judgment on people who would rather prostitute themselves and sacrifice their children in fire than follow the true God.

The same judgment was applied to the Hebrews/Israelites when they did the same things.

Study end-times prophecy to learn that judgment will occur again.

How many babies do you think are aborted every day? Who needs temple prostitutes when you have access to the Internet in the privacy of your own home?

If neopagans worship the same gods mentioned in this thread, it has relevance for them. If they would rather worship those gods than the true God, they have made their choice.

On the brighter side, see my Abrahamic Covenant – backbone of the Gospel thread. The darkness of this thread is not for those who haven’t chosen false gods, or tried to combine them with the true God.

4

No, they weren’t. Considering that they regularly exterminated whole populations, their neighbors could not possibley have been worse.

The Hebrews never encountered any people who sacrificed children in fire; that has only been claimed about the Carthaginian worshipers of Moloch, and considering that we have only the Romans’ word on it, and the Romans were their sworn and deadly enemies, it isn’t necessarily so.

Are you actually defending slaughtering people because they refuse to “follow the true God”? I want to make sure of that before making the appropriate response to such a chilling statement.

Hardly any. The vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregnancy, and an embryo at that stage is not a “baby.”

Someone has a problem with sex, it looks like to me.

“The same gods mentioned in this thread” no longer exist. Even if one with the same name is worshiped in some groups, it is not the same deity.

And there you go, setting yourself up as an authority on what constitutes “the true God.”

Disgusting. Truly.

5

Navigator – regarding your mention of Carthage, the only place I could find it in my Bible was in a study note on Isaiah 23:7 (my Bible has an index of notes), which reads: "colonize distant places. Carthage in North Africa was a colony of Tyre. Tarshish may have been another."North Africa is a bit out of the way from the Promised Land, no? The Romans were not around at the time of the Conquest, so I’m not sure why you even brought them up, except maybe that you’re toying with me (I get that feeling in the Against Gnosticism thread as well)? It is true that I am no history buff (future college courses will hopefully help remedy that)-- but-- I do enjoy the wealth of history found within the Bible-- so I am grateful for the opportunity your assertions and questions have given me to learn more about this. Thank you.

Study the following on your own: Gen 9:22-27; 12:1-7; 15:13-21; Ex 23:20-33; Numb 13-14; Deut 1-3, 20, 29-34; Josh 2:10; Judg 1-2.

Please note that many absolutely amazing details of the following semi-narrative are, by necessity (length), left out. I totally urge everyone reading this to research it more in-depth on his or her own.

The background of the Hebrews’ link with Canaan (later the land “Israel”) (the inhabitants of Canaan sacrificed their children in the fire, see below) is this: Abram (later “Abraham”) moves with his father, his wife (Sarai, later “Sarah”) and his nephew (Lot) (among others) from Ur in Mesopotamia to Haran (in the settled world of the post-Babel nations, in what is now Iraq). In Haran God gives Abram “The Promise(s)” if he will go with God to “the land which I will show you.” This land is Canaan, which is why it is also called the Promised Land. However, because of a famine, Abram first goes to Egypt (precursor to what would happen later). Isaac is born in Canaan, and Jacob (later “Israel”) is born to Isaac. Jacob flees Canaan out of fear for his brother Esau (back into to what is now Iraq), then flees back to Canaan out of fear for his father-in-law, Laban (Jacob and Esau make amends). Joseph, Judah, and the other ten brothers are born to Jacob in various places amidst all this back-and-forth, all twelve brothers composing the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Eleven of the brothers (although Reuben is not all for it, but keeps the secret) sell Joseph into slavery out of jealousy, and he winds up in Egypt. Joseph gains Pharaoh’s favor by interpreting his dream when no one else could, and Pharaoh makes him governor. The dream he interpreted predicted famine, which allows preparation for it as governor, so his brothers in Canaan have to request grain from Joseph in Egypt during the famine (so widespread it affects both Egypt and Canaan). Because Joseph forgives his brothers, the whole family moves down to Egypt and the Israelites prosper and multiply until a new Pharaoh is in power (200 years after Joseph’s death) who enslaves the Israelites and attempts to decrease their numbers by having their midwives kill their babies. Moses escapes this as a baby and grows up to be used by God to free the enslaved Israelites from Egypt to the Promised Land.

The Israelites are told before even entering the Promised Land to “utterly destroy” the inhabitants of the land so that they could not teach the Israelites to worship other gods (Ex 23:20-33; Deut 7:1-11; 20:17-18). Why? –

Take a moment to recall that when God promised Abram a son in Abram and Sarai’s old age, at the same time He told him his offspring from this son would return to Canaan four generations (400 years) later (after their slavery in a land that is not theirs), when the iniquity of the Amorite is complete (Gen 15:13-21). The Zondervan NASB study note on Genesis 15:16 reads, “Just how sinful many Canaanite religious practices were is now known from archaeological artifacts from their own epic literature, discovered at Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) on the north Syrian coast beginning in 1929. Their ‘worship’ was polytheistic and included child sacrifice, idolatry, religious prostitution and divination (cf. Deut 18:9-12). God was patient in judgment, even with the wicked Canaanites.” To answer your question more directly, Navigator – “Are you actually defending slaughtering people because they refuse to follow the true God?” – The Canaanites serve as an example of what man is capable of, and how God deals with him, when he separates himself from God and goes his own way. When the Israelites arrive to the land God has promised them, the Canaanites are ripe for judgment, and the Israelites are the people God uses to bring about that judgment. The Canaanites are the bad guy in the movie – the one who does all sorts of evil unchecked. The Israelites are the hero in the movie – the one who attempts to put an end to the bad guy, even though it means risking death and becoming like the bad guy as long as he’s still around to influence the hero… so that nobody has to worry about the bad guy terrorizing them anymore. Some may feel sorry for the bad guy and wonder if he could have been reformed. Others point out that it is an insult to the bad guy to assume he didn’t know any better. God is patient with the bad guy, though He is saddened and angered by the choices he’s made. But those who trust the hero’s God, trust Him with the bad guy, too. The only people who hate the hero, are the people who relate more with the bad guy, and want to go their own way – which ends in death, hate, and deception. God’s way is life, love, and truth, and this is seen in His judgment of the Canaanites (and Israel).

Because the Israelites do not trust God when He tells them to enter and take possession of the hill country of the Amorites, God makes them wander around in the desert for 40 years to teach them to trust Him (He supplies their food and water, and directs them in where to go by cloud and fire), until all the generation who did not trust God (though they experienced the miracles of The Exodus from Egypt) have died, and only their offspring are left to enter the Promised Land. Taking over where their parents left off, the Israelites’ first battle is with the king of Arad (Canaanite) – a battle their parents had lost a generation before, because they did not fight in God’s timing (at His commission) – Arad provokes the battle. The next two victories, also provoked, are against Sihon (king of the Amorites) and Og (king of Bashan), both of whom are instigators after Israel requests the freedom to pass through the land of the Amorites. They haven’t even fully entered the land and the Israelites are already engaging in the fertility rites of Baal of Peor and are held accountable (Numb 25:1-9), going on to destroy the Midianites who “caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the Lord” (Numb 31:1-18). Moses dies and Joshua takes over (by God’s appointment… also note that every victory is owed to God, and every loss is owed to going their own way). The Israelites take Jericho… and by the end of the conquest it is clear they have not completely rid the land of its inhabitants, ushering in the time of the judges who are necessary to deliver Israel from those they left alive during the Conquest. What is more, once the generation of the Conquest dies, their offspring succumb to Canaanite influence, worshipping the gods (Baals) of the people of the land. Eventually this leads to their exile from the Promised Land (but they are restored… and there’s lots, lots more to the story, which is still in progress as we speak).

For more information on who was sacrificing their children (atleast sometimes by making them pass through the fire, which was one method of sacrifice), and to whom (and where the one true and loving God stood on this) see: Lev 20:1-5; 18:21; Deut 12:29-31; 18:10; 1 Kin 11:5,7; 16:31-33; 21:26; 2 Kin 3:26-27; 16:3 (same as 2 Chr 28:2-3); 17:17; 21:6; 23:10 (Jer 19:5-15); 2 Chr 33:6; Jer 7:31-32; 32:35. These verses as a source are unbiased, because some of them are self-incriminating. Don’t forget earlier reference the artifacts found at Ras Shamra (“against gods” post). To remember that the names of the gods mentioned are interchangeable with other gods, see “against gods” post. See note on Judg 10:6 and 16:23 as to the Philistines. This page offers a good answer as to the Amalekites:

christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html There’s much more than the quote provides. I haven’t been able to read the whole page yet, as I just found it, but I trust this site in general:

christian-thinktank.com/qamorite.html

– p. 271 essay preceding book of Joshua in Zondervan’s NASB Study Bible, 1999.

Take care,

IXOYE

6

The problem here is that you are using the Bible as your source of information, exclusively.

While I do think that the Bible (particularly to OT) can be viewed as a historical document, it is worth noting that it is also a religious document (d’uh) and its narrators aren’t going to be terribly reliable, with respect to that history.

If I want to make Richard III look like a terrible human being, I could do that incredibly easily if I use Shakespeare’s play. But it is worth remembering that Shakespeare was paid by the Tudors, which was the dynasty that overthrew the Richard’s dynasty! Hardly a reliable narrator, eh?

Of course the Bible is going to say that the other tribes did terrible things and that the Jews were wonderful. But even after white-washing, the actions of the Jews still seem pretty extreme, don’t you think?

I think, rather than comparing what happened in the bronze age with what is going on now, wouldn’t it make more sense to compare modern pagan religions with Christianity? Real religions, mind you, that have been around for over 1,000 or more years. While I won’t discount other, more modern, religions, I will say that they haven’t been around enough nor have enough followers to have much of a history to judge them by.

7

I think you probably know or can guess my response to this issue that is often raised. The actions of the Jews would be “extreme” and indeed punishable if they were carried out in isolation. However, the text states that God specifically requested the slaughter of the people, and indeed he specifically punished the Israelites for not doing so on one occasion.

Granted, this just removes the culpability one step. God killed these people and simply used the Jews to do so. Now, that might still seem pretty extreme to us, but I would argue that it is no more extreme that the idea that most humans will be tortured for eternity by the same God and that’s been part of Christian orthoxody for centuries.

So, it simply boils down to your view of God and man. Is he a good God who is fully justified in carrying out a sentence of death? And is man so degenerate that a sentence of death is no more than he deserves? Christian theology would say “yes” to both questions wheras most modern thinking would say “no” to both questions, creating the offense of the passage in question.

The next issue that someone will no doubt raise is that if God told the jews to kill people and I claim that this is somehow just and fair, could not Christians claim the same today (as indeed unforunately we have done in the past). I would argue “no” since God’s relationship with the Jews is fundementally different from God’s relationship to Christians in almost every manner. The Jew-God relationship is based on hiredity, using an intermediate authoritative leader who communes directly with God in the flesh. The Christian-God relationship is based on choice (faith) with no recognized authoritative leader, and where individual Christians commune with God via the Spirit. Of course the church at various times has managed to blur some of these distinctions and sadly at times has also killed people. But I would argue that this is not normative Christian behavior, nor should it be.

8

How are these interchangeable?

9

While it is just and fair, if God told them to do it and if God is real, the same justification could be used for the displaced tribes even if they did practice those obscene rituals.

But my problem with Ichthus’s post (Ichthi?) wasn’t that the jews were unjustified in doing so, but rather addressing his claim that the Jews were more gentle towards those they displaced than those people were, possibly even to themselves.

Even if that were true (which I honestly don’t know), I wouldn’t use the Bible as an exclusive source on this, since the narrator has a definate interest in how the events are presented – regardless of how justified that interest may be.

10

Precisely for that reason. The only people that I know of who were ever even accused of burning babies to death as a sacrifice were the Carthaginians, and we have only the Romans’ word on that.

It is true that Carthage was founded as a Phoenician colony.

They might as well be, because the basis for the Hebrews’ claim that Canaan was rightfully theirs is irrelevant to this discussion.

All right. That answers it. You are indeed saying that it’s perfectly fine to slaughter people for not “following the true God.”

I’m going to let that speak for itself. Nothing I could say in response to it would indict you here as severely as your own words.

Do you even comprehens that this sentence does not respond in any way to what I said?

No ancient deity is worshiped today by anyone.

I don’t know. Why do modern Christians say they worship the same God who commanded genocide, not to mention the Inquisition, while simultaneously considering these things to be morally wrong?

This is absolutely chilling. I cannot believe you actually believe this. It makes me doubt that you are a person of goodwill.

11

I think that’s a fair position from where you’re coming from.

12

01.04.07.1827

Once again Ich, you’re basing an entire argument on the semantics and anecdotal evidence of the bible… really, if that is all, you have no hope of proving your case here anymore than you did with Gnosticism.

Your method is so bland and out of touch with reality, anyone could come on the site and argue that Christianity can and is completely refutable simply on the holy text of the Bhagavad-Gita. Krishna came before Jesus… boom, instant knockdown without recovery. Do you see where I’m going with this? Please stop while you’re ahead.

13

The problem here is that no one is reading my reply in its entirity. Xunzian and Sagesound, I did use extra-biblical sources (though I haven’t sought them out). I have been shown something that gives me unshakeable faith. I don’t expect you to take my word for it. I pray that you are shown what you need to see if you do not have the strength to reach out for Him yourself, despite internalized peers calling you suckers.

We (Christians) are to be spreading the Good News, the offer of peace… Jesus handles the Judgment when the time is right, and when all who would accept the offer of peace, have accepted it (Who knows if the Last Gentile is a member of ILP?). That is not for us to handle or to judge – we are just the messengers.

Please, I urge you to read my entire reply.

Sauwelios, you asked “How are these [the mother goddess names] interchangeable?” – often when you read of these mother goddesses, the authors will say that she was called ‘x’ in one location by a certain people, and ‘y’ in another location by another people. This does not mean that ‘she’ actually existed as a deity in reality – but that the same concept of a mother-goddess was recognized despite calling it by different names. If a people moved from location ‘x’ to ‘y’ – they also may have called their mother-goddess concept by the name used in location ‘y’.

I will be working on a reply to Navigator’s repeated mention that the God or gods/goddesses of yesterday are not the same God or gods/goddesses of today, from a “conceptual” perspective – but I feel my answer “Why call what you worship by a filthy name” – suffices for now.

I hope that answers you well enough.

– Navigator

9/22. Navigator. Mysteries. Gnosticism. “Look”. What else do you think I haven’t seen? Is your will as good as it could be? There is only One who is good. Look to Him, and He will return a gaze to burn the rotting fake out of you and allow for new growth.

Take care.

14

01.07.07.1839

Are you basing that assumption on the fact that no one has yet to get picky with each an every individual line of text you have typed? Really, what evidence do you have to say that no one has read your reply in its entirety?

And? The problem is you keep linking those sources back to the biblical sources, as if you’re attempting to justify their validity. Navigator said it once, and I’ll say it again… you’re going about this the wrong way.

Well if you don’t share this “something” with us, how can we take your word for it in the first place? Please, share this “something”. I look forward to disproving it.

By the way, I love how you use persuasive words (the art of word twisting) in an attempt to convince. You can always count on a religious person, especially a Christian, to speak persuasively; because they need to. You used “strength to reach out”, implying that if we aren’t Christians, we must be weak-willed or something like that, and ergo unable to will ourselves into believing what you believe, yes? And then of course, the implication that other people (and not naming those people, a great touch as it adds a sense of mystery to it) view us non-Christians as “suckers” is suppose to do what; make us feel lesser than Christians? Perhaps even make us feel bad about not being Christians?

Really, Ich, you need to start over… relying on Zondervan isn’t helping you. If you want us to take the bible as credible evidence for your arguments, you need to first prove that credibility. Unfortunately, you can’t, and you know that…

Is it so surprising Nav? Just about all hardline (real) Christians are so bitter and chilling… They are in fact persons of goodwill… only to other Christians though, and limited goodwill to non-Christians apparently.

15

– Sagesound

The assumption that people were not reading my entire post has to do with the statements claiming I did not use extrabiblical sources.

If you follow the link to the christian-thinktank site, he uses even more extrabiblical sources.

I am going about this the only way I know how… if it is the wrong way… He’ll give me a better way. One change I will make is that I will be selective in which criticisms I respond to. I cannot answer every tiny criticism that is brought to this thread. Many of them are answered by others and are easily sought out by the truly interested. The time I have to devote to this is very limited and I must pick and choose.

Sagesound, I cannot explain what happened to me (atleast not yet), and you cannot disprove it even if I could explain it. Just forget I said that. I spoke out of turn.

I am thinking of leaving this site for personal reasons, and if that is necessary I do apologize for leaving those who care… hanging. But it is in God’s hands.

Take care.

16

Sagesound, I just wanted you to know that I wasn’t calling anybody a sucker, and I wasn’t saying believers call unbelievers suckers. The internalized peer of an unbeliever would be a fellow unbeliever. A phrase such as “religion is the opiate of the masses” – if it popped into your mind when considering taking a leap of faith – would be an example of an internalized peer calling you a sucker.

Yes, I need to persuade you. This is not a bad thing. If I didn’t need to persuade you – that would be bad – because it would mean I want to keep God all to myself – and that I don’t really know what Love is. Don’t make me quote Forrest Gump.

If extrabiblical sources are considered reliable, and the Bible says the same thing as those sources, then that aspect of what the bible says should also be considered reliable… no??? Is that what you’ve been trying to pry out of me? Why can’t you just say that yourself?

If you hadn’t added that statement, you would have seemed more open to this God stuff than you wish to appear… this is encouraging.

Now say something really shocking and button-pushing…

17

01.08.07.1853

I haven’t been trying to pry anything out of you. I’ve been trying to explain to you that your attempts at proving your case are fruitless, given the lack of credible evidence. The so-called “extrabiblical” sources either rely on the bible as a foundation for its case, or have no connection whatsoever. Either way, the sources do not confirm anything of the bible. Provide evidence that exists outside of the spectrum of Judeo-Christian thought that has a connection to anything in the bible, and I will be more than happy to review it. Archeology isn’t going to cut it. So what if there’s evidence that a city listed in the bible once existed? Will you simply turn around and use the bible for evidence as to what occurred at that city, or will you properly investigate the findings of what really happened in history?

I “wish to appear” as you say I do? Really, what evidence have you to suggest this? Regardless, it appears that you do not have as strong a faith as you claim to have. For if you did, you would not hesitate to share your story with us. What is it that you are afraid of? Being proven wrong?

Really Ich, if you have some kind of real evidence for ‘God’ and all, I’m more than ready to see it. The problem is, the probability of such evidence existing is so nill that I consistently look forward to disproving whatever false perception derived by psychology may arise. This problem is not an impairment for me, you see, it is yours.

If you really are going to leave ILP, I’d like to wish you luck in the hopes that you will someday find reason and logic elsewhere. Some people are meant to understand reason and logic… others aren’t. You came to ILP, and you didn’t. Too bad.

18

Actually, if we know that a city existed at such-and-such a time and that an Israeli king lived at such-and-such a time, I think it is quite fair to treat the OT as a historical document. It is at least as reliable as other sources we have from the period.

Now, as I have said before, one needs to consider the agenda of the authors, but if we disregarded every source we considered to be biased in History, the field of History would be poor indeed.

19

Probably not. But I have never endorsed mass murder, either.

20

Absolutely. However, there is a difference between a historical document and a sacred one. Ichthus quotes Biblical passages as if their mere existence settled all debate, and not about historical questions, either. It is that approach which is a nonstarter in this milieu.

I’ve suggested to him before that a Christian forum might be a better home.