gods-advocate asked: Sure thing, go for it. I'm all ears. Or...eyes better yet.
Let’s start from the beginning. Regardless of what you believe, evolution is fact. I’m almost certain that you don’t understand it and that you think it’s a lie (educate yourself here and if you have any questions, feel free to ask). You’re wrong. In either case, evolution isn’t necessary to address the creation account you believe in. There are actually two accounts in Genesis. Historians refer to them as doublets. Another doublet can be found in Genesis 6 and 7 (was Noah to take two of a kind or seven of a kind?; go read the doublet for yourself). The creation account isn’t true from a historical perspective and it can easily be shown that it is an embellished story that borrowed from other stories.
Then we can continue and establish that Yahweh was one god of four. Asherah (his wife and consort), Baal, and El are the others. Theologically you’ve been taught that El (i.e. Eloim, El Shaddai) is the same god. He isn’t. El was a different deity. I can go on, but I’m trying to be concise. Here are my sources for that:
- Introduction to the Old Testament
- A History of God
The videos of A History of God are simplified; I recommend reading the actual book (it’s available for free online in PDF format). There are other books that corroborate these archaeological finds (look under the sub-section titled "Ancient Israelite Belief").
Many of the Old Testament characters aren’t historical, including the Patriarchs and Moses. Daniel and his friends didn’t exist. Isaiah most certainly didn’t exist and the book of Isaiah is written by three different others. You’ll get some of that from the OT course.
Take a look at that as well.
I’m well aware that you’re Christian and most of your focus is on the New Testament. The problems are worse there, despite what apologists have led you to believe:
All Christians believe that the historical Jesus is their Christ. The Christ of the Gospels and the Epistles differs greatly from the portrait of a historical Jesus; however, which portrait? Make sure to take a look at the plethora of Jesus theories. The evidence for him is thinner than you think. You also seem like the type to think that the Book of Revelation portrays future events. Wrong. Daniel and Revelation are perhaps my favorite books in the Bible; they were my favorites when I was a Christian. However, I favor them for entirely different reasons now. Both books are a genre known as apocalyptic literature. Both books are pertinent to the events of their respective times. Both books have absolutely nothing to do with the future. History rips the Bible to shreds. Perhaps that isn’t satisfactory; perhaps you think the Bible is infallible. I can prove otherwise. Perhaps you prefer to talk philosophy or perhaps you will like to claim that your religion is compatible with science; I can talk philosophy and I can prove to you that your religion is not compatible with science. Do as you please. Any claim you have is easily refutable. I’m serious when I say that I can disprove your god. He’s a character in literature and because of that I’m fine with his thirst for innocent blood:
- Exodus 12:29,30
- Leviticus 26:21,22
- Deuteronomy 21:18-21
- 1 Samuel 15:3
- 2 Kings 2:23,24
- Isaiah 13:15,16
- Isaiah 14:21
- Ezekiel 9:5,6
- Hosea 9:11-16
- Hosea 13:16
Unfortunately, you think he exists. How do you reconcile such horrid atrocities with the notion of an omnibenevolent god (hint: even William Lane Craig struggles to address that question)? In other words, don’t try; you might just come off as another apologist for genocide. Your faith must have some kind of death wish in challenging me this way.
- snowyflorida likes this
- davincisbarber likes this
- selfesteampunk likes this
- show-me-your-lewd-self likes this
- enjoyyourshoes likes this
- ladyofleisuredc likes this
- picatso likes this
- dawgterfeelgood likes this
- hisnameinvain likes this
- partytimexelent likes this
- ineedtoreblogsomevideotapes likes this
- deconversionmovement posted this