monotheism - the true and the false

hi dan.

I'd like your view on the idea that the old Testament describes not one but at least 2 and maybe more "Gods" ...

the reason for this. how could anyone's God possibly ask someone to commit a nasty crime ... yea, an illegal action. an act contravening the word and direction of the law. an act to injure innocent people, folks who were innocent in fact.

and this, for what? ..... to "prove some kind of lesson" ... ?

now I ask, is this any way for a God to behave. I say, nay it is not.

and in fact I go further much further by opinioning (not onion, opinion) that this would actually describe the very antithesis of anyone's decent view of God.

God does not begin with a serious crime in order to later lead to some good.

God begins with a good. in fact this is the nature of God, as well laid out in the best possible hypothesis.

if anyone says God needs to involve someone in a homicide (and upon an innocent person to boot, to shoe even) then that is assuredly not God.

so what we have is 3 major monotheistic traditions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) all based on a big lie. the lie is also known as "Abraham's curse".

in terms of BPWH I guess the upshot is that it leads us to an AHA moment when we say, aha- the king has no clothes. it's all a fraud. God does not order crimes to be committed in his/ her name, otherwise both the perpetrator of the crime (in this case Abraham) plus the fake god who ordered the crime (incitement to a felony) , would BOTH be in jail ... and jail is clearly no place to have your object of worship.

(... for one thing, he finds it very difficult to collect his offerings while incarcerated)

so by logic, the BPWH places a prior God to these fake monotheism gods.

that earlier God was genuine and was of the light.

ah. a real God. and what of all these fake versions that fill pews across the land? whose false gods are these?

should we even ask, or should we remain silent upon this weighty subject?

so one might ask, how did this all come about. how could the "holy books" of the land all contain this most despicable fraudulence with regard to God. well, they did say that Abraham was a sorcerer and a clever one at that. he once passed off his wife as his sister so as to not have to face the wrath of those who wanted to, ahem, let's skip that part.

there were no material witnesses to the scene where this invisible entity calling itself "the Lord" requests, no in fact, commands Abraham to commit an act of homicide upon his own offspring.

and this is very convenient. since no one witnessed this exchange, no one is there to go - hey, this "Voice" is almost certainly Abraham's own doing.

either that .... or a very clever impersonation of a "Lord", whose request immediately says in bright neon letters ...... "NOT THE LORD". or something to that effect.

perhaps the telling thing here, the thing that makes me want to enjoy a tall ice cold pear cider, and something missed by nearly all western theologians, is that Abraham had every right and opportunity to go "Hey buddy ..... you are an impostor."

"And, you cad, since you are requesting that I proceed to commit a great crime, a great heinous act which will paradoxically go down into church literature as a great important event of "faith" ..... and since you also ask me to do this in the name of religion ..... and since your rationale appears to be to show that I have something which you term "FAITH" ..... and since such a faith would actually constitute faith and reliance upon a certified lunatic ....." well you get the idea.

Abraham had every opportunity to be sensible.

and yet, in the face of all the crowds gathered, oh no wait, there were no material witnesses to the "event", that's right ..... ,

and yet despite all, Abraham in his fake wisdom chooses to follow such a request.

this proves beyond a doubt that this character Abraham is not to be relied upon. or else that the entire story is made up by dark sorcerers.

per the BPWH this clearly shows that the light dispels societal darkness.

_________________

the entire mythos of that writing (despite that it sits in the pews of all the churches of the land and is read and quoted by preachers in their sunday services) is not easy to use language on, since it is a knotted up dynamic, all full of negative programming spells.

that is why even simple posts like this come across so clunky. posts like this should not have to be written. but they are, and aha, there's the deal. aha.

indeed, aha. hey I said that twice.

let's take a close look at it.

genesis 22-1: Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”

“Here I am,” he replied.

2 Then God said, “Take your son , your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you. ”

there are concerns here. 1) if God is omniscient (knows the location of everything) why is it necessary to call and ask where Abraham is?

2) this does not tell anything of the nature of this command, whether it came from under a rock, or from a talking tree, or from a water spigot. it says nothing. it just says "God tested Abraham".

3) how did Abraham feel or know that it was God. Did God say beforehand, hey Abe, this is God. no he did not. Abraham assumes that the conditions are like what he knows are God, which is an angry jealous invisible being in whose image his folks are made ... hence these folks are thereby advised to also become angry and jealous just like their god. also, western society is 100% mentally healthy ... moving right along.

4) this is in the holy book of the land.

5) "the land" contains banksters and other shysters.

6) they presumably subscribe to all this. (why not, it justifies what they do)

7) asking for a sacrifice really means, kill something. sacrifice to who or what. if it's invisible, then you've just killed something to honor your favorite ghost tyrant. this is not well. channelers will tell you more about that stuff.

8 ) so this sacrifice is a living person. it is homicide. incitement to commit a homicide is also a crime.

9) Abraham says ok which says that Abraham belives in a god of homicide.

10) this is the foundation of 3 major religions.

__________________

so this posting is to recognize that houston we have a theology problem, a kind of serious one.

what's my own view of it?

1) Abraham designed the whole thing. for what reason I have no idea. you have to look into the character of Abraham for that. the motivation.

2) Abraham was an influential person, with many connections. just like al Qaeda being the vaunted enemy to al Qaeda fighting alongside Nato in the Lybia takeover, you have to ask what Abraham's alliances were. does it matter? to the serious quester, maybe.

3) clearly no such thing as God orders crimes.

God does not ask for a bug to suffer much less for a homicide, so why the people buy this for going on 2 or 3 k years, it's maybe a sign of what organized religion has done.

4) if you care about etymology, and the accuracy of the term God, then you'll argue the whole Gen. 22 story. if you don't care, you might just be cynical and wash your hands of religion as you currently find it. many have done this. they are called agnostics or atheists. the theists lambaste them. the theists hardly bother to ask why they are cynical.

5) if you do care, then it's your duty to point out that the king is naked.

hi again folks.

I'm not sure if this topic should have its own place in another section. maybe dan is uncomfortable with this kind of direct subject. let me know.

___________________________________

well a great thing about forums is you get to air out the dirty wash.

looking further on this "God" it looks like he requires something to get killed ... and when you were a kid no one ever asked you if this was the kind of God you were looking for.

1) in Gen22 where is the narrative voice? in every story the narrator is somewhere, even if trying to be invisible, which is in most cases. in Genesis 22, same thing. who is narrating? did anyone ask? who SAW God make that request? who heard it? who was it? or was it just Abraham, recounting the whole thing.

2) what is it about killing something innocent that gives this "Being" its power or its satisfaction. (since he is in the pages of an ancient book, do I care and should I care?)

3) on the lighter side. it's fun to expose the Bible. Jesus did that. ok, it was called the Talmud or the Torah. of all the character in the Bible, Jesus comes across as being the most interesting.

4) also the first book of the Bible could be 1st Letter of John. but since I didn't edit the thing. oh well.

5) all right. this is turning into a super heavy topic, which is what often happens when you're discussing something on your own with others just watching to see where this train will derail.

6) still it's interesting because J-ke is laughing big time.

_______________________


so I got this notion that God is basically friendly.

that would probably not get my new church many members, since folks seem to prefer lots of drama.


wot? a friendly, kind God? eh? what star system you from?

__________________

so anyway, this kind friendly God just creates stuff and then sits back and enjoys what got created.

no problem. no ego. no need to do ritual homicides or anything like that.

just kick back and relax. wow. could that be God?

might be too good to be true.

__________________

I guess I don't care anymore where this wingnut Abraham came from or who he was.

like, who cares if someone claims that his neurotic Lord is going to bless all his offspring to the umpteenth generation.

if the foundation is a fraud, then who cares.

all the structure that follows is also a fraud.

___________________

Gen 22 quotes that God ordered a ritual homicide.

since this is not God, then the whole book has to be suspect. some parts of it seem to be more ok than others.

books are inert. they are collated by people, with the interests of people.

the truth is not a book. books may contain ideas of truth, but books are inert objects.

____________________

I've read that some Sufis claim that Abraham was a root and Moses was a trunk etc.

well, if your root is a fraud, then the rest of it is a fraud.

Solar,

Thanks for the comments. I've just gotten back from a trip to Cooperstown, and I'll be able to respond cogently within a couple of hours.......


12:40---------

Wrt polytheism, I am a trinitarian, first, then I'm a duodecatarian/zodiatarian. After that, I'm a 10^10-atarian, or, equivalently, a universalist/apokatstasian, wherein we are all one with God.


Wrt the monstrosity of God, please do see the link. Our SfA/GFC sminar spent several Sundays reviewing this issue. The conclusion of the seminar was that of dispensationalism and/or covenantalism. My own views are pretty well represented therein; however, the BPWH eschatology differs markedly from all previous eschatologies.


Sailor, wrt your post #2, I believe that you are missing some crucial pieces of the puzzle......

In short, there are two Gods....... the temporal God and the Eternal God. Therefore, yes, there is eternal mercy and temporal severity, if not even monstrosity. According to the BPWH, we can't have one witout the other. Do you have a problem with this?

Am I therefor a dualist/duelist? No. Time is an illusion. It is the primary and best possible illusion. Without time, love would be greatly deficient. Yes? Time is the indispensable illusion.


Wrt your later posts, you and I are basically on the same page, with one or two minor footnotes.......

Back in '91, I had a mini-Abrahamic experience...... which I may not have previously posted. It was committed partially in that shadow. So I may have some insight wrt Abraham that I would be willing to share, if I've not already said enough.

Wrt to filling the pews......... I see nothing inherently wrong with that desire, given that God is a drama queen. Would you prefer otherwise? Would you prefer less drama?

Yes, the Demiurge is (necessarily?) a dramaturge, IMHO.

.

Solar,

First and foremost, it would be fair to say that I am a transcendental dialectician, with an emphasis on the transcendental part...... I take eternity seriously, as the basis of all reality. Darwin, Newton and Descartes are the primary defilers of eternity, through no fault of their own. They simply took and intellectual path of least resistance, a path that had been deliberately laid out for them, from the beginning of time, and a path that would set the stage for our dramatic finale.

I am a pre-Copernican, wherein any coherent form of immaterialism demands a quantitatively finite world, which is necessarily a best possible world.

Wrt to the BPWH, my exhibit A is the Anthropic principle, exhibit B is the mind-body problem.

Creation is the bootstrap of our dialectic creator. Creation is eternal, but, as mortals, we experience it as a quasi-linear history, with a definite beginning and end, i.e. the Alpha & Omega.

We are rapidly approaching the Omega, or, more precisely, D-day/Disclosure day, which begins our process of spiritual preparation for the Omega/Rapture, which will most likely occur some two centuries hence, in accord with our communal preference.

I'll be glad to review any and all aspects of the BPWH for you or for whomever........

We are presently experiencing the last hurrahs of Incoherence..... enjoy that freedom while it lasts. D-day is the beginning of cosmic coherence. TBMK, it is starting with the BPWH.

.