Is the Mosaic covenant a Faustian pact?

[Anonymous No.15388983]

>The core of the Hebrew Bible is the Mosaic covenant. The deal is simple: in exchange for exclusive worship and obedience to his laws stressing strict separateness from other peoples, Yahweh will make the Israelites rule over humankind: “follow his ways, keep his statutes, his commandments, his customs, and listen to his voice,” and Yahweh “will raise you higher than every other nation he has made”; “You will make many nations your subjects, yet you will be subject to none” (Deuteronomy 26:17-19 and 28:12).

>Christians have never come to the realization that the Mosaic covenant is nothing but a program for world domination by the Jewish nation. That is because it is written right under their nose, in a book whose malice they cannot recognize because they have been told it is the Word of God. It takes a free-thinker like H. G. Wells to see the biblical idea of the Chosen People for what it is: “a conspiracy against the rest of the world.” In the books of the Bible, “you have the conspiracy plain and clear, […] an aggressive and vindictive conspiracy. […] It is not tolerance but stupidity to shut our eyes to their quality.”[1]

>Christians have always failed to see the biblical god’s utter contempt for their own nations, although it is repeated again and again: “All the nations are as nothing before him, for him they count as nothingness and emptiness” (Isaiah 40:17). “Devour all the nations whom Yahweh your god puts at your mercy, show them no pity” (Deuteronomy 7:16). The vulnerability of Christian nations to Israel’s collective sociopathy is directly related to the their self-inflicted blindness. For their own misfortune, Christians worship a deity who hates them (as one commenter to an earlier article put it).

>Christian exegetes never seem to have noticed either that Yahweh’s covenant—domination over the nations in exchange for exclusive worship—is basically identical to the pact that the devil tried to lure Jesus into:

>“the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’ Then Jesus replied, ‘Away with you, Satan!’” (Matthew 4:8-10)

[Anonymous No.15388986]

>As a matter of fact, Satan is hardly distinguished from Yahweh in the Tanakh. He is called an “angel of Yahweh” in Numbers 22 and 32. In 2Samuel 24, Yahweh incites David to do evil, while the role is given to Satan in the same episode told in Chronicles 21, where Yahweh, “the angel of Yahweh”, and Satan are used interchangeably. There is also no trace in the Tanakh of a cosmic struggle between Good and Evil, as in Persian monotheism. Happiness and misfortune, peace and war, health and sickness, abundance and famine, fertility and infertility, all have their unique and direct source in the capricious will of Yahweh. In his own words, “I form the light and I create the darkness, I make well-being, and I create disaster, I, Yahweh, do all these things” (Isaiah 45:7).

>Christ’s teaching to “store up treasures in heaven” (Matthew 6:20) is alien to Yahweh. He is the Greedy One, who wants “the treasures of all the nations” amassed into his Jerusalem residence: “Mine is the silver, mine the gold!” (Haggai 2:8). “The wealth of all the surrounding nations will be heaped together: gold, silver, clothing, in vast quantity” (Zechariah 14:14). Interestingly, according to Kings 10:14, the amount of gold hoarded each year into Salomon’s temple was “666 talents of gold”—the “number of the Beast” in Revelation 13:18! Make of it what you want. Or ask Jared Kushner to explain it.

...

>Yahweh is “the Jealous One” (Exodus 34:14). Although he is supposed to be the father of all national gods (Deuteronomy 32:8-9), he feels for them a murderous hatred, manifested in this command:

>“You must completely destroy all the places where the nations you dispossess have served their gods, on high mountains, on hills, under any spreading tree; you must tear down their altars, smash their sacred stones, burn their sacred poles, hack to bits the statues of their gods and obliterate their name from that place.” (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

>Yahweh’s jealousy reached pathological proportions during his struggle with Assur, the national god of Assyria. In the oldest strata of the book of Isaiah, composed soon after the destruction of Israel by Assyria, Yahweh appears unable to cope with the frustration and humiliation, and consumed with the lust for revenge:

>“Yahweh Sabaoth has sworn it, ‘Yes, what I have planned will take place, what I have decided will be so: I shall break Assyria [Assur] in my country, I shall trample on him on my mountains. Then his yoke will slip off them, his burden will slip from their shoulders. This is the decision taken in defiance of the whole world; this, the hand outstretched in defiance of all nations. Once Yahweh Sabaoth has decided, who will stop him? Once he stretches out his hand, who can withdraw it?’” (Isaiah 14:24-27)

https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/#the-mosaic-covenant-as-faustian-pact

[DoctorGreen !DRgReeNusk No.15389180]

>>15388986
>https://www.unz.com/article/the-devils-trick-unmasking-the-god-of-israel/#the-mosaic-covenant-as-faustian-pact
interesting

[Anonymous No.15389194]

>>15388983
>>15388986
You make a lot of good points, but many people will simply look at the pic and assess that Yahweh has the bigger dick, and mindlessly follow him on that basis alone.

[Anonymous No.15389230]

>>15389194
Don't worry, I know a guy...

[Anonymous No.15389263]

>chr*stcucks will try and justify this

[Anonymous No.15389378]

>>15389180
I thought it was a good article too

[Anonymous No.15389393]

>>15388983
YHWH is the One True God and His Dick will coom all over pathetic atheist fags

[Anonymous No.15389492]

>>15388983
>Yahweh
>Jesus
Are you implying one is not the other?

[Anonymous No.15389576]

>>15389492
>Are you implying one is not the other?
It's the article by Laurent Guyénot linked above which has confirmed my earlier suspicions that Jesus and Yahweh are not each other or the same triune god or what have you, Guyénot characterizes him Yahweh as a 'murderous sociopath' and as a 'dangerous narcissistic megalomaniac', I'm inclined to agree with him. I cannot believe that Christ, who preached wisdom and who cured the blind and lepers would instruct his followers to completely slaughter the inhabitants of a town "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - (Samuel 15).

I also find it ridiculous to accept that Christ as Yahweh would get caught lying by saying that he had never instructed his followers to sacrifice their first-born children "They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind." (Jeremiah 7:30-31); when in fact Yahweh elsewhere admits to instructing them to do exactly this “And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh” (Ezekiel 20:25-26). “You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. For the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me” (Exodus 22:28-29).

[Anonymous No.15389787]

>>15388983
bump

[Anonymous No.15389845]

>>15388983
Precisely. The Hebrews made a pact with the Yahweh entity or demon for material possessions in exchange of foreskins and the spread of corruption and degeneration.

[Anonymous No.15390289]

>>15389194
Absolute state of christcucks

[Anonymous No.15390294]

>>15388983
Thanks for the link OP, I'm actually writing a piece on the destructive nature of abrahamism. Many good points here

[Anonymous No.15390335]

>>15389576
Jesus to the Jews:
>"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." -- John 8:44

[Anonymous No.15390339]

>>15388986
>unz.com

[Anonymous No.15390387]

I always find good religion threads on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.15390402]

>>15390339
Yes.

[Anonymous No.15390424]

Guyenot is a notorious french anti-semite.

[Anonymous No.15390436]

>>15390424
And?

[Anonymous No.15390647]

>>15390424
Based department?

[Anonymous No.15390669]

>>15390335
holy based

[Anonymous No.15390692]

>>15389576
even a superficial reading of st.augustine would have prevented you from taking manichaen heresies seriously

[Anonymous No.15390700]

>>15390436
>>15390647
He wrote an anti-semitic conspiratorial book on JFK and 9/11.

[Anonymous No.15390701]

>>15388983
it's not faustian pact because yahweh traumatically imposes his rule upon the hebrews. there's no offer, he doesn't ask them what the think, he just appears one day and tells em it's his way or the highway. that's the diametric opposite of faust

[Anonymous No.15390712]

>>15390692
Post your superficial conclusion then, lazy asshole.

[Anonymous No.15390717]

>>15389576
>and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh
Yet people think the "semitic desert demon theory" is just a meme.
Be honest abrahamites of all flavors, if it weren't in your holy desert scroll, you'd accuse any spiritual being saying these words for being demonic, evil, of the devil and so on.
You worship a demon.

[Anonymous No.15390720]

>>15390701
The story of Abraham and his child offering is very faustian

[Anonymous No.15390724]

>>15390700
>anti-semitic conspiratorial book
Word salad. Are you saying he doesn't like jews?

[Anonymous No.15390732]

You can view Yahweh as a result of the Jews receiving a noisy signal. Jesus is the man who got the signal almost perfectly. Not perfectly: revelation happens when a man, any man, receives the signal perfectly.

[Anonymous No.15390736]

>>15390712
in short, evil is the negation of good, not a positive force in itself. all that is created is good, but deviated good becomes evil. believing in an evil entity as a counterforce to god is heresy because the creator can not be overpowered by his creation

[Anonymous No.15390749]

>>15390720
abraham doesn't have the option of refusing the offer with no consequence, faust does

[Anonymous No.15390776]

>>15390749
Of course he does. His "blessings" are a direct result of his obedience to the demon

[Anonymous No.15390813]

>>15389576
>It's the article by Laurent Guyénot linked above which has confirmed my earlier suspicions that Jesus and Yahweh are not each other or the same triune god or what have you, Guyénot characterizes him Yahweh as a 'murderous sociopath' and as a 'dangerous narcissistic megalomaniac', I'm inclined to agree with him. I cannot believe that Christ, who preached wisdom and who cured the blind and lepers would instruct his followers to completely slaughter the inhabitants of a town "Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." - (Samuel 15).
>I also find it ridiculous to accept that Christ as Yahweh would get caught lying by saying that he had never instructed his followers to sacrifice their first-born children "They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire—something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind." (Jeremiah 7:30-31); when in fact Yahweh elsewhere admits to instructing them to do exactly this “And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh” (Ezekiel 20:25-26). “You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. For the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me” (Exodus 22:28-29).

[Anonymous No.15390816]

@15389576
>“You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. For the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me” (Exodus 22:28-29).

>he thinks this means a command to kill their first-born
holy cringe. confirmed for not having read Exodus or even the preceding 28 verses. is this what modern anglo gnostic degeneracy has gotten to?

[Anonymous No.15390835]

>>15390776
what happens to faust if faust says no to mephistopheles?

[Anonymous No.15390837]

>>15389576
>Christ
How do you know who Christ is or what "Christ" even means if you reject all of the scripture talking about Him? You would have to reject every gospel if you want to maintain this demonic delusion that Christ isn't the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

[Anonymous No.15390841]

>>15390835
Nothing, he doesn't get the deal. Same with Abraham

[Anonymous No.15390918]

>>15390841
do you understand the difference between a command and an offer?

[Anonymous No.15391427]

Interesting theory. The New Testament volcano demon was against nationalism, tribalism, war, and Will to Power though... Was this part of the Faustian deal? Not only provide power, wealth and land for them but literally the opposite for everyone else, for the goyim.

[Anonymous No.15391589]

>>15389492
>not discerning the iota of difference
back on that pike, sinner

[Anonymous No.15391613]

>>15390402
>>15390339
You'd be better viewed citing scaruffi.com frankly. unz.com is such a pile of shit

[Anonymous No.15391619]

Read Galatians
>>15388983
>Yahweh will make the Israelites rule over humankind: “follow his ways, keep his statutes, his commandments, his customs, and listen to his voice,”
Sure, God gave the Jews a chance to adhere to his Law. Well, they didn't. To this day they still don't. Look up, for example, the absurd "reasoning" that the rabbis use to avoid declaring the children of Jewish women illegitimate in plain contradiction to the Mosaic Law.

It so happens that the Jews were raised above the other nations: from their flesh the God Himself incarnated as the Savior of Mankind. That was a long time ago, of course, and the Pharisaic "Jews" consider this a black mark against "their" people!

>As a matter of fact, Satan is hardly distinguished from Yahweh in the Tanakh...
Yes, ultimately God does allow Satan to exist, presumably in the service of some greater good. Others have speculated on what the exact mechanics of this might be.

>>15389576
>You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. For the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me
This is talking about circumcision.

>>15390335
Yeah pretty much.

[Anonymous No.15391632]

>>15390736
This seems like a matter of semantics. Whether you call Yahweh evil as a positive force or merely the negation of good says nothing about whether he's an evil entity. You can consider him and his actions a manichaean anti-god or a mere demon but either way the argument that he is an evil entity different from Jesus stands

[Anonymous No.15391666]

I like how this guy is simultaneously butthurt about human sacrifice and destroying nations who practice it.

[Anonymous No.15391886]

>>15390816
>confirmed for not having read Exodus or even the preceding 28 verses
In that chapter that command is given amidst a bunch of other random rules, what do you think that command means if not an instruction to sacrifice first-born children?

>>15391619
>This is talking about circumcision.
Then why does it talk about doing the same with their flocks and herds? People don't circumcise their farm animals, also that reasoning doesn't apply to Ezekiel 20:25-26 which explicitly mentions sacrificing children

>We are often told that Yahweh is the god who abolished human sacrifice, when after ordering Abraham to tie his son Isaac, he held back his hand and contented himself with a ram (Genesis 22). Yet long after Abraham, some Israelite leaders seemed unaware of that great progress, and sacrificed their own children as burnt offering to Yahweh: Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40, Hiel in Kings 16:34, King Azaz in Kings 16:3, and King Manasseh in Kings 21:6. Not to mention the 32 holocausted Midianite virgins in Numbers 31

[Anonymous No.15391955]

>>15391886
>Then why does it talk about doing the same with their flocks and herds
because the christcuck is coping, he can't admit that the semitic demon god ordered the genocide of women, children and even cattle.

[Anonymous No.15391971]

>>15391886
>Then why does it talk about doing the same with their flocks and herds?
Not him, but both circumcision and sacrifice of part of the flock (as well as offering of harvest) are understood as consequences of the same basic rules (the first fruit of something must be offered to God).

There is literally a ceremony where the Jewish father has to buy back his firstborn from God with a symbolic sum (that is generally given to him by the community, so no real transfer of wealth is actually done this way). This only apply to male firstborn, but not those that were born with cesarean, because they are understood of not being analogous to fruit from the mother's matrix since they didn't go out through the normal exit.

Point is, the specifics might go over your heard, but the ritual is ancient and well-understood and only a crackpot would pretend actual human sacrifice was ever practiced, condoned or intended. That's simply not how it works.

[Anonymous No.15392005]

>>15391971

>only a crackpot would pretend actual human sacrifice was ever practiced, condoned or intended. That's simply not how it works.
>Yet long after Abraham, some Israelite leaders seemed unaware of that great progress, and sacrificed their own children as burnt offering to Yahweh: Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40, Hiel in Kings 16:34, King Azaz in Kings 16:3, and King Manasseh in Kings 21:6.

[Anonymous No.15392117]

>>15392005
Nice archaelogical evidence bro. Next time you're going to tell me the Jews have hidden the technology that allowed them to split the sea thousands of years ago.

[Anonymous No.15392184]

>>15391971
All of these verses attest to a continuing practice of human sacrifice to Yahweh among the Isrealites even after it was ostensibly ended

>He followed the ways of the kings of Israel and even sacrificed his son in the fire, engaging in the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites.
Kings 16:3

>In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.
Kings 16:34

>And he made his son pass through the fire, and observed times, and used enchantments, and dealt with familiar spirits and wizards: he wrought much wickedness in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.
Kings 21:6

>And from there he advanced against the Ammonites. Jephtath made this vow to the LORD: “If indeed You will deliver the Ammonites into my hands, then whatever comes out of the door of my house to greet me on my triumphant return from the Ammonites will belong to the LORD, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
Judges 11:30-31


>but both circumcision and sacrifice of part of the flock (as well as offering of harvest) are understood as consequences of the same basic rules (the first fruit of something must be offered to God).
There is no indication that this is the intended meaning of this Biblical verse though, where people are instructed to do the same with their 1st-born children and animals. That may be a later interpretation that developed after an initial period of accepting the verses meaning at face value. Indeed, Guyénot writes in his article about how the Bible documents this changing process of sacrificing children to Yahweh in ancient Yahwehism to eventually in the Persian era replacing the child with as sacrifice with a symbol representing them

[Anonymous No.15392189]

>>15392184
>"You will give me the first-born of your children; you will do the same with your flocks and herds. For the first seven days the first-born will stay with its mother; on the eighth day you will give it to me” (Exodus 22:28-29). Since animals were offered to Yahweh as holocausts from time immemorial, the implication is that the first-born son of every Jewish family had once been sacrificed as a holocaust too.

>According to biblical record, it is King Josiah (640-609 BC) who abolished the sacrifices of children, “so that no one could pass his son or daughter through the fire of sacrifice to Molech” (2Kings 23:10). But according to Römer, it is only in the Persian era that human sacrifices became taboo.[15]

>They were substituted by animal offerings, as we learn from Exodus and Leviticus: "All that first issues from the womb belongs to me: every male, every first-born of flock or herd. But the first-born donkey you will redeem with an animal from the flock; if you do not redeem it, you must break its neck. All the first-born of your sons you will redeem, and no one will appear before me empty-handed” (Exodus 34:19-20; reproduced almost verbatim in 13:11-13 and in Leviticus 27:26).[16]

>As in a palimpsest, we read here two things: in ancient Yahwism, the first-born male of humans and beasts were sacrificed to Yahweh, while in the reformed Judaism elaborated during the Exile, the first-born male of humans wasredeemed” by an animal offering.

[15]Thomas Römer, The Invention of God, Harvard UP, 2015, pp. 137-138.

[Anonymous No.15392347]

>>15392117

The biblical scholar Thomas Römer, who was awarded a Doctor honoris causa by the Tel Aviv University, maintains that the Bible shows that human sacrifice including of children was practiced by the Israelites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Römer

>But Thomas Römer (1999) considers that the criticism in the Hebrew Bible proves that human sacrifice was indeed practiced in biblical times in Israel and Judah and took the form of ḥērem (war sacrifice), sacrifice of the firstborn child, and the so-called offering to Moloch.

https://books.google.com/books?id=jbvgBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1007&lpg=PA1007&dq=thomas+romer+human+sacrifice&source=bl&ots=Db4Fa_t0G_&sig=ACfU3U2G_Kmf5QBwVIwmXiQ4DrDhASB0Yw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJ0vbG-r3pAhWFgnIEHQR-DckQ6AEwAnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=thomas%20romer%20human%20sacrifice&f=false

[Anonymous No.15392415]

>>15392347
>>15392189
>Thomas Romer
German protestants always outdoing each other with their new forms of heresy. Impressive, really.

[Anonymous No.15392445]

>>15392347
Thank you for answering to the retort in earnest. It seems my use of the word crackpot was too strong since Römer is obviously not one. Note however that in the very page you're quoting it is also said
1. that there is very little evidence of human sacrifice being practiced in the ancient near est
2. that the rites of the israelites expressely forbid it

So the practice of human sacrifice is still archaeologically unatested among ancient israelites (Römer still relies only on the Bible apparently, and he uses passages who explicitly criticize the practice, note also that the "so-called offering to Moloch" doesn't coincide with the worship of Yahweh and is even antithetical to it).
At best I can concede that in ancient time there might have been a practice of human sacrifice, which was abandoned early and condemned during some of the formative period of the Yahveh cult.
Not too unreasonable but what do you make of that? The implication itt that this would be normal practice in this day (or in any day in the past two millenia) is still outlandish.

[Anonymous No.15392945]

>>15392445
>that the rites of the israelites expressely forbid it
Some do, but some biblical verses imply Yahweh supports it i.e. Ezekiel 20:25-26 (in which Yahweh explictly says that he made people sacrifice children) and
Exodus 22:28-29, and the Bible mentions many different Israelites who continued to sacrifice their children to Yahweh even after child sacrifice was supposed to have been abolished

>Scholars have long debated whether the Israelites could have ever actually sacrificed their children. If so, to which god (or gods) and how pervasive was the practice? There is a general consensus that child sacrifice did indeed take place in ancient Israel, although there is little agreement on the extent to which the practice occurred or on other specifics. [...] In my recent monograph, Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel, I address these arguments and, like most scholars, argue that at least some Israelites did sacrifice their children, probably to Yahweh.

http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/12/child-sacrifice-ancient-israel

https://www.eisenbrauns.org/books/titles/978-1-57506-494-9.html

>in ancient time there might have been a practice of human sacrifice, which was abandoned early and condemned during some of the formative period of the Yahweh cult
I agree that it seems to be part of ancient Yahwehism that died out over time, it's unclear how 'orthodox' or mainstream it was but there is a surprisingly large amount of support for it in the bible and among the ancient Israelites themselves.

>Not too unreasonable but what do you make of that?
I was just agreeing with the idea that this being a part of the Yahweh-worshipping tradition and having biblical support in the support of various supporting statements is incongruous with the merciful savior image of Christ and it makes me personally wonder if they truly are both God, and this ties into a greater pattern of a bunch of other disturbing traits seemingly incongruous with Christ such as Yahweh saying that he is a jealous God who covets the wealth of other nations, who instructs his followers to slaughter women and children, and so on.

>The implication itt that this would be normal practice in this day (or in any day in the past two millenia) is still outlandish.
Perhaps coincidentally there is a renowned Isreali academic and expert in medieval languages named Ariel Toaff who wrote a book called 'Bloody Passover' that attests to the actual good evidence for there being a consistent pattern of ritualistic sacrifice of Christian children by Jews throughout the middle ages into the 17th and 18th centuries, but he was pressured to withdraw it from publication before it was released in English. Other cultures including in the Americas sacrificed children extensively, doing it to your first child is more extreme but not that outandish considering the extensive history of sacrifices elsewhere, out of the whole history of sacrificing you are inevitably going to have one group that is most extreme.

[Anonymous No.15393005]

>>15392945
I see, all this is interesting, I guess my next move is to read Römer when I have time.
As for your theological quandaries, I'm afraid I can't help much. To me Christianity is a later addition on top of a Judaic tradition which is itself the product of a millenia-long, multi-stage synthesis, so there is little reason to look for a real congruence between all (or even most) depictions of Yahveh and those of Jesus. I suppose gods also mature and grow old with time (the consensus on the "true" nature of Christ took centuries to form and take hold, remember).

>the actual good evidence for there being a consistent pattern of ritualistic sacrifice of Christian children by Jews throughout the middle ages into the 17th and 18th centuries
I'd be interested to see it (or what's available of it wherever). The claim of blood consumption at passover is so out of place that I could never help viewing it as a comical accusation (just like the idea that Sabbath is about meeting Satan when Satan literally means the adversary in Hebrew).

> Other cultures including in the Americas sacrificed children extensively, doing it to your first child is more extreme but not that outandish considering the extensive history of sacrifices elsewhere
Over all of history it's not that outlandish, but given the actual recorded practices of sacrifice in the Mediterranean and the Middle East in the past 2000 years, it's still rather surprising isn't it?

[Anonymous No.15393089]

>>15393005
A writer on Unz summarizes the controversy around Toaff's publication here

https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-bloody-passovers-of-dr-toaff/

The English translation was never published but you can read an English translation of the whole book here

http://www.israelshamir.net/BLOODPASSOVER.pdf

[Anonymous No.15393371]

It looks pretty indisputable that Yahweh is Moloch, with Satan as a lesser divine henchman
It's also pretty clear that Catholicism is a Yahwehist hijacking of the revolt against his evil
So I assume Yahweh reasserted himself as the father, satan would be the holy spirit for sure
Anyone have some good reading material on these never ending schemes of Yahweh?

[Anonymous No.15393402]

Wow its almost as if christianity is a different religion from judaism

[Anonymous No.15393414]

>>15393402
braindead post. doesn't even apply to the OP or to the discussion above. did you skim two words in the thread and just reply with the first thing that popped into your head? change your ways, zoomer.

[Anonymous No.15393430]

>>15393371
read Hittite and Hurrian mythology, when Yahweh assumed power over humans and other Gods, he made them work and live like slaves, until the Goddess Ishara (mother of Gods) went and demanded that he stop this, he only agreed to free the humans and Gods if she had sex with him, which she agreed to, that in turn, Made Baal furious and made him fight YHWH, thats the origin of the Baal/Yhwh rivalry, once you read the stories of the surrounding people in ancient middle east it becomes clear that YHWH is the rapist evil God and Baal (God of thunder and rain) is the good guy, which explains why the bible shits on Baal everywhere.

[Anonymous No.15393433]

>>15393402
Except Christian's would likely not admit that the snake in the garden of eden was jesus trying to bring humans gnosis to free them from the demiurge
Christianity has been hijacked from truth, back into the clutches of yahweh

[Anonymous No.15393443]

>>15391632
>missing the point this hard

[Anonymous No.15393456]

>>15393430
Definitely true, I've read ugarit texts and baal is clearly a force for good, no wonder yahweh sought to discredit him

[Anonymous No.15393474]

>>15393433
>gnostic revisionism

[Anonymous No.15393476]

>>15393371
Laurent Guyénot has a book on this topic called "From Yahweh to Zion", I have not read it yet but I am interested in reading it now after reading this article. I'm interested in what his take is and how he reconciles all this information with later and modern Christianity. At once, I can perceive how Christ embodies the very reaction against this sort of malevolent and capriicous nature but at the same time I can see how some aspects of Christianity reflect the unwholesome and malevolent aspect of Yahweh

[Anonymous No.15393501]

>>15393430
holy shit, how long how scholars known about that? Is this a recent find?

[Anonymous No.15393504]

>>15393474
>jewish reactionary

[Anonymous No.15393529]

>>15393501
this has been known ever since they found the Hittite city ruins, but I guess the field is biased towards the christian view. you won't find it in the first pages if you google it.

[Anonymous No.15393544]

>>15388983
Noticed this guy posting the same idea with similar images a few weeks back. This is some kind of shill thread. Be careful not to fall for it bros.

[Anonymous No.15393555]

>>15393544
>t. Y*hwehist shill
fuck off with your rapist God

[Anonymous No.15393563]

>>15393529
Is there a good book or anthology of ugaritic stuff etc that you can recommend which covers this topic and the specific texts which pertain to it?

[Anonymous No.15393576]

>>15393544
Imagine being a servant for archons willingly you fucking cuck

[Anonymous No.15393578]

>>15393544
>Noticed this guy posting the same idea with similar images a few weeks back. This is some kind of shill thread
wow.. it's almost like that's what a meme is and by posting associations of ideas and images it causes others to associte those ideas and images

[Anonymous No.15393677]

>>15391886
>People don't circumcise their farm animals
They didn't sacrifice all of them either (by the way I was wrong, this isn't about circumcision).
>you shall devote to the Lord the first offspring of every womb, and the first offspring of every beast that you own; the males belong to the Lord. But every first offspring of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, then you shall break its neck; and every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.” (Ex. 13)

This is sort of commemoration of the Passover killing of the Egyptian firstborn, which we know because it's explicitly spelled out:
>“In days to come, when your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ say to him, ‘With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. When Pharaoh stubbornly refused to let us go, the Lord killed the firstborn of both people and animals in Egypt. This is why I sacrifice to the Lord the first male offspring of every womb and redeem each of my firstborn sons.’

We also have, of course, the example/recapitulation of the "sacrifice" of Isaac by Abraham. In which, it should be noted, no human sacrifice actually occurred.

>Jephthah in Judges 11:29-40, Hiel in Kings 16:34, King Azaz in Kings 16:3, and King Manasseh in Kings 21:6.
Yes, these things were all bad. They are are written down as a matter of historical record.

>>15392184
>All of these verses attest to a continuing practice of human sacrifice to Yahweh among the Isrealites even after it was ostensibly ended
Yes, the Israelites did practice human sacrifice. They were not supposed to do so. This is quite clearly spelled out. Presumably this was sometimes done in the name of God.

[Anonymous No.15393685]

>>15393443
He didn't address the point of the post he was responding to, if he wants his point addressed he should do so in his own post.

[Anonymous No.15393708]

>>15393677
Do you think you can just pretend to not see the Ezekiel quote, and proceed to misinterpret Exodus as if no one will notice?

[Anonymous No.15393721]

The Old Testament:
>The ancient Israelites often worshiped false gods and engaged in unspeakable practices like human sacrifice

Retards:
>THE JEWS worshiped evil beings and participated in human sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.15393771]

>>15393721
Old Testament:
>go murder and rape in my name, yahweh

Hylics:
>yahweh is the goodest boi he would never do a heckin evilrino

[Anonymous No.15393793]

>>15393721
>often worshiped false gods
Yhwh is the one ordering the bad stuff, christcuck. you just committed a blasphemy against your god

[David No.15393809]

“And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh” (Ezekiel 20:25-26).

Wtf is wrong with this nigga?

[Anonymous No.15393837]

>>15393809
spiteful faggot, Baal and the other Gods should've btfod him when they had the chance

[Anonymous No.15393841]

Abrahamists are rock solid proof that there either is no god, or that satan won the battle of good versus evil and we are already in hell. No good god would ever approve of a doctrine as psychopathically evil as the Abrahamic creed

[Anonymous No.15393886]

>>15393708
>Ezekiel
Someone else already tried to explain it to you I think, but maybe they didn't do a good job.

The Bible (or Reality, but I won't assume you share my presumptions) isn't dualistic. God is Good, and when people stop following God's will, they become less good by definition. When "the children rebel" (Ezekiel 20:16), they start doing evil things, like child sacrifice, because there is no difference between rebellion against God and doing evil. And because evil is still defined in relation to God rather than some Manichaean opposite polarity, someone committing such evil acts will still "know the Lord" -- but "with horror", rather than joy. As the Epistle of James says more clearly on this subject: even the demons believe, and shudder. Yes, this is a rather subtle and loaded assertion, which is why so many people find dualism more intuitive. But that doesn't mean it's correct. I think Paul puts it better when he says that God "gives over" such people to evil deeds rather than that the "giving them bad laws". But it's the same thing.

>proceed to misinterpret Exodus
I literally quoted where it's spelled out that no actual sacrifice occurs.

[Anonymous No.15393910]

>>15393771
>killing people is always bad

[Anonymous No.15393935]

>>15393910
>it's alright, those children and babies were evil
the absolute state....

[Anonymous No.15394005]

>>15393886
You cant assert that yahweh is good as if restating it over and over again sanctifies rape. His acts are clearly evil, no amount of mental gymnastics will undo this
Speaking of, HE.ORDERED.ISRAELITES.TO.SACRIFICE.THEIR.CHILDREN.
You are DELIBRATERATLY misreading the text to claim they did evil because they left god, GOD FORCED THEM TO AS PUNISHMENT

[Anonymous No.15394201]

>>15394005
>rape
Yeah sorry that the Hebrews didn't get affirmative consent in writing from all of their wives for every sex act.

>HE.ORDERED.ISRAELITES.TO.SACRIFICE.THEIR.CHILDREN.
You've got, what, one verse that might be considered ambiguous if you read it in bad faith versus repeated commands that human sacrifice is evil?

>You are DELIBRATERATLY misreading the text to claim they did evil because they left god, GOD FORCED THEM TO AS PUNISHMENT
This is like claiming that dying because you jumped in front of a moving train is "God's punishment". Which it sort of is.

[Anonymous No.15394249]

>>15394201
It is telling that the only retort to god ordering rape and genocide is a snicker about affirmative consent
Completely evil and reveling in the fact, these people who think it's funny they worship a rape god want you to believe their god is the source of goodness

[Anonymous No.15394350]

>>15394249
What, exactly, is it that you oppose about "rape"? Be specific.

[Anonymous No.15394401]

>>15388983
CIRCUMCISION DISPLACES THE CARNAL DRIVE ONTO THE CIVILIZATIONAL

THE GLANS, DEPRIVED OF THEIR NATURAL SENSITIVITY, SUBLIMATE THEIR DRIVE INTO THE JUDAIC LUST FOR TECHNO-POWER

WHY DO YOU THINK CIRCUMCISION IS SO POPULAR IN WASP HOUSEHOLDS? CUTLETS ARE BOOTSTRAPPERS FOR THE TECHNO-GOD

[Anonymous No.15394405]

>>15392347
>(((Thomas Römer)))
>((("biblical scholar")))
>(((Tel Aviv University)))
Oh no no no no

[Anonymous No.15394415]

>>15393371
>It looks pretty indisputable that Yahweh is Moloch, with Satan as a lesser divine henchman
>It's also pretty clear that Catholicism is a Yahwehist hijacking of the revolt against his evil
>So I assume Yahweh reasserted himself as the father, satan would be the holy spirit for sure
>Anyone have some good reading material on these never ending schemes of Yahweh?

[Anonymous No.15394423]

the christcuck shills have arrived

[Anonymous No.15394427]

>>15394350
You're right, I thought about it and rape and genocide is actually good, slavery too. All hail yahweh!

[Anonymous No.15394431]

>>15394350
"When you're Yahweh, they let you do it."

[Anonymous No.15394438]

>>15394350
good point... finna rape your momma and sister tomorrow see you then.. :)

[Anonymous No.15394448]

>>15394350
lol Is this how christcucks convert Africans now?

[Anonymous No.15394453]

>>15394350
the gnostics were right about everything

[Anonymous No.15394463]

Has anyone ever repented from this type of modern protestant-judaic scholarship nonsense about hating the God of the Old Testament? I really don't want to believe it but it seems like the final point of no return for these people.

[Anonymous No.15394480]

>>15394463
What are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.15394481]

>>15394463
it's alright, I also hate Jesus and his kike apostles.

[Anonymous No.15394504]

>>15394480
I'm talking about the sad state of the people here who are filled with such hatred towards God.

[Anonymous No.15394511]

>>15394504
>God orderers the genocide of women, children, infants and even cattle
>God says to Genocide the male children but keep the female ones and after 30 days, you can have sex with them
>w-why do you hate my kike tribal God?

[Anonymous No.15394517]

>>15394504
>hatred towards God
You have to be more specific.

[Anonymous No.15394526]

>>15394504
And by "God" you mean the Devil.

[Anonymous No.15394527]

>>15394517
Someone give me a rundown on these two cloud nibbas

[Anonymous No.15394638]

>>15394427
>>15394431
>>15394438
>>15394448
>>15394453
>not a single argument

[Anonymous No.15394651]

>>15394638
Imagine trying to make excuses for a god of rape and carnage lol.

[Anonymous No.15394661]

>>15394480
Basically, Protestants disregard the actual traditions of the Church and teachings of Christ in favor of Pharisaic/Talmudic deceptions, then when the more intelligent ones realize the latter are evil (no shit) they still can't admit that it's because the "Jews" are wrong rather than God.

[Anonymous No.15394673]

>>15390335
so in that verse is Jesus referring to a different father than the one referred to in John 10:30 when he says 'I and the Father are one.'? Was he saying that the Yahweh of the Tanakh is satan?

[Anonymous No.15394710]

>>15394651
I mean, it's pretty easy to excuse killing:
>they deserved it
It's usually a rather tricky business for us to determine whether, objectively, "they deserve it", but this is not true of God.


As for rape, the relevant passages suggest that there are circumstances in which a woman's consent to marriage are not the paramount moral consideration. Perhaps you disagree with this; certainly the society we live in finds this a rather uncomfortable assertion. Of course, the sexual and marriage ethics of our current society are probably in about as bad a shape as has ever been recorded, so maybe these ethics are wrong.

[Anonymous No.15394719]

>>15394401
you are the real ww aren't you

[Anonymous No.15394732]

>>15394673
>Was he saying that the Yahweh of the Tanakh is satan?
It certainly seems like it. Who else could he be talking about? The Gospel of John may Marcionite or Apellesian foundations.

[Anonymous No.15394748]

>>15394710
A God of Love does not kill. No amount of rat-brained cope will ever get around this.

[Anonymous No.15394753]

>>15388983
idk what you guys are getting worked up about. though its not usually advertised that the OT God was an egomaniac, its not really a secret either. I learned at Church about the OT God and the major shift in his behavior between OT and NT. Even using a Catholic bible, if you read the OT you will find tons of examples of God being extremely liberal with his abilities, giving people divine protection one day and killing and cursing those same people left and right and massacring hundreds of thousands.

[Anonymous No.15394755]

>>15394415
the cruel and malevolent nature of any entity who would design the picture you posted as a punishment for the act of not believing in him should be sufficient to dispose of any belief that this same entity was the cause of the entire universe

[Anonymous No.15394759]

>>15394710
I hope you're just trolling
Makes me sad to think someone is this afraid of letting go of their metaphysical blankey that they start excusing genocide

[Anonymous No.15394780]

>>15394527

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/parmenides/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

https://www.iep.utm.edu/adv-veda/

[Anonymous No.15394782]

>>15394759
there is no such thing as right and wrong, from a secular, scientific perspective. the only source of right and wrong can be God. If God desires that that city across the river be slaughtered and burned and all its virgin women taken for the Israelites, then going across the river, slaughtering all the men and nonvirgin women, burning every building and field, and returning home with their virgin women is the right thing to do.

[Anonymous No.15394818]

>>15394782
Oh, you're trolling, thank jesus.

[Anonymous No.15394825]

>>15394782
Begone spawn of ialdabaoth

[Anonymous No.15394826]

>>15394759
also, you have to realize how quick God was to kill his own people in the Old Testament too. He was extremely petty. Its not a stretch using God's apparent ideas of right and wrong and due punishment that many entire civilizations deserved to be killed off. In the book of Numbers, there is a paragraph in which God instructs Moses to take a rod and speak to a rock to make it start producing a flow of water for the thirsty israelites and their flocks in the wasteland. Moses takes the rod, makes a statement to the israelites, and hits the rock, and it produces water. For no satisfactory reason that scholars can find, God decides in this moment that Moses has sinned against him and is condemmed to never live in the promised land and to instead kill himself. The best reason scholars came up with was that Moses "struck" the rock instead of merely "speaking" to it, and this was enough to mean that Moses, one of his most loyal and dedicated servants and a beacon for the Isrealites, was now condemmed to death. This is just one of many instances of God dealing "unfair" punishments for "petty" reasons.

[Anonymous No.15394843]

>>15391613
>unz.com is such a pile of shit
I beg to differ, Unz is an excellent website, I am entirely grateful for mr Ron Unz for funding it out of the proceeds of his own money and I am thankful that in an age of such internet censorship he is standing against the tide and allowing a central node to form for otherwise-censored voices and perspectives from across the political and ideological spectrum. We should be celebrating and emulating his example.

[Anonymous No.15394871]

>>15394782
your post reminds me of this passage from Guyénot 's article

>The prohibition of moral conscience

>Accusatory inversion is the birth process of Yahwism, which presents a murderous demon as the supreme God while demonizing the supreme God worshipped by other peoples. This can clearly be seen in the Genesis story of the Garden of Eden, with a very simple historical critical analysis.

>In the Garden of Eden allegory, Yahweh forbids man access to “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” (Genesis 2:17). The Hebrew word for “knowledge”, daat, translates in Greek as gnosis, meaning inner awareness or insight rather than intellectual knowledge, so that “knowledge of good and evil” can be accurately translated as “moral conscience”, which is man’s capacity to distinguish good from evil, right from wrong, in any particular situation. So that the prohibition of the knowledge of good and evil simply means the inhibition of moral conscience.

>To contextualize that Genesis story, we must recall that Egyptian and Persian religions taught that immortality is the reward for the blameless life. Since immortality was synonymous with divinity, being immortal could be expressed as “being among the gods”, or “being like the gods”. But in the Hebrew Bible, it is the serpent, a liar and deceiver, who tempts Adam and Eve into eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil with the guarantee that, “the day you eat it you will not die,” but “your eyes will open and you will be like gods, who know good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). The serpent speaks like the religious wisdom of great religions. The Hebrew scribes can present him as a liar because, for them, immortality (“not dying”) only makes sense physically: Yahweh, they claim, intended Adam and Eve to be physically immortal on earth, and provided no otherworld for their afterlife. From this materialistic standpoint, the scribes denounce the promise of immortality through knowledge of good and evil as deceptive, and implicitly portray the Babylonian, Persian and Egyptian gods as liars.

>We have been educated for so many generations by this story, and are so used to assuming that the serpent of Genesis is the satanic deceiver, that it is hard to see the Torah’s message for what it really was: a direct attack against the higher religions and their moral teaching that knowledge and practice of good and evil is the way to the blessed afterlife.

[Anonymous No.15394877]

>>15394782
You're baiting, but there are idiots out there who literally believe this.

[Anonymous No.15394905]

this thread is prove that Abr*hamism is a mental illness

[Anonymous No.15394909]

>post truth
>"youre baiting"
>"you're trolling"
>*joke reply*
why are people so scared of the truth?

[Anonymous No.15394941]

>>15394909
I don't fear the truth, but I see you as you are, a servant of the murderous and deceptive Yahweh

[Anonymous No.15394943]

>>15394909
You'll have more trolling success in the future on /lit/ if you at least pretend to be familiar with any philosophical thought in the past 2000 years
Start with the greeks, and in a few months you'll be able to contextualize any stupid position enough to be fun to engage with
Hang in there!

[Anonymous No.15394946]

>>15394909
>posts truth
except you didn't, just because your God killed innocents, it doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous No.15394958]

>>15394943
elitism. if the greeks disagree its because they were heretics.
>>15394946
God's will is always right.

[Anonymous No.15394974]

>>15394958
this is some next level shabbos goyism.

[Anonymous No.15394978]

>>15394958
See, if you had done your homework, we'd now be arguing about Plato believing in the one true god
You simply need a stronger background before you attempt this sort of trolling

[Anonymous No.15394993]

>>15394958
>*laughs in volcano demon* hahaha yes.... yes YES

[Anonymous No.15395061]

>>15394978
it would be a waste of effort to go around finding rigourous logical flaws with every individual heretic's philosphy. fact of the matter is that moralilty can never have a solid ground, there will always be issues, which is why people still can't find an objective set of morals and objective definition of good and evil. this includes any morality derived from the bible. Our world is simply too simple and unable to fully comprehend the complex issues of morality. Our otherworldly Creator, however, is more advanced than our world, and presumably does fully understand good and evil, thus we should listen only to Him, even if using our world's primitive reasoning it seems unfair.

[Anonymous No.15395072]

>>15394871
>just be blameless and you can become god
>whoops looks like you heart is heavier than a feather haha no afterlife to you lol
>yeah this is what Good looks like because it allows me to believe women and jack off in some guys asshole

[Anonymous No.15395080]

>>15395061
The creator of this shithole is the last person we should be looking to for moral guidance.

[Anonymous No.15395087]

>>15394748
Rene Girard provides the most convincing Christian explanation, although I don't entirely buy it, and he's also too polite to the Jews. Things Hidden Since The Foundation of the World isn't that long, you might want to check it out.

[Anonymous No.15395104]

>>15395061
your otherworldly creator is a demon bro....

[Anonymous No.15395127]

>>15395080
luckily, if you are christian, God hardly ever talks to us if he even has talked to us in the past two millenia, and with Jesus he left us a new set of broad rules for morality and a bible full of stories to try to develop our morality from. This means that there are plenty of places in Christian morality that you are free to interpret yourself, just like heretical philosphers do with their "athiest" moralty (that all derive from Christian morality in the western world anyways). God told us not to rape or kill, which is exactly what you said you believed should be morals! I don't know what you are so angry about. Christianity literally agrees with your idea of morality. However, if a man came down to you in a beam of light on a cloud at the top of a mountain and told you to go plant some bombs in those two skyscrapers over there, would you not do it?

[Anonymous No.15395159]

>>15395127
God is actually telling me to rape right now
How do I proceed? This is so confusing, this is the first time he's ever spoken to me

[Anonymous No.15395164]

>>15395127
Are you saying 9/11 was a righteous act of divine terrorism? :^)

[Anonymous No.15395167]

>>15395072
>>yeah this is what Good looks like because it allows me to believe women and jack off in some guys asshole
This is you repeating the common tactic used by Yahweh which Guyénot calls 'accusatory inversion'

[Anonymous No.15395202]

>>15389263
>blots the "i" from "Christ" like a kike
why do you faggots do this I don't get it

[Anonymous No.15395210]

>>15395167
>'accusatory inversion'
What the fuck does this mean? If I call you a murderer and then you get mad and say that I'm a liar (or even that I've simply mischaracterized your actions), the existence counter-accusation doesn't prove the original accusation is false, it's a completely expected response.

[Anonymous No.15395214]

>>15395210
*prove that the original accusation is true

[Anonymous No.15395219]

>>15395127
>philosphers do with their "athiest" moralty (that all derive from Christian morality in the western world anyways)
What a load of horseshit. The Greeks predate the advent of Christianity by hundreds of years.

[Anonymous No.15395250]

>>15388983
>yfw those JeWs WoRshiP SaTaN!!!! schizo images on /pol/ with pictures of Saturn and triangles were right after all

[Anonymous No.15395261]

>>15395250
It's also worth noting that christcucks are also worshipping satan, unless they are on the path to gnosis

[Anonymous No.15395272]

>>15395261
> path to gnosis
redpill me on this.

[Anonymous No.15395273]

>>15395250
>Remphan is a figure described as "the star of your god whose images you made to worship" in Acts 7:43 of the King James Version of the Bible.
>Remphan is a rendering of the Ancient Greek, ρεμφαν. Various manuscripts offer other transliterations, including Ancient Greek: Ῥομφά, Ῥεμφάν, Ῥεμφάμ, Ῥαιφάν, & Ῥεφάν. It is part of a reference to Amos 5:26, which reads in Hebrew as "Chiun", "Kewan", "Kaiwan", "Kiyuwn", or "Kijun". The Septuagint's reading of Amos is "raiphan" or "rephan". The Greek forms may be based on a transliteration of the Hebrew, k (qoppa) having replaced r (resh), ph having been substituted for y (yod), and u (vowel waw) having been replaced by a (alpha). "Kēwān" is the another pronunciation of the Old Persian word of Kayvân, meaning Saturn.[1][2][3]
>meaning Saturn.
>Saturn.

[Anonymous No.15395293]

>>15395272
heresy.

[Anonymous No.15395295]

>>15395272

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gthlamb.html

[Anonymous No.15395298]

>>15395293
no asked you, bruh
>>15395295
thanks

[Anonymous No.15395330]

>>15395293
>heresy
Fuck off christcuck

[Anonymous No.15395410]

>>15390813
This same fucking guy shows up in every single thread about the bible or christianity and quotes an entire post and includes no commentary besides a picture of a so.i.jack. Every fucking time. I'm serious I've even called him out on it in one thread, linking several of his own posts in another still-alive thread and he stopped posting like he was insecure that he had been found out. Get a grip.

[Anonymous No.15395452]

>>15395273
Yes, Saturn is the god that wants you to kill your kids, the same being as Baal/Moloch. This has been known for a long time.

[Anonymous No.15395477]

>>15395219
Yes, and the Greek philosophers got a lot of things right, which is why you occasionally hear accusations(?) that Christianity is "Hellenized" Judaism or the like. Personally I think the Jews should be fucking embarrassed that they were so prone to having retarded false ideas about God given the degree of divine revelation provided to their prophets but maybe they needed it to limp across the finish line in AD 1.

[Anonymous No.15395482]

>>15392117
>Nice archaelogical evidence bro
You know what you sound like, right?

[Anonymous No.15395488]

>>15395452
Yahweh/moloch, baal is actually a good god

[Anonymous No.15395497]

>>15395272
The belief that having bigbrained thoughts is necessary for salvation.

[Anonymous No.15395503]

>>15395452
>t.brainlet
Baal fought against YHWH

[Anonymous No.15395507]

>>15395488
That's pretty weird because the Romans thought that the "Baal" to whom the Carthaginians -- a Semitic colony -- sacrificed their children was the same as Saturn. But hey maybe the pre-Christian Romans were secret "Yahwists".

[Anonymous No.15395509]

>>15395503
>YHWH
i've only seen this spelling once before on 4chan. do you happen to have also browsed /g/ in the past?

[Anonymous No.15395522]

>>15395509
>i've only seen this spelling once before on 4chan.
It’s been used nearly 15,000 times on /pol/ alone if you look at the archives

[Anonymous No.15395529]

>>15395507
>romans
they were the ones who killed the children, and they were not shy to declare the genocide of Phoenicians, thats why you find human remains in Carthage, not because they sacrificed children

[Anonymous No.15395532]

>>15395522
I don't read /pol/. there was just one schizo on /g/ a few months ago who went around talking about how he deserved a child bride because YHWH said so and that western civilization needs to fall and he kept talking about how he installed his floor tiles himself. I haven't seen him in ages so I was hoping I found him again.

[Anonymous No.15395564]

>>15395452
I wonder if the same malevolent entity or entities are represented in some way by the Titans in Greek mythology and their equivalent parallels in the various near eastern Semitic cultures, the Greeks identified the planet Saturn with Cronus, who devoured his children

>It is generally accepted that the Greek succession myth was imported from the Near East, and that along with this imported myth came stories of a group of former ruling gods, who had been defeated and displaced, and who became identified, by the Greeks, as the Titans.[103] Features of Hesiod's account of the Titans can be seen in the stories of the Hurrians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, and other Near Eastern cultures.[104]

>The Hurro-Hittite text Song of Kumarbi (also called Kingship in Heaven), written five hundred years before Hesiod,[105] tells of a succession of kings in heaven: Anu (Sky), Kumarbi, and the storm-god Teshub, with many striking parallels to Hesiod's account of the Greek succession myth. Like Cronus, Kumarbi castrates the sky-god Anu, and takes over his kingship. And like Cronus, Kumarbi swallows gods (and a stone?), one of whom is the storm-god Teshub, who like the storm-god Zeus, is apparently victorious against Kumarbi and others in a war of the gods.[106]

>Other Hittite texts contain allusions to "former gods" (karuilies siunes), precisely what Hesiod called the Titans, theoi proteroi. Like the Titans, these Hittite karuilies siunes, were twelve (usually) in number and end up confined in the underworld by the storm-god Teshub, imprisoned by gates they cannot open.[107] In Hurrian, the Hittite's karuilies siunes were known as the "gods of down under" (enna durenna) and the Hittites identified these gods with the Anunnaki, the Babylonian gods of the underworld,[108] whose defeat and imprisonment by the storm-god Marduk, in the Babylonian poem Enûma Eliš (late second millennium BC or earlier),[109] parallels the defeat and imprisonment of the Titans.[110] Other collectivities of gods, perhaps associated with the Mesopotamian Anunnaki, include the Dead Gods (Dingiruggû), the Banished Gods (ilāni darsūti), and the Defeated (or Bound) Gods (ilāni kamûti).[111]

[Anonymous No.15395581]

>>15395564
yes they are the titans/archons that dismembered the infant bacchus and scattered the light particles throughout the world. fuck the catholishit church

[Anonymous No.15395584]

>>15395532
guy sounds based

[Anonymous No.15395604]

>>15395584
he is. even managed to get his own page on geekfeminism wiki
https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/MikeeUSA

[Anonymous No.15395631]

>>15395564
>I wonder if the same malevolent entity or entities are represented in some way by the Titans in Greek mythology and their equivalent parallels in the various near eastern Semitic cultures
They absolutely are, and this connection was seen even at the time.

I even think one of the reasons that the older Christian traditions have a sort of lingering affection for the Olympian gods is that back when Hellenic paganism was a live tradition you could pretty easily look at them and and think "hey, you could do a lot worse'. Socrates, as portrayed by Plato, believed that Apollo was the True God and, again, I think a lot of early Christians could see where he was coming from.

[Anonymous No.15395638]

>>15395507
Other than a shared origin in part of the name, there are almost no similarities between baal and baal hammon
IIRC baal hammon is actually more similar to dagan, baals father

[Anonymous No.15395639]

>>15395604
>https://geekfeminism.wikia.org/wiki/MikeeUSA

> Mikee typically posts rants denouncing women in "men's roles" such as software development and calling for among other things the killing of feminists and women in "men's roles", the need for more submissive wives, the end of spousal rape penalties, and the end of age of consent laws past very early pubescence.
>Since 2009 at least, he endorses well-known murders of women, including Hans Reiser's murder of Nina Reiser and the Shafia family murders and calls for similar violence.

Kek, he sounds like the Christians in this thread justifying murder, maybe he is a very religious Israeli settler shitposting from his outpost in Palestine

[Anonymous No.15395674]

>>15395638
>Other than a shared origin in part of the name, there are almost no similarities between baal and baal hammon
Hmm yes, a horned "King of the Gods" married the the fertility goddess, and he wants you to kill your kids. Pure coincidence!

[Anonymous No.15395705]

>>15395674
yeah, Baal isn't horned nor is he the king of Gods, he is simply the God of thunder, Rain, war etc etc

[Anonymous No.15395731]

Baal means "Lord"

[Anonymous No.15395746]

>>15395731
so does moloch

>For his alleged abolition of human sacrifice, Yahweh has been compared favorably with the Canaanite god Molech or Moloch, to whom firstborn infants were ritually sacrificed. But biblical scholars like Thomas Römer speculate that Molech was in fact none other than Yahweh himself. One of his arguments is that the noun mlk, vocalized as Molek in the Masoretic text (the ninth-century Tanakh that introduced vowels into the Hebrew script), but Melek in the Greek Septuagint, is identical to the Hebrew word for “king”, melek or melech (malik in Arabic), applied more than fifty times to Yahweh. The expression Yahweh melech, “Yahweh is king,” is found in Psalms 10 and still in use in Jewish religious songs.

[Anonymous No.15395747]

>>15395674
>bible has yahweh state he ordered child sacrifice
>biblical scholars now believe moloch is literally yahweh
"nooooo he couldn't have!!!"
>roman propaganda about a city state over 1000 miles away from canaan, hundreds of years later, states a god with a similar name ordered bad things
"Baal btfo now I dont need to learn anything about what baal was actually like!"
Christcucks are the worst. I bet you will be honestly surprised to learn the name baal is translated in the bible to the god you worship in numerous passages

[Anonymous No.15395756]

>>15395731
yeah but in this context its referring to the Mesopotamian God Hadad

[Anonymous No.15395762]

>>15395746
Moloch, Malach, Malek, Malik, etc.. means king

Allah is referred to as Malik in many places in the Qur'an: Malik us-samawati wal-ard, King of the Heavens and the Earth.

[Anonymous No.15395777]

>>15395756
there are many deities that have the title baal baal haddad is one of them.

[Anonymous No.15395798]

>>15395777
the Baal of the canaanites/Middle east was Hadad, he is different from the Baal Hammon of North Africa

[Anonymous No.15395816]

>>15389230
he is Yahweh

[Anonymous No.15395821]

>>15395746
This is like believing that Charlemagne and Carlos III are the same person.

>>15395747
>"Baal btfo now I dont need to learn anything about what baal was actually like!"
So what was Baal "actually like"? Because I'm seeing two corroborating sources that say pretty much the same thing. Frankly it's quite remarkable.
>"nooooo he couldn't have!!!"
>Roman propaganda
As opposed to what? You're assertion that "it couldn't be true" because...what?

[Anonymous No.15395841]

>>15395762
According to (((accredited Biblical scholars))) that actually means that every king is also Allah -- it's the same word! I bet you didn't know that!

[Anonymous No.15395850]

>>15395816
Cronos is Cronos

[Anonymous No.15395857]

>>15395581
why were they allowed to seemingly win the day though? is it because we are in the Kali Yuga?

[Anonymous No.15395869]

>>15395841
>Melech, Malik means King
>so that means every Melech is Allah
are you retarded? Greeks used the Word theos to refer to their male Gods, then they Used the word for Jesus, does that mean that every Theos in the bible is Zeus or something?

[Anonymous No.15395904]

>>15395869
>are you retarded?
no, but apparently "respected biblical scholars" are.

>Greeks used the Word theos to refer to their male Gods, then they Used the word for Jesus, does that mean that every Theos in the bible is Zeus or something?
Shit, maybe you're onto something -- if you can flesh this out to a few hundred pages, you too can become a Respected Scholar.

[Anonymous No.15395918]

>>15395869
he wasn't unironically arguing for those views, he was just coping about the evidence unearthed in this thread that Yahweh/Saturn is a murderous archon by trying to discredit the work of the biblical scholar Thomas Römer by implying that his research options were illegitimate, his sentence that you took issue with was meant to represent the typical mistake a foolish biblical scholar would make

[Anonymous No.15395925]

>>15395821
>jew argues two conflicting opinions
Oi vey

[Anonymous No.15395959]

>>15395918
>One of the most well-known stories in the Old Testament is about the Hebrews building a statue of a golden cow and declaring "this is the god who brought us out of Egypt" but that that's fucking wrong.
>This is proof that the God who brought the Jews out of Egypt was a golden cow

[Anonymous No.15395991]

>"This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: "I was Manu and the sun." And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as "I am Brahman," becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self. Now, if a man worships another deity, thinking: "He is one and I am another," he does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish to the owner; how much more so when many are taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to the gods that men should know this."

- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10.

[Anonymous No.15396018]

>>15395959
That's not a line of reasoning used by Römer as far as I'm aware. If you would like to cite in any of his writings some actual examples of where he makes a major mistake then we can examine your claim, but when you just mock him without even engaging with the evidence it just shows to everyone how you are coping

[Anonymous No.15396254]

>>15395210
>What the fuck does this mean?
Just as Yahweh commited accusatory inversion by presenting himself, a malevolent entity who made people sacrifice newborn children "so that they would know that I am Yahweh” (Ezekiel 20:25-26); as being the supreme God while also demonizing the supreme God worshipped by other peoples, (i.e. the accusation inverts the true reality of things). In just the same way, when you used your braindead christcuck logic to argue that following a non-Yahweh path to God ends up resulting in homosexual degeneration and other abominations you were using accusatory inversion. In your assertion that Yahweh is the source of morality and that deviating from this results in sin and discord you were inverting the true nature of the situation, which is that Yahweh asks his followers to blind themselves to morality by abandoning their inner sense of right and wrong to accept him as the ultimate moral arbitor despite that he ordered the sacrifice of children, the slaughter of cities, and the subjugation of foreigners and the taking of their wealth for greedy and jealous Yahweh. I suppose that it's not surprising that his adherents would follow his tactics

[Anonymous No.15396466]

>>15396254
It's fine just to say you think something is wrong and even to criticize the use of logical fallacies like the ad hominem, you don't need to make up fake pathologies (or borrow someone else's). Yes, the Bible claims that some things are true that you don't agree with; you aren't being "gaslighted" or whatever.

[Anonymous No.15396484]

>>15396018
The fact that you namedropped some literally who and even included an umlaut when you pasted his name into the reply window in no way requires me to sift through dozens of French books in order to dismiss your assertion that two persons are actually the same because they're both referred to as "king".

[Anonymous No.15396528]

>>15395509
>i've only seen this spelling once before on 4chan
That is just Yahweh in Latin characters missing the vowels, just as the Jews often spell it with their own characters but omitting the vowels.

[Anonymous No.15396534]

You will teach the Jewish God's ways through christ, fathering another Jewish boy in the process. Trinity prophesy fulfilled.

[Anonymous No.15396574]

>>15394748
>A God of Love does not kill.

[Anonymous No.15396581]

>>15396574
>might is right

[Anonymous No.15396609]

@15396254
>inner sense of right and wrong
Why would your inner sense of right and wrong be correct in the post-fall world? You hesitate when thinking and discerning morally, God never does, not even when Christ incarnated.

Didn't even read the rest. Fix your mistaken and deluded assumptions before trying to paint Christ as a """demon""".

>he ordered the sacrifice of children
Sacrifice in the sense of serving Him and offering them to be His and not a false god's, not in the sense killing your own children, which would violate numerous Mosaic commandments.

[Anonymous No.15396617]

>>15396581
>might is right
In God, yes. His might is indivisible from His reasoning. God does not follow fallen created moral dialectics.

[Anonymous No.15396624]

>>15396617
>worships a God whose son was maligned and crucified by worldlings
>is a might is right gigachadposting fag

ahaha oh no no bruh look at this dude HAAHAHA

[Anonymous No.15396627]

>>15396617
>God does not follow the rules of this world

he sure adheres to them when he is acting in it lmao

[Anonymous No.15396683]

>>15396624
>maligned and crucified by worldlings
Christ died on the cross freely. He even says that much.
Also, Christ shares His divine will with the Father and the Holy Spirit, so it was a free action of the entire Holy Trinity.

>“Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

>>15396627
>rules of this world
>he sure adheres to them
He created them in the first place and understands them better than any of us.
God can choose to take on the very human nature He created and become one of us without forfeiting His divinity. Who are you to say otherwise?

[Anonymous No.15396703]

>>15396609
>Sacrifice in the sense of serving Him and offering them to be His and not a false god's
That's the thing though, the text itself doesn't say that, and the plain reading of the text taken at face value implies human sacrifice, whereas you are providing an interpretation departing from the clear meaning just like people do when making apologetics for Exodus 22:28-29 in which first born baby is given to Yahweh on the eighth day just as they were supposed to do with the flocks whose newborn animals they sacrificed. You say that this interpretation violates mosaic commandants but one would be a fool to deny that such a capricious god as Yahweh could contradict himself if he wanted to, and as already mentioned in Guyénot's article and as discussed in this thread the Bible documents the process of the older child-sacrificing Yahwehists being sidelined and the sacrifices being made symbolic around the era the Persians ruled the Israelites, altough despite this attempt to do away with human sacrifice numerous Israelite leaders persisted in the actual sacrifice of their children to Yahweh as the Bible documents, showing that for a certain strata of Israelite society such practices had at one point been normalized.

[Anonymous No.15396738]

@15396703
>the text itself doesn't say that
I deny sola scriptura demonry. Did not even read the rest.

[Anonymous No.15396784]

>>15388983
modern kikes do not worship Yahweh anymore

[Anonymous No.15396793]

>>15396738
>Did not even read the rest
not that guy, but you christcucks like to remain sheltered, there is no point in seeking or discussing the truth with you. whats sadder is that you keep getting btfod thread after thread

[Anonymous No.15396797]

>doesn't know the symbolic meaning of the eighth day
>doesn't know that Jews circumcised their kids on the eight day
>doesn't know the symbolic meaning of 'sacrificing' as 'giving away'

>תִּתֶּן
>you shall give

>δώσεις
>from δίνω
>give (pass something; transfer ownership)
>give, hold (an event)

holy cringe bugman. putting your trust in a fr*nch bugman instead of God. i am sure that will end well.

[Anonymous No.15396802]

@15396738

>Hey, isn't it a little weird that Yahweh who is supposed to be Christ says “And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh” (Ezekiel 20:25-26). I though Jesus was supposed to be a merciful savior of souls, why is he as God saying that he made people sacrifice their first born children to fill them with revulsion?
>*beep* *boop* *sola sciptura heresy does not compute* *error* *does not compute* *shabbos goyimindos has encountered an error and is shutting down*

[Anonymous No.15396805]

>>15396793
>like to remain sheltered
That post is full of demonic influences so yes, I would like to not engage with it more than necessary. My job is to just let him know that he is completely deluded.
>keep getting btfod
Good thing you non-christians haven't even read the texts themselves to btfo any of us in any form. Your understanding of Christianity is dictated entirely by judaizied american protestantism.

[Anonymous No.15396827]

>>15396805
>That post is full of demonic influences
cope, it's full of ideas that threatens your preconceived notions, even though your holy text clearly describes YHWH giving people bad laws and making people sacrifice their first born sons
> Good thing you non-christians haven't even read the texts themselves to btfo any of us in any form
another cope, you fag keep getting destroyed, whether it been in a discussion about how the Septuagint mistranslated Hebrew Scriptures and that resulted in christians trying to fulfill false prophecies or even on the messiahship of Jesus or his role. you're a broken record that keeps repeating the same empty points.

[Anonymous No.15396848]

>full of ideas that threatens your preconceived notions
lol. you think people haven't heard the basic "nooooo the old testament god was evil" line before? it was officially refuted more than a thousand years ago.
unless you can present a counter-refutation to the refutation of marcion and other degenerate heretics, we have nothing to talk about.

[Anonymous No.15396854]

>>15396848
>lol. you think people haven't heard the basic "nooooo the old testament god was evil" line before? it was officially refuted more than a thousand years ago.

how?

[Anonymous No.15396862]

>marcion's "refutation" is being criticized and questioned but he still acts blind to the obvious loopholes
>he purposely ignores all other points
based retard, no wonder christianity is dying in the west and rising in sub-saharan africa :^)

[Anonymous No.15396873]

To: 15396854
>how?
read literally any early church father.

To: 15396862
>obvious loopholes
such as?
>christianity is dying in the west
is this supposed to be bad for me? obviously i would prefer a Christian west instead of them falling away into hell, but it's about time they pay for their crimes and for spawning modernity.
>rising in sub-saharan africa
great. how does it feel to be replaced by black people in the kingdom to come?
>he purposely ignores all other shabbos-goy talking points
they're not even worth addressing.

[Anonymous No.15396880]

>>15396873
>read literally any early church father.

I'm asking you, why isn't the OT god evil according to Marcion?

[Anonymous No.15396925]

>>15396880
marcion would say that he is """"evil"""". modern bugmen are just spouting long-refuted heresies due to their pure hatred of anything genuinely Christian and a fear of changing their decadent lifestyles.

[Anonymous No.15396937]

>>15396925
ah yes, being disinclined to worship a war god masquerading as a god of love is the decadent urbanite in me talking. I just can't comprehend the sacrifice and faith it must take to glorify an eater of children. so do you have an actual argument?

[Anonymous No.15396939]

>>15396703
The Ezekiel passage was already explained pretty well by >>15393886. No, dualists won't agree with this, wow maybe this is why Christians think that Manichaeism is false.

As far as the human sacrifice thing you're stuck on, it is explicitly stated repeatedly that a) the Israelites practiced human sacrifice and b) God says this is wrong. And not merely stated but illustrated by weird parables like the one about Abraham and Isaac.

Now, it is pretty strongly implied that when the Israelites practiced human sacrifice that it was, at least some of the time, done in the name of God. Again, this practice is condemned. The "good news", I guess, is that your conception of God is roughly on par with the dumber/worse/more gullible/clueless portions of The Jews which you clearly hate so much, so you're not alone, at least. The bad news is that they at least were probably engaged with some living Canaanite tradition that everyone else around them was doing, whereas you managed to pick up on a thinly veiled implication in the text (some of the child sacrifice for which the Israelites are called evil was done in the name of God based on false understandings of Him) and then convinced yourself that you have ACHIEVED GNOSIS because of this which is, frankly, stupid.

[Anonymous No.15396945]

>>15388983
>>Christian exegetes never seem to have noticed either that Yahweh’s covenant—domination over the nations in exchange for exclusive worship—is basically identical to the pact that the devil tried to lure Jesus into:
>>“the devil showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. And he said to him, ‘I will give you all these, if you fall at my feet and do me homage.’ Then Jesus replied, ‘Away with you, Satan!’” (Matthew 4:8-10)
These two sentences alone prove that gnosticism is the correct interpretation of Christianity

[Anonymous No.15396956]

>>15396939
>No, dualists won't agree with this, wow maybe this is why Christians think that Manichaeism is false.

This is false. The Manichaean demons do evil and still know God, and know him with both horror and hunger. Christian """takedowns""" of dualism are always so toothless.

[Anonymous No.15396964]

>>15396945
Don't forget these, too:

>I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7)

>A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (Matthew 7:18)

[Anonymous No.15396982]

>>15396937
>war god
what does this even mean? war gods are usually false idols, not the True God who created the universe.
>eater of children
why are you trying to blaspheme this hard? what does this achieve for you?

[Anonymous No.15396987]

>>15396982
if he demeans himself by using force, then he is the god of this world, and ipso facto nigger, he's an eater of children. Marcionism 101. I thought you knew your stuff?

[Anonymous No.15396990]

>>15395250
/pol/ is ALWAYS right

[Anonymous No.15397007]

@15396987
>demeans himself by using force
why would using force demean him? what kind of bugman logic is this?
>he's an eater of children
only if you are a biased atheistic sola-scripturist KJV-only bug. it's funny how bugs take things extremely literally whenever it suits their demonic atheistic agenda but allegorize away all the parts they don't like.

[Anonymous No.15397024]

>>15397007
why would a god of love demean himself by using violence and bloodshed to further his design in the world? I thought we were supposed to transcend the world, but an omnipotent being can't keep himself from playing by its determinations? what kind of example does that set?

I'm talking Marcion you psychotic faggot, do you have an argument yet?

[Anonymous No.15397157]

>>15395410
you are just mad that he saged him

[Anonymous No.15397179]

>>15389845
In a way, the circumcision fucks up the brain and induces penchant for bad deeds. But this thread is essentially just a Gnosticism thread.

[Anonymous No.15397187]

>>15389576
>>15388983
>Is the Mosaic covenant a Faustian pact?
It was for God
God rode a monotheistic tribe to see if they'd make the leap from national god to absolute, but the conflation never fell away until part two, and even then what remained cleaved to it for cosmic irony's sake.

[Anonymous No.15397274]

>>15396703
What are the 7 doors for?

[Anonymous No.15397320]

>>15391632
t. gnostic faggot

[Anonymous No.15397376]

>>15397274
>As a result of Cronus' importance to the Romans as Saturn, he has indirectly had a large influence on Western culture. In accordance with the Near Eastern tradition, the seventh day of the Judaeo-Christian week was also called in Latin Dies Saturni ("Day of Saturn"), which in turn was adapted and became the source of the English word Saturday. In astronomy, the planet Saturn is so called because of Roman influence. It was considered the seventh and outermost of the seven heavenly objects that are visible with the naked eye (i.e. the seven classical planets), thereby corresponding to the seventh day of the week.

[Anonymous No.15397535]

>>15389576
Christ foretold the (Roman) destruction of the Jews and the destruction of the temple.

[Anonymous No.15397571]

>>15390736
>believing in an evil entity as a counterforce to god is heresy because the creator can not be overpowered by his creation

Why not?

[Anonymous No.15397582]

>>15394755

Absolutely true.

[Anonymous No.15397598]

>>15396609
>Why would your inner sense of right and wrong be correct in the post-fall world?

I don't see the point of this question. Why would your "outer" sense be any more correct then? Why would your perception of God's Moral prescriptivism not be likewise compromised, if this what you truly think?

[Anonymous No.15397618]

>>15397571
This. Many archetypical stories (mostly Greek) tell of godly beings being overpowered by their sons.
Being defeatable by your creation is not completely unrealistic, especially when we talk about an all powerful god

[Anonymous No.15397622]

>>15394673

Being one and the same does not necessarily entail agreement. Two things can be non-contradicting, and indeed non-Dual, in the sense that one totally subsumes the other.

>https://medium.com/interfaith-now/the-one-and-only-god-a-mormon-christology-of-radical-inclusion-b22fc7cc01a1

[Anonymous No.15397691]

>>15397157
I am baffled is what I am.

[Anonymous No.15397710]

>>15395410
>This same fucking guy shows up in every single thread about the bible or christianity and quotes an entire post and includes no commentary besides a picture of a so.i.jack. Every fucking time. I'm serious I've even called him out on it in one thread, linking several of his own posts in another still-alive thread and he stopped posting like he was insecure that he had been found out. Get a grip.

[Anonymous No.15397711]

>>15394755
Based epicurean chad

[Anonymous No.15397722]

>>15395202
It's a meme

[Anonymous No.15397723]

>>15394755
>the cruel and malevolent nature of any entity who would design the picture you posted as a punishment for the act of not believing in him should be sufficient to dispose of any belief that this same entity was the cause of the entire universe

[Anonymous No.15397738]

>>15395991
Based.

[Anonymous No.15397762]

>>15395202
In the English language, the letter I refers to the self, which the jews seek to defile. Christ banishing kikes from the temple, and then declaring the body to be the temple of God; The kingdom of God is within you...

Spam works on subhumans. Which is why the only reason we are in the current situation is public education. You waste 9-12+ years of your life within closed doors receiving propaganda as spam.

[Anonymous No.15397766]

>>15397723
Hell according to Christians is a world of justice, not ruled over by Satan unlike this world. Hell is preferable to this world. The only difference is that you see through many of the illusions without the ability to undo them.

[Anonymous No.15397770]

>>15397766
>Hell is preferable to this world.
You are a demon.

[Anonymous No.15397808]

I wonder which group might be sponsoring this thread...

[Anonymous No.15397810]

>>15396945
yeah, being a warrior of the true faith is the same as selling your soul to the devil for temporal power

>>15396964
don't you know the devil only acts with God's acquiescence? read job

[Anonymous No.15397839]

>>15396484
>No I don't come to the literature board to talk about books

[Anonymous No.15397849]

>>15397770
No, demons don't like hell so they make this place the worst they can. Hell isn't pleasant, but neither is this place.

[Anonymous No.15397853]

>>15397766
>Hell is preferable to this world.
For the atheistic nihilist, hell already begins in this world.
>>15397808
Based.

[Anonymous No.15397870]

This thread has been really embarrassing for the Christcucks. When faced with actual scholarship they just show off their soijak collection. Of course, /lit/ isn't a very good sample of christianity broadly but at least the average christian was simply raised that way and has never actually investigated the origins what they were taught to believe.

[Anonymous No.15397881]

>>15397870
>This thread has been really embarrassing for the Christcucks.
The other way around. it made me unironically want to learn more about Christianity.

[Anonymous No.15397887]

>>15397870
>embarrassing
Weapon of the woman, the narcissist and the jew.

[Anonymous No.15397894]

>>15397881
>The other way around. it made me unironically want to learn more about Christianity.

>>15397887
>Weapon of the woman, the narcissist and the jew.

[Anonymous No.15397906]

>>15397870
What about the average Gnostic?

[Anonymous No.15397907]

>>15397870
>>15397894
>when faced with actual ''''''''''scholarship'''''''''''' they just show off their soijak collection
>retorts show exactly the opposite
>replies with soijack
you are a retard, my friend

[David No.15397974]

>>15397906
They are much more knowledgeable on the topic from my experience.

[David No.15397993]

>>15396848
>was officially refuted more than a thousand years ago.
No

[Anonymous No.15398009]

>>15397906
>Gnostic
Neoplatonistic philosophical speculations. Not interesting.

[Anonymous No.15398041]

>>15388983
>Christian exegetes never seem to have noticed either that Yahweh’s covenant—domination over the nations in exchange for exclusive worship—is basically identical to the pact that the devil tried to lure Jesus into:
The Christian Devil is based on the jew. Shares the same archetype and even the form. This particular point makes me wonder how many layers of bullshit our history is on. Napoleon probably struck a similar deal, as did Queen Elizabeth.

[Anonymous No.15398081]

>>15397993
To be fair, it was more like three thousand years ago when Abraham spoke to Christ.

[Anonymous No.15398087]

>>15397894
omg this! i find it to be so disrespectul to be a christian in heckin' 2020!!
>>15398081
>Abraham
nooo!! my frickin' sodomites we need to respect their sexualities!!

[Anonymous No.15398092]

>>15398081
>christcuck commits eisegesis all over Genesis
based cringy troglydyte. did Paul also appear in Genesis?

[Anonymous No.15398099]

>>15398087
>implying chr*tcucks have any problems with sodomites
you aint been keepin up to news. :^)

[Anonymous No.15398122]

>>15398092
>did Paul also appear in Genesis?
No, Saint Paul is a created being.
>eisegesis
Read the Gospel according to John. Christ himself confirms that he spoke to Abraham.
Also, calling things "eisegesis" is an atheist tactic invented to seem "impartial" and "objective" when the atheist himself has even more presuppositions and biases against the word of God.

“Abraham is our father,” they answered.
“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45 Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! 46 Can any of you prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe me? 47 Whoever belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God.”

48 The Jews answered him, “Aren’t we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?”
49 “I am not possessed by a demon,” said Jesus, “but I honor my Father and you dishonor me. 50 I am not seeking glory for myself; but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge. 51 Very truly I tell you, whoever obeys my word will never see death.”
52 At this they exclaimed, “Now we know that you are demon-possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that whoever obeys your word will never taste death. 53 Are you greater than our father Abraham? He died, and so did the prophets. Who do you think you are?”
54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad.”
57 “You are not yet fifty years old,” they said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!”
58 “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

[Anonymous No.15398128]

>>15398099
>:^)
is this the new zoomer symbol?

[Anonymous No.15398155]

>>15398122
>he continues to do eisegesis
>he uses one of the Gospels as prove
>Jesus said
doesn't really prove what you're claiming, If mohammed claimed he is prophecized in Torah, it is not proven by going to the Quran but by going to Torah and reading it. thats the opposite of what you're doing right now, I bet you're one of the retards who claim that in Genesis when god said "let us make man in our image" then that refers to a trinity. overall an embracing post on your end, this whole thread is a shit show. :)

[Anonymous No.15398198]

>>15398092
If only you could know...

[Anonymous No.15398247]

Anti-semitic thread.

[Anonymous No.15398398]

>>15398155
>doesn't really prove what you're claiming
If the direct words of the incarnate Logos aren't enough for you, then nothing will be.
>mohammed
A false prophet who was in prelest and was tricked by a fallen angel posing as Gabriel into reading the demonic qur'an. This is pretty obvious when you read more about demons and their methods of tricking people.
>in Genesis when god said "let us make man in our image" then that refers to a trinity
Yes. That's true and it's what the traditional Church Father interpretation is. Also Genesis 1:2 refers to the Holy Trinity.
>But the earth was unsightly and unfurnished, and darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God moved over the water.

[Anonymous No.15398474]

>>15398155
>i bet you think that the countless references to the trinity in the old testament refers to the trinity right? N-NO!
>why not? because that would make even more obvious how christianity is the only truly divine-inspired religion

[Anonymous No.15398524]

>>15397810
>being a warrior of the true faith?
Is that how you justify your despicable crimes to yourself?
Sad!

[Anonymous No.15398590]

>>15398524
>krishna incites arjuna to literally kill members of his own family in a war: WOW So beautiful, we should really do what we ought to do!!!
>Stand for revealed truth, defending and spreading it in the most amiable way possible: DESPICABLE CRIMES!!

[Anonymous No.15398658]

>>15394843
just realized that the "mutt" meme is definitely astroturfed

[Anonymous No.15398686]

>>15396254
Based post

[Anonymous No.15398718]

>>15398590

[Anonymous No.15398760]

>>15397376
I didn't ask what 7 is for, I asked what the 7 doors are for.

[Anonymous No.15398773]

>>15397571
>>15397618
Take acid and come face to face with a spiritual being and let me know how well you "overpower" them.
Your ego will be vaporized instantaneously.
Now realize you only made contact with a lesser being and you might start to see the hubris of considering yourself an equal to God.

[Anonymous No.15398829]

It seems pretty clear that Yahweh is an Arab Volcano demon
What is Allah?
And why are these Arabian desert demons so strong? It seems the only cultures that have somewhat stopped their advance are the Indo branch of Indo-Aryans, Hinduism and Buddhism. Do the Vedic underpinnings of these faiths help repel these evil Arab gods?

[Anonymous No.15398846]

>>15398829
>Do the Vedic underpinnings of these faiths help repel these evil Arab gods?
A Vedic verse a day keeps the YHVH away

[Anonymous No.15398854]

>>15398829
> Yahweh is an Arab Volcano demon
nah bruh, thats hebrew, the name YHWH only makes sense in Hebrew. I think Allah is an aspect of YHWH, basically same entity, different face. also stop shilling your religion, poojet. everyone knows Zoroastrianism is the true faith.

[Anonymous No.15398911]

>>15398854
>the name YHWH only makes sense in Hebrew
it is a FACT that YHWH comes from the arabian desert, this is attested to by egyptians
>I think Allah is an aspect of YHWH, basically same entity, different face
No way, they are at complete odds metaphysically and on this mortal plane. This is clearly a struggle between two demons
>everyone knows Zoroastrianism is the true faith
And yet it failed, sad I know. Their legacy lived on slightly in the true gnostic teachings and in manicheaism, but even these faltered
However, Buddhism is unironically slowly eating at the root of YHWH in the west. There must be something in the teachings which these desert demons shirk from

[Anonymous No.15398929]

>>15398911
>There must be something in the teachings which these desert demons shirk from
NOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST LIVE MULTIPLE TIMES IT'S NOW OR NEVER
NOOOOOOO YOU CANT JUST DO IT YOURSELF YOU NEED A GOD TO TELL YOU WHAT TO DO
NOOOOO YOU CANT JUST MEDITATE YOU HAVE TO OBEY THE LAW

[Anonymous No.15398932]

>>15398911
>is a FACT that YHWH comes from the arabian desert,
bruhh, the name YHWH first appears in the levant in the middle east, not in the arabian desert
> This is clearly a struggle between two demons
more like the followers of one demon are at odds with each other, at the end of the day they worship the same nigga.
>buddhism in the west
couldn't you use a better example? you think its a good thing that art hoes and pothead hippies are converting to buddhism? the west is a spiritual black hole, nothing can go there and survive, just look at christianity

[Anonymous No.15398953]

>>15388983
>>15388986
These are a lot of well-thought out points and they deserve a well-thought out answer.

First off, the argument that the Mosaic covenant is a conspiracy against the nations. It is not actually a conspiracy, because Israel is in no better position with God if they fail to be the kind of nation God wants. They of course do fail, and consequently are driven into exile because they don't live by faith, instead they live according to mere selfish desires or their own false ethical beliefs. The New Covenant (i.e. Christians) however do have a similar conspiracy if you will, but that conspiracy is against the world, and Israel is replaced with the Kingdom of God. The world has a theological meaning as being the sum of human falsity; power, status, wealth and ethics in which these are valued.

Secondly the argument that Satan and God are not very different is entirely true, Satan just means Accuser, he's an angelic lawyer essentially, but still an angel, and with great persuasive ability as we see in Job. Something Christians don't tend to admit is that God is not directly concerned with their ethical beliefs, God only accepts self-surrender to God, and that is a dangerous proposition. People don't like it since while valuing self-surrender to God is an ethical value, it can conflict with other ethical values. I don't know why you didn't mention Abraham's attempt to sacrifice his son; the reason Abraham is patriarch is because he passed the test of faith unrestrained by any ethical values.

You see, I think that by focusing on God's morality you've missed the point of the narrative, namely that God's desire is for people to live like Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were innocent of morality and it was the tree of good and evil that brought about the fall. If you preserve this meaning, you understand that the Bible has nothing to do with morality, and that the God of the Bible views human morals as lies unless those morals find their metaphysical source in God's will. This is naturally too wild an idea for the majority of humanity to practice, since in this kind of world right and wrong become absolutely and radically relativistic to our perspective, and we would have to be comfortable with that, having faith that God is in control. It would be anarchy, which is why anarchism and revolutionary movements are a natural progression from Christian faith. In order to be an anarchist, you have to believe that people are endowed with a God-knowledge (or something fundamentally equivalent) that should be freed from the shackles of conventionality.

So my answer is in sum that you're sort of right, which is why we have a traditional distrust of Judaism, but we have a different take on the same ideas with the concepts of worldliness versus the Kingdom of God. A Gospel interpretation of the Old Covenant is that Israel represents the Kingdom of God at that time, against the worldly forces of the nations.

[Anonymous No.15398995]

>>15398932
>The oldest plausible recorded occurrence of his name is in the phrase "land of Shasu of yhw", in an Egyptian inscription from the time of Amenhotep III (1402–1363 BCE),[22][23] the Shasu being nomads from Midian and Edom in northern Arabia.[24]

As for Buddhism as an example, I don't think I could, because it's actually a great example. Some of the biggest names in spreading it are fucking JEWS that were DECONVERTED by Vedic teachings. The children of this demon are being pulled in, and now are some of the most dedicated teachers (Joseph Goldstein, for example)
We can laugh at California buddhists all we want, but there is something serious about this phenomena that we are only seeing the beginning of

[Anonymous No.15399156]

>>15398995
>Jews becoming Dharmic back again
Based, so we can finally have peace

[Anonymous No.15399164]

>>15398846
someone inspire me bros
what vedic verse should i repeat before entering a potentially dangerous y*hw*hist haunted ground?

[Anonymous No.15399191]

>>15399164
अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवमृत्विजम् । होतारं रत्नधातमम् १

[Anonymous No.15399289]

>>15395295
>look up gospel of thomas
>even modern secular scholars agree that it wasn't actually written by the apostle of thomas
how does it feel to believe lies, gnostic scum?

[Anonymous No.15399303]

>>15399289
literally no gospel was written by mark, matthew, luke, john
what IS funny is that matthew and luke are plagiarisms of matt, whereas thomas is actually unique and older than many parts of the new testament

[Anonymous No.15399309]

>>15399303
plagiarisms of mark*

[Anonymous No.15399315]

>>15399303
Plagiarism is putting it too nicely, they are canonized fanfic of Mark

[Anonymous No.15399535]

>>15399303
the very first line says
>These are the hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas wrote them down.
If it lies on the very first line, then you can't trust the rest. scholars actually believe that john believed that thomas was wrong and interpreting things jesus was saying the wrong way. theres a reason people back then didn't like the gospel of thomas or consider it canon. it may be older but its likely wrong.

[Anonymous No.15399551]

>>15399535
the wisdom present in the Gospel of Thomas is superior to the mainstream gospels, that's all that matters and you should be concerned about.

[Anonymous No.15399561]

>>15399551
lol ok heretic.

[Anonymous No.15399588]

>>15399561
like clockwork. how's the fungus in your brain stem treating you? make sure to drink lots of water.

[Anonymous No.15399592]

The true message of religion is eternal. It’s self-transcendent and can never be codified. The message is an infinite regress. It can never be fully understood, you have to follow it like a wave. You have to surf along the border of not enough and too much. You can’t learn how to do this by thinking about it, it’s must be learned empirically or through experience.

[Anonymous No.15399596]

>>15399535
typical christcuck, doesn't even know what pseudepigrapha is
Answer me this christcuck, how many of the Paul Epistles do you reject? How much of the Bible do you renounce on this rejection of pseudepigrapha?

[Anonymous No.15399679]

>>15399535
>people back then didn't like the gospel of thomas
retard
> or consider it canon
yet, the many edited and later on added passages in the canonical gospels are considered canon like the ending of mark 16

[Anonymous No.15400088]

>The Mosaic covenant is a Faustian pact, read the Vedas!

[Anonymous No.15400184]

>>15399289
>believes yahweh would inspire a man to know and write the events of moses
>doesn't believe sophia would visit a man to perpetuate the writings of thomas
cringe

[Anonymous No.15400364]

>>15400088
this but unironically

[Anonymous No.15400506]

>>15395261
eh... the New Testament was seen even by gnostics as opposed to the Old Testament. Gnostics believed Old Testament god to be the evil god, and New Testament god (with Jesus as His representative) to be the good God.

although the subsequent purge of gnostics from the Catholic Church would point to what you stated in your comment, that satan infiltrated the New Testament church and corrupted the meaning to teach that the OT god is the good guy.

[Anonymous No.15400554]

>>15400506
jesus never said that the old testament God was a different God. It has always been the same God. Just because the Greeks and your modern secular, heretical philsophy doesn't agree with God doesn't mean God is fake.

[Anonymous No.15400609]

>>15400554
Jesus literally gave James passwords to bypass the demiruge, cope more

[Anonymous No.15400668]

>>15400554
>"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." -- John 8:44

When Jesus said that to the Pharisees it kinda sounds like he was saying something along those lines

[Anonymous No.15400673]

>>15400609
A persons behavior can change, but it is still the same person. Same with God. Just because we don't have to follow the OT laws doesn't mean we have a new God.

[Anonymous No.15400703]

>>15400668
>father not capitalized
How retarded can you be? Hes not talking about God there. Capitalized nouns are always used for God. Hes saying that the people aren't treating God as their Father like they should be, instead they have taken some "devil" as their father.

[Anonymous No.15400709]

>>15400673
just because a pedophile trying to hide the truth of christ tells you to worship an arabic demon, it doesnt mean you should

[Anonymous No.15400719]

>>15400703
You're retarded, yahweh is not the Father (broadest Aeon), but "the father" i.e. the demiurge worshiped by hylics such as yourself

[Anonymous No.15400767]

>>15398658
Ron Unz is not a goblino de americano mutt but is a based and red-pilled man of Ukrainian-Jewish descent

[Anonymous No.15400839]

some people in this thread were saying that the verse Ezekiel 20:25-26 about sacrificing children was just about some symbolic offering instead of children or about circumcision, and that this was the only passage talking about sacrificing children, both of these counts are false

>“And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgements by which they could never live; and I polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice every first-born son in order to fill them with revulsion, so that they would know that I am Yahweh”
(Ezekiel 20:25-26).

just a few verses after this above one which people have been discussing in Ezekiel 20:30-31 it explicitly confirms that the earlier verse meant the literal murder and sacrifice of children by saying "the sacrifice of your children in the fire"

>“Therefore say to the Israelites: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Will you defile yourselves the way your ancestors did and lust after their vile images? When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your children in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day. Am I to let you inquire of me, you Israelites? As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will not let you inquire of me.
(Ezekiel 20:30-31)

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+20&version=NIV

[Anonymous No.15400896]

>>15400554
jesus didn't say a lot of things, he wasn't allowed to, they killed him early on.
He did leave hints though. Such as calling the Jews the Synagogue of Satan. Why would he call the priest class of the Jews servants of Satan?

The priest class of the Jews were doing what they had been taught to do, and Jesus found it evil, and the priest class had Jesus killed by the Romans.

The Catholic Church's slaughter of the gnostics (who viewed the old testament god as evil) is another clue that the Old Testament god is a corrupt criminal that you shouldn't mess around with if you value life. The Saturn of this material realm/matrix.

another clue the OT god is evil is that the jews repeatedly were reprimanded by God for sacrificing their children. They were doing what they were taught by the priest class.

when one side is completely corrupt, criminal and evil, and is willing to infiltrate and subvert history and religious teachings to suit their own end, it sorta becomes pointless to engage in historical debates. One side HAS NO PROBLEM LYING and for centuries has had an iron grip on the reins of power and the production of "history" books.
in this case, it becomes easier to "judge them by their fruits". Which side resorts to killing people that teach a message different from theirs, even though that message is peaceful and isn't harming anyone?
The gnostics were slaughtered by the mainstream Church for teaching a message similar to Jesus', similar to the Essene message. For teaching of peace on earth and a kingdom of God within, not a political kingdom that has to burn people at the stake just to maintain their hold on power.

[Anonymous No.15401085]

>>15400896
>The priest class of the Jews were doing what they had been taught to do, and Jesus found it evil, and the priest class had Jesus killed by the Romans.
Correct. We even have a modern version of what this "priest class" was taught: the Talmud. It's not the same as the Old Testament (Tanakh), although the rabbis love to let people assume that it is.

>The Catholic Church's slaughter of the gnostics (who viewed the old testament god as evil) is another clue that the Old Testament god is a corrupt criminal that you shouldn't mess around with if you value life.
What the fuck are you talking about? The Albigensian Crusade? I don't think it was dealt with appropriately but the Cathars were fucking stupid. The Holocaust doesn't prove that the Jews are right about everything either, it doesn't even prove that the Third Reich was wrong about everything.

>another clue the OT god is evil is that the jews repeatedly were reprimanded by God for sacrificing their children.
Do you actually not realize how stupid this sounds? It's literally a self-refuting statement.

>when one side is completely corrupt, criminal and evil, and is willing to infiltrate and subvert history and religious teachings to suit their own end
Yes, lots of people disagree with your assessment of the Old Testament and have for a long time.

[Anonymous No.15401161]

>>15401085
>What the fuck are you talking about? The Albigensian Crusade? I don't think it was dealt with appropriately but the Cathars were fucking stupid.
Imagine typing these words and not realizing you worship satan

[Anonymous No.15401171]

>>15401085
>the Cathars were fucking stupid
what makes you say that? They lived poor, they didn't hoard wealth (like the Catholic Church), they didn't believe in reproducing the species, they were peaceful. The Catholic Church killed them off in gruesome way even though they could have just done nothing and let them die out of old age since they didn't encourage reproduction of species.

>Do you actually not realize how stupid this sounds? It's literally a self-refuting statement.
on the contrary, it's evidence that the "official" story has been tampered with, which is something comparative religious studies have known about for a long time. It shows that the evil ruling class of child-sacrificing priests couldn't keep the lie completely covered. The guy that posted the Ezekial quotes where the god of the priest caste admits to demanding child sacrifice, and then later castigating them for engaging in child sacrifice... it's a contradiction only if you think the OT is the good God. The contradiction resolves itself if you postulate the OT god as the evil god that has cunningly seized control of the production of history books (i.e. they control the political power) and poses as the god of good.

>Yes, lots of people disagree with your assessment of the Old Testament and have for a long time.
and the proper response is to torture and murder people that disagree with you peacefully? well you sure sound like the good guy

[Anonymous No.15401172]

>>15401085
>We even have a modern version of what this "priest class" was taught: the Talmud.
Talmud was written around 400 years after Christ

[Anonymous No.15401257]

>>15400839
Doesn't this just mean God is anti-semitic and hates the Jews?

[Anonymous No.15401308]

>>15401257
yahweh hates humanity in general, but the jews were forced into a pact to be the tools with which he inflicts pain on humanity
as a result, they often get bizarre special treatment even in torture

kinda like a roman legion being disciplined with decimation for failing in a military action against foreigners

[Anonymous No.15401359]

>>15401257
it means that Yahweh is a malevolent demonic entity and not the pure supreme God

[Anonymous No.15401613]

>>15401171
>muh Cathar Holocaust
Losing a war or even being the victim of an outright atrocity doesn't prove that your religion/philosophy is correct. I hardly think I need to bother mentioning what has been done with the inverse of this idea in the modern world.

As for the supposed correctness of a poorly-documented French splinter sect, poor management of industry, sterility, and onanism are not virtues.

>Ezekiel
The contradiction is resolved by the non-dualistic nature of reality. Yes, Evil is subservient to Good. Even if you insist, somewhat understandably, on a dualistic cosmology, you should at least do a better job of figuring out which is which.

>and the proper response is to torture and murder people that disagree with you peacefully? well you sure sound like the good guy
I'm not torturing and murdering anyone.

You realize that you sound exactly like a Jew, right?

>You (personally) have to believe my paranoid worldview because you (vague) Holocausted "my people"!

[Anonymous No.15401795]

>>15401613
>being the victim of an outright atrocity doesn't prove that your religion is correct.
it does prove that the winners aren't correct though. Jesus taught pacifism and love, not how to stay in political power through the torture, rape and murder of your enemies.

The Cathars didn't believe in killing, not even the killing of animals. Obviously these tree hugging hippies were going to get their ass handed to them by any invading force, especially ones as greedy, violent and rapacious as the Crusader army.

>poorly documented French splinter sect
the Cathars were not the only gnostic sect to receive such treatment, the Catholic Church did this multiple times to across the Christian kingdoms.

in terms of "who is closer to the true teachings of Jesus", the Catholic Church failed big time. Burning fellow Christians (or even enemies under a misguided belief system) is not what "love your neighbor" means.
>poor management of industry
the teachings of Jesus are not a manual for economic success, i can't believe how ridiculous you are.
>sterility
they weren't sterile, they believed in reincarnation and that the goal of Christians is to escape this material reality, not condemn souls to being reborn into this prison reality.

>i'm not torturing or murdering anyone
at this moment? no. But you're defending people who did torture and murder.

>you realize that you sound exactly like a Jew, right?
when all else fails, accuse the person of being a Jew. No, i'm not a Jew.
You do realize that you're defending the Jew though when you condone the child sacrifice of the Old Testament, and the murder of peaceful gnostic Christians, right?

>muh holocaust
i never once brought up the holocaust, you did.
I could not care less about the holocaust or whether it happened or not. Endlessly debating about what happened or didn't happen is pointless and gets no where. The goal is to end evil behavior, end the child sacrifices, end the mistreatment of humanity by greedy, violent people.

and you're not helping. You're defending the greedy violent people and their behavior of murder and rape, all because "it's better management of industry, and healthy reproduction rates".
you're more concerned with perpetuating the material, Saturnian realm and ensuring it continues. Murdering and torturing people that teach people how to escape this Saturnian prison is, to you, a virtue, since your goal is to keep souls trapped here. And *that* is a very Jewish thing to do.

[Anonymous No.15401832]

>>15401795
The "material realm" isn't evil.

[Anonymous No.15401861]

>>15401832
according to the Jews and Catholic Church, no, it isn't.
according to the Gnostics, yes, it is.

who to believe?
Do we believe the people that are willing to torture, rape and murder you if you disagree with them? (the jews and Catholics)
or do we believe the people that will leave you in peace and are content to live their lives in peace, according to their own beliefs, and not murder you for disagreeing with them? (gnostics)

tough call, what do you think?