|
Hello TL.
I have recently shared my religious beliefs with some of my Christian friends and they have shunned me and believe that I'm some sort of satanic devil in disguise.
"OMG! Evolution?! Are you stupid or something? You're insane!"
I don't mean to say that all Christians are like that but I'm only referring to my friends here, I do not mean to offend anybody.
However TL I have never really considered myself to be an Atheist. I have not really given much thought into finding out what religious group I belong to before, and I have always thought that I was a Christian until recently. What I used to believe in until a few days ago is very complicated to describe in my opinion. I used to believe in God (The Christian one, 'Yahweh') and the Big Bang Theory (Still do). Whenever anybody threw my any evidence about how God did not exist and I would just say to myself that it was logical and rational for them to believe that God existed. Whether it was blind-faith or not, I believed in God. However, the evidence was not as compelling as what I recently encountered.
I was asked 2 questions :
1) How do you know there is a God with which you can relate?
2) What does this god do in the world today?
I did not have an answer for either of the questions. The person who asked me them was not at all surprised by the fact that I was stumped. He then gave me some insight -
Yes, this is hard. Let me see if I can give you some insight regarding the first. Jean Baudrillard puts forward the concept of a simulacrum, a construct that represents a thing, and can be interacted with as if it were that thing, but is not in fact really that thing. If you've ever played a computer game, you understand the idea of a simulation. When your character in the game fights a dragon, that dragon isn't really there, but you're interacting with it through the game interface as though it was there.
I use the example of a dragon very specifically, because there are no dragons. And yet, through a simulacrum of a dragon, we can interact with it as though it did exist. Baudrillard argues that in our minds, themselves very complex and powerful computers, we are able to create a simulacrum of god. It has all the appearance of the god we envision, and we can interact with it as though it actually were god. But it's just a simulacrum, it isn't actually the thing it represents, and the thing it represents doesn't need to exist for the simulacrum to work.
That's why I asked the second question. If your god has effects on the real world, if it actually does things, then you have some evidence that it exists external to your own mind. But if its all about a personal relationship, if the only way in which you interact with god, and in which god interacts with you, is within you, then couldn't it just be a simulacrum of god that you've created? And if that's true, then how do you know there is a god, and not just your idea of one?
Then, another thing was said to almost completely crush any beliefs I had in God
It's quite simple. It is known as the Problem of Evil (or, more appropriately the Problem of Suffering). Despite what you my have heard, this argument has never been appropriately addressed. Any "answers" provided by theists amount to either a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, or a complete lack of consideration for the term "omnipotent."
An omnibenevolent (all-loving) being, by definition, would not allow unnecessary suffering. Yet, as I will demonstrate, every bit of suffering that we experience would be unnecessary if an omnipotent, omniscient god existed.
The typical answer that theists give to the problem of suffering is that our suffering is a result of man's free-will. Despite the fact that our "free-will" has absolutley nothing to do with many sources of suffering like natural disasters, it would be possible for an omnipotent, omniscient being to create a world where man still had free-will, yet suffering still did not exist. If this is possible, then the suffering we experience is, by definition, unnecessary.
Furthermore, theists often argue that the suffering we experience is meant to teach us a lesson, or grow us as individuals, or fulfill God's plan, etc. Our suffering has some sort of benefit we just aren't aware of.
However, even if this were true, an omnipotent being could, by definition, achieve whatever benefit he had in mind without the aforementioned suffering. If he can do anything, he can do this. If he can do this, then once again, the suffering we experience is unnecessary.
There is absolutley no reason that any suffering would be necessary, if the omnipotent God could achieve whatever outcome he had in mind without it.
Yet, since we do experience this suffering, we must either conclude that the God is not omnipotent, he is not omnibenevolent, he is not omniscient, or he doesn't exist.
I was then further questioned about my beliefs. I responded that I felt that being a Christian should not be defined by the fact that whether you go to church habitually, but being a Christian should in fact, be maintaining a relationship with God. Then,
Which Bible are you reading? If its one of the millions of Bibles in the US, then its likely an English translation, and it isn't actually describing the god worshiped by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For that, we have to go back to the [1] Canaanite religion, which we've learned about from clay tablets found at the Ras Shamra site. The Canaanites were polytheists who worshiped a great number of gods. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were primarily followers of El Shaddai, "God of the Mountains", another name for El Elyon, or "God Most High". El Elyon appears to Abraham in human form at one point. Jacob is described as asking El Elyon to become his elohim, or primary god, in order that he might receive special protection. He also climbs a ladder to heaven and speaks with El Elyon in person, and later even wrestles with El Elyon.
Its also not the god of Moses. Moses was a follower of Yahweh, the war god of the ancient Israelites. Yahweh wasn't a Canaanite god, but he also wasn't a monotheistic god. In the (likely mythical) story of Exodus, the Israelites even note after gaining their freedom "Who among the gods is like you, Yahweh? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?." (Exodus 15:11) It helps the verses make more sense to get the full context; upon reaching the promised land, the Israelites stray and worship other gods. That seems silly in today's version; why worship Baal or Asherah when you know that there is only THE LORD? But when you realize that Yahweh was just the war god, as Ares was to the Greeks, it makes more sense. Once you're no longer in a time of trouble, why not worship Baal (god of fertility and storms) or Asherah (the mother goddess) instead of Yahweh (god of the armies)?
Yahweh didn't become the primary god of Israel until the reign of King Josaih, a strict Yahwist, in about 640 BCE. This was the period of the Deuteronomic reforms; it was at this time that the book of Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple, supposedly a new book of law written by Moses that placed Yahweh above all other gods. However, its rather convenient timing and the linguistic signature indicate that it was actually a forgery, created for political expediency. Even here, though, there is still evidence of polytheism, in the Ten Commandments themselves. "6 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 7 You shall have no other gods before me." (Deuteronomy 5:6-7)
Only in about 600 BCE, when the Israelites were exiled into Babylon, did the monotheistic god appear. An author known as Second Isaiah had his words appended on to the original Isaiah, the book of Leviticus was authored, and the history of Israel was rewritten to say that El Elyon and Yahweh were the same god, and that this god was the only god. The other books extant at the time were rewritten to make it look like there had only ever been one god of Israel. So despite the story saying that this god has always existed, he only appears in the archaeological record 2600 years ago.
By this time, I was just... "ಠ_ಠ I can't believe that I was so ignorant"
The person wasn't surprised at all by my reaction. It seems that a very different picture appears when you know where all the stories came from, and put them in their proper historical context. The Old Testament just screams polytheism, even through the multiple rewrites and translations.
I then read the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation story. In it, Marduk defeats chaos in the form of the dragon Tiamat, and then he and his fellow gods create the world. The earth is described as formless and void, and then the order of creation follows the same as in Genesis. Genesis 1 happens to have been written during, you guessed it, the Babylonian exile.
So right now, I'm feeling rather confused and cheated. Have I been believing in a lie for my entire life?
 
|
Wait...
What does this mean?
"Whenever anybody threw my any evidence about how God did not exist and I would just say to myself that it was logical and rational for them to believe that God existed."
|
United States5162 Posts
Yea, kinda.
Of course, religion isn't about understanding or making sense, it's about faith. There's a reason it's called faith - because it's not based on evidence or logic. If you need evidence or logic to believe in something then religion is not for you.
|
On November 01 2011 22:13 mizU wrote:
Wait...
What does this mean?
"Whenever anybody threw my any evidence about how God did not exist and I would just say to myself that it was logical and rational for them to believe that God existed."
You can disregard that statement if you want. The evidence I was presented with last time and the most recent ones are very different, hence the past tense. Things changed.
On November 01 2011 22:15 Myles wrote:
Yea, kinda.
Of course, religion isn't about understanding or making sense, it's about faith. There's a reason it's called faith - because it's not based on evidence or logic. If you need evidence or logic to believe in something then religion is not for you.
Ok, that is true about faith. But what if there was compelling evidence against the validity of the religion?
|
On November 01 2011 22:17 EzraLim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 22:13 mizU wrote:
Wait...
What does this mean?
"Whenever anybody threw my any evidence about how God did not exist and I would just say to myself that it was logical and rational for them to believe that God existed." You can disregard that statement if you want. The evidence I was presented with last time and the most recent ones are very different, hence the past tense. Things changed. Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 22:15 Myles wrote:
Yea, kinda.
Of course, religion isn't about understanding or making sense, it's about faith. There's a reason it's called faith - because it's not based on evidence or logic. If you need evidence or logic to believe in something then religion is not for you. Ok, that is true about faith. But what if there was compelling evidence against the validity of the religion?
I feel like the sentence was missing words, I was asking about the meaning, I was asking about the (brokenish) structure of the sentence.
Honestly, there's "compelling" evidence against all religions from skeptics. There will always be a flaw in religion since humans create them, and humans are imperfect.
|
United States5162 Posts
On November 01 2011 22:17 EzraLim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 22:15 Myles wrote:
Yea, kinda.
Of course, religion isn't about understanding or making sense, it's about faith. There's a reason it's called faith - because it's not based on evidence or logic. If you need evidence or logic to believe in something then religion is not for you. Ok, that is true about faith. But what if there was compelling evidence against the validity of the religion?
There is compelling evidence that religion is false, which is why I don't believe any specific religion. I am somewhat spiritual, but to think any religion has it right compared to the others is insane in my opinion.
|
On November 01 2011 22:22 mizU wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 22:17 EzraLim wrote:On November 01 2011 22:13 mizU wrote:
Wait...
What does this mean?
"Whenever anybody threw my any evidence about how God did not exist and I would just say to myself that it was logical and rational for them to believe that God existed." You can disregard that statement if you want. The evidence I was presented with last time and the most recent ones are very different, hence the past tense. Things changed. On November 01 2011 22:15 Myles wrote:
Yea, kinda.
Of course, religion isn't about understanding or making sense, it's about faith. There's a reason it's called faith - because it's not based on evidence or logic. If you need evidence or logic to believe in something then religion is not for you. Ok, that is true about faith. But what if there was compelling evidence against the validity of the religion? I feel like the sentence was missing words, I was asking about the meaning, I was asking about the (brokenish) structure of the sentence. Honestly, there's "compelling" evidence against all religions from skeptics. There will always be a flaw in religion since humans create them, and humans are imperfect.
Humans do create religion, so are they actually real?
And I was referring to how I felt and behaved before , sorry for the confusion.
|
On November 01 2011 22:05 EzraLim wrote:
Have I been believing in a lie for my entire life?
i don't think you should worry too much about this. people are mistaken about many thing many times in their lives. there's a quote i like a lot which is usually attributed to john maynard keynes "sir, when the facts change my opinion changes. what do you do?"
|
The traditional religions are only reflections of the morals, politics and knowledge of their respective time period.
However, my mind cannot wrap itself around me springing to life and dying after a short while, just like that. Therefore I believe in something undefined. This video in particular perfectly articulates what I believe. This channel really helped me shape my thinking as well.
I just live my life trying to be a decent person, caring for others and doing what I enjoy. Remember, something that doesn't harm anyone, cannot be wrong.
|
I see myself as a christian yet I believe in the evolution theory as well as the big bang.
In my own opinion, the Bible represents the scientical knowledge the writers had when the texts in the Bible were written. People then didn't really know much about how the human race came to be, what are those things in the sky(Stars, the moon, other planets, the sun) and why are they there, why stuff falls down when you throw them in the air etc.
I believe that the contents of the Bible should be read with todays scientical knowledge in mind. What if the God created the big bang? What if he made evolution happen? I believe in God as well as the fact that most of the content in the Bible is correct. Yes, scientists have not been able to recreate the "miracles" that happened but have they been able to recreate many other things science today believes in? As far as I know, not all of them.
The content of the Bible hasn't been confirmed as facts but the Evolution Theory is a theory for a reason: As far as I know, it hasn't been confirmed as a fact either. I believe in both.
Does this make me a bad person according to the Bible? I don't know.
Why should we blindly believe in one without even thinking about the other?
And again, yes, I believe in God.
On November 01 2011 22:59 Thorakh wrote:The traditional religions are only reflections of the morals, politics and knowledge of their respective time period. However, my mind cannot wrap itself around me springing to life and dying after a short while, just like that. Therefore I believe in something undefined. This video in particular perfectly articulates what I believe. This channel really helped me shape my thinking as well. I just live my life trying to be a decent person, caring for others and doing what I enjoy. Remember, something that doesn't harm anyone, cannot be wrong.
Totally agreed.
|
On November 01 2011 23:04 Airact wrote:
The content of the Bible hasn't been confirmed as facts but the Evolution Theory is a theory for a reason: As far as I know, it hasn't been confirmed as a fact either. I believe in both.
I know 99% of people are going to know how I'll reply to the "it's a theory" comment already so I'll spoiler that bit.
+ Show Spoiler +You're misunderstanding the word theory if you mean that sentence. First here are some other theories:
Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Plate Tectonics
Cell Theory
Theory of Electromagnetism
Theory of Radioactivity
A theory in the scientific sense is an testable explanation that fits all of the available evidence and makes predictions about how things should work. These theories have been rigorously tested in terms of their predictions and still fit every result and every new piece of evidence.
In terms of the theory of evolution by natural selection (evolution itself is an observed fact) this means that everything we know about biology and the rest of the world in general even has not managed to disprove the theory while the predictions it makes continue to be discovered to be accurate. Because there's no way to be 100% sure, it's not a fact, but it is at this point as close to a certainty as is possible in science.
On topic, whilst I've never been religious myself I found the video's by this YouTuber user really quite interesting. Although he puts out video's infrequently there's already a lot of information in his "Why I am no longer a Christian" playlist that you might find interesting.
That said, science and al the history in the world can't disprove God. Specific God's can be ruled out based on assigned qualities but there is no honest way to say that 100% there is no God, and when people talk about their own personal relationships with a God, all we can do is look at their claim and decide if we believe there's any reason for us to believe as well. Without a personal experience to draw upon myself I find the evidence based claims have always fallen short however, but I have no basis to say "there is no God at all, guarenteed", even despite being an atheist.
|
I tend to be in the agnostic camp...
There's too many unknowns to decidedly declare that no gods exist (not just "the" omnibenevolent/omniscient/omnipotent God, but any god), just as there's even more unknowns with regards to a god existing. Combine that with how there's a multitude of religions and how, for a lot of them, you go to whatever version of Hell they have if you don't believe & follow that religion's rites/commandments/expectations...
The way I see it is that I live my life as a good person, I help those I can, I don't harm others and so forth. If a god/afterlife exists and that's not enough to get me into the "good side" of it, then maybe that side isn't really good after all. If there is no god/afterlife, then I can be happy in the fact that I'll have left a positive impact on the world.
|
You are like my dog.
God is like my laptop.
My dog has no fucking clue how to operate my laptop, and he never will.
There is (currently) a limit on what we as humans are able to understand. If there is a God, it's beyond our comprehension.
My personal belief? The Gods or God = Extra Terrestrials.
There is so much information, so many theories, yet so little understanding. It doesn't much matter though. Live a good life, be a good person, and die a good death. Or don't. Regardless of what happens, worst case scenario you still get to go to Heaven because Jesus died for everyone to get a VIP pass through forgiveness.
And make sure you sin lots, because otherwise Jesus died in vain.
|
On November 01 2011 23:32 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2011 23:04 Airact wrote:
The content of the Bible hasn't been confirmed as facts but the Evolution Theory is a theory for a reason: As far as I know, it hasn't been confirmed as a fact either. I believe in both. I know 99% of people are going to know how I'll reply to the "it's a theory" comment already so I'll spoiler that bit. + Show Spoiler +You're misunderstanding the word theory if you mean that sentence. First here are some other theories:
Theory of Gravity
Germ Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Plate Tectonics
Cell Theory
Theory of Electromagnetism
Theory of Radioactivity
A theory in the scientific sense is an testable explanation that fits all of the available evidence and makes predictions about how things should work. These theories have been rigorously tested in terms of their predictions and still fit every result and every new piece of evidence.
In terms of the theory of evolution by natural selection (evolution itself is an observed fact) this means that everything we know about biology and the rest of the world in general even has not managed to disprove the theory while the predictions it makes continue to be discovered to be accurate. Because there's no way to be 100% sure, it's not a fact, but it is at this point as close to a certainty as is possible in science.
I'd like to add to this response. Evolution has been tested and verified (including speciation (a new species emerging from evolution)) in labs primarily with fruit flies. Facts and laws in science are generally something "that is the way it is, but we have no idea why." Here is your basic Wikipedia page on speciation. Wikipedia isn't the best place for depth, but it is a good start. Here is more on speciation, just ctrl+F 5.0 and it should take you right to the part in question if you want to skip the other stuff.
|
Life-long atheist here.
IMO unless you're going to major in theology in college and then go on to do hardcore scholarly work, you shouldn't worry so much about what other people think about your beliefs in God. If you believe in God, then you believe in God, who is someone else to tell you otherwise? That because the way you worship or think differently about God makes your faith invalid?
Honestly, nobody really knows God inside and out. Think of how many religions there are in the world, how many people are absolutely cocksure that a) they are worshiping the real deal and b) their way of worship is the correct way. How can all of these people be correct? Is it reasonable to believe that a God who cares would send everyone to hell except the small group that is actually worshiping in the correct way?
The real value of religion is that for many people it sets up a guide on how to live a good life and make a good impact on society. Granted, religion has given birth to a lot of irrational hatred and destruction, but that isn't the real point. The real point is in the people who do charity work in their spare time because they go to church, because they believe in doing good things due to their faith. In good people religion inspires even more goodness.
From the standpoint of someone who has had a lot of contact with Church but never actually bought it, I think a bit of doubt is a good thing, because it makes you think about your faith, and makes you choose the path you think is right rather than dogmatically following someone else. The most important thing is whether or not you personally have faith, and whether or not it makes you a better person as a result. Make a stand about your beliefs and draw the line there.
As for the evolution issue and other things that are regarded as "contrary to religion", these things aren't necessarily exclusive to each other as people think. Science, and evolution by extension, adopts a "see for yourself" approach to the universe at large. It discounts everything until something has been proven to exist through specific processes. So far, science hasn't found a way to prove that God doesn't exist. There isn't any proof for or against his existence. Nor is science actively trying to prove or refute the existence of God, God is kind of irrelevant in the scientific approach. So it's perfectly fine to "believe" in evolution, it's all about whether or not YOU think it makes sense.
|
On November 02 2011 01:00 Newbistic wrote:
Life-long atheist here.
IMO unless you're going to major in theology in college and then go on to do hardcore scholarly work, you shouldn't worry so much about what other people think about your beliefs in God. If you believe in God, then you believe in God, who is someone else to tell you otherwise? That because the way you worship or think differently about God makes your faith invalid?
Honestly, nobody really knows God inside and out. Think of how many religions there are in the world, how many people are absolutely cocksure that a) they are worshiping the real deal and b) their way of worship is the correct way. How can all of these people be correct? Is it reasonable to believe that a God who cares would send everyone to hell except the small group that is actually worshiping in the correct way?
The real value of religion is that for many people it sets up a guide on how to live a good life and make a good impact on society. Granted, religion has given birth to a lot of irrational hatred and destruction, but that isn't the real point. The real point is in the people who do charity work in their spare time because they go to church, because they believe in doing good things due to their faith. In good people religion inspires even more goodness.
From the standpoint of someone who has had a lot of contact with Church but never actually bought it, I think a bit of doubt is a good thing, because it makes you think about your faith, and makes you choose the path you think is right rather than dogmatically following someone else. The most important thing is whether or not you personally have faith, and whether or not it makes you a better person as a result. Make a stand about your beliefs and draw the line there.
As for the evolution issue and other things that are regarded as "contrary to religion", these things aren't necessarily exclusive to each other as people think. Science, and evolution by extension, adopts a "see for yourself" approach to the universe at large. It discounts everything until something has been proven to exist through specific processes. So far, science hasn't found a way to prove that God doesn't exist. There isn't any proof for or against his existence. Nor is science actively trying to prove or refute the existence of God, God is kind of irrelevant in the scientific approach. So it's perfectly fine to "believe" in evolution, it's all about whether or not YOU think it makes sense.
This is very enlightening and something to think about. I thank you for this.
|
On November 01 2011 22:05 EzraLim wrote:
I have recently shared my religious beliefs with some of my Christian friends and they have shunned me and believe that I'm some sort of satanic devil in disguise.
There's seems to be something fundamentally wrong with this. If their motive is to push you away from your Faith, rather than try to bring you closer to it, you can consider the possibility that they aren't operating in a Biblically sound manner, at least not in this context. Although that says nothing about whether they are doing so because they are just foolish, or something else. You have examples like "expelling the immoral brother" or whatnot, but that's AFTER literally everyone has tried to reach out and correct the "errors" in a way that has 100% direct scriptural backing. It'll be good to consider whether your friends have done the same, and have provided direct evidence to back up their reasoning instead of just going with group-think.
On November 01 2011 22:05 EzraLim wrote:Then, another thing was said to almost completely crush any beliefs I had in God Show nested quote +It's quite simple. It is known as the Problem of Evil (or, more appropriately the Problem of Suffering). Despite what you my have heard, this argument has never been appropriately addressed. Any "answers" provided by theists amount to either a fundamental misunderstanding of the problem, or a complete lack of consideration for the term "omnipotent."
An omnibenevolent (all-loving) being, by definition, would not allow unnecessary suffering. Yet, as I will demonstrate, every bit of suffering that we experience would be unnecessary if an omnipotent, omniscient god existed.
The typical answer that theists give to the problem of suffering is that our suffering is a result of man's free-will. Despite the fact that our "free-will" has absolutley nothing to do with many sources of suffering like natural disasters, it would be possible for an omnipotent, omniscient being to create a world where man still had free-will, yet suffering still did not exist. If this is possible, then the suffering we experience is, by definition, unnecessary.
Furthermore, theists often argue that the suffering we experience is meant to teach us a lesson, or grow us as individuals, or fulfill God's plan, etc. Our suffering has some sort of benefit we just aren't aware of.
However, even if this were true, an omnipotent being could, by definition, achieve whatever benefit he had in mind without the aforementioned suffering. If he can do anything, he can do this. If he can do this, then once again, the suffering we experience is unnecessary.
There is absolutley no reason that any suffering would be necessary, if the omnipotent God could achieve whatever outcome he had in mind without it.
Yet, since we do experience this suffering, we must either conclude that the God is not omnipotent, he is not omnibenevolent, he is not omniscient, or he doesn't exist.
The major flaw with this argument is that it forces human (Christian or Non-Christian) ideals and values upon a system that is either completely beyond it because it is governed by God or by nothing a.k.a. Chaos/nothing/etc. Omnipotent = All Powerful. Omniscient = All Knowing. Omnibenevolent = All Good. It is easy to define Power, and what it would mean to be All Powerful. It is also easy to define Knowing, and what it would mean to be All Knowing. But people often mistakenly define "Good" from their own perspective, and not in a Biblically sound manner, if they are Christians, or in a truly relativistic manner, if they are Non-Christians, e.g., Atheists. Fact of the matter is, Good from a Christian point of view is defined by what God Wills, and that's it. Good does not mean fair. Good does not mean that there is no suffering. Good does not mean that everyone is saved. Bottom line. Good is God, and that is it. Yes, people will suffer. Yes, many will not be safe. It actually doesn't matter that there exists a possibility that all of this "Bad" stuff doesn't exist. The fact that it does, does not detract from the fact that God is Omnipotent because He choose this reality for a reason, and although it may perplexingly seem bad from a human perspective, it is Good simply because it is in line with His Divine Plan. And from an Atheistic stand point, Good is all relative. Who are they to say what is good and what is not? Yeah, people are dying and starving. But that's just life. Survival of the fittest. Life is not "fair" as we define it, in any case. So called ideal-on-paper scenarios like Communism break down in real life because people are inherently drawn towards developing imbalances and inequities between people.
tl;dr Don't assume that people, even with the most convincing arguments, don't have gaping holes in their logic.
On November 01 2011 22:05 EzraLim wrote:Show nested quote + Which Bible are you reading? If its one of the millions of Bibles in the US, then its likely an English translation, and it isn't actually describing the god worshiped by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For that, we have to go back to the [1] Canaanite religion, which we've learned about from clay tablets found at the Ras Shamra site. The Canaanites were polytheists who worshiped a great number of gods. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were primarily followers of El Shaddai, "God of the Mountains", another name for El Elyon, or "God Most High". El Elyon appears to Abraham in human form at one point. Jacob is described as asking El Elyon to become his elohim, or primary god, in order that he might receive special protection. He also climbs a ladder to heaven and speaks with El Elyon in person, and later even wrestles with El Elyon.
Its also not the god of Moses. Moses was a follower of Yahweh, the war god of the ancient Israelites. Yahweh wasn't a Canaanite god, but he also wasn't a monotheistic god. In the (likely mythical) story of Exodus, the Israelites even note after gaining their freedom "Who among the gods is like you, Yahweh? Who is like you— majestic in holiness, awesome in glory, working wonders?." (Exodus 15:11) It helps the verses make more sense to get the full context; upon reaching the promised land, the Israelites stray and worship other gods. That seems silly in today's version; why worship Baal or Asherah when you know that there is only THE LORD? But when you realize that Yahweh was just the war god, as Ares was to the Greeks, it makes more sense. Once you're no longer in a time of trouble, why not worship Baal (god of fertility and storms) or Asherah (the mother goddess) instead of Yahweh (god of the armies)?
Yahweh didn't become the primary god of Israel until the reign of King Josaih, a strict Yahwist, in about 640 BCE. This was the period of the Deuteronomic reforms; it was at this time that the book of Deuteronomy was "found" in the temple, supposedly a new book of law written by Moses that placed Yahweh above all other gods. However, its rather convenient timing and the linguistic signature indicate that it was actually a forgery, created for political expediency. Even here, though, there is still evidence of polytheism, in the Ten Commandments themselves. "6 I am Yahweh your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 7 You shall have no other gods before me." (Deuteronomy 5:6-7)
Only in about 600 BCE, when the Israelites were exiled into Babylon, did the monotheistic god appear. An author known as Second Isaiah had his words appended on to the original Isaiah, the book of Leviticus was authored, and the history of Israel was rewritten to say that El Elyon and Yahweh were the same god, and that this god was the only god. The other books extant at the time were rewritten to make it look like there had only ever been one god of Israel. So despite the story saying that this god has always existed, he only appears in the archaeological record 2600 years ago. By this time, I was just... "ಠ_ಠ I can't believe that I was so ignorant" The person wasn't surprised at all by my reaction. It seems that a very different picture appears when you know where all the stories came from, and put them in their proper historical context. The Old Testament just screams polytheism, even through the multiple rewrites and translations. I then read the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation story. In it, Marduk defeats chaos in the form of the dragon Tiamat, and then he and his fellow gods create the world. The earth is described as formless and void, and then the order of creation follows the same as in Genesis. Genesis 1 happens to have been written during, you guessed it, the Babylonian exile. So right now, I'm feeling rather confused and cheated. Have I been believing in a lie for my entire life?
I can't really address this confidently, but two points:
1. In the Old Testament, people address the One God, but also seem to address other gods, e.g., Baal. However, if you read more carefully, all the interactions with the One God are just that, interactions. Whereas when there is "interaction" with other gods, e.g., Baal, there is no response from that so-called god and sometimes there is even a rebuke from the One God. An example is the head-to-head match between Baal and God in terms of sending down fire. So while the environment was polytheistic in nature, the Bible itself points to the actual existence of only one God. This is the first way in which the people began to know who God is, as the true God amongst many false gods.
2. It is true that there are two very different depictions of God in the Bible, but you also have to consider the nature of the relationship between God and people, at different points in time. Until Jesus, all interaction through God had to be mediated through blood sacrifice as a representation of their true intentions to repent/etc, in order to atone for Sin. If people failed to do this, they obviously did something wrong and were punished. But with the Crucifixion, the entire nature of the relationship between God and people changed because they were forgiven regardless of what they did, not to say that people should take that the wrong way and intentionally Sin, since that would signify that one does not truly understand the Sacrifice and perhaps does not have Faith or has an immature Faith. The way in which people perceived God and addressed Him, changes over time and seems to reflect different types of relationships between God and the people.
tl;dr Don't assume that people, even with the most convincing arguments, don't have gaping holes in their logic. Even my own, if it turns out there is something blatantly wrong. And ultimately, nobody can tell you what you believe or not. That is up to you. Examine all arguments for and against, and determine whether you agree or not, and WHY.
|
On November 02 2011 00:33 HackBenjamin wrote:
You are like my dog.
God is like my laptop.
My dog has no fucking clue how to operate my laptop, and he never will.
There is (currently) a limit on what we as humans are able to understand. If there is a God, it's beyond our comprehension.
My personal belief? The Gods or God = Extra Terrestrials.
There is so much information, so many theories, yet so little understanding. It doesn't much matter though. Live a good life, be a good person, and die a good death. Or don't. Regardless of what happens, worst case scenario you still get to go to Heaven because Jesus died for everyone to get a VIP pass through forgiveness.
And make sure you sin lots, because otherwise Jesus died in vain.
I always like this perspective. It reminds me of how the Aztecs thought the Spanish were Gods because they used things they couldn't explain, and had great riches. I sometimes hear, on coast to coast am, the idea that all these religions were based off of some alien encounter. I think that's a lot more likely than the classical story, yet if you say you believe in aliens you're some kind of lunatic. If you say you believe in god, it's a different reaction.
|
On November 02 2011 01:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2011 00:33 HackBenjamin wrote:
You are like my dog.
God is like my laptop.
My dog has no fucking clue how to operate my laptop, and he never will.
There is (currently) a limit on what we as humans are able to understand. If there is a God, it's beyond our comprehension.
My personal belief? The Gods or God = Extra Terrestrials.
There is so much information, so many theories, yet so little understanding. It doesn't much matter though. Live a good life, be a good person, and die a good death. Or don't. Regardless of what happens, worst case scenario you still get to go to Heaven because Jesus died for everyone to get a VIP pass through forgiveness.
And make sure you sin lots, because otherwise Jesus died in vain.
I always like this perspective. It reminds me of how the Aztecs thought the Spanish were Gods because they used things they couldn't explain, and had great riches. I sometimes hear, on coast to coast am, the idea that all these religions were based off of some alien encounter. I think that's a lot more likely than the classical story, yet if you say you believe in aliens you're some kind of lunatic. If you say you believe in god, it's a different reaction.
I think it would be even more likely that a few initial religions were based on encounters with more advanced civilizations, and then those religions were copied, changed, and used as inspiration for many religions to follow as civilizations interacted with one another either through peace of conquest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
