Hell is awesome

[Kane]

I think you're pretty much engrossed in your view and thus it is a waste of time debating it with you.

Isn't everyone guilty of this very thing? And isn't that the point of debating one fixed view against another?

[SarahB]

Sorry, but knowledge and intelligence is two different things.

You got that right, Sister!

Nice strawmen but where did I say that I wasn't? Oh I didn't say or imply that at all, but simply see no evidence that people today are any smarter then they were thousands of years ago. I think you're pretty much engrossed in your view and thus it is a waste of time debating it with you.

Did you mean "entrenched"?

[lilpixieofterror]

Isn't everyone guilty of this very thing? And isn't that the point of debating one fixed view against another?

True, but at what point does it become reaching and just throwing up conclusions that don't exist instead of actually looking for the truth?

[showmeproof]

True, but at what point does it become reaching and just throwing up conclusions that don't exist instead of actually looking for the truth?

That is a question you should reflect upon.

[lilpixieofterror]

That is a question you should reflect upon.

I have SMP and sorry, the fact Christians and Jews hold to your belief about the OT and still manage to be Christians and Jews, despite that, doesn't support your doubts as much as you think.

[Kane]

True, but at what point does it become reaching and just throwing up conclusions that don't exist instead of actually looking for the truth?

Honestly, I think only each individual can determine that. It's no-one else's place to determine that for another, in my opinion.

[lilpixieofterror]

Honestly, I think only each individual can determine that. It's no-one else's place to determine that for another, in my opinion.

Even when facts and reasoning has to be thrown out the door?

[showmeproof]

I have SMP and sorry, the fact Christians and Jews hold to your belief about the OT and still manage to be Christians and Jews, despite that, doesn't support your doubts as much as you think.

and mormons, and humanists. It's not about supporting doubts. It is about finding the most parsimonious reconstruction of history. That history, and the very people you are attempting to use against me, includes the West Semitic, specifically Canaanite, origin of much of Israel's religious repertoire. I'm using the Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and secular arguments for the history. How one includes history into their religion is up to them...in other words it is one's belief who changes or not based upon the historical evidence. One's belief cannot change the historical evidence. History obviously doesn't play a key role in your faith.

[lilpixieofterror]

and mormons, and humanists. It's not about supporting doubts. It is about finding the most parsimonious reconstruction of history.

Even when it involved trying to state that a belief system that was little known and most likely lost to most of history by the 1st century AD and the fact the culture and concepts of the 1st century AD were different then the 10th century BC isn't overly reaching and trying to support your doubts, instead of explain the evidence?

That history, and the very people you are attempting to use against me, includes the West Semitic, specifically Canaanite, origin of much of Israel's religious repertoire.

Your own words and arguments have made it pretty clear that the Canaanite religion was pretty much gone by the time of King David and I really do doubt that the Jewish religion was still being affected by it, hundreds of years later, since it had been dead for centuries by that time and the Roman, Babylon, and Persian influences would have been far stronger then the distant memory of the Canaanite religion would be. If you want to make it sound though that the resurrection of Jesus, somehow was influenced by beliefs of the Canaanite religion instead of being a real historical event, you are welcome to believe that, but I don't think your evidence is there and is far over reaching, in this case.

I'm using the Christian, Jewish, Mormon, and secular arguments for the history.

In this case, you're over reaching and I'm pretty sure you're trying to find connections were there are none, for no other reason than to support your own doubts because of the Canaanite religion was purely developed into the Jewish religion, you can dismiss it all (never mind the fact that there is no reason that God couldn't introduce himself, in ways people understood and slowly brought about his revelation because after all, all these religious beliefs say specifically that God presented revelation, in stages).

How one includes history into their religion is up to them...in other words it is one's belief who changes or not based upon the historical evidence. One's belief cannot change the historical evidence. History obviously doesn't play a key role in your faith.

Oh, it does, the problem is, I think you're often overstating your case or ignoring other conclusions just for the sake of supporting your doubts. I know you deny this, but why are you trying to reach and claim that the Canaanite religion affected events for other a thousand years, even when the Canaanite influences were pretty much gone, by that time and would have been replaced by Babylon, Persian, or Roman influences? In other words, I think your interpretation of events is off and more about supporting your doubts, then about seeking truth.

[Kane]

Even when facts and reasoning has to be thrown out the door?

You don't have to accept what appears to be a lack of facts and reasoning, that's true. But again, we return to the point: isn't that what debate is actually about? Creating the opportunity, through use of your perceived facts and your reasoning, for another to see things your way, and agree with you?

When I don't feel like debating someone, it's not because they have no facts and no reasoning; it's because I don't like what I perceive to be their attitude concerning the possible debate. It's all about me, not them.

[showmeproof]

[QUOTE=lilpixieofterror;3361393]

Even when it involved trying to state that a belief system that was little known and most likely lost to most of history by the 1st century AD and the fact the culture and concepts of the 1st century AD were different then the 10th century BC isn't overly reaching and trying to support your doubts, instead of explain the evidence?

Some very important aspects, like the divine council, titles of gods, toponyms, anthroponyms etc are retained in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews were dependent upon their historiography of their past.

Your own words and arguments have made it pretty clear that the Canaanite religion was pretty much gone by the time of King David and I really do doubt that the Jewish religion was still being affected by it, hundreds of years later, since it had been dead for centuries by that time and the Roman, Babylon, and Persian influences would have been far stronger then the distant memory of the Canaanite religion would be. If you want to make it sound though that the resurrection of Jesus, somehow was influenced by beliefs of the Canaanite religion instead of being a real historical event, you are welcome to believe that, but I don't think your evidence is there and is far over reaching, in this case.

Not at all. It was very much still prevalent during King David's time. It was pretty much over and done with, on Israel's part, by the end of the exile...it started waning with the xenophobic mentality during the rise of the Assyrian and later the Babylonian empires and finds its most overt political action during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. David if you recall named one of his sons with a Baal theophoric, as did Saul, as did Jonathan. Again, when you refer to the texts of the past, even if new theology is prevalent, the accuracy of the belief system of the past is pertinent. To argue that post exilic Judaism is the same as what the patriarchs would have understood doesn't have support. Some of those other belief systems have made their mark on Judaism as well...but I focus on its formative years.

In this case, you're over reaching and I'm pretty sure you're trying to find connections were there are none, for no other reason than to support your own doubts because of the Canaanite religion was purely developed into the Jewish religion, you can dismiss it all (never mind the fact that there is no reason that God couldn't introduce himself, in ways people understood and slowly brought about his revelation because after all, all these religious beliefs say specifically that God presented revelation, in stages).

Connections where there are none? These aren't my arguments...they are the arguments of the leading ANE, OT, and linguistic scholars. I'm just restating them. Surely god could have revealed himself slowly over time, but do you think he would have done so in the form of Baal...who is later equated with the devil/satan? That is an interesting theory, please tell me how that works theologically speaking.

Oh, it does, the problem is, I think you're often overstating your case or ignoring other conclusions just for the sake of supporting your doubts. I know you deny this, but why are you trying to reach and claim that the Canaanite religion affected events for other a thousand years, even when the Canaanite influences were pretty much gone, by that time and would have been replaced by Babylon, Persian, or Roman influences? In other words, I think your interpretation of events is off and more about supporting your doubts, then about seeking truth.

Yes you keep asserting that I'm overstating my case. Please feel free to back up your assertion. Again, Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Greece do have influences...but they aren't the foundation of the religion of the first place. I am looking at the original framework that Yahweh was placed in and then divergence that happened afterwards. The Canaanite influences are profuse in the text of the Hebrew Bible...it has been canonized.

[Doug Shaver]

Seeing as how time travel is impossible it is fair to say that knowledge has indeed played a role in cumulative intelligence and we are generally smarter than our predecessors.

Intelligence is what people use to get knowledge. You are obviously conflating the two.

[showmeproof]

Intelligence is what people use to get knowledge. You are obviously conflating the two.

I understand your point, but I would have to respectfully disagree. Intelligence, and the pursuit of knowledge, only need require approximation of 'truth'. One can make all kinds of inferences leading to the same observation, and even the pattern that multiple observations display, without tackling the underpinning causation. The problem arises in winnowing the improbable explanations from the probable. We have greatly refined the methodology on how to distinguish between the two. We are better equipped today, than our predecessors, to arrive at more probable 'truths'. We stand on the shoulder of giants...our starting point is continually closer to reality, and previous mistakes need not be remade.

[Doug Shaver]

I understand your point, but I would have to respectfully disagree.

You are basing your disagreement on a personal linguistic idiosyncrasy. Of course, you're free to do that if it makes you feel good, but don't be surprised when the rest of the world gets the notion that you're out of touch with reality.

Intelligence, and the pursuit of knowledge, only need require approximation of 'truth'.

Knowledge, by definition, is acquaintance with truth. Its pursuit, correctly undertaken, presupposes a concern for truth. Intelligence could arguably be construed as a facility for recognizing truth, but it has nothing to do per se with any approximation of truth.

We are better equipped today, than our predecessors, to arrive at more probable 'truths'.

Possibly, but there is no noncircular argument to that conclusion. But even if it is true, it reflects nothing but an increase in our knowledge. It requires no increase in intelligence, and there is no evidence that such an increase has occurred.

My own knowledge has increased immensely during the past 50 years, but I am not a bit more intelligent than I ever was.

[lilpixieofterror]

Some very important aspects, like the divine council, titles of gods, toponyms, anthroponyms etc are retained in the Hebrew Bible. The Jews were dependent upon their historiography of their past.

Again, I think you're seeing things that are not really there. You are aware of the doctrine of the Trinity, right? You also are aware that your own arguments have stated that monotheism was well in place before the 1st century AD, right?

Not at all. It was very much still prevalent during King David's time. It was pretty much over and done with, on Israel's part, by the end of the exile...it started waning with the xenophobic mentality during the rise of the Assyrian and later the Babylonian empires and finds its most overt political action during the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah. David if you recall named one of his sons with a Baal theophoric, as did Saul, as did Jonathan. Again, when you refer to the texts of the past, even if new theology is prevalent, the accuracy of the belief system of the past is pertinent. To argue that post exilic Judaism is the same as what the patriarchs would have understood doesn't have support. Some of those other belief systems have made their mark on Judaism as well...but I focus on its formative years.

Was it by the first century AD or are you just trying to find any connection you can, so you can reject Christiantiy besides, last I checked, Christians and Jews alike tend to believe that God revealed different things to the people over time, why couldn't this work into that general idea?

Connections where there are none? These aren't my arguments...they are the arguments of the leading ANE, OT, and linguistic scholars. I'm just restating them. Surely god could have revealed himself slowly over time, but do you think he would have done so in the form of Baal...who is later equated with the devil/satan? That is an interesting theory, please tell me how that works theologically speaking.

Yet, your own arguments have stated that by the 1st century AD, that was pretty much dead. Do you deny this?

Yes you keep asserting that I'm overstating my case. Please feel free to back up your assertion. Again, Babylon, Persia, Rome, and Greece do have influences...but they aren't the foundation of the religion of the first place. I am looking at the original framework that Yahweh was placed in and then divergence that happened afterwards. The Canaanite influences are profuse in the text of the Hebrew Bible...it has been canonized.

And yet, you still seem to be missing the point. Now try this again, what time frame do you state that the Jewish religion became a true 'monotheism'? As I recall, wasn't it around the time of the united Israel (like Solomon), correct? How many centures passed between that time frame and the first century?