Quote from: Pastor AIO on April 28, 2010, 06:16 PM
@Inesqor, let me address this because if I don't then I know that I'm in serious hot pepper soup.

I am currently reading a book by Karen Armstrong called A History Of God. Now, while I don't agree with a lot that she says, she brought up some interesting points. First of all the radically different nature of El to Yahweh (or jehovah).
El, the canaanite God which Abramham, Isaac, and Jacob worshipped was a more approachable figure. You could sit down and have a meal with El. In fact El came visiting Abraham with 2 other fellows of his. Abraham welcomed them and entertained them before they then left. His grandson Jacob even had a wrestling bout with El. This is a very interesting ontology of El.
And before the Muslims come jumping in and saying that it is because of corruptions in the bible let me hasten to add that this is in keeping with the way the Canaanites saw their Gods. So it is not only the bible. In that part of the world at that time it was possible to eat with God and even wrestle with him. In fact in the bible there is an incident where Paul and Silas go to a Greek city and get mistaken for deities. That could only happen if people expect to be able to see deities in physical forms. The Hindus call them Avatars, I believe.wikipedia

@PastorAIO;

Are you numbered in the "hosts of hell"? Sincere question (no pun or whatever intended) - what exactly do you subscribe to (religious belief) and who/what do you pastor? And yes, you were right, this section is the only one where you find this level of "enlightened" diction and reasoning.

How does one go about discovering Truth? Was it you who said you were looking for a religion and I offered to help but you did not get back to me? you must be committed to the quest from the start. The quest for truth that is. I guess you were expecting me to present you with a doctrine which you could then pick apart and criticise. Well that was not what I was proposing for a religion. I was proposing a Practice which is a totally different proposition from a Doctrine. I can still suggest some practices for you if you are truly on a quest for Truth.

So these stories are not a corruption but rather in perfect harmony with the way the people of that part of the world at that time thought of their deities. 

[size=24pt]But then comes an apparently new figure.  A terrifying awe inspiring, jealous being[/size].  A deity unheard of in Canaan.  El was a Canaanite deity.  El Elyon was the Ruler of the Gods, the Elohim, in ancient canaanite religion.  How this new deity was first encountered, not in canaan, but in Midian.  He tells Moses not to approach but to take of his shoes.  Already this is quite different from El.  El walked through paradise in the evening calling out to Adam.  [size=24pt]Yahweh is telling man to keep a distance[/size]. 

noetic17:

^^^

Its either u are helplessly dishonest or have amnesia. . . . .Me thinks its the former.

This were your EXACT words

  dude in contrast to Eli u claimed that Yahweh was an angry, jealous God not properly introduced to the jews? . .  .what other meaning did u connote other than the one pre-stated? . . . .The least u could have done is to admit your folly

Bastage:

You seem to love the word "ontological".

Do you actually know what it means?

noetic17:

^^^

This post I made is the bone of contention.


1. You denied the above by producing a quote from your past post. Which I refuted by producing another quote from your past post that actually shows that u stated that.

2. by your post u asserted that El was approachable and that Abraham dined with Him, but quite unlike Yahweh who is unapproachable angry and jealous.

3. Your attempt to deny this assertion is what I consider dishonest. or did u simply change your mind?

4. if by now u deny painting Yahweh as the opposite of El, what then is their major ontological difference?

Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being (neuter participle of εἶναι: to be) and -λογία, -logia: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations. Traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics, ontology deals with questions concerning what entities exist or can be said to exist, and how such entities can be grouped, related within a hierarchy, and subdivided according to similarities and differences.

Pastor AIO:

I don't know how you can read 'terrifying awe inspiring' and understand that I said that Yahweh was 'angry'.  That is your problem.  You lack basic comprehension skills.  Yahweh is jealous by his own admission.  He makes it known in no uncertain terms that he is a jealous god.  If you think that was a baseless claim on my part then you obviously don't know your bible.  
El's ontology was different on a number of points.
El appeared as a physical person. / Yahweh does not have a physical depiction.
Abraham had a meal with El / Yahweh tells the people of Israel that they cannot even touch the foot of mount sinai or they will be put to death.
Jacob wrestled with El and wouldn't release him until he received a blessing.  /  I cannot imagine such a thing happening with Yahweh.  Even moses couldn't see his face.
These are the ones that I can think of right now.  There is no mention of anger in anything I've said to distinguish them.  

Pastor AIO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

noetic17:

I was hoping Bastage could come up with a unique definition from his brain and not from a dictionary of wikipedia.

I was hoping Bastage could come up with a unique definition from his brain and not from a dictionary of wikipedia.

I am sure any literal observer would see that "awe terrifying" is synonymous with ANGER.

noetic17:

1. I am sure any literal observer would see that "awe terrifying" is synonymous with ANGER. Also considering that u clearly stated that Yahweh was unapproachable. why is He unapproachable? cos He is terrifying or angry .  , what ever your pick is, they mean the same thing.

noetic17:

2. The problem here is your apparent cowardice and dishonesty. I never disputed that Yahweh never claimed to be jealous. The bone of contention is your RIDICULOUS claim that El is different from Yahweh. why are u now trying to shift the goal post? are u suddenly confused?

dude in contrast to Eli u claimed that Yahweh was an angry, jealous God [/b]not properly introduced to the jews? . .  .what other meaning did u connote other than the one pre-stated? . . . .The least u could have done is to admit your folly

4. Your biblical knowledge is porous. The Israelites not only went to mount sinai. . . .they all heard Yahweh speak to them loud and clear. But because Yahweh chose to speak in a loud,[b] terrifying and inaudible tone, they pleaded that He now only speaks with Moses.

But because Yahweh chose to speak in a loud, terrifying and inaudible tone, they pleaded that He now only speaks with Moses.

5. Moses actually saw the back of Yahweh and communed with Yahweh just like Abraham did with El. Joshua also had an encounter with the Captain of the Hosts of Heaven, who accepted worship from Joshua. did Joshua not see Yahweh?  David saw the Father say unto the Son, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your foot stool"
perhaps u should ask for further biblical education if u find any part of the bible confusing. I would gladly educate your ignorance.

Romeo4real:

I must admit, i find this section of NL as exhilarating as it is exhausting, as annoying as it is addictive, as frustrating as it is compelling, and the arguments as coherent as they are disjointed.

It definitely consists of the most intense, emotional, passionate, enduring, articulate, erudite and philosophical individuals I’ve ever come across anywhere. Even the insults are worth reading! Some say there is no God; some say there is a God, but not the Christian God we know.  Some say it is Allah, whilst others, like myself believe there is only one true God; Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, The I Am that I Am.

Romeo4real:
Eventually, someday, i believe all the sceptics will have their "Road to Damascus" experience, their Eureka moment, and an epiphany of such compelling magnitude, that it will provide irrefutable evidence - the kind that only resides within you; the kind that only comes from a personal experience, and an intimate relationship. Yes, there may be many Gods, but there is only one TRUE God - and his name is Jehovah.

Until such a time, we shall continue to conjecture, to postulate and pontificate, to philosophise and elucidate. We will continue our intellectual jousting and our cerebral gymnastics. If nothing else it gives our brains a workout and builds a begrudging camaraderie. Well, i salute all posters here!

When I saw that package - the one with FOOLish verses (pun intended) - you put together for ol’ DS earlier, I mused that you are rather lucky that you are a Christian

That is why the “Damascus experience” cuts both ways – several ways. I mean there are people who yesterday were Bible-chewing, anointing-filled, demon-casting, born-again Christians, whose own Damascus experience took them away from biblical Christianity

Romeo4real:

Dnt know what you're on about here. What FOOLish verses did i put together for Deep Sight?

Romeo4real:
Well, no religion has a monopoly on enlightenment. I don't claim that, but you would have to use another phrase. "the Damascus Experience" arising from Paul's epiphany can only cut one way. It is in the Bible, and used to describe a Christian experience. If it takes you away from Christianity, it cannot really be described as a "Damascus experience" can it? And yes, i am being pedantic.

Pastor AIO:

Really?  English can't be your first language.  Or even your 2nd or 3rd language.  Maybe you did a crash course when you arrived from your village late in your adulthood.  
When I am accused of making a claim that Yahweh is jealous I presume that the accuser thinks the opposite.  
and so  . . .?    Did El ever appear as a burning fire or as a burning bush?  

"let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people[b]. You shall set bounds for the people all around[/b], saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death." Exodus 19:11-12
Terrifying??  Are you saying Yahweh is angry?  Because you've made me understanding that you think to be terrifying is to be angry.  
(you have such a poor grasp of the english language.)

I am sure any literal observer would see that "awe terrifying" is synonymous with ANGER.

Bastage:

Noetic: Your dictionary definition proves nothing.

Something can be awe-inspiring or terrifying without being angry.
Terrifying and angry most certainly do not mean the same thing as you claim.

Bastage:

It's the English language guy. It has rules and words have meanings.
You can't make it up to suit yourself.

Pastor AIO:

Oh yes he can!! Like he makes everything else up to suit himself. His christianity included.

The bottom line is the god of bible cannot be trusted, since he has the ability to conspire and lie.

What if the same 'LYING' spirit was the one that appear to Jesus, cos god has destined him and his followers to hell?

Romeo4real:

This is a nonsensical statement in it entirety. God does not "need" you to trust him. You talk as if God is a man that should "earn" your trust. If you do not believe in God, do say so, but to argue that he cannot be trusted because he has the ability to conspire is silly.

. Well, if it was, then the Bible would say so, wouldn't it? The Bible made it clear that God sent the lying spirit in the other scenario, didn't it? Not a worthy example with regards to this argument.

""Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me." (John 14:1).