Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13755Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

Expand Messages
  • Richard Godwin
    Jun 7, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Nothing there but preaching, hardball style of a Fundie. I think this is supposed to be a discussion forum.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: praesto12
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 10:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      Godwin, you speak lies. I've never seen more rationalization than from the
      "Atheistic" community. I know you are not an Atheist, but generally people will,
      literally, drive themselves insane or consider anything, and I mean ANYTHING to
      the reality of God as manifest through his word in Christ. "Scientist" perfer
      theorizing about Aliens or Alien generated life being passed on Mars rock to
      the earth and then these magic living rocks survive for millions of years to
      produce your father and mother and you. It's insanity. Well, hey, the Apostle
      Paul said it best. People are willingly ignorant. "Although they claimed to be
      wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal G-d for images
      made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefor G-d
      gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts..."

      I do not know what conversations you have had with what "Christians" and I
      don't really care. You are wrong. Atheist rationalize. People of

      Anti-Christ thinking, like yourself, rationalize and lie. I believe they do so
      willingly. I don't know why you hate G-d, but I would say you should get over

      What would you like to discuss about Biblical Criticism? I am not concerned
      about your limited accessment of what you think I do or do not know. At half
      your age I believe I know as much as you. "Biblical Criticism.." Right..... Mad
      Germans in the late 1800's rewritting witness testimony in the illusion of
      academic scholarship paving the way for the horrors of the 20th century. Your
      philosophies are doctrines of devils and lead to death. Wellhausen, Nietzsche,
      Voltaire, Marx and so forth are men that lived jadded lives and most ended up
      bitter and alone, if not completely insane. A life without G-d will lead one to
      death of the Body and Spirit. I strongly encourage you to reconsider the path
      you are.

      "Educators" with ideas likethese will lead to destruction. Dont' take my word
      for it. Take Victor Frankl;

      “If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well
      corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine,
      as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product
      of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man
      is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted, with the last stage of that
      corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of
      Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but
      the product of heredity and environment–or, as the Nazi liked to say, of ‘Blood
      and Soil.’ I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz,
      Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other
      in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic
      scientists and philosophers.”

      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Fri, June 3, 2011 11:29:39 AM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      Oh, so you don't know the history, much very recent, in Christianity. The thing
      about Elohim being plural is very simple. The Israelites lived in Canaan (as
      proven by the Merneptah stele dated 1210, and they moved into the rough hill
      country (shown in archaeology), and they used the same concept of the gods as
      did those where they lived: Canaan. El/Elohim, interchangeable, meant the plural
      gods. Not even Israel in the Bible have monotheism. They had only one god to
      worship among the other gods, called henotheism. Later in the Hellenistic
      period, when composition took place, they took on monotheism as did the other
      cultures, such as Persian Zoroastrianism. Psalms 82 refers to the council of
      gods, headed by El/Elohim, and he kicked them out of the council for not taking
      care of the orphans and widows.

      Everything that doesn't suite the new Christianity simply is either
      re-interpreted freely, or re-written. They always can use rationalization even
      in very complicated ways for support of what they want it to be. Yes, I have
      seen many examples of Christians worrying about, being embarrassed by this
      pluralism, which is why through their method of "apologetics" they rationalize
      them, just as you showed.

      The DUH goes to you, buddy. First it would be expected for newcomers to a
      different culture to absorb ideas of that culture. This is almost a rule
      throughout all history. Second, it's obvious the Elish was involved in the
      Genesis creation account, so it would appear the author(s) used it because they
      learned it.

      You poor man, so helpless, he cannot even google "enuma elish"! It would be a
      good idea for you to get educated on everything involving your religion,
      especially on the Bible. Google "biblical criticism".

      Richard G

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: praesto12
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:10 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      The "plurality" has never been an embarasment to Christianity or Judaism; read
      prior email.

      Israelites being in Babylon proves nothing but the fact that Israelites were in
      Babylon. Duh.

      I'd be interested to learn more about Enuma Elish, so please send a link. Much
      more to be said on the matter.


      From: Richard Godwin <meta@...>
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thu, June 2, 2011 11:09:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      OK. No problem. You may be right.

      But the "restoration" DOES make some sense. Look at what they have in Gen. 1.
      Elohim of course is plural, and always has been an embarasment, especially to
      Christians, who "appropriated" the Hebrew Bible into their own. So they have
      "the supreme ones". I think this is accurate, but we probably would say "the
      gods." And it has earth pre-existing. That might make sense of the Hebrew, but
      probably not. The Hebrew is "tohu wa wahu" ("w" and "v" are the same), which
      refers to some unformed chaotic mass, like "waters" or something like that, a
      clear continuation of the Persian Enuma Elish, and we know the Israelites were
      in captivity at Babylon, where undoubtedly they first encountered this
      pre-existing myth, And there are some other renderings I think hit the nail on
      the head. When I get time, I'll go through at least the first 16 verses of
      Genesis 1. Could this have come from the Persian historian Berossus (3rd cent.
      C.E.), his Babyloniaca, which is about word for word the same as the ordinarily
      translated Hebrew of Genesis 1-11? We also have good reason to think the whole
      Tanakh was written in the Hellenistic era, corresponding with both Berossus, and

      Manetho for Exodus.

      Someone originated this, or some group, but not this one.


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: bestonnet_00
      To: deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 12:47 PM
      Subject: [Death To Religion] Re: Hebrew?

      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Godwin" wrote:
      > I agree. I just see them playing, and not really deceiving
      > themselves.

      They don't so much look like playing to me, I think they really do believe
      they've found something revolutionary.

      > Having fun doesn't require being deceived.

      Looks to me to be more than just fun for them.

      > However, that in itself does not falsify their theory, which I
      > firmly believe didn't come from them, but rather from some other
      > source, that of scholarship. Where is it?

      Unless someone can find that other source I'm going to stick with them as being
      the originators (I'm not about to unnecessarily multiply entities here).

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 32 messages in this topic