Polytheistic origins of christianity

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Lol I just got the ability to like and edit posts last night. Just found out there is a like limit ROTF! I was trying to like everyone's replies and it popped up. 

 

"You are only allowed 10 likes per day"

 

Damn commies! (Just kidding)

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

TRP,  you are obviously a know-nothing doosh concerning all things Biblical. You have no idea how long a morning or an evening lasted back then!

According to the second law of Thermodynamics, everything is circling the drain towards chaos, just as God said it would. These things go in cycles just as God determined they would. For example, look at how our own days get shorter in winter. Duh!

 

I see that you are using what you think is some kind of really smart sarcasm to make a point but the truth is that God will not be mocked, even though many here are mocking God, so there. 

 

 

 

The second law of thermodynamics is also complete bullshit.  It is far more rational to believe in Intelligent Degradation.  Since the universe quite obviously had an Intelligent Designer, then only a fool would believe that the increasing chaos and randomness we observe is not also part of the Intelligent Destiny.

[duderonomy]

20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The second law of thermodynamics is also complete bullshit.  It is far more rational to believe in Intelligent Degradation.  Since the universe quite obviously had an Intelligent Designer, then only a fool would believe that the increasing chaos and randomness we observe is not also part of the Intelligent Destiny.

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics/Intelligent Degradation... Put any label on it you want, but it's obvious that we agree that this kind of death and destruction of the universe itself was designed by a real thinker that will step in at the last possible second and save the day, as the Bible clearly points out.

 

So what's your point?

[LogicalFallacy]

17 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics/Intelligent Degradation... Put any label on it you want, but it's obvious that we agree that this kind of death and destruction of the universe itself was designed by a real thinker that will step in at the last possible second and save the day, as the Bible clearly points out.

 

So what's your point?

You sure you are not taking what we observe and post hoc applying it to the bible? If a person could read the bible without any prior knowledge what would they expect to see in the 'cosmos' versus what is actually seen? Taking what is ACTUALLY seen, then finding parts in the bible that with some interpretation can line up with it is post hoc rationalization.

 

The universe is going to heat death, the bible says armageddon is coming, therefore Revelations is all true and Christ is coming on a white horse with 10,000's of his saints.... I hope God has read the charge of the light brigade because charging horses against machine guns is not good for the horses or their riders!

 

(PS Muhammad's flying horse was white (And was ripped straight from Greek mythology!) 

[duderonomy]

Ha! I was just goofing off. Trying to be funny and failing miserably, I guess.  

[LogicalFallacy]

Yeah, I got that - I was taking your devils advocate and reversing it... also trying to be funny.

 

Shall we both agree we failed? 

[sdelsolray]

If monotheism is defined as one and only one supernatural deity, then I think all religions, past and present, are polytheistic.  By adding other supernatural agents, such as angels, sprites, demons, sons, holy ghosts, saints, etc., the religion becomes polytheistic.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am unaware of any religion which does not have more than one supernatural agent.

 

It's so convenient, why wouldn't they?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Del,

     Ha! that's true. Never really thought about it that way. 

 

DB

[duderonomy]

1 hour ago, sdelsolray said:

If monotheism is defined as one and only one supernatural deity, then I think all religions, past and present, are polytheistic.  By adding other supernatural agents, such as angels, sprites, demons, sons, holy ghosts, saints, etc., the religion becomes polytheistic.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I am unaware of any religion which does not have more than one supernatural agent.

 

It's so convenient, why wouldn't they?

 

But if (in the Christian religion) the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one, and the angels and sprites and demons and saints, etc. are his creation as the Bible explains, how does this invalidate Christianity as a monotheistic religion? 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Ya know it seems the old mythology repeated itself over and over again. It's especially evident in the Catholic Church. I was reading in the old mythology that Baal the son of El ended up becoming the greater God and EL faded into the background. The same happened with the mythology of yahweh the son of El. Fast forward a bit. And Jesus is the figure head now and God has kinda taken a back seat. 

       In the Catholic Church they believe worship God and jesus, but they also have a plethora of Saints to pray to aswell. That's reminiscent of the Elohim Pantheon mythology. 

      But I think the Catholic saints were more influenced by greek mythology than the original pantheon of EL. In order to convert all the Romans over to the new Christian beliefs in the era of Constantine.

 

DB

[readyforchange]

On ‎3‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 0:21 AM, DarkBishop said:

 

 

Very interesting Ready,

         I went to my bible app to compare other versions of the bible and saw that it could be taken as a great Wrath from God or Man. Which most likely a Christian would say that it wasn't a Wrath caused by there God but that Wrath filled the hearts of all the moabIte soldiers.. but I checked out a few different versions of the bible to see what context it was interpreted in and found this in the NET version for verse 27.

 

 So he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him up as a burnt sacrifice on the wall. There was an outburst of divine anger against Israel, so they broke off the attack and returned to their homeland.  (NET)

 

This tells me that taking the whole verse in context that yes it was definitely believed that the sacrifice of the kings firstborn brought down the power of another God against isreal. 

 

Well damn, all those times I preached that those God's couldn't hear or see....... looks like I was wrong. Maybe I should go visit some old churches and preach the word again correctly next time. Lol. Bet that wouldn't go over very well!

 

DB

 

 

Also consider the context of the entire chapter.  In 2 Kings 3:18-20, Elisha prophesizes that Yahweh will hand over the Moabites to the 3 kings (of Israel, Judah, and Edom).  When the armies of the 3 kings battle the Moabites, many of the Moabite soldiers are killed and the Moabite cities are destroyed.  Everything is going really well for Israel, Judah, and Edom, and they on the way to soundly defeating the Moabites.  Then comes verse 27, where the king of Moab sacrifices his first-born son as a burnt offering to Chemosh, and then a great wrath comes against Israel and Israel's allies (reading from the AMP translation). 

 

So why would a great wrath come upon Israel, Judah, and Edom all of a sudden?  I think the human wrath explanation is a stretch here.  The text does not indicate the Moabites themselves brought a wrath directly on the people of Israel, Judah, and Edom.  Rather, the Moabite soldiers were in the process of being soundly defeated in battle.  If the Moabite soldiers are losing the battle and being killed, then how are they bringing a wrath against anyone? 

 

If the wrath is from a god, and if there is only one god, then the great wrath against Israel, Judah, and Edom has to originate from Yahweh, correct?  To focus on Israel, there are many times in the bible when the Israelites disobey commandments and Yahweh is angry at them, but why would Yahweh be angry at Israel here?  Earlier, Yahweh stated that he will hand over the Moabites to them.  And everything was going according to plan, until the king of Moab sacrifices his son.   So why would Yahweh bring a great wrath against the Israelites after the king of Moab sacrificed his son to a god that does not exist?  Why would Yahweh bring or allow wrath against the Israelites after an act that was committed not by the Israelites, but by a different nation?

 

Also, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son Issac to Yahweh, and Yahweh greatly blesses Abraham for not withholding his son from Yahweh.  So I can see how for the author of 2 Kings 3, the act of sacrificing or the willingness to sacrifice a son to a god could be seen as a major power play in a battle/conflict in favor of that god. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

From what I have always heard and preached from the pulpit, this would not be possible.. yet here it is in black and white. I wander how many pastors, priests, and evangelists have come across this scripture and had to do a double take. Of course I'm sure most the time it gets chalked up to the ole, "God will reveal it's meaning in time" or like I said before they would interpret it as a Wrath from the moabites themselves and not from their God. At least that's how I would have explained it. Then quickly returned to the message of God conquering his people's enemies.

 

If we were able to dig deeper into the Elohim mythology we may even find a parallel to this story where an enemy, maybe even the same enemy, offered their son as a burnt sacrifice with the same effect. I saw some videos that you guys have already posted in other threads that read verses from psalms before it was reinterpreted with almost exact parallels but obviously written during the time of the pantheon.

 

Ya know. I know this is way off topic but, there have been several women I've known in the past that stayed with and probably still are with some very sorry ass husbands, all for the sake of "doing what God would want them to do". It's really sad wheen you know people that would be so much better off if they didn't have to live under their religious theology, but your powerless to do anything about it because this is really something that has to be realized on a personal level. The majority will not be able to break away from it having been taught that way their whole lives.

 

DB

[readyforchange]

3 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

From what I have always heard and preached from the pulpit, this would not be possible.. yet here it is in black and white. I wander how many pastors, priests, and evangelists have come across this scripture and had to do a double take. Of course I'm sure most the time it gets chalked up to the ole, "God will reveal it's meaning in time" or like I said before they would interpret it as a Wrath from the moabites themselves and not from their God. At least that's how I would have explained it. Then quickly returned to the message of God conquering his people's enemies.

 

Ya know. I know this is way off topic but, there have been several women I've known in the past that stayed with and probably still are with some very sorry ass husbands, all for the sake of "doing what God would want them to do". It's really sad wheen you know people that would be so much better off if they didn't have to live under their religious theology, but your powerless to do anything about it because this is really something that has to be realized on a personal level. The majority will not be able to break away from it having been taught that way their whole lives.

 

DB

Hey DB.  I forgot to mention the human wrath aspect and was editing my post when you replied!  I think the human wrath explanation is a real stretch here.  The text does not indicate the Moabites themselves brought a wrath directly on the people of Israel, Judah, and Edom.  Rather, the Moabite soldiers were in the process of being soundly defeated in battle.  If the Moabite soldiers are losing the battle and being killed, then how are they bringing a wrath against anyone?   

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

26 minutes ago, readyforchange said:

Hey DB.  I forgot to mention the human wrath aspect and was editing my post when you replied!  I think the human wrath explanation is a real stretch here.  The text does not indicate the Moabites themselves brought a wrath directly on the people of Israel, Judah, and Edom.  Rather, the Moabite soldiers were in the process of being soundly defeated in battle.  If the Moabite soldiers are losing the battle and being killed, then how are they bringing a wrath against anyone?   

 

Just to play Devils advocate here. Your right it is a stretch. But to a Christian the alternative and more likely interpretation is unacceptable.

 

If I were still preaching and trying to use this scripture then I would interpret it as the moabites hearts were filled with Wrath toward isreal and turned away being defeated. The main topic of the message would have been how God conquered his chosen people's enemies, then transferring over to relate it to a christians everyday life I would have related it to "if God be for us, who can be against us" assuring the whole congregation of gods devine power. And of course I would not have left out how "if we ask anything having faith that it would be granted unto us. Etc etc.

 

DB

[readyforchange]

On ‎3‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 0:23 AM, DarkBishop said:

 

Just to play Devils advocate here. Your right it is a stretch. But to a Christian the alternative and more likely interpretation is unacceptable.

 

If I were still preaching and trying to use this scripture then I would interpret it as the moabites hearts were filled with Wrath toward isreal and turned away being defeated. The main topic of the message would have been how God conquered his chosen people's enemies, then transferring over to relate it to a christians everyday life I would have related it to "if God be for us, who can be against us" assuring the whole congregation of gods devine power. And of course I would not have left out how "if we ask anything having faith that it would be granted unto us. Etc etc.

 

DB

Thanks for sharing.  Yes, I think from a Christian standpoint, all of the Biblical text is automatically interpreted as being divinely inspired and true.  To the point it  becomes so ingrained to where the thought never arises or occurs to someone that the text could be anything other than divinely inspired.  During the time you were a preacher, did you ever experience cognitive dissonance while preaching a sermon, or ever feel that you did not really believe the message you were preaching? 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

6 hours ago, readyforchange said:

Thanks for sharing.  Yes, I think from a Christian standpoint, all of the Biblical text is automatically interpreted as being divinely inspired and true.  To the point it  becomes so ingrained to where the thought never arises or occurs to someone that the text could be anything other than divinely inspired.  During the time you were a preacher, did you ever experience cognitive dissonance while preaching a sermon, or ever feel that you did not really believe the message you were preaching? 

Your absolutely right. In all of the churches I was a member of it was considered the infallible word of God. Even worse in most all the churches I attended they wouldnt even accept another translation other than KJV. But even that has been revised to a more modern english than the original 1611 version. In the Gospel Assembly they went to great lengths to explain the bible from a completely different perspective effectively eliminating various contradictions In the bible. But then like all others there were some teachings that still just couldn't be made to fit. 

      To answer your question. Yes there were times that I would be studying that I would see things contrary to what I was being told. Sometimes I would still try to preach it the accepted way telling myself that there was just something I hadn't seen yet, that other preachers had. But during those times you can't preach with conviction unless you truly believe what you are saying. 

     A couple of the biblical accounts that I had issues with after I had been in the church for a few years were the story of the tower of Babel, and the flood of Noah. For a long time I would say that I thought that the flood killed the dinosaurs and not a meteor.  But then I started to realize that for one my thoughts didn't fit biblically because Noah supposedly took 2 of EVERY animal. Also it didn't fit the time line. Scientists put that event at 65 million years ago. Not 6,000. So that gave me issues about preaching it and hearing it preached. Also I couldn't for the life of me figure out how it would be possible to repopulate the earth with only two of every kind. Also why couldn't God just poof. Make em again instead of going through the trouble of building the ark.

       I think I was actually preaching when the tower of babel confusion hit me. It came to me that...... hold on..... God had an "issue" with people building a tower to heaven because he saw that together there was nothing we couldn't do. So he confused our lanquages.......

          But he was OK with us going to the moon, surrounding the earth with satellites, sending satellites and rovers to the fartherest planets in our solar system, having people living in a spacestation above earth, and putting telescopes in space so we could see into galaxies lightyears away from us??......... so from then on I didn't even preach on the tower of babel Cuz I knew it had to be a fairy tale. 

        There were other issues obviously or I wouldn't be here talking to you but those were a couple of the first. 

        I think the farther and farther we get away from the time of Jesus, that people will start to realise more and more that they need to start asking questions. And not accept the generic answers that are given to them. But the bad thing is that even that fits a biblical prophecy. 2thessolonians ch. 2. Paul tells of a great falling away that will happen before Jesus returns. I think that will be enough to make people hold on for a lot longer. 

 

DB

[LogicalFallacy]

On ‎11‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 5:49 PM, DarkBishop said:

Ya know it seems the old mythology repeated itself over and over again. It's especially evident in the Catholic Church. I was reading in the old mythology that Baal the son of El ended up becoming the greater God and EL faded into the background. The same happened with the mythology of yahweh the son of El. Fast forward a bit. And Jesus is the figure head now and God has kinda taken a back seat. 

       In the Catholic Church they believe worship God and jesus, but they also have a plethora of Saints to pray to aswell. That's reminiscent of the Elohim Pantheon mythology. 

      But I think the Catholic saints were more influenced by greek mythology than the original pantheon of EL. In order to convert all the Romans over to the new Christian beliefs in the era of Constantine.

 

DB

 

Yes, I was thinking about this thread the other day in relation to some thoughts I was having about how often the same symbols, numbers and the set up of religions work.

 

Example in many religions the sun, moon and Venus are important factors (A trinity no less) as is the number 3. And from this flows many aspects of religion in which the sun god is the greatest etc.

 

Also the structure, so in many polytheistic religions you have a great god (Think Ra or Zeus) and gods under them, and the almost anti gods. In Christianity its the same, you have God, Satan (aka Lucifer aka Devil), powerful angels under god, Wormwood, Gabriele etc.

 

So Christians can try and claim that their religion is a one god only, but lets face it Christianity is polytheistic as well. Just instead of saying God of the underworld, they say Satan. Also in many religions a supreme God creates the other gods and humans etc - heard that one before?

[Joshpantera]

On 3/8/2017 at 6:27 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We don't actually get many christians here anymore.  We used to--OrdinaryClay, Gus, funguyrye--now we're lucky to get a drive-by from thumperina once every six months, End3 won't admit he doesn't really believe his own bullshit anymore, and Ironhorse can't be bothered to answer simple questions.  The holy spirit is really scraping the bottom of the barrel these days when it comes to witnesses.

 

I was wondering what became of the token apologists while I was off on hiatus. I guess they all sort of realized that it's a loosing battle one way or the other. 

 

Nothing now but preaching to choir and in house squabbles....

[readyforchange]

18 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Your absolutely right. In all of the churches I was a member of it was considered the infallible word of God. Even worse in most all the churches I attended they wouldnt even accept another translation other than KJV. But even that has been revised to a more modern english than the original 1611 version. In the Gospel Assembly they went to great lengths to explain the bible from a completely different perspective effectively eliminating various contradictions In the bible. But then like all others there were some teachings that still just couldn't be made to fit. 

      To answer your question. Yes there were times that I would be studying that I would see things contrary to what I was being told. Sometimes I would still try to preach it the accepted way telling myself that there was just something I hadn't seen yet, that other preachers had. But during those times you can't preach with conviction unless you truly believe what you are saying. 

     A couple of the biblical accounts that I had issues with after I had been in the church for a few years were the story of the tower of Babel, and the flood of Noah. For a long time I would say that I thought that the flood killed the dinosaurs and not a meteor.  But then I started to realize that for one my thoughts didn't fit biblically because Noah supposedly took 2 of EVERY animal. Also it didn't fit the time line. Scientists put that event at 65 million years ago. Not 6,000. So that gave me issues about preaching it and hearing it preached. Also I couldn't for the life of me figure out how it would be possible to repopulate the earth with only two of every kind. Also why couldn't God just poof. Make em again instead of going through the trouble of building the ark.

       I think I was actually preaching when the tower of babel confusion hit me. It came to me that...... hold on..... God had an "issue" with people building a tower to heaven because he saw that together there was nothing we couldn't do. So he confused our lanquages.......

          But he was OK with us going to the moon, surrounding the earth with satellites, sending satellites and rovers to the fartherest planets in our solar system, having people living in a spacestation above earth, and putting telescopes in space so we could see into galaxies lightyears away from us??......... so from then on I didn't even preach on the tower of babel Cuz I knew it had to be a fairy tale. 

        There were other issues obviously or I wouldn't be here talking to you but those were a couple of the first. 

        I think the farther and farther we get away from the time of Jesus, that people will start to realise more and more that they need to start asking questions. And not accept the generic answers that are given to them. But the bad thing is that even that fits a biblical prophecy. 2thessolonians ch. 2. Paul tells of a great falling away that will happen before Jesus returns. I think that will be enough to make people hold on for a lot longer. 

 

DB

 

Chuches that give the KJV a special status is like arguing a moot point.  It's been a minute since I researched it, but I think there was a second version of the KJV, known as the authorized version, written a few years after the original KJV.  Also, I understand the New Testament of the KJV was not translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts, but instead from later Latin ones.  So the KJV includes passages that were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and are now known to be late additions, such as the longer ending of Mark (16:9 - 20) and the pericope adulterae (John 7:53 - 8:11).  And these passages appeared in the printed KJV translation for centuries with no marking or footnotes denoting this. 

 

Appreciate your candidness on the difficulty of preaching sermons when you may not fully believe the message.  There are times I have been in church and wondered whether the pastor was fully into the content of the message.  I remember once there was a guest pastor who gave the sermon at the church I attend.  His bio stated that he had either a master's or a doctorate from a more mainstream theological seminary, so I am fairly sure he studied the bible using the historical-critical method.  During his sermon, one point he tried to make was that after Jesus' resurrection, Paul and the apostles believed that Jesus would return soon, but God could not tell them when.  His rationale was that if they knew that Jesus would not return soon and that it would be almost 2,000 years later before Israel became a nation again, this would have discouraged Paul and the apostles.  But to me, it just did not seem like he authentically believed what he was saying.

I thought the exact same things about the Noah flood story and the Tower of Babel story.  You have very similar flood stories, such as the one in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the story of Atra-hasis, that predate the Noah story in Genesis.  According to the multiple-source theory of the Torah, the text shows that there were two flood stories merged together, or a second later author (P, or Priestly source) supplementing the story.  The first story had Yahweh tell Noah to bring two of every animal (J, or Yahwist source) but P realized Noah needed to be able to perform the required animal sacrifices while he and his family were on the ark, so P added the seven pairs of clean animals, plus the two pairs of the unclean animals (Genesis 7:2).  With the Tower of Babel story, in addition to the question of why humans can now fly planes, visit space, build skyscrapers, etc., there is also the rationale from Yahweh that he needed to confuse the languages for humans, so that we would not understand one another's speech (Genesis 11:7).  If humans are not supposed to understand each other's speech, then that command has definitely failed.  Maybe an apologetic explanation is that since this was OT, it no longer applies today.  But you had people who were multi-lingual and language translation well before the time of Jesus.  The Septuagint should not have been possible, for example.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

7 hours ago, readyforchange said:

Chuches that give the KJV a special status is like arguing a moot point.  It's been a minute since I researched it, but I think there was a second version of the KJV, known as the authorized version, written a few years after the original KJV.  Also, I understand the New Testament of the KJV was not translated from the earliest Greek manuscripts, but instead from later Latin ones.  So the KJV includes passages that were not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and are now known to be late additions, such as the longer ending of Mark (16:9 - 20) 

That would explain a few things. Differences in wording were the main excuse for not accepting any other version. The Gospel assembly critisize a bible over one word that was different from different publishers of the KJV. I guess they felt it endangered their Interpretation of this specific topic. (IE) in 2tim3:17 I'm going to copy and paste 14-17. The Gospel assembly believe that a person can be perfect as Jesus was supposedly perfect. They recognised it as a growing process and that at times you would do things you didn't realise were sin. But after asking forgiveness for that you knew not to repeat that same sin. Eventually you would be able to walk perfectly as Christ walked. And this was one of there key scriptural proofs. And part of their support for the KJV only.

 

2Tim3:14-17

 14  But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

 15  And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

 17  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

 

Some publications say thoroughly instead of throughly. I was convinced to replace my favorite bible because of this discrepancy. It couldn't be trusted if it didn't have the correct wording. Actually kinda saddened me because it was the bible I had studied and preached out of since my conversion. I kinda felt that really it was basically the same meaning....... but ok ?. I never did find a bible as good. 

 

Another scripture to justify using only KJV was this scripture. 

 

Mark 13:9,10

9  But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.

 10  And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

They believe since KJV was the first to be published among all nations, according to the prophecy of Jesus, then it's the only accepted version. Interestingly enough other versions say .

Mark 13:10

BBE And the good news has first to be given to all the nations.

EasyEnglish And you must first tell the good news to people in every country.

ISV But first, the gospel must be proclaimed to all nations.

KJV And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

NET First the gospel must be preached to all nations.

NHEB The Good News must first be preached to all the nations.

WEB The Good News must first be preached to all the nations.

 

In this case I think the KJV had it wrong.

 

7 hours ago, readyforchange said:

 

 

Appreciate your candidness on the difficulty of preaching sermons when you may not fully believe the message.  There are times I have been in church and wondered whether the pastor was fully into the content of the message.  I remember once there was a guest pastor who gave the sermon at the church I attend.  His bio stated that he had either a master's or a doctorate from a more mainstream theological seminary, so I am fairly sure he studied the bible using the historical-critical method.  During his sermon, one point he tried to make was that after Jesus' resurrection, Paul and the apostles believed that Jesus would return soon, but God could not tell them when.  His rationale was that if they knew that Jesus would not return soon and that it would be almost 2,000 years later before Israel became a nation again, this would have discouraged Paul and the apostles.  But to me, it just did not seem like he authentically believed what he was saying.

 

  

No problem, I am getting more comfortable with my deconversion and have nothing to hide. It was a good question and deserved a truthful answer. I won't claim in any way that I have the background that you noted on this pastor. From what you said it does look like he was suffering from what I suffered at times.

          A lot of smaller southern churches don't necessarily want a preacher who was taught in college how to preach, believing that if you are truly called to preach then God will speak through you. All you need is a bible. And of course you have to study. I think that in some ways when a man feels on fire for God and answers the call to preach, if he goes to seminary he may learn things there that make him start questioning the bible all together like us.

        In the Gospel assembly you had to study and preach while on trial under another elder preacher of the church. Learning their doctrine. It wasn't a good feeling when you were "talked to" privately after delivering a sermon they felt didn't convey the message just right. And you would know it was coming because an elder preacher would get up preaching after you to "clarify" your sermon.

      Now looking back on it I can see when I converted to The Gospel Assembly, in truth I had been snared by a cult. All they need is the secluded compound to go with it. And at one time they had plans to do just that. But that is another topic all together.

 

7 hours ago, readyforchange said:

If humans are not supposed to understand each other's speech, then that command has definitely failed.  Maybe an apologetic explanation is that since this was OT, it no longer applies today.  But you had people who were multi-lingual and language translation well before the time of Jesus.  The Septuagint should not have been possible, for example.  

 

I know right? Lol. I bet Jewish scholars were having issues with this even back then. I wonder what there excuses were? 

 

DB

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I was wondering what became of the token apologists while I was off on hiatus. I guess they all sort of realized that it's a loosing battle one way or the other. 

 

Nothing now but preaching to choir and in house squabbles....

Yeah when I posted this I was really wanting a Christian viewpoint on the subject. I know this same topic is in another forum. But figured a Christian would feel more comfortable talking about it in this one. 

      Like I said, this subject is what put the nails in the coffin of my faith. There is no way I can support a theology that condemns polytheistic belief systems and has its foundations in polytheism itself. I never liked hypocrites. So in light of this, the whole bible is a complete hypocrisy. 

 

DB

[♦ ficino ♦]

3 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Yeah when I posted this I was really wanting a Christian viewpoint on the subject. I know this same topic is in another forum. But figured a Christian would feel more comfortable talking about it in this one. 

      Like I said, this subject is what put the nails in the coffin of my faith. There is no way I can support a theology that condemns polytheistic belief systems and has its foundations in polytheism itself. I never liked hypocrites. So in light of this, the whole bible is a complete hypocrisy. 

 

DB

Hey DarkBishop, from the reading I've done, such as it is, I'd say that the approach of Christian apologists in the first centuries, when the Roman empire was still "pagan," was pretty much just to say that the gods of the heathen are either just blocks of wood or stone or imaginary animals, or to say that they are demons. Or both. Later on, some more sophisticated Christians, feeling perhaps less pressure when Constantine favored Christianity, could say that God allowed the gentiles some notion of truth. Like Eusebius, they'd allow that gentile religion preserved some glimmers of divine truth. They'd also give credit to philosophers like Socrates for trying to show that there is one god behind the many representations of gods of popular religion. So they would want to say that monotheism was true all along and that some gentiles got glimmers of that truth through their belief systems.

 

As to Catholic and Orthodox veneration of saints, I think it's a holdover, not only from polytheism, but from a part of that, namely local hero cults. All over the Mediterranean, people who were seen as having special powers or special ties to the gods were considered "heroes/heroines" and the spot where they were buried became a place where people would bring offerings and pray to the hero/heroine for help. Their bones were believed to be objects through which the hero or gods worked special powers the way relics of saints are so believed. Even in the Islamic world -- I guess the parts more in tune with traditions and not with Saudi-style Wahhabism -- people can visit the tombs of ancient holy men or holy women and pray for healings, etc. 

[Joshpantera]

8 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Yeah when I posted this I was really wanting a Christian viewpoint on the subject. I know this same topic is in another forum. But figured a Christian would feel more comfortable talking about it in this one. 

      Like I said, this subject is what put the nails in the coffin of my faith. There is no way I can support a theology that condemns polytheistic belief systems and has its foundations in polytheism itself. I never liked hypocrites. So in light of this, the whole bible is a complete hypocrisy. 

 

DB

 

Yeah I figured you wanted to take it to the lion's den to see how they'd respond. They must be burnt out on trying to respond because there's an overwhelming burden involved in responding to these types of questions. Can you imagine being christian and having to defend yourself from such an avalanche of information all the time? Denial seems the only avenue. Pretend that none of these problems are really problems. Offer answers that don't satisfy the questions. That's what you'd be getting right now if they were trying to answer....

[LogicalFallacy]

23 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Can you imagine being christian and having to defend yourself from such an avalanche of information all the time? Denial seems the only avenue. Pretend that none of these problems are really problems. Offer answers that don't satisfy the questions. That's what you'd be getting right now if they were trying to answer....

 

Oh how true this is. Denial was how I operated - you know, science is wrong, they just trying to destroy God blah blah. Then you run across stuff that you have to be honest and say well x doesn't line up with the Bible. Problem is a lot of people go into the old double down and reinforce belief. And its not really their fault - I know we chuck off at Christians from time to time, but what they, and even we don't realise, they are slaves to their biological mental defensive mechanisms that served us well on the African plains. I find one has to be aware of what auto defence mechanisms are at play and how they control the way you think.

 

I think this is why outright attacks on Christians fail. It's why Richard Dawkins is likely preaching to the choir- oh sure he will have something to add for those who are pretty much on the way out, but I'm not sure he is effective at  getting people to think in the first place. That requires a gentler softer approach to avoid triggering the great wall of denial and reinforced belief. I triggered that in my family... now I'd say any hope of us coming to some common understanding is gone. We don't even agree on simple matters such as age of earth, Noah's flood, etc. Anything, and I mean ANYTHING that is brought out that contradicts the literal reading of the bible is immediately deemed godless heathens working to undermine the bible.

[Joshpantera]

duplicate