|
From what I recall the old timey word for angels is elohim, which itself has a largely forgotten word meaning eloa, which essentially means gods. It helps to remember that at various points through history Christianity and it's precursors were deeply supremacist in the religious sense, sometimes to a genocidal degree. In this case, the relevant example would probably be ancient Canaanite Yahwist worshippers. Archeologists have found increasing evidence that probably suggests that they basically genocided the other religions in the Levant out of existence* after a particular militant sect of the Yahwist faith returned from being exiled despite their previously tremendously bad policy decisions, all so that they could be the only one true religion in the Levant. You can read a bit of this in the bible itself. After the story of Moses a lot of the stuff referring to other gods disappears to be replaced by them just being evil spirits, demons (Actually a word ripped off wholesale from ancient roman beliefs and literally demonized into meaning something malevolent compared to what it actually was.), etc, etc as what was previously a religion that had to tolerate other faiths steadily went hard right into (at times increasingly violent) exclusionary monotheism over the centuries. Meaning that asking if angels is real is really no different than asking if gods are real. So I guess what you're really asking is, are you an atheist or some sort of believer in gods existing?  *Which consisted of at least worshippers of Asherah (the wife of the god El, whom Yahweh was previously subordinate too. Syncretism does a number on religion it seems.  ) and Ba'al. Incidentally, this explains the hatred for Ba'al in the bible when he shows up, since his worshippers were living in the Levant too (Fun fact, Ba'al is also a Canaanite god, which makes the opposition to him likely one of very much worldly power since it's not like he just showed up one day and the Yahwist's, who were also originally a Canaanite religion, wouldn't have known about Ba'al prior to that.) and were standing directly in the way of Yahwist's that wanted there to be only one religion they had control of. So there was from their perspective a reason for a serious hatred for that religion, especially since the Bible itself depicts old Israelite kings as sometimes preferring Ba'al's worshippers over the Yahwist sects that got the region subjugated to Egypt for awhile through their religious wars. Probably explains the slander in the bible too, if it turns out it was slander. The whole burning children alive thing comes to mind. Never even heard actual certifiable proof it happened (and if it did, there's evidence that suggests it only happened in times of extreme cataclysm and desperation. Basically a last ditch effort to get their gods to stop killing them by offering a portion of their own flesh and future to them.) that hadn't come from a Christian apologist or Roman/Grecian apologist looking to excuse the razing of Carthage (and conflating the two due to Carthage originally being a Phoenician colony) that wasn't highly suspect and extrapolating at the very best. TL;DR: It'd probably be altogether wiser to do something better to do with your life than worry about the beliefs of the modern offspring of an ancient religion that went through so many changes that it doesn't even resemble what it used to be, and when it did somehow couldn't even bring itself to co-exist with it's own pantheon that it was a part of. Alternatively, bank on your guardian angel being a kick rear end Marvel Thor type I guess? Archonex fucked around with this message at 17:59 on Nov 21, 2022 |
#
¿
Nov 21, 2022 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Thanks for this post! But unfortunately it does look like the sacrifice of children did happen. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2014-01-23-ancient-carthaginians-really-did-sacrifice-their-children It looks like we've found lots of remains treated in the same way as sacrificial animal remains. That was what the "if it happened" thing was about. As i've had it explained to me, the current thought is that if it happened (and it does seem like it did at least a few times) it was an "oh poo poo we're all going to die from _____ catastrophe. Maybe if we do this at least some of us will survive if we do this" sort of deal where the normal propitiations didn't work and whatever event was causing issues kept getting worse. So, they'd resort to sacrificing children because literally nothing else was working. This is somewhat supported by the large amounts of time between some of the possible child sacrifices and the way they were more or less all done at once. Which tends to indicate in other cultures that it was a massive event that provoked it. Keep in mind that that traditionally, a lot of cultures in that region had religious sacrifices of living things. Actually, ancient early era Abrahamic faiths have some texts that suggest it took place in certain ways too at one point. And since the Abrahamic faiths have a lot of "crossover" with other sometimes older faiths (Literally, the story of the tower of Babel is stolen wholesale from another religion just with the Abrahamic god put into it and the original god scrubbed out.), well, yeah. If this doesn't make sense or seems barbaric simply for the sake of barbarism, keep in mind that religions back then tended to not always work the way we think of them today. The sort of "worship me and get rewards, don't worship me and I will make you suffer like an authoritarian would" thing was a common trait of monotheistic or religions that decided they wanted to be superior to other religions (which regardless of their nature were often just as much a vessel of the state as their own thing depending on the nation and time period) as opposed to other more henotheistic or polytheistic religions which would often go to extremes when looking at the lovely conditions of existence in the ancient world and saying "Wow, this awful ____ loving sucks to experience. I don't want to die of famine or whatever. Better sacrifice to _____ god loving my day up so he'll leave me alone!". Kind of like a mafia-esque sort of "shame if something happened" deal. Only people talked themselves into doing horrible things to each other not because they wanted to be the king poo poo of faith mountain but instead because they didn't understand why people were periodically getting sick and entire cities were dying of plague or why their relatives were drowning at sea for some inexplicable reason or whatever. Edit: And I should add that in particular of the Phoenician related nations and religions Carthage's ultimate fate was to get razed to the ground with quite a bit of it's population absolutely slaughtered while most of the remainder were dragged off into lifelong chattel slavery after many years of them getting demonized by multiple nations and faiths who saw gain in it. So, while it was definitely hosed up and evil they were probably pretty loving desperate to try something like that at certain points in history depending on when it happened. Heck, the destruction of Carthage is an excellent example of this sort of desperation all by itself. The destruction was by some scholars thought to be so over the top that that's where the talk about Rome salting the earth came from. In reality, that was a 19th century invention that was born out of all the propaganda around conquering the region/demonizing them for whatever gain was in it. Even more weirdly and insane than that is that the truth is a bit more over the top than what they came up with. After conquering the city of Carthage the Roman's straight up made a production of trying to convince people they levied a curse against the land so it would never be resettled like they were the evil inverse of that sunflower seed granny in Ukraine. Only in this case it'd probably be more accurate of an analogy if she was from Russia and rooting for an empire of genocidal expansionist slavers instead. From wikipedia, since i'm not going to go web surfing to find a site on this and I don't have access to the books on it anymore posted:The third and final Punic War began in 149 BC, largely due to the efforts of hawkish Roman senators, led by Cato the Elder, to finish Carthage off once and for all.[110] Cato was known for finishing nearly every speech in the Senate, regardless of the subject, with the phrase ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam—"Moreover, I am of the opinion that Carthage ought to be destroyed". In particular, the growing Roman Republic sought the famously rich agricultural lands of Carthage and its African territories, which had been known to the Romans following their invasion in the previous Punic War.[111][112][113] Carthage's border war with Rome's ally Numidia, though initiated by the latter, nonetheless provided the pretext for Rome to declare war. again, quoting wikipedia because gently caress trying to find a site nerdy enough to source on short notice... posted:The site was cursed (evocation) with the intention of preventing it ever being resettled; the notion that Roman forces then sowed the city with salt is a 19th-century invention... This concludes my derail into ancient history. If you're bothered by this then you have my apologies for distracting from this weird thread Archonex fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Nov 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2022 11:34
|
|
|
Drakyn posted:However, a tragic counterpoint: CS Lewis believed in angels and as we all are aware CS Lewis was wrong about literally (in the most factual and non-hyperbolic sense) everything ever. CS Lewis also wrote a book where one guy continues to get condemned to hell for not being able to accept that heaven would let in murderers because they repented on their death bed instead of them trying to be good people after loving up, so this checks out. Like, the guy gets to heaven after being in hell, discovers the guide he was appointed is a mass murderer (who God is suggested to have appointed, meaning this was probably all planned out and God knew the man would be horrified and disgusted by what he discovers) or something like that, and freaks out at what this has to mean for heaven and the sort of people who do and don't get in. People don't get in on merit of at least trying to follow some standard of empathic or compassionate morality but by submission to an unaccountable power that cares nothing for what people are actually going through. He then points out that it's not really good that matters but apologizing and bowing before the lord and despite his own flaws (he is in hell, remember, though this entire exchange makes the reasoning behind it suspect and more than a bit dubious as it comes off more on him not conforming to the expectations of the reigning power that is heaven than over any true even half hearted or faltering attempt at empathic morality) recognizes that this is kind of loving monstrous due to how it relegates the pain of the victims into not mattering in favor of an afterlife where it's entirely possible that victims can be held in hell and victimizers get to go to heaven. When he gets a choice between conforming by dropping his opinions and submitting to god in exchange for being let into heaven or going back to hell he promptly says "nah, i'ma choose hell" out of horror and disgust at what Heaven is even though it's heavily implied that god is going to murder and/or brutally torture everyone in hell (But of course it's their fault because they chose this, in a false dichotomy that ignores the choice of action on the one with actual power over these people.) at some point in the future. Condemning this guy to hell is treated as a moral and just thing because this guy couldn't comprehend god's forgiveness. In fact, he chooses it for himself and that's the moral of the story of why he's wrong. By choosing not to enter into a relationship with god he is being wrong because he...uh, has moral standards that exceed what heaven has? Which coincidentally forgets the victim (Incidentally, CS Lewis handwaves this massive boondoggle of an issue that blows his entire argument apart by saying that the murderer and their victim are friends now in the afterlife and they're over it which is just  given how abuse works.) in favor of an authoritarian power play than actual moral decency and empathy for fellow human beings who deserved to have a better life.Oh and anyone who has moral objections to this and doesn't want to go to a place like this gets to suffer unimaginable pain for eternity when god decides to let the sun rise in Hell or something like that. Which is just some cosmic horror story as 1984-esque authoritarian horror story stuff. Another guy also bizarrely gets excoriated for the wealth and material advantages that atheism brought him by one of god's converts/angels/whatever which is just ??? to me since I don't recall anyone ever getting a check for that? Which means it ultimately just comes off as some devotee of god who is a cultist making poo poo up about the people they're repeatedly victimizing to justify what they're going through in some sort of authoritarian horror show. The Great Divorce is a profoundly hosed up book when you start examining the implications behind it. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Nov 22, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2022 18:08
|
|