| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2005 03:08:30 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Baal Shem |
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Shem
snip
Which means "master" or "lord." Do you disagree?
Did you read the next sentence?
Not being Elroy, no, I did not.
And just like "god" in English refers to both a class and an individual,
so did Baal.
Baal never referred to a class of gods, every use of the word Baal in
reference to a god was specific in location. Not unusual in that region &
time frame. Gods still were not nationalistic for there apparently was no
separate Hebrew society. That appears to have been in the making, & was not
achieved until the United Monarchy. There is, to my knowledge, no serious
archaeologist that proposes a separate Judean political entity that was
considered a power to deal with.
Why don't you just admit that the Jews borrowed god names from the
surrounding cultures? Sometimes they demonized them, sometimes they
revered them and adopted them...
Why don't you try to stick to a subject rather than running off to
other topics? Borrowing the names of foreign gods from foreign
cultures is rather reasonable, don't you think?
Only if they are indeed foreign gods. Baal was indigenous to the region the
a'biru were trying to claim as home sweet home, which just happened to be
Canaanite. There is no reason to suspect they themselves were not Canaanite.
What have you to say about Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the
name for the central part of the menorah? Just a linguistic
coincidence?
Why don't you try to stick to a subject rather than running off to
other topics?
So, the other gods that were borrowed & then told do not worship are not
part of the discussion until you say so. Interesting.
When these masters or lords of "the name" uttered some specific name
of some god, they were supposed to be able to heal people and drive
out demons.
That have very little to do with the Baal Shem Tov.
It has a lot to do with him. He was supposed to be able to heal
people, just like Jesus.
But still a very minor part of the Baal Shem Tov.
In all that is in the world dwell holy sparks, no thing is empty
of them. In the actions of men also, indeed even in the sins that
a man does, dwell holy sparks of the Glory of God.
The Baal Shem Tov
Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov, or BeSHT ("Possessor of
the Good Name" or "Master of the Divine Name") was born in the
Ukraine in 1700 and died in Podolia in 1760. He was the founder of the Hassidic
movement. Although on the one hand rebelling against dry orthodoxy,
by teaching that God is best served and worshipped through
singing and dancing, he also accepted the redemptive cosmology of
Lurianic Kabbalah, and taught meditations involving the "raising of the
sparks".
The BeSHT's Hassidism was also, to a large extent, a reaction to and
legitimization of the Sabbatian events of 1665-1666. Like Sabbatai Zevi,
the BeSHT's had clear antinomian tendencies which were, however, unlike
those of Sabbatai, more acceptable to mainstream Judaism.
This the same fellow?
By being a "master" or "baal" or "lord" of
the ineffable name of some make-believe space pixie that people once
worshipped as a god, they were supposed to be able to heal sick
people.
If what you want to do is toss insults and such, then don't pretend
you have an argument. Don't pretend to be a student of a subject.
& the insult is on your perception, after all, you can not be insulted
without your cooperation & consent.
You really ought to try to learn something rather than grabbing the first
thing you understand and figure you know everything.
Quit trying to pretend what I said is incorrect.
It was not meaningful enough to be correct.
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal was
yahweh. No, yes?
You know just as
well as I do that Jews throughout history have worshipped many more
than one single god, and the names have changed over time.
No, I don't know that.
Then quit pretending to know more than you do. Its not like the information
is hidden that well. All three of the primary gods are claimed as yahweh now,
but were not during the development of the yahweh tradition.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
HaShem might seem to be the final name, since it's so vague, but you
know damn well that praying to HaShem is no different than praying to
Baal, or El, or YHVH, or Isis, or Ra...
Your ability to know what I think is impressive. Your inability to see
meaningful distinctions is sad.
I don't know or care what you think, but it is apparent you are not quite as
knowledgeable as you think you are.
snip
The people who believe praying to some god or uttering its name will
help them out are certainly soaked in superstition. There were plenty
of Jewish rabbis and scholars who realized Baal Shem Tov was a fake,
just like the ones who realized Jesus was a false messiah.
I'm actually applauding them, in case you couldn't tell...
No, I could not. I see you again attacking people from the past for
not having modern knowledge.
It appears that at times your vision is not 20-20, but whose is. It might doyou well to read some of the history of the era, region & societies. Then
again, you may feel you have read enough, & so are in a position of a
teacher with new students. You are not, at least not in my case or the
majority of atheists that respond to the thread. None of them are unwilling
to do the research, & you will not like the results, based on past
performance on your part.
walksalone who accepts his knowledge has gaps, but those gaps have
references & can be closed when the time is right.
--
Archeologists near mount Sinai have discovered what is
believed to be a missing page from the Bible and is believed
to read 'To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within
this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living
or dead is purely coincidental'.
.
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
16 Sep 2005 07:29:21 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal_Shem
snip
Which means "master" or "lord." Do you disagree?
Did you read the next sentence?
Not being Elroy, no, I did not.
And just like "god" in English refers to both a class and an individual,
so did Baal.
Baal never referred to a class of gods, every use of the word Baal in
reference to a god was specific in location.
By "class" I mean that "Baal" means "god", not just "God". Elroy is
under the impression that the Baal Shem Tov was considered a god.
Not unusual in that region &
time frame. Gods still were not nationalistic for there apparently was no
separate Hebrew society. That appears to have been in the making, & was not
achieved until the United Monarchy. There is, to my knowledge, no serious
archaeologist that proposes a separate Judean political entity that was
considered a power to deal with.
Why don't you just admit that the Jews borrowed god names from the
surrounding cultures? Sometimes they demonized them, sometimes they
revered them and adopted them...
Why don't you try to stick to a subject rather than running off to
other topics? Borrowing the names of foreign gods from foreign
cultures is rather reasonable, don't you think?
Only if they are indeed foreign gods. Baal was indigenous to the region the
a'biru were trying to claim as home sweet home, which just happened to be
Canaanite. There is no reason to suspect they themselves were not Canaanite.
You make a bigger deal about "foreign" than I meant. Your points are
all well taken, I was trying to stay within the usual language of
discussion here, but by "foreign" I just meant "belonging to others".
What have you to say about Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the
name for the central part of the menorah? Just a linguistic
coincidence?
Why don't you try to stick to a subject rather than running off to
other topics?
So, the other gods that were borrowed & then told do not worship are not
part of the discussion until you say so. Interesting.
It was not the topic until Elroy brought it up right then. It is not
my say so that is important. Elroy saw something in the use of "Baal"
and has run with it. Somehow I got accused of denying linguistic
borrowing and now he is off discussing the Babylonian Sun god. Give
him a tiny inch and he will have a claim that the Baal Shem Tov was
the Sun or other such thing. If Shem, meaning name, and Shamash,
meaning helper have the same root it would be interesting. If it
shares a root with the name of the Babylonian Sun god that would also
be interesting. But I have learned to ignore claims of linguistic
roots from people who don't know the language, particularly from
people who have views they want to impose on the data. Elroy wants
everything to be about Sky gods.
The problem can be particularly difficult with Hebrew since (almost)
all roots have three consonants, but they then add lots and lots of
imagery and associations. Shem and Shema have the same root: shem is
name, shema is listen or hear. Neshema, from the same root, is the
soul. This does suggest that there is a long connection in Hebrew
between words, speaking, and the soul. I find it unlikely that Shamash
has the same root and very unlikely that there is a close connection
to the world for helper. Besides the very different meanings Shamash
has the final shin, giving it a different three consonant root.
When these masters or lords of "the name" uttered some specific name
of some god, they were supposed to be able to heal people and drive
out demons.
That have very little to do with the Baal Shem Tov.
It has a lot to do with him. He was supposed to be able to heal
people, just like Jesus.
But still a very minor part of the Baal Shem Tov.
In all that is in the world dwell holy sparks, no thing is empty
of them. In the actions of men also, indeed even in the sins that
a man does, dwell holy sparks of the Glory of God.
The Baal Shem Tov
Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov, or BeSHT ("Possessor of
the Good Name" or "Master of the Divine Name") was born in the
Ukraine in 1700 and died in Podolia in 1760. He was the founder of the Hassidic
movement. Although on the one hand rebelling against dry orthodoxy,
by teaching that God is best served and worshipped through
singing and dancing, he also accepted the redemptive cosmology of
Lurianic Kabbalah, and taught meditations involving the "raising of the
sparks".
The BeSHT's Hassidism was also, to a large extent, a reaction to and
legitimization of the Sabbatian events of 1665-1666. Like Sabbatai Zevi,
the BeSHT's had clear antinomian tendencies which were, however, unlike
those of Sabbatai, more acceptable to mainstream Judaism.
This the same fellow?
That was the fellow Elroy was talking about. The history of Chassidism
is quite interesting. For reasons that have little to do with the
internal views and lots to do with external politics Chassidism is one
of the largest groups in orthodox Judaism today.
By being a "master" or "baal" or "lord" of
the ineffable name of some make-believe space pixie that people once
worshipped as a god, they were supposed to be able to heal sick
people.
If what you want to do is toss insults and such, then don't pretend
you have an argument. Don't pretend to be a student of a subject.
& the insult is on your perception, after all, you can not be insulted
without your cooperation & consent.
I don't feel insulted at all. I just feel that when these
fundamentalists start tossing off terms like "space pixie" we have
left the part of the discussion where there is something to learn.
You really ought to try to learn something rather than grabbing the first
thing you understand and figure you know everything.
Quit trying to pretend what I said is incorrect.
It was not meaningful enough to be correct.
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal was
yahweh. No, yes?
Please explain to me what this has to do with the honorific given to
Israel ben Eliezer.
You know just as
well as I do that Jews throughout history have worshipped many more
than one single god, and the names have changed over time.
No, I don't know that.
Then quit pretending to know more than you do. Its not like the information
is hidden that well. All three of the primary gods are claimed as yahweh now,
but were not during the development of the yahweh tradition.
Was it Judaism when it was polytheistic? The U.S. is not a monarchy
and never was. That the Colonies were part of a monarchy is true, but
does not mean that the U.S. was a monarchy.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
HaShem might seem to be the final name, since it's so vague, but you
know damn well that praying to HaShem is no different than praying to
Baal, or El, or YHVH, or Isis, or Ra...
Your ability to know what I think is impressive. Your inability to see
meaningful distinctions is sad.
I don't know or care what you think, but it is apparent you are not quite as
knowledgeable as you think you are.
No, that is not clear. Among other things, you don't know Elroy's long
time lack of understanding regarding why Orthodox Jews say "HaShem".
snip
The people who believe praying to some god or uttering its name will
help them out are certainly soaked in superstition. There were plenty
of Jewish rabbis and scholars who realized Baal Shem Tov was a fake,
just like the ones who realized Jesus was a false messiah.
I'm actually applauding them, in case you couldn't tell...
No, I could not. I see you again attacking people from the past for
not having modern knowledge.
It appears that at times your vision is not 20-20, but whose is. It might
doyou well to read some of the history of the era, region & societies. Then
again, you may feel you have read enough, & so are in a position of a
teacher with new students.
Read enough? There is almost nothing that interests me that I have
read enough on.
You are not, at least not in my case or the
majority of atheists that respond to the thread. None of them are unwilling
to do the research, & you will not like the results, based on past
performance on your part.
You have significant knowledge in a number of areas I find interesting
and even important. There are plenty of people from a wide range of
theological positions that have overwhelming amounts of information in
areas I find interesting and important. Elroy has yet to show he is in
that group. He is a member of a group that I don't see you belonging
to, those I call fundamentalist Atheists. These people have absolute
agreement with fundamentalist Christians on a number of points. They
both agree that one is either a Christian or an atheist. (They may
give lip service to the notion of other religions, but neither group
really believes in them.) They both agree that the only Holy text is
the Bible and that the only way to read it is as a literal description
of actual events. And they both agree that if the Bible is wrong in
anyway then it is useless. The only disagreement they seem to have is
on whether or not the Bible has an error.
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both
sides something about reading texts. And three, there is so much
ignorance about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not
present it as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present
the alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether
or not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the
religion. Showing that the Biblical flood story has strong parallels
with the Babylonian one does not mean that the Bible story is wrong.
(The geological evidence shows that the Flood never happened anyway.)
Showing parallels between, say, the Genesis creation stories and some
Babylonian story does not mean either that the Torah is wrong or that
Judaism is wrong. It is interesting, it is informative (though I
disagree with some on what these parallels tell us), but it does not
invalidate the religion. There are certainly those who will fight you
regarding the archaeology because they will feel their religion is
threatened, but they are wrong about the threat. Me, I don't think
that any of the events prior to David/Solomon actually took place and
I suspect that if there is any basis in Solomon the reality was very
different. I know others who agree with that and yet are strong
believing Jews.
The closest I know to invalidating a religion via archaeology would be
if you could show that Christ was never crucified and never rose from
the dead. That single event is the core requirement for Christianity.
Yet I am sure that if there were absolutely provable it would not
change the religious views of many people. They may well believe that
Christ died for their sins and was resurrected, that belief may well
be the defining quality of what it is to be Christian, but they did
not become Christians because they have that belief and they won't
stop if they decide the event did not take place.
(Boy, I bet you did not expect that much exposition. If you like, I
can give you the short version:
Oh yeah!
Not as informative, I admit, but there is something to be said for
being concise.)
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
17 Sep 2005 01:21:39 PM |
|
|
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
And just like "god" in English refers to both a class and an individual,
so did Baal.
Baal never referred to a class of gods, every use of the word Baal in
reference to a god was specific in location.
By "class" I mean that "Baal" means "god", not just "God". Elroy is under
the impression that the Baal Shem Tov was considered a god.
No, it does not, nor am I familiar with where you could have gotten such
information. Minimal proof reading done.
BAAL Dictionary Of Dieties And Demons In The Bible, Karel van der Toon
2nd. revision Isbn 0802824919 Pg 132 & 133
I. The name ba`al is a common Semitic noun meaning `lord, owner'. Applied
to a god it occurs about 90 times in the OT. The LXX transcribes [Greek],
Vulgate [Greek], plural [Greek] and Baalim. Though normally an
appellative, the name is used in Ugaritic religion as the proper name of a
deity. Also in the Bible, the noun occurs as the name of a specific
Canaanite god. II. According to Pettinato the noun ba`al was originally
used as a divine name. It is attested as such already in third millennium
texts. The mention of [not ASCII presentable] in the list of deities from
Abu Salabikh (R. D. BIGGS, Inscription from Abu Salabikh [OIP 99; Chicago
1974] no. 83 v 11 = no. 84 obv. iii 8') provides the oldest evidence of
Baal's worship. Since the Abu Salabikh god list mentions the god amidst a
wealth of other deities, each of them referred to by its proper name, it
is unlikely that ba`al should serve here as an adjective. The appellative
`lord', moreover, has a different spelling, viz. be-lu or ba-ah-lu. In
texts from Ebla (ca. 2400 BCE) the name Baal occurs only as an element in
personal names and toponyms. PETTINATO (1980) makes a case for Baal being
an originally Canaanite deity (so also DAHOOD 1958:94; POPE & ROLLIG 1965:
253-254; VAN ZIJL 1972:325), and argues that he should be distinguished
from >Hadad. Their identity is nevertheless often emphasized in modem
studies. Many scholars hold that Hadad was the real name of the West
Semitic weather god; later on he was simply referred to as `Lord', just
like Bel (lord') came to be used as a designation for Marduk (so e. g. O.
EISSFELDT, Baal/Baalat, RGG 1 [19573] 805-806; DAHOOD 1958:93; GESE
1970:120; DE MOOR & MULDER 1973:710-712; A. CAQUOT & M. SZNYCER, LAPO 7
[1974] 73). Yet the parallel occurrences of b`l and hd (Haddu) in, e.g.,
KTU 1.4 vii:35-37; 1.5 i:22-23; 1.10 ii:4-5 do not necessarily support
this assumption. It could also be argued, with KAPELRUD (1952:50-52), that
the name of the Mesopotamian weather god Hadad/ Adad, known in the West
Semitic world through cultural contact, was applied secondarily to Baal.
If Baal and Hadad refer back to the same deity, however, it must be
admitted that, in the first millennium BCE, the two names came to stand
for distinct deities: Hadad being a god of the Aramaeans, and Baal a god
of the Phoenicians and the Canaanites (J. C. GREENFIELD, Aspects of
Aramean Religion, Ancient Israelite Religion [FS. F. M. Cross; ed. P. D.
Miller, Jr., et al.; Philadelphia 1987] 67-78, esp. 68). In the texts from
Ugarit (Ras Shamra) Baal is frequently characterized as aliyn `victorious
Baal' (see e.g. KTU 1.4 v:59; 1.5 v:17; 1.6 v:10; 1.101:17-18); aliy qrdm,
`mightiest of the heroes' (KTU 1.3 iii:14; iv:7-8; 1.4 viii:34-35; 1.5
ii:10-11, 18; for a closer analysis see DIETRICH & LORETZ 1980: 392-393);
dmrn, `the powerful, excellent one' (KTU 1.4 vii:39; cf. KTU 1.92:30); or
b`l spn (KTU 1.16 i:6-7; 1.39:10; 1.46:14; 1.47:5; 1.109:9, 29 Zaphon,
Baal-Zaphon). The latter designation is also found, in syllabic writing
and therefore vocalised, in the Treaty of Esarhaddon of Assyria with king
Baal of Tyre (SAA 2 [1988] no. 5 iv 10': dBa-al-sa-pu-nu). It also occurs
in a Punic text from Marseilles (KAI 69:1) and a Phoenician text from
Saqqara in Egypt (KAI 50:2-3). The Baal residing upon the divine mountain
of Sapanu (the Jebel el-Aqra', classical Mons Casius, cf. the name Hazi in
texts from Anatolia) is sometimes referred to in Ugarit as Il spn (KTU 1.3
iii:29; iv:19; note, however, that the latter designation may also be used
to refer to the collectivity of gods residing on Mount Zaphon).
Apparently, in the popular imagination, Baal's palace was situated on
Mount Zaphon (KTU 1.4 v:55; vii:6; cf. srrt spn, `summit of the Sapanu',
KTU 1.3 i:21-22; 1.6 vi:12-13, and mrym spn, `heights of the Sapanu', KTU
1.3 iv:1, 37-38; 1.4 v:23). In a cultic context Baal was invoked as the
god of the city-state of Ugarit under the name b'l ugrt (KTU 1.27:4;
1.46:16 [restored]; 1.65: 10-11; 1.105:19; 1.109:11, 16, 35-36). Such
genitival attributions as b`l ugrt may be compared with those that are
known from Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions: b`l krntryf (KAI 26 A
11:19); b`l lbnn (`>Baal of the Lebanon', KAI 31:1-2); b`l sdn (`>Baal of
->Sidon', KAI 14:18); b`l smd (KAI 24:15); b'l myn (`>Baal of the
Heavens', KAI 202 A 3); b'l fmm (KAI 4:3, ->Baal shamem); cf. also b'l
'dr (KAI 9 B 5); b`l hmn (KAI 24:16; -Hermon); b`l mgnm (KAI 78:3-4). For
other special forms of Baal see the survey by PoPE & RÖLLIG 1965:253-264.
It is also to be noted, finally, that the Ugaritic Baal in his capacity as
lord over the fertile land is said to be bn dgn, `the son of -->Dagan'
(KTU 1.5 vi:23-24; 1.10 iii:12, 14; 1.14 ii:25; iv:7). Yet as a member of
the pantheon, the other gods being his brothers and sisters, Baal is also
the son of ->El since all gods are `sons of El' (KTU 1.3 v:38-39; 1.4
iv:47-48; v:28-29; 1.17 vi:28-29; once Baal addresses El as `my father',
KTU 1.17 i:23). There is no particular tension between these two
filiations; they should certainly not be taken as an indication to the
effect that Baal was admitted into the Ugaritic pantheon at a later stage.
On the contrary: the appellative bn expresses appurtenance to a certain
sphere. Baal was judged to be a member of the Ugaritic pantheon, and as
such he was a son of El. Inasmuch as his activity was concerned with the
fertility of the fields he was a son of the grain god Dagan. The
excavations at Ras Shamra have supplied us with various figurative
representations of the god Baal (A. CAQUOT & M. SZNYCER, Ugaritic Religion
[Leiden 1980]pl. VIII c (?), IX a-d, X, XII). Such iconographic
representations are known from other places in the Syro-Palestinian area
too, though their interpretation is fraught with difficulties; an
unambiguous identification with Baal is rarely possible (P. WELTEN,
Götterbild, mannliches, BRL [19772] 99-111; cf. R. HACHMANN [ed.] Fruhe
Phöniker im Libanon: 20 Jahre deutsche Ausgrabungen in Kamid 'el-Loz
[Mainz am Rhein 1983] 165). The worship of Baal demonstrably pervaded the
entire area inhabited by the Canaanites. During the period of the Middle
Kingdom, if not earlier, the cult was adopted by the Egyptians, along with
the cult of other Canaanite gods (S. MORENZ, Agyptische Religion [RdM 8;
Stuttgart 19772] 250-255). In the wake of the Phoenician colonization it
eventually spread all over the Mediterranean region. The domain or
property of the god consists either of a natural area or one created by
human hand; the relationship of the god to his territory is expressed with
a genitival construction: Baal is the lord of a mountain, a city, and the
like. The place may either coincide with a sanctuary, or contain one.
Since the separate population groups within the Syrian-Palestine area each
knew their own Baal, as the literary documents show, it may be assumed
that people had a well circumscribed image of the god as a deity of
fundamental significance for the human existence (cf. A. CAQUOT & M.
SZNYCER, LAPO 7 [1974] 77). The conclusion is confirmed by the frequency
of Baal as theophoric component in personal names (IPN 114, 116, 119-122;
KAI III, 45-52; F. GRÖNDAHL, Die Personennamen der Texte aus Ugarit [Rome
1967] 114-117.131-133). Also in the Amarna letters there occur proper
names compounded with the divine name Baal (if dIM may be read as balu,
e.g. EA 256:2, 5; 257:3; 314:3; 330:3).
snip
Only if they are indeed foreign gods. Baal was indigenous to the region the
a'biru were trying to claim as home sweet home, which just happened to be
Canaanite. There is no reason to suspect they themselves were not Canaanite.
You make a bigger deal about "foreign" than I meant. Your points are all
well taken, I was trying to stay within the usual language of discussion
here, but by "foreign" I just meant "belonging to others".
What have >you to say about Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the
name for the central part of the menorah? Just a linguistic
coincidence?
Why don't you try to stick to a subject rather than running off to
other topics?
So, the other gods that were borrowed & then told do not worship are not
part of the discussion until you say so. Interesting.
It was not the topic until Elroy brought it up right then. It is not my
say so that is important. Elroy saw something in the use of "Baal" and
has run with it. Somehow I got accused of denying linguistic borrowing
Elroy sees much, & sometimes needs to be reined in, but why can the
subject not drift. Is there a formalized set of rules for usenet, if so, I
am totally unaware of them. Not to mention Shamash is not the Babylonian
sun god, but from Canaanite/Ugaritic Mythology FAQ, ver. 1.2
Akkadian.
and now he is off discussing the Babylonian Sun god. Give him a tiny inch
and he will have a claim that the Baal Shem Tov was the Sun or other such
thing. If Shem, meaning name, and Shamash, meaning helper have the same
root it would be interesting. If it shares a root with the name of the
Babylonian Sun god that would also be interesting. But I have learned to
Indeed, if he was Babylonian it would be interesting. But even money saus
teh Babylonians knew of him.
ignore claims of linguistic roots from people who don't know the
language, particularly from people who have views they want to impose on
the data. Elroy wants everything to be about Sky gods.
Not really, he is more interested in astral gods than sky gods.
The problem can be particularly difficult with Hebrew since (almost) all
roots have three consonants, but they then add lots and lots of imagery
and associations. Shem and Shema have the same root: shem is name, shema
is listen or hear. Neshema, from the same root, is the soul. This does
suggest that there is a long connection in Hebrew between words,
speaking, and the soul. I find it unlikely that Shamash has the same root
and very unlikely that there is a close connection to the world for
helper. Besides the very different meanings Shamash has the final shin,
giving it a different three consonant root.
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
When these masters or lords of "the name" uttered some specific name
of some god, they were supposed to be able to heal people and drive
out demons.
That have very little to do with the Baal Shem Tov.
It has a lot to do with him. He was supposed to be able to heal
people, just like Jesus.
But still a very minor part of the Baal Shem Tov.
In all that is in the world dwell holy sparks, no thing is empty
of them. In the actions of men also, indeed even in the sins that
a man does, dwell holy sparks of the Glory of God.
The Baal Shem Tov
Israel ben Eliezer, the Baal Shem Tov, or BeSHT ("Possessor of
the Good Name" or "Master of the Divine Name") was born in the
Ukraine in 1700 and died in Podolia in 1760. He was the founder of the Hassidic
movement. Although on the one hand rebelling against dry orthodoxy,
by teaching that God is best served and worshipped through
singing and dancing, he also accepted the redemptive cosmology of
Lurianic Kabbalah, and taught meditations involving the "raising of the
sparks".
The BeSHT's Hassidism was also, to a large extent, a reaction to and
legitimization of the Sabbatian events of 1665-1666. Like Sabbatai Zevi,
the BeSHT's had clear antinomian tendencies which were, however, unlike
those of Sabbatai, more acceptable to mainstream Judaism.
This the same fellow?
That was the fellow Elroy was talking about. The history of Chassidism is
quite interesting. For reasons that have little to do with the internal
views and lots to do with external politics Chassidism is one of the
largest groups in orthodox Judaism today.
By being a "master" or "baal" or "lord" of
the ineffable name of some make-believe space pixie that people once
worshipped as a god, they were supposed to be able to heal sick
people.
If what you want to do is toss insults and such, then don't pretend
you have an argument. Don't pretend to be a student of a subject.
& the insult is on your perception, after all, you can not be insulted
without your cooperation & consent.
I don't feel insulted at all. I just feel that when these
fundamentalists start tossing off terms like "space pixie" we have left
the part of the discussion where there is something to learn.
& the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly. Can you
define a god so that it is not contradictory & universally understood
without including pixies, space bound or not? I don't think you can. Let
me help you out, there iks only one charecteristic that is common to all
god claims, they are supernatural in some way. This includes pixies,
demons, angels, water horses, nixies, Russkalas, et all. If it goes bump
in the night, it is a god by definition. Now I do accept that you add
more qualifiers to any gods you may beleive in or have heard about.
You really ought to try to learn something rather than grabbing the first
thing you understand and figure you know everything.
Quit trying to pretend what I said is incorrect.
It was not meaningful enough to be correct.
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal was
yahweh. No, yes?
Yes or no Matt, I'm curious as to your answer.
Please explain to me what this has to do with the honorific given to
Israel ben Eliezer.
I'll wait untiil you answer yes or no, & see if you wish to expand on it.
You know just as
well as I do that Jews throughout history have worshipped many more
than one single god, and the names have changed over time.
No, I don't know that.
Then quit pretending to know more than you do. Its not like the information
is hidden that well. All three of the primary gods are claimed as yahweh now,
but were not during the development of the yahweh tradition.
Was it Judaism when it was polytheistic? The U.S. is not a monarchy and
never was. That the Colonies were part of a monarchy is true, but does
not mean that the U.S. was a monarchy.
Yes, it was. A very early unformed theology, but claimed by the Jewish
ancestors & therefore, their myth.
BTW, the reference to the US , apples & oranges.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
Formal Judaism, but still Judaism. As to the rays emulating from the head
of moses, that is Greek in origin if you want to claim Moses as a ghod.
snip
I don't know or care what you think, but it is apparent you are not quite as
knowledgeable as you think you are.
No, that is not clear. Among other things, you don't know Elroy's long
time lack of understanding regarding why Orthodox Jews say "HaShem".
But I do know Elroy, & his way of asking questions hides much of what he
knows. AAMOF, I'll go so far as to say I've known Elroy for quite some
time, & never seen him refuse to change his mind once actual evidence is
placed on the table. I will also state I do not read every post of his,
his interests do not often coincide with mine.
snip
No, I could not. I see you again attacking people from the past for
not having modern knowledge.
It appears that at times your vision is not 20-20, but whose is. It might
doyou well to read some of the history of the era, region & societies. Then
again, you may feel you have read enough, & so are in a position of a
teacher with new students.
Read enough? There is almost nothing that interests me that I have read
enough on.
That does not mean you understand what you have read all that well now
does it. Same problem we all have, which is why I spring for the books.
You are not, at least not in my case or the
majority of atheists that respond to the thread. None of them are unwilling
to do the research, & you will not like the results, based on past
performance on your part.
You have significant knowledge in a number of areas I find interesting
and even important. There are plenty of people from a wide range of
theological positions that have overwhelming amounts of information in
areas I find interesting and important. Elroy has yet to show he is in
that group. He is a member of a group that I don't see you belonging to,
I don't recall Elroy ever implying he was in that group, nor am I. I am
just curious, even though by accident I can reasonably be called a
theologian, a student of the gods.
those I call fundamentalist Atheists. These people have absolute
agreement with fundamentalist Christians on a number of points. They both
agree that one is either a Christian or an atheist. (They may give lip
service to the notion of other religions, but neither group really
believes in them.) They both agree that the only Holy text is the Bible
Bit hard for any atheist to give lip service to what they don't accept or
believe in one would think.
and that the only way to read it is as a literal description of actual
events. And they both agree that if the Bible is wrong in anyway then it
is useless. The only disagreement they seem to have is on whether or not
the Bible has an error.
The problem, in this case, for the Judaic myth is what is current is not
what their holy book says should be. Midrash did their myth no servicre,
but withuot it, it would have died. & No, I have not the time nor
inclination to go into that subject.
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both sides
something about reading texts. And three, there is so much ignorance
about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not present it
as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present the
alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
& why should your alternative be any better than say, vern [V.O.] of the
baptist group, it appears you both do not hold [if you are a practicing
Jew & based on your comments] to what the book says. Just your own
version.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether or
not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the religion.
It can't, by itself, for that is not what it addresses. It can, & does,
show the falsehood of the claims made by the myths themselves. The Exodus
for one thing.
Showing that the Biblical flood story has strong parallels with the
Babylonian one does not mean that the Bible story is wrong. (The
geological evidence shows that the Flood never happened anyway.) Showing
parallels between, say, the Genesis creation stories and some Babylonian
story does not mean either that the Torah is wrong or that Judaism is
wrong. It is interesting, it is informative (though I disagree with some
on what these parallels tell us), but it does not invalidate the
religion. There are certainly those who will fight you regarding the
archaeology because they will feel their religion is threatened, but they
are wrong about the threat. Me, I don't think that any of the events
prior to David/Solomon actually took place and I suspect that if there is
Well, in my case, if you extend that until revelation, & include 99% of
the claims, I would agree. There is no reason to believe either person
lived, historically. That people with those names existed, probably, that
they existed as described, not even.
any basis in Solomon the reality was very different. I know others who
agree with that and yet are strong believing Jews.
And?
The closest I know to invalidating a religion via archaeology would be if
you could show that Christ was never crucified and never rose from the
dead. That single event is the core requirement for Christianity. Yet I
As you note, it would not matter to a believer, for they did not come to
that belief based on evidence.
am sure that if there were absolutely provable it would not change the
religious views of many people. They may well believe that Christ died
for their sins and was resurrected, that belief may well be the defining
quality of what it is to be Christian, but they did not become Christians
because they have that belief and they won't stop if they decide the
event did not take place.
(Boy, I bet you did not expect that much exposition. If you like, I can
give you the short version:
I expect nothing until I read the missive, & then I usually lower my
expectations.
Oh yeah!
Not as informative, I admit, but there is something to be said for being
concise.)
Hell, xians do that in one word, goddidit.
walksalone who has burned to much time on this already, but will continue
when practical if needed.
--
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy,
education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man
would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of
punishment and hope of reward after death."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
19 Sep 2005 09:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:21:39 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432c21de$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
[snip]
The problem can be particularly difficult with Hebrew since (almost) all
roots have three consonants, but they then add lots and lots of imagery
and associations. Shem and Shema have the same root: shem is name, shema
is listen or hear. Neshema, from the same root, is the soul. This does
suggest that there is a long connection in Hebrew between words,
speaking, and the soul. I find it unlikely that Shamash has the same root
and very unlikely that there is a close connection to the world for
helper. Besides the very different meanings Shamash has the final shin,
giving it a different three consonant root.
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They are
distinct words.
[snip]
I don't feel insulted at all. I just feel that when these
fundamentalists start tossing off terms like "space pixie" we have left
the part of the discussion where there is something to learn.
& the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly.
The difference between language that is respectful of others views,
even in disagreement and language designed to cause fights. "Space
pixie" is as valid as "redskin" or "kike". It is a deliberately
insulting term, used when the person has run out of arguments.
[snip]
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal was
yahweh. No, yes?
Yes or no Matt, I'm curious as to your answer.
I am not sure I understand the question. Nor does it look like one
given to a yes/no answer. There was a change in Judaism over time,
from simply having one god to claiming there was only one God. The
stories of the Canaanites acknowledges the existence of other gods.
The "*****" is a judgment and/or conclusion that is not supported
by evidence.
[snip]
You know just as
well as I do that Jews throughout history have worshipped many more
than one single god, and the names have changed over time.
No, I don't know that.
Then quit pretending to know more than you do. Its not like the information
is hidden that well. All three of the primary gods are claimed as yahweh now,
but were not during the development of the yahweh tradition.
Was it Judaism when it was polytheistic? The U.S. is not a monarchy and
never was. That the Colonies were part of a monarchy is true, but does
not mean that the U.S. was a monarchy.
Yes, it was. A very early unformed theology, but claimed by the Jewish
ancestors & therefore, their myth.
But still not Judaism.
BTW, the reference to the US , apples & oranges.
So you say, I think the analogy is quite apt. The roots of something
are not the thing.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
Formal Judaism, but still Judaism. As to the rays emulating from the head
of moses, that is Greek in origin if you want to claim Moses as a ghod.
Not according to some rabbis I have talked to. They say that "ray" is
the appropriate translation.
[snip]
those I call fundamentalist Atheists. These people have absolute
agreement with fundamentalist Christians on a number of points. They both
agree that one is either a Christian or an atheist. (They may give lip
service to the notion of other religions, but neither group really
believes in them.) They both agree that the only Holy text is the Bible
Bit hard for any atheist to give lip service to what they don't accept or
believe in one would think.
I am not asking people to believe anything, just to recognize other
ways of thinking. I don't understand how one can be a student of some
aspect of human thinking without trying to understand it from the
other persons POV. I am willing to try to see things as the
Moslem/Catholic/Jew/atheist sees it. That does not mean I hold any of
those views.
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both sides
something about reading texts. And three, there is so much ignorance
about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not present it
as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present the
alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
& why should your alternative be any better than say,
I offer no alternative of my own. I do not ask anyone to believe in
the truth of any of the alternatives I present. All I am asking is to
recognize the *existence* of them. I don't ask people to say "Oh, the
Jews have the right interpretation of the Bible" or even "Oh, the Jews
have the right way to interpret the Bible", just to see that there are
many ways actual practiced in understanding texts. Reject all of those
answers, fine, that is not my business. But don't think that rejecting
a literal interpretation rejects all religion.
vern [V.O.] of the
baptist group, it appears you both do not hold [if you are a practicing
Jew & based on your comments] to what the book says. Just your own
version.
When and where have I presented an interpretation of the Bible that I
hold to? What is "my" version? The only thing that comes close is my
discussion of whether the Flood story is a creation story.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether or
not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the religion.
It can't, by itself, for that is not what it addresses. It can, & does,
show the falsehood of the claims made by the myths themselves. The Exodus
for one thing.
It rejects the literal understanding, absolutely. The Exodus never
occurred. The Egyptian Captivity never occurred. Whether or not that
affects Judaism is a different question. There is midrash, and I am
somewhat interested in your view of midrash, but not enough to stop
presenting it, that says that all Jews were present at the
presentation of the Torah at Sinai. Clearly that is an event that has
little to do with archaeological evidence. (And, not that does not
mean that I am saying the event occurred, even metaphorically.)
Showing that the Biblical flood story has strong parallels with the
Babylonian one does not mean that the Bible story is wrong. (The
geological evidence shows that the Flood never happened anyway.) Showing
parallels between, say, the Genesis creation stories and some Babylonian
story does not mean either that the Torah is wrong or that Judaism is
wrong. It is interesting, it is informative (though I disagree with some
on what these parallels tell us), but it does not invalidate the
religion. There are certainly those who will fight you regarding the
archaeology because they will feel their religion is threatened, but they
are wrong about the threat. Me, I don't think that any of the events
prior to David/Solomon actually took place and I suspect that if there is
Well, in my case, if you extend that until revelation, & include 99% of
the claims, I would agree. There is no reason to believe either person
lived, historically. That people with those names existed, probably, that
they existed as described, not even.
Sure, people named David and Solomon exist. So did people named Homer.
any basis in Solomon the reality was very different. I know others
who
agree with that and yet are strong believing Jews.
And?
And what? There are people who accept the archaeological evidence that
Solomon did not exist and are still believing Jews.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
20 Sep 2005 03:28:36 AM |
|
|
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dv8ui1l4vq7sc6sr9mss3iesp7is1huc5n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:21:39 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432c21de$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10
GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
[snip]
The problem can be particularly difficult with Hebrew since (almost) all
roots have three consonants, but they then add lots and lots of imagery
and associations. Shem and Shema have the same root: shem is name, shema
is listen or hear. Neshema, from the same root, is the soul. This does
suggest that there is a long connection in Hebrew between words,
speaking, and the soul. I find it unlikely that Shamash has the same root
and very unlikely that there is a close connection to the world for
helper. Besides the very different meanings Shamash has the final shin,
giving it a different three consonant root.
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They are
distinct words.
Doesn't Shamash have something to do with an old sun
god myth about how the moon goddess (Delilah in the
bible version) steals the sun god's (Sampson's) strength
(Sammy's hair equals the sun's rays) and in the morning,
the restrengthened sun chases away the moon. Shamash
the sun god became the human Sampson in the later
Hebrew version. Of course, Sampson didn't come back
to life once he was sqwooshed by the pillars or the Jesus
myth might have started even sooner than it did.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper,
High Priestess Bastet of the Unchurch Temple of Si & Am
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
[snip]
I don't feel insulted at all. I just feel that when these
fundamentalists start tossing off terms like "space pixie" we have left
the part of the discussion where there is something to learn.
& the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly.
The difference between language that is respectful of others views,
even in disagreement and language designed to cause fights. "Space
pixie" is as valid as "redskin" or "kike". It is a deliberately
insulting term, used when the person has run out of arguments.
[snip]
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or
it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found
favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal
was
yahweh. No, yes?
Yes or no Matt, I'm curious as to your answer.
I am not sure I understand the question. Nor does it look like one
given to a yes/no answer. There was a change in Judaism over time,
from simply having one god to claiming there was only one God. The
stories of the Canaanites acknowledges the existence of other gods.
The "*****" is a judgment and/or conclusion that is not supported
by evidence.
[snip]
You know just as
well as I do that Jews throughout history have worshipped many more
than one single god, and the names have changed over time.
No, I don't know that.
Then quit pretending to know more than you do. Its not like the
information
is hidden that well. All three of the primary gods are claimed as yahweh
now,
but were not during the development of the yahweh tradition.
Was it Judaism when it was polytheistic? The U.S. is not a monarchy and
never was. That the Colonies were part of a monarchy is true, but does
not mean that the U.S. was a monarchy.
Yes, it was. A very early unformed theology, but claimed by the Jewish
ancestors & therefore, their myth.
But still not Judaism.
BTW, the reference to the US , apples & oranges.
So you say, I think the analogy is quite apt. The roots of something
are not the thing.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in
writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which
includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
Formal Judaism, but still Judaism. As to the rays emulating from the head
of moses, that is Greek in origin if you want to claim Moses as a ghod.
Not according to some rabbis I have talked to. They say that "ray" is
the appropriate translation.
[snip]
those I call fundamentalist Atheists. These people have absolute
agreement with fundamentalist Christians on a number of points. They both
agree that one is either a Christian or an atheist. (They may give lip
service to the notion of other religions, but neither group really
believes in them.) They both agree that the only Holy text is the Bible
Bit hard for any atheist to give lip service to what they don't accept or
believe in one would think.
I am not asking people to believe anything, just to recognize other
ways of thinking. I don't understand how one can be a student of some
aspect of human thinking without trying to understand it from the
other persons POV. I am willing to try to see things as the
Moslem/Catholic/Jew/atheist sees it. That does not mean I hold any of
those views.
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both sides
something about reading texts. And three, there is so much ignorance
about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not present it
as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present the
alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
& why should your alternative be any better than say,
I offer no alternative of my own. I do not ask anyone to believe in
the truth of any of the alternatives I present. All I am asking is to
recognize the *existence* of them. I don't ask people to say "Oh, the
Jews have the right interpretation of the Bible" or even "Oh, the Jews
have the right way to interpret the Bible", just to see that there are
many ways actual practiced in understanding texts. Reject all of those
answers, fine, that is not my business. But don't think that rejecting
a literal interpretation rejects all religion.
vern [V.O.] of the
baptist group, it appears you both do not hold [if you are a practicing
Jew & based on your comments] to what the book says. Just your own
version.
When and where have I presented an interpretation of the Bible that I
hold to? What is "my" version? The only thing that comes close is my
discussion of whether the Flood story is a creation story.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether or
not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the religion.
It can't, by itself, for that is not what it addresses. It can, & does,
show the falsehood of the claims made by the myths themselves. The Exodus
for one thing.
It rejects the literal understanding, absolutely. The Exodus never
occurred. The Egyptian Captivity never occurred. Whether or not that
affects Judaism is a different question. There is midrash, and I am
somewhat interested in your view of midrash, but not enough to stop
presenting it, that says that all Jews were present at the
presentation of the Torah at Sinai. Clearly that is an event that has
little to do with archaeological evidence. (And, not that does not
mean that I am saying the event occurred, even metaphorically.)
Showing that the Biblical flood story has strong parallels with the
Babylonian one does not mean that the Bible story is wrong. (The
geological evidence shows that the Flood never happened anyway.) Showing
parallels between, say, the Genesis creation stories and some Babylonian
story does not mean either that the Torah is wrong or that Judaism is
wrong. It is interesting, it is informative (though I disagree with some
on what these parallels tell us), but it does not invalidate the
religion. There are certainly those who will fight you regarding the
archaeology because they will feel their religion is threatened, but they
are wrong about the threat. Me, I don't think that any of the events
prior to David/Solomon actually took place and I suspect that if there is
Well, in my case, if you extend that until revelation, & include 99% of
the claims, I would agree. There is no reason to believe either person
lived, historically. That people with those names existed, probably, that
they existed as described, not even.
Sure, people named David and Solomon exist. So did people named Homer.
any basis in Solomon the reality was very different. I know others
who
agree with that and yet are strong believing Jews.
And?
And what? There are people who accept the archaeological evidence that
Solomon did not exist and are still believing Jews.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org
Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
20 Sep 2005 01:08:39 PM |
|
|
In <jsWdnSbByOR9HLLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>, on 09/19/05
at 11:28 PM, "Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> said:
Mornin Mickie, had your coffee yet?
"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:dv8ui1l4vq7sc6sr9mss3iesp7is1huc5n@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:21:39 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432c21de$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10
GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
snip
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They are
distinct words.
Doesn't Shamash have something to do with an old sun
god myth about how the moon goddess (Delilah in the
bible version) steals the sun god's (Sampson's) strength
As a direct copy, I am not aware of sucj being claimed. But yes, it could
be when one stops & recalls that to ancient Near East, gods walked among
men as far North as Greece, & as far East as Egypt. Even the Judaic myth
echoes that with the visits of their gods & angels.
(Sammy's hair equals the sun's rays) and in the morning,
That could be, & even have Celtic parallels. There is a thing called the
Celtic Gorgon, which is not a Gorgon but a representation of a Solar Deity
with its hair shaped as flames.
the restrengthened sun chases away the moon. Shamash
the sun god became the human Sampson in the later
There are times I am proud to have made your acquaintance girl.
Hebrew version. Of course, Sampson didn't come back
to life once he was sqwooshed by the pillars or the Jesus
myth might have started even sooner than it did.
Once is bad enough, let not give it a head start.
walksalone who sees Mickey can still do her homework.
--
Marge, have you ever actually sat down and read this thing?
Technically, we're not even allowed to go to the bathroom.
[Priest on The Simpson's]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
20 Sep 2005 02:09:37 PM |
|
|
walksalone wrote in alt.atheism
Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@comcast.net> said:
<snip>
the restrengthened sun chases away the moon. Shamash
the sun god became the human Sampson in the later
There are times I am proud to have made your acquaintance girl.
Job 25:5-6
"If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his
eyes, how much less man, who is but a maggot, a son of man, who is
only a worm!"
What do you know that causes the moon to become less bright during the
day and the stars to disappear? Notice that the sun isn't mentioned
directly, but that's what's implied, and exactly what happens when the
sun rises. The moon gets less bright, and the stars disappear,
overpowered by the light of the sun...
The maggot and worm and son of man parts were obviously used by
Christians to describe themselves and their stick-pinned sun-saviour
god.
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
20 Sep 2005 10:57:56 AM |
|
|
Michelle Malkin <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote in alt.atheism
Matt Silberstein wrote in message
<snip>
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They
are distinct words.
Doesn't Shamash have something to do with an old sun
god myth about how the moon goddess (Delilah in the
bible version) steals the sun god's (Sampson's) strength
(Sammy's hair equals the sun's rays) and in the morning,
the restrengthened sun chases away the moon. Shamash
the sun god became the human Sampson in the later
Hebrew version.
You might be onto something there. Have you read the wiki
article about Shamash?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamash
"The name signifies perhaps "servitor," and would thus point to a
secondary position occupied at one time by this deity. Both in early
and in late inscriptions Sha-mash is designated as the "offspring of
Nannar," i.e. of the moon-god, and since, in an enumeration of the
pantheon, Sin generally takes precedence of Shamash, it is in
relationship, presumably, to the moon-god that the sun-god appears as
the dependent power."
It could be a mythical explanation of why the moon is visible at
night, but when the sun comes out, the moon grows dimmer, overpowered
by the light of the sun.
Of course, Sampson didn't come back to life once he was sqwooshed
by the pillars or the Jesus myth might have started even sooner than
it did.
Was Sampson supposed to be buried somewhere, or did he ascend into
heaven like Jesus? Is there a grave of Sampson somewhere, or maybe a
constellation named after him?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
19 Sep 2005 11:21:57 PM |
|
|
In <dv8ui1l4vq7sc6sr9mss3iesp7is1huc5n@4ax.com>, on 09/19/05
at 09:03 PM, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:21:39 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432c21de$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
[snip]
snip
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They are distinct
words.
Who said otherwise? You?
snip
& the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly.
One more time. & the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly????????????
The difference between language that is respectful of others views, even
So, atheists, & you, should respect idiotic views that they don't share, especially if those those ideas are not worthy of respect. I never knew that, & I still don't.
in disagreement and language designed to cause fights. "Space pixie" is
as valid as "redskin" or "kike". It is a deliberately insulting term,
used when the person has run out of arguments.
Conversely, the only people that take offense at those terms, especially the god ones, are those that know they are defending a stupid claim. It seems the thinnest hides belong to believers in the revealed gods of the desert, Now, given their gods can't defend themselves, so they may think they have to. But their gods are everywhere & still unable to defend themselves, but one day, just you wait, they will make you cry. Man, if I was to believe that I would deserve to be called a follower of a sky pixie.
[snip]
Only to you Matt, only to you. Either the name possed power [a rather
ancient belief shared by many societies during the archaic period], or it
did not. Now, baal was the second of the Canaanite gods that found favor
with the population in the Judean hills, & it pissed the priesthood of
yahweh off something fierce, so fierce that they had to claim that baal was
yahweh. No, yes?
Yes or no Matt, I'm curious as to your answer.
I am not sure I understand the question. Nor does it look like one given
Of course you don't, it is not devious enough. Now, history tells us that the gods of Israel were él, along with his children the élohim. Then baa was replacing él as was te norm for that region & that era. Then Judea ended up with yahweh, & that priesthood was bitching about other gods until the Chronicles. So, it is a yes or no question. Did, or did not, the yahweh priesthood try & claim that ball had been yahweh all along? Just a yes or no if you will.
to a yes/no answer. There was a change in Judaism over time, from simply
having one god to claiming there was only one God. The stories of the
They started out with no less than seventy one gods & at least two goddesses. Read your history & think for yourself.
Canaanites acknowledges the existence of other gods. The "*****" is
a judgment and/or conclusion that is not supported by evidence.
It damn sight is, or was it ethnic cleansing when the priests of baal were slaughtered as well as his sanctuaries destroyed? You remember those references to the altars in the high places, did you think they were for the tooth fairy. Wrong culture for that myth.
[snip]
snip
Yes, it was. A very early unformed theology, but claimed by the Jewish
ancestors & therefore, their myth.
But still not Judaism.
Still was Judaism, just not your derived & approved variety. Like it or not, Judea & Israel separated, & Judea had multiple gods & goddesses. Read Hosea, read Jeremiah, then read history from the region.
BTW, the reference to the US , apples & oranges.
So you say, I think the analogy is quite apt. The roots of something are
not the thing.
IAW you, & that is your right to believe. I disagree, as do the majority of atheists that are reading this,
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
Formal Judaism, but still Judaism. As to the rays emulating from the head
of moses, that is Greek in origin if you want to claim Moses as a ghod.
Not according to some rabbis I have talked to. They say that "ray" is the
appropriate translation.
That's nice, but then, the concept used for the midrash was Greek, read Plato for starters, then Aristotle. Let me know when or if you see the connection.
[snip]
those I call fundamentalist Atheists. These people have absolute
agreement with fundamentalist Christians on a number of points. They both
agree that one is either a Christian or an atheist. (They may give lip
service to the notion of other religions, but neither group really
believes in them.) They both agree that the only Holy text is the Bible
Bit hard for any atheist to give lip service to what they don't accept or
believe in one would think.
I am not asking people to believe anything, just to recognize other ways
of thinking. I don't understand how one can be a student of some aspect
Oh we recognize that there are those that have to have an invisiblde means of support, & we support their right to that support. Now their claims, lacking respect is what happens when your ideas do not endgende respect from any that do not follow that twisted path. Don't ask me to lie Matt, & that is what youa'r doing if you expect me to give lip service to ideas that have not earned my respect, or are replusive ro me aat the ethical level. I won't do it. Nor will I mollycoddle you.
of human thinking without trying to understand it from the other persons
POV. I am willing to try to see things as the Moslem/Catholic/Jew/atheist
sees it. That does not mean I hold any of those views.
I am respecting your right to, & your holding of, your POV, its the basis for that POV is where you encounter your hurt feelings. I, & the majority are even willing to defend it. But lie for you or it, that I can not do. What would my kids think, let alone what would I think of myself afterwards.
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both sides
something about reading texts. And three, there is so much ignorance
about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not present it
as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present the
alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
& why should your alternative be any better than say,
I offer no alternative of my own. I do not ask anyone to believe in the
truth of any of the alternatives I present. All I am asking is to
recognize the *existence* of them. I don't ask people to say "Oh, the
We know people believe them, but then, some people still believe in flying saucers docking at Roswell, NM.
Jews have the right interpretation of the Bible" or even "Oh, the Jews
have the right way to interpret the Bible", just to see that there are
many ways actual practiced in understanding texts. Reject all of those
answers, fine, that is not my business. But don't think that rejecting a
literal interpretation rejects all religion.
If a god writes a book, it can only have one approach. Why do you think the midrash had to be used? Read the thing without all the special pleading & special exceptions, allegories & metaphors. I could never accept a leader with that lack of morals, let alone call it a god. Pity really for as gods went él & baal were not that bad or demanding.
vern [V.O.] of the
baptist group, it appears you both do not hold [if you are a practicing
Jew & based on your comments] to what the book says. Just your own
version.
When and where have I presented an interpretation of the Bible that I
hold to? What is "my" version? The only thing that comes close is my
discussion of whether the Flood story is a creation story.
Which it wasn't, but you seem to expect others to cut your gods slack when they have not earned it, & expect us to honor with lies that which we do not believe in. If you do not accept the grimorie [OT only] as the true word of a true god, then you are not reading it for yourself, but accepting what others say it means. A garden variety of a salad bar xian if your will. No major difference.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether or
not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the religion.
It can't, by itself, for that is not what it addresses. It can, & does,
show the falsehood of the claims made by the myths themselves. The Exodus
for one thing.
It rejects the literal understanding, absolutely. The Exodus never
occurred. The Egyptian Captivity never occurred. Whether or not that
affects Judaism is a different question. There is midrash, and I am
Yes, the Jewish version of apologetics. I am aware of the need for it, as well as the Talmud & Targum. It changes what your[generic] gods said into what people want to hear. Being a student of all gods, I don't accept that, for if a god exists, it can make its wishes known without a mouthpiece named Kohen, or Robertson, or, but you get the idea.
somewhat interested in your view of midrash, but not enough to stop
Its Jewish apologetics.
presenting it, that says that all Jews were present at the presentation
of the Torah at Sinai. Clearly that is an event that has little to do
with archaeological evidence. (And, not that does not mean that I am
saying the event occurred, even metaphorically.)
Showing that the Biblical flood story has strong parallels with the
Babylonian one does not mean that the Bible story is wrong. (The
geological evidence shows that the Flood never happened anyway.) Showing
parallels between, say, the Genesis creation stories and some Babylonian
story does not mean either that the Torah is wrong or that Judaism is
wrong. It is interesting, it is informative (though I disagree with some
on what these parallels tell us), but it does not invalidate the
religion. There are certainly those who will fight you regarding the
archaeology because they will feel their religion is threatened, but they
are wrong about the threat. Me, I don't think that any of the events
prior to David/Solomon actually took place and I suspect that if there is
Well, in my case, if you extend that until revelation, & include 99% of
the claims, I would agree. There is no reason to believe either person
lived, historically. That people with those names existed, probably, that
they existed as described, not even.
Sure, people named David and Solomon exist. So did people named Homer.
any basis in Solomon the reality was very different. I know others who
agree with that and yet are strong believing Jews.
S'all right, I know a xian who will tell you there is not one shred of evidence for the missing messiah, & he still believes. Go figure, its an emotional need not shared by everyone.
And?
And what? There are people who accept the archaeological evidence that
Solomon did not exist and are still believing Jews.
And? Your point if any would be?
[snip]
walksalone who has the feeling this is turning into a tail chasing session, & if so, will leave it behind soon.
--
......If you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an
ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish
the useful ideas from the worthless ones - Carl Sagan, 1987
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Baal Shem |
20 Sep 2005 12:46:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:21:57 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432f521f$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <dv8ui1l4vq7sc6sr9mss3iesp7is1huc5n@4ax.com>, on 09/19/05
at 09:03 PM, Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 08:21:39 -0500, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dirty.dastardly.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<432c21de$1$jnyxfnybar$mr2ice@127.0.0.1> wrote:
In <fr4mi11smagk1uqrvosg9t4kd5i2ehf804@4ax.com>, on 09/16/05
at 07:29 PM, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 21:08:30 CST, in alt.atheism ,
walksalone@dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc in
<08pv831@walksalone.dastardly.dirty.deeds.done.dirt.cheap.llc> wrote:
** Reply to note from Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:57:10 GMT
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:06:16 GMT, in alt.atheism , Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> in
<v59ji1h9fanqgpm22nmeq31aqcjs5ic1iq@4ax.com> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote in alt.atheism
in alt.atheism Elroy Willis wrote:
snip, gonna need the space.
[snip]
snip
And? Recall if you will, there are people with sites that are simply there
to help others learn. Hebrew, as a language, has at least one, though it
has been quite some time since I visited it.
And what? Shamash does not have the same root as shema. They are distinct
words.
Who said otherwise? You?
Ok, I just re-read the post and I somehow misunderstood. Here is what
Elroy wrote:
"What have you to say about Shamash, the Babylonian sun god and the
name for the central part of the menorah? Just a linguistic
coincidence?"
Somehow I thought the "coincidence" was with Shem, already under
discussion. Instead he was just commenting on the two words. I have no
idea if they are connected, it could be and I fail to see anything
significant. That Hebrew would have a word from a Babylonian language
is to be expected. That it shares a root with a god name does not
suggest much to me. I don't know much at all about Babylonian
languages. Do you? Does Elroy?
snip
& the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly.
One more time. & the difference between a space pixie & any god is what exactly????????????
The difference between language that is respectful of others views, even
So, atheists, & you, should respect idiotic views that they don't share,
They should respect them enough to understand why the other person
thinks the way they do. They should respect them enough to understand
what they are actually thinking. Otherwise we end up with people
screaming at each other with no understanding of what the other
thinks.
especially if those those ideas are not worthy of respect. I never
knew that, & I still don't.
Too bad. I can probably give you a reasonable summary of the views of
atheists and agnostics (and various strong and weak versions), Roman
Catholics, various Protestant sects, various recognized Christian
heresies, Moslems, various forms of Buddhism, and a few others here
and there. For some reason lots of people here seem to think that
because I have a clue regarding the ideas of someone I must agree with
them.
in disagreement and language designed to cause fights. "Space pixie" is
as valid as "redskin" or "kike". It is a deliberately insulting term,
used when the person has run out of arguments.
Conversely, the only people that take offense at those terms,
especially the god ones, are those that know they are defending a
stupid claim.
Really? I know of very few people who know they are defending a stupid
claim and lots who are offended by deliberately offensive language.
Certainly towel heads and redskins and so on have a right to get just
a bit upset at deliberately offensive language.
It seems the thinnest hides belong to believers in the
revealed gods of the desert, Now, given their gods can't defend
themselves, so they may think they have to. But their gods are
everywhere & still unable to defend themselves, but one day, just you
wait, they will make you cry. Man, if I was to believe that I would
deserve to be called a follower of a sky pixie.
IOW since you disagree they deserve no respect.
BTW, I don't remember if you answered my question from another post.
Do you actually claim that in the past humans and animals shared
common language and could talk to each other? It seemed that you
implied that but I am not sure.
[snip]
BTW, the reference to the US , apples & oranges.
So you say, I think the analogy is quite apt. The roots of something are
not the thing.
IAW you, & that is your right to believe. I disagree, as do the majority of atheists that are reading this,
Did you take a poll or do you tell them what to believe? Or are you
just reading their minds. Oh, I know, the lurkers support you in
email.
In order:
el, the first & supposed creator. From Canaan & Ur & attested to in writings
that pre-date Torah & Tanakh as well as the Jewish myth.
Baal, son of dagan [dagon in the grimorie], Canaanite society which includes
Ur, with a limited following in Egypt IIRC.
yahweh, son of el [urgatic links, not strong but not weak] possibly of
kennite origin.
You should mention my favorite: the rays that came from Moses' head.
There is some confusion in the Torah as to whether or not Moses was a
god. But those concept *pre-date* Judaism.
Formal Judaism, but still Judaism. As to the rays emulating from the head
of moses, that is Greek in origin if you want to claim Moses as a ghod.
Not according to some rabbis I have talked to. They say that "ray" is the
appropriate translation.
That's nice, but then, the concept used for the midrash was Greek, read Plato for starters, then Aristotle. Let me know when or if you see the connection.
It is not midrash that they were referring to. It was direct Hebrew
text from the Torah.
[snip]
of human thinking without trying to understand it from the other persons
POV. I am willing to try to see things as the Moslem/Catholic/Jew/atheist
sees it. That does not mean I hold any of those views.
I am respecting your right to, & your holding of, your POV, its the basis for that POV is where you encounter your hurt feelings. I, & the majority are even willing to defend it. But lie for you or it, that I can not do. What would my kids think, let alone what would I think of myself afterwards.
What lie am I asking for?
I bring up Judaism for three primary reasons. One, it is another Bible
based religion that both groups have probably heard of. Two, it has a
very different notion of how to read a text and so might show both sides
something about reading texts. And three, there is so much ignorance
about Judaism that I end up correcting some errors. I do not present it
as right or true or privileged in any way. I do not present the
alternative readings as correct, just as an existent alternative.
& why should your alternative be any better than say,
I offer no alternative of my own. I do not ask anyone to believe in the
truth of any of the alternatives I present. All I am asking is to
recognize the *existence* of them. I don't ask people to say "Oh, the
We know people believe them, but then, some people still believe in flying saucers docking at Roswell, NM.
What alternative of my own do I offer?
Jews have the right interpretation of the Bible" or even "Oh, the Jews
have the right way to interpret the Bible", just to see that there are
many ways actual practiced in understanding texts. Reject all of those
answers, fine, that is not my business. But don't think that rejecting a
literal interpretation rejects all religion.
If a god writes a book, it can only have one approach.
Wow, you don't think that any god exists, but you know how it would
write. I am impressed.
Why do you think the midrash had to be used? Read the thing without
all the special pleading & special exceptions, allegories & metaphors.
That statement shows you don't have a clue what midrash (or do you
mean Midrash, they are not the same) is all about. Getting rid of
allegories and metaphors is sort of like reading, but getting rid of
the words. It just makes no sense.
I could never accept a leader with that lack of morals, let alone
call it a god. Pity really for as gods went él & baal were not that
bad or demanding.
It is too bad that you think that having multiple meanings is
dishonest. Rather astounding notion and quite the idea I am
complaining about.
vern [V.O.] of the
baptist group, it appears you both do not hold [if you are a practicing
Jew & based on your comments] to what the book says. Just your own
version.
When and where have I presented an interpretation of the Bible that I
hold to? What is "my" version? The only thing that comes close is my
discussion of whether the Flood story is a creation story.
Which it wasn't,
You do have an impressive ability to make declarations.
but you seem to expect others to cut your gods slack
What gods are those?
when they have not earned it, & expect us to honor with lies that
which we do not believe in.
What lie am I asking you to "honor"?
If you do not accept the grimorie [OT
only] as the true word of a true god,
What have I said that suggests anything about true word or true god?
then you are not reading it for
yourself, but accepting what others say it means. A garden variety of
a salad bar xian if your will. No major difference.
Your inability to understand that texts can have more than one meaning
limits you.
Where I have disagreed with you, and with others here, is on whether or
not archaeological evidence can show the *falsehood* of the religion.
It can't, by itself, for that is not what it addresses. It can, & does,
show the falsehood of the claims made by the myths themselves. The Exodus
for one thing.
It rejects the literal understanding, absolutely. The Exodus never
occurred. The Egyptian Captivity never occurred. Whether or not that
affects Judaism is a different question. There is midrash, and I am
Yes, the Jewish version of apologetics.
Nope.
I am aware of the need for it, as well as the Talmud & Targum.
Being able to spell words does not mean you understand them.
It
changes what your[generic] gods said into what people want to hear.
Again, your inability to understand that a text can have multiple
meanings limits you.
Being a student of all gods, I don't accept that, for if a god
exists, it can make its wishes known without a mouthpiece
named Kohen, or Robertson, or, but you get the idea.
Yeah, you don't believe in gods, but you know what they want and what
they can do. You demand that these non-existent gods write
straightforward descriptive literal texts. No double meanings, no
education through process, none of that for you. Non-existence gods
have to write literal texts. As I said, fundamentalist atheists agree
so much with fundamentalists Christians, they just disagree about the
existence of the God.
somewhat interested in your view of midrash, but not enough to stop
Its Jewish apologetics.
No, it is not. They are not defenses at all.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/j | | | | | |
