Aslan,

BAAL

“My comment about the historical development of Christian theism related to you seemingly not recognising Yahweh as a member of the Canaanite [Baal] evolving from an animist volcano spirit.” (earlier post)

I suggest you might find that those historians to whom you refer might not be all that “pseudo”. Herein, I hope I am not misrepresenting Philo by saying Philo seems to appreciate Christian religion evolved; i.e., primitive spirit, polytheism, Moses /Joshua (henotheism cum monotheism), true monotheism; i.e., from a religious perspective, development of the Law of God and Humankind’s relation to the same, or, alternatively, from socio-historical perspective. Wherein, religions develop along in concert political and economic systems.

THE “EVERYTHING” DEBATE

Regarding the “everything” [is relative] debate, I did not use this word in its syllogistic form. I have said this before. Herein, I am the author: I should know. Hence, I did not intend to be pedantic in its use. The Collins Dictionary gives two sentences to illustrate the word “everything”. (1) “everything has been carefully packed” and (2) “work was everything to her”. If you take these sentences literally, it means, the Universe has been packed and she (her) is manically obsessed about her work to the exclusion of all else: e.g., eating and drinking. Pericles is correct.

“RELATIVISM CAN NEVER BUILD A SOCIETY …”

Our society is built on relativism and it isn’t too bad. Absolutism I think is more correlated to centralised control and totalitarianism; e.g., Soviet Russia, China and even Singapore. While my guess is you are a Seventh Day Adventist, I understand the doctrine you now support is Roman Catholic theology. Yes, promiscuity can spread STDs, but it does not follow that “the locus of power” advocates such behaviour in all societies, including relativistic societies. Relatedly, the risk of the spread of STDs comes from Christian Churches not allowing condom usage, given many people will be promiscuous or need blood transfusions.

How about we find another forum that we can get someother views?

This one is only being used as our personal talk fest and which seem seems to go in circles anyway.

Hard to find a neutral one I don't particulaly want to go to a Fundie forum and I bet Philo and Aslan would go to a humanist or atheist one.

Any suggestions?

I've tried to find a religious humanist one as I find the concept of Christianity without a divine God very interesting and I'm sute that would animate Aslan and Philo.

Neo,

Do you mean Christian principles without a region and/or Church? Some who reveres the historical Jesus without thinking him divine? Somethinh else?

>Do you mean Christian principles without a region and/or Church? Some who reveres the historical Jesus without thinking him divine? Somethinh else?

Yes Oliver the Sea of faith and other religious humanist groups look at the spirtual wisdom of all religions so they could accept the teachings of Jesus but don't have to accept his divinity.

Christians like Spong acknowledge the deep flaws in current divine literalist Christainity and see that the future for Christianity will either be the blind uncritical faith that characterises Christians like Aslan and the Fundie and charasmatic churches, or something that has some intelectual rigour and isn't blind to the religious 'truths' of other faiths.

Which BTW is the only way religious pluralism will work not the interlectual shame it is today.

Pericles,

Re my observation about your argument by assertion, you said: "This is totally , diametrically opposite to what I have been saying. I have put my position forward on many occasions, that an opinion is merely an opinion, a belief is simply a belief, and that there is nothing absolute about either."

As far as putting your position forward goes, you have certainly made lots of assertions, and those assertions are contrary to my position. However, I have offered supporting arguments for my position. You have not.

Eg. You assert that I distort and rearrange history, yet you provided no basis for this even when I asked you.

Then you demand that I take a look into a mirror and admit to myself that I am wrong and move on. I am more than happy to do this if you can show me where I am wrong. Simply saying that I am wrong will not suffice.

Oliver,

I don't think Philo accepts your concept of the historical development of monotheism. I don't see this is the things he has said and this idea would not gel with the other things he has said. Nevertheless, I will let Philo speak for himself.

Oliver,
First I want to make the point that every sighted person in history has observed the very same natural events as we do today, but different people put differing philosophical interpretations on why things occurr. I personally believe in a unified agenda for the universe is from the mind of one God. God is about presence, and ours is the opportunity.

As far as we know Abraham was the first monotheist and he identified human fertility as the dominant reason for existence,"your seed will be as the stars of the heaven etc" (Cp Gen 49: 22 - 26) so from his fathers many Chaldean gods he chose ElShaddai to represent monotheism - she was the creator of all life. (The name represents a many breasted female God, shad means breast and it appears here in the plural).

From Abraham to Moses Israel worshipped The Almighty Celestrial God under that name. Moses identified the Almighty who led them by fire at night and cloud by day as YHWH (Exodus 6:3), he was looking at natural events and recognising the presence of God. The natural events was not god, but indicated the hand of God. The tsunami that drew back the Red sea he recognised as God opening an escape for them to escape. The miracle was in the timing, and Moses acted upon it, and attributed it to God - YHWH.

continued: