left biblioblography: THE MYSTICAL, MAGICAL MENAGE A TROIS

Sunday, February 26, 2006

THE MYSTICAL, MAGICAL MENAGE A TROIS


This is perhaps the most mind-bending of the xtians’ gymnastics, so let’s explore this concept.

First off, it’s obviously a derivation of the Hindi Trimurti– Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma – sugar coated and softened (read: pre-masticated) for the general populace.

And before the shout-down begins, history has documented evidence that there were indeed trade routes from Sumer to India, dating back as far as 3000 BCE (read here). Not to mention the Buddhist monks sent by Asoka to spread the word, as it were: his Edicts speak of friendly relations with Ptolemy, king of Egypt. It is a small step to infer syncretism at this juncture (the OT has a great many of these borrowed parallelisms).

So far, so good. To my limited knowledge (and I could be wrong), there’s no dispute in Trimurti – Brahman is top dog, gangsta with a capital G, etc, etc, et al.

It of course gets squirrelly when? Yep, you guessed it. When the xtians get their hands on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity- “Regarding Matthew 28:19, it is important to note here that there is not a single instance in the Bible itself of anyone being baptized using the formula "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." In every Biblical case of baptism, Christian converts were baptized "in the name of Jesus", "in the name of the Lord", "in the name of the Lord Jesus", etc. (see Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). The biblical apostles interpreted Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 to mean baptizing in the name of Jesus. The Trinitarian formula for baptism was not widely used in Christendom until the fourth century.”

Now, this is not to say that the concept of the Trinity was non-existent prior. Rather, it was formalized (coined).

I’m not going to take any cheap shots at the Nicene Creed. Standardization and structure is necessary in all human endeavors, religious or otherwise. Not to mention the ongoing conflicts between Docetism, adoptionism, etc. Too many cooks in the kitchen springs to mind.

I have good friend, a BAX no less, who told me once that he and colleague sat down and worked very hard to extract the Trinitarian concept from scripture. More or less, the verdict was: “its there, but it’s tough to prove.” See the above listing at Wikipedia for a partial list of scriptural references.

Now that we’ve established some history, let’s get to the meat: I refer, of course, to the Johannine Comma.

This is a perfect example of the bible’s inherent abusability quotient (IAQ).

In the 16th CE, Erasmus was translating the bible from Greek to Latin, when officials asked him why he hadn’t included the notorious Comma (short clause). To which he responded (para), that he hadn’t found it. Now, there’s debate as to how he compiled the Textus Receptus (by his own admission, “Erasmus said the resulting work was "thrown headlong rather than edited", ("prœcipitatum fuit verius quam editum").[8] He fixed many but not all of these mistakes in the second edition, published in 1519.[6]” , but  “Newton (author’s note: yes, the same)  observed, "In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the 'three in heaven' was never once thought of. It is now in everybody’s mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books."[9] Newton believed that the Comma was introduced, intentionally or by accident, into a Latin text during the fourth or fifth century, a time when he believed the Church to be rife with corruption.[10]”  [from the Comma hyperlink].

It did indeed get included on the 3rd copy, BTW (TR).

Not to mention Clement’s (200) lack of mention of the same (or many other pre-Nicene patrists).

So there we have it, dear readers. It’s not explicitly spelled out: it’s nothing more than inferred by some less- than-specific scripture from the book of fables.

In short, it’s an afterthought. Post ex facto.

Can you say ‘Interpolation’, boys and girls?

Stumble Upon Toolbar

48 comments:

Beowulf said...

Ra,

I’m not sure I follow you. Just so I understand, are you stating that the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in the Bible? Or are you documenting flaws in texts like the Textus Receptus?

Thanks

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
The former.
I'm not going to criticize the Textus Receptus, until I've read the thing.
The crux of the article is that the bible has been mis-translated, badly interpreted, interpolated, etc.
In short: untrustworthy.
Sorry I wasn't clearer.

Beowulf said...

Sorry to hear you say that ra, but here are a couple thoughts I had about the rest of your post.

A historical analysis of your Hindu theory will show that there is not even a remote parallel between the two. There are ‘no trinities’ per se in pagan theology. There are “triads” (three gods), but no ‘trinities’ (one God in three persons). You could still argue influence. But all you have are trade routs and some documented evangelism, but it doesn’t quite get your there.


When I took my comparative religion class, we spent some time on Hinduism (I don’t recommend studding it though (if you can avoid it); it’s rather boring and unnecessarily complex.

This was in the notes the professor provided for the class:

Here are some differences:
1. Brahma is an impersonal deity in
2. Vishnu was married to a female deity
3. Siva is the great god of the Hindu Savites.
4. They have no particular relationship with each other.
5. Hinduism has numerous other deities such as Krishna, Rama, Sita, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and others.
6. The Upanishads, Vedas and other ancient Hindu texts taught no such thing as a threefold relationship between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva.
7. The Vedas acknowledged at least thirty-three different deities who were separate gods, often opposed to each other. 8. Most of them were married to Hindu goddesses.
8.The Trimurti concept is only found in late Sanskrit and cannot be dated earlier than the 5th century after Christ - long after the Christian doctrine of the Trinity had been fully established.

It should be needless to say that none of these ‘triads’ has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.

I think the most important question is whether or not it is biblical. I don’t know what your good friend and his colleague were looking at when they were searching for the ‘concept’ and failed, but I can provide you with the verses and you can decide for yourself (though I suspect you don’t care whether it’s really taught or not). But if it’s in the text, it’s not an after thought.

Oh BTW, you had me rollin when you stated “in Trimurti – Brahman is top dog, gangsta with a capital G, etc, etc, et al”.

Mesoforte said...

It should be needless to say that none of these ‘triads’ has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.

However, the concept has definitely evolved through the ages. Though the Hindu's had many god's, the main ones were Brahman (The Creator), Vishnu (The Protector), and Shiva (The Destroyer). What I think RA is trying to say is that the idea of having three dominant dieties crossed to Judaism before it was warped into Xianity. The idea of three deities might have changed into parts and might have effected the development of Xianity.

Also, I would like for you to know that we have switched over to Common Era (CE) instead of Annus Donnali (AD). So, we don't actually refer to Christ whenever dating things. Don't worry, the dating system has the same numbers as the old, but it no longer refers to the person of questionanle historiocity.

Mesoforte said...

Let me continue-

There were no shortage of Oriental Cults in Rome before hand around 250-50 Before Common Era also, there were Oriental mystery cults in Rome, which have a relative original closeness to India.

Also, even Greece was exposed to India and the Orient, especially with Alexander the Great's conquest. (334-323 BCE) This means that Hinduism would probably have effected Judaism and Xianity eventually.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
There are “triads” (three gods), but no ‘trinities’ (one God in three persons).
See following commentary #4.
Actually, if memory serves, there were 3 goddesses originally worshipped by the Hebrews, along w/, or prior to YHVH - but I'm going to have to defer to my good friend Amy AKA SNTC for that, as she's somewhat of an expert in that field. I'll check w/her.
We also see: the 3 Fates (I forget the names for the nonce), a 3 faced goddess - 3 faces represented the "Maiden", the "Matron" (or Mother), and "the "Crone".
Also, "The Persian triplicate Deity also consists of three persons, Ormazd, Mithra, and Ahriman. "That is that principle," says Porphyry, "which the author of the Chaldaic Summary saith, 'They conceive there is one principle of all things, and declare that is one and good'." The Chinese idol Sanpao, consists of three equal in all respects; and the Peruvians "supposed their Tanga-tanga to be one in three, and three in one," says Faber. The Egyptians have their Emepht, Eicton, and Phta; and the triple god seated on the Lotos can be seen in the St. Petersburg Museum, on a medal of the Northern Tartars"
http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/christianity/TheTrinity.html
Well, let's look at the points piecemeal -
1. Brahma is an impersonal deity in
True. How this is salient, I'm unsure.
2. Vishnu was married to a female deity
Again, unclear as to why this is salient. Mary was a 'wife' of sorts to god.
3. Siva is the great god of the Hindu Savites.
True, as Vishnu is the god of the Vaishnavites
4. They have no particular relationship with each other.
Incorrect. from answers.com: In "Hinduism, the Trimurti (also called the Hindu trinity) are three aspects of God, or "Parabrahman," in God's personae as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. This Trimurti concept is a tenet most strongly held in Smartism as well as Ayyavazhi mythology."
5. Hinduism has numerous other deities such as Krishna, Rama, Sita, Ganesh, Hanuman, Kali and others.
One can make similar comparisons to the saints in Catholicism, or Vodoun (loas).
6. The Upanishads, Vedas and other ancient Hindu texts taught no such thing as a threefold relationship between Brahma, Vishnu and Siva.
Haven't read the Vedas yet. Been a while since I read the Upanishads.
In actuality, most pantheism stems in part from monotheism. The other gods were always answerable to 1 big kahuna, but most (like Egyptian) consider gods to be but 1 aspect. That of course became corrupted over time.
7. The Vedas acknowledged at least thirty-three different deities who were separate gods, often opposed to each other.
See commentary above.
8. Most of them were married to Hindu goddesses.
Again, not really salient.
9.The Trimurti concept is only found in late Sanskrit and cannot be dated earlier than the 5th century after Christ - long after the Christian doctrine of the Trinity had been fully established.
It's not in the Mahabharata? Placed between 200 BCE & 200 CE? Are you referring to the Ramayana?
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it.
I find it odd - seeing as I have no religious beliefs - that 3 is such a recurrent # in other cultures.
The Trimurti, the Triad, Vishnu's 3 strides, 6 divine glories - patterns emerge.
Incorrect: see commentary #4.
It should be needless to say that none of these ‘triads’ has the slightest resemblance to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
My point is that the Trinity is a borrowed concept. It doesn't need to have the underlying trappings: 1 can borrow a concept, & do w/it as 1 sees fit.
I don’t know what your good friend and his colleague were looking at when they were searching for the ‘concept’ and failed
Ummm...didn't say they 'failed' per se, my exact words were 'tough to prove'.
Note that Buddhism predated xtianity by some 500 yrs., there were 'evangelists' (though I doubt that's the proper term), there's evidence of buddhist monks in Egypt, & buddhism had it's roots in Brahmanism (sp?)
Here's an interesting read. http://www.crosscircle.com/CH_2b.htm - haven't examined the source yet, so gimmee time on this. Here's another 1 - http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/buddha.html but I'm betting this fellow's a tad biased. Grain of salt, all that.
Appolonius of Tyana is rumored to have traveled to India, & his life parallels that of JC, but that's the subject of another post.
But if it’s in the text, it’s not an after thought.
See, now the crux of the post was indeed targeting the Johannine Comma. It's an interpolation.
You're not a (gasp! literalist, are you?

Krystalline Apostate said...

mesoforte:
What I think RA is trying to say is that the idea of having three dominant dieties crossed to Judaism before it was warped into Xianity.
Thanks, MF. That was sort of a subplot/segue.
I'm going to have to do more rewrites before I dash these things off.
More on 3's in the Far East:
The Jakata (3rd CE): "9
This is called the Universal-Monarch-Uproar. And these three are mighty uproars. 10
When of these three Uproars they hear the sound of the BuddhaUproar, the gods of all ten thousand worlds come together into one place, and having ascertained what particular being is to be The Buddha, they approach him, and beseech him to become one. But it is not till after omens have appeared that they beseech him."
Hey, this is interesting stuff.

Beowulf said...

mesoforte:

However, the concept has definitely evolved through the ages. Though the Hindu's had many god's, the main ones were Brahman (The Creator), Vishnu (The Protector), and Shiva (The Destroyer).

There is still are significant differences. You haven’t demonstrated them to ‘evolve’ other than point out similarities.

What I think RA is trying to say is that the idea of having three dominant dieties crossed to Judaism before it was warped into Xianity.

Judaism only holds to one Deity.

The idea of three deities might have changed into parts and might have effected the development of Xianity.

It might have, but were still making conjectures here. Out of all the examples you and ra, have provided, there’s no overriding case made—it’s a neat hypothesis.

Also, I would like for you to know that we have switched over to Common Era (CE) instead of Annus Donnali (AD). So, we don't actually refer to Christ whenever dating things. Don't worry, the dating system has the same numbers as the old, but it no longer refers to the person of questionanle historiocity.

Thanks for the news flash. Oh, and you might want to tell the people over at Encyclopedia Britannica about it too; they don’t even have a listing for "Common era." As if you (or me) really care about political correctness anyway.

There were no shortage of Oriental Cults in Rome before hand around 250-50 Before Common Era also, there were Oriental mystery cults in Rome, which have a relative original closeness to India.

I don’t know what you mean by “there was no shortage of Oriental Cults”; they may have been in Rome at the time, but I’m not aware of any evidence that there were droves of them cultivating the roman culture, let alone influencing Roman thought. More speculation.

Also, even Greece was exposed to India and the Orient, especially with Alexander the Great's conquest. (334-323 BCE) This means that Hinduism would probably have effected Judaism and Xianity eventually.

If you study Judaism, you’ll find out how exclusivist they are about ‘gentiles’ and their explicit despise for other cultures and people. Even more the case when it comes to the doctrine on the Law, Torah, and God.

Beowulf said...

Ra:

Actually, if memory serves, there were 3 goddesses originally worshipped by the Hebrews, along w/, or prior to YHVH - but I'm going to have to defer to my good friend Amy AKA SNTC for that, as she's somewhat of an expert in that field. I'll check w/her.

Please do so. Hebrews were stoned for things like that; it would be interesting to hear what she has to say.

We also see: the 3 Fates (I forget the names for the nonce), a 3 faced goddess - 3 faces represented the "Maiden", the "Matron" (or Mother), and "the "Crone".

I don’t believe there’s any evidence of this before the seventh or eight century. Also, the earliest depictions of this ‘goddess’ are single faced, not triplicate.

Also, "The Persian triplicate Deity also consists of three persons, Ormazd, Mithra, and Ahriman. "That is that principle," says Porphyry, "which the author of the Chaldaic Summary saith, 'They conceive there is one principle of all things, and declare that is one and good'."

I don’t know where you get your material, but this is strange stuff. Can you point me to any archeological findings (or web sites that document them) that support this (before Christ AKA: BC)?

The Chinese idol Sanpao, consists of three equal in all respects; and the Peruvians "supposed their Tanga-tanga to be one in three, and three in one," says Faber. The Egyptians have their Emepht, Eicton, and Phta; and the triple god seated on the Lotos can be seen in the St. Petersburg Museum, on a medal of the Northern Tartars"

Same thing; point me to any archeological findings (or web sites that document them) that support this.


4. They have no particular relationship with each other.
Incorrect. from answers.com: In "Hinduism, the Trimurti (also called the Hindu trinity) are three aspects of God, or "Parabrahman," in God's personae as Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. This Trimurti concept is a tenet most strongly held in Smartism as well as Ayyavazhi mythology."

I should have qualified that with “other than threeness”

One can make similar comparisons to the saints in Catholicism, or Vodoun (loas).

Catholics don’t hold saints to be deities. That’s heresy. My point about numerous deities in Hinduism was it’s divergence from Christianity. So, pointing out more religions that have multiple deities only proves my point.

Haven't read the Vedas yet. Been a while since I read the Upanishads.
In actuality, most pantheism stems in part from monotheism. The other gods were always answerable to 1 big kahuna, but most (like Egyptian) consider gods to be but 1 aspect. That of course became corrupted over time.


Monotheism is much rarer than pantheism. Also, even if there are pantheistic gods answering to a particular god, that’s still pantheism; the opposite of monotheism.

It's not in the Mahabharata? Placed between 200 BCE & 200 CE? Are you referring to the Ramayana?

Could be, I’ll go back to my notes and check. Too many gods and texts to keep track of; I don’t know how they do it.

I find it odd - seeing as I have no religious beliefs - that 3 is such a recurrent # in other cultures.

**shrug**

My point is that the Trinity is a borrowed concept. It doesn't need to have the underlying trappings: 1 can borrow a concept, & do w/it as 1 sees fit.

This is just your hypothesis, a mere conjecture—post hoc at best.

Ummm...didn't say they 'failed' per se, my exact words were 'tough to prove'.

I got the impression of failure, but again, I have no idea what they were looking at, I am not even sure why you put the statement there other than to allude that the teaching isn’t there.

Note that Buddhism predated xtianity by some 500 yrs., there were 'evangelists' (though I doubt that's the proper term), there's evidence of buddhist monks in Egypt, & buddhism had it's roots in Brahmanism (sp?)

See my statements above

The Jakata (3rd CE): (from your subsequent comment)

300 years too late.

See, now the crux of the post was indeed targeting the Johannine Comma. It's an interpolation.

Your probably right, that’s one that the KJV got wrong.

You're not a (gasp! literalist, are you?

Depends on what you mean by ‘literalist.’

Mesoforte said...

Judaism only holds to one Deity.

Not until c. 1250 BCE. Originally, the Hebrews thought that all the other gods were real, meaning that they were originally polytheists.

You haven’t demonstrated them to ‘evolve’ other than point out similarities.

All ideas change over time, its a function of all ideas. The similarities start to hint at that change.

It might have, but were still making conjectures here.

That's what history is, but that's beside the point.

As if you (or me) really care about political correctness anyway.

This isn't political correctness, its historical accuracy. Because the historiocity of Christ has come into question scholars have started dropping the usage of AD and BC.

Mesoforte said...

If you study Judaism, you’ll find out how exclusivist they are about ‘gentiles’ and their explicit despise for other cultures and people. Even more the case when it comes to the doctrine on the Law, Torah, and God.

That doesn't stop them from being affected though. No matter how much a culture fights, its subject to change.

If you want an example of how this works, just look to Christianity. Over the years its been exposed to secularization and has become more liberal. (Well, partially anyway.)

Beowulf said...

“Not until c. 1250 BCE. Originally, the Hebrews thought that all the other gods were real, meaning that they were originally polytheists.”

1) Direct me to some archeological evidence outside the OT for this. 2) The best you can do it point out passages in the OT that prohibit worship of other gods. However, proper exegesis will show that that they did not follow 1 God while accepting the existence of another which is henotheism —at best, they worship images, symbols (rocks trees et al), which is more closer to Totemism. But to say Hebrew’s were “originally” polytheists nation doesn’t seem to hold water.

“All ideas change over time, it’s a function of all ideas. The similarities start to hint at that change.”

Ideas change over time, but my point was that you have failed to demonstrate the connection from Hindu polytheism to Christianity; there’s a gap filled speculation. Your claiming ‘evolvement’ but it’s only in the spirit of speculation—not demonstration.

“This isn't political correctness, its historical accuracy. Because the historiocity of Christ has come into question scholars have started dropping the usage of AD and BC”.

Common era from wikipedia:
“common era was a term first used by some Christians in an age when Christianity was the common religion of the West, it is now a term preferred by some as a religiously neutral alternative, though others criticize it as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness.”[emphasis mine].


“If you want an example of how this works, just look to Christianity. Over the years its been exposed to secularization and has become more liberal. (Well, partially anyway.)

The core of Christianity still holds to strict doctrines such as the Trinity. There have been sects of Christianity, that have changed and been labeled cults for denying basic doctrines, but other areas of disagreement are peripheral from the central core of agreement (which is intact). I will say; however, that no person or ideology can be completely impervious by culture. You seem to be begging the question.

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
Please do so. Hebrews were stoned for things like that; it would be interesting to hear what she has to say.
Dude, don't bogart that...oh, you mean the other meaning. Sorry.
Not true. I recall (Judges?) where Israel was divided over the worship of Molech, who Solomon subsequently fell to worshipping.
There was also the incidence of the Golden Calf.
I've put out the word, but I don't have her email. Hope she weighs in on this soon.
I don’t believe there’s any evidence of this before the seventh or eight century. Also, the earliest depictions of this ‘goddess’ are single faced, not triplicate.
Ummm...I'm referring to Irish & Greek cultures. I think the book of Kells? Have to check.
Also, early depictions of YHVH are single faced, not triplicate.
Point me to archeological sites that state this, please, in re: the triple goddess. (turnabout is fair play, after all;))
I don’t know where you get your material, but this is strange stuff. Can you point me to any archeological findings (or web sites that document them) that support this (before Christ AKA: BC)?
Zoroarastrianism? 1 of the 3 exclusive monotheisms, as opposed to syncretic monotheisms? (Gnosticism, while dualist, is an example of SM.)
I'm assuming the class you took dealt exclusively w/Indian mythology? I'm curious, is all.
Same thing; point me to any archeological findings (or web sites that document them) that support this.
Gimmee a little time on this: most of what I googled I provided. I'm sure this is possible.
I should have qualified that with “other than threeness”
Well, I had a brief discussion w/a Hindi gentleman I work w/: I asked him about Trimurti the "three-in-one". His response? "Which 1?" The triune, as discussed before - predates Christ. We were busy, so I'll grill him a little more tomorrow.
Thus far, you haven't really provided any uniqueness to the trinity - but I'll do a bit more research, & get back to you on that.
Catholics don’t hold saints to be deities.
Which really doesn't explain why some of them go into a church, & pray to specific saints. Some of whom were originally pagan deities, BTW.
they may have been in Rome at the time, but I’m not aware of any evidence that there were droves of them cultivating the roman culture, let alone influencing Roman thought. More speculation.
Ummm...Tammuz-Osiris? Dionysius? pre-xtian Gnosticism?
What was the name of that class you took? Which culture did it specialize in? Name of college, if you're comfortable w/divulging that.
I got the impression of failure, but again, I have no idea what they were looking at, I am not even sure why you put the statement there other than to allude that the teaching isn’t there.
That's not true. Re-read the post. It's implied, rather than explicitly spelled out.
This is just your hypothesis, a mere conjecture—post hoc at best.
Circumstantial, true, but patterns emerge.
Your probably right, that’s one that the KJV got wrong.
Be still, my beating heart! Hee-HEE-hee!

By 'literalist', I mean every word in the bible is 100% correct. But I take from your prior statement, that you aren't.

Other items:
The ancient Israelis, as you say, were indeed fiercely insular. However, it's difficult at best, given their nomadic tendencies (or wandering from culture-to-culture, if you prefer), to be part of any culture, & not be affected by it.
Historical example: Philo Judaeus, 1st century Jerusalem. Hellenistic Jew. There were divisions of thought even among themselves.
They mixed w/the Canaanites, another Semitic group. & let's not forget the Hyskops, who took Egypt & held it for approx. a century.

& a large % of constructs in the OT are indeed borrowed from other cultures.

Mesoforte is indeed correct about multiple oriental cults, both in the ME & Greece. & don't forget about the Samaritan Jews, who were of Israelite descent, but were viewed as 2nd class citizens (which is why the 'good Samaritan' parable had an inner meaning to the folks at that time). They mixed & matched deities to a dizzying degree.

Clarification time: both you & MF are incorrect about the classification of 'gods' in the OT.
If memory serves, the original word in 'thou shalt have no other gods before me' is elohiyim, which a plural of 'gods' in the ordinary sense, but is also applied by way of deference to magistrates.
'Gods' in those days could also mean royalty, nobility, etc.

Oh, & thanks for the term 'henothism'. I'd not heard it before. Here's an interesting piece from answers.com - "Israelite Beliefs and Judaism

It is generally uncontroversial that many of the Iron Age religions found in the land of Israel were henotheistic in practice. For example, the Moabites worshipped the god, Chemosh, the Edomites, Qaus, both of whom were part of the greater Canaanite pantheon, headed by the chief god, El. The Canaanite pantheon consisted of El and Asherat as the chief deities, with 70 sons who were said to rule over each of the nations of the earth. These sons were the national gods worshipped within each region.

More recently, M.S. Smith's synthesis of the Hebrew religion in the Iron Age has put forward the case that it, like those around it, was also henotheistic. The discovery of artifacts at Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet El-Qom have arguably shown that in at least some sections of Israelite society, Yahweh and Asherah were believed to coexist as a divine couple. Further evidence of an understanding of Yahweh existing within the Canaanite pantheon derives from syncretistic myths found within the Hebrew Bible itself. Various battles between Yahweh and Leviathan, Mot, the tanninim, and Yamm are already attested in the 14th century B.C.E. texts found at Ugarit (ancient Ras-Shamra). In some cases, Yahweh had replaced Baal, and in others, he had taken El's roles."

Pretty cool stuff. Thanks.

Krystalline Apostate said...

bf:
BTW:
Ummm...Tammuz-Osiris? Dionysius? pre-xtian Gnosticism?
I was referencing the ME, not Rome.
Apologies

say no to christ said...

Sorry I havent been online lately. I was busy getting my youngest ready for science camp last week. She left this morning. :)

RA is correct there was a three in one hebrew goddess. She was the madain, mother and crone and was one goddess. Christianity was a remenance of the old goddess religion. Over time, Mary the mother goddess lost her divinity to the father war god and his son. The first christians were goddess worshippers. That is why the Jews hated them and why the majority of christians were women.

http://northernway.org/goddess.html

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/goddess_3_the_mother.html

say no to christ said...

http://www.archaeology.org/0503/abstracts/israel.html

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gloria/Goddess.html

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=214302

http://www.library.villanova.edu/blueprints/2002/dec02index.html#Is

OK, there is tons of archaeological evidence that prove the Hebrews worshipped a goddess. Even the bible supports it.

We all know Gods people were always back sliding to their old pagan ways of worshipping other and many gods. Anyone who claims otherwise is just plain ignorant or cant read their own "good" book.

Solomon was famous for his back sliding into polytheism. He not only worshipped another god, he also worshipped the goddess Asherah along side that god.

1 kings 11:5

say no to christ said...

I just remembered this! Kali ma the oldest hindu deity was a trinity in herself as well. She was the creator of life, the protector and destroyer. In her creator self she is seen as a beautiful loving mother. In her protecter self she is a beautiful but vicious warior. In her destroyer mode she is seen as an ugly monsterous destroyer who devours.

Face it, nothing about christianity is an original thought.

say no to christ said...

Bf said that there were no goddesses depicted as a three in one in the pagan history and archaeology. Well that is just plain wrong! click on link to see how the pagans portrayed their trinity goddess.

http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/HecateTrinity.html

Beowulf said...

Not true. I recall (Judges?) where Israel was divided over the worship of Molech, who Solomon subsequently fell to worshipping.

Yes. Solomon built alters of the Moabites and other pagan gods of the country to appease wives (700+ or so). This eventually led to his and some other Israelites apostasy. All the examples of idolatry in the OT were explicitly punished and opposed. Idolatry and all that comes with was to be destroyed (Deut. 7:5; 12:2).

So as long as were talking Scripture, here’s a common list used regarding the matter of idolatry (not all necessarily deal with pantheism):

1. One must not believe in any but the one true God (Ex. 20:3).
2. Do not make images for yourself (Ex. 20:4).
3. Do not make images for others to worship (Lev. 19:4).
4. Do not make images for any purpose (Ex. 20:20).
5. Do not bow down to any image (Ex. 20:5).
6. Do not serve any image (Ex. 20:5).
7. Do not sacrifice children to Molech (Lev. 18:21).
8. Do not practice necromancy (Lev. 19:31).
9. Do not resort to familiar spirits (Lev. 19:31).
10. Do not take the mythology of idolatry seriously (Lev. 19:4).
11. Do not construct a pillar even for the worship of God (Deut. 16:22).
12. Do not construct a dais for the same purpose (Lev. 20:1).
13. Do not plant trees in the Temple (Deut. 16:21).
14. Do not swear by idols or instigate an idolater to do so (Ex. 23:13).
15. Do not encourage idol worship even by non-Jews (Ex. 23:13).
16. Do not encourage Jews to worship idols (Deut. 13:12).
17. Do not listen to anyone who disseminates idolatry (Deut. 13:8).
18. Do not withhold from hating him (Deut. 13:9).
19. Do not pity such a person (Deut. 13:9).
20. Do not defend such a person (Deut. 13:9).
21. Do not attempt to conceal his crime (Deut. 13:9).
22. It is forbidden to derive any benefit from the ornaments of idols (Deut. 7:25).
23. Do not rebuild destroyed idols (Deut. 13:17).
24. Do not enjoy any benefit from its wealth (Deut. 13:18).
25. Do not use anything connected with idols or idolatry (Deut. 7:26).
26. It is forbidden to prophesy in the name of idols (Deut. 18:20).
27. It is forbidden to prophesy falsely in the name of God (Deut. 18:20).
28. Do not listen to the one who prophesies for idols (Deut. 13:3, 4).
29. Do not fear the false prophet nor hinder his execution by death (Deut. 18:22).
30. Do not imitate the ways of idolaters or practice their customs (Lev. 20:23).
31. Do not practice their customs (Lev. 19:26).
32. Do not practice their soothsaying (Deut. 18:10).
33. Do not practice their enchanting (Deut. 18:10, 11).
34. Do not practice their sorcery (Deut. 18:10, 11).
35. Do not practice their charming (Deut. 18:10, 11).
36. Do not imitate their consulting of ghosts (Deut. 18:10, 11).
37. Do not imitate their speaking to familiar spirits (Deut. 18:10, 11).
38. Do not imitate their necromancy (Deut. 18:10, 11).
39. Women are not to wear male clothing (Deut. 22:5).
40. Men are not to wear female clothing (Deut. 22:5).
41. Do not tattoo yourself in the manner of the idolaters (Lev. 19:28).
42. Do not wear garments made of both wool and linen (Deut. 22:11).
43. Do not shave the sides of your head (Lev. 19:27).
44. Do not shave your beard (Lev. 19:27).
45. Do not lacerate yourself over your dead (Lev. 19:28; Deut. 14:1; 16:1).


Also, early depictions of YHVH are single faced, not triplicate.
Point me to archeological sites that state this, please, in re: the triple goddess. (turnabout is fair play, after all;))


Even though you made the original statement about the goddess (without supporting evidence) I’ll go ahead and provide you with some info. Here’s some info on the triple goddess from wiki:

The earliest depictions of Hecate are single faced, not triplicate. Lewis Richard Farnell states:

The evidence of the monuments as to the character and significance of Hekate is almost as full as that of the literature. But it is only in the later period that they come to express her manifold and mystic nature. Before the fifth century there is little doubt that she was usually represented as of single form like any other divinity, and it was thus that the Boeotian poet imagined her, as nothing in his verses contains any allusion to a triple formed goddess. The earliest known monument is a small terracotta found in Athens, with a dedication to Hekate (Plate XXXVIII. a), in writing of the style of the sixth century. The goddess is seated on a throne with a chaplet bound round her head; she is altogether without attributes and character, and the only value of this work, which is evidently of quite a general type and gets a special reference and name merely from the inscription, is that it proves the single shape to be her earlier from, and her recognition at Athens to be earlier than the Persian invasion.


The original source: Lewis Richard Farnell, (1896). "Hecate in Art", The Cults of the Greek States. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Zoroarastrianism? 1 of the 3 exclusive monotheisms, as opposed to syncretic monotheisms? (Gnosticism, while dualist, is an example of SM.)
I'm assuming the class you took dealt exclusively w/Indian mythology? I'm curious, is all.


The class was all ‘major’ religions; so Zoroastrian tradition and many others were not covered Go here for more info

Thus far, you haven't really provided any uniqueness to the trinity

Name one religion (besides Christianity) in the history of man king that holds simultaneously to 1) God is three persons 2) Each person is divine 3)There is only one God.

Which really doesn't explain why some of them go into a church, & pray to specific saints. Some of whom were originally pagan deities, BTW.

Though Catholics pray to saints, they don’t hold them to deity. This is where Protestantism and Catholicism conflict, but this idea is an entirely different discussion. I have never heard of saint being pagan deities. Are you just throwing that out there? Drop a link if you have more info on that.


Ummm...Tammuz-Osiris? Dionysius? pre-xtian Gnosticism?
What was the name of that class you took? Which culture did it specialize in? Name of college, if you're comfortable w/divulging that.


Dionysius is a common name in historical figures, you’ll have to be more specific; provide some examples. The others didn’t exactly turn upside down. And academic career is always regionally accredit (WASC specifically). Your not going to slip into ‘ad homs’ are you?

That's not true. Re-read the post. It's implied, rather than explicitly spelled out.

Like I said, your alluding—not substantiating.

& a large % of constructs in the OT are indeed borrowed from other cultures.
Borrowed what? give examples. What parts of the text are borrowed? From who? What time period was is done? You’re just making assertions

Mesoforte is indeed correct about multiple oriental cults, both in the ME & Greece. & don't forget about the Samaritan Jews, who were of Israelite descent, but were viewed as 2nd class citizens (which is why the 'good Samaritan' parable had an inner meaning to the folks at that time). They mixed & matched deities to a dizzying degree.

You’re begging the question

If memory serves, the original word in 'thou shalt have no other gods before me' is elohiyim, which a plural of 'gods' in the ordinary sense, but is also applied by way of deference to magistrates.

Asserting remnant of ancient polytheism is merely speculation.

Snotc,

RA is correct there was a three in one hebrew goddess. She was the madain, mother and crone and was one goddess. Christianity was a remenance of the old goddess religion. Over time, Mary the mother goddess lost her divinity to the father war god and his son. The first christians were goddess worshippers. That is why the Jews hated them and why the majority of christians were women.

http://northernway.org/goddess.html

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/g/goddess_3_the_mother.html


You just make assertions. These site’s are as about as authoritative as you are on this subject.


http://www.archaeology.org/0503/abstracts/israel.html
The only reference to archeological evidence in this site is the OT and thirteenth century tablets. From the Article:

“We have long known Asherah from the immense library of thirteenth-century cuneiform tablets found in Syria at the site of Ugarit. But there are also more than 40 references to Asherah in the Old Testament. What could she have meant to the people of monotheistic ancient Israel?”

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~gloria/Goddess.html
Point out what exactly is in the article that is substantial.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=214302
This is an abstract with some small commentary—nothing there to back up any claims.


http://www.library.villanova.edu/blueprints/2002/dec02index.html#Is
This is an article about a person/book. Hence, a secondary reference with little material.

How are these links a problem for me?

OK, there is tons of archaeological evidence that prove the Hebrews worshipped a goddess. Even the bible supports it.

You have the OT and what else? Refer to my previous statements about idolatry.

We all know Gods people were always back sliding to their old pagan ways of worshipping other and many gods. Anyone who claims otherwise is just plain ignorant or cant read their own "good" book.

I never denied this. RA said: “there were 3 goddesses originally worshipped by the Hebrews, along w/, or prior to YHVH…” My response was that Hebrews were stoned for stuff like this.” How would they be stoned for idoloty or false worship if they never did it? You miss read me. I wanted ra to ask his ‘friend’ about 3 specific goddesses “originally worshipped.” Get off your high horse dude.

Solomon was famous for his back sliding into polytheism. He not only worshipped another god, he also worshipped the goddess Asherah along side that god.

I already dealt with this

Beowulf said...

Bf said that there were no goddesses depicted as a three in one in the pagan history and archaeology. Well that is just plain wrong! click on link to see how the pagans portrayed their trinity goddess.

http://www.sabbatarian.com/Paganism/HecateTrinity.html


Great authoritative pagan website. Let me repeat my self, this time read slowly:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity embodies much more than the notion of "threeness," and beyond their "threeness" these triads have nothing in common with it".

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Like I said, your alluding—not substantiating.
Bullshit. Exact quote: "More or less, the verdict was: “its there, but it’s tough to prove.”
The only reference to archeological evidence in this site is the OT and thirteenth century tablets. From the Article:
13th BCE, ugarite tablets. Dishonest ploy. Next time, qualify the bleedin' century. Next, SAME SOURCE: "Pausanias stated that Hecate was first depicted in triplicate by the sculptor Alkamenes in the Greek Classical period of the late 5th century. Some classical portrayals, such as the one illustrated below, show her as a triplicate goddess holding a torch."
This is the 5th century, BCE
The class was all ‘major’ religions; so Zoroastrian tradition and many others were not covered
Unbelievable. Thought I recognized your debate style.
You took classes from HOLDING? Fucking unbelievable. McDowell was my 1st step down the road of atheism. Holding was my second. I will hereby thoroughly reject ANY EVIDENCE presented by Holding. Why? I don't trust him. He fairly EXUDES fallacies. He stoops to ad hominem on a regular basis, poisons so many wells the water table for many miles around is polluted. I'd trust him as far as I can sling a piano.
You won't accept any pagan sources? I won't accept any CHRISTIAN sources. Period. Bias on both sides.
Name one religion (besides Christianity) in the history of man king that holds simultaneously to 1) God is three persons 2) Each person is divine 3)There is only one God.
Can do 1 & 2, but not 3. 2 out of 3.
I have never heard of saint being pagan deities. Are you just throwing that out there? Drop a link if you have more info on that.
Then you should actually read up more. St. Brigid, right off the top of my head. IRISH. Go look it up, as you won't accept any source that doesn't meet w/your approval.
Dionysius is a common name in historical figures, you’ll have to be more specific; provide some examples.
Ummm...Alexander's MOTHER was a member of the Dionysian cult. http://www.answers.com/topic/dionysian-mysteries?hl=dionysos - "The sophisticated Dionysian Mysteries of mainland Greece and Rome are generally thought to have evolved from a more primitive initiatory cult that was widespread in the Mediterranean region by the Classical Greek period. Beginning as a primitive rite it evolved within Hellenic culture into an influential Mystical Religion, which in its late form some would call the Orphic Mysteries (not to be confused with the more general trend called Orphism). Though all stages of this developmental spectrum appear to have continued in parallel in various locales on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean until quite late in pagan history."
The others didn’t exactly turn upside down.
??? Explain?
And academic career is always regionally accredit (WASC specifically). Your not going to slip into ‘ad homs’ are you?
Look in a mirror, buddy. You won't accept most of anything anyone says. If WASC is shorthand for 'White Anglo Saxon Catholic', hell no, I won't accept those. Secular sources, please.
1st off, Get off your high horse dude. , SNTC is a lady. 2ndly, I hope you're going to apologize for that SNOTC crack, unless it was a typo. I'll not have you insulting my guests here. 3rd, you also are a guest in my back yard. You can call me anything you like, I'll reciprocate, but rein in your attitude. Got it? Likewise, I expect some civility from them to you. I don't want to hear 'who started it from anyone. We're not in the K12 grades anymore.

Thus far, you've provided a poor example of xtian attitude. You don't practice 'agape' (& yes, know what the word's meaning is, I ALSO know Holding's take on this, so shut it), you don't turn the other cheek, you're REPRESENTING here (& I shouldn't have to point this out: I'm the INFIDEL here, I shouldn't have to give you lessons in the sort of behavior WWJD, etc.). Hinting that I might be committing ad hominem BEFORE THE FACT is called 'poisoning the well', it's also a sneaky, underhanded method to get me to accept your sources, questioning my honesty, etc., in short, NOT APPRECIATED.
Tell you what. Present your evidence, but check the attitude at the door.
Got it?

Beowulf said...

You’re obviously fired up about Holding. I’ll admit he’s a bit staunch; it’s not he first time I’ve heard complaints of him. However, he did use authoritative citations and resources, unlike the links provided. If you don’t want to accept it because of a bend, that’s fine. Secondly, you’re still trying to deny the argument from allusion, otherwise it wouldn’t have been mentioned; I could see through it easily.


BF: The only reference to archeological evidence in this site is the OT and thirteenth century tablets. From the Article:

RA:13th BCE, ugarite tablets. Dishonest ploy. Next time, qualify the bleedin' century. Next, SAME SOURCE: "Pausanias stated that Hecate was first depicted in triplicate by the sculptor Alkamenes in the Greek Classical period of the late 5th century. Some classical portrayals, such as the one illustrated below, show her as a triplicate goddess holding a torch."
This is the 5th century, BCE


You have the WRONG source. I quoted this source: http://www.archaeology.org/0503/abstracts/israel.html

So you don’t accuse of dishonesty, here the entire text of the article(I bolded the part I quoted):

And [the king] set a graven image of Asherah, that he had made, in the house of which the Lord said to David and Solomon his son, "In this House, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all tribes of Israel, will I put my name for ever."
--II Kings 21:7

Asherah is arguably the most important goddess in the Canaanite pantheon. The prototypical mother of gods and humans and consort of the chief god, El, she is also the mistress of the sea and the land, and protector of all living things. We have long known Asherah from the immense library of thirteenth-century cuneiform tablets found in Syria at the site of Ugarit. But there are also more than 40 references to Asherah in the Old Testament. What could she have meant to the people of monotheistic ancient Israel?
A bit too much, apparently, at least according to the authors of the biblical texts, who attack her relentlessly. They praise Asa, king of Judah (911-870 B.C.), for removing his mother Ma'acah from official duties after "she had an abominable image made for Asherah" (I Kings 15.13, II Chronicles 15.6). They condemn the long-reigning Manas'seh of Judah (698-642) for doing "what was evil in the sight of the Lord" in "making an Asherah" (II Kings 21.7). And they trumpet the achievements of Josiah (639-609), including the destruction of offerings made to Asherah at the temple in Jerusalem, the abolition of "the Asherah from the house of the Lord," and demolition of a shrine there in which women "did weaving for Asherah" (II Kings 23). These passages reflect both the worship of Asherah and efforts to stamp out her cult during in the Iron Age. But it was only in the succeeding Persian period, after the fall of Judah in 586 B.C. and the exile in Babylon, that Asherah virtually disappeared.
Ultimately, the campaign to eliminate the goddess has failed. "Asherah was buried long ago by the Establishment," declares respected biblical scholar William H. Dever. "Now, archaeology has excavated her." Dever is quite certain that he knows who the Asherah of ancient Israel and of the biblical texts is--she is the wife or consort of Yahweh, the one god of Israel. Many of his colleagues would agree.


There is NO reference to B.C.E. for the tablets However, I should have checked with another source to verify; it was an oversight not dishonesty.

You took classes from HOLDING? Fucking unbelievable. McDowell was my 1st step down the road of atheism. Holding was my second. I will hereby thoroughly reject ANY EVIDENCE presented by Holding. Why? I don't trust him. He fairly EXUDES fallacies. He stoops to ad hominem on a regular basis, poisons so many wells the water table for many miles around is polluted. I'd trust him as far as I can sling a piano.

I never took classes by either Holding or McDowell

You won't accept any pagan sources? I won't accept any CHRISTIAN sources. Period. Bias on both sides.

At least the Christian resources provide citations and references.

Look in a mirror, buddy. You won't accept most of anything anyone says. If WASC is shorthand for 'White Anglo Saxon Catholic', hell no, I won't accept those. Secular sources, please.

Interesting, but it’s actually-Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)

1st off, Get off your high horse dude. , SNTC is a lady. 2ndly, I hope you're going to apologize for that SNOTC crack, unless it was a typo. I'll not have you insulting my guests here. 3rd, you also are a guest in my back yard. You can call me anything you like, I'll reciprocate, but rein in your attitude. Got it? Likewise, I expect some civility from them to you. I don't want to hear 'who started it from anyone. We're not in the K12 grades anymore.

“Get off your high horse was warranted” as far as the ‘dude’ remark to SNTC, there was no indication this person was male/or female (I assumed male). Thus, had I the prior knowledge, I would have picked another term or omitted it.

Thus far, you've provided a poor example of xtian attitude. You don't practice 'agape' (& yes, know what the word's meaning is, I ALSO know Holding's take on this, so shut it), you don't turn the other cheek, you're REPRESENTING here (& I shouldn't have to point this out: I'm the INFIDEL here, I shouldn't have to give you lessons in the sort of behavior WWJD, etc.). Hinting that I might be committing ad hominem BEFORE THE FACT is called 'poisoning the well', it's also a sneaky, underhanded method to get me to accept your sources, questioning my honesty, etc., in short, NOT APPRECIATED.

Your innuendos are just as sneaky as your underhanded ad homs. Don’t get mad when it’s pointed out.

Tell you what. Present your evidence, but check the attitude at the door.
Got it?


As far as I can tell, all you got is some Hinduism hyper-polytheist gods with some ‘threenes’ that doesn’t hit the mark. At best, some additional mythical polytheism in the same tune, and some disobedient Hebrews (which I provided passages on the idolatry position). You have been begging the question the entire time and you have failed to demonstrate the connection from Hindu polytheism (all whatever else) to Christianity This is just your hypothesis, a mere conjecture; post hoc at best. You failed to make your case.

Obviously though, neither one of us is going to convince each other on this issue.

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
Secondly, you’re still trying to deny the argument from allusion, otherwise it wouldn’t have been mentioned; I could see through it easily.
For the last & final time, it was a hearsay conversation, he said, more or less, that it can be proved, it's tough.
There? Is that a better way to phrase it? Let the fuckin' thing go already.
However, he did use authoritative citations and resources, unlike the links provided.
Yes, & he re-interprets given cites & resources in accordance w/his desires.
There is NO reference to B.C.E. for the tablets However, I should have checked with another source to verify; it was an oversight not dishonesty.
Then apologies. Just qualify the CE/BCE, all right?
I never took classes by either Holding or McDowell
Then where? When I ask, you return w/"The class was all ‘major’ religions; so Zoroastrian tradition and many others were not covered GO HERE." I didn't say you took classes from McDowell. You inferred Holding.
Asserting remnant of ancient polytheism is merely speculation.
I was pointing out the roots of a word, because it's a common mistake among both atheists as well as theists. Doesn't necessitate henotheism or pantheism/polytheism.
Interesting, but it’s actually-Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC)
Do we need to do the definitions thing repeatedly? Don't use an acronym w/o qualification, assuming that everyone knows what you're talking about. Like WASC. Go look that up on answers.com. There's about 5 (or more) of these.
You have the WRONG source.
You're right. Apologies.
Your innuendos are just as sneaky as your underhanded ad homs. Don’t get mad when it’s pointed out.
Bullshit. I'm pointing out what's obvious. No deception. Try turning the other cheek occasionally. I call 'em the way I see 'em. A rose by any other name is still a flower.
At least the Christian resources provide citations and references.
Usually to other xtian resources. Apparently we need to agree on unbiased sources. If there is such a thing.
You have been begging the question the entire time and you have failed to demonstrate the connection from Hindu polytheism (all whatever else) to Christianity
Actually, it's the fallacy of many questions, not petitio principii. How do I demonstrate it empirically? It's conjecture. I admitted it was circumstantial before: but circumstantial is admissable in court.
I could very well go into the lack of historicity of the OT as you seem to be begging the question yourself:you assume that the OT is accurate, when we have comparable oral traditions between Israeli & Hindi cultures.
As mesoforte has pointed out prior, much of history is conjecture. A large portion of it is.

But we have 3's ALL OVER the place. At least across the board from India to the ME. We see all kinds of correlations. Patterns emerge. We have the concept of Trimurti that predates Christ. We have trade routes between Sumer and the Indus Valley, as far back as 3000 BCE. We see the importation of Mithra from India to Persia, from Persia to Rome. We see the Enum Elish, w/parallels to the OT constructs. Gilgamesh. Uptanashim. Deucalion. The question is: who borrowed from whom? Given the ancient Israeli's tradition of hyperbole (hey, true, everyone does it, sure), I'd say that's somewhat incriminatory.

WAS the SNOTC thing a typo? She's a friend of mine, so I get a little hot under the collar.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Sorry to barge into this less than interesting discussion once again,
with a question I've never had satisfactorily answered by any theist. Well, any theist who believes in a literal and inerrant bible, I mean.
Question is this:
If someone really believes this about the bible, why the hell would one then -worship- the God it purports?
Only reason -I- would do so, if I so believed, would be out of fear... the worst reason of all.

Actually, I have a second question, too.
If the bible is infallible and the true word of god, then how come even those who believe in its perfection can't seem to agree on interpretations?
And don't give me the lame excuse about it being mans lack of understanding... Because if the book really is *perfect* and God-decreed, then there could be NO MISTAKING its meaning.

Beowulf said...

RA,

I have taken (1) world religion and (1) philosophy of religion course at Mnt. San Jacinto Community College. The latter was an elective; the former is a requirement (Requirements for the Associates). Also, I have taken comparative religion at California Baptist University (bias probably-still a current [Business] student). I have taken some course at the University of Phoenix, nothing related to religion. I wasn’t aware of the other meanings of the acronym ‘WASC’, probably because it’s thrown around a lot in academia.

If I happen to ‘disappear’ it’s because I’m expecting a baby and day—hour? So I’m not exactly sure how that’s going to effect my time just yet. I’ll be around when I can.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

Bf... whatever else aside, good luck and good fortune on your parentage.

say no to christ said...

Ok, I'm a little lost. Did bf say that the Hebrews did not originally practice polytheism? I think we have proven that they absolutely did. And futher more we proved that time and time again they back slid to their polytheism. As for the trinity. I think we have proved that it is not an original christian idea. And is it me or did he over look that the oldest hindu deity was worshipped as a trinity?

http://www.crystalinks.com/indiagoddesses.html

here is what the hindus believed way before the bible was even written, muchless the NT. from the above link.

Kali - Black Earth Mother, Conqueror of Time, Goddess of fertility, death and regeneration. Dark Mother, Hindu triple Goddess of creation, preservation and destruction. Birth and Death Mother. Treasure house of Compassion, Giver of Life to the World. Her mantras brought into being the very things whose names She spoke for the first time, Originator of the creative word or Logos. A triple Goddess - Maiden, Mother, Crone. Lady of the Dead. The Ocean of Blood at the beginning and end of the world. Also known as Jagadamba.



http://www.dollsofindia.com/kali.htm

Another link of good information about Kali ma.

say no to christ said...

Oh and thank you RA for deffending me. I thought the snotc was funny though. Around here we say I suffer Queen B or Princess symdrom. lol My husband takes full responsibility for it.lol

Beowulf said...

‘Snotc’ was a typo—my bad.

say no to christ said...

Oh yeah! One more point I would like to make. Pagans have done their homework thoroughly! Unlike the christians. Many scholars agree that many religions including the Jews and christians purposelly wrote out the goddess of the old to make sure women were kept where the men at that time wanted them. And that was under their thumbs and under complete control of men. The pagans know this cuz they did their homework thoroughly! Christians and their so called "scholars" deny it and go to any means to try to discredite it and do a lousy job at it!

I have a lot of pagan friends many who are highly educated and one who is an anthropologist. And I am sick of the bad wrap they get. Most pagan are NOT theist. They are ancestor and animeist(sp?) worshippers. Meaning they worship the natural world as it really is. That is why you dont see all the hate and violence from them like we see from theists.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

SayNoToChrist...said:

"Most pagan are NOT theist. They are ancestor and animeist(sp?) worshippers. Meaning they worship the natural world as it really is."

True AND false.
They still worship something "ephemeral"...
Perhaps their -motives- are better,
but rationally speaking they're on no safer ground than Hovind... who, by his own estimatin' oughta be suffocatin' in a tarpit.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

SNTC sez: "Most pagan are NOT theist. They are ancestor and animeist(sp?) worshippers"...
Yeah, I agree... but so what?
Doesn't make -their- explanation any more believable.

say no to christ said...

I do agree that no religion is better. Any religious beliefs have the potenial to become deadly. And I should point out that not all pagans are non-theists only the ones who have thoroughly done their homework and continue to research the history and evolution of religion. I just cant knock the ones who worship the natural world and realize that we are just another animal that is a part of the natural world.

say no to christ said...

Non-theist pagans know we evolved and are just another animal species in the natural world. They support evolution and fight as hard as we do to keep ID out of schools.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

SNTC... Guess what?
We agree!
Wanna fuck?
Heeehe heee!
Sorry, just tryin' to rattle ReluctyLubricant.
Seriously though, I'm right there with ya.
Yet ye said:
"I just cant knock the ones who worship the natural world and realize that we are just another animal that is a part of the natural world. ".

I, for one, am convinced that we are animals, yet I also believe that (so far) we are pretty close to the top of the foodchain.
And I'm not gonna swear off bacon before I see a declaration of independance written by hogs.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

"say no to christ said...
Non-theist pagans know we evolved and are just another animal species in the natural world. They support evolution and fight as hard as we do to keep ID out of schools. ".


Eeek! Sorry!
Right!
It's just that I'm a native Dane,
and I sometimes tend to forget the battles you American Atheists have to face every day.
Sorry.

say no to christ said...

I'm with ya Hornyman!lol Some people go way too far out there for me as well! Animals in the natural world eat meat. Life feeds on life! The human animal was meant to eat meat. That is why we have canine teeth! And vegans suffer a lot of health problems and a good amount of them look sickly.

say no to christ said...

Yeah, American atheists have an up hill battle, so we need to stop turning our backs on the pagans that have some what of a grip on reality. And I have to admit, had it not been for the influence of my pagan friends I might not be where I am today.Just because one might not belive in god doesnt mean they have a good understanding about how crazy religious ideas came to dominate the natural world.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

SNTC... Righty-F'in-OH!
See, I donate to the danish Wild-life preservation fund each month, but that sure as hell don't mean I won't eat meat.
Right NOW, for example, I'm cooking some peppered beef-steaks,
but I wouldn't have bought 'em lest I knew they were "responsibly made"... and here I'm perfectly willing to compare my appetites to those of the believers...
Least ways, my buds express a taste worth upholdin'!

*LMAO*

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
If I happen to ‘disappear’ it’s because I’m expecting a baby and day—hour? So I’m not exactly sure how that’s going to effect my time just yet. I’ll be around when I can.
Hey, congrats, & take care of momma & new baby - gotta keep one's priorities, so don't sweat it.
I'll only talk smack about you when you're around ;).
‘Snotc’ was a typo—my bad.
Your class & honesty are duly noted.
Snotc rhymes with...but I'm guessing you figured that out already.
Sorry I laid into you about it...but I think you can relate as to why.
Again, congrats.
My condolences on your upcoming REM deprivation.

Krystalline Apostate said...

HMDK:
Sorry to barge into this less than interesting discussion once again
Oh sorry, are we boring you (hahaha!)?
Well, any theist who believes in a literal and inerrant bible, I mean.
I'm not sure BF is an inerrantist, per se.
Most inerrantists I've spoken w/, stipulate that they know every word is true due to having been told that by...guess who? But most are unwilling (or unable?) to share the rationale behind that.
Sorry, just tryin' to rattle ReluctyLubricant.
Rattle? Moi? Do I really rattle THAT easily?
Nah, as long as everyone plays nice in MY sandbox, all is cool.
Hey, y'all get a kick out of this. I entered 1 of my more recent posts, for the GOD or NOT carnival, & the host had this to say about it:
"NOT: Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream to Reluctant Atheist's staggeringly metaphorical production, BUT IT’S A GOOD SAW!. It's in all caps, so it must be true."
That still pickles me tink (spoonerism intended).

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

"RA said...
HMDK:
Sorry to barge into this less than interesting discussion once again
Oh sorry, are we boring you (hahaha!)? ".

Yay n' nay.
It's one of these discussions that I've often found myself entangled in. It's just that it doesn't really -matter- (huh-huh! Geddit?!?! MATTER!?!) one way or another, since ye theist-de-jour,
be he/she named LindaHatesFags/Phreedm or bf, will always dodge the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe and Everything... which, in my humble mind is this:
Please gimme tangible and toothsome proof of an active deity.
In other words,
show me a convincing photo o' god and I might reconsider my position.

HairlessMonkeyDK said...

"Sorry, just tryin' to rattle ReluctyLubricant.
Rattle? Moi? Do I really rattle THAT easily?
Nah, as long as everyone plays nice in MY sandbox, all is cool."

Hmmmmmmm......
You're expecting me to play NICE?
Jus' cus'
it be -yer- sandbox-fiefdom?
I ain't promisin' more than an effort... yet from me that's gold enough, uncy Relucty.

P.S.
This whole playgroundish metaphor reminds me of a job I had about 2 years ago.
We were this small group of guys who went around in the Danish equivalent of a County,
and renovated and repaired playgrounds. Surprisingly hard work, it turns out.

Krystalline Apostate said...

HMDK:
You're expecting me to play NICE?
Well, w/in reason, o' course.
yet from me that's gold enough, uncy Relucty.
Aye, most things from you are gold, King Midas.
Please gimme tangible and toothsome proof of an active deity.
In other words,

Or at least a phone #. Problem is, h/she/it would KNOW yer the heavy breather on the other end o' the line. Which'd take the fun out of it indeed.

Mesoforte said...

bf-

Congrats on the kid. May the force be with you. ^^_^^^

say no to christ said...

I dont congrat fathers, but I will congrat the mom to be. May her life changing ordeal go smoothly with very little pain. When the dad looses weeks on end of sleep and devotes his everythinng to the mother and child then I'll give a congrat. It takes nothing but a night of fun for a man to become a father. It takes 9 months of discomfort for a woman to become a mother. Never overlook that!

Krystalline Apostate said...

SNTC:
Point well taken.
But it does take a commitment when the blessed event is looming, & long hard considerations in the planning.
Or the nights of lost sleep, wondering if 1 will do an adequate job of being a father.
Plus sympathy pains, running to the store every 2 hours, waiting on the mother-to-be hand & foot (maybe not all guys do that, but were I to become a daddy, I can see myself in that role).
In short, that 1 night of fun may prove to be expensive in many matters.
Stepping up to bat is to be applauded, I think, as it becomes less common.
These are just thoughts, as I've never become a biological father (yet).

Krystalline Apostate said...

BF:
The differences, BTW, between 'triad' & 'trinity' are pretty much null & void, in accordance to definition.
From answers.com - triad - under thesaurus:
"triad
A group of three individuals: three, threesome, trine, trinity, trio, triple, triumvirate, triune, triunity, troika. See group."
& triad is a synonym for trinity.
Sorry to quibble, but substituting 1 word for another, as if they're separate meanings, when they mean the same thing?