Happy Atheist Forum

Came across this nifty little video on the internet. Is this another Zeitgeist movie? I noticed a few factual inaccuracies in one of the Zeitgeist films, but from what I've read on the history of world religions this seems consistent:

[youtube:2hdqu9zd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube:2hdqu9zd]

Excellent video! Well-made and very informative.  

Quote from: "Sophus"Came across this nifty little video on the internet. Is this another Zeitgeist movie? I noticed a few factual inaccuracies in one of the Zeitgeist films, but from what I've read on the history of world religions this seems consistent:

[youtube:35xczl4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlnnWbkMlbg[/youtube:35xczl4k]

First off Prince of Egypt is a gorgeous film, I loved the animation in it.

Something interesting about the video is the idea that the genocides written in the Bible never happened, just a way in which one identifies a warrior Yahwe.

You have to realize though no one disputes there are some fiction in the Scriptures, the underlying reason for these stories are disputably there for a slightly different reason than the video presents (in Christian understanding, it's a veil of NT allegorical understanding).  In addition, some of the verses mentioned that are considered "proof" for polytheism is also disputed.  These verses are there to falsify other gods, not to say that Yahwe is the most powerful of other "existing" gods.  We argue that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew exactly of an only God, and cursed other "gods" showing the strength of a One true God.  I can say my sister is the best sister in the world, and yet she's my only sister.

So, these stories are offered as refutation of polytheism that exists around them, not "hidden" polytheism.  How do we know that the word "Yahwe" wasn't a coincidental word for a warrior God and at the same time the "One God" for the Hebrews?  It's like the word "Allah."  It has always been used to mean "God" but can also be the moon god of Hindu religions.

Finally, there remains no proof yet of this hypothesis of hidden polytheism.  You need to find manuscripts that show substantial differences and cutting out of verses that clearly indicate an exclusivity of the One God.  So far, we found the Dead Sea Manuscripts that show quite the opposite, an affirmation of the integrity of most of the OT scriptures.  We also have a religion, Zoroastrianism, that shows elements very similar to Monotheism, which claims its ancient roots along with pre-Judaic Abrahamic times, and perhaps Zorastrianism and Judaism share some sort of a common ancestor that has these Monotheistic tendencies.  This at least shows that Monotheism may have had a much more ancient root than what the video proclaims.

I'll respond more in depth at a later time but I'll start by saying you cannot explain away "El Shaddai". Judaism had polytheistic roots, therefore so does Christianity. Really, all of the major religions today had polytheistic roots.

Sophus, I think someone like you would be more edified on the topic through a reliable source:

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/i ... brew-bible (http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible)

Quote from: "Achronos"Sophus, I think someone like you would be more edified on the topic through a reliable source:

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/i ... brew-bible (http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible)

Now I'm just confused. What exactly are you saying? Christine Hayes has lectured about the redactions of the Bible to make it appear more monotheistic.

[youtube:2jkrg8zo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7RF_GoeOTg[/youtube:2jkrg8zo]

So that's one way of explaining it. They re-create and revise as they go according to the will and caprice of the dominant culture.
Is there a second part? I'm gonna put this in my phone and show it to my sociology class.
Eh, did this come from a book?

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"So that's one way of explaining it. They re-create and revise as they go according to the will and caprice of the dominant culture.
Is there a second part? I'm gonna put this in my phone and show it to my sociology class.
Eh, did this come from a book?

Well, it's just the history of the Abrahamic religions. It took a while for monotheism of any kind to come into the world, and all of the old revolutionary monotheists I can think of started with the building blocks of a polytheistic religion. This video mentions several sources. One of them being the book A History of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God).

I sure wish they'd teach this stuff in history class down here in the South...man, would that cause an uproar!! :yay:

Got any more cool videos like this?

Quote from: "Sophus"Came across this nifty little video on the internet. Is this another Zeitgeist movie? I noticed a few factual inaccuracies in one of the Zeitgeist films, but from what I've read on the history of world religions this seems consistent.

This video does apparently contain some inaccuracies.  However, that's what they are, inaccuracies, whereas in my opinion, "Zeitgeist" has a number of what I can only describe as falsehoods.  For a very thorough critique of the "Evolution of God" video, you can watch these videos by ItsTheSuperFly:

 [youtube:z21malmh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVN5VmuS5m8[/youtube:z21malmh]

 [youtube:z21malmh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5tmWv2Fy3k[/youtube:z21malmh]

As ItsTheSuperFly says in the second video though, "I happen to completely and utterly agree with the overall proposition, with the overall hypothesis, if you want to call it, that Evid3nc3 is presenting.  So there's no disagreement there.  The issue is specifically in details."

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Achronos"Sophus, I think someone like you would be more edified on the topic through a reliable source:

http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/i ... brew-bible (http://oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/introduction-to-the-old-testament-hebrew-bible)

Now I'm just confused. What exactly are you saying? Christine Hayes has lectured about the redactions of the Bible to make it appear more monotheistic.

[youtube:exr25arz]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7RF_GoeOTg[/youtube:exr25arz]

That's a rather simplified view of what she's lectured on.

My point was that her lectures are of far more credibility than the source you provided. You should not watch youtube-made demagogues to learn about history.

Quote from: "Achronos"My point was that her lectures are of far more credibility than the source you provided. You should not watch youtube-made demagogues to learn about history.

You can also research the sources he cited. In the case of his wikipedia links, research the sources of those articles as well.

Quote from: "Achronos"That's a rather simplified view of what she's lectured on.

Please point me to where she states, as you have, the Bible does not have polytheistic roots.

Quote from: "Davin"MYou can also research the sources he cited. In the case of his wikipedia links, research the sources of those articles as well.

Zeitgeist proponents say the same thing. If they really wanted to educate people they'd post the sources on a website and not make a sensational video on youtube that few people will fact check.

Quote from: "Sophus"Please point me to where she states, as you have, the Bible does not have polytheistic roots.

Where did I state anything like that?

The Near-Eastern literary genres of the early books of the OT were obviously created within a polytheistic cosmology, and thus the oldest forms of those genres are polytheistic expressions. Granted we don't have manuscript evidence to prove this hypothesis, but it seems very so likely.Take the Sumerian-Akkadian story of Ziusudra and the river flood, or the Babylonian creation story the Enuma Elis.

The amazing thing about, say, Genesis, is not its similarities to other creation stories in the Near East. It's the *differences* that appear once you acknowledge the similarities.

I don't see a problem with the Israelites graudally coming to realize that their God is aboslutely the only God. Not sure how this contradicts the Christian faith at all. It contradicts protestant biblical fundamentalism, which is what you seem to always argue against (regardless of what tradition your *actually* arguing against!)

I have a feeling you just don't yet comprehend I am not a Biblical inerrantist and that if the Bible has been redacted it makes no difference to Orthodox and Catholics, nor does it make much of a difference to most Jews either. Even the Talmudic Rabbis admitted the Bible had been redacted over and over...not new information, not shocking unless of course you accept the Fundamentalist Protestant view that the Bible has never changed and is the "word of God" and is free from all errors.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Davin"MYou can also research the sources he cited. In the case of his wikipedia links, research the sources of those articles as well.

Zeitgeist proponents say the same thing. If they really wanted to educate people they'd post the sources on a website and not make a sensational video on youtube that few people will fact check.

Youtube is not a website? Education comes in many forms, as does misinformation. It's just as common for a site to misinform as it is a video, a book or any other form of media. Do you think more people will fact check a website article than a video? And from where do you draw this conclusion?

Thanks for the response videos Recusant!  :raised:  "Hidden polytheism" is false whilst polytheistic roots are not?

QuoteI don't see a problem with the Israelites graudally coming to realize that their God is aboslutely the only God. Not sure how this contradicts the Christian faith at all. It contradicts protestant biblical fundamentalism, which is what you seem to always argue against (regardless of what tradition your *actually* arguing against!)

Considering Christianity is many things, contradictory perhaps not. But all the more fatuous, yes. For being "God breathed" the Bible struggles more to achieve perfection than his creation. It's interesting that he took so long to reveal himself as the only God, and to only certain group of people too.

Quote from: "Sophus"  "Hidden polytheism" is false whilst polytheistic roots are not?

Both are oversimplifications. What happened to your scientific, rational mind? Why the false dichotomy?

QuoteConsidering Christianity is many things, contradictory perhaps not. But all the more fatuous, yes. For being "God breathed" the Bible struggles more to achieve perfection than his creation. It's interesting that he took so long to reveal himself as the only God, and to only certain group of people too.

The Bible is not our God, nor was it Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

You can keep attacking the Bible and I'll keep saying it makes no difference.

QuoteThe Bible is not our God, nor was it Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Is that the Nothing GOD?

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Sophus"  "Hidden polytheism" is false whilst polytheistic roots are not?

Both are oversimplifications. What happened to your scientific, rational mind? Why the false dichotomy?

If the early text included in the Bible contained polytheism but no longer does.... voila!
Notice the original statement was about the Bible.

QuoteThe Bible is not our God, nor was it Maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

You can keep attacking the Bible and I'll keep saying it makes no difference.

So you're not going to explain why an all-powerful being has successfully created a universe but failed to inspire a prompt book notifying us all about his presence? Stop deflecting to get out of explaining anything. It concerns him if it's "God breathed". Seeing as he is the maker of all things, I guess it concerns him regardless.

Quote from: "Sophus"If the early text included in the Bible contained polytheism but no longer does.... voila!
Notice the original statement was about the Bible.

You still do NOT "get it"...I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I do not understand the Scriptures in the same way a Protestant Fundamentalist does. So you're question makes no sense. It's like asking a Muslim "explain to me why you accept the Trinity!"

It's an incoherent question. Orthodoxy does not "need the Bible", you are once again, as always misrepresenting my religion, then arguing against the misrepresentation. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my faith or any other faith but stop misrepresenting what it is Orthodoxy believes and does not believe.

QuoteSeeing as he is the maker of all things, I guess it concerns him regardless.

Logical fallacy. You assume that if there is a God, he must behave exactly how you think he should behave. He doesn't behave the way you think he should, and thus you assume God cannot exist. That's not just had argument, it's not an argument at all. Just because the leader of a a particular country doesn't do what I want, doesn't mean the leader is a "bad person" or "evil", it simply means he didn't meet my expectations. Nothing more.

QuoteIt's an incoherent question. Orthodoxy does not "need the Bible", you are once again, as always misrepresenting my religion, then arguing against the misrepresentation. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my faith or any other faith but stop misrepresenting what it is Orthodoxy believes and does not believe.

So many views on the concept of religion and GOD that it's just ridiculous.

QuoteLogical fallacy. You assume that if there is a God, he must behave exactly how you think he should behave. He doesn't behave the way you think he should, and thus you assume God cannot exist. That's not just had argument, it's not an argument at all. Just because the leader of a a particular country doesn't do what I want, doesn't mean the leader is a "bad person" or "evil", it simply means he didn't meet my expectations. Nothing more.

his argument there didn't say anything about behavior.. Irregardless, your argument here keeps stumbling over a simple little fact that you are not grasping. GOD are sheer concepts of opinion. Concepts of opinion only have worth to those whom have the opinion. Otherwise they are worthless in a world of opinions. It pretty much nullifies the entire argument even if something existed to which you would consider a GOD. Some people worship the Cow, and yet I could give a rats ass because I see it as a hamburger with catchup, pickles, and lettuce.

Quote from: "Achronos"

Quote from: "Sophus"If the early text included in the Bible contained polytheism but no longer does.... voila!
Notice the original statement was about the Bible.

You still do NOT "get it"...I am not a Biblical inerrantist. I do not understand the Scriptures in the same way a Protestant Fundamentalist does. So you're question makes no sense. It's like asking a Muslim "explain to me why you accept the Trinity!"

It's an incoherent question. Orthodoxy does not "need the Bible", you are once again, as always misrepresenting my religion, then arguing against the misrepresentation. I have no problem with you disagreeing with my faith or any other faith but stop misrepresenting what it is Orthodoxy believes and does not believe.

What exactly is this a response to? This wasn't about your faith. It's about the history of the Bible. Facts. Not interpretation.

QuoteLogical fallacy. You assume that if there is a God, he must behave exactly how you think he should behave. He doesn't behave the way you think he should, and thus you assume God cannot exist.

No, actually the reason why he doesn't exist is because there is no evidence in favor of it and heaps of evidence to the contrary. The fact that he doesn't behave how an omnipotent, omniscient, all-loving being would is just a flaw in the storyline.

QuoteThat's not just had argument, it's not an argument at all. Just because the leader of a a particular country doesn't do what I want, doesn't mean the leader is a "bad person" or "evil", it simply means he didn't meet my expectations. Nothing more.

Dear God, that sounds oddly nihilistic. What is this moral relativism? Aren't you arguing for an objective morality from a God?

I posted the video in the OP in my facebook. Some nitwit student commented: "This is not a proof of God's nonexistence." I said she's right, but unfortunately the video does not intend to prove god's nonexistence. Why can't she just watch and understand first before jumping the gun?

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I posted the video in the OP in my facebook. Some nitwit student commented: "This is not a proof of God's nonexistence." I said she's right, but unfortunately the video does not intend to prove god's nonexistence. Why can't she just watch and understand first before jumping the gun?

Suddenly she's keen on proof?  

Man oh man! Now she's asking what is my evidence that I have evidence.

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Man oh man! Now she's asking what is my evidence that I have evidence.

Just in case, you might also want to bring evidence that you have evidence that you have evidence along with you, if she asks for that.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Man oh man! Now she's asking what is my evidence that I have evidence. roflol

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"Man oh man! Now she's asking what is my evidence that I have evidence. :blink:

Now the word 'evidence' has lost all meaning. But when seeing the religious side of view as often as I do, one gets used to that.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "wildfire_emissary"I posted the video in the OP in my facebook. Some nitwit student commented: "This is not a proof of God's nonexistence." I said she's right, but unfortunately the video does not intend to prove god's nonexistence. Why can't she just watch and understand first before jumping the gun?

Suddenly she's keen on proof?  

Probably doesn't even matter. Some think that scientific/objective proof is just as dependant on personal opinion as their "proofs" of the bible's veracity, their personal relationships with gods etc.

Carbon dating for instance, can be said to work when it approximates Turin's shroud to the time when Jesus died. That they accept.