First of all, I would like to say hello to you all, as this is my first post, although I have been a reader of this forum for a long time now. I have learned alot from this place.
My name is Benjamin, I am, first of all, an Anabaptist. But I am open minded, and I follow teachings of chaos magick, draconic magick, shamanism, and paganism in general. (No, they do not clash with Ana-baptism as you may think).
My reason for posting, is because all throughout the forum here, I see other pagans referring to YHWH (The Christian God) as "evil". (along with other accusations).
And while I respect your viewpoints, I am here simply to defend the name of YHWH, and "reintroduce" you to who He is from my point of view.
One argument for hatred towards God is that He commanded killing in His name. Please let me clarify this. Jehovah only ever instructed the Hebrew armies to destroy their enemies. I will not deny that God ordered killing, because He did. But I will explain why. The people slain by the order of God were simply being judged. They were not innocent people, minding their own business. There is also a two-fold meaning to this. Destroying the enemies is a symbolization of taking care of our own sin in our lives.
The Old Testament, according to many pagans, paints a picture of an evil, bloodthirsty god. But I beg to differ. The Old Testament paints a picture of a powerful, almighty God who first created the entire world perfect. He was then betrayed by His own creation. He had every right to destroy all life then, but He didn't. He was merciful, and promised to one day give His own blood to pay for mankind's mistake. Why? because "God is love". I'm not trying to preach, but I would like you to see this from the other point of view.
The reason I say all of this, is because I come to this forum looking for knowledge and teaching. But It's discouraging seeing so much negative connotation placed on the Christian God. (By now you are thinking, "O great, a Bible-thumping Christian. Christians are close-minded dogmatic idiots who hate paganism and shove their religion down everyone's throat"). But I assure you, I am different.
Now let me define MY Christianity. Anabaptist are neither Catholic, Protestant, or modernized Baptist. ALL hypocrisy and hate/persecution towards pagans from Christians are from MAINSTREAM Christianity. (Which believe me, we are against them just as much as you are). The crusades - catholic. Witch trials - Puritan, etc.
You will never find in history where the Anabaptist have been the offender. Rather, it is the Anabaptist's who are most hated. Slaughtered by Catholics, Protestants, and pagans.
The Key of Solomon, (which most of you are familiar with. I hope), is about Solomon, the son of David, the man after God's (YHWH) own heart. It was YHWH who imparted such great knowledge to Solomon. And it was the Holy Temple of YHWH which he built. Tell me again, how Christianity is so different from your beliefs? The Bible condemns sorcery in the sense of conjuring the dead, sacrificing children, and other "Black Magic". But it does not condemn "Magick" in general. Otherwise, simply going about our daily business would be sin (from my POV).
I hope I made a little bit of sense in my religious rant above. (Ha ha). Anyways, thank you for taking the time to read. [smile]
In defense and honor of YHWH
-
dancing-with-dragons
- Initiated
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm
In defense and honor of YHWH
If YHVH had not of been my help, my soul had almost dwelt with Dumah.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
A very good post, but you didn't address a important point (or I missed it).. a lot grew up getting Christianity showed down their throath, and a lot here still have that happen to them almost daily. Yes, that is the followers of the Christian god doing that and not their god, but still.. I think its a important reason many have more against that religion than others.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Hello Dancing with Dragons,
Welcome to the Forum. Speaking for myself, if you choose to worship Jehovah and you find there a connection to Higher, positive powers and a guide for your life then I think it is wonderful. While I will have other things to say here, certainly many millions of people find a positive and helpful light within the Judeo-Christian oracles.
The magicians of the Middle Ages who developed the Key of Solomon did so as an expression of their Christian faith and in that context. They could not have done otherwise since this was the material with which they had to work. I would point out that Moslems use the Key and it works for them and modern magical orders such as the OTA use the Key and they are outright pagans worshiping Canaanite gods whom Jehovah abominates. The key to the Key is not Jehovah himself, it is the connection to what is Higher. That Higher can wear the mask of Jehovah just as easily as any other because He is beyond all such human constructs and limitations.
But, you did come to defend Biblical Jehovah to us so you open yourself up to charges against him. There is much that could be written here so I will only bring out one point which I feel is important.
Jehovah does not follow his own laws and acts in an arbitrary manner. The god who rules in the name of morality and justice displays a lack of both characteristics in his own oracles. When a civil power acts in such a manner, it is called a tyranny.
Two examples:
Old Testament
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
2 Kings 2:23, 24
Jehovah, at the behest of this saint, massacred 42 little children (under 13) because they did not believe Elijah was assumed into Heaven and made-fun of Elisha. We have a saying in English that most children by the age of 10 understand and apply: 'stick and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me.' Was it charity, love and patients that filled the heart of Elisha, a great saint and prophet? If not, what does it say about not only him but the god who is so willing to join him in a brutal expression of the opposite traits to those I listed? This was nothing but a vicious and brutal act designed to instal fear. Note that word: fear.
You might say, “God judged them , it MUST be just.” I ask, then, what law in the Pentateuch did they break which is listed as a capital offense? Judgment requires law. If a person kills outside of the law, what is that called? In English that is called 'murder.' I would point out, that even when the bloody tyrant Sulla was publicly mocked by a boy whom he had proscribed his father the tyrant did not react but walked away. A man who was worst than Sadam Hussein and a rank pagan acted in a more moral manner than a saint of the Holy God and that Deity.
New Testament
A new dispensation? I'm afraid not. After all, “I, the Lord, change not.” Malachi 3:16
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.”
-Acts 5:1-11
The background to this tale is that in the early church all things were “held in common” (Acts 2:44) and this was managed by the Apostles. The material situation is identical to modern cults such as Ram Das in Washington state where the members gave all their possessions to 'the group.' So, this person sold some land and he did not give the full amount to the Apostles and lied about it so Jehovah killed them, which caused “great fear.”
The problem here is the same as Jehovah's massacre of the boys: they broke no law. There is no code in the Old or New Testaments which demands all monies be given to the church, in fact, in fact it is the opposite. Here is an example:
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Cor. 9:7
In the Old Testament there are law regarding tithing, but it nowhere makes the demands that the Apostle Peter made. Not only that, but nowhere is there a law that state 'he who lies shall die the death.' The death of these people was outside of the law, even contrary to it; it was murder.
But Peter's actions are even worst. What did he himself ask the Incarnate Son of God? What rule was he given and disregarded for the sake of money?
21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
- Matthew 18:21
Another great saint who was a hypocrite. But, what should one expect when they are only imitating their god?
Whatever this entity Jehovah may be, it is certainly not what it claims to be. The key to understanding it is that it's main concern is to rule by fear. All the talk of 'love' (not as we define it) is a side-step, a manipulation when the core of his rule is fear. After all, it was not the offering of vegetables (passivity) that pleased Jehovah but blood, and for a reason! (v. Genesis 4)
Welcome to the Forum. Speaking for myself, if you choose to worship Jehovah and you find there a connection to Higher, positive powers and a guide for your life then I think it is wonderful. While I will have other things to say here, certainly many millions of people find a positive and helpful light within the Judeo-Christian oracles.
The magicians of the Middle Ages who developed the Key of Solomon did so as an expression of their Christian faith and in that context. They could not have done otherwise since this was the material with which they had to work. I would point out that Moslems use the Key and it works for them and modern magical orders such as the OTA use the Key and they are outright pagans worshiping Canaanite gods whom Jehovah abominates. The key to the Key is not Jehovah himself, it is the connection to what is Higher. That Higher can wear the mask of Jehovah just as easily as any other because He is beyond all such human constructs and limitations.
But, you did come to defend Biblical Jehovah to us so you open yourself up to charges against him. There is much that could be written here so I will only bring out one point which I feel is important.
Jehovah does not follow his own laws and acts in an arbitrary manner. The god who rules in the name of morality and justice displays a lack of both characteristics in his own oracles. When a civil power acts in such a manner, it is called a tyranny.
Two examples:
Old Testament
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
2 Kings 2:23, 24
Jehovah, at the behest of this saint, massacred 42 little children (under 13) because they did not believe Elijah was assumed into Heaven and made-fun of Elisha. We have a saying in English that most children by the age of 10 understand and apply: 'stick and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me.' Was it charity, love and patients that filled the heart of Elisha, a great saint and prophet? If not, what does it say about not only him but the god who is so willing to join him in a brutal expression of the opposite traits to those I listed? This was nothing but a vicious and brutal act designed to instal fear. Note that word: fear.
You might say, “God judged them , it MUST be just.” I ask, then, what law in the Pentateuch did they break which is listed as a capital offense? Judgment requires law. If a person kills outside of the law, what is that called? In English that is called 'murder.' I would point out, that even when the bloody tyrant Sulla was publicly mocked by a boy whom he had proscribed his father the tyrant did not react but walked away. A man who was worst than Sadam Hussein and a rank pagan acted in a more moral manner than a saint of the Holy God and that Deity.
New Testament
A new dispensation? I'm afraid not. After all, “I, the Lord, change not.” Malachi 3:16
5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.
3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?
4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.
5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.
7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.
8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.
9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.
10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.”
-Acts 5:1-11
The background to this tale is that in the early church all things were “held in common” (Acts 2:44) and this was managed by the Apostles. The material situation is identical to modern cults such as Ram Das in Washington state where the members gave all their possessions to 'the group.' So, this person sold some land and he did not give the full amount to the Apostles and lied about it so Jehovah killed them, which caused “great fear.”
The problem here is the same as Jehovah's massacre of the boys: they broke no law. There is no code in the Old or New Testaments which demands all monies be given to the church, in fact, in fact it is the opposite. Here is an example:
Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
2 Cor. 9:7
In the Old Testament there are law regarding tithing, but it nowhere makes the demands that the Apostle Peter made. Not only that, but nowhere is there a law that state 'he who lies shall die the death.' The death of these people was outside of the law, even contrary to it; it was murder.
But Peter's actions are even worst. What did he himself ask the Incarnate Son of God? What rule was he given and disregarded for the sake of money?
21Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.
- Matthew 18:21
Another great saint who was a hypocrite. But, what should one expect when they are only imitating their god?
Whatever this entity Jehovah may be, it is certainly not what it claims to be. The key to understanding it is that it's main concern is to rule by fear. All the talk of 'love' (not as we define it) is a side-step, a manipulation when the core of his rule is fear. After all, it was not the offering of vegetables (passivity) that pleased Jehovah but blood, and for a reason! (v. Genesis 4)
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Oh, good grief, you two. You are doing it wrong....
How do you know you don't actually agree? You are relying on names of "gods" as if you could call look them up in a phone directory. How do you know you don't both actually mean the exact same thing when you are talking about God? How do you know you wouldn't both dislike the misuse of religion to subjugate the masses and limit their experience of the divine, by whatever name you call the essence of that aspect?
If there is going to be no effort at mutual understanding, I vote ya'll hush and keep your prejudices to yourself. Just sayin....
How do you know you don't actually agree? You are relying on names of "gods" as if you could call look them up in a phone directory. How do you know you don't both actually mean the exact same thing when you are talking about God? How do you know you wouldn't both dislike the misuse of religion to subjugate the masses and limit their experience of the divine, by whatever name you call the essence of that aspect?
If there is going to be no effort at mutual understanding, I vote ya'll hush and keep your prejudices to yourself. Just sayin....
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
I don´t see the reason why only you should dare to claim your only approach as a right one and tell everyone else to shut the fuck up. I don´t see it at all.Oh, good grief, you two. You are doing it wrong....
How do you know you don't actually agree? You are relying on names of "gods" as if you could call look them up in a phone directory. How do you know you don't both actually mean the exact same thing when you are talking about God? How do you know you wouldn't both dislike the misuse of religion to subjugate the masses and limit their experience of the divine, by whatever name you call the essence of that aspect?
If there is going to be no effort at mutual understanding, I vote ya'll hush and keep your prejudices to yourself. Just sayin....
This started as a discussion and was meant to exchange the views like you could already read in the first post and at asurendras post in case you did not read them.
So much for mutual understanding.....
So, enough of the scolding, I also wanted to say something fruitful.
I worked for a little while with the names of this entity and made a little approach into cabbalistic oriented hermetcis, his realm of fear and Ra nows what else.
The impression I have/had from this god is the following:
This god is not a god of the sword like it was Ares, at least not the god of the new testament. But still this god is a conqueror who conquers his land first by word and then by fanatism. He is no god confronting others directly but his signature is greedy and hungry. He is jealous for every other entity beneath him except his winged comrades and those half god saints, a ritual where you invite himself (not only use his name) is mostly a one-god-show, better don´t invite anyone else.
What I don´t like about this god is that first he builds us as his mirror image and then curses the whole species because our ancestors ate a fruit and suddenly wanted some clothes (considering the biblic myth as axiom of course). Why does he has the right to order us to obey? That is in my opinion no god of merci and he has no right to jugde over me the same as I have no right to judge his people just because they believe in him or anything else. Sorry dude, but my altar is already taken.
Ramscha
bye bye
-
dancing-with-dragons
- Initiated
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Asurendra.
With all due respect, I beg to differ. God created the laws for mankind. God alone reserves the authority to create, and destroy life.
As for the boys being "slain by God", nowhere does the Bible say the boys were killed. It's quite possible to be torn without dying. I would think, by being a student of the Bible my while life, that if the boys were killed, it would have said so. It would probably have used the word "slain" rather that "torn". But that's not the case.
Also, I think you fail to grasp what Annanias and Saphhira were guilty of. They devised a wicked plan to take money that wasn't there's, from the people of God. And they lied about it, but much worse, they condoned their plan in the name of God. In this case, God rightfully excercised His judgement on the wicked couple.
One Bible verse comes to mind for both situations ; "Be not decieved, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap... "
And let us not forget the other books Solomon wrote. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. All in which YHWH's Words are spoken.
I mean no offence, but I feel I must defend what my ancestors died for. My family is full of pastors, and I have been a student of the Word for as long as I can remember. God has blessed me abundantly, and I have seen my prayers answered. Through trials, I have seen His hand move. I cannot deny it.
With all due respect, I beg to differ. God created the laws for mankind. God alone reserves the authority to create, and destroy life.
As for the boys being "slain by God", nowhere does the Bible say the boys were killed. It's quite possible to be torn without dying. I would think, by being a student of the Bible my while life, that if the boys were killed, it would have said so. It would probably have used the word "slain" rather that "torn". But that's not the case.
Also, I think you fail to grasp what Annanias and Saphhira were guilty of. They devised a wicked plan to take money that wasn't there's, from the people of God. And they lied about it, but much worse, they condoned their plan in the name of God. In this case, God rightfully excercised His judgement on the wicked couple.
One Bible verse comes to mind for both situations ; "Be not decieved, God is not mocked. For whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap... "
And let us not forget the other books Solomon wrote. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon. All in which YHWH's Words are spoken.
I mean no offence, but I feel I must defend what my ancestors died for. My family is full of pastors, and I have been a student of the Word for as long as I can remember. God has blessed me abundantly, and I have seen my prayers answered. Through trials, I have seen His hand move. I cannot deny it.
If YHVH had not of been my help, my soul had almost dwelt with Dumah.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Ramscha,
I'm curious to hear more about these experiences you mentioned.
Hello Dancing with Dragons,
Thank you for your reply. I thought it was very interesting and I’m sure it will give the readers in the Forum some food for thought.
Regarding the children mauled by the bears, whether they lived or not only adjust the bar of the brutality and vindictiveness of the act, it does not justify it. How quickly you dismiss this by retreating into the ambiguity of whether or not they lived from the mauling. The chances of life of children mauled by bears in the Bronze Age were obviously not good. Have you actually sat and tried to imagine what we are discussing? I don't think it should be treated as an abstraction, hence sanitized.
What god of love and what saint would act so directly to do that to boys? It sounds like Al-Queda.
But, you clearly implied, they deserved it for that is what they sowed. The problem with this remains, as I mentioned previously, that what they sowed is nowhere prohibited. Justice and equity would demand that as they mocked, so a bully from the hut up the street would come and mock them: not to be savaged by a wild animal. It was a disproportionate and arbitrary act of murder without justification, and murder is against the Divine Law.
On the subject of Ananias, the text states clearly that he was in possession of real estate and that he owned it (verse 4). Peter says nothing about ‘the people’s land’ or ‘God’s land.’ He sold his property: what does that have to do with the Church? Based upon what did they have any claim at all, especially given the verse I referred to from 2 Cor? Further, Jesus did not instruct his followers to tithe at all so Peter’s claim on this money was even weaker. Even if they did commit some sin against custom, Peter should have followed the law of Christ and forgiven him as he was specifically directed and not acted like the Pharisees who made-up rules and then punished people. This is more hypocrisy.
It’s true that you dodged on all these issues and the details, but, you did really answer my charge and what you said is revealing:
1) “God created the laws for mankind. God alone reserves the authority to create, and destroy life.”
It all comes down to one word: power. That’s what ‘authority’ really means so like a cosmic Stalin he will act as he pleases and torture humans for eternity for violating the laws he cannot himself follow. This is a truly hideous image (and I am not even bringing up Predestination). What is the tool of power? Fear. Not justice or goodness (you admit he is not bound by these) , but fear: that is what is at the core of Jehovah’s religions.
2) “I feel I must defend what my ancestors died for. My family is full of pastors, and I have been a student of the Word for as long as I can remember.”
I would also point out, no matter where you may be on this Earth, you also have ancestors who thought differently (perhaps Catholics) and pagans. Why are they of no value? But that’s just playing around: What you really mean is this is what your family believes and how you were raised and you spent a lot of time reading the Bible. That’s wonderful, as I said, but there are billions of people on this planet that could repeat the same phrase and just substitute other faiths. How does any of that validate Jehovah? Your great-grandpa liked him so we should believe?
Finally, you seem to have lost sight of your goal with this thread: it was to justify Jehovah to US. That is something that you have, thus far, distinctly failed to accomplish. Simply repeating his claims is not enough. I have no wish to change your mind. But, if you wish to change our minds it will certainly take more.
Or, could it be that secretly you are looking for an escape hatch?
I'm curious to hear more about these experiences you mentioned.
Hello Dancing with Dragons,
Thank you for your reply. I thought it was very interesting and I’m sure it will give the readers in the Forum some food for thought.
Regarding the children mauled by the bears, whether they lived or not only adjust the bar of the brutality and vindictiveness of the act, it does not justify it. How quickly you dismiss this by retreating into the ambiguity of whether or not they lived from the mauling. The chances of life of children mauled by bears in the Bronze Age were obviously not good. Have you actually sat and tried to imagine what we are discussing? I don't think it should be treated as an abstraction, hence sanitized.
What god of love and what saint would act so directly to do that to boys? It sounds like Al-Queda.
But, you clearly implied, they deserved it for that is what they sowed. The problem with this remains, as I mentioned previously, that what they sowed is nowhere prohibited. Justice and equity would demand that as they mocked, so a bully from the hut up the street would come and mock them: not to be savaged by a wild animal. It was a disproportionate and arbitrary act of murder without justification, and murder is against the Divine Law.
On the subject of Ananias, the text states clearly that he was in possession of real estate and that he owned it (verse 4). Peter says nothing about ‘the people’s land’ or ‘God’s land.’ He sold his property: what does that have to do with the Church? Based upon what did they have any claim at all, especially given the verse I referred to from 2 Cor? Further, Jesus did not instruct his followers to tithe at all so Peter’s claim on this money was even weaker. Even if they did commit some sin against custom, Peter should have followed the law of Christ and forgiven him as he was specifically directed and not acted like the Pharisees who made-up rules and then punished people. This is more hypocrisy.
It’s true that you dodged on all these issues and the details, but, you did really answer my charge and what you said is revealing:
1) “God created the laws for mankind. God alone reserves the authority to create, and destroy life.”
It all comes down to one word: power. That’s what ‘authority’ really means so like a cosmic Stalin he will act as he pleases and torture humans for eternity for violating the laws he cannot himself follow. This is a truly hideous image (and I am not even bringing up Predestination). What is the tool of power? Fear. Not justice or goodness (you admit he is not bound by these) , but fear: that is what is at the core of Jehovah’s religions.
2) “I feel I must defend what my ancestors died for. My family is full of pastors, and I have been a student of the Word for as long as I can remember.”
I would also point out, no matter where you may be on this Earth, you also have ancestors who thought differently (perhaps Catholics) and pagans. Why are they of no value? But that’s just playing around: What you really mean is this is what your family believes and how you were raised and you spent a lot of time reading the Bible. That’s wonderful, as I said, but there are billions of people on this planet that could repeat the same phrase and just substitute other faiths. How does any of that validate Jehovah? Your great-grandpa liked him so we should believe?
Finally, you seem to have lost sight of your goal with this thread: it was to justify Jehovah to US. That is something that you have, thus far, distinctly failed to accomplish. Simply repeating his claims is not enough. I have no wish to change your mind. But, if you wish to change our minds it will certainly take more.
Or, could it be that secretly you are looking for an escape hatch?
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Since the approach I claimed was the "right" one was to attempt to find common ground and mutual understanding (and making a conscious choice to be aware of and attempt to refrain from prejudice), then I take your point. You are absolutely right. People have the right to be just as bigoted as they want to be. People have the choice to not see others' points of view.I don´t see the reason why only you should dare to claim your only approach as a right one and tell everyone else to shut the fuck up. I don´t see it at all.If there is going to be no effort at mutual understanding, I vote ya'll hush and keep your prejudices to yourself. Just sayin....
This started as a discussion and was meant to exchange the views like you could already read in the first post and at asurendras post in case you did not read them.
So much for mutual understanding.....
In that middle part (all the questions I'd asked) I was also suggesting that *all* the parties that were speaking were "right" so to speak. In that they all had points, but in their "naming" of the divine, were possibly confusing terms. But then I think "God" speaks many languages and has many emanations, and that there are many doors to the same house. Though I'm not a Christian, I can recognize in many of the views of the practitioners of the faith a god of love. I see too the view of the other side that this faith also gets used for war and hatred by it's own practitioners and gets shoved down people's throats in certain countries (a group that the original poster distanced himself from). I would find it ironic if one mystical tradition didn't recognize its own beliefs in another.
But then that is just me. I have a tendency to defend the underdog, and Christianity (though it has a listed place in this forum) is the underdog here. (When I'm surrounded by Christians I'll defend Satanism, but again that's just me.) Prejudice of any kind, including the kind that makes people of one faith seek to "correct" the beliefs of another, just sort of annoys me. There is, I think, a difference between debate and discussion and it was the dread of debate, seeking to be heard, rather than discussion, seeking to understand, that got my rather short comment. Part of the emotional reaction is because I had hope that such a talk, if it were to occur on this forum of all places because it's stated values of acceptance, could be different. This caused my emotional reaction to the emotional reactions. I stand corrected.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Doing what wrong, by pointing out that while he mentions the historical reasons that a lot of persons now dislike the Christian god. he says little about the current reasons? It is still more common than 'oh, I hate Christians because what they did 400 years ago'. My point was that he can quote the bible all he likes and say YHWH wasn't so bad back then as we think, it's not the problem a lot have with YHWH.ne1 wrote:Oh, good grief, you two. You are doing it wrong....
How do you know you don't actually agree? You are relying on names of "gods" as if you could call look them up in a phone directory. How do you know you don't both actually mean the exact same thing when you are talking about God? How do you know you wouldn't both dislike the misuse of religion to subjugate the masses and limit their experience of the divine, by whatever name you call the essence of that aspect?
If there is going to be no effort at mutual understanding, I vote ya'll hush and keep your prejudices to yourself. Just sayin....
Cute attempt at defending the OP before anything happened, btw.
-
Nahemah
- Magus
- Posts: 5077
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:49 pm
- Location: Sunny Glasgow by the Clutha's side
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
I'm not going to debate the Bible or Biblical literalism,as it's pointless to do so,but there are some points I'd like to address in regard to the original post.
I could point out that the OP has run from narrow premises,defining 'hatred' for YHVH in particular terms and then arguing against those only,this is a logical fallacy and excludes other premises and reasons,which may be equally justifiable or even more so.
I think though,it would be futile to discuss this further,so I won't.
Back to the points I wish to address:
Frstly ,I noticed the lack of capitalisation of Pagan throughout the post,while religious denominations of Abrahamism are capitalised throughout [excepting one obvious typo error].
This lapse informs me that the OP does not hold paganism to be of the same importance,regard or validity as the named Abrahamic belief systems.
That is an important distinction to be made in assessing the points the OP presented here.
I personally think this is a preaching post,a sermon,if you will and we do not appreciate preaching,no matter whom it comes from,whether it is Pagan,Atheist,Abrahamist or otherwise.
Dancing-with-dragons: It is possible to post about your faith in a positive manner which informs others,without calling out other people on why they may not like or support your own faith.Just saying.There is no need for you to be the Fidi Defensor here and I do not see what you apparently see all throughout the forum,so I'd like you to clarify where you found these 'accusations' and references to 'evil',if you would.
If you look in certain folders,you will find some Anti Christian posts,certainly,but you will also find equally,that there are anti posts on most faiths and indeed organised religions as a whole,depending on where and when you look.
I do not think your frame of reference for this is a valid one,but I suspect you see danger where I and others see none.That is a matter of individual perspective and it will of course,be coloured by the reader's own belief sets.
Also, this:
As you can see,the time frames are all wrong for Pagans to have persecuted Anabaptists,though old Roman Laws were indeed utilised to provide a theological excuse for doing so.The Donatists were not Anabaptists,though they did hold similar views regarding Baptism.
Opinions are subjective and can be argued,however facts are not and misrepresenting such does your argument no favours at all.If the error is unintentional,so be it,but it behoves you to check facts prior to presenting them,as it is you who is making the argument about them.
If this topic develops into a flame war I'll lock it down,so play nicely with each other folks and try not to let the seeming controversy of this subject divide you all too much. [thumbup]
I could point out that the OP has run from narrow premises,defining 'hatred' for YHVH in particular terms and then arguing against those only,this is a logical fallacy and excludes other premises and reasons,which may be equally justifiable or even more so.
I think though,it would be futile to discuss this further,so I won't.
Back to the points I wish to address:
Frstly ,I noticed the lack of capitalisation of Pagan throughout the post,while religious denominations of Abrahamism are capitalised throughout [excepting one obvious typo error].
This lapse informs me that the OP does not hold paganism to be of the same importance,regard or validity as the named Abrahamic belief systems.
That is an important distinction to be made in assessing the points the OP presented here.
I personally think this is a preaching post,a sermon,if you will and we do not appreciate preaching,no matter whom it comes from,whether it is Pagan,Atheist,Abrahamist or otherwise.
My reason for posting, is because all throughout the forum here, I see other pagans referring to YHWH (The Christian God) as "evil". (along with other accusations).
And while I respect your viewpoints, I am here simply to defend the name of YHWH,...
Dancing-with-dragons: It is possible to post about your faith in a positive manner which informs others,without calling out other people on why they may not like or support your own faith.Just saying.There is no need for you to be the Fidi Defensor here and I do not see what you apparently see all throughout the forum,so I'd like you to clarify where you found these 'accusations' and references to 'evil',if you would.
If you look in certain folders,you will find some Anti Christian posts,certainly,but you will also find equally,that there are anti posts on most faiths and indeed organised religions as a whole,depending on where and when you look.
I do not think your frame of reference for this is a valid one,but I suspect you see danger where I and others see none.That is a matter of individual perspective and it will of course,be coloured by the reader's own belief sets.
Also, this:
It's the 'and pagans' that is problematic here.Rather, it is the Anabaptist's who are most hated. Slaughtered by Catholics, Protestants, and pagans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnabaptistRoman Catholics and Protestants alike persecuted the Anabaptists, resorting to torture and execution in attempts to curb the growth of the movement. The Protestants under Zwingli were the first to persecute the Anabaptists, with Felix Manz becoming the first martyr in 1527. On May 20, 1527, Roman Catholic authorities executed Michael Sattler. King Ferdinand declared drowning (called the third baptism) "the best antidote to Anabaptism". The Tudor regime, even the Protestant monarchs (Edward VI of England and Elizabeth I of England), persecuted Anabaptists as they were deemed too radical and therefore a danger to religious stability. The persecution of Anabaptists was condoned by ancient laws of Theodosius I and Justinian I that were passed against the Donatists, which decreed the death penalty for any who practiced rebaptism. Martyrs Mirror, by Thieleman J. van Braght, describes the persecution and execution of thousands of Anabaptists in various parts of Europe between 1525 and 1660. Continuing persecution in Europe was largely responsible for the mass emigrations to North America by Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites.
As you can see,the time frames are all wrong for Pagans to have persecuted Anabaptists,though old Roman Laws were indeed utilised to provide a theological excuse for doing so.The Donatists were not Anabaptists,though they did hold similar views regarding Baptism.
Opinions are subjective and can be argued,however facts are not and misrepresenting such does your argument no favours at all.If the error is unintentional,so be it,but it behoves you to check facts prior to presenting them,as it is you who is making the argument about them.
If this topic develops into a flame war I'll lock it down,so play nicely with each other folks and try not to let the seeming controversy of this subject divide you all too much. [thumbup]
"He lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel."
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
-
dancing-with-dragons
- Initiated
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Asurendra. Thank you for replying again 
Allow me to explain more in depth about these passages. You pointed out that the boys didn't 'sow'. But the words they said showed the mockery in their hearts. " Go up though bald head" is much more blasphemeous than it seems. By saying 'go up' they were reffering to when EliJAH went up in a chariot of fire. Thus, they were both mocking EliJAH, and EliSHA, but more importantly they were making a mockery of God. now back to Ananias , if you look at the previous chapter (4), you will see how chapter 5 is simply a continuation. By looking at the context, it's clear what the couple was attempting.
nehemah. Thanks for your feedback as well. I am very sorry about the capatalization issue. I honestly didn't notice. To me, Pagan is an umbrella term reffering to thousands upon thousands of religions, extinct and modern. Once again, I follow many Pagan teachings , and have studied under several teachers of Wicca. I have nothing against you or your religion. [happy]
I apologize for any misunderstanding I caused about Pagans persecuting Anabaptists. Allow me to clarify. Perhaps I have studied too much Anabaptist history. To me, I use the term Anabaptist to refer to the people who practiced this doctrine, not the title. Donatists, and previous titles referred to the same group of people. Baptist in practice. I suppose the most persecution on Pagans hands were done to the early Christians, (Which I believe to be Baptist, in practice). Before Catholicism and Protestantism had been formed. I think of the Romans, in particular. And also the more modern, yet rare, killing of missionaries to hostile African tribes.
Once again, I appreciate all that have answered here. I hope there are no hard feelings. I have been in similar discussions with so called Christians who blow their tops. Ironicaly, sometimes it is the Pagan who is more Christlike.
Allow me to explain more in depth about these passages. You pointed out that the boys didn't 'sow'. But the words they said showed the mockery in their hearts. " Go up though bald head" is much more blasphemeous than it seems. By saying 'go up' they were reffering to when EliJAH went up in a chariot of fire. Thus, they were both mocking EliJAH, and EliSHA, but more importantly they were making a mockery of God. now back to Ananias , if you look at the previous chapter (4), you will see how chapter 5 is simply a continuation. By looking at the context, it's clear what the couple was attempting. nehemah. Thanks for your feedback as well.
I am very sorry about the capatalization issue. I honestly didn't notice. To me, Pagan is an umbrella term reffering to thousands upon thousands of religions, extinct and modern. Once again, I follow many Pagan teachings , and have studied under several teachers of Wicca. I have nothing against you or your religion. [happy] I apologize for any misunderstanding I caused about Pagans persecuting Anabaptists. Allow me to clarify. Perhaps I have studied too much Anabaptist history. To me, I use the term Anabaptist to refer to the people who practiced this doctrine, not the title. Donatists, and previous titles referred to the same group of people. Baptist in practice. I suppose the most persecution on Pagans hands were done to the early Christians, (Which I believe to be Baptist, in practice). Before Catholicism and Protestantism had been formed. I think of the Romans, in particular. And also the more modern, yet rare, killing of missionaries to hostile African tribes.
Once again, I appreciate all that have answered here. I hope there are no hard feelings. I have been in similar discussions with so called Christians who blow their tops. Ironicaly, sometimes it is the Pagan who is more Christlike.
If YHVH had not of been my help, my soul had almost dwelt with Dumah.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
At the beginning of this thread I stated my belief, clearly and laid-out as the context of my discussion, that the Light of Consciousness or the Supreme Being (who is Lord Shiva [wink] ) is able to shine thru any mask. I have no doubt that Dancing with Dragons may be fully connected to Higher Powers. If he calls this form 'Jehovah,' then I wish him well. That was never the issue, on my end. The Devas (and the dragons) do not care about our artificial human constructions of dogmas, they are concerned about who we are and where our intentions lay. But maybe most importantly, what we can be.
Dancing with Dragons began this thread with the express purpose of defending, to us, a particular entity: the Biblical Jehovah. This involves textual, ethical and historical discussions which some people seem to find uncomfortable. Then they should not read the thread. I have written clear, well-informed and forceful reasons for my views regarding Jehovah. I have not attacked or expressed any negativity: reasoned disagreement is not negative. That's all New Age garbage. I have no desire to change his mind on this matter and I would not want to. If this is his connection to the Divine that's great. Should he choose in work the system of the Key of Solomon (once he has acquired certain skills) and make the demons of the Goetia work for him, then he will do it successfully because he has that connection.
Speaking personally, Dancing with Dragons has not convinced me to view Jehovah differently. The true Supreme Lord and God of gods has innumerable forms under which He can be approached equally and even ignorantly. How can it be otherwise when He is everywhere? There is no 'narrow gate' because everything is the gate.
Dancing with Dragons began this thread with the express purpose of defending, to us, a particular entity: the Biblical Jehovah. This involves textual, ethical and historical discussions which some people seem to find uncomfortable. Then they should not read the thread. I have written clear, well-informed and forceful reasons for my views regarding Jehovah. I have not attacked or expressed any negativity: reasoned disagreement is not negative. That's all New Age garbage. I have no desire to change his mind on this matter and I would not want to. If this is his connection to the Divine that's great. Should he choose in work the system of the Key of Solomon (once he has acquired certain skills) and make the demons of the Goetia work for him, then he will do it successfully because he has that connection.
Speaking personally, Dancing with Dragons has not convinced me to view Jehovah differently. The true Supreme Lord and God of gods has innumerable forms under which He can be approached equally and even ignorantly. How can it be otherwise when He is everywhere? There is no 'narrow gate' because everything is the gate.
-
Nahemah
- Magus
- Posts: 5077
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:49 pm
- Location: Sunny Glasgow by the Clutha's side
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Incidentally,I'm not religiously inclined at all.
I don't belong to any faith group and I am not a fan of organised religions in general.I have studied Theology and I'm interested in exploring dogmas,but not as a practioner, as an observer
I don't want to hammer the point any more than is necessary,but:
You are claiming direct Pagan persecution of Anabaptists,when it didn't happen.This is an important distinction.You are overwriting Historical accuracy when you do this and it actually matters to a lot of people that we get it right here.Facts cannot be quantified by a personal opinion...
So what do you think about the English Seperatists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists
And though it sholudn't be necessary,for clarity's sake:This is not about me viewing what you wrote as a personal attack on me or my own religious views,I'm really not that sensitive a person,please believe me on that,lol. [geek2]
I don't belong to any faith group and I am not a fan of organised religions in general.I have studied Theology and I'm interested in exploring dogmas,but not as a practioner, as an observer
I don't want to hammer the point any more than is necessary,but:
No,sorry but you are claiming a direct conenction,when it's not dirctly connected..Everything has roots in earlier practices and new religious movements evolve out of those that went before,but that does not make them the same thing.To me, I use the term Anabaptist to refer to the people who practiced this doctrine, not the title. Donatists, and previous titles referred to the same group of people. Baptist in practice. I suppose the most persecution on Pagans hands were done to the early Christians, (Which I believe to be Baptist, in practice).
You are claiming direct Pagan persecution of Anabaptists,when it didn't happen.This is an important distinction.You are overwriting Historical accuracy when you do this and it actually matters to a lot of people that we get it right here.Facts cannot be quantified by a personal opinion...
You've assumed all Baptists are Anabaptists by default,all the way through the Historical timeline.I refute this is so and I continue to hold this stance,as it's factually erroneous and a misrepresentation.To me, I use the term ...
So what do you think about the English Seperatists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists
Baptists rejected the name Anabaptist when they were called that by opponents in derision. McBeth writes that as late as the 18th century, many Baptists referred to themselves as "the Christians commonly—though falsely—called Anabaptists."[15]
And though it sholudn't be necessary,for clarity's sake:This is not about me viewing what you wrote as a personal attack on me or my own religious views,I'm really not that sensitive a person,please believe me on that,lol. [geek2]
"He lived his words, spoke his own actions and his story and the story of the world ran parallel."
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
Sartre speaking of Che Guevara.
-
dancing-with-dragons
- Initiated
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Nahemah. Thanks for the reply!
Baptism does have a direct connection to Jesus Christ Himself. He was Baptist by John, the Baptist. Even though the denominational name Baptist doesn't extend that far, baptism by immersion does. And yes, the Anabaptist's called themselves either plain Baptist, or Christians
Baptism does have a direct connection to Jesus Christ Himself. He was Baptist by John, the Baptist. Even though the denominational name Baptist doesn't extend that far, baptism by immersion does. And yes, the Anabaptist's called themselves either plain Baptist, or Christians
If YHVH had not of been my help, my soul had almost dwelt with Dumah.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
This is an interview with Dr. Eben Alexander, a neurologist, about his illness and Near Death Experience. He encountered a Supreme Being who a wind or flowing composed of the sound of 'Aum.' His experiences are radically removed from what is recorded in Jehovah's oracles.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
start at 2:40
-
dancing-with-dragons
- Initiated
- Posts: 71
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2013 4:30 pm
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
Asurendra. I am skeptical of such expiriences. I can list perhaps dozens of such expiriences on the Christian side. Bill Weise to name one. I don't necessarily believe those either. But you can't trust people who say they have had said expiriences. I have had my own expiriences. Everyone has different expiriences.
If YHVH had not of been my help, my soul had almost dwelt with Dumah.
Re: In defense and honor of YHWH
What did the cardinal say to Galileo about looking into his telescope?
The Tibetan Book of the Dead provides a conceptual framework explaining why people of differing faiths would perceive their own religious figures. But, from a Christian viewpoint this is impossible since only those who believe (a particular sect, of course) are saved. So the Christian can only deny this phenomenon of human experience. This is self-defeating since your paper pope, the Bible, is also based on phenomena of human experience yet you accept it.
The Tibetan Book of the Dead provides a conceptual framework explaining why people of differing faiths would perceive their own religious figures. But, from a Christian viewpoint this is impossible since only those who believe (a particular sect, of course) are saved. So the Christian can only deny this phenomenon of human experience. This is self-defeating since your paper pope, the Bible, is also based on phenomena of human experience yet you accept it.