re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians

quote:

---

”Let’s take a live look in at the debate happening between Squirrelmeister and LSURep864”

---

, but not the way I see it. Maybe I am a little biased here.

He wanted to argue with me about Shalim being the Canaanite sunset god (of the dusk), which he already obviously knew about. He knows of Ugaritic myth, Shahar and Shalim, and all that. He also knows of broader west Semitic mythology of the sun going through gates in the horizons (found in Mesopotamian myths and also Jewish myths - 1 Enoch among others). But he was upset that the sun gate myth wasn’t specifically found in Ugaritic documents recovered. I don’t know what was up his butt about that whole thing.

I argued David was not historical. He reminded me of the Tel Dan stele. I conceded. Not that I’m convinced but to be fair it is decent evidence there might have been a real historical David, not that there’s anything historical contained within the Bible about him (or if there is, there’s no way to sort it from the myth such as David killing Goliath). Consider that a win for LSURep864.

Back to the theophoric names. He was trying to argue Solomon meant “man of peace” and AbSalom means “peace is my father”. Even though the Bible does use that apologetic for Solomon, AbSalom was far from peaceful in biblical tales. LSURep864 and a lot of scholars actually are in complete denial on this one.

Solomon would have been the religious, cultural, and political leader in an important city. If he existed during the time period when Yahweh became their patron deity, it would have made no sense for Solomon to be man of peace. Yahweh was a god of war, not peace.

If Solomon existed during an earlier time period, then the Jerusalem patron deity would have been Shalim, the Canaanite god of the setting sun. Solomon would have then been a theophoric name for Shalim.

There’s several patterns to consider. The first is that Semitic and Egyptian rulers nearly always had a theophoric element to their names. I’ll start in Babylon going clockwise through Assyria and Phoenicia to Israel, Moab, Edom and then Egypt. This is not all inclusive, just some.
- Nebuchadnezzar
- Nebopolazzar
- Nebunidas
- Naramsen
- Ashurnasirpal
- Ashurbanipal
- Tiglathpolasur
- Sennacherib
- Shalmanesar
- Ben Hadad
- Elibaal
- EthBaal
- BaalShillem
- Jezebaal (princess and wife of Ahab)
- ShamshiHadad
- Shallumiel
- Ahaziah
- Zedekiah
- Josiah
- IshBaal
- Jehoram
- Jehoshaphat
- Hezekiah
- Adonijah
- Solomon
- Chemoshyat
- Chemoshmelek
- Qosmelek
- Tutankhamen
- Ahkenaten
- Horemheb
- Seti
- Amenhotep
- Merneptha
- Rameses
- Thutmoses

The ones mentioned above are all man of (deity) or (deity) contends, protects, is exalted, or is king or lord. Don’t forget about “slave of (deity)”:
- AbdiAshirta
- Abdi El/Yahu/Chemosh/Qos
- Abdishalim

What about the ones that are specifically “(deity) is my father”? This is a pattern of kings specifically with theophoric names of the deity being their father.
- Abibaal
- Abimelek
- Abiel
- Abiram
- Abiyahu
- Abimilki
- Abishemu

So frankly I think LSURep864 is in denial. Kings bore theophoric names of their patron deities. Ishbaal was the son of Saul who was hand picked by Yahweh.

Half of David’s children at least had theophoric names if you don’t count Solomon and AbSalom.

I think the evidence and prior probability points to AbSalom and Solomon being theophoric names for the sunset deity Shalim. It fits right in with Phoenician Shallumiel and Assyrian Shalmanessar. I’m thoroughly convinced. You know what? frick it. After typing all those names with my thumbs I’m calling it a fact.

quote:

---

smacked around? Come on man

---

You know I’m just giving you a hard time. But it really does, at minimum, provide a clear, real life example of two people coming to different conclusions when evaluating the same evidence. I’ve never doubted your intelligence. I just question your application of it. Your atheism is not the result of knowledge- it’s the standard by which you define and accept knowledge.

quote:

---

How would you propose someone create persuasive arguments?

---

You could start by having an objective source in which to ground truth. You could then realize that science begins and ends with philosophy. You could recognize and admit your bias, and that your presupposed worldview is the lens through which you view and evaluate evidence. You would then have to consider the possibility that you might be wrong, and what the consequences might be. Of course, you would need to (this is the most important point) show the viability of your position by laying out a coherent and meticulous plan to replace God. But I honestly would be happy if you would just recognize your bias and admit that you might be wrong. I think that shows more confidence in one’s position than mockery and misrepresentation of the Christian position. I think you do a pretty good job of that (for an atheist ). But that leads to more questions than your worldview can answer without filling in the gaps you created by removing God from the equation.

quote:

---

Would less evidence be more effective than more evidence?

---

Evidence is not the problem. We all have the same evidence. Your exchange with LSURep is evidence!! It’s evidence that you have a dog in this fight. It’s evidence that you’re more interested in protecting your worldview by attacking Christianity (exclusively) than in defending your own. You really should, if you want to persuade others, be (or just show us) the example of why atheism is better than Christianity. Then, I want you to scrutinize it the same way you would Christianity.

quote:

---

You know at your heart atheism is true. You’re just rebelling against science because you want to live a false reality. You actually lack faith but just want to portray it on this site.

---

I get that you think this is the same thing as me saying your worldview is ultimately fath based This is a great example of how you don’t even believe your own arguments. You know that is a false statement. You know I am a believer You know I am a Christian. But it’s the best you can do, the closest you can get. Nothing in your worldview can accurately assess my position. But that doesn’t stop you from doing it. You’re like one of those American idol contestants who really knows they can sing good.

quote]You act like it’s a dichotomy but you could be Hindu or Muslim or something else.[/quote]
Hey at the rate things are going, your children might be Muslims before it’s all said and done. Who knows, it might happen in our lifetime. Would you convert, pay the jizya, or get beheadded? I’ll take number three. After I run out of options. How are you going to “reason” with the Muslims? Once your common enemy is gone, what’s that going to look like?

quote:

---

1. Lack of faith is faith

---

I’m not saying you don’t have faith. I’m saying you put it in you, things that support and people who share your predisposition.

quote:

---

2. Not collecting stamps is a hobby

---

Right. But collecting coins is. If collecting stamps led to eternal life and collecting coins led to the second death- we’d be having the same conversation. You’d be denying the authenticity of my stamps, while counterfeiting coins.

quote:

---

3. Not playing baseball is a sport
4. Not eating lunch is a meal
5. Not running is a foot race

---

If you are/have been alive, you are:
- In the game.
- At the table.
- In the race.

That is the reality of the Christian worldview. That’s what we believe. That is why I say what I do. I believe it is an independent truth that can be reconciled with what I see in reality- especially in humanity, and especially in me. For a Christian, it’s more like a responsibility that becomes a passion. That’s not always good. But it’s ultimately (supposed to be) grounded in love. No homo. Agape love. That’s where my faith lies. Not yours.

quote:

---

Sorry for the attitude but when you call a lack of faith as having faith, it kind of fires me up. I don’t know if you realize your error or if you are just trolling me.

---

While I’ll reluctantly admit that a bit of trolling is not yet beneath me, that is certainly not my intent here, or overall. I honestly didn’t pick up on any attitude (beyond playful banter) until you said something. Which I appreciate, but- no worries, I was not concerned.

We define faith differently, but we’re talking about the same thing. We just put it different things. I’m not saying that your lack of belief in God is the same as my belief in God. I’m saying we both ultimately have to believe- one way or the other. It’s a choice. You’re on a path. I’m on a path. Choose your own adventure.