- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: RI middle school had mural of Moloch?
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:08 pm to Madking
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:08 pm to Madking
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 on 2/20/26 at 5:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
I guess you didn’t have to take psych 101 to be a coffee getter lol.
Posted on 2/20/26 at 5:48 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Do you have any evidence that this person is lying, or is that just you hoping?
quote:quote:I have seen no such evidence.
All of the evidence is pointing to her lying.
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: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.)
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.
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 on 2/21/26 at 9:31 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:If you assume naturalism, you reject any supernaturalist evidence or interpretations, like the Bible’s claims.
Explain what you mean by this?
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 on 2/21/26 at 10:28 am to FooManChoo
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.
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 on 2/21/26 at 10:51 am to Night Vision
Aborted babies are a blood sacrifice to moloch
Posted on 2/22/26 at 8:43 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:Both views require interpretation, and I’m fine with admitting that.
Frankly though, your view also depends on interpretation. Then it just comes down to which interpretation is more logical.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
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 on 2/23/26 at 8:29 am to Mo Jeaux
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 on 2/23/26 at 8:35 am to Night Vision
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 on 2/23/26 at 8:40 am to FooManChoo
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 on 2/25/26 at 3:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It's not. Evidence isn't the problem, but the interpretation of it.
It's better from an evidence perspective, though
quote:No. I'm saying that your interpretation of the evidence has philosophical biases baked in, just like mine does. You aren't neutral.
Are you really trying to frame relying on evidence as a "philosophical bias"?
quote:Yes. Whether you believe it is another story.
Does it?
quote:The Biblical evidence is allegedly eye-witness testimony. Why are you throwing that out as evidence?
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)?
Popular
Back to top


1






