|
Post by fat on Feb 18, 2013 11:50:34 GMT 10
You are asserting that the God who you say does not exist positively had a consort. Buzz - how can this be?
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 14:11:44 GMT 10
Conservative atheist anti-socialists believe in the Invisible Hand.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 14:13:34 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 14:15:06 GMT 10
In the Name of the Bottom Line, the Market Forces, and the Invisible Hand. Amen.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 14:25:09 GMT 10
Why is that silly? Don't you believe in the Invisible Hand? What are ya!! Some sorta socialist?? Always thought you were a bit suss ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 15:01:45 GMT 10
No it isn't. This thread is about furthering your paleo-atheist agenda by posting blather about God's family tree. Fat is 100% spot on when he says: You are asserting that the God who you say does not exist positively had a consort. Buzz - how can this be? You can't have it both ways, Buzz. You can't say on the one hand, as Fat, points out that you say, that there is no Man With a White Beard in the Sky, and then argue that he-who-doesn't-exist has a consort and on the other hand to spam the board endlessly with tedious "stuff" about the Family Tree of "The-Anthropomorphosed-Entity-who-Doesn't-Exist". But I'll tell ya what! You believe in unfettered capitalism, doncha?? So does Garfield. Now this is a quasi-religious theology that requires its own pantheon. It informs the political discourse of the West, from the US through to Australia. The object of worship is an entity called, generically, Market Forces. These are worshipped with great devotion. Market Forces in their turn make use of a Sacred Agency called the Invisible Hand. This is always spoken of with great reverence and the existence of the Invisible Hand is considered a no-brainer. To deny the existence of the Invisible Hand is to commit the grossest and most egregious heresy. Try peddling the Invisible Hand Denial line in the counsels of the Liberal Party!! It's a religion, Buzz! Complete with its priesthood (called "economists") and places of worship (called shopping malls). You do believe in Market Forces and the Invisible Hand, don't you?? By the power of the Bottom Line, I believe you do!!
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 15:20:57 GMT 10
I'm talking about Buzz's real religion, the things he worships and treats with great reverence: the Sacred Trinity of Market Forces, the Invisible Hand and the Bottom Line, and he wants to create a diversion with a lot of blather about Daisy Duck, Minnie Mouse and Lois Lane ...
|
|
|
Post by pim on Feb 18, 2013 15:33:06 GMT 10
I've flushed you out, Buzz! You do worship something. Your so-called atheism is crap. A pose.
In the Name of the Bottom Line, the Invisible Hand, and of Market Forces ...
That's what you believe in, with all your soul.
The rest is bullshit.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 18, 2013 21:57:15 GMT 10
You assert a majority, by way of internet blog?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 18, 2013 22:09:53 GMT 10
One of the accompanying inscriptions reads: "I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his [/its] Asherah," while the two others use the formula: "I bless you by Yahweh of Teman (the South) and his [/its] Asherah" (Toorn 1998:89). Interpretation of the phrase "by his [/its] Asherah" has led to much scholarly disagreement.(4) Some translators argue that the pronoun "its/his" should be translated "its" and read as referring, respectively, to Samaria and Teman. Thus, the blessings would be appealing both to the Israelite god and to famous "cultic installations," the "asherahs" of Samaria and Teman (Binger 1997:108). Others translators translate the pronoun as "his," understanding it to be referring to the Israelite god, and so render the phrase as either "Yahweh and his asherah [cult object]" (Hadley 2000:124; Olyan 1988:33) or "Yahweh and his Asherah [goddess]" (Toorn 1998:90; Binger 1997:108; Patai 1990:53).
You were caught overstating again, Buzz. Quoting from a blog doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 18, 2013 22:42:20 GMT 10
I am quoting Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou Francesca Stavrakopoulou is Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion in the University of Exeter's department of Theology and Religion. She's a hack.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 18, 2013 22:43:09 GMT 10
This isn’t just my opinion or even that of a minority. The majority of Biblical scholars throughout the world now accept it as compelling evidence that God once had a consort. Yeah... that's why it's still disputed, right? Overstated, again.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 19, 2013 3:48:31 GMT 10
You need to re-read this: (Pay attention to the bold font, this time) One of the accompanying inscriptions reads: "I bless you by Yahweh of Samaria and his [/its] Asherah," while the two others use the formula: "I bless you by Yahweh of Teman (the South) and his [/its] Asherah" (Toorn 1998:89). Interpretation of the phrase "by his [/its] Asherah" has led to much scholarly disagreement.(4) Some translators argue that the pronoun "its/his" should be translated "its" and read as referring, respectively, to Samaria and Teman. Thus, the blessings would be appealing both to the Israelite god and to famous "cultic installations," the "asherahs" of Samaria and Teman (Binger 1997:108). Others translators translate the pronoun as "his," understanding it to be referring to the Israelite god, and so render the phrase as either "Yahweh and his asherah [cult object]" (Hadley 2000:124; Olyan 1988:33) or "Yahweh and his Asherah [goddess]" (Toorn 1998:90; Binger 1997:108; Patai 1990:53).
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 23, 2013 22:31:33 GMT 10
I'm right because many books say it, but Buzz insists he's right because he pronounced it to be so. Well.. Buzz said it, so it must be so.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Feb 24, 2013 13:49:31 GMT 10
Others invalidate themselves, I am only first to point it out.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 13:10:00 GMT 10
This isn’t just my opinion or even that of a minority. The majority of Biblical scholars throughout the world now accept it as compelling evidence that God once had a consort. But it is a view of God unacceptable to millions of believers today. blog.tsemtulku.com/tsem-tulku-rin....ave-a-wife.htmlWell a Blog said it, so it must be so. Because no one would ever write something in their journal and post it on the internet, if it wasn't true...
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 13:17:44 GMT 10
OH! a TV show! You never mentioned that.
Well, everything you see on TV is unscripted, unbiased, and completely true. We need look no further.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 13:21:27 GMT 10
Wow Buzz, you are really aren't getting this, are you?
I was laying the sarcasm on pretty thick, but you--Just---don't--- get it.
TV is about ratings.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 13:54:43 GMT 10
How many have you invalidated, since you only follow the one's you agree with?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 13:59:08 GMT 10
Buzz. You go ahead and believe whatever crock you want. No one else is buying.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 14:01:39 GMT 10
well Judaism is a post exile religion that is a corruption of Zoroastrianism. thats the reality - and anything to the contrary is flat earth delusion
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 14:03:24 GMT 10
Buzz. You go ahead and believe whatever crock you want. No one else is buying. there you go - invalidation ...because your argument is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 1, 2013 14:06:47 GMT 10
according to you I am invalid and everything I say is invalid Could we not say the same of you, and Christianity?
|
|