"God doesn't make mistakes."

[Leumas]

Maybe, for old times' sake, Asherah could put YHWH up while He gets His place fixed. They used to be an item, after all.
Anyway, she owes Him one. See http://news.discovery.com/history/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.html

She divorced him but he kept the house in the settlement

I guess they might have had an on-off relationship after that.

It's in 2 Kings 23:7 Josiah was a bit of a killjoy; but wow! I hope God's "repented" for filling His residence with male prostitutes, weaving women and goddesses. These days, a place like that would be busted by the cops!

Maybe that is why Asherah divorced him.... he was Bisexual. Maybe he was practicing for when he was to be incarnated as Jesus.

As Jephthah said (before he sacrificed his virgin daughter to YHWH), at Judges 11: 23

WOW.... I missed this one. So Kemosh = Chemosh is actually mentioned in the Bible.... nice catch…well done.

I guess the Mesha Stele then PROVES that Kemosh is just as real as YHWH since they are both mentioned in the stele as well as in the HOLY Tanakh.

If whenever we find a ruin that might be some city mentioned in the bible or a vague reference to BTDVDH we jump up and down with joy then why stop at Kemosh..... why doesn't the stele prove him to be as real as David, Hazor and YHWH.


I wonder where does that leave monotheism?

The Tanakh was never really monotheist anyway.... here are just a few verses

Exodus 15:11 Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?
Exodus 18:11 Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods:
Exodus 22:28 Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people. (What do Palin and the T-Party say to this one?)​

So these two gods could get along most of the time, like mafia bosses. And they most certainly believed in each others' existence, or at least their worshippers did. They had the same MO too when feuds broke out. Kill everyone, maidens and all.

 

[Aepervius]

Only if Santa happened to be a hot girl dressed in red, carrying a whip to punish those who have been very very naughty.

I think I found a new strong belief ion Santa .

 

[Craig B]

So Kemosh = Chemosh is actually mentioned in the Bible.... I wonder where does that leave monotheism? The Tanakh was never really monotheist anyway....

Chemosh is mentioned 8 times, and "Molek" of the Ammonites 15 times in the Tanakh. It doesn't become monotheist until Isaiah 45:5-7 where YHWH is speaking to his anointed (his Messiah or "Christ" in the Hebrew and Greek) Cyrus king of Persia. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."

The Jews learned monotheism from the Zoroastrians, it seems!

 

[Leumas]

Chemosh is mentioned 8 times, and "Molek" of the Ammonites 15 times in the Tanakh. It doesn't become monotheist until Isaiah 45:5-7 where YHWH is speaking to his anointed (his Messiah or "Christ" in the Hebrew and Greek) Cyrus king of Persia. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God."

The Jews learned monotheism from the Zoroastrians, it seems!

What do you think of this hypothesis of mine formulated in this post and this post?

This is only a rudimentary statement of the theory. I am actually working on making it a bit more of a solid idea with more exegesis.

The idea slowly grew in my mind every time I heard or read (or even written myself) that the Bible was created by benighted shepherds. The statement just did not sit well with me. It definitely was not the work of shepherds or even normal literate people. It was too sophisticated for that. I kept also remembering history and how the very same thing happened with the Christianization process.

 

[Craig B]

Leumas

I will read your posts with care. In the meantime, have a look at this site http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/index.php

 

[Leumas]

Leumas

I will read your posts with care. In the meantime, have a look at this site http://www.askwhy.co.uk/judaism/index.php

DARN....DARN..... every single time I come up with an idea about religion and I get excited that I have something original and new I find out later that someone has already preemptively plagiarized me......darn it.


The link you gave me sounds at first glance to be exactly my idea. I have to read on in detail......DARN...DARN.

 

[devnull]

Okay I have to bite - what is it about your arse that proves God makes mistakes?

ooh, I can answer that one

 

[MG1962]

**Devils advocate**

My must the production of things such as Anencephalic babies be considered a mistake. If God is considered the creator of all then by default he must have invented the mechanisms that cause evolution. If God's end game is diversification then we are seeing the by products of that in these 'mistakes'

God may well be expected to come up with a better way. But what if that way didn't produce the result he wanted, or substituted problems (that we can only imagine) for the ones we have now.

 

[Leumas]

**Devils advocate**

My must the production of things such as Anencephalic babies be considered a mistake. If God is considered the creator of all then by default he must have invented the mechanisms that cause evolution. If God's end game is diversification then we are seeing the by products of that in these 'mistakes'

God may well be expected to come up with a better way. But what if that way didn't produce the result he wanted, or substituted problems (that we can only imagine) for the ones we have now.

You mean God’s advocate don't you?


*God’s Antagonist*

Every way one looks at your statement eventually one has to conclude that god is RESTRICTED by things beyond his ability to control.

If there is only ONE optimal way for him to do something he wants to do then he is restricted.

Thus not a god....maybe a powerful alien....but not god.

 

[MG1962]

You mean God’s advocate don't you?


*God’s Antagonist*

Every way one looks at your statement eventually one has to conclude that god is RESTRICTED by things beyond his ability to control.

If there is only ONE optimal way for him to do something he wants to do then he is restricted.

Thus not a god....maybe a powerful alien....but not god.

I think you miss my point slightly. What if God wanted those imperfections, and those occur exactly as he planned. He has put restrictions on himself rather than being imperfect.

Example the worlds best chess player gets challenged by a young child to a match. Typically the game would be over in a few moves, but the champion plays well within themselves and maybe allows the child a sense of achievement before winning the game after far more moves than expected

 

[Craig B]

I think you miss my point slightly. What if God wanted those imperfections, and those occur exactly as he planned. He has put restrictions on himself rather than being imperfect.

Example the worlds best chess player gets challenged by a young child to a match. Typically the game would be over in a few moves, but the champion plays well within themselves and maybe allows the child a sense of achievement before winning the game after far more moves than expected

And this may be compared with the sense of achievement experienced by a child born with haemophilia resulting from God's putting restrictions on himself, wanting imperfections, and therefore messing up the child's blood?

 

[MG1962]

And this may be compared with the sense of achievement experienced by a child born with haemophilia resulting from God's putting restrictions on himself, wanting imperfections, and therefore messing up the child's blood?

Read post #48

 

[Craig B]

Read post #48

Regrettably it doesn't make any sense. If God is omnipotent, He can produce any state of affairs He wants simply by fiat. Thus, He must want the outcomes which in fact occur. The idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being feels obliged to make mistakes in order to create the existing world with all its evils and imperfections is, to put it mildly, a strange one.

Blind, mindless, unconscious nature can make its own mistakes without the intrusion of an all-knowing and perfect divinity, if indeed it is mistakes that are required!

If, however, you are proposing a "best of all possible worlds" approach to the theodicy problem, I recommend that you consult Voltaire's Candide for a "reductio ad absurdum" critique of that hypothesis.

 

[Craig B]

DARN....DARN..... every single time I come up with an idea about religion and I get excited that I have something original and new I find out later that someone has already preemptively plagiarized me......darn it.

The link you gave me sounds at first glance to be exactly my idea. I have to read on in detail......DARN...DARN.

I can sympathise with these ideas, but I find it slightly difficult to accept that nothing recorded of the pre-exilic histories of Israel and Judah is anything other than imaginary, or that there is no physical continuity of ethnicity or religious tradition between the "returners" and the previous political and cultural elites in these geographical areas.

 

[TimCallahan]

We're up to three reboots of the rules in this perfect system by a perfect God.

1. Eden
2. Kicked out of Eden
3. Noah
4. Jesus


Wait, I guess that's 4, and that's just the major reboots.

These "reboots" to which you refer are the basis of a whole Christian theology called "dispensationalism." It's basic idea is that God dispenses a system or a covenant; human being screw up; God punishes them; God then dispenses another system. Dispensationalist differ in how many dispensations there have been. Here's a system of seven such dispensations

Dispensation -- man's failure -- punishment

1) Eden -- disobedience by Adam and Eve -- death, expulsion from Eden

2) Pre-flood world exceptionally long lifespans -- wickedness -- flood

3) Noachian covenant -- tower of Babel -- confusion of tongues

4) Abrahamic covenant -- idolatry -- Babylonian Captivity

5) Messiah sent -- Israel's rejection of Jesus -- destruction of temple

6) Christianity -- our present "falling away" -- Apocalypse

7) millennial kingdom -- Satan breaks free -- final destruction of Satan

 

[MG1962]

Regrettably it doesn't make any sense. If God is omnipotent, He can produce any state of affairs He wants simply by fiat. Thus, He must want the outcomes which in fact occur. The idea that an omnipotent, omniscient being feels obliged to make mistakes in order to create the existing world with all its evils and imperfections is, to put it mildly, a strange one.

Sure assuming God's plan is in accord with what we think it should be

 

[TimCallahan]

Their answer is: it's to teach the parents a lesson. I grew up with a brother who is autistic and schizophrenic, so I'm not sure what lesson I need to learn by having a disabled child myself, but that's what I've been told by religious people.

Another answer is that God gives us such children (deformed, crippled, psychologically disabled) to teach us to be compassionate. This explanation fails, however, since the helplessness of ordinary, healthy children does, in itself, provide plenty of opportunity to teach us compassion.

Another out, one frequently invoked by creationists to explain such imperfections as the appendix, hernias, fallen arches, lower back problems, etc. is that God cursed all creation because of man's corrupting influence. Therefore, genetic aberrations are our own fault.

 

[Complexity]

What a nasty, unworthy imaginary deity.

 

[12AX7]

**Devils advocate**

My must the production of things such as Anencephalic babies be considered a mistake. If God is considered the creator of all then by default he must have invented the mechanisms that cause evolution. If God's end game is diversification then we are seeing the by products of that in these 'mistakes'

God may well be expected to come up with a better way. But what if that way didn't produce the result he wanted, or substituted problems (that we can only imagine) for the ones we have now.

tap tap tap...

Must...Hammer...Square...Peg...Into...Round...Hole...

tap tap tap...

 

[Toontown]

So...He made Satan intentionally?

Then gave Satan the run of the place for several thousand years without so much as a slap on the wrist for trying to seize heaven, while Jesus was sent down to annoy Satan's assistants only long enough to get nailed to a cross, die, be dead three days, and leave, apparently never to return.

If those are not mistakes, then he (is) a mistake who does messed-up stuff intentionally. And if Christian doctrine is correct, then he could not exist unless someone made him. Which means, in effect, that he better not mess with me, or I'll file a complaint with The Really Big Giant Guy Way Upstairs. Who no doubt is already pissed at little god.