The Ox Goad god

Originally posted by whodey
Congradulations. You apparently have single handedly ended thousands of years of Christian history. It is something emporers and dictators and countless other religions have failed to do. Now what, Disney World?

btw its 2000 years of christian history, a history that's been skewered by the politics of the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by frogstomp
You wiscrack because you have no validity behind your argument.
I don't have to make a case against the flood , all I needed to do was show it was written that Enli that saved the human race way before Abram lived , for the bible to fail.I acheived that so the bible fails.
Whether Enli actually did is preposterous, of course, but no less preposterous than your god doing it.

If there was the slightest shred of plausibility to your 'argument,' there would be the beginnings of a debate, of a conversation worth taking up. The sheer cluelessness, the utter lack of credibility speaks more than any refutation could possibly muster.

You bring checkers to a chess match.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there was the slightest shred of plausibility to your 'argument,' there would be the beginnings of a debate, of a conversation worth taking up. The sheer cluelessness, the utter lack of credibility speaks more than any refutation could possibly muster.

I'm having trouble understanding why you find the idea so ridiculous. There are many examples of young cultures inheriting or borrowing ideas from older cultures and adapting them to their own uses. For example, the Aztecs borrowed most of their beliefs from the older Toltec culture; the Romans leaned heavily on the Greeks. In the Hebrews' case, conversion to monotheism brought about radical changes to their mythology, but traces of the old stories persist at the level of form and language. (Read the article I posted about Hebrew henotheism if you want something solid to critique.)

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there was the slightest shred of plausibility to your 'argument,' there would be the beginnings of a debate, of a conversation worth taking up. The sheer cluelessness, the utter lack of credibility speaks more than any refutation could possibly muster.

You bring checkers to a chess match.

It's you that have no logical argument which causes you resort to being an insulting @sshole. You have no source to back up your bible because you refuse to see the early stories came to it from Sumerian mythology. Keep up your good work on showing how you christians argue , having taken the wrong argument, you must resort to childish name calling. It's a bit sad , but still the truth will remain and since I've told it to you already I don't feel the need to have to tell you again , only to be insulted by an idiot that has no historical argument.

Originally posted by frogstomp
It's you that have no logical argument which causes you resort to being an insulting @sshole. You have no source to back up your bible because you refuse to see the early stories came to it from Sumerian mythology. Keep up your good work on showing how you christians argue , having taken the wrong argument, you must resort to childish name cal ...[text shortened]... ave to tell you again , only to be insulted by an idiot that has no historical argument.

But Frogstomp -- you haven't provided sufficient proof. Your only evidence is that there are similar stories that "predate" conservative estimates of genesis. It's a plausible theory -- but to be established as fact, there needs to be clear and credible reason for Moses to be a plagiarist of Sumerian superculture.

If the only evidence is similarity, you don't yet have a case IMO.

Originally posted by Halitose
But Frogstomp -- you haven't provided sufficient proof. Your only evidence is that there are similar stories that "predate" conservative estimates of genesis. It's a plausible theory -- but to be established as fact, there needs to be clear and credible reason for Moses to be a plagiarist of Sumerian superculture.

If the only evidence is similarity, you don't yet have a case IMO.

The change to monotheism is the reason. The Hebrews took the earlier myths and changed them to provide a monotheistic explanation for events previously cast in a polytheistic paradigm. That traces of polytheism can still be detected in the Hebrew (you recall all the different meanings of elohim) argues in favour of this view.

Plagiarism is an inappropriate term in the context of this discussion, intellectual property rights not yet having been conceived of in ancient times (as far as I know). Borrowing is more accurate, and is not an accusation. It makes no sense to accuse the Aztecs of plagiarising the Toltecs. Everyone was doing it illo tempore.

Originally posted by Halitose
But Frogstomp -- you haven't provided sufficient proof. Your only evidence is that there are similar stories that "predate" conservative estimates of genesis. It's a plausible theory -- but to be established as fact, there needs to be clear and credible reason for Moses to be a plagiarist of Sumerian superculture.

If the only evidence is similarity, you don't yet have a case IMO.

Moses or whoever wrote the bible wasn't copying the Sumerian texts and changing the name of the gods, but was only writing down the israelite legend as it had evolved from the original way they had learned it , and that was probably from the Akkadians, who had already changed it to their version, time itself does that to legends.
There is no bad guy in the reconfiguration of the story, it's just the way the story goes.

Originally posted by frogstomp
btw its 2000 years of christian history, a history that's been skewered by the politics of the Roman Empire.

Yes but you forget the Jewish tradition that has lasted far later than the Christian tradition.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
The change to monotheism is the reason. The Hebrews took the earlier myths and changed them to provide a monotheistic explanation for events previously cast in a polytheistic paradigm. That traces of polytheism can still be detected in the Hebrew (you recall all the different meanings of elohim) argues in favour of this view.

Plagiarism is an inapp ...[text shortened]... nse to accuse the Aztecs of plagiarising the Toltecs. Everyone was doing it illo tempore.

Here is the problem. You assume that Abraham existed. Why? Only the Bible speaks of him, no? It is because the Bible says that he came from the Sumarian culture. This implies that he was influenced by their culture/religion enough to have his descendants "copy" many of the myths of the Sumarians. If this were not the case, you would more than likely be questioning the credibility of the Bible regarding his existence. This is where it gets interesting though. In the Bible, Abraham is said to have served only one God and not the gods of the culture in which he lived. This was a clear departure from the culture in which he lived. Abraham would then be one of the forfathers of Judism and not the author of Genesis. If you then continue to believe the rest that is written in the Bible, you would then have to assume your theories are wrong. You therefore "pick and choose" which accounts you want to beieve from the Bible in order to uphold your beliefs. I say that you need to prove that Abraham existed and that he came from the land of Ur to substantiate your claims. This is the main link you assume to spout off your theory that the Hebrews adopted their myths other than a few similarities.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Moses or whoever wrote the bible wasn't copying the Sumerian texts and changing the name of the gods, but was only writing down the israelite legend as it had evolved from the original way they had learned it , and that was probably from the Akkadians, who had already changed it to their version, time itself does that to legends.
There is no bad guy in the reconfiguration of the story, it's just the way the story goes.

More random speculations by the bemused, it appears. Good thing you're not bothered by such trivialities such as facts, histrocity, plausibility, etc.

According to your re-history, an entire nation (consisting of a new race of people, no less) accept wholesale a fictitous account of their origins and perpetuate the same to their progeny with nary a dissenting voice... until approximately the 20th century AD. Yeah, I'd buy that for a dollar.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm having trouble understanding why you find the idea so ridiculous. There are many examples of young cultures inheriting or borrowing ideas from older cultures and adapting them to their own uses. For example, the Aztecs borrowed most of their beliefs from the older Toltec culture; the Romans leaned heavily on the Greeks. In the Hebrews' case, conver ...[text shortened]... . (Read the article I posted about Hebrew henotheism if you want something solid to critique.)

I'm not alone in my hardship, and I find it insulting that anyone would put so much energy and effort in supposed critical thinking and yet stop short only when they've received the results which 'support' their desired conclusions.

If one is determined to put the Bible to critical analysis (and I wholeheartedly agree on just that discipline), then one is commited to 'go all the way,' as it were. Don't get all wound up and not finish the job, is all I am saying.

Originally posted by frogstomp
It's you that have no logical argument which causes you resort to being an insulting @sshole. You have no source to back up your bible because you refuse to see the early stories came to it from Sumerian mythology. Keep up your good work on showing how you christians argue , having taken the wrong argument, you must resort to childish name cal ...[text shortened]... ave to tell you again , only to be insulted by an idiot that has no historical argument.

And, if you knew the first thing about history--- and especially ancient history--- you might have a valid complaint. Lacking the same and limited to regurgitation of half-baked 're-renderings,' you may as well be talking about any number of irrelevant topics.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not alone in my hardship, and I find it insulting that anyone would put so much energy and effort in supposed critical thinking and yet stop short only when they've received the results which 'support' their desired conclusions..

It's insulting of you to assume I've reached the (tentative) conclusions I have because that's what I want to believe. Kindly engage in some dialogue, produce a counter-argument, or shut up.

Originally posted by whodey
In the Bible, Abraham is said to have served only one God and not the gods of the culture in which he lived.

I don't assume Abram existed at all. He may have; it doesn't matter. There's enough evidence to satisfy me that the Israelites did pass through that region. Anyway--could you tell me where in the Bible it says that Abram served only one God?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
It's insulting of you to assume I've reached the (tentative) conclusions I have because that's what I want to believe. Kindly engage in some dialogue, produce a counter-argument, or shut up.

Sorry, BDN: even though I was responding to your post, I wasn't criticizing you. The critique was in FS' direction.