Religion Amongst Metalheads

[Storrsson]

1. Paganism (European religion)

First off, paganism today is not European religion as not all Europeans are pagans. In fact, there are centuries of Christianity in Europe which paved the way for modern civilization which includes music and vocal theory which makes record labels money.

Paganism is called "European religion" because it's the religion of Europe - not the religion of the Middle East/Mediterranean, which is (corrupt) Catholicised "Christianity", Islam, Judaism etc.

2. Abrahamism

Better might have been to say Monotheism. But a more accurate way would just be listing Judaism, Christianity, and Islam since Islam is so separate from Judaism and Christianity. Islam is not even a monotheistic religion! Its a monist death cult just as the Third Reich was also a monist death cult. Charles Manson was also a monist. Seems like monism and murderers go hand and hand. But yeah, I wish people would get into the habit of placing Islam in monism since the plagiarized source texts which made up Qur'an 5:110 demand it.

Zoroastrianism is a "pagan" Monotheistic faith. Many forms of Hinduism are monotheistic; but they aren't Abrahamic. Abrahamists (Jews, Christians, Muslims etc.) were neither the first to come up with the "single God" idea, nor were they the best/most theologically robust with it: actually, all of the Abrahamic tradition is devolution from Zoroastrianism. Not only the strictures (the ones that make sense), but even the myths - e.g. Garden of Eden, Good Spirit (God) vs. Evil Spirit (Devil), come from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a cousin faith to that practised in Europe for thousands of years (yes, Europe was exclusively "monotheist" [or "monist", to be more precise], before the influence of Middle Eastern cults through Mediterranean trade networks c. 1,200 BC onwards - look at influence of Mediterranean Bronze Age on Hallstatt/La Tène "Celts", also Roman misappropriation of "divinity" to what were clearly held to be ancestral figures by Iron Age Europeans).

Your idea of Islam is, of course, heavily influenced by the propaganda you've been fed since however long - if you look into historical strains of Islam, especially those which bequeathed to the West most of our ancient ("Pagan") knowledge - such as actually paved the way for "modern civilisation" (which is a very, very harmful thing, as civilisation has always been), you'll recognise that Islam and authentic Christianity are very closely tied. This is because, as above, they're all derivatives of Zoroastrianism. Judaism is the most different, because their tradition was intentionally corrupted during the early Roman Empire (conquest of Judea etc.).

3. Asian religion (including Hindu)

Here again, not all Asians are Hindu. This assumes people are Hindu based on the location of their birth. But there are many Chritians and muslims throughout Asia as well as atheists etc., etc.

"Including" clearly means "as well as" - Asian religions include Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism (if that can be called a religion), Shinto, Bön, Tengri, and many others. Christianity and Islam are clearly not "Asian religions" because they stem from the Middle East - they're Middle Eastern religions.

7.

Pantheism

Pantheism is paganism. In fact, it would be easy to sum up all pagan religions under pantheism, including atheism which derived all its views from ancient pantheists.

Christianity is a pantheistic religion - God, being the source and substance of all, is necessarily present in/as all things. What else, other than God could God have made the world out of? The entire universe is God. This is standard Christian doctrine. You clearly have very little education in the theological precepts of your own faith...

Atheism and pantheism cannot possibly be related - there's a huge gulf between "the divine is present in all things" and "there is no divinity at all". Atheism might be said to stem from Deism, in a way, due to the suggestion that God is a "non-actor" in worldly affairs; therefore, why believe in him at all (I suppose - though I disagree entirely).

Sources: I've studied world religions at university level (which is a crap way to understand them); more importantly, I've personally invested myself in the deeper strains of Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and to a lesser extent, the animist/pantheist traditions of various indigenous groups from the Americas through Africa to Asia and Australasia, for some 16 years. I have met and spoken with representatives of all of these faiths, including numerous denominations therein.

 

[Storrsson]

In fact, monism could be fairly labeled as Satanism since both the Left Hand Path and Right Hand Path rely on monist thought for their teachings. This would also include Islam in Satanism along with Naziism. Excluding monism from the occult is exceedingly rare, more rare than finding someone who claims to be the Middle Path of the occult. I have seen both sides of the occult heavily rely on monism.

I don't think you understand what monism means. Monism means "substance is one" - there is only one being, only one essence in existence. In Christianity, this substance is called God, as it is in Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, potentially Taoism (depending on your reading), and many other world religions.

Edit: obviously other faiths have a different word or idea to apply to this substance, e.g. "spirit", "being", "consciousness" etc., whereas atheism posits "matter" as the sole substance. Dualism is rarely substance dualism until the 17th/18th century, where it crops up in the western philosophical tradition - this was the distinction between matter/mind, which has always been recognised as a rather difficult position to uphold. Atheism actually comes from this substance dualism - it was decided that "mind" only existed because "matter" existed (how they thought that one up, I don't know), so "matter" became the sole substance of creation. Monism of any real kind precludes atheism, because it has to fundamentally accept that whatever "mind" and "matter" are, they are essentially "of the same stuff" - therefore, we end up with theories of consciousness that express worldly phenomena as artefacts of perception, rather than pre-existent, self-arising entities (the "universe from nothing" idea).

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

And you actually believe all these goons? You should learn how to stand on your own two feet and think for yourself instead of following youtube as if its somehow perfect knowledge. a talking snake tricked some naked people into eating an apple so now we have to worship a zombie or else we burn in a lake of fire?? that's not a religion, that's a badly written fantasy novel, and it's also not "thinking for yourself, it's the threat of "hell" and the bribe of "heaven" controling people's behavior These goons are nothing and get refuted on a daily basis. maybe the specific vids i posted are dumbasses, but i was in a hurry when i posted those links, i was trying to post the vids where atheists destroy the story of noah's ark They are refuted right here on this topic as I have provided loads of information proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that the Bible teaches globe earth. the Egyptians knew globe earth before Moses was even born, so the bible saying it actually means nothing But these goons that you trust and follow are given erroneous information handed down by atheists who made allegations about the Biblical teachings which are refuted right here. which specific things in those specific videos are things that can actually be proven false?? actually asking for elaboration Evolution is a lie which empowers nothing but the most greedy and corrupt minds. how exactly does evolution actually empower anybody?? seriously asking for elaboration In evolution theory there are no morals and values. again, the threat of hell and the bribe of heaven controlling behavior, morality can and does exist without Christianity, to imply that i'm a serial killer or a serial rapist or a child-molester just because i'm not christian, that's horrendously offensive, norrow-minded, not thinking for yourself, xenophobic and prejudiced against people that are not Christian Try to live that way and see how far you get, and then picture an entire society living without any morals and all the chaos that comes from it. again morality can and does exist outside of christianity Evolution theory can be discredited by morality alone. the idea that the existence of morality disproving evolution is really grasping at straws at this point Mankind must have morals in order to sustain a civil society. but who decides what's moral and what's immoral, if the the bible being real is necessary for morality to exist, than this is a slippery slope into saying bigoted things, like homosexuality is wrong, females wearing pants instead of skirts is wrong, females with short-hair is wrong, and stupid things like how Catholics think every single sexual encounter should be penis-in-vagina sex and that condoms and birth-control and abortion are wrong This is human nature. you wouldn't have to make a rule against something if no one had the inclination to break that rule God is the Law Giver so homosexuality is wrong?? as we are made in the image and likeness of God and not in the imagine and likeness of the beasts (referring to the wild kingdom). god is perfect?? go read the old testament thoroughly Mankind may have fallen into a sinful state we didn't fall into sinful state, we were already there, Bible puts the cart before the horse here, you wouldn't have to make a rule against doing something if no one had the inclination to break that rule to begin with but there still is that side that needs God which is why by nature we follow laws which are natural to our creation. yes, we do those things that make sense to us, we will disregard rules and laws that don't make sense to us when we think we can break those rules "without getting caught" If evolution were to be true than humanity would have never thought about religion again grasping at straws nor could Christianity have ever accomplished anything. the thing that Christianity accomplishes is behavior modification, there are gay teens in homophobic communities killing themselves because they've decided to go to hell for the "sin" of suicide instead of going to hell for the "sin" homosexual sex If lawlessness is the law law can exist with out Christianity then only the strongest and most brutal and mighty rule there used to be matriarchal societies, they don't exist anymore because they were slaughtered by patriarchal tribes, you accidently proved my point here-- and this being a universal collective fact with no exceptions. laws existed before moses, so your whole argument is invalid But there are many exceptions which prove evolution is not true. We do not live by this collective oneness of thought like we all should if indeed we are byproducts of millions of years of biological evolution and survival of the fittest. we have evolved beyond "oneness of thought" you can't just say "individuality" proves creationism, because if creationism were real, we would all be created the same, we would have been psychologically interchangeable before "sin" and then we would all be sinful in the exact same ways if we all "inherited" sin from Adam But how does compassion survive the fittest? compassion toward our offspring ensures the survival of the species, it's evolution 101, at least learn the ideas of evolution before you say it's bullshit Where does love come in, or is that just a chemical reaction that is relative? yes love actually is a series of chemical reactions one of the chemicals is dopamine, one is Oxycontin and i forgot what the other ones are

Blurry_Dreams - pardon me as we are not on the Flat Earth topic and I made a comment saying we were. I just clicked my notifications and made the wrong assumption I was on the other topic. flat earth was a topic here?? Though that topic does refute all atheistic skepticism regarding the shape of the earth. So if atheists don't know the shape of the earth from the Bible, how can they be trusted with things that require greater learning and attention spans?

[/QUOTE]
there were people who knew globe earth before Moses...so...you're grasping at straws

......

 

[FEZZILLA]

there were people who knew globe earth before Moses...so...you're grasping at straws

......[/QUOTE]
Who? Can you name and quote from this unknown document? I do not think such a document exist. But just so ya know you might want to post your information in the right topic

 

[FEZZILLA]

I don't think you understand what monism means. Monism means "substance is one" - there is only one being, only one essence in existence. In Christianity, this substance is called God, as it is in Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, potentially Taoism (depending on your reading), and many other world religions.

Edit: obviously other faiths have a different word or idea to apply to this substance, e.g. "spirit", "being", "consciousness" etc., whereas atheism posits "matter" as the sole substance. Dualism is rarely substance dualism until the 17th/18th century, where it crops up in the western philosophical tradition - this was the distinction between matter/mind, which has always been recognised as a rather difficult position to uphold. Atheism actually comes from this substance dualism - it was decided that "mind" only existed because "matter" existed (how they thought that one up, I don't know), so "matter" became the sole substance of creation. Monism of any real kind precludes atheism, because it has to fundamentally accept that whatever "mind" and "matter" are, they are essentially "of the same stuff" - therefore, we end up with theories of consciousness that express worldly phenomena as artefacts of perception, rather than pre-existent, self-arising entities (the "universe from nothing" idea).

Monism is the Siamese twin of Pantheism. Now in pantheism everything is God: the sky is God, the stars are God, the planets are God. ducks and geese are God, dogs and cats are God -- everything in the entire universe and on earth is All-God. Though monism in the belief that you can get in touch with this universe and become one with the universe, whereas in pantheism its much more Impersonal God. Monism is not monotheism. Monotheism teaches there is one God and He does not need the universe to sustain Him. God is apart from the universe and the creator thereof. Everything in the natural world we see is created by this monotheistic God. God is also an Eternal Living God. But in pantheism/monism, God is basically just finite nature and this finite nature made itself. There are major differences between monotheism and pantheism/monism.

 

[FEZZILLA]

Paganism is called "European religion" because it's the religion of Europe - not the religion of the Middle East/Mediterranean, which is (corrupt) Catholicised "Christianity", Islam, Judaism etc.

But Europe has had a very long and vast Christian culture. We are not talking about the distant past here. Nobody in that distant past is gonna show up on this forum.

Zoroastrianism is a "pagan" Monotheistic faith. Many forms of Hinduism are monotheistic; but they aren't Abrahamic. Abrahamists (Jews, Christians, Muslims etc.) were neither the first to come up with the "single God" idea, nor were they the best/most theologically robust with it: actually, all of the Abrahamic tradition is devolution from Zoroastrianism. Not only the strictures (the ones that make sense), but even the myths - e.g. Garden of Eden, Good Spirit (God) vs. Evil Spirit (Devil), come from Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrianism was a cousin faith to that practised in Europe for thousands of years (yes, Europe was exclusively "monotheist" [or "monist", to be more precise], before the influence of Middle Eastern cults through Mediterranean trade networks c. 1,200 BC onwards - look at influence of Mediterranean Bronze Age on Hallstatt/La Tène "Celts", also Roman misappropriation of "divinity" to what were clearly held to be ancestral figures by Iron Age Europeans).

Yeah this is so true that there is hardly no Zoroastrianism movement today. No prophecy to support its claims. The Bible is plumb loaded full of fulfilled prophecy. Nice try, tough

Your idea of Islam is, of course, heavily influenced by the propaganda you've been fed since however long - if you look into historical strains of Islam, especially those which bequeathed to the West most of our ancient ("Pagan") knowledge - such as actually paved the way for "modern civilisation" (which is a very, very harmful thing, as civilisation has always been), you'll recognise that Islam and authentic Christianity are very closely tied. This is because, as above, they're all derivatives of Zoroastrianism. Judaism is the most different, because their tradition was intentionally corrupted during the early Roman Empire (conquest of Judea etc.).

I own a very very large library which has reached museum status. In this library I have a full size large oak bookcase with three shelves double-spaced full of Islamic books written and published by Islamic publisher. These contain a few translations of the Qur'an (I burned half of my translations as I don't need them for research anymore). I have the full Hadith collection, every Hadith collection ever published into English. I have many Sirahs and books on Islamic Jurisprudence. I also have three Tafsirs and other books. Three shelves with two rows per-shelf. That's half a bookcase right there. I do understand Islam and everything I say about Islam I can very forcefully prove. Islam is only considered an Abrahamic religion because Muhammad truly did descend from Abraham's son Ishmael. But the religion of Abraham went to the covenant made with Abraham's other son, Isaac and then Isaac's son Jacob. Ishmael was not the son of the covenant. Muhammad is not mentioned one time. His descendants are they are Baal worshipers. Islam is mention in Rev.13:11-18 in prophecy. The Qur'an agrees (Qur'an 27:82).
Islam is brutal totalitarian death cult obsessed with death and dying. Its so extreme that not only does the Qur'an teach muslims to exterminate all non-muslims worldwide until there are no disbelievers left, but it can be proven that muslims are to work the punishing hand of Allah until all life on earth is destroyed and the earth can no longer grow life on it. Islam has no respect for life and anyone who becomes an apologist for Islam is an ignorant fool.

"Including" clearly means "as well as" - Asian religions include Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism (if that can be called a religion), Shinto, Bön, Tengri, and many others. Christianity and Islam are clearly not "Asian religions" because they stem from the Middle East - they're Middle Eastern religions.

Makes you wonder how all those Christians and muslims made it into Asia



QUOTE="Storrsson, post: 11644490, member: 165745"]Christianity is a pantheistic religion - God, being the source and substance of all, is necessarily present in/as all things. What else, other than God could God have made the world out of? The entire universe is God. This is standard Christian doctrine. You clearly have very little education in the theological precepts of your own faith...[/QUOTE]

Well I don't think you're gonna find any ancient Christian witnessed to back your 21st century liberal definition up.

Atheism and pantheism cannot possibly be related - there's a huge gulf between "the divine is present in all things" and "there is no divinity at all". Atheism might be said to stem from Deism, in a way, due to the suggestion that God is a "non-actor" in worldly affairs; therefore, why believe in him at all (I suppose - though I disagree entirely).

How can atheism stem from Deism when in Deism there was belief in God the Creator? Atheism came from pantheism (nature made itself). Ben Franklin was a deist and he bragged how there was not one atheist living in America in his time.

Sources: I've studied world religions at university level (which is a crap way to understand them); more importantly, I've personally invested myself in the deeper strains of Christianity, Islam, Paganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and to a lesser extent, the animist/pantheist traditions of various indigenous groups from the Americas through Africa to Asia and Australasia, for some 16 years. I have met and spoken with representatives of all of these faiths, including numerous denominations therein.

Yeah yeah yeah, you know what...you've studied nothing, I meet people like you every day and destroy them in debates on a daily basis. You have no knowledge of religion. I bet you have never read the Bible, cover to cover before. I also bet you have never read the Qur'an and Sunnah, cover to cover (or covers to covers in the case of the Sunnah). You probably believe the Qur'an is the Bible of Islam. That is not even close to being true. The Sunnah is also Islamic Scripture. But what do I know about Islam? I just studied it for 2 years and was aided in my studies by a former muslim turned Christian. But I suppose you think just because you learned the humanist view on world religions that you have somehow learned something? You can't learn religion in a University as all Universities teach a radical bias which destroys real knowledge. In today's world, College is for the dumbest of idiots who want to be brainwashed and programmed to become murderers for the socialist regime. Liberalism completely destroyed education and there is no knowledge in College anymore. You cannot learn a damn thing in College. Not a damn thing.

 

[CiG]

But Europe has had a very long and vast Christian culture. We are not talking about the distant past here. Nobody in that distant past is gonna show up on this forum.

He's saying it is the religion of Europe, as in the continent. Pre-Christian continental mythologies.

 

[Storrsson]

Monism is the Siamese twin of Pantheism. Now in pantheism everything is God: the sky is God, the stars are God, the planets are God. ducks and geese are God, dogs and cats are God -- everything in the entire universe and on earth is All-God. Though monism in the belief that you can get in touch with this universe and become one with the universe, whereas in pantheism its much more Impersonal God. Monism is not monotheism. Monotheism teaches there is one God and He does not need the universe to sustain Him. God is apart from the universe and the creator thereof. Everything in the natural world we see is created by this monotheistic God. God is also an Eternal Living God. But in pantheism/monism, God is basically just finite nature and this finite nature made itself. There are major differences between monotheism and pantheism/monism.

There's a real problem with trying to use your own definitions of terms - when other people use different definitions, you have trouble communicating. The problem you seem to have with this thread comes down exclusively to a matter of definition; and it would seem that, by and large, people are more comfortable with the definitions (ostensibly) presented by the thread-starter than with your own. As far as I'm aware, that's because these are the more common definitions, while yours are either less common, or perhaps even unheard of - I for one have never heard of the notion that "monism entails that one can become God", and I studied 6,000 years of monistic philosophical and religious traditions. Only one of them got anywhere near to "one can become God", by making the point that "one's essential nature is already God" - but then, there's no question of "becoming": base-nature is itself God, replete with infinite wisdom, compassion, intelligence and power; one's essential substance is that, therefore, one (and all else) is already God.

Indian philosophy is pretty sick.

So, I've never heard a pantheist state that God (or nature) is finite; I think you're taking your particular notion of a personal deity, and assuming that, in various regards, other people's notions of an impersonal deity (or different kinds of personal deity) are diametrically opposed (the old "if it isn't black it's white" argument). This isn't necessarily the case. All of the pantheists I've ever met assume prima facie that the universe is infinite; therefore, God is more-infinite-than-infinite. Infinity exists "within" or "expanding from" God. This is the typical pantheist perspective anyway; monists tend to perceive God (still an infinite, all-encompassing being) as existing as the essence or base nature of any apparent thing - that is, if their single essential substance is divine in nature. As I've said, other forms of monist believe that e.g. matter is the base nature, and that all apparent things are inherently material.

As a brief aside; in neither pantheism nor monism is it necessarily the case that God "needs" the universe in order to exist; rather, the universe as an appearance is explained to be an emanation from God. The universe needs God in order to exist; in that God is needed in order to exist, there is nothing, and no part, of the universe that is any distance from God, in any way (otherwise it would be without support and would not exist); therefore, God is eternally and immutably compresent with all things (compresence is "existing together, without separation"). The difference between pantheists and monists is that all (theistic) monists are pantheists; not all pantheists are monists. A pantheist may believe that God is compresent with base matter as the basic substance of the universe (it's a nonsensical position, but people often hold poorly thought out beliefs): in this pantheist's conception, God exists in concert with all things. A (theistic) monist, however, beileves that God forms the substance of all things inherently, and that is how God is compresent with all things.

Truly speaking, this position is strongest; especially if we recognise, as above, that before the creation of the universe, there was nothing in existence apart from God out of which the universe could come/be made, etc. Therefore, the basic structure, nature, substance and purpose of the universe, must be God - there was nothing else before the universe came into being, and everything that has come into being as the universe has come forth from God, in God. There is nothing in existence other than God. That which is "devilish" in us - the debiliated, discursive, hyper-analytical human "ego" - would very much like to believe that there are things that are not God, so that we have a licence to kill, insult, harm, steal, and so on. The fact of the matter is that, by nature, only God can exist - therefore, all things are already God, including but not limited to "God-in-the-Highest", which is the Christian concept of the Father.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture. Both monism and pantheism fit perfectly within Christian doctrine; in fact, I would say that I've never seen a perfect/useful form of Christianity that hasn't been both monist and pantheist. Every single mystic I can think of, and most saints, have been pantheists, and almost all of them have been monists (though a few notable exceptions were not).

 

[Storrsson]

But Europe has had a very long and vast Christian culture. We are not talking about the distant past here. Nobody in that distant past is gonna show up on this forum.

As far as my own beliefs go, I've been born into this world several million times in human form alone (that is to say, not counting other animate and inanimate forms). Technically I qualify as "someone from the distant past", as much as I qualify as "someone from the present". But then, you probably don't know/believe the bits in the Bible where either Jesus or one of the Old Testament prophets is quite emphatic that reincarnation is a thing...

Yeah this is so true that there is hardly no Zoroastrianism movement today. No prophecy to support its claims. The Bible is plumb loaded full of fulfilled prophecy. Nice try, tough

The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim accounts all fulfil Zoroastrian prophecies, especially Christianity (Jesus story) and parts of the Old Testament (specific prophets, migration through Egypt, commandments). Zoroastrianism is very clear about the (repeated) appearance of a "Messiah" - basically most of Christian mythology is first proclaimed in Zoroastrian texts, including the Jesus story. Much like the Jews and Samaritans, Zoroastrians were held to be "people of the Book", both in Jesus's time and beyond, despite being "pagan".

I own a very very large library which has reached museum status. In this library I have a full size large oak bookcase with three shelves double-spaced full of Islamic books written and published by Islamic publisher. These contain a few translations of the Qur'an (I burned half of my translations as I don't need them for research anymore). I have the full Hadith collection, every Hadith collection ever published into English. I have many Sirahs and books on Islamic Jurisprudence. I also have three Tafsirs and other books. Three shelves with two rows per-shelf. That's half a bookcase right there. I do understand Islam and everything I say about Islam I can very forcefully prove. Islam is only considered an Abrahamic religion because Muhammad truly did descend from Abraham's son Ishmael. But the religion of Abraham went to the covenant made with Abraham's other son, Isaac and then Isaac's son Jacob. Ishmael was not the son of the covenant. Muhammad is not mentioned one time. His descendants are they are Baal worshipers. Islam is mention in Rev.13:11-18 in prophecy. The Qur'an agrees (Qur'an 27:82).

Islam is brutal totalitarian death cult obsessed with death and dying. Its so extreme that not only does the Qur'an teach muslims to exterminate all non-muslims worldwide until there are no disbelievers left, but it can be proven that muslims are to work the punishing hand of Allah until all life on earth is destroyed and the earth can no longer grow life on it. Islam has no respect for life and anyone who becomes an apologist for Islam is an ignorant fool.

Do you have any Sufi literature in your extensive library, or is it all Saudi-sponsored Salafist nonsense? I could get a library of whacko "Christian" writings from America that would prove that Jesus was an ET.

Well I don't think you're gonna find any ancient Christian witnessed to back your 21st century liberal definition up.

I think you'll find it's a 21st century conservative definition. BC. This shit is much older than Christianity; most of the ancient Christian sources I know are pretty clear that God is both immanent and transcendent. Do you understand theological terminology?

How can atheism stem from Deism when in Deism there was belief in God the Creator? Atheism came from pantheism (nature made itself). Ben Franklin was a deist and he bragged how there was not one atheist living in America in his time.

Pantheism does not mean nature made itself - seriously, what the fuck have you been reading man - nor does Deism imply that God was the creator. Deism implies that the universe "happened" as a result of God's existence; but God has no guiding hand, no intelligent interaction, with the world. That's how Deism leads to Atheism: remove the personal touch, the "God exists for me and you", and there's no reason to believe in him at all.

Yeah yeah yeah, you know what...you've studied nothing,

I can post my degree if you want. It's a masters. Shiny.

But the degree was bullshit - all academic credentials are bullshit. The research I made was done in a centre for spirituality.

I meet people like you every day and destroy them in debates on a daily basis.

1. No you don't, you don't meet people like me. There are none.

And 2. I bet you do, you lovely cupcake..

You have no knowledge of religion.

You're going to have to keep telling yourself this, or our conversation is going to get very uncomfortable for you.

I bet you have never read the Bible, cover to cover before.

Which version of the Bible? A couple I have read cover to cover (in one sitting, a couple of times); most I've just compared here and there, to see what the differences are. But the Bible's not very important for understanding the word of God. It's only really necessary if you're already established in the word of Satan.

I also bet you have never read the Qur'an and Sunnah, cover to cover (or covers to covers in the case of the Sunnah).

You've got me on this one. I only read the decent Muslim works, and I have yet to find any translations of the Qur'an or the Sunnah that do not come from the aforementioned Saudi-sponsored Salafists (predominantly because there are very, very few, and next to none in circulation as far as I know - the Qur'an is not meant to be translated, apparently, giving the Wahabist/Salafist movement free reign to tell the West whatever the hell they want the West to think Islam is).

You probably believe the Qur'an is the Bible of Islam.

You're inventing an awful lot of suppositions about me - I would caution against this, since it's not a good idea to build an argument on a house of sand. I thought you were a Christian...

But I suppose you think just because you learned the humanist view on world religions

I did, it was shit. Thank God I forgot it as soon as I'd finished the exams. Complete nonsense and arguably damaging to the bulk of world religious tradition/culture (which, I should assume, is the intention behind humanism). As above, I did my own research on religion(s) well beyond the "auspices" of the liberal academic world. If you'd bothered to read what I wrote in the first place, I spent time talking to people who actually practice these faiths, in their traditional contexts, to quite high degrees - i.e. the equivalents of bishops etc.

You can't learn religion in a University

That's what I said, if you check my original post. As above, all of my real religious education was undertaken well, well outside of a university.

Liberalism completely destroyed education and there is no knowledge in College anymore.

Yes, I believe I intimated this as well. I was erring "close to the far right" in my pre-university days; apparently now I'm a full blown nazi, even though I've eased up on my beliefs. I'm almost certainly more conservative than you are; I just have a very different idea of what that means.

 

[FEZZILLA]

He's saying it is the religion of Europe, as in the continent. Pre-Christian continental mythologies.

And what does that have to do with people today?

 

[FEZZILLA]

As a brief aside; in neither pantheism nor monism is it necessarily the case that God "needs" the universe in order to exist; rather, the universe as an appearance is explained to be an emanation from God. The universe needs God in order to exist; in that God is needed in order to exist, there is nothing, and no part, of the universe that is any distance from God, in any way (otherwise it would be without support and would not exist); therefore, God is eternally and immutably compresent with all things (compresence is "existing together, without separation"). The difference between pantheists and monists is that all (theistic) monists are pantheists; not all pantheists are monists. A pantheist may believe that God is compresent with base matter as the basic substance of the universe (it's a nonsensical position, but people often hold poorly thought out beliefs): in this pantheist's conception, God exists in concert with all things. A (theistic) monist, however, beileves that God forms the substance of all things inherently, and that is how God is compresent with all things.

Truly speaking, this position is strongest; especially if we recognise, as above, that before the creation of the universe, there was nothing in existence apart from God out of which the universe could come/be made, etc. Therefore, the basic structure, nature, substance and purpose of the universe, must be God - there was nothing else before the universe came into being, and everything that has come into being as the universe has come forth from God, in God. There is nothing in existence other than God. That which is "devilish" in us - the debiliated, discursive, hyper-analytical human "ego" - would very much like to believe that there are things that are not God, so that we have a licence to kill, insult, harm, steal, and so on. The fact of the matter is that, by nature, only God can exist - therefore, all things are already God, including but not limited to "God-in-the-Highest", which is the Christian concept of the Father.

The big problem with pantheism is that its thoroughly discredited in science. The universe had a beginning. Therefore the universe is finite. If God and universe are one and the same then this God of pantheism is also finite. So there is no real Infinite God in the universe. The monist will believe s/he is receiving messages from the starry cosmos telling them to kill Christians and Jews, or telling them to go out and kill 9 pigs. The pantheism doesn't claim to receive messages from the universe telling them anything. This would make pantheism Impersonal. But the monist turns monism into a somewhat Personal deity, which, in reality, is nothing more than Satan.
The law of biogenesis also proves the universe is not God. For all life must come from life, not non-life. The universe is not living. Its all lifeless matter. God is Eternal Life and the creator of all things. The universe cannot create life since the universe itself is created by God. God does not need the universe to exist.

I could go on, but I hope you get the picture. Both monism and pantheism fit perfectly within Christian doctrine; in fact, I would say that I've never seen a perfect/useful form of Christianity that hasn't been both monist and pantheist. Every single mystic I can think of, and most saints, have been pantheists, and almost all of them have been monists (though a few notable exceptions were not).

No. You will not find any support for that in the Bible or in early Christian tradition. Jesus taught monotheism and so did His Apostles. From there the Apostolic Succession teaches monotheism. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism and Judaism is monotheism. Christianity depends on the prophecies of the OT concerning the Messiah to be fulfilled. While Jews and Christians differ on the Jesus part, they both strongly agree with monotheism. There is no pantheist/monist tradition in Christianity. Gnostics aren't Christians either so they do not qualify as a counter-point since the Gnostics were ancient devil worshipers recognized by the Church of Satan today as being part of their church doctrine.
The Christians have always opposed the Gnostic infiltration of the church since the days of Simon Magus (the sorcerer) who was excommunicated by the Apostle Peter for trying to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit. His excommunication is confirmed in the Bible, but tradition records him being excommunicated. The Epistle of 1 John contains two chapters--chapters 2 & 4--which indirectly speak about Gnosticism. The Gnostics are called antichrists and from this spiritual line the Antichrist will rise from. Islam is from Gnosticism as well and the documents which Muhammad plagiarized from to make Surah 5:110 prove Muhammad was a Gnostic sorcerer. Simply stated, its kinda hard to place Christianity as a monist religion when from monism comes from Antichrist.

 

[CiG]

And what does that have to do with people today?

Many metalheads dabble in pre-Christian European folk religions.

 

[Storrsson]

Fezilla, I don't think you really understand a lot of the things you're saying. This is probably because you've read/heard a lot from other people, but haven't applied your own intelligence to these things. When you do that, you'll start to understand that notions such as "matter is lifeless" are not only false, but demonstrably non-sensical (in both the common and philosophical senses).

 

[Bloopy]

The universe had a beginning.

A beginning, not necessarily the only beginning that has ever happened. There are the cyclical/oscillating models, and less helpfully the hypothesised multiverse.

 

[FEZZILLA]

As far as my own beliefs go, I've been born into this world several million times in human form alone (that is to say, not counting other animate and inanimate forms). Technically I qualify as "someone from the distant past", as much as I qualify as "someone from the present". But then, you probably don't know/believe the bits in the Bible where either Jesus or one of the Old Testament prophets is quite emphatic that reincarnation is a thing...

I think you're deliberately misreading Jesus' words. Many NewAgers like to twist and distort the Bible even tough they can find no true support for their misreadings in early Christianity. If Jesus believed in reincarnation then so did His disciples and those after them. The Bible says we're destine to die once and then face Judgment. We have one life on this earth and our decisions here in this one lifetime matter. We will not get a second chance. The doctrine of reincarnation is Satanic because it makes one feel comfortable in their sins since they can be reborn over and over again and that justifies sin. But just like pantheist religions in general, its all man-made religion, making God in the image of one's self and not man being made in the image of God. Its call idolatry.

The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim accounts all fulfil Zoroastrian prophecies, especially Christianity (Jesus story) and parts of the Old Testament (specific prophets, migration through Egypt, commandments). Zoroastrianism is very clear about the (repeated) appearance of a "Messiah" - basically most of Christian mythology is first proclaimed in Zoroastrian texts, including the Jesus story. Much like the Jews and Samaritans, Zoroastrians were held to be "people of the Book", both in Jesus's time and beyond, despite being "pagan".

The "people of the Book" is from the Qurr'an and if you understand abrogation--which I know is not taught in College--you would know that those cute little nice verses in the Qur'an were abrogated and only Islam is accepted. Jihad and violence replaced those nicer Mecca verses. Those nicer Mecca verse no longer apply since they were abrogated and replaced by the ayat of the sword.
Zoroastrianism is not a surviving religion. Only a small percentage of Iranians are Zoroastrian. There were no prophecies that survived which means it was not God's truth. God is out to save souls from hell and bring them over to Him. God wants that message of salvation to be well known on the earth. That message is the Gospel of Christ and not some faded Zoroastrian religion that clearly has no message. Do you find the invention of the airplane in Zoroastrian prophecy? No you don't. But in Isaiah 60:8 we see the invention and use of modern air travel which takes the Jews back to Israel (Isaiah 60:10) which was fulfilled in 1948. So when we look at where Zoroastrianism took the world it didn't go far. Sure. it does seem to be monotheistic. But there were other monotheistic religions of ancient times that existed which no longer exist today. Perhaps there was a time when God used those ancient monotheistic religions before Abraham and Moses. But from the time of Moses on up God had His mind set on the spiritual succession of His message.

Do you have any Sufi literature in your extensive library, or is it all Saudi-sponsored Salafist nonsense? I could get a library of whacko "Christian" writings from America that would prove that Jesus was an ET.

I do have a Sufi Qur'an and two other Sufi books. Whether its Sufi or Salafi its all Sunni Islam. My library is all Sunni Islam as that makes up 75% of all Islam. The book "Reliance of the Traveller" is a book on Islamic Jurisprudence (the sharia) and while it does not highly praise Sufi Islam, it does not discourage it either. Sufi Islam is more of an open practice of Gnosticism in Islam.
I have a very rare Salafi Qur'an which, to the best of my knowledge which may be flawed to some degree, there are only 10 of hem made in the world and I have 2. The first one I bought I ordered from Egypt and it got all banged up in the mail by the mailman who crammed that Qur'an into my mailbox and ruined it. So I ordered another one from he same place in Egypt and it came in perfect condition and the dealer even throw in a small Muhsin Khan Noble Qur'an with it. Good deal over all and, to be honest, I had better dealings with the Salafi muslims than I did with other Sunni sects. But I had to get my knowledge from somewhere.
I have many Sunni books -- the works! But many of them are translated by one woman who's name is Aisha Bewley who is a renown translator of muslim books. From here I have the Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik, her own Noble Qur'an which is very good English, Tafsir Al-Jalalyn and Tafsr Al-Qurtubi which only covers Surah 1 & 2 (which sucks because I would really love to get my hands on that entire tafsir). Yet Bewley is a Sufi muslim translating Sunni books and being sold in all bookstores. Oh yeah, I have the Ash Shifa from Bewley as well! Sunni Islam has many divisions just as you will find among Catholicism and Protestantism. But overall, Islam is Islam and there is a distinction between Islam and all other religions. What it has in common with other religions spiritually is the hate for Christ and the willingness to exterminate all of God's faithful among the Christians and Jews. But where it differs from other Satanic sects is that muslims are willing to kill anyone who is not a muslim -- even their own fellow occultists! Satan does not love his own.

I think you'll find it's a 21st century conservative definition. BC. This shit is much older than Christianity; most of the ancient Christian sources I know are pretty clear that God is both immanent and transcendent. Do you understand theological terminology?

Yes I understand theological terminology. I did not learn theology from atheists at some Antifa run University. I learned Systematic Theology from DR.Norman Geisler through his 4 volume course on Systematic theology. But I try to keep it simple and avoid speaking in too many technical terms for the sake of those reading who may not understand technical terminology.

Pantheism does not mean nature made itself - seriously, what the fuck have you been reading man - nor does Deism imply that God was the creator. Deism implies that the universe "happened" as a result of God's existence; but God has no guiding hand, no intelligent interaction, with the world. That's how Deism leads to Atheism: remove the personal touch, the "God exists for me and you", and there's no reason to believe in him at all.

Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were both deists and neither of them were atheists.
In his pamphlet entitled Information to Those Who Would Remove to America, written to Europeans who were considering the move to America or intending to send their young people to seek their fortune in this land of opportunity, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

"Hence bad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be a comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced.
Atheism is unknown there; Infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an Infidel.
And the Divine Being seems to have manifested his approbation of the mutual forbearance and kindness with which the different sects treat each other; by the remarkable prosperity with which he has been pleased to favor the whole country." (America's God And Country: Encyclopedia Of Quotations, William J.Federer, p.247)

As you can see Franklin was not an atheist. He also was the one who went out kicking and screaming to have Congress open up with prayer. Franklin is considered the most irreligious of the founding fathers.

Pantheism is the belief that nature of God and nature made itself. There is no Creator God in pantheism. The universe is God in pantheism and so are ducks and trees etc. Pantheism derives from two Greek words: Pan (All) and Theos (God). This is not what monotheism teaches. The ancient Greeks of the classical period were the ones who really started evolution theory. I have works from the early church fathers back from the 2nd century up to the 4th century refuting evolution theory. Reading their words back then sounds a lot like modern arguments of today. In fact, Basil of Caesarea from the 4th century was very passionate about defending God's existence and he refuted much of what we know of evolution theory today, including string and M-theory! Sure, the terminology back then was different, but the theories were not. But terms like random chance and spontaneous generation have no change. All these evolutionary concepts derive from Greek and Roman literature in which they are still influencing atheists to this very hour. St.Augustine himself mentioned the ape to man hoax of his time back in the 4th century. There is nothing new under the sun as Solomon said. Its all been done before.

I can post my degree if you want. It's a masters. Shiny.

Your masters degree means nothing to me unless it is backed up by knowledge. A person who learns Christianity from an atheist is not educated in Christianity. Likewise with Islam. Unfortunately it takes years to learn all this stuff in great detail and no course in College can teach it all. I spent two years alone just on the study of Islam and studied nothing but the best and most reliable Sunni sources. I didn't bother much with studying Shiite Islam since they are the Jehovah's Witnesses of the Islam world. They are also every bit as radical as Sunni Islam, maybe even worse.

But the degree was bullshit - all academic credentials are bullshit. The research I made was done in a centre for spirituality.

Again, a degree is only as good as the knowledge behind it. If the person shows a credible learning than his degree holds relevance.

1. No you don't, you don't meet people like me. There are none.

Sure I do. I debate all the time and most of these atheists I debate are those who learned Christianity from atheist teachers and professors. They lose each and every debate due to their lack of knowledge about Christianity.

Which version of the Bible? A couple I have read cover to cover (in one sitting, a couple of times); most I've just compared here and there, to see what the differences are. But the Bible's not very important for understanding the word of God. It's only really necessary if you're already established in the word of Satan.

So you read the entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation...in one sitting Seems like I heard this one before. It can't be done. And if it could be done I very strongly doubt you got anything out of your read. Also, anyone who asks "what version?" has proven that they have never studied Christianity. Such a question is based on ignorance and not knowledge.

But for the sake of knowledge and clarity I will list off the best translations of the Bible in order of their strength in overall accuracy. Keep in mind all these translations are good ones.

1. 1537 Matthew Bible
2. 1539 Great Bible
3. tie: 1568 Bishop's Bible & 1611 King James Version (though the 1769 revision is better).
4. 1535 Coverdale Bible
5. New King James Version
6. Modern English Version
7. Young's Literal Translation
8. Revised Standard Version
9. 1560 Geneva Bible
10. English Standard Version

Though when it comes to 9 & 10 we're beginning to go into weaker translations. Some may argue the New American Standard Bible is better than the ESV but there is a major error in Amos 9:6 in the NASB which is not found in any other translation or supported in any lexicon. Which such an error like that the errors of the ESV may not compare. The Geneva Bible and its 100 revisions was the lousiest translation of the 16th and 17th centuries. Yet, its much better than, say, the NIV, NAB, NRSV, and some of the other modern translations. The best two modern translations are without a doubt the NKJV and MEV. But make way for a new competitor because there will be a new translation coming to a Bible store near you. The New Testament of this translation is already done and its called The October Testament. Here is the link to the NMB https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom.1:18-32&version=NMB

But the author, who I know, is still working on the rest of the Matthew's Bible. She is updating and modifying it and doing a fine job at it. So hopefully soon a modified version of the 1537 Matthew Bible will be out there on the market with both testaments complete in one volume. That translation will change the world! William Tyndale was the best translator ever.

You've got me on this one. I only read the decent Muslim works, and I have yet to find any translations of the Qur'an or the Sunnah that do not come from the aforementioned Saudi-sponsored Salafists (predominantly because there are very, very few, and next to none in circulation as far as I know - the Qur'an is not meant to be translated, apparently, giving the Wahabist/Salafist movement free reign to tell the West whatever the hell they want the West to think Islam is).

If you are not learning the Saudi line then you are not learning Islam. The Saudi line is what all Sunni muslims follow. The Noble Qur'an (Muhsiin Khan translation) was approved by the University of Medina and the king of Saudi Arabia. A Qur'an cannot get higher ratings. The Noble Qur'an is a Salafi Qur'an and thee best selling English translation of the Qur'an today. I had 12 translations of the Qur'an in which I built my database from. Only two of the differed because they were from the cults. But the others all read the same but with different wording. The easiest reading Qur'ans would be the Noble Qur'an of Aisha Bewley and the Mawdudi Qur'an -- both being accurate. There is the Arberry Qur'an which is also easy reading but in a junky paperback only. I no longer have the Arberry Qur'an.

As for the Sunnah. Those are the books of Muhammad. The Qur'an is the book of Allah. But the Sunnah is to be followed by all muslims as it states in the Qur'an:

Noble Qur'an 3:31,

"Say (O Muhammad to mankind): "If you (really) love Allah then follow me (i.e. accept Islamic Monotheism, follow the Quran and the Sunnah), Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

The Sunnah is the Sirah and Hadith. Here you will find several volumes of books!! You should read the most beloved of Sirahs called the Ash Shifa. That book is very disturbing to say the least. Then there are the two Sahihs of the Hadith: Sahih Al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. Good luck finding a happy place in those two hadith collections.

You're inventing an awful lot of suppositions about me - I would caution against this, since it's not a good idea to build an argument on a house of sand. I thought you were a Christian...

Sorry if I being highly skeptical about the claims you make here. I don't mean to be a dick so I'm sorry for that. But you did learn religion from an atheist teacher, or, a progressive to be more precise. This means your knowledge is flawed and you have been misled to believing many things that are simply not true. Sorry if my wording is blunt but I'm not one for making much time to write in paragraphs of niceties since I only have time to make a point.

I did, it was shit. Thank God I forgot it as soon as I'd finished the exams. Complete nonsense and arguably damaging to the bulk of world religious tradition/culture (which, I should assume, is the intention behind humanism). As above, I did my own research on religion(s) well beyond the "auspices" of the liberal academic world. If you'd bothered to read what I wrote in the first place, I spent time talking to people who actually practice these faiths, in their traditional contexts, to quite high degrees - i.e. the equivalents of bishops etc.

Ok, you don't learn Christianity or Islam just by talking to people. For one, concerning the Bible, there is no human authority on earth who knows more about the Bible than the Bible knows about itself. The early church fathers have more authority than all 21st century scholars on most theological matters except for end time prophecy and a few other doctrines. The Bible, not man, is Holy Scripture. The earliest witnesses to Jesus and the Apostles would teach more than College professors who teach you a progressive line. The best place to learn Christianity is first from the New Testament. For anything that disagrees with that is simply not true.

As for Islam. Well...that is a whole different can of worms! Muslims are trained to lied to the disbelievers. Here is a Hadith from two translations. The first comes from the 7 volume Sahih Muslim collection:

Sahih Muslim, Vol.6, Hadith [6633] 101 - (2605),

"Chapter 27. Prohibition Of Lying, And What Is Permitted Thereof
[6633] 101 - (2605) Humaid bin 'Abdur-Rahman bin 'Awf narrated that his mother, Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqbah bin Abi Mu'ait -- who was one of the first Muhajir women who swore alligiance to the Prophet--told him that she heard the Messenger of Allah say: "He is not a liar who reconciles between people, saying good things and conveying good things."
Ibn Shihab said (in his Hadith that she said): "I did not hear of any concession being granted concerning anything that people call lies except in three cases: War, reconciling among people, and what a man says to his wife or a woman says to her husband."

Now from the two volume summarized version:

Sahih Muslim, Vol.2 (Summarized edition), Book 55, Chapter 49, hadith 1810,

"(49) CHAPTER. Permissible lies
1810. Umm Kulthum bint 'Uqbah bin Abu Mu'ait (who was from the first emigrants) narrated that she heard the Messenger of Allah saying: "He who makes peace between people by inventing good information or saying good things, is not a liar."
Ibn Shihab said: "I heard nothing where what people say can be permissible as lies except in three: war, to make people reconcile and a man's talk to make his wife happy."
In another narration: Umm Kulthum said: "I heard nothing permissible as a lie except these three."

As you can see on two occasions muslims are allowed to lie to the disbelievers. These two situations cover all relations with disbelievers since Islam is a war against fitnah (i.e., disbelief). Muhammad said many times in the Sirah and Hadith that "war is deception." This is true about war. But Muhammad turn religion into a "war against all" as it is described in the Sirah of Ibn Ishaq. So everything you learned about Islam is a lie. If you were taught that Islam is peace then you have been deceived. Islam is blood thirsty totalitarian death cult obsessed with death and dying -- a death cult with zero respect for life. I have read all these muslim books and an Arab friend of mine from Iraq told me that if I think those muslim books are bad in English they are much worse in Arabic! In fact, "The Reliance of the Traveller" even says in the introduction that its watered down for a western audience. Its watered down and it still mentions killing apostates and homosexuals and banning all music, singing, dance, musical instruments, and the sale of musical instruments. That's the watered down version!

That's what I said, if you check my original post. As above, all of my real religious education was undertaken well, well outside of a university.

Well whatever the case you should dig much deeper. Learn from source documents and avoid learning what other people say. Unfortunately we live in an age of deception and knowledge is hard to come by. The best way to avoid being deceived in to study source documents and from there you can ask people you know are knowable on the subject. But keep in mind muslims will always lie about their beliefs. You just have to take the time and read all their works as I did and then you will know I am not lying about muslims lying about their beliefs for the purpose of advancing Islam in the west.

Yes, I believe I intimated this as well. I was erring "close to the far right" in my pre-university days; apparently now I'm a full blown nazi, even though I've eased up on my beliefs. I'm almost certainly more conservative than you are; I just have a very different idea of what that means.

A true conservative can say nothing good about Islam. Islam is a major threat against our civilized way of life and they come here only for the purpose of killing us. As for being a Nazi: Do you hate Jews? Do you want Jews to be killed? Do you think the Palestinians should have Israel and the Jews be killed by Palestinians? If you answered No to these questions you are not a Nazi.

 

[CiG]

A true conservative can say nothing good about Islam.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

there were people who knew globe earth before Moses...so...you're grasping at straws

......

Who? Can you name and quote from this unknown document? I do not think such a document exist. But just so ya know you might want to post your information in the right topic [/QUOTE]

first
the cities were far enough apart and empty desert land between the cities was empty enough and flat enough, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have realized globe earth from just watching a city disappear beyond the horizon behind them prior to the next city popping up beyond the horizon in front of them

second
a careful examination of Hebrew syntax reveals that most of the verses implying globe earth were actually written before the birth of Moses

third
those verses were not God informing people about the earth being a globe, those verses were written in a way that clearly shows that the author is assuming that the reader already knows the earth is a globe

the theory that people knew the earth was a globe before Moses is based on

one
the person named Job, from the book of Job, was alive during the life of Jacob or possibly a little earlier,

two
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were actually historical people and that the descriptions of their travels were accurate

 

[FEZZILLA]

Who? Can you name and quote from this unknown document? I do not think such a document exist. But just so ya know you might want to post your information in the right topic

first
the cities were far enough apart and empty desert land between the cities was empty enough and flat enough, that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would have realized globe earth from just watching a city disappear beyond the horizon behind them prior to the next city popping up beyond the horizon in front of them[/QUOTE]

At least you are not degrading the intellect of ancient people. I'll give you that. However, if what you say were true than that is still long before the first recorded Greek thought of the spherical earth. So why don't we learn this in history today? However, Abraham and Job both lived in 2000 B.C. Back then travel was not easy and they did lack much knowledge of modern science we have today. Yet the Book of Job records the earth being suspended in space over nothing (Job 26:7), the round shape of the earth (Job 26:10), the sun's stationary position in the solar system (Job 38:12), The rotation of the earth (Job 38:14). Now I realize there is much figurative language in the Book off Job meant to capture deep spiritual meanings, but even in this figurative language there is literal meaning and some of these verses in Job are speaking about science before the modern era of science. Its just not being spoken in the way we speak about science today. I'm not sure how Job could have known the earth is suspended in space apart from Divine inspiration. And God does take the side of Job over his overly critical friends.

second
a careful examination of Hebrew syntax reveals that most of the verses implying globe earth were actually written before the birth of Moses

Only those verses I mentioned in Job. Traditionally speaking, the Book of Job was attributed to Moses. This would place the Book of Job roughly at 1400 B.C. However, there is not a single mention of the Law, or Israel, or anything related to the language of the Torah. No mention of the Sabbath or the 10 Commandments or anything. The style of language and contents in Job favor a date roughly about 2000 B.C., around the time of Abraham. The Book is ancient.

third
those verses were not God informing people about the earth being a globe, those verses were written in a way that clearly shows that the author is assuming that the reader already knows the earth is a globe

You are assuming God did not inspired Job as He did later Prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah and even king David. These people mentioned consulted God regularly and their words are never taken as their own opinions--nay, they would have been stoned to death for giving an opinion according to the law! No man was allowed to speak an opinion about God and to speak an assumption in His name. Again, such a person would have been stoned to death! Therefore, when a certain Jewish person was accepted to be a Prophet of God, and his work Canonized, his words are not considered his own, but the very word of God. I think with this in mind we can at least give Job credit for having a close relationship with his Maker.

[QUOTE="Blurry_Dreams, post: 11647612, member: 164684"the theory that people knew the earth was a globe before Moses is based on

one
the person named Job, from the book of Job, was alive during the life of Jacob or possibly a little earlier,

two
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were actually historical people and that the descriptions of their travels were accurate[/QUOTE]

Well this is a reasonable assumption but as I mentioned in my last reply, even men of God in those days had a close relationship with their Maker. They themselves left those words accrediting their faith, live and words to the inspiration of God Who inspired them. They did not glorify themselves. They gave all the glory to the Lord. So knowing such advance science back then was not just an observation. But was it known before Job? I think Isaiah 40:21 says it was known. But somewhere along the line this knowledge was lost. This was due to pagan idolatry which led people away from the Lord. Their knowledge would never see the age of modern science. But during the Christian era, some 4000 years after Job, modern science, a product of Christian morality according to Sir Isaac Newton, would usher in modern science and the earth would be proven to be suspended in space just as it is written in the Book of Job which God Himself defended against Job's overly critical friends.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Yet the Book of Job records the earth being suspended in space over nothing (Job 26:7), the round shape of the earth (Job 26:10), the sun's stationary position in the solar system (Job 38:12), The rotation of the earth (Job 38:14). Now I realize there is much figurative language in the Book off Job meant to capture deep spiritual meanings, but even in this figurative language there is literal meaning and some of these verses in Job are speaking about science before the modern era of science. Its just not being spoken in the way we speak about science today.

there was a theory (by a christian) can't think of the freaking author's name, where he says that the references above just look figurative because the text/author is just assuming that the reader already knows this specific stuff, and that humans just somehow forgot science, then the christian author of the book emphasizes that Job lived during the lifetime of Abraham

Only those verses I mentioned in Job. Traditionally speaking, the Book of Job was attributed to Moses. This would place the Book of Job roughly at 1400 B.C. However, there is not a single mention of the Law, or Israel, or anything related to the language of the Torah. No mention of the Sabbath or the 10 Commandments or anything. The style of language and contents in Job favor a date roughly about 2000 B.C., around the time of Abraham. The Book is ancient.

actually there are several other historians that say the book of Job is definitively written prior to the birth of Moses, wich was part of my original point

You are assuming God did not inspired Job as He did later Prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah and even king David. These people mentioned consulted God regularly and their words are never taken as their own opinions--nay, they would have been stoned to death for giving an opinion according to the law! No man was allowed to speak an opinion about God and to speak an assumption in His name. Again, such a person would have been stoned to death! Therefore, when a certain Jewish person was accepted to be a Prophet of God, and his work Canonized, his words are not considered his own, but the very word of God. I think with this in mind we can at least give Job credit for having a close relationship with his Maker.

not specifically trying to say the text is "not inspired by god"
i'm saying Job lived before Moses, book of job already written down before Moses and that the text "looks figurative" because back before Moses everyone knew the earth was round and rotating and the sun was stationary and that people somehow forgot the scientific truths at some point

[QUOTE="Blurry_Dreams, post: 11647612, member: 164684"the theory that people knew the earth was a globe before Moses is based on

one
the person named Job, from the book of Job, was alive during the life of Jacob or possibly a little earlier,

two
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were actually historical people and that the descriptions of their travels were accurate

Well this is a reasonable assumption but as I mentioned in my last reply, even men of God in those days had a close relationship with their Maker. They themselves left those words accrediting their faith, live and words to the inspiration of God Who inspired them. They did not glorify themselves. They gave all the glory to the Lord. So knowing such advance science back then was not just an observation. But was it known before Job? I think Isaiah 40:21 says it was known. But somewhere along the line this knowledge was lost. This was due to pagan idolatry which led people away from the Lord. Their knowledge would never see the age of modern science. But during the Christian era, some 4000 years after Job, modern science, a product of Christian morality according to Sir Isaac Newton, would usher in modern science and the earth would be proven to be suspended in space just as it is written in the Book of Job which God Himself defended against Job's overly critical friends.[/QUOTE]

Job was written before Moses, Isaiah was written after Moses
if we tried we could prolly find out the length of the gap of time between the two
but i'm not sure if Isaiah actually says that the explanation for Israelites forgetting scientific knowledge was the result of the pagans

 

[FEZZILLA]

Well this is a reasonable assumption but as I mentioned in my last reply, even men of God in those days had a close relationship with their Maker. They themselves left those words accrediting their faith, live and words to the inspiration of God Who inspired them. They did not glorify themselves. They gave all the glory to the Lord. So knowing such advance science back then was not just an observation. But was it known before Job? I think Isaiah 40:21 says it was known. But somewhere along the line this knowledge was lost. This was due to pagan idolatry which led people away from the Lord. Their knowledge would never see the age of modern science. But during the Christian era, some 4000 years after Job, modern science, a product of Christian morality according to Sir Isaac Newton, would usher in modern science and the earth would be proven to be suspended in space just as it is written in the Book of Job which God Himself defended against Job's overly critical friends.

Job was written before Moses, Isaiah was written after Moses
if we tried we could prolly find out the length of the gap of time between the two
but i'm not sure if Isaiah actually says that the explanation for Israelites forgetting scientific knowledge was the result of the pagans

Isaiah 40:21,

"Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?" (KJV)

This verse claims that at one time, the world knew the earth was round.

Isaiah 40:22,

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." (KJV)

More interesting is the Latin to English translation:

"It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in."(Douay-Rheims Bible)

Both verses together from the Douay-Rheims Bible (Latin Vulgate):

21 Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth?
22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in .

Verse 21 seems to suggest that somewhere along the line knowledge of the earth is being lost. Verses 19 and 20 speak about idolatry which I'm sure verses 21 and 22 are addressing. Idolatry comes with a loss of knowledge, and even today this holds true. Most likely this idolatry began sometime around Nimrod's calamity of Babel. Genesis 10:25 speaks about the how in the days of Peleg the earth was divided. Some people claim this verse is about the continental drifting of Pangaea. Though more likely this is about how mankind had spread out over the earth and there came many divisions of religions. Either way one wants to interpret the matter, mankind had gone from the knowledge of God that Noah and his sons attained to forgetting the shape of the earth.

The timeline of Job up to Isaiah. That all depends on the date one accepts for Job's life. I have read arguments from various sides on the matter but Henry Morris lays down the much more convincing argument in his classic book "The Remarkable Record of Job." The argument Morris gives is convincing and gives an estimated date at 2000 B.C. placing Job around the same time as Abraham.
The life of Moses has usually been said to be 1400 B.C., but that's just the estimated date since many scholars say he died in 1407 B.C.. If this date is correct, then Moses was born in 1527 B.C.. Jerome and Usher place Moses closer to 1600 B.C. for his birth. Since there is nothing easy about ancient chronology I will leave the date of Moses at 1407 for the sake of our sanity .
Isaiah lived roughly 700 B.C. accepted date. From 2018 back to Isaiah we're talking about roughly 2600/2700 years.

Job was most like not a Jew. Some may disagree with this which is fine, for I'm sure there was some relation to the Hebrews somewhere. But Job lived before the establishment of the Hebrew people. The Hebrews come from the line of Abraham which does date back to the time of Job but doesn't automatically place Job as a Hebrew. Many scholars believe the Book of Job was written in another language (presumably Sumerian or Akkadian cuneiform) and then compiled by Moses during the Exodus and the Irsraelite journeys in the Wilderness. This is nothing to feel shameful about. The account is obviously very ancient and Moses was educated in the knowledge of the ancient world he lived in. He preserved this ancient Book by translating it over to Hebrew where we still have it to this very day.

Now for the question of authenticity of Job since there are other Sumerian/Babylonian legends of Job. Which version is correct? Moses knew this because he understand that the account he had in his possession was the one inspired by the God he spoke with on Mt.Sinai. The Book of Job contains a knowledge of advanced physics which were not known until he 20th century A.D. Job 26:7, for example, contains the knowledge of how our earth is suspended in space over nothing. This was impossible for humans to observe back then -- especially when the world at his time and beyond would believed the earth is held up by a physical object of some sort. There is the knowledge of the earth's rotation and the shape of the earth among other scientific things such as rapid erosion etc. Since the Sumerian versions contain no accurate knowledge of science, it is reasonable to conclude that the authenticity of Job is verified the true account since back then the likelihood of plagiarizing from another account and producing a document containing an accurate knowledge of modern physics would not likely happen.

In time even the Israelites would be falling into idolatry which is why God's raised up Prophets against them. Isaiah was revealed, once again, the shape of the earth from God as a reminder to Israel that God is the one in control and He is the Creator and Redeemer of the earth and all that is therein. The Prophet Jeremiah would be the last of the Jewish Prophets to reveal the shape of the earth in 600 B.C. This is still before the first Greek thought of the spherical earth in 500 B.C.