The rise of Yahweh: from Canaanite warrior-storm deity to the God of the Abrahamic world

[Tuco Salamanca]

There has to be a method of application otherwise it's just a notional nod without a concurrent acknowledgement in behaviour. It's not enough to accept without practise - the actual doing of something imbues a deeper understanding and confidence.

Wha??

No offense lad, but try to post in plain English. Posting reams of turgid, pseudo profound scutter doesn't impress anyone. Some folk can pull it off convincingly, but you ain't one of them.

That's why I suggested the Cathecism. Have you reviewed it and dismissed it or do you reject it because of disappointments in ecclesiastical governance? There's extraordinary wisdom in it.

No, I'm not a Catholic, or a Christian of some other hue, because I reject the metaphysical claims that believers of those particular creeds are duty bound to believe in.
I couldn't give a flying phuck about 'ecclesiastical governance'.


I don't believe in people made from clay.
I don't believe in talking snakes.
I don't believe in the virgin birth.
I don't believe in the trinity.
I don't believe in the Christian afterlife.
Etc

I do have some time for gnosticism and find that particular offshoot of Christinianity fascinating, in a similar vein to my fascination with Buddhism and Advaita vedanta.
But I find nothing of resonance in Catholicism or wider Christianity. It's spirituality for simpletons and troglodytes.

(And another quick word of advice -- apologies for repeating myself: Lose the pseudo profound airs. I'd have far more respect for you if you were all fire and brimstone and admonishing non believers to repent under pain of eternal hell fire.
I've some respect for those types)

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

That certainly is an accusation of many Protestants- though by no means all Protestants- towards Scholasticism, but I am unsure of just how true that was, certainly with the greats among the Scholastics. Jung also I believe made a similar accusation of mainstream Christianity as a whole in his book Aion.

On this subject you might be interested in the thread beneath-

E.R. Dodds on the defining features of Hellenic Rationalism- are they compatible with the Gospel?

E.R. Dodds was an Irish Classicist of the last century most famous for his superb "The Greeks and the Irrational" and "Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety". The below is from his essay "Euripides the Irrationalist". I do think he captures here the essence of the Socratic tradition and much...

www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com

And they wouldn't be wrong.

 

[tldr]

Wha??

No offense lad, but try to post in plain English. Posting reams of turgid, pseudo profound scutter doesn't impress anyone. Some folk can pull it off convincingly, but you ain't one of them.



No, I'm not a Catholic, or a Christian of some other hue, because I reject the metaphysical claims that believers of those particular creeds are duty bound to believe in.
I couldn't give a flying phuck about 'ecclesiastical governance'.


I don't believe in people made from clay.
I don't believe in talking snakes.
I don't believe in the virgin birth.
I don't believe in the trinity.
I don't believe in the Christian afterlife.
Etc

I do have some time for gnosticism and find that particular offshoot of Christinianity fascinating, in a similar vein to my fascination with Buddhism and Advaita vedanta.
But I find nothing of resonance in Catholicism or wider Christianity. It's spirituality for simpletons and troglodytes.

(And another quick word of advice -- apologies for repeating myself: Lose the pseudo profound airs. I'd have far more respect for you if you were all fire and brimstone and admonishing non believers to repent under pain of eternal hell fire.
I've some respect for those types)

There has to be a method of application

[If you have an awareness of spirituality then there follows an influence on your conduct in the material world. Are you going to just jump from sugar buzz to sugar buzz and use whatever methods provide the shortest route to them or do you bring a greater comprehension of existence to bear on how you live your life?]

otherwise it's just a notional nod without a concurrent acknowledgement in behaviour.

[You're just nodding that you know there is but aren't willing to change your behaviour in light of it - this is at best a sort of imbecilic pretense (trying to get the reputation of someone with greater knowledge while having only a superficial commitment to it). You have to practise to become. A religion provides a sedimentary wisdom of practise, and man is a social being - unless, of course, you're special. Presently, we live surrounded by concrete and, for all the fingertip information, have little experience of the real active world. People in the past were not so disconnected and perhaps understood the symbols of religion more profoundly - I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. Pilgrimages in the past weren't package holidays, they were gruelling feats that prepared one for the encounter with the holy.]

It's not enough to accept without practise - the actual doing of something imbues a deeper understanding and confidence.

[Levels of knowledge - the person doing something, the person providing for the doer, the person who studies the something. You can watch tennis, and know all the stats, but if you haven't played then you don't really understand it]

Fair enough if you aren't Catholic. I often wonder why Catholic and Christian are presented as separate categories - it's probably a legitimacy complex. Gnosticism is a very problematic theology - it radically condemns the material world and is linked to extermination ideation. Buddhism is the search for the null.

There are numerous dictionaries on the internet. Run through the different senses of the definition as it's not always the first one. If you want to dip your toe in this subject then come armed with the language - it's notoriously polysyllabic.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Here's something I suspect will be of interest to the holy joes and not-so-holy Joes alike.

In the video, Dr Justin Sledge explores the mysterious origin and development of Yahweh, the God of the Israelites and World Monotheism. He examines the earliest texts in the Hebrew Bible that mention Yahweh, and suggests that these texts may be evidence of a storm god cult that existed in ancient Canaan.He also discusses the possibility that the cult of Yahweh may have been spread through mercantile trade.

Could you summarise?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

There has to be a method of application

[If you have an awareness of spirituality then there follows an influence on your conduct in the material world. Are you going to just jump from sugar buzz to sugar buzz and use whatever methods provide the shortest route to them or do you bring a greater comprehension of existence to bear on how you live your life?]

otherwise it's just a notional nod without a concurrent acknowledgement in behaviour.

[You're just nodding that you know there is but aren't willing to change your behaviour in light of it - this is at best a sort of imbecilic pretense (trying to get the reputation of someone with greater knowledge while having only a superficial commitment to it). You have to practise to become. A religion provides a sedimentary wisdom of practise, and man is a social being - unless, of course, you're special. Presently, we live surrounded by concrete and, for all the fingertip information, have little experience of the real active world. People in the past were not so disconnected and perhaps understood the symbols of religion more profoundly - I wouldn't dismiss them so quickly. Pilgrimages in the past weren't package holidays, they were gruelling feats that prepared one for the encounter with the holy.]

It's not enough to accept without practise - the actual doing of something imbues a deeper understanding and confidence.

[Levels of knowledge - the person doing something, the person providing for the doer, the person who studies the something. You can watch tennis, and know all the stats, but if you haven't played then you don't really understand it]

Fair enough if you aren't Catholic. I often wonder why Catholic and Christian are presented as separate categories - it's probably a legitimacy complex. Gnosticism is a very problematic theology - it radically condemns the material world and is linked to extermination ideation. Buddhism is the search for the null.

There are numerous dictionaries on the internet. Run through the different senses of the definition as it's not always the first one. If you want to dip your toe in this subject then come armed with the language - it's notoriously polysyllabic.

I can only assume you've read too much Guenon or some other pseudo intellectual obscurantist.

May I suggest a remedy:

Drive Yourself Sane : Using the Uncommon Sense of Gener…

This thoroughly revised Third Edition of Drive Yourself…

www.goodreads.com

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

Although, I don't think there's any pop-up picture books, so you might struggle a bit.

Sometimes spoon-feeding is good.

Could you give it to us in 2, maximum 3, bullet points please Sir?

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

I can only assume you've read too much Guenon or some other pseudo intellectual obscurantist.

May I suggest a remedy:

Drive Yourself Sane : Using the Uncommon Sense of Gener…

This thoroughly revised Third Edition of Drive Yourself…

www.goodreads.com

Guenon did not have much time for the whole "Catholicism as an Evolutionary Strategy" thing- at least in it's cruder forms.

 

[tldr]

Yeah, God doesn't really work that well without organised religion, hence organised religion (for the masses)

Accepted, there are simulacras of the divine that can be used for deception by malicious actors- that which is evil is essentially a travesty of the good. But the question of whether there is a Divine or not was at question above.

You imply that God is an agreed delusion necessary for social organisation and, from the evidence of counterfeited instances, that is not a wholly unreasonable argument. The missing part here is whether there are genuine examples. That's why I mentioned the experience of the Presence of God earlier.

Since we are not, individually, complete, but a part of a community - we are not in ourselves perfect and this introduces an instability absent the supports of community. In an age of atomisation, we have seen this instability metastasize and wither the experience of the Divine.

So, while in some exceptional people it may be that Grace works marvellously, for most of us connection to the Divine, and the fruits of that connection, are only functional through a religion commonly nurtured and practised.

The awe of God gives us the knowledge of the dignity of Man. This bickering about who is the greater among us is like pebbles arguing about their size insensible to the sun. And the sun is but a spark in the Milky Way and the Milky Way is but a speck on a beach. There is an enormity to life, and an inscrutable paradox (to sneak in Chesterton).

So, how's about you ask the boys down the lodge what they think of it?

 

[tldr]

I can only assume you've read too much Guenon or some other pseudo intellectual obscurantist.

May I suggest a remedy:

Drive Yourself Sane : Using the Uncommon Sense of Gener…

This thoroughly revised Third Edition of Drive Yourself…

www.goodreads.com

You're basically avoiding responding to any points I've made by saying that it's too complex for you to understand.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

You're basically avoiding responding to any points I've made by saying that it's too complex for you to understand.

Yet he condemns me for asking for things to be simplified.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'm not a Prod if that's what you mean. I'm an atheist

I think he means you're a Mason.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I'm not even sure what that is.. Something to do with the Occult, the Illuminati, the Lizards? I mean, the conspiracy theorists here are always banging on about them but I don't really know

Its someone who works with stone. Saul Goodman is a damn good one they say.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

In David Icke's latest video he says the Sabbateans are the group - which included Lord Balfour and the Rothschilds - that are still pulling the strings.

Which is why the tail (Israel) wags the Dog (everyone else esp the US).

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

I will raise the question of the woke Hollywood thread among the other mods. I did not realize it was private.

was this mystery ever solved ?

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

was this mystery ever solved ?

Was it not moved to a forum that everyone can see?

 

[PlunkettsGhost]

Was it not moved to a forum that everyone can see?

Nope, a cosmic mystery it seems.

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Nope, a cosmic mystery it seems.

It should be sorted now.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

It should be sorted now.

Let me back on the fucking Jew thread you bitch

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

Let me back on the fucking Jew thread you bitch

That is not up to me- would you be willing to stop going on about Kangal and sexual weirdness and perversion on it?

 

[Wolf]

That is not up to me- would you be willing to stop going on about Kangal and sexual weirdness and perversion on it?

Just do what the majority on the site want and get rid of the Comical Jarry pervert.