God Yahweh Allah was a volcano.

[Justtristo]

By the way, two thirds of the Habiru names were Semitic. Have you read up about them? It's very interesting reading.

Hannah you are committing the common mistake of using the bible to inform archaeology, rather than other way around. In recent decades archaeologists have repented of that habit and as a result our whole view of history of Canaan during the Bronze and Iron ages has radically changed. The most excellent book The Bible Unearthed is a introduction to contemporary biblical archaeology.

The archaeological evidence (including Egyptian records which are extremely detailed) so far have so no evidence for the events portrayed in Exodus. Moses could be very probably a mythological character, hell scholars are unsure whether or there was a united Israelite kingdom under David and Solomon.

The ancestors of the Israelites were very likely pastoral nomads living on the edges of Canaanite society. After the end of the Bronze Age they started to settle down in the highlands of Canaan. In periods in drought it is very likely they would have gone down to Egypt in order to find pasture for their flocks and herds. The stories told in both Genesis and Exodus reflect in part the folk memory of that experience. Likewise the book of Judges can tell us a lot about the social organisation of the early Israelites and maybe how they interacted with their neighbours. However these books are mythology rather than history as we know it.

[Gawdzilla]

No. Just a woman who lived the nightmare and has a daughter with an uncertain future.

So why the crap history then? Why do something constructive? You're theory is so lame it looks like a one-legged horse. Spend your energies on something useful, not this crap.

[BloodyHeretic]

Hannah, I propose something to you. The Bible is a work of fiction, the King James version a work of literature even. In literature, symbols are important. In an era when nature was much more a part of people's lives, what would symbolise power? What sort of images in nature impress? Fire, volcanoes, earthquakes, storms etc.
The people wanted to represent their god as a powerful being, and they chose some very striking imagery. What a surprise. Now, tell me why that's a less competent theory than the one you propose.

[Hannah]

Hannah, I propose something to you. The Bible is a work of fiction, the King James version a work of literature even. In literature, symbols are important. In an era when nature was much more a part of people's lives, what would symbolise power? What sort of images in nature impress? Fire, volcanoes, earthquakes, storms etc.
The people wanted to represent their god as a powerful being, and they chose some very striking imagery. What a surprise. Now, tell me why that's a less competent theory than the one you propose.

Because it doesn't ring true. What rings true for me is that the Hebrews really did arrive at a volcano and they really did worship it due to not knowing what the hell it was. It just makes sense that a very powerful and indomitable religion like none before it could arise from this one stupid mistake born out of supersticious minds. It makes absolute sense to me.

[BloodyHeretic]

Hannah, I propose something to you. The Bible is a work of fiction, the King James version a work of literature even. In literature, symbols are important. In an era when nature was much more a part of people's lives, what would symbolise power? What sort of images in nature impress? Fire, volcanoes, earthquakes, storms etc.
The people wanted to represent their god as a powerful being, and they chose some very striking imagery. What a surprise. Now, tell me why that's a less competent theory than the one you propose.

Because it doesn't ring true. What rings true for me is that the Hebrews really did arrive at a volcano and they really did worship it due to not knowing what the hell it was. It just makes sense that a very powerful and indomitable religion like none before it could arise from this one stupid mistake born out of supersticious minds. It makes absolute sense to me.

It doesn't ring true? Tell me, does Schrodinger's Cat 'ring true'? If you want applause for your idea, you'll have to try better than 'ring true'. Fucking hell, if I'd realised that was the basis for your argument, I wouldn't have bothered.

What I will say is, I'm using the volcano idea on the next xtian I meet. "You know, it's been suggested your god is a volcano, how do you feel about that?". Your idea is funny, nothing more.

[Hannah]

Sometimes the most complex puzzles can be solved by the simplest of solutions.

---

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEFPldXp_u4

Night night

[Violet]

Kind of pointless, really. I am tired of being threatened by someone: I remove them from the equation.

Murder is a good way to do this. As is kidnap. Counter-threats with a larger force what has bigger guns can sometimes work too.

Or: I disarm them. Have a banana? I eat the banana. Have a gun? I steal it from them. Have a longsword? I get a catholic priest to attempt to seize it for me. 2 birds: one stone.

Because it doesn't ring true. What rings true for me is that the Hebrews really did arrive at a volcano and they really did worship it due to not knowing what the hell it was. It just makes sense that a very powerful and indomitable religion like none before it could arise from this one stupid mistake born out of supersticious minds. It makes absolute sense to me.

4+ religions were born of this little mistake then. I certainly wouldn't hang around a damned volcano after it erupts. And an immovable object makes for a poor god for someone not nearby.

I do not see why it can't be entirely fictional (entirely). Though granted: it is some pretty poor fiction. Take a play from the era any day over the rubbish that is the 'greatest story ever sold'.

[Minimalist]

the Hebrews really did arrive at a volcano and they really did worship it due to not knowing what the hell it was.

There are no active volcanoes in Egypt nor, for that matter, in Palestine. In fact, the nearest is Harrat ar rahar, well down the Saudi Arabian peninsula and quite far south of Aqaba.

It would have been a hell of a hike through awful terrain and science cannot even tell when the last time was that it actually erupted.

But of course a few facts never stopped religious morons from believing total nonsense. Xtians are no better than muslims when it comes to that.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Because it doesn't ring true.

Oh for fuck sake! This is getting really tedious

What on earth has THAT go to do with anything? You really have not grasped the basic principles of rational thought have you.


Won't go through your entire thesis; wouldn't know where to start:poor reasoning or poor scholarship,hard to tell which is more serious.

This one example is a logical fallacy called :'argument from incredulity IE " I don't believe because it's too fantastic/absurd/stupid". OR "I believe because it's obvious/makes sense".Each position may be mistaken when confronted with the evidence.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000Related

Argument from incredulity/Lack of imagination

Arguments from incredulity take the form:

P is too incredible (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
It is obvious that P (or I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false) therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.

Argument from incredulity is a form of argument from ignorance, the logical basis of your entire thesis.

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to satisfactorily prove the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

Argument from ignorance may be used as a rationalization by a person who realizes that he has no reason for holding the belief that he does.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

[Minimalist]

It just makes sense that a very powerful and indomitable religion like none before it could arise from this one stupid mistake born out of supersticious minds.

Powerful and indomitable? The Jews??? Are you serious?

They were everybody's footstool except for about a 20 year period around 100 BC when they actually stomped a few neighboring regions and then quickly feel apart as a result of dynastic squabbling ( THAT part sounds "Jewish!") They were overrun by the Romans in 63 BC and thrown out of the area in 135 AD.