United States Christian Former Military Officer Beheads Satanic Shrine in Iowa State Capitol

[S'task]

Nope.

He was, strangely enough, apparently the Canaanite god of metallurgy. shrug

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089209105686?journalCode=jota#:~:text=These%20data%20suggest%20that%2C%20before,%2C%20Kenite%2C%20origin%20of%20monotheism.

Yahweh

Yahweh is the name of the state god of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and, later, the Kingdom of Judah. His name is composed of four Hebrew consonants (YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton) which the prophet...

www.worldhistory.org

Basically, a theory which makes a lot of sense is that he was originally the god of copper/bronze and metallurgy for the Canaanites and a few other related groups, and that the cult that eventually formed Judaism either focused their entire worship on him as the One True Creator or appropriated him for their own uses.

This is a very recent and, from my understanding, poorly supported theory that conflates what little we know about the ancient Canaanite pantheon and early Judaism and using linguistic similar names to construct a mythology (and there are many similar sounding names because, well, the languages are related) where we have no supporting texts... EXCEPT for the ancient Hebrew scriptures... which are strictly monotheistic but discounted because... reasons...

Meanwhile we take at face value similarly ancient religious texts concerning the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians. Somehow their ancient religious texts are considered to be accurate to what their people believed in that time, but Jewish ones are treated as suspect because... well... REASONS.

It's frankly a continual disgusting double standard within archeology and history that the Bible is treated as a suspect source despite that when you compare it to other historical documents its both better preserved, and consistently as accurate if not moreso than other historically preserved documents.

 

[King Arts]

What do you mean by "it Mazda himself was one being"? Clarify that before I can properly respond because as your response stands I can't conclusively agree or disagree because I don't fully understand what you're saying...

He is a single God like how Jews and Muslim think of the unity of God, not made up of "parts" like how pantheists would describe God (everything and everyone is a part of God) or how some Hindus think of Brahmin.

The Yazata are lesser spirits that were created by Ahura Mazda, the Spenta's are also powerful spirits while they might embody certain attributes they are again thinking beings(of great power) that were made by Ahura Mazda.

The only uncreated beings are Ahura, and Ahriman/Angra Mainyu. But they are clear opposites they aren't two parts of a whole.

 

[Poe]

Nope.

He was, strangely enough, apparently the Canaanite god of metallurgy. shrug

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309089209105686?journalCode=jota#:~:text=These%20data%20suggest%20that%2C%20before,%2C%20Kenite%2C%20origin%20of%20monotheism.

Yahweh

Yahweh is the name of the state god of the ancient Kingdom of Israel and, later, the Kingdom of Judah. His name is composed of four Hebrew consonants (YHWH, known as the Tetragrammaton) which the prophet...

www.worldhistory.org

Basically, a theory which makes a lot of sense is that he was originally the god of copper/bronze and metallurgy for the Canaanites and a few other related groups, and that the cult that eventually formed Judaism either focused their entire worship on him as the One True Creator or appropriated him for their own uses.

No, "he" wasn't. YHWH is not the name of diety, as stated above, and you are spewing controversial theories not widely accepted and pushing them as fact. YHWH is a phrase that became popular among monothiests in ancient Israel and was used in place of a name since God was not taken to have a name humans can pronounce. "Yahweh," is not the name of anything (since the addition of the A and E are not agreed to be the real vowels in the word, if it was assumed to be a singular word and not an acronym which it definitely isn't) and is usually used by misguided protestants but mostly by athiests trying to prove that god is all made up.

As has been stated to you by multiple posters at this point, the origin of monothiesm amongst the Hebrews is the subject of ongoing study and no one has a solid answer.

 

[IndyFront]

He is a single God like how Jews and Muslim think of the unity of God, not made up of "parts" like how pantheists would describe God (everything and everyone is a part of God) or how some Hindus think of Brahmin.

And I take all of those beliefs and inject a healthy dose of pantheism, I'm basically a Zoroastrian-pantheist, I should've said that in my opening post. That is the underlying explanation for the origin of Angra, however, that it was essentially a split personality, when looking at it through a pantheist lens.

Also pantheism sees these "parts" as fundamentally one whole. Just thought I should clear that up.

The Yazata are lesser spirits that were created by Ahura Mazda, the Spenta's are also powerful spirits while they might embody certain attributes they are again thinking beings(of great power) that were made by Ahura Mazda.

The only uncreated beings are Ahura, and Ahriman/Angra Mainyu. But they are clear opposites they aren't two parts of a whole.

This is where my pantheism comes into play, these spirits are created from parts of his being. He is that powerful. Not only does he embody the universe, but he can create things entirely separate from it, things you wouldn't believe exist. Things that defy the laws of physics. A truly all-powerful being would be able to create paradoxes and travel faster than the speed of light. You wouldn't even be able to comprehend the true complexity of this pan-universal superorganism that is simultaneously a physical entity and something far more alien. It is basically Lovecraftianism on weapons grade LSD. My interpretation of the idea of God anyway.

 

[Poe]

And I take all of those beliefs and inject a healthy dose of pantheism, I'm basically a Zoroastrian-pantheist, I should've said that in my opening post. That is the underlying explanation for the origin of Angra, however, that it was essentially a split personality, when looking at it through a pantheist lens.

Also pantheism sees these "parts" as fundamentally one whole. Just thought I should clear that up.



This is where my pantheism comes into play, these spirits are created from parts of his being. He is that powerful. Not only does he embody the universe, but he can create things entirely separate from it, things you wouldn't believe exist. Things that defy the laws of physics. A truly all-powerful being would be able to create paradoxes and travel faster than the speed of light. You wouldn't even be able to comprehend the true complexity of this pan-universal superorganism that is simultaneously a physical entity and something far more alien. It is basically Lovecraftianism on weapons grade LSD. My interpretation of the idea of God anyway.

You're welcome to be whatever you want, but this is like being a panthiest Muslim and the two theologies are kind of at odds. I.e. in both religions the world/universe is taken to be a creation of God, not God itself. If the universe is God that changes most of the core theology of the religion.

 

[IndyFront]

You're welcome to be whatever you want, but this is like being a panthiest Muslim and the two theologies are kind of at odds. I.e. in both religions the world/universe is taken to be a creation of God, not God itself. If the universe is God that changes most of the core theology of the religion.

See to me that just comes off as lazy and someone not actually interested in truly getting to know God as he truly exists. It isn't just some woo woo esoteric bullshit it's saying "Hey, you want proof of God? Look around, out into the infinite universe, it's all right there in front of you." No, you want a mindfuck? Look into the link between Omega Point cosmology, AI technological singularity and Roko's Basilisk. Godlike beings have an almost 100% chance of existing in the shockingly near-future and if time travel exists - which these beings would have - there could be literal trans-temporal angels and demons watching you from the future right now.

 

[Jormungandr]

This is a very recent and, from my understanding, poorly supported theory that conflates what little we know about the ancient Canaanite pantheon and early Judaism and using linguistic similar names to construct a mythology (and there are many similar sounding names because, well, the languages are related) where we have no supporting texts... EXCEPT for the ancient Hebrew scriptures... which are strictly monotheistic but discounted because... reasons...

Meanwhile we take at face value similarly ancient religious texts concerning the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians. Somehow their ancient religious texts are considered to be accurate to what their people believed in that time, but Jewish ones are treated as suspect because... well... REASONS.

It's frankly a continual disgusting double standard within archeology and history that the Bible is treated as a suspect source despite that when you compare it to other historical documents its both better preserved, and consistently as accurate if not moreso than other historically preserved documents.

The problem with historical texts and things like steles and tablets, which includes the Bible, is that biases were in play by those who wrote/depicted them. Did a war or battle happen? Most certainly. The details, however? Yeah, Chinese whispers, and the Bible itself was basically written by fourth hand accounts distanced by time (literally a case of my cousins best friend's sister said...). It doesn't help that it's been translated and mistranslated over and over.

No, "he" wasn't. YHWH is not the name of diety, as stated above, and you are spewing controversial theories not widely accepted and pushing them as fact. YHWH is a phrase that became popular among monothiests in ancient Israel and was used in place of a name since God was not taken to have a name humans can pronounce. "Yahweh," is not the name of anything (since the addition of the A and E are not agreed to be the real vowels in the word, if it was assumed to be a singular word and not an acronym which it definitely isn't) and is usually used by misguided protestants but mostly by athiests trying to prove that god is all made up.

As has been stated to you by multiple posters at this point, the origin of monothiesm amongst the Hebrews is the subject of ongoing study and no one has a solid answer.

Until I see evidence otherwise, I'm still thinking that is what happened in some form or another -- and, no, not because of any perceived anti-semitism that others who believe this sort of thing may have, but because this pattern of behavior has been seen over and over in other religions (for example, the Egyptians had a short-lived monotheistic cult at one stage which developed from their own pantheon, Aten; to a lesser, sort-of extent Christianity's own Jesus Christ; to ancient Greek deities that originated from the Fertile Crescent).

But yeah; could that have been what happened? Maybe. But until they dig something up or discover something otherwise... shrug Monotheistic worship of one god when there were over a dozen in that region of the world doesn't just happen out of nowhere.

 

[S'task]

The problem with historical texts and things like steles and tablets, which includes the Bible, is that biases were in play by those who wrote/depicted them. Did a war or battle happen? Most certainly. The details, however? Yeah, Chinese whispers, and the Bible itself was basically written by fourth hand accounts distanced by time (literally a case of my cousins best friend's sister said...). It doesn't help that it's been translated and mistranslated over and over.

. . .

You do know the idea that the Biblical ancient texts have been mistranslated over and over is basically completely rejected by modern SECULAR Biblical scholarship? That whenever we've found older and older preserved documents of the Bible (like the Dead Sea Scrolls) that the differences are minute and rare, and that it is noteworthily remarkable how accurate our modern translation is to the oldest sources? Also, finally, if that's your standard, you should basically reject ALL OF ANCIENT HISTORY? The Bible is the most well attested and supported ancient document we have, we have more evidence of the historicity of much of the Bible than for the existence of Plato and other major Greek philosophical figures or historical Chinese Emperors, etc.?

Seriously, you're holding the Bible to a textual standard that no other ancient text would survive, and if you applied it equally you would basically have to throw out all of history before 1000 AD or LATER.

I think @LordsFire has better exact details on this than I can recall at this time...

 

[Poe]

Until I see evidence otherwise, I'm still thinking that is what happened in some form or another -- and, no, not because of any perceived anti-semitism that others who believe this sort of thing may have, but because this pattern of behavior has been seen over and over in other religions (for example, the Egyptians had a short-lived monotheistic cult at one stage which developed from their own pantheon, Aten; to a lesser, sort-of extent Christianity's own Jesus Christ; to ancient Greek deities that originated from the Fertile Crescent).

But yeah; could that have been what happened? Maybe. But until they dig something up or discover something otherwise... shrug Monotheistic worship of one god when there were over a dozen in that region of the world doesn't just happen out of nowhere.

If you are going off whats likely, the most likely source of monothiesm is that Persian monothiesm had a huge influence on the middle east as a whole and Jewish monothiesm is a syncretism. Just believing some fringe theory about some random god actually being YHWH with no proof save for some online articles pushed by leftists makes little sense.

 

[King Krávoka]

See to me that just comes off as lazy and someone not actually interested in truly getting to know God as he truly exists. It isn't just some woo woo esoteric bullshit it's saying "Hey, you want proof of God? Look around, out into the infinite universe, it's all right there in front of you." No, you want a mindfuck? Look into the link between Omega Point cosmology, AI technological singularity and Roko's Basilisk. Godlike beings have an almost 100% chance of existing in the shockingly near-future and if time travel exists - which these beings would have - there could be literal trans-temporal angels and demons watching you from the future right now.

I was also fifteen once. Just go commit suicide with the rest of the physical universe for our Luciferian hivemind bro, I'm sure that your dying dream will have infinite duration bro, you're already living it bro, it's very important to the god machine that you physically construct it inside a fantasy that it's already having bro.

 

[IndyFront]

I was also fifteen once. Just go commit suicide with the rest of the physical universe for our Luciferian hivemind bro, I'm sure that your dying dream will have infinite duration bro, you're already living it bro, it's very important to the god machine that you physically construct it inside a fantasy that it's already having bro.

Ironic coming from someone who probably believes god is his own personal genie that grants wishes and is basically an imaginary friend.

 

[King Krávoka]

Ironic coming from someone who probably believes god is his own personal genie that grants wishes and is basically an imaginary friend.

Those weren't my arguments for the existence of Deity.

 

[Poe]

See to me that just comes off as lazy and someone not actually interested in truly getting to know God as he truly exists. It isn't just some woo woo esoteric bullshit it's saying "Hey, you want proof of God? Look around, out into the infinite universe, it's all right there in front of you." No, you want a mindfuck? Look into the link between Omega Point cosmology, AI technological singularity and Roko's Basilisk. Godlike beings have an almost 100% chance of existing in the shockingly near-future and if time travel exists - which these beings would have - there could be literal trans-temporal angels and demons watching you from the future right now.

I think worshipping the material universe is lazy and not actually interested in getting to know the one as it truly exists. The material you say is God is an illusion concocted by your brain, the real universe is just a great vibration (even according to physics.). Regardless, my point was that whatever you are it isn't a zoroastrian even if you have taken some things from it.

 

[LordsFire]

The problem with historical texts and things like steles and tablets, which includes the Bible, is that biases were in play by those who wrote/depicted them. Did a war or battle happen? Most certainly. The details, however? Yeah, Chinese whispers, and the Bible itself was basically written by fourth hand accounts distanced by time (literally a case of my cousins best friend's sister said...). It doesn't help that it's been translated and mistranslated over and over.


Until I see evidence otherwise, I'm still thinking that is what happened in some form or another -- and, no, not because of any perceived anti-semitism that others who believe this sort of thing may have, but because this pattern of behavior has been seen over and over in other religions (for example, the Egyptians had a short-lived monotheistic cult at one stage which developed from their own pantheon, Aten; to a lesser, sort-of extent Christianity's own Jesus Christ; to ancient Greek deities that originated from the Fertile Crescent).

But yeah; could that have been what happened? Maybe. But until they dig something up or discover something otherwise... shrug Monotheistic worship of one god when there were over a dozen in that region of the world doesn't just happen out of nowhere.

As S'task has said, the Bible is the single most well-supported historical document ever.

Even if you don't believe in the supernatural parts of it, it has consistently and repeatedly been proven accurate about the existence of historical figures, cities, wars, etc.

We have record-keeping of the kinds of standards that Catholic Monks and Jewish Rabbi held for copying sacred texts in medieval, classical, and ancient times, and the degree of fidelity they demanded was immense, with multiple forms of checking that the new copy was identical to the old, and requirements that a single error would see the new one destroyed, start over from scratch.

It really is mostly just try-hard atheists looking for a way to take another swing at Christianity and Judaism who try to re-write the old testament accounts completely. Like they have for most of the cultural war between Christianity and Atheism in the West, they cloak themselves in the penumbra of 'science' and 'rationality,' taking on that cultural authority to attack 'irrational religion,' while utterly ignoring any facts and historical records inconvenient for their preferred narratives.

Even vaguely objective views look at the 'theories' that such people put forward, and immediately see that the most salient quality of it is not its evidence or its logical structure, but its direct contravention and hostility towards anything and everything to do with Christianity. A hundred years ago, these arguments held more weight, but archeologists and historians keep discovering cities that are referenced in the Bible, and records of historical figures that atheists used to claim didn't actually exist.


Basically it's all just a dressed up form of that neo-pagan bumper sticker that says 'My goddess gave birth to your god.'

 

[Zachowon]

Alright, here is a youtuber who breaks down various historical parts of Christianity.
This particular one pertaining to his name.

 

[Morphic Tide]

which are strictly monotheistic

Actually they aren't, the older parts of the Torah get quite unambiguously monolaric at best (E.G. Psalms 97:9 is a "my god is best" statement, not "my god is the only god". A lot of those statements in that book...), and there's a few passages in the religious law that forbid specific practices seen in worshipping known deities in the region. Judges is also clear that polytheism had become common in ancient Israel, with the long-after-the-fact nature of scriptural ossification making "YHWH-washing the past" entirely possible.

Edit: Also stuff like Genesis 1:26 using the plural for the creation of man. That's... Very unambiguous about there being more than one "higher power" involved. It's very clear when you compare different parts of the work to eachother that there's a lot of polytheistic leftovers in the phrasing of the first-written books of the Torah.

 

[LordsFire]

Actually they aren't, the older parts of the Torah get quite unambiguously monolaric at best (E.G. Psalms 97:9 is a "my god is best" statement, not "my god is the only god". A lot of those statements in that book...), and there's a few passages in the religious law that forbid specific practices seen in worshipping known deities in the region. Judges is also clear that polytheism had become common in ancient Israel, with the long-after-the-fact nature of scriptural ossification making "YHWH-washing the past" entirely possible.

Edit: Also stuff like Genesis 1:26 using the plural for the creation of man. That's... Very unambiguous about there being more than one "higher power" involved. It's very clear when you compare different parts of the work to eachother that there's a lot of polytheistic leftovers in the phrasing of the first-written books of the Torah.

Another attempt by atheists and the like to functionally rewrite parts of the Bible.

You're touching on three things:

1: Sometimes God would have a chat with the angels.
2: The Trinity.
3: God addressing people used to, surrounded by, and sometimes corrupted by, polytheistic societies. These comparisons always make a point of how pagan gods are actually useless and/or destructive, but God actually does things, because He's actually real.

The 'early Hebrews were actually polytheists who edited the Torah later' is just another edgy-boy atheist take.

 

[Morphic Tide]

Another attempt by atheists and the like to functionally rewrite parts of the Bible.

...No, it's just the result of skepticism. We have contemporaneous religious writings and related languages to analyze, the monotheistic interpretation is a bizarre use of the grammar in question.

1: Sometimes God would have a chat with the angels.

The phrases include the use of "We" referring to "Elohim", which is the exact same word used for "angels" in other passages. Comparing the whole body of the text, without assuming its accuracy, spits out a lot of passages that are vastly more natural to read as polytheistic or monolaric.

2: The Trinity.

Is not remotely reconcilable with any describable logic of partitioning. It is so contradictory that many a sect has given up trying to explain it, with the Orthodox being "it literally can't be explained, it has to be revealed to you by Him". Again, result of skepticism, the moment you do not presume the scripture is the word of God very different interpretations are considerably more natural because you're not being locked into explaining weird turns of phrase.

3: God addressing people used to, surrounded by, and sometimes corrupted by, polytheistic societies. These comparisons always make a point of how pagan gods are actually useless and/or destructive, but God actually does things, because He's actually real.

Again, your counter-argument relies on presuming Christianity/Judaism is true, while the people authoring these theories do not. The moment skepticism is permitted, the scripture falls apart for the void of evidence for incredibly obvious claims.

The 'early Hebrews were actually polytheists who edited the Torah later' is just another edgy-boy atheist take.

No, it's "when you do not assume God, the shifts in writing style clearly trace a shift from what was kept from early polytheism through monolarity into true monotheism". You know, the idea having a worldly origin instead of Magic Sky Daddy who's interactions fall off a cliff right when a society's rate of observation ramps up. Like we have for most of what separated Christianity from Judaism.

 

[Zachowon]

I recommend people watch the video I posted even the first t minutes. He explains it using historical texts...

 

[DarthOne]

The ‘gods’ mentioned in the Bible, at least when it comes to the context of the non-Holy Trinity, are to the pagan deities, which are being called as such for ease of understanding. Said deities were not actually real gods, but were at most rebellious angels being worshipped as such who had been put into that position prior to rebelling by God to guide the nations.

(Or at least that’s my understanding of it)

source:

Stephen De Young
Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century