Disproving Abrahamic religions
February 1, 2016 at 1:04 pm
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2016 at 1:08 pm by Ronsy21.)
Historically it has always been politically. I mean sure there are stuff in there that has some values here and there. But in evolutionary terms it has always been political, ever since the jewish religion started to exist.
It has more or less been about insecurity and paranoia. This is in history, you won't know much or get that side of view in the bible. Atleast not as clear as history shows it. Basically canaanites was the original religions of semmite areas. When polytheism was hip and cool. The thing is the canaanite kings was loyal to Egypt. The identical thing which would be later known as Israel happend simply as a crossover more or less as a new identity. So you can more or less call Genesis to Joshua pure fiction since the archaelogical datings of the 3 cities which Joshua destroyed dates to different time periods. So unless he had a time machine he couldn't have done it, and besides there is no sign of peaceful or violent invasion more or less. And the Exoddus story is also false, which i am pretty sure most know the background story for that.
"I the lord god am a jelous god"
You could say the stuff with philistines and upwards is slightly true with some overreaction like the extension of David's kingdom which is not true.
But my main point is that the 5 books of moses was not written til during the babylonian excile. Which explains why israelites came into the hands of the enemies, and what they must do to more or less not be attacked by enemies again.
Here is the point. Egypt and canaanites is portrayed as evil. Why? Because they are not the chosen people more or less. Making jews like this awesome master race and all the others outsiders losers. So this is the idea of paranoia comes in. The idea to feel in control and having its own identity. So having stories where god slaughters divinely the enemies, which would be anyone who is not of that religion is more or less considered evil.
So there you have it. This rooted religion started simply as a fearful paranoid semmitic people who were afraid of losing their own identity. Therefor creating this idea of ONE god, and that the others were dangerous in their world view.
Now... This is the reason to why 2 offsprings came to pass. Romans made stuff bad for the jews, they occupied it. And this is why Jesus more or less came and said. Look you guys are friggin hypocrites. So the idea of a savior came. Although this would likely not have happend havent it been that the romans was making such a ruckus for the jews to begin with. Abrahamic religions may have died off havent it been for this offspring though, so thats more or less the reason to why it spreaded out to all nations etc. I mean its the idea of fear and paranoia.
Now the thing is.. Judaism was influenced by hellenistic influence in the 4th century bc. So this is why Christianity became more or less compatible with western culture during the Roman empire, in terms of converts i mean... and slightly removing some stuff that made it easier too. So you can see the horror and desperation of this.
Now... this however didn't seem compatible with other semmitic tribes with tribal traditions and tribe herder, so boom.. ISLAM came. In spite of Christianity. Because when culture don't go well with other cultures, then it creates a clash of it.
But i think monotheism would essentially come either way. Even if the abrahamic ones had died off. Purely to the idea of trying to make an attempt of unity, and not having different gods to war on. But monotheism as we see it today is a failed attempt.
I became a nonbeliever purely due to this historical reason. Like theologically i could argue for Christianity over Islam, just in terms of Satanic verses 10 mursal reports, or 37 totally that reports from 10 main souces which have some credible stuff that are valid people, and therefor it is unlikely for people to make that stuff up in terms of the believers, and nobody pointed it out til the orthodox idea of muhammad couldn't go into error which was too late by then after it had spun out, therefor it must have been authentic more or less in terms of what is most likely. And that according to historian eusebius(Not sure which eusebius, considering historians have this and that names) , i believe he was quoting Jospehus of a blog i read on Bart Ehrman in terms of an answer from one who quoted it someplace, son of man was considered by James the Just to be Jesus, and Epistle of James is considered by experts to be written by James the Just himself, and the way he glorifies Jesus as lord gives us a clue to him being divine that way, whether you want to argue what son of man means, thats more or less an argument from what you think it means atleast in terms of theories, but the likeliness seems to point out Jesus divine role historically of Christian beliefs.
But historically i cant argue to believe in this stuff. Especially if you think that you can do so much better and try to educate people into being a good human and not feeling ashamed of your lifestyle and sexuality etc. Which i have been struggling with psychologically in the past.
It has more or less been about insecurity and paranoia. This is in history, you won't know much or get that side of view in the bible. Atleast not as clear as history shows it. Basically canaanites was the original religions of semmite areas. When polytheism was hip and cool. The thing is the canaanite kings was loyal to Egypt. The identical thing which would be later known as Israel happend simply as a crossover more or less as a new identity. So you can more or less call Genesis to Joshua pure fiction since the archaelogical datings of the 3 cities which Joshua destroyed dates to different time periods. So unless he had a time machine he couldn't have done it, and besides there is no sign of peaceful or violent invasion more or less. And the Exoddus story is also false, which i am pretty sure most know the background story for that.
"I the lord god am a jelous god"
You could say the stuff with philistines and upwards is slightly true with some overreaction like the extension of David's kingdom which is not true.
But my main point is that the 5 books of moses was not written til during the babylonian excile. Which explains why israelites came into the hands of the enemies, and what they must do to more or less not be attacked by enemies again.
Here is the point. Egypt and canaanites is portrayed as evil. Why? Because they are not the chosen people more or less. Making jews like this awesome master race and all the others outsiders losers. So this is the idea of paranoia comes in. The idea to feel in control and having its own identity. So having stories where god slaughters divinely the enemies, which would be anyone who is not of that religion is more or less considered evil.
So there you have it. This rooted religion started simply as a fearful paranoid semmitic people who were afraid of losing their own identity. Therefor creating this idea of ONE god, and that the others were dangerous in their world view.
Now... This is the reason to why 2 offsprings came to pass. Romans made stuff bad for the jews, they occupied it. And this is why Jesus more or less came and said. Look you guys are friggin hypocrites. So the idea of a savior came. Although this would likely not have happend havent it been that the romans was making such a ruckus for the jews to begin with. Abrahamic religions may have died off havent it been for this offspring though, so thats more or less the reason to why it spreaded out to all nations etc. I mean its the idea of fear and paranoia.
Now the thing is.. Judaism was influenced by hellenistic influence in the 4th century bc. So this is why Christianity became more or less compatible with western culture during the Roman empire, in terms of converts i mean... and slightly removing some stuff that made it easier too. So you can see the horror and desperation of this.
Now... this however didn't seem compatible with other semmitic tribes with tribal traditions and tribe herder, so boom.. ISLAM came. In spite of Christianity. Because when culture don't go well with other cultures, then it creates a clash of it.
But i think monotheism would essentially come either way. Even if the abrahamic ones had died off. Purely to the idea of trying to make an attempt of unity, and not having different gods to war on. But monotheism as we see it today is a failed attempt.
I became a nonbeliever purely due to this historical reason. Like theologically i could argue for Christianity over Islam, just in terms of Satanic verses 10 mursal reports, or 37 totally that reports from 10 main souces which have some credible stuff that are valid people, and therefor it is unlikely for people to make that stuff up in terms of the believers, and nobody pointed it out til the orthodox idea of muhammad couldn't go into error which was too late by then after it had spun out, therefor it must have been authentic more or less in terms of what is most likely. And that according to historian eusebius(Not sure which eusebius, considering historians have this and that names) , i believe he was quoting Jospehus of a blog i read on Bart Ehrman in terms of an answer from one who quoted it someplace, son of man was considered by James the Just to be Jesus, and Epistle of James is considered by experts to be written by James the Just himself, and the way he glorifies Jesus as lord gives us a clue to him being divine that way, whether you want to argue what son of man means, thats more or less an argument from what you think it means atleast in terms of theories, but the likeliness seems to point out Jesus divine role historically of Christian beliefs.
But historically i cant argue to believe in this stuff. Especially if you think that you can do so much better and try to educate people into being a good human and not feeling ashamed of your lifestyle and sexuality etc. Which i have been struggling with psychologically in the past.
Maybe you'd like to make a topic in the introductions section to tell us more about yourself?
But wow, that was a big post and was it ever hard to read.
