Origins of the Judeo-Christian god and religion

Well then what actually happened in history to account for Jehovah's origin?lfen

Esoteric riposte, nice, but what Arach is doing is Ethymology. No it's not an exact science and derivations are argued but you need to offer ethymological counter arguments. Clang association was a nice try but desperate. How do you derive the words? lfen

Thanks, Arach, but I was trying to get Faith to give me an example of what she understands when she uses the word history. She applied the word to Mohammed and Allah but not Jehovah. I was hoping her statement might clarify the basis she is using for her distinction.lfen

Just getting up and having my coffee and realizing I don't have an adequate technical vocabulary for the distinction I want to make.This is Brian's field and perhaps he can funish me with the words I need. What I want to get at is that there is the historicalness of the books themselves and then there is the story they tell.The historical records of this period are few and fragmentary but they offer clues in terms of language among other things.We have the stories written down by the compilers of the Torah and we have other information about Israel and Judaism. The story told in the Bible and this other information are frequently not in agreement.Arach is often looking at the sources of Jewish religion in extra Bibical history, linguistics, archeology etc.You and Buz were attempting to do that in examining the sources Mohammed might have used for the Koran. When it comes to the Bible you revert to allowing it to be the only witness to the religion.The double standard that Arach is quite fairly objecting to is that you need to choose one methodology and apply it in all cases for the sake of argument. To use one methodology for Islam and another for Judaism is the double standard.Either rule in history, etymology, linguistics or rule them out. But don't allow them in one case and disallow them in the other. You keep switching on Arach. You use linguistic argument for the word Allah in Islam but then deny the same approach when Arach applies it to Judaim and Christianity.If, Brian reads this and cares to comment I'm wondering what tha academic language is for the history IN the text versus the history OF the text.Arach is looking at the history OF the Bible, not the history IN the Bible. Which is what you were doing with Islam. It perfectly fine to address both issue but we have to keep them clear.lfen

And, Phat, saying "God is an uncreated Being" is you creating and imagining God as "an uncreated Being" and since you are a human, your definition of God is an example of human wisdom.lfen

I've become impressed lately that the reason fundamental literalist are so adamant that science is wrong and that the Bible, flood and all is fact is because faith is very difficult for them (you can substitute whatever book of religion for Bible, such as Koran, Book of Mormon, etc). If it's fact it doesn't take faith. It's all you know, it's real and easy to believe.I won't say more as it moves off topic but it may not be possible for the positions to get any closer. At this point in the thread it may be as close as we are ever going to get.lfen

No you still don't get my point.I could accept it wasn't your imagination. But we are still left with how you decide if it was a true impartation vs. a cunning facsimile by say, Satan?At the end of the day you chose from your wisdom whether or not to accept the impartation as truth or error, as sourced from God or the devil.As long as you are you can't get away from you.lfen

Have you read any of the ways southerners characterized Abraham Lincoln? He was characterized in terrible ways. Many notherners had similiar sentiments also. Others consider him a hero. What about John Brown? And these are relatively recent historical people who received a great deal of attention by the press of the day.So you read some people and Lincoln was a hero, to others a villian. There is a great movie Rashomon:
Rashomon - Wikipedia(film)Or Ann Rule's book Everything She Ever Wanted. Conflicting witness testimony is verified in law schools every year. In the middle of a lecture someone runs in shouts something shoots a gun and runs out. Then all the law students give their accounts. You think they agree?In a way Faith for me you are the sample of en entire group of puzzling humans I characterize as fundamental literalist. I'm not speaking of only Christians here and not even mainstream religion. The puzzling thing to me appears to be your intolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty and an insistence that there is a single version of the truth that can be objectively agreed upon by everyone, or at least everyone who is righteous or saved.My personal subjective preference in a forced choice is undoubtedly Christianity. Aside from Sufism, so much of Islam is repellent to me. But I'm not gonna fall for a rank over simplification that attempts to discredit the religion by claiming they worship the moon god. Something that silly should be pathetic and it is especially when religious con artists like Pat Robertson are able to exploit so many gullible people for so much money.I'm not defending Islam here. I'm defending rationalism.lfen

Faith,I know you are representing your own understanding of what Christianity is but you are a member of a church which if I've understood you is of Calvinist derivation and accepts the Westminister Catechesm.You certainly don't need to say more but I'm curious as to the specific denomination as I'd like read more about it's position on such things as archeology, history, and science.I'm trying to understand how fundamentalist groups conceive of themselves in this age of science and archeology which challenges so much of their traditonal assumptions.lfen

Arach says it's a trick question but it's whetted my curiosity. What is the earliest non-bible account of the Christian god?lfen

I think this is a very important point. The Bible is not a book but a collection of writings from different periods, authors, etc.Individuals and groups have sought in retrospect to impose an interpretation on the Bible that supports their vision of the religion. Hence we have Jehovah Witnesses, Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist each making the Bible what they believe it should be. There is enough ambiguity and conflict to support a wide range of interpretations.I'm still fascinated, mind boggled, and disappointed that people of a wide range of faiths can in the present imagine that some selection of ancient writings whether the Vedas, the Torah, or Koran, or even as modern as The Book of Mormon can be taken literally as the manual written , dictated, or inerrantly inspired by the source of the universe and yet this belief is routine in societies from India to the US. Homo Sap is a fascinating species.lfen

And then there is the most intimate immediate mystery of consciousness of being!lfen

Googling on Finegan I found this site. It's a light hearted not so scholarly but intelligent look at the pagan roots of Christianity. Worth a click and quick look.POCM > Getting Started > ancient religion for dummiesThe site does include Finegan's book in their recommended introductions; lfen

And that is only IF they even can find chariot wheels.As I recall the one Wyatt claimed to have found was entrusted to the care of some curator and then both the wheel and curator went missing. I don't think anyone had heard of the curator or Wyatt couldn't recall his name something like that. Another one of Wyatt's flimsy lies.The photos are of clumps of coral that with the help of overlays could possibly be chariot wheels. But you could do the same thing with photos of clouds.in brief, Wyatt among his many claims claimed to have found chariot wheels. He never produced the Ark of Covenant, Noah's Ark, Chariot wheels and I forget what all. What he produced were movies that he sold.I actually think Buz is probably a very nice human being but I've given up talking with him. As long as it fits his pre judgements there is no evidence too flimsy or riduculous for him and on the other hand he will bend, cut, and mutilate any argument to get it to fit his foregone conclusion. In short Buz knows what he knows. Knows how to repeat it ad nauseum over the course of years. That is sum total his concept of evidence, logic, and argument.Wyatt of course was a complete flim flam artist. I should open up a website and start selling peices of the true cross, worked for Ron!lfenABE: Thinking about the chances of being prosecuted for fraud I realized Ron's genius. Con people in securities, land, etc. can get prosecuted, but all of Ron's victims were more than happy to pay money for his fraud and let's say they became discouraged, since it was matter of faith was there even a crime involved? Seems religious scams are the safest to pull off and with such a large group of people to prey on potentially very lucrative.This message has been edited by lfen, 05-06-2006 01:11 PM