Do any of you subscribe to a religion? Honestly i don't know much about religions outside of the desert trilogy. I was raised as a southern baptist, but i haven't practiced in about 8 years. Last year my siblings wanted to go to midnight mass on christmas at the university of Notre Dame and i went with. I found the ceremony to be very beautiful. I also really enjoyed the hymns sung in Latin. As a baptist we never practiced rituals other than eating stale crackers and grape juice out of thimble sized plastic cups about 4 times a year.
It just made me think of all the things i don't know.
Ive been thinking of researching "dead" religions. Dead in the same way Latin is a guess. I wanted to start with the druids, but i found that very little is actually known about them and its all hearsay. What drew me to them was it was European in origin and their beliefs were nature oriented (at least that's what i learned through what I've seen on movies and TV).
What are some other belief systems that fit those two criteria?
So do any of you here have a defined set a beliefs or maybe a conglomerate of ideas that doesn't have a set ideology?
It's too bad the Romans had to go and slaughter, burn, and hack Druid priests, books, and groves out of existence like that. The empire has been so ruthless it sickens me. It would have been fascinating to be able to read all the biology, chemistry, and general science that likely has been written down on books long since burned out of history.
i don't adhere to any religion. Whether or not a god exists has no bearing on my morality or how i view the world. I do not think there is a set meaning of life.
I think each person is responsible for figuring out what their life is supposed to mean.
I only have two tenants that i let guide me
>Who gives a fuck
>Don't be a douche
Basically i try as best as i can to do what i feel like i should do without letting what others think of me influence my decision. The second rule is kind of a limit i place on myself. Doing what i want and not caring what others think can end in sociopathic isolation. It is hard to pin point what i would call being a douche. I think i describe it as going out of my way to be inconsiderate. That would apply to people, animals, and nature in general.
There is no right or wrong way to live. If you want to spend all your time masturbating to chinese cartoons, or have a family, or make a lot of money, or maybe all three. They are all valid ways of spending your life here. I think the only waste would be living your life a certain way because it's not what you want, but what people expected of you. I just add in not being a douche on top of it
I came to this kind of realization after many a decades worth of depression, meds, stay in a psych ward, and therapy.
>Do any of you subscribe to a religion?
I'm a path-maker, not a path-walker. It could still be said to be a religion, though.
>Ive been thinking of researching "dead" religions
To reuse the analogy above, a dead religion is like a path that's been overgrown. In some cases, this is literal - time has in some cases eroded the reliefs, leaving nothing but meaningless smooth stone.
You could get a machete and beat back the bush, but so much will be new that it's basically a new religion.
>I wanted to start with the druids, but i found that very little is actually known about them and its all hearsay
Maybe they had a reason for refusing to allow their stories to be written down.
>What drew me to them was it was European in origin and their beliefs were nature oriented (at least that's what i learned through what I've seen on movies and TV)
>What are some other belief systems that fit those two criteria?
Paganism all looks the same.
>So do any of you here have a defined set a beliefs or maybe a conglomerate of ideas that doesn't have a set ideology?
I've written tens of thousands of words about my religion. It's now too detailed to give a general overview of. I'd rather answer questions about it, but that's rather attentionwhorish and this is your thread.
Wether it is a matter of concern for you or not you make a very good Heathen.
I don't believe in theists religions. To me God or gods are just human inventions. As an occultist however I recognize these man made deities do exist in a real way in our collective mind. To ignore their power is to be unknowing influenced by them.
Try out Zen. It only talks about how life is an illusion of the mind. Don't believe me? I'll have Morpheus explain it to you.
Eh, I dunno about that. I feel like the term Paganism applies mostly to indigenous, polytheistic religions doesn't it? Other than that, yeah you got it, but Buddhism is nontheistic so it's sort of an oddball. Not to go out of my way just to correct you or anything, I'm not trying to be shitty.
I was raised a baptist in the south (but not southern baptist we were ~independent~) as well and now I'm dabbling in and learning about both Judaism and paganism because I got disillusioned with my uncle/pastors weird us against them rhetoric
>inb4 yes goyim yes
YHVH was originally a storm god (these are common local gods; every religion has some of these; if you don't believe me, google it; the wikipedia used to mention this, but someone got butthurt and edited it and I don't care enough to dig up the edit). Just so you know. Probably the place to go if you wanted to connect to YHVH is Israel, unfortunately.
I went to a Thich Nat Hanh monestary, huuuuge place, sparse unassuming buildings on a plot of land that takes up most of the mountains of the I-15 when you enter into San Diego. And I asked them why, in a faith of mindfullness and personal development, are there so many people who get hung up on venerating gold statues fo buddha and making offerings to them? The response I got, aside from the usual zen trollings of "I like this rake, it works very well" was "Why do Catholics get hung up on the Virgin Mary and Saints?" a polite way of saying "they're doing it wrong but to each their own."
Yes I agree that its a non-theistic faith but at its origin Pagan is the Desert Trilogy's way of saying "Not one of us"
They wouldn't let others write it down either, and the Celts knew of the Latin and Greek alphabets.
It was more the fact that the Druids would murder you with the sanction of society if you told anyone anything about them.
From a Christian perspective, yes. From a historical and archeological perspective, no.
Yahweh worship actually predates the Hebrew settlements, among the Canaanites of the bronze age, as a storm god of the same name, and was introduced to those early Jewish tribes by the Edomite tribes who traded with them. Before then, the nomadic future Israelites were worshipping a series of gods, paralleling some local mythologies, generally agreed to be headed up by the goddess Ashera (usually associated with Hathor - which brings us to a certain golden calf).
Over time, as more and more Israelites settled down, a slow cultural transition occurred between the pantheon, headed up by Ashera, and that headed up by Yahweh, to which, at first, he was a lesser god. Various artifacts can be found with depictions of both Ashera and Yahweh, and these progress, with Yahwey starting as but an afterthought or symbol on one artifact also containing Ashera, then on equal footing with Ashera, generations later in another, eventually demoting her to consort of the deity, created by the new monotheistic Yahweh.
In time, she was demoted to consort of the first man, and eventually, further still, thanks in part due to some Babylonian influence, to a mere demon and outcast, known to your better educated Christian's, these days, as Lilith - Adam's wife before Eve.
You see this progression a lot in ancient cultures. A lot of the pantheons of the more nomadic tribes are matriarchal, and as they settle down to agriculture, rapidly became patriarchal. Usually the former female deity becomes a demon or a banished elder god in the process. The Sumerians due this with, with Enlil and Ishtar, the Babylonians with Marduk and Tiamat, among others.
Point is, however, religion evolves - often beyond recognition, both due to politics and cultural influence. Whatever mask your god may wear now, know that it isn't the only one their possession, and invariably, they have worn many.
The Roman's wrote a lot of them down, that's where most of our information on the subject come from. Further, the Catholics not only wrote them down, but adopted them, converting them into various saints that parallel their stories, though often in mix-and-match fashion.
Well, he's right, hell, some of my Jewish friends refer to themselves as pagans or heathen from time to time - though it's usually tongue-in-cheek.
It's an archaic use of the term, however. These days, when someone says "Pagan" they are generally referring to Hellenistic or Celtic worshippers, new age worshippers, or quasi- Satanistic cults.
Been looking into Celtic Pagans (Druids) to OP.
Basically, from what little we know about them...
>They mixed animism and theism
>Every natural thing has a spirit, and some of those spirits can be worshiped.
>For example, the spirit of the river you rely on for water deserves some respect.
>Then there are a bunch of gods who are not necessarily more powerful, but more encompassing.
>For example, Cernunnos, god of wild animals, fertility, and death.
>you get to pick who you worship, just depending on where you live/what your Druid (Druids were the priests, as well as judges, and leaders) told you to worship.
Modern day Druids/Celtic Pagans see the religion as a one on one, personal type of thing. You just try to get closer to nature and spiritualism. Those are the only two concrete rules.
What is it exactly you liked or disliked about the brand of baptism you grew up with?
...as a Unitarian, maybe I can come up with something you'd be comfortable with. There's a lot of flavors of everything, afterall.
Jesus never followed Christianity, he just preached a very Atman is Brahman form of Judaism. You want to understand him better look into Judaism. Christians just focus on the New Testament and 4 books of it at that.
That being said, still not a fan.
>Paganism all looks the same.
By all the gods we've created, even Joseph Campbell wouldn't make such a foolish blanket statement.
The new age movement has tried to harmonize them, certainly, by creating associations between various deities and structures, and scholars do like to classify deities by type and function, just to keep track of them, but in reality, this is the widest varied section of religions there are - even if you don't encompass it into the more traditional "all-non-Christians", and restrict it to classical era polytheists.
I want to believe that the God of Abraham is a powerful alien who chose to reveal himself in human form to Earthlings because he realized that we were the smartest, strongest, most powerful beings in the universe. When we die, he'll somehow transfer those who believe in him to his celestial kingdom, where we'll serve him forever and convert the inferior lifeforms from other planets to our way of life.
No Muslims allowed, though.
Don't Mormons think they'll get their own planet, though? I just want to serve for the glory of the Emperor.
Protip: All the records we have of all the religions, are somewhat suspect... And, despite all the mystery we build up around them, we know more about that druids than many.
...Not that the New Age druids necessarily adopt any of it, and yeah, they do make a lot of stuff up, even if that is derived from some basic precepts, that the druids may or may not have held.
exactly. I'm going off of what little we really do know.
druids I've talked to straight up told me "we don't know, we just go off the basic principles they left behind" Which I admire. None of them will tell you "this is exactly how to do it".
It was actually more along the lines of Egyptian death rites. They buried stuff to use in the next life. (arguably).
Far more than you'll find on the Zaronites, Sumerians, or even some of the lesser Ionic religions. They really aren't as mysterious as we make them out to be.
Hutton was just trying to make his books sell by ignoring the fact that we have far more on these guys than on the more ancient practices of some religions that are still being practiced today.
>The Roman's wrote a lot of them down, that's where most of our information on the subject come from
Very true, but it's from the perspective of a biased outsider. We have records of some of what they did, but not why they did it.
I'm not saying we don't have an inkling about what Celtic religion was about, but the oral stories were supposedly the foundation - we've lost them. We don't have Celtic religion in the words of the Celts themselves.
To use an analogy, imagine if Scientology was wiped off the face of the planet, and all their books burned. From then on, the only reference to Scientologist doctrine was analysis by others.
>Further, the Catholics not only wrote them down, but adopted them, converting them into various saints that parallel their stories, though often in mix-and-match fashion
Which is the problem. Firstly, what we now call 'Celtic' countries amount to one small subset of Celts - in fact, the most technologically and socially primitive of them.
Secondly, the modifications often removed the pagan meanings innate in the stories. The stories might have lived on, but their meaning to the Celts - their embodiment of a worldview where the non-anthropomorphic elements were worshiped as gods - has been lost.
I'll agree to some degree that what we have can be re-viewed through a Celtic lens, and that some of the original meaning can be re-gleaned, but we'll never perfectly reconstruct Celtic religion.
This is why I suggest simply taking what we know of their religion, and using that as the basis of a whole new one. If there's any truth to what they once believed, their worldview's value will shine through despite thousands of years of inattention.
Just sayin, there's far less understood religions that, in many cases, no one seems to find so mysterious.
You can interpret meaning from stories, though you can't tell what any ancient religion actually "meant" to anyone. Even today, what Catholicism meant to someone born before Vatican II vs. someone born well after, indeed, the very nature of God, is very, very different. Further, relationships with God vary wildly among Christians, and it's just as likely, among these scattered and isolated Druidic tribes, so did theirs.
Im the OP and ill try to explain what i didn't like about southern baptists. But i have no idea if what im going to tell you is central to southern baptists or christianity as a whole since its the only kind i know.
One of the biggest qualms i have is why did god create humans. All the Sunday school teachers and pastors i asked gave my cookie cutter responses. It all boiled down to "So we could praise God!". To me that is a bullshit response. It reeks of arrogance and irresponsibility. If you asked someone why they want to have kids and they responded "so they can sing of my glory" you would think they are a narcissistic psychopath.
The second biggest problem is the fact he is all powerful and all knowing. This is more in the lines of a standard criticism of christianity. Why is the world in such a state if god is all powerful? Again i bring this back to parents since we are referred to as god's children. As a parent if you saw your child hungry and starving wouldn't you feed them? If they are being attacked wouldn't you go defend them? If they are sick wouldn't you take them to a doctor to get the healed? Of course you would because you love your children. In fact if you don't you are seen as a monster and sent to prison.
So why are humans who are imperfect and fallible capable of showing more love and care for their children than an almighty god?
The fact that he doesn't makes me feel that even if he were real i would think he is a dick and wouldn't find him worthy of worship. The very fact that we call him omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and he neglects his "children" right there makes me not want to follow him.
I also don't think there is a point to ascribing yourself to a religion where the god isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
So therein lies my problem where i don't see any reconciliation.
OP, this will help with the catholic rituals, at lease with the mass.
We are not supposed to take it lightly and whore it around like how that sect has made it to be
This whole site is probably useful in explaining how wrong they have it when it comes to their thought about the non-existant hell, the indulgences, the rituals, everything.
Not surprising, since you have no idea who God is, what He is doing, and where this is all going.
The only honest criticism of southern baptists that I would tolerate is that they think christianity is a tee-totaling religion. It is not. Islam is. But in the South, it is very common for a person to either go to the bar, or to go to church, and very unlikely that anyone would go to both.
>I also don't think there is a point to ascribing yourself to a religion where the god isn't omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.
Well, right there you've written yourself into a corner. You can't have a god who is all those things, and benign (thus worth worshipping), and demand logic at the same time.
The idea that a god can or should be all these things, is actually kind of new (or, at least, didn't come about until folks started mixing religion and philosophy, and not institutionalized until post Nicea). While you always hear of "all knowing all mighty gods" the stories that surround them make it clear that they are neither. Among the polytheistic religions, even gods with such titles, are constantly vying with one another, and sometimes with other forces. Even in the Christian religion, especially in the old Testament, God is often surprised, needs to test things, even regrets actions, making it clear that he's lacking in one or all of these qualities.
Yet people keep demanding this...
Almost all of them... Even among religions with unbroken lineages, no one has a real idea of what their ancient ancestors really thought or believed, how they applied their beliefs to their actions, how they separated their religious and secular lives, if at all, and what evidence there is tends to nearly always increasingly show, that they are about as far separated from their ancestor's beliefs, as the New Agers are likely separated from the original worshippers of the gods they hold claim to.
The modern Zoroastrians are so splintered mixed up with the Cathars that escaped into their ranks, that they even their basic precepts and symbology wouldn't even be recognizable by their founder. Even the Freemasons, tracing their origins back to the original Babylonian and Alexandrian city builders, have no idea what those ancient peoples actually believed or held dear. What they do believe they know is taken from suspect literature, made up almost entirely of modernized, original observations injected with political intent. Same with the various societies built around ionic cults, that nothing exists of, aside from rumor. Nevermind the native Americans and other aboriginals who are surrounded by ancient symbols that have been interpreted, and reinterpreted over the millennia, often with completely contradictory results between tribes, and only passed on verbally.
Hell, the Kemet can't even agree what race the original worshippers were, and they've got more archeological evidence and written documents at hand than just about anyone.
Growing up southern baptist whenever the whole jesus turning water into wine thing gets brought up, they all say the wine back then was more like grape juice. that it barely contained any alcohol so it would be fine to drink.
Well, it is an extreme example, but while Westboro isn't part of the recognized convention, they consider themselves a Southern Baptist church, and there's a lot of folks who agree with them.
But I suppose you can't blame really a religion for it's members... Given how open to interpretation all religions are, It's what you choose to do with the idea that counts.
Just look at the hate filled arguments that fill the Abrahamic Generals.
Then look at the rational discussions that fill the Pagan Generals.
Its no wonder that the Former is receding in places where the Latter is growing.
Always cracks me up. Like the host of a wedding would be so impressed with really good grape juice. kek
I'm decently sure no convention would have that family of vipers; besides. Fred's dead, man. Fred's dead.
Going to the Origins of Vodka, water from its raw sources if often quite hazardous to drink. Its filled with bacteria and the runoff of farms and livestock.
To counter this is was often mildly fermented. People would drink very very weak vodka as that would kill the bacteria in it.
As the treatment and purity of the water improved the alcohol content would increase as a luxury.
But in no way does this mean that the alcohol that was drank for the purpose of inebriation wasn't of a high %. Look at Dionysus.
Again, less the Christianity and more the way it was taught
>uncle basically spawn of a /pol/tard and Glenn beck
>taught that our brand of Christianity was the only right one
>used God as a cudgel and the sole justification of his political views( liberal Christians are going to hell)
>created a cult of personality and atmosphere of fear ("one day, the government and obahma could decide Christianity isn't PC and ban it and send in men with guns to kill me. Would you take the bullet for God?")
>generally manipulative and greedy
If you eat a grape, by the time you pluck it and put it in your mouth and chew it and swallow it, it has picked up enough yeast and sugar to ferment.
Alcohol confirmed inescapable, and necessary for life functions at minimal levels.
It's also why the Nazarite order could not eat grapes, raisins, or drink wine; it's all the same prohibition.
Ha i didn't realize i made that mistake before you pointed it out. I originally wrote many years. then looking back i realized it was a decade long. Then retyping it out it got confused.
But still it did take about 10 years worth misery and self loathing to get there.
Nio Zen Buddhism was a practice advocated by the Zen monk Suzuki Sh?san (1579-1655), who advocated Nio Zen Buddhism over Nyorai Zen Buddhism. He recommended that practitioners should meditate on Nio and even adopt their fierce expressions and martial stances in order to cultivate power, strength and courage when dealing with adversity. Suzuki described Nio as follows: “The Ni? (Vajrapani) is a menacing God. He wields the kong?sho (vajra) and he can crush your enemies. Depend on him, pray to him that he will protect you as he protects the Buddha. He vibrates with energy and spiritual power which you can absorb from him in times of need.
Its takes a lot of energy from you but i like it
i used to be Nichiren, then catholic before that
>MFW Oni and akuma are based on this religion
Grew up as a practicing Roman Catholic. Eventually read through a combo of medieval mystics like Pseudo-Dionysius and Meister Eckhart, while also exploring Zen Buddhism (and later focused on Taoism).
Basically, what I found was that the medieval Christian mystics tended to strip the Godhead of human description, instead seeing it as Peusdo-Dionysius had put it, 'a cloud of darkness', referring to human unknowing. In a similar, though not identical way, the Tao isn't a 'thing', and any description of the Tao is inherently flawed. Still, the way I see it, they can be surprisingly compatible.
Im 26 now. A lot of my problems came about when i started high school and continued throughout all my teenage years and into my early twenties. Lost a full ride scholarship in college and flunked out and spiraled even further. A little later is when i had a stay in a psych ward. My fellow patients were some of the best people i met. They are some of the only people i had ever met where i felt like i could talk with them. They actually understood. Whenever i tried to explain what i was feeling to just everyday people they didn't understand. With the other patients i only had to speak a few sentences and they understood everything. It helped me understand i wasn't alone.
Finally pulled myself out at around 24. Now im actually getting myself back on track and im in school again finishing off my bachelors.
As far as spoopy threads go i enjoy reading about hauntings or strange creatures.
I don't really have a favorite mythology really. The only thing close would be the salem witch hunts. I just like learning about that time period, and sometimes i wonder if actual bubbling cauldron, potion brewing, incantations, runes and such type witchcraft ever had any power. It isn't something i consider seriously, more of like a thought experiment on how the world would be different if it did exist.
I started out Christian, and realized that religion is pure 100% concentrated bullshit. But this doesn't mean that I lost faith in God. If anything, my faith is strengthened, since I cut out a lot of the bullshit. The church should be a community, not a form of government.
To each man, his own path. If you ask, it will be answered. If you seek, you shall find. If you knock, the door will be opened. Don't be some hipster cunt going after buddhism/hinduism/pagan druidism. Same goes for the neckbeards that "worship" Odin and Thor. Or going full fedora rationalist. It makes you look like a bigger tool than religious people.
"To each man, his own path. Unless it's one that I don't like and then you're a hipster cunt."
looks like we got ourselves a 9th level edge master here
Some people have produced complex and ornate ways of discussing and enacting their beliefs.
>I started out Christian, and realized that religion is pure 100% concentrated bullshit
You were born into a death cult. The doctrines are still keeping you frozen, and dead.
>If anything, my faith is strengthened, since I cut out a lot of the bullshit
What exactly strengthens your faith? Religious experience? A perception of the goodness of man?
>The church should be a community, not a form of government
Community itself is a form of government. Do something it doesn't like, and it will punish you.
Also, it's fundamentally insincere to hold beliefs and then consider them so insignificant that you can abide living in a secular way - a Muslim *must* pray five times a day, dress modestly in the presence of the opposite sex, etc.
The problem is when a religious person insists that all members of larger society conform to their religious rules. Then again, secular society forces religious people to conform to it's secular rules; in the USA, if you're caught with psychedelic drugs, you're going to prison.
In the end, there's only the community, and it can be religious, secular, permissive, or restrictive.
>To each man, his own path
>Don't be some hipster cunt going after buddhism/hinduism/pagan druidism. Same goes for the neckbeards that "worship" Odin and Thor. Or going full fedora rationalist
Unless that path happens to lead you to one of those religions.
I don't have any defined set of beliefs or perscribe to any religion.
Really I think that when you study enough religions and their history a pattern emerges.
The all derive from the same needs. They 'answer' philosophical questions about the meaning of life and the nature of death. They provide a moral authority and structure to civilised life. And they form a social support structure for their members, creating bonds between people of the same faith.
I really don't see the point in spiritualism once removed from these basic religious roots. Which is probably why I consider myself a godless man.
>defined set a beliefs
Basically a lot of what >>14894684 said.
Fuck what others think, but also at least treat people how I'd want to be treated.
Those have pretty much been my life philosophies for years now.
Most people tells me it's ironic that I believe in some paranormal stuff, yet I'm an Atheist. I'm not sure what I believe though, if honest. I'm not 100% sure I believe in paranormal, but I'm pretty sure I don't believe in a God.
This is basic knowledge, among biblical scholars, and in fact, the whole story of Moses is a parable dedicated to the classic struggle of the tribal heads of Israel to bring all Israelites under the Canaanite's god Yahweh in monotheistic form, and pull them from the polytheism of El/Ashera/Hathor and Ba'al.
But just to make you regret asking, to cite a fraction of what I could (maybe more later):
Robert K Gnuse, No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel, Sheffield Academic Press (1997) pp. 74-87
Dever, William G. (2006). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?. Eerdmans. p. 228.
Van Der Toorn, Karel (1995). "Ritual Resistance and Self-Assertion". (Describes evidence of how Saul, an Israeli king of Edomite background, brought the Yahwey cult to prominence on pg 248.)
Wyatt, Nicolas (2010). "Royal Religion in Ancient Judah". In Stavrakopoulou, Francesca; Barton, John. Religious diversity in Ancient Israel and Judah. Continuum International Publishing Group.
Smith, Mark S (2002). The early history of God. Eerdmans. (Describes El as the original deity of Israel, citing at the source of the nation's name, and describes the hybrid relationship between El and Ashera)
Othmar Keel, Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel, Fortress Press (1998); Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Oxford University Press (2001) (More archeological evidence.)
Jacques Berlinerblau, Official Religion and Popular Religion in Pre-Exilic Ancient Israel. (Evidence of tensions between the royal religion of Yahwey, and the polytheistic religion of the common folk.)
Finkelstein, Israel, and Silberman, Neil Asher, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, Simon & Schuster, 2002, pp. 241–42. (Describes Polytheism and the worship of Ashera in Israel.)
"BBC: Bible's Buried Secrets, Did God Have a Wife" (2012)
"Between the 10th century and the beginning of their exile in 586 there was polytheism as normal religion all throughout Israel; only afterwards things begin to change and very slowly they begin to change. I would say it [the sentence "Jews were monotheists" - n.n.] is only correct for the last centuries, maybe only from the period of the Maccabees, that means the second century BC, so in the time of Jesus of Nazareth it is true, but for the time before it, it is not true." - Dr. Ze'ev Meshel
Judges 1:16, 4:11 (Moses' father-in-law was a Midianite priest of Yahweh, preserving a memory of the Midianite origin of the god.)
Exodus 2:- (...yet not a Midianite himself)
1 Kings 18, Jeremiah 2: Describes tensions between worshippers of Yahweh, and worshippers of Ba'al and Ashera.
I may get ya more later, but company coming... Oddly, one of which is named Lilith.
That bit in the bible, where Moses and Ramses II do battle by turning their staves into snakes, and the snake of Moses eats the snake of Ramses, always made me raise an eyebrow. Certainly the Israelites believed in the existence and power of other gods, they just thought Yahweh was more bad-ass than all the others.
Then, later, yeah, there's that whole golden calf thing.
>Certainly the Israelites believed in the existence and power of other gods, they just thought Yahweh was more bad-ass than all the others.
YHVH saying he was a jealous god who didn't want his people worshiping any other gods but him also made that abundantly clear.
So it's not really a matter of him being the one true omnipotent god, in a truly monotheistic sense. They're aware other gods exist which could be considered his equal, and just ignore them.
Thutmoses III, not Ramses II.
And this guy >>14903722 is lying. YHWH was never the god of the canaanites; they were wicked abominations to be judged and executed by YHWH's people.
This is clear on the canaanites own Mesha Stele.
The bible is reliable, always has been, always will be.
And there will always be people lying about the truth it contains, for their own wicked purposes.
And by always, I mean for another thousand years, give or take, and then never again.
Well then you just called the Moses a liar, because the Bible clearly states his father-in-law introduced him to Yahweh, and was a Midianite, who thus brought the worship of the god from Canaan.
Just because the two civilizations had a falling out due to competition over resources, does not mean that they did not have cultural influence over one another, while living in one another's boundaries.
According to the Bible, it was Ramses II, unless you are simultaneously calling the Bible wrong, and reliable (though, actually, it's his priest that does the snake thing). Thutmoses III is the scholarly adjustment to make it work with the timeline.
The Canaanites did not worship Yahweh as the head of their pantheon, but he was but one of their many gods. The Israelite royal families adopted him as their national god.
The other gods are in part demons, obviously. And things men make with their hands. Anything a human being worships as a god is a god.
There is only however One True God, and His name is YHWH.
Search for Ramses in the bible.....no hits.
I live in the land of George Washington. Does that mean George Washington is the President today? No, of course not. But by saying such, you know I live in the USA.
Thutmoses III ftw, @ 1446 BC
No He was not, no matter what any wiki that any pagan can edit says. If you are relying on wiki for the truth, you are a fool.
The Mesha Stele clearly states Chemosh as the canaanite god, and the God of Israel as YHWH.
The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is not the god of the arabs.
What ridiculous lies. What absolute rubbish. YHWH took for Himself a Chosen People, the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. Jabob's name became Israel, and his 12 sons became the heads of the 12 tribes of the Hebrews.
If anybody in that area worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, it was after they got their asses stomped into the ground by the Hebrews, and converted in order to stay alive.
Their views were to provoke people into suing them, successfully defend their 1st Amendment rights, and collect attorney fees from district courts, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, sometimes more.
They're a family of lawyers. Their patriarch thought he was someone in the bible, can't remember who, but he's dead and gone.
It's funny how in the movie Prince of Egypt, they try to imply that the Egyptians didn't really have gods and special powers, but that they were more like stage magicians.
Notice how when they do the snake trick, there's a lot of smoke and lights and stuff. It's obvious that's what the writers were getting at: Smoke and mirrors.
The bible doesn't play games like that. The court magi performed magic and produced serpents; those serpents were then eaten by the serpent that was Aaron's staff.
YHWH absolutely wrecked the entire Egyptian pantheon with plagues and finally the Exodus.
The Bible doesn't actually name the pharaoh. There's some hints to his possible identification, and some extra-Biblical rabbinic discussion, that, for a long time, had people identifying him as Ramses the Great (aka. Ramses II), but that's problematic for various reasons (not the least of which is chronology).
Various Biblical scholars have also put forth: Dudimose, Ahmose I, Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Horemheb, and Merneptah.
Personally, given what I've read, I'm betting on either Dudimose or Merneptah.
Modern Christian interpretation - these days the line of thinking is that the other gods don't actually exist at all... Or, among the more liberal Christians and pantheists, are actually different representations of the same god.
It's a simple matter of faith over evidence. Nothing wrong with that, it's even admirable, in some ways, but the faithful riling against having their interpretation confronted by evidence is par for the course.
Evidence? You call a wiki of canaanite pantheon members "evidence"? Let's play your game. Let's pretend wiki is infallible, as the bible is infallible. Where is YHWH in this list?
List of Canaanite deities
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anat, Virgin goddess of War and Strife, mate and sister of Ba'al Hadad
Asherah walker of the sea, Mother Goddess, wife of El (also known as Elat)
Astarte, possibly androgynous divinity associated with Venus
Baalat or Baalit, the wife or female counterpart of Baal (also Belili)
Ba'al Hadad, storm God, superseded El as head of the Pantheon
Baal-Hammon, god of fertility and renewer of all energies in the Phoenician colonies of the
Dagon, god of crop fertility, father of Hadad (usually).
El Elyon (i.e. God most high) and El
Eshmun or Baalat Asclepius, god of healing (or goddess)
Kathirat, goddesses of marriage and pregnancy
Kothar, Hasis, the skilled, god of craftsmanship
Lotan, serpent ally of evil,Yam
El depicted with two lions representing the planet Venus on the back of the handle of the Gebel el-Arak Knife
Melqart, king of the city, the underworld and cycle of vegetation in Tyre
Molech, God of Fire
Mot, God of Death
Qadeshtu, Holy One, Goddess of Love
Resheph God of Plague and healing
Shalim and Shachar
Shamayim, the God of the Heavens.
Shemesh (in Ugarit the goddess Shapshu), Sun god (or goddess, its gender is disputed)
Yam-nahar or Yam, also called Judge Nahar
Yarikh God of the moon, lover of Nikkal
Where is your god now, pagan?
Every God but YHWH is either something YHWH Himself made, or something that was made by someone YHWH Himself made.
It's all worshiping the creation, and not the Creator.
Even the Greeks, worshiping Zeus and Hera, the mother and father of humanity, were only worshiping Adam and Eve.
>YHWH absolutely wrecked the entire Egyptian pantheon with plagues and finally the Exodus.
That's actually all about something else, it seems. No historical evidence of Jews enslaved in Egypt or any of the plagues, which would have been pretty significant and far reaching.
My personal belief is that the story was altered in order to hide details of a past civilization.
Think we already played that game yonder: >>14903722
And you'd be hard pressed to find a biblical scholar who doesn't believe that Yahweh came out of early Canaan (either has a minor god of storms or metallurgy, depending on whom you ask)... And there's a reason Israel has always been called IsraEl and not Yahewhland.
More likely the story is a parable for a resolution to the internal conflict the Israelites actually had, once upon a time, no doubt written during an era when Israel and Egypt weren't getting along.
It is called Israel because God changed Jacob's name to Israel.
There are no christian scholars who write as you say, only wolves in sheep's clothing. "Liberal scholars." Lost men.
There is zero evidence of what you say is true. Zero.
Just like there's no evidence of evolution, I suppose.
*sigh* I've already referenced several thousand pages and archeological records, so, alas, there's no point discussing it, since you'll just deny the existence of anything I say or cite. I admire your faith, if not your reason.
There is plenty of evidence of robust DNA, natural selection, breeding, and adaptation. There is plenty of evidence that kind always begets kind.
There is zero evidence for abiogenesis.
There is zero evidence for the "Big Bang".
So depending on how you define "evolution", there is either plenty of evidence, or none.
No, I'm not kidding at all, and you're behind the curve. The catholic theory of the Big Bang has already lost believers and they have now transitioned to a series of smaller bangs.
It's all quite ludicrous.
In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1
You should really get that verse into your head, and quickly.
Plenty of dead for the God of the Dead! That's what the God of the Dead wants! More Dead!
So God glutted him on dead followers.
Each of the plagues was aimed at a different Egyptian god/goddess, and each was devastating. That one the most devastating.
Egypt has never recovered.
>The self-hating Jew is news to you?
I dunno, the parable guys generally seemed much better adjusted to me.
I mean if you take the story of the grasshopper and the ants literally, ya kinda lose the point, and get a lot more paranoid about stepping in possibly sentient insects.
I'm talking about evidence, not some religious nonsense here.
There's tons of scientific evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, basically you just have to look trough a telescope.
Also it doesn't contradict any sane take of religion, just because everything clearly exploded from one single point out it originated from, doesn't mean there's no God. Maybe he was the one that made the explosives and lit them up, maybe that's the way he created everything.. bottom line the Big Bang theory doesn't know what was before the Big Bang and does state so.
>I mean if you take the story of the grasshopper and the ants literally, ya kinda lose the point, and get a lot more paranoid about stepping in possibly sentient insects.
>The catholic theory of the Big Bang has already lost believers
They believe in evolution too...
...but I suspect the loss of believers might have more to do with all that child molestation. Well, that, and the spread of education in their strongholds of Latin America, making it difficult to continue to insist on a logically impossible god (omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and benign, in a world of suffering.)
By taking it literally, you would work hard and store up savings for the future, as the ant did, and not sit around and rub yourself all day, as the grasshopper did.
That would be taking it literally. The higher story. Parables always have a lower story and a higher story; the higher story is more important.
you see OP this is why we don't have threads like this.
They always devolve into retards arguing about what you call the "desert trilogy".
They aren't even talking about beliefs at this point. just pointless arguing about some book some sheep herders wrote.
It is kind of sad that they took a thread about people explaining what they believed and commandeered it so they can wave their dick around about how much they know about the bible.
Even though there is already a jew thread where they can wave their dicks without hitting others in the face.
to the OP if you are still here. Try researching some of the old norse beliefs.
That's taking the lesson of the parable.
Taking it literally, would mean you believe the buggers are actually talking to one another.
I wont go into the whole Adam and Eve thing... Or what they really mean by washing of feat, or defeating lions.
In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). It's absolutely possible to believe in God and the Big Bang man. In the paper, "Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing", published in the American Physical Society Journal "Physical Review D" we're presented with mathematical proof that the universe came about spontaneously from nothing. Please don't take on scientific illiteracy you make the rest of us Christians look bad.
Well not you personally with your little telescope, but *you* can look trough the hubble telescope, and galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted. Basically if you look at it you can calculate the movement of the galaxies far away and conclude that they all seem to be coming from one single point..
If you think God works with explosives, be my guest. You appear to want to appease the "scientific" world, and I take what they know as foolishness to God. To each his own, I suppose.
The bible clearly states that the Lord placed the stars in the heavens, named all of them, all of differing glory/intensity, and then stretched forth the heavens with His hands.
His hand spans the universe.
So, if you want to call that a "Big Bang", you're going to have to redefine it in basically theistic evolutionary terms, in which case, you'll find no quarter in either christian or evolutionary circles.
Enjoy being lukewarm!
You do realize the "Big Bang theory" does not include God, don't you? That it is down to either some fluctuation in some foamy time-space gravity induced quantum mechanical warp, or the luck of the draw among an infinite number of multiverses?
Do you honestly think scientists discussing the Big Bang are discussing how God did it?
Only in the bible do you see the good and the bad equally written out. When Sennacharib ran away from Jerusalem after 185,000 of his soldiers turned up dead in the morning, he boasted that he had pinned Hezekiah in Jerusalem!
Of course, his sons noticed that the army was light 185,000 troops, and killed him, and took over, but that was what he engraved in stone. That his siege was effective.
Well I take Genesis 1:1 as the Big Bang.
>you're going to have to redefine it in basically theistic evolutionary terms
I don't believe in the theory of evolution because I feel it doesn't have adequate evidence. I also believe in a young earth so I don't have any reason to go to an "evolutionary circle." What I am simply stating is that what scientists call the Big Bang is something that the bible has stated all along. I don't know why you would think otherwise.
>The bible clearly states that the Lord placed the stars in the heavens, named all of them, all of differing glory/intensity, and then stretched forth the heavens with His hands.
This isn't the start of the universe, this is the formation of the universe and post-big bang so you didn't refute anything.
>You appear to want to appease the "scientific" world
No not really, most naturalists I know scoff at me because of my young earth view and rejection of the theory of evolution.
I was just talking about the Big Bang theory, that only has evidence for a Big Bang happening, and says nothing about what was before the Big Bang, because it's impossible to see evidence beyond the singularity. Of course there are all kinds of other theories that aren't the Big Bang theory, making guesses about what was before, like a multiverse or whatnot. but they don't have any evidence for any of those theories and are not part of the Big Bang theory itself.
The Big Bang theory is supported by sound evidence is all I'm saying, everything else surrounding this theory are just educated guesses.
>Pagans are dumb because they worship statues and believe the gods live on top of a tall mountain
>Christian's aren't dumb because the myths in the Bible are supposed to be taken metaphorically
There are both Christians and Pagans who consider their tales parable, and thus actually learn from them, instead of arguing their genuinity and killing each other.
Not saying that the opposite party is done, just that the more open minded crowd gains more from the literature than fundamentalists attempting to control others with the fine details.
It's one thing to deny what the evidence implies. You can do that and be well within the realm of intellectual validity.
But to deny the evidence exists - that's just false testimony. Even if one was to claim it out of ignorance, it would still be deliberate ignorance. Further, it's derogatory, as you're claiming that all the people who presented such evidence are working on behalf of some great evil, rather than their own pursuits of knowledge.
There's plenty of evidence for all the things you've been railing against (as far back as I care to check the thread), archeological, biological, observational, mathematical proofs, etc. You can deny the implications, as no one alive was there to experience the events first hand (with the exception of kind begets kind, and abiogenesis, but even then, you need a lab). But you can't deny there is evidence from which to draw such conclusions, without outright denying reality. At best, you can provide evidence that counters such conclusions, even if, in most of these cases, you aren't likely to sufficiently outweigh the evidence supporting the existing consensus. Even so, you can still deny the reality of the conclusion, in these cases - just not the existence of abundance of evidence that leads to it.
>who consider their tales parable
I would say it's not a religion to them then. Without the belief it's just another book. As such I wouldn't lump them in with those who do believe.
>("one day, the government and obahma could decide Christianity isn't PC and ban it and send in men with guns to kill me. Would you take the bullet for God?")
my dad said the same kind of thing when I was like 8.
I guess some people are enriched by sacred texts, others lose all touch with reality.
I'm among the former, although I don't really believe in God personally.
Belief, and more importantly, a relationship with God and an understanding of His word, does not require literal interpretation. In fact, literal interpretation makes it impossible, especially when you reach try to dig into the more esoteric lessons of each religion.
>Adam and Eve
It's about SEX and LOSS OF INNOCENCE, you idiots! I just made it a little obscure so as not to scar your kids. I didn't put the first two people in a garden with a talking snake to bring about 7 billion people a few hundred generations later!
For the love of me, it's like you guys never ate that damn apple.
Well, there's a lot of esoteric symbolism in there too, which you similarly can't get at, if you take the story literally. Fruit of Knowledge, Tree of Life, the snake, et. al.
The Bible is actually pretty cleverly written, if you know what to look for, if not well assembled, thanks to some of the folks at Nicea having political goals.
>Only in the bible do you see the good and the bad equally written out.
You should read some of the Greco-roman legends. Granted, everyone's an asshole in those. Seems that was kinda par for the course for most stories, up until Virgil.
True for the Babylonians, and especially of the Sumerians. Not so true for the Egyptians or the Hindus. Though, the Hindu heroes do awful things once in awhile, and which Egyptian gods are the big-bad varies a bit from period to period (as well as with the weather) - and even then, they still get openly worshipped, as they serve specific functions.
But yeah, Hellenistic "heroes" are some of the biggest dicks around, and the whole world seems to be designed and controlled by a comity of semi-omnipotent pricks with serious family issues. Homer must have had a really dim view of the world.
I am a Buddhist believing in Shamanism and Tengriism too.
I appreciate you responding so generously with all these books. I can only read tidbits of these online for free, few of any of which contain the actual pages you point out, which is slightly frustrating. You're far more knowledgeable about the schools of thought about this all than I am, so I'm frankly unable to bring you any worthwhile responses at this time and certainly in this thread. While I disagree about the conclusions you drew and have my own views about how I would go about interpreting certain discoveries, there's no good arguments I can put up until I dig up more information on these books or, god forbid, actually buy some of these books. I wish I was still in college so I could have free access to scholarly sources.
Sorry for the late response. I forgot about this thread since /x/ is so damned slow.
>The people at Nicea had little to do with the old testament. All that shit was already established and preserved. See the dead sea scrolls.
Exactly the opposite my ill-informed friend. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that Nicea opted to axe 48 pages from the Old Testament. Granted, we already knew this, not only thanks to the Torah, but due to reports of Nicean debates. It's not a secret that Nicea axed several books from the Bible, (including some not found in the DSS), but some modern people just live in denial. The Protestants, of course, axed several more books in turn, so, depending on which Bible you are going by, you maybe missing as many as a few dozen books.
But the non-biblical portion of the scrolls also shed doubt on a great number of other commonly healed beliefs, such as origins, canonical gospel, and its originality.
Well, that's why we have canonical and noncanonical biblical texts - that's what the debates at Nicea were all about - which texts were and weren't "enlightened". This includes the both old and new testaments.
...And the Jews did the same thing with the Torah, there are extra-biblical texts old testament texts that aren't found in the Torah either.
When you read them, a lot of the 'holes' in the biblical narrative get filled. Particularly the book of Enoch - there's a whole lot of inconsistencies and mysteries that crop up as a result of that book being removed. I never did study up on the exact motivations to do so. ...or maybe I did and it's just slipped by mind, been awhile.
>[removal of The Book of Enoch] I never did study up on the exact motivations to do so
I believe the text also suggests, to some, that both Luke and Michael, were mistranslating certain prophecies and applying them to Jesus retroactively. Gives the Christian motivation at least. For the Jews, it also touches on the nature of the rabbi's, suggesting some of the institutional religious structure is, how shall we say, not entirely kosher.