Jump to content

Joshpantera

Moderator
  • Content Count

    3,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    34

Joshpantera last won the day on May 13

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,910 Wow

5 Followers

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    ancient X

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    US of A
  • Interests
    A plethora...
  • More About Me
    I'm an over 25 year deconvert. Gone off exploring a lot of science, religion, philosophy, biblical criticism, archaeology, eastern mystical content, and esoteric comparative content. Atheistic about gods with a spiritual side about nature.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I don't believe in god(s)

Recent Profile Visitors

2,944 profile views
  1. I figured you were just trying to come in when you were ready.
  2. The writer was of the E priest class according to scholarship. And that it obvious. Because he uses Elohim. Equally obvious is that the writer had some cosmology and indeed expressed that cosmology through his writing. Which cosmology? Well it's obvious enough that it wasn't today's cosmology. It was contemporary. And there a lot of illustrations available which illustrate the cosmology of genesis and even go further to compare it with all of the other near eastern cosmological ideas in the contemporary period. This is simply scholarly discussion we're having. It doesn't stray off too far from what the writer was writings about and what the writer may have meant. But it does stray away from modern ideas about the ancient writer was writing about and what the ancient writer meant. And WLC is a primary example of taking that direction. He's trying to shoe horn the ancient texts into a modern lens. Here's some citation specifically about Genesis 1: 1-2 and creation ex nihilo: http://stevendimattei.com/topics/does-the-bible-support-the-claims-of-creationists/ <snipped from article> Steven is a member here, btw. We've had these discussions in the past. And we pretty much came to agreement on this in the main thread. It's not really a creation from absolute nothing. And the scholarly approach to analyzing religious texts is precisely to analyze them against their time and place in the contemporary period in which they arose. These texts did not arise in a vacuum did they? So when discussing the texts we can certainly allow and hear from your strictly theological views Williams, as well as contrast those theological views with scholarship. I don't know why we can't just proceed all the way through a discussion without having to suddenly stop. @LuthAMFhasn't even really begun. So maybe he'd like to tap in for a while until you catch a break? 600 × 848 21 Extremely Beautiful Infographic ... queness.c
  3. This may need some more clarification. Which scripture am I rejecting? What cultist ideologies am I holding to, as a non-believer? We both mentioned mormons as an aside, to point their beliefs out. But I don't see how that could have been understood as either of us holding on to or believing these mormon cult ideologies. Please explain. The only "gods" / "Elohim" argument that I am aligned with, are the scholarly one's outlined in the two video links. I do think that scholarship pretty much has this figured out correctly. Ancient Israel as polytheistic and evolving through very well known phases into an eventual monotheism. But none of this has to do with believing any religious cults, or religious cults beliefs or anything like that on my end. Again, I'm looking at this from a lack of religious belief, and lack of religious cult perspective myself. Maybe you can clarify before we proceed.
  4. At the moment I'm assuming William means that the pre existing conditions were the gods and "their" dwelling. Like the gods dwelling in heaven. The Heaven and Earth part seems to refer to the multi-layered universe model of the near east at the time. I'm guessing that maybe the writer meant that the 7th heaven where the gods dwell was pre-existing? But I don't know if William is even thinking about the cosmology of the writer in question. Or the parts of the story that are lifted from near eastern mythology. We are certainly looking at it differently than William is.
  5. Genesis 1:1-2 Names of God Bible (NOG) The Creation 1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I use the NOG translation in order to keep track of where the names of god are being used. Anyone having followed my links in the last post can at least understand the perspective that I'm looking at here concerning the Elohim / gods. And also how a trinitarian is the reading the same content by way of Williams input so far. I don't mean to get too hung up on the differences between the secular scholarship and believer trinitarian interpretations, I just mean to allow them to both be noted as we study the bible, basically. I'm all for giving each their equal exposure. So, this is going to be something like the 12 days of christmas as we go along. On the first day of creation, the gods: 1) Created from pre-existing conditions, that which didn't already exist. Heaven and Earth. 2) The spirit, breath, or wind of the gods hovered over the waters. Some citation for Ruach Elohim: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:2 I'm basically looking at the spirit, breath, or wind of the gods hovering over the primordial waters of the unformed earth, basically. Very simply put. I'll stop there for now and allow our christian members to chime in and discuss or debate points.
  6. Yeah, I suppose we can move on. @LuthAMF is falling behind but he can jump in here whenever he'd like. The mormon thing tends to shed light on some of the issues surrounding the Elohims (gods) of Genesis. It is clearly plural, and as we proceed we'll find that the writer had a plural intention with, "let us" do such and such. We will catch up to all of that soon enough. And there are a variety of ways that theologians and biblical scholars have interpreted that. Mormons tried making sense of it by suggesting that there are all these gods off on other planets. It seems to be a creative way of trying to play off of the plurality of scripture in the creation account. And you mention the trinity. Again, some reject trinitarianism as a pagan heresy. Swear it's unbiblical. The trinity could be a way of trying to account for the plurality of the "gods" of creation, along with other issues. So what do reading viewers know about how many non-believers and secular oriented scholars see this? Some know exactly what I'm going to expose here. But perhaps some do not. We of the ex christian community here are quite savvy to the understanding that ancient judaism was polytheistic, became monolatrous over time, and then later changed into a monotheistic frame work. Some introductory information on this scholarly perspective can be found here: A ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn85M6sVapQ B ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZY2eeozdo8 I'll leave it up to the interested to pursue the polytheism in ancient judaism further if they'd like. But ultimately, it's a very sensible and simple view that reveals what scholars have discovered about ancient Israel and it's origins. The writer of Genesis 1 was apparently of the Elohist priestly class, and so used the plural rendition of the gods. And the idea is that these were literally gods of a mythological pantheon, no different than any other of the near eastern pantheons of many gods. It makes the most sense to me, personally having grown up trinitarian and then moving on to textual criticism and biblical archaeology outside of the lens of a believer persepctive. The idea is that over time and religious and political changes in Israel, the early polytheistic pantheon of the gods was condensed into a Yahwistic framework. But scraps and tid bits of the old polytheism still remain and can be found from Genesis into the Psalms, at least. Psalm 82 being a primary example often outlined by Robert Price. I realize that trinitarian's are not likely to accept the above, obviously. Because it alleges that trinitarianism arose at least in part as some type of after the fact apologetic's by monotheist's long after the old polytheism had already changed. This may be one of the points that we all end up having to agree to disagree on. And I don't want that to stop us from proceeding forward, either. It's fine by me that we likely won't find agreement about the "gods" of Genesis. But I at least want readers to understand all of the available options on the table. And the secular scholarship option is one of them.
  7. Good questions. BTW, some of the questions or insights that people raise here may find their way into the isolated informal debate if they aren't too distracting to our focus. I'll be watching this unfold and I'm sure our christian members will be doing the same. They should feel free to utilize whatever info pops up in the side gallery discussion. Christians who are not involved in the isolated informal debate should feel free to chime in here as well. I find it hard to understand what the purpose of scripture or the purpose jesus would be, if correctly understanding either is hard or impossible? Wouldn't it seem as though sending a message is only relevant in so much as the message would be plain as day for all to understand clear and sound? Unless we're looking at a message that was dropped off in the past and meant to NOT be understood at all, traveling as a coded time capsule or something, until the time in the distant future when suddenly the coded message would be understood. But even then, why not deliver the message AT THE CORRECT TIME that it would be understood and not several thousand years earlier to generations of people who can't understand it, when we're looking at something that has the power to deliver the message any time throughout all of time? Which is unbound by time, as it were. Those are a few more questions to add to the mix.
  8. I actually agree with your sentiment. What I meant about speculation wasn't so much speculation directed at what the author meant to convey. I was just leading into the discussion with a point about what I think we're all dealing with in terms of asserting certainty about the origins of the universe, planet, and so on. Just for the sake of putting it out there. I see the author as a speculator when he writes Genesis 1:1 (and a borrower, to some degree). And for any of us to come behind that initial speculation, I think that we necessarily have no firmer ground to stand on as far as that goes. But you're right about scripture. On a different level there is the issue of properly trying to understand what has been written (and we can look at the three primary interpretations as we go along). There seems to be a lot of obvious and some not so obvious mistakes that go around concerning what scripture itself says in various places. Even if in the end we're merely trying to correctly understand what someone speculating about the origins of our existence or creative writing in the distant past was trying to convey through their writing. So I suppose an ongoing question here will be by what method do we fact check the claims of ancient writers once we've hammered down the specifics of what their claims actually were - to the best of our ability today to understand the language and meaning of what they wrote back then? It appears that the writer did mean to convey "creation ex nihilo" by the looks of it. But this isn't a something from nothing assertion, though, as Aron Ra was jabbing at the christian about. He was turning around the accusation on the christian for the sake of showing that a lot of atheists don't really believe that something came from nothing either. So what the bible is saying is that already existing god(s) (technically this is plural, and we'll have to address "the gods" / Elohim as we go through all of this). It's properly read that in the beginning the gods created what didn't already exist, which is the heaven and earth basically. We're now progressing through this to the next issue of the claim that the writer is making, theologically, in scripture. I do mean to keep analyzing the claims as they unfold. But of course I realize that the two of you will want to have words about the 'plurality' of the claim before moving beyond it. Genesis 1:1 Names of God Bible (NOG) The Creation 1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
  9. Joshpantera

    Helllo

    Welcome UB40, err, UBU4U! I went through a similar phase concerning SDAism. I felt like upon learning it's filthy secrets I was someone how charged with bringing it down to rubble! That eventually passed. In that I stopped caring about trying to raze it. I think it's a common reaction to learning that what you thought was absolutely true, is not true. The rest follows......
  10. Welcome Markus. I don't know, read around. Check out ex christian life and see how a lot of other ex christians are dealing with their families. We all have different situations going on with our families. My family is majority non-believer at this point. With a few stragglers that don't seem to understand why everyone else quit. My wife's family is similar. All her brothers are agnostic and non-believers. Only her aging parents are left as believers. But they act out from time to time. Go off on tirades. Wonder what's wrong with everyone else. The usual. You can read through a lot of similar situations in ex christian life.
  11. You're in buddy, of course. No problem. Yes, I actually like having William and LuthAMF give two christian opinions to my non-belief opinions. I only want to limit it to us three so there's no distraction. But certainly start up a side thread because I don't want to deprive others of getting a chance to engage the issues too. That's actually a very good idea.
  12. I'll tell you what, William I'm interested in discussing with you both actually. But I'd prefer that the atheist gang stay back and allow me to go this alone - just in this one thread. You guys can work together if you'd like. The variety of christian input will make the discussion more interesting I'm sure. And I'd like to give you two the opportunity to voice yourselves without any distractions that take us off in other directions. After I left my church family, I sincerely sought after scripture in order to decide what I think of it. Not what the denomination says about it, but what I think about it myself using my own better judgement. And I intend to share my thoughts with you two as we exchange. In a civil manner. A point of agreement. He's towing the line of very liberal christianity. So I realize that you two may not want to be associated with his specific interpretations or ideas about what Genesis is saying. I have disagreements with his assertions that may not pertain to either of you at all. But I have disagreements with several different approaches that I've encountered, ranging from conservative and literal to liberal and symbolic. You may offer something I haven't considered yet. I have some exposure to "bara" and "asah." Different words used in the creation account. No doubt this will come up again between day 1 and day 4 (spoiler alert). Of course my view has changed a lot over the years. From one perspective, I think that you guys are picking up on something valid with the uncaused, cause thing. But as to what that would be is where we would diverge now. If it comes down to atheists saying that there is no uncaused, cause, there is only absolute nothing and then spontaneously a universe - I understand why you two would resist such an assertion. And it's because of the something from nothing issue. I don't buy into that myself. But then again, neither do a lot of scientists and atheists either. In fact, that's not what the choices here boil down to at all. See 5:18 forward for a point of reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANtpsunRYIs&t=6s The real issue seems to be the question of what exactly is that 'something', which 'everything' arose from? And the truth as I see it, is that we don't know for sure at this time. We have ideas and speculation, but not hard evidence nor absolute truth. To suggest that it's a supernatural being - let's face it - is one of many speculations. That may not be something that either of you are willing to agree with, but I'm putting it out there. That's a very anthropomorphic way of trying to answer a hard question. We're beings, so this ultimate reality and uncaused, cause, is visualized as similar to ourselves only greater. A supreme being in comparison. Another speculation coming from theoretical science is that space is not finite and confined only our universe. But instead ranges out beyond without end. Like a god minus the anthropomorphic visualizations. Not a being, just the totality of existence itself ranging out forever and ever. Where a finite universe like our own, for instance, could be a bubble expanding in size so to speak. Surrounding it, or rather "transcendent" of the universe, up to an infinite amount of bubbles readily coming and going all the time. Space ranging throughout. The question of what came before, what are we expanding out into, and similar questions being summed up in this infinite and eternal, non-anthropomorphized conceptualization of reality. The greater reality (just like god) would have no beginning or end to speak of. It would be the infinite and eternal. The higher power. All of that. But it's existence itself as the totality, not literally a being like us but greater. Two different ways of trying to speculate about reality and existence. One from the bronze age and one contemporary. Both lead to infinite and eternal conclusions. But the contemporary doesn't bother trying to present it in a personified, or anthromorphized type of way. Both being speculation and not necessarily hard fact. But certainly one very dated in comparison to the other. Are either of you willing to agree that the three of us (and anyone else for that matter) can only offer speculation?
  13. While you're Gathering thoughts, I'll just say that some like William Lane Craig use Genesis 1:1 as a pivotal arguing point. The word "beginning" is used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument Craig looks at some dated cosmological theoretic's (I'm privy to newer theoretical thinking than that) about the BB and concludes that the bible says there was a fixed beginning, science says there was a fixed beginning, therefore the bible has it right. And then, based on the first set of assumptions, Craig then moves forward arguing that everything that has a fixed beginning needs a cause. And then automatically inserts that the cause (based on a whole line of previous assumptions) is not just a god, but YHWH of the biblical tradition. First of all, I'm wondering whether or not you agree with WLC about this. I don't know yet. I'd rather ask and find out then assume that you do. If you do not agree with Craig, and have some other interpretation of what's going on in Genesis 1:1, then I'd like to hear you out regardless.
  14. There's no posts as of yet: I'll be working all day. So you can state your piece about Genesis 1:1 and I'll respond. You can take your time responding back and we can have a fair handed discussion and debate the issues.
  15. No, what I'm saying is that last night eastern standard time, I went to bed after you were actively posting in this thread. I asked you to first go and hash out the bible with me so we can establish what it is before you get carryied away making claims. But rather than engaging the content, you kept posting here and ignoring the thread I started. Trolling members here. If you slept, then instead of waking up and engaging the content, you came back here again with another round of trolling and nit picking rather than engaging the content. You can take all the time you'd like responding to the bible analysis. And you'll certainly need time to think about things that you haven't already considered yet about the bible when you have to face all of them. That's ok. But you haven't even responded in the first place, to the first verse of the bible. Do you not know how to respond to Genesis 1:1 already. You don't already have beliefs about what Genesis 1:1 means? All I'm asking is for you to tell me what you think it means. Then I'll respond back. We can analyze the verses, consider the Hebrew, etc., etc., and see whether or not we find agreement. If we can not, then we can note "agree to disagree" and move on to verse 2.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.