you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 62 points 1 year ago (35 children)
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    And Christianity isn't technically monotheistic either, as it has the trinity of God, Christ, and the Spooky Spirit... errrm... I mean Holy Ghost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago

    And trinitarianism specifically is basically just a reason to wage wars. I was raised in a trinitarian denomination and I still mostly consider myself Christian but I can't reconcile my morals with waging literal wars over fucking metaphysics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It really is tho. The 3 are the same thing. Different parts/names of one entity. Probably wasn't originally, but def is now

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (14 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (13 children)
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago (12 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    So some guy has an alternative theory

    but no evidence of pre-Israelite Yahweh worship among the peoples of the ancient Levant has surfaced

    That's because the israelites were the worshippers of Yahweh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Yeah see this is how I know you're not serious. The author of that article isn't "some guy", he's an incredibly respected and accomplished historian and archaeologist, specializing in ancient near-east civilizations. And you couldn't be bothered to read past the first paragraph. You don't want to have an actual discussion about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    I read all there was contained on the list. He admits it is literally just a theory

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    You're either being obtuse or you don't understand how science works if you think "he says it's just a theory" is a gotcha

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    This is history. History works different than other sciences. You cannot just claim that it's common knowledge/scholarly accepted that yahweh originated in a pantheon because one scholar puts forward a theory on it, which most scholars reject (but they get dismissed because they are "biased")

    History isn't replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Absolutely, definitely, totally, 100% incorrect. Just because I only provided one source does not mean that that's the only source available claiming that Yaweh originated in a pantheon. To suggest that is laughably disingenuous, and more proof that you're not approaching this discussion seriously or with honesty.

    History isn't replicable and observable like chemistry, physics or biology

    Your close-minded definition of "history" isn't, because it doesn't allow you to update and believe new things based on new scientific discoveries and evidence. It's stagnant, stuck in the past, rigid, and unwilling to change.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Wikipedia is a source of sources. You can scroll down to the bottom of the damn page and view the original sources if you really need the originals. No, you're just using this as an excuse. Fuck off. Everyone can see right through this.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Wikipedia is policed by radical atheists like tgeorgescu who deliberately delete Christian sources

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Lol. Meanwhile here you are, policing what people provide as evidence because you only accept something that supports your worldview. You should be a wiki moderator apparently... oh wait, they actually have standards.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Wikipedia isn't a source. A whole Wikipedia article doesn't back up your claim.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Wikipedia is a source, even in academics. It isn't a primary source. If you're going to be pedantic, you could at least have the decency to be correct.

    Repeating this doesn't actually address anything I said though. Presumably you can't actually engage with what was said because you have no standing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (10 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh

    You should have just looked this up yourself. It's going to be the first result in most search engines.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 1 year ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Then check the sources listed under that wiki article.

    If you couldn't be bothered to look up something as simple and undisputed as this, then it's really silly to make a stand with "Wikipedia isn't a source", it just makes you look like a bad troll.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What do you mean "undisputed". The whole pantheon thing is a historical reconstructed theory, not a fact. You'd find millions of people who'd dispute a claim as absurd as pre-messianic Judaism not originally being monotheistic.

    Now yes, the israelites have practiced polytheism several times. The Bible records this. But the Christian religion has always been monotheistic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yep, undisputed. Except by religious zealots who resort to bad faith arguments when some of their cultist beliefs are not accepted as fact by non believers, but on those subjects, those people aren't taken seriously by anyone except others from their cult, so yes, pretty much undisputed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You're acting as if there's actually solid evidence for this theory. There really isn't. We know polytheism existed, that doesn't mean it was necessarily the origin. Heck, there are even hindus today that claim to worship Jesus. Does that mean that Jesus originated in Hinduism? No.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    That isn't even remotely analogous to this situation.

    One easy way to know it's the origin is to recognize that every religion is an evolution of other religions on the area. The others are polytheistic. It would only be reasonable to assume Judaism originated from the same practice, and we can observe similarities between Judaism and local religions of the time and find they share some aspects, implying they have the same origin. That origin being polytheistic.

  • source
  • parent