God/Yahweh/Allah I BELIEVE started as volcanic activity

[The Fog Horn]

Lets not look at real evidence when we can run with imagination and fantasy

We have a huge body of evidence that was mostly based on imagination, or magical thinking. That aside, if you have an unusual ability to empathise then you can cut away the magical thinking to reveal the truth. You are obviously not able to do that. I am. I have always been very empathic. I've often been told I'm an indigo adult and do match almost all the traits, but I'm not into hocus pocus so just see it as a match of traits and nothing else. I am very insightful and intuitive. I also have an IQ of 140. Insight is what is needed though because with it you can then empathise and when you can empathise you can put yourselves in the shoes (or minds) of people of any time, given a bit of info. In a way you have to be capable of magical thinking (imagination, empathy, intuition) in order to decipher magical thinking.

 

[Riverwolf]

If all else fails, fall back on the good old reliable, 'Well it's all a load of rubbish anyway!'.

You think it is, almost all other atheists think it is, all theists think it isn't and almost none of you have worked it out. Or am I wrong? Do you have an explanation for everything? Have you ever known anyone who could explain it all in such simple terms? Have you ever worked out why the Bible (a very odd piece of fiction!) was written? No...you don't so stop being all high and mighty.

You're right, I don't. In fact, no one does, not even you. Nor have I ever intentionally said or implied that I did.

Not really sure why you're seeing the "high and mighty." You may want to think otherwise, but the two of us are on an even keel when it comes to these matters, because neither of us are scholars. We only have limited information, some of it from questionable sources. We can't read the original languages (which is a HUGE hindrance, believe it or not), nor are we fully aware of the culture this came from.

Look at the words I use. I never spoke in definite terms, except by mistake. I never outright said, "No, this is not possible," except by mistake. I only ever said that it's "unlikely."

 

[Riverwolf]

We have a huge body of evidence that was mostly based on imagination, or magical thinking. That aside, if you have an unusual ability to empathise then you can cut away the magical thinking to reveal the truth. You are obviously not able to do that. I am. I have always been very empathic. I've often been told I'm an indigo adult and do match almost all the traits, but I'm not into hocus pocus so just see it as a match of traits and nothing else. I am very insightful and intuitive. I also have an IQ of 140. Insight is what is needed though because with it you can then empathise and when you can empathise you can put yourselves in the shoes (or minds) of people of any time, given a bit of info. In a way you have to be capable of magical thinking (imagination, empathy, intuition) in order to decipher magical thinking.

Dude, I have an IQ of 137. Believe it or not, IQ doesn't mean much.

Insight is good, but it's not infallible. Like I said, I've had several insights that later proved wrong.

 

[The Fog Horn]

You're right, I don't. In fact, no one does, not even you. Nor have I ever intentionally said or implied that I did.

Not really sure why you're seeing the "high and mighty." You may want to think otherwise, but the two of us are on an even keel when it comes to these matters, because neither of us are scholars. We only have limited information, some of it from questionable sources. We can't read the original languages (which is a HUGE hindrance, believe it or not), nor are we fully aware of the culture this came from.

Look at the words I use. I never spoke in definite terms, except by mistake. I never outright said, "No, this is not possible," except by mistake. I only ever said that it's "unlikely."

Your whole attitude to my theory has been of rejection and mockery. That is not a good way to approach contradictory or challenging ideas. New ideas are usually greeted with hostility, until they become proven correct, in which case everyone had thought of it already. I am awaiting your predictable reactions to come to fruition and for you to eventually say, 'Well, don't you think I'd not already thought of it?'. It's happened a few times and you're prime suspect to be next.

 

[outhouse]

We have a huge body of evidence that was mostly based on imagination, or magical thinking. That aside, if you have an unusual ability to empathise then you can cut away the magical thinking to reveal the truth. You are obviously not able to do that. I am. I have always been very empathic. I've often been told I'm an indigo adult and do match almost all the traits, but I'm not into hocus pocus so just see it as a match of traits and nothing else. I am very insightful and intuitive. I also have an IQ of 140. Insight is what is needed though because with it you can then empathise and when you can empathise you can put yourselves in the shoes (or minds) of people of any time, given a bit of info. In a way you have to be capable of magical thinking (imagination, empathy, intuition) in order to decipher magical thinking.

Your not the only one with a high IQ on this site


and im suprised you dont use it to build a real case for which your failing miserably at.

 

[outhouse]

That is not a good way to approach contradictory or challenging ideas

sorry bud but you dont have a challenging idea

'Well, don't you think I'd not already thought of it?'.

your building a court case from ignornace on the subject.


You need to learn real history not theology to prove real history.

 

[The Fog Horn]

Your not the only one with a high IQ on this site


and im suprised you dont use it to build a real case for which your failing miserably at.

I'm sure there are and I'm also sure they are off looking into my theory rather than wasting time with blinkered thinking.

It's a new theory. Do you expect it to be set in stone? It's a work in progress. I'm open to new information. This theory will probably never be finalised, unlike the mindset of the average atheist.

 

[Riverwolf]

Your whole attitude to my theory has been of rejection and mockery.

Show me the mockery, because the only thing I've ridiculed in such a manner is your idea that it was deliberately covered up, because such ideas have always been ridiculous, ESPECIALLY when completely unfounded.

That is not a good way to approach contradictory or challenging ideas.

Right, which is why I didn't do that. I demonstrated how it's unlikely because of x, y, and z.

New ideas are usually greeted with hostility, until they become proven correct, in which case everyone had thought of it already. I am awaiting your predictable reactions to come to fruition and for you to eventually say, 'Well, don't you think I'd not already thought of it?'. It's happened a few times and you're prime suspect for the next one.

Actually, the idea that the Abrahamic God had started out as a volcano deity had never occurred to me.

Ever hear of Ahura Mazda?

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm sure there are and I'm also sure they are off looking into my theory rather than wasting time with blinkered thinking.

Do you think we didn't do that?

 

[The Fog Horn]

Right....hold off for a moment....I'm about to post something...please all read it properly....

wait...

 

[outhouse]

It's a new theory. Do you expect it to be set in stone?

its not new, its not a theory, its not even a valid hypothesis. its throwing darts in a darkroom

some great minds have played with it and realized they were going nowhere with it and it failed then as it does now.


Your whole problem is not building a valid case, because you cant.


If I and Riverwolf give up on you this would sink faster then the titanic

 

[The Fog Horn]

I am also a very creative woman who is entirely independent, owns a successful creative business, has paid off her mortgage by age 30, does not conform to society's expectations, etc, plus I'm intelligent, empathic, intuitive and inquisitive and have a hunger for the truth, and have proven an ability to put truth before ego (by dropping Christianity on learning more) and...most importantly.....have a fresh pair of eyes. Maybe this is the unusual combination of traits needed to see through the matrix.

Why Experts Create Few New Ideas | Psychology Today

 

[Riverwolf]

I am also a very creative woman who is entirely independent, owns a successful creative business, has paid off her mortgage by age 30, does not conform to society's expectations, etc, plus I'm intelligent, empathic, intuitive and inquisitive and have a hunger for the truth, and have proven an ability to put truth before ego (by dropping Christianity on learning more) and...most importantly.....have a fresh pair of eyes. Maybe this is the unusual combination of traits needed to see through the smog.

Why Experts Create Few New Ideas | Psychology Today

But because you're a layman, you don't possess the information necessary, and therefore are not credible.

The reason I don't trust this is because, as a Hindu, believe it or not, I have to deal with this sort of thing (laymen pretending to be experts and presenting their pet theories/hypothesis/ideas as truth) all the time.

I, too, am a layman, and like I keep reiterating, I, too, have had several insights based on what information I had at the time; but upon attaining new information, those insights proved false. I most certainly didn't pass them off as "fabricated".

 

[The Fog Horn]

But because you're a layman, you don't possess the information necessary, and therefore are not credible.

CONTRADICTING THE PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLE

The reason I don't trust this is because, as a Hindu, believe it or not, I have to deal with this sort of thing (laymen pretending to be experts and presenting their pet theories/hypothesis/ideas as truth) all the time.

I'M NOT PRETENDING TO BE AN EXPERT. I SAID EARLY ON I AM A NOVICE. THAT DOES NOT DISCREDIT MY THEORY. SO FAR YOU HAVE NOT DISCREDITED MY THEORY. YOU THINK YOU HAVE DONE BUT THAT IS YOU BASING MY THEORY ON YOUR PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS. YOU HAVE YET YO ANALYSE MY THEORY WITH AN OPEN MIND FREE OF PRE-CONCEIVED IDEAS. MAYBE IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR YOU UNTIL IT BECOMES COMMON KNOWLEDGE, WHICH IT WILL, AND THEN YOU WILL BE FORCED TO DO SO....ALTHOUGH THERE ARE STILL SOME PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE EARTH IS FLAT.

I, too, am a layman, and like I keep reiterating, I, too, have had several insights based on what information I had at the time; but upon attaining new information, those insights proved false. I most certainly didn't pass them off as "fabricated".

I DID NOT...ok...lowercase is adequate now....I did not have an insight. I was a Christian at the time and I had a horrible sinking feeling that took three or four weeks to properly hit and be accepted. It then became a eureka moment as I realised that despite it ruining my faith it was also the truth and that is what I have always hoped to understand. This was something very profound. I very quickly saw through the whole thing and it changed my perceptions entirely. I had a deep knowing feeling. It all suddenly made sense. I related it all to my knowledge of faith in god and I could see how it could all have originated from volcano worship. So far nothing has properly challenged my theory. I am 100% sure I am right. The theory is not perfected yet but the Hebrews worshipped volcanoes and believed their god resided in the volcanoes and that fact IS coming out.

 

[Riverwolf]

I DID NOT...ok...lowercase is adequate now....I did not have an insight. I was a Christian at the time and I had a horrible sinking feeling that took three or four weeks to properly hit and be accepted. It then became a eureka moment as I realised that despite it ruining my faith it was also the truth and that is what I have always hoped to understand. This was something very profound. I very quickly saw through the whole thing and it changed my perceptions entirely. I had a deep knowing feeling. It all suddenly made sense. I related it all to my knowledge of faith in god and I could see how it could all have originated from volcano worship. So far nothing has properly challenged my theory. I am 100% sure I am right. The theory is not perfected yet but the Hebrews worshipped volcanoes and believed their god resided in the volcanoes and that fact IS coming out.

No, it's not. Time and time again, it has been demonstrated that it's very unlikely, through information that you clearly did not have at the time of this "epiphany."

Volcanic activity may have inspired some of the poetic imagery used, but the deity existed way before that.

I ask again: have you ever heard of Ahura Mazda?

BTW, if you're going to respond in the response button, either do it in a different color, or break up the box by typing [/quote] after the point where you want to make the break, and

where you want it to start again. And another thing: caps don't make your point any more true.

And one more thing: one article that's clearly an opinion piece is hardly convincing. Not to mention, it seems to be using examples of people who actually have studied these fields extensively, not quite "laymen"; rather, that point between "layman" and "expert."

 

[Riverwolf]

Oh, and one more thing: your translation (don't know which one) of Exodus 13:18 reads:

But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt.

Without saying why, you just stated that the "wilderness of the Red sea" was referring to Sinai. Why do you think it was referring to Sinai?

 

[The Fog Horn]

I've got hundreds of Biblical verses that demonstrate the Hebrew worship in volcanic activity. I've posted a few of them throughout this thread. If you're trying to suggest a correlation between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, that must mean both religions' texts contain similar verses. Can you show me hundreds or even just tens of Zoroastrian holy verses that, like the ones I've posted, congure up images of volcanoes erupting?

When shown an article that explains something contradictory, say it's just 'an opinion'. No...it's not an opinion. It's a fact. Newcomers in every field of work and life always come up with fresh ideas and dead wood does not...generally speaking. Surely you're not trying to argue with that? If you're a religion 'expert' you're part of the matrix and if you're part of the matrix and haven't yet worked out the matrix then you'l likely never work it out.

You're doubting the Wilderness of the Red Sea is the Sinai Peninsular? If it is not, please explain what geographical area it is, taking into account the Hebrews went through it and, on arriving at its 'edge', were faced with the sea....and then made a short crossing to Midian. Where else could it be?

Thanks for the posting tips

PSA 18:8 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it.
ISA 30:27 Behold, the name of the LORD cometh from far, burning with his anger, and the burden thereof is heavy: his lips are full of indignation, and his tongue as a devouring fire:

 

[Riverwolf]

I've got hundreds of Biblical verses that demonstrate the Hebrew worship in volcanic activity.

Hardly. They just use poetic imagery that, to you, conjures images of volcanic activity. But they don't HAVE to be referring to that, you know. TONS of ancient religions had fire-worship; over a hundred hymns of the Rig Veda are devoted to Agni, the Fire God. Even if they didn't live near a volcano, people were very much aware of the dangers fire could pose.

I've posted a few of them throughout this thread. If you're trying to suggest a correlation between Judaism and Zoroastrianism, that must mean both religions' texts contain similar verses. Can you show me hundreds or even just tens of Zoroastrian holy verses that, like the ones I've posted, congure up images of volcanoes erupting?

Zoroastrianism is considered to be one of the major influences on what would become Judaism, and later Christianity, because of the emphasis on one God above all others, and the constantly opposing forces of good and evil, with the former eventually triumphing over the latter in the end.

When shown an article that explains something contradictory, say it's just 'an opinion'. No...it's not an opinion. It's a fact.

It's a fact just because ONE person said so?

Newcomers in every field of work and life always come up with fresh ideas

Like the Power Glove? Like Sonic turning into a werewolf? Like the Vectrex? (...'scuse the examples; I'm a huge nerd.)

What you don't realize is that amid the many successes done by inspired amateurs (Lord of the Rings), there have also been several (likely more) failures by other inspired amateurs (Twilight.)

Steve Jobs wasn't the only guy who had a brand-new computer and brought it to Atari and HP, you know. To them, he was probably just one out of many.

and dead wood does not...generally speaking. Surely you're not trying to argue with that? If you're a religion 'expert' you're part of the matrix and if you're part of the matrix and haven't yet worked out the matrix then you'l likely never work it out.

So experts NEVER know anything? Sorry, but that's just ludicrous.

Most of the time, experts are right. Sure, they don't know everything, and sometimes, inspired amateurs know something they don't. But this is usually because they're in fields that are related to what they know. (For example, Tolkien was a professor of Anglo-Saxxon, and thus knew much about the language, culture, and religion of those people. That carried over into his work, which is in the same genre as the old Germanic legends... and don't forget that LOTR took him twelve years to write.) But even then, it's no guarantee. Stephanie Meyer, for example, has a degree in English literature, so she does know how to critique stories, but clearly didn't start off knowing how to create one.

You're doubting the Wilderness of the Red Sea is the Sinai Peninsular? If it is not, please explain what geographical area it is, taking into account the Hebrews went through it and, on arriving at its 'edge', were faced with the sea....and then made a short crossing to Midian. Where else could it be?

On the edge of the Gulf of Suez. Midian is almost certainly referring to an area in the Sinai peninsula.

 

[outhouse]

I've got hundreds of Biblical verses that demonstrate the Hebrew worship in volcanic activity.

No

You have percieved imagination ONLY, to tie the two together.


Go study people that really worshipped volcanic deities and come back when you have half a education on the subject if you want to make any sort of a poor arguement.

You fail any connection trying to base reality from legends YOU DONT understand

 

[outhouse]

Hardly. They just use poetic imagery that, to you, conjures images of volcanic activity. But they don't HAVE to be referring to that, you know. TONS of ancient religions had fire-worship; over a hundred hymns of the Rig Veda are devoted to Agni, the Fire God. Even if they didn't live near a volcano, people were very much aware of the dangers fire could pose.

EXACTLY

and with OP any quote on fire is now wrongly percieved as volcanic activity