Started By
Message

re: RI middle school had mural of Moloch?

Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:08 pm to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476502 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:08 pm to
quote:

Now that’s funny coming from someone so fraudulent he doesn’t even realize it lmao. You probably breast fed until 10 years old.


You're such a weird person.

How many Pokemon cards have you owned? Or are you an OG Magic guy?
Posted by Madking
Member since Apr 2016
70546 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:37 pm to
I guess you didn’t have to take psych 101 to be a coffee getter lol.
Posted by Salviati
Member since Apr 2006
7717 posts
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:48 pm to
quote:

Do you have any evidence that this person is lying, or is that just you hoping?
quote:

quote:

All of the evidence is pointing to her lying.
I have seen no such evidence.
quote:

I haven’t seen any evidence of the press release being real or the picture itself (in the context in which has been claimed) for that matter.
quote:

But you have. You just admitted you saw that it was reported. You just don't believe the source, even with no basis not to believe it.
Please link any independent source of information that is not Ramona Bessinger's original tweet, Ramona Bessinger's "press release," or some derivative of either. (Nope, you can't use Alex Jones' retweet, Charisma Magazine Online's retweet, or any other source that is retweeting the original tweet.)

No? No source that doesn't rely upon the hoax source?

Are y'all trolling, don't care about credibility, or are you just morons?
This post was edited on 2/20/26 at 6:21 pm
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46829 posts
Posted on 2/21/26 at 9:31 am to
quote:

Explain what you mean by this?
If you assume naturalism, you reject any supernaturalist evidence or interpretations, like the Bible’s claims.

It comes down to interpretation, then.

You see genealogical similarities and geographical proximity and you assume the Israelites were a subgroup of Canaanites that developed from within Canaan. I see genetically-similar people groups who intermingled and even intermarried, against God’s command. You see similar languages and assume internal development. I see different people groups that could have influenced each other during times of close proximity, such as the decades Abraham and his family spent there before moving to Egypt. I also see archeological confirmation that Israel existed when and where the Bible says it did (such as with the Merneptah Stele).

What conclusions you arrive at often times are based on the assumptions you already make when approaching the evidence.
Posted by Mo Jeaux
Member since Aug 2008
63593 posts
Posted on 2/21/26 at 10:28 am to
Frankly though, your view also depends on interpretation. Then it just comes down to which interpretation is more logical.

Yours proposes that a people completely conquered another people as commanded by their God, but then just decided to adopt the conquered peoples’ language, culture, and religious practices. My interpretation proposes that one subgroup of a people decided to elevate one god that they all worshipped over the other gods and then centuries later came up with some stories to justify why they were better than the other members of their group because of who they worshipped.
Posted by Audustxx
Member since Jul 2022
2373 posts
Posted on 2/21/26 at 10:51 am to
Aborted babies are a blood sacrifice to moloch
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46829 posts
Posted on 2/22/26 at 8:43 am to
quote:

Frankly though, your view also depends on interpretation. Then it just comes down to which interpretation is more logical.
Both views require interpretation, and I’m fine with admitting that.

What I’m trying to draw attention to is how your view isn’t necessarily better than mine from a truth-claim perspective because both your claim and mine have philosophical biases and assumptions that lead towards the eventual believed conclusions. You are portraying a posture of superiority due to “science” (as of my position is only religious or superstitious, as you might conclude), as if the evidence completely excludes my position. It’s about interpretation.

quote:

Yours proposes that a people completely conquered another people as commanded by their God, but then just decided to adopt the conquered peoples’ language, culture, and religious practices.
Not necessarily. As I mentioned, Abraham traveled to Canaan, and his family lived among the Canaanites for about 200 years before moving to Egypt. It’s likely that Abraham already spoke a semitic language that was close to what the Canaanites already spoke, and even Abraham’s great grandson, Judah, married a Canaanite woman and had children with her. They had to communicate somehow.

So there were ties between the Hebrews and Canaanites long before the people left Egypt and conquered the land.

We are also told in the Bible that there was still intermarrying among the Jews and Canaanites, which was not supposed to happen but did anyway. Many were led to idolatry because of it.

quote:

My interpretation proposes that one subgroup of a people decided to elevate one god that they all worshipped over the other gods and then centuries later came up with some stories to justify why they were better than the other members of their group because of who they worshipped.
Both interpretations may have support, but the biblical account also lends an abundance of eye-witness testimony to the situation, describing in detail the historical memory of the Jews, and the contemporary happenings that align with much of the evidence you cited. However it also directly contradicts your belief that they merely arose from within an existing group, borrowing all of their religious beliefs but tweaking it a little to suit their preferences. The narrative flatly denies that.
Posted by Squirrelmeister
Member since Nov 2021
3685 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:29 am to
quote:

Yours proposes that a people completely conquered another people as commanded by their God, but then just decided to adopt the conquered peoples’ language, culture, and religious practices.

Foo is like a cartoon ostrich with its head in the sand. He doesn’t realize that Abraham of the Chaldeans - that story was invented by a sect of Jews returning from Babylon as an excuse to steal or hold power in Jerusalem. It establishes “proper Jews come from Babylon… all you others who claim to be Jews are really just Canaanites so we are going to take your land and property since you don’t worship Yahweh in the same way as us.” The reality is they were all Canaanites with slightly different religious practices and all smoke the same language and used the same script and did the same things culturally.

Moses was the folk hero mythical patriarch of a batch of Jews that probably lived for some time in Egypt. (Remember for a long time until around 1000BC Egypt owned Canaan as a possession or colony.). The mythical folk hero Adam (spelled exactly as Edom) was the progenitor of Jews from their southern neighbor Edom. Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch (and the variant Noah), Jacob, Isaac, Joseph… were all mythical patriarchs of different Canaanite tribes in the region that eventually became Israel and Judah.

Once tribes made allegiances and alliances, they seeked to unify their underlings and peons and invented stories of how their patriarchs were brothers or cousins or one was a father to a son or similar. Thing kind of thing is still preserved in the Bible as they claim the Moabites and Ammonites are the bastard incestuous offspring of Abraham’s nephew Lot.

As the Assyrians conquered all of Israel and Judah (except Jerusalem) all the altars and hilltop shrines were destroyed. When Hezekiah paid them off by looting his own temple and giving them all the gold, all that was left in all of Israel and Judah was one single temple… in Jerusalem. It was the temple where they worshipped Yahweh alone from the other gods they worshipped in other places such as el Elyon (Dan, BethEl) and Asherah (hilltop groves of trees). Yahweh must be the best god since he was the only one who could repel the Assyrians. So all of Judah began to worship there and Hezekiah and his sons loved it - they were getting rich beyond their wildest dreams. The Jewish kings liked it so much that they outlawed worship of other deities to keep the money flowing into the royal temple.

quote:

My interpretation proposes that one subgroup of a people decided to elevate one god that they all worshipped over the other gods and then centuries later came up with some stories to justify why they were better than the other members of their group because of who they worshipped.

Exactly, so after the exile and the rebuilding of the temple with Persian funds from the Messiah Cyrus, they wrote stories of how angry Yahweh gets when the people worship other gods. They wrote stories of why only their form of Persian-influenced Yahweh worship was permitted. They had to set themselves apart to justify their mistreatment of the Canaanites - the Jews who stayed behind in Judah after the royalty and educated class were carted off to Babylon.
Posted by Squirrelmeister
Member since Nov 2021
3685 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:35 am to
quote:

"Moloch" a Satanic demon from Jenks Middle School in Pawtucket Rhode Island.

This is not true, according to modern scholarly consensus. A molech was a type of sacrifice of a small newborn baby burned on an altar to any of the Canaanite deities, including Yahweh Sabaoth (the LORD of the heavenly hosts/armies). Most of the time in the Bible, when the author wrote so and so sacrificed their firstborn (as) molech, it is in reference to someone sacrificing their firstborn child to Yahweh (the LORD) just as Yahweh commanded in exodus and as he bragged about it Ezekiel 16:19.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
476502 posts
Posted on 2/23/26 at 8:40 am to
quote:

What I’m trying to draw attention to is how your view isn’t necessarily better than mine from a truth-claim perspective


It's better from an evidence perspective, though.

quote:

because both your claim and mine have philosophical biases

Are you really trying to frame relying on evidence as a "philosophical bias"?

quote:

but the biblical account also lends an abundance of eye-witness testimony to the situation

Does it?

You can somewhat say this with the NT and Jesus, because of Roman record-keeping (although it's still a...not strong argument) , but what historical (non-Biblical) evidence are you relying on to say we had eye-witness testimony of this transition period (either for the Jews or Canaanites, it matters not)?
Posted by FooManChoo
Member since Dec 2012
46829 posts
Posted on 2/25/26 at 3:01 pm to
quote:

It's better from an evidence perspective, though
It's not. Evidence isn't the problem, but the interpretation of it.

quote:

Are you really trying to frame relying on evidence as a "philosophical bias"?
No. I'm saying that your interpretation of the evidence has philosophical biases baked in, just like mine does. You aren't neutral.

quote:

Does it?
Yes. Whether you believe it is another story.

quote:

You can somewhat say this with the NT and Jesus, because of Roman record-keeping (although it's still a...not strong argument) , but what historical (non-Biblical) evidence are you relying on to say we had eye-witness testimony of this transition period (either for the Jews or Canaanites, it matters not)?
The Biblical evidence is allegedly eye-witness testimony. Why are you throwing that out as evidence?
Jump to page
Page First 15 16 17
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 17 of 17Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram