Belz...
Fiend God
Tu quoque.
...what?
Tu quoque.
Now you're playing word games. The Egyptians did not worship Ba'al. It is not an Egyptian deity.
Stop trying to find a way to be correct when you're not.
But that's not what you said. You said the bible 'clearly' referenced Egyptian mythology with the mention of Ba'al. Christians call ALL non-Christian gods by some demonic apellation or another. It's not a clear reference to any specific god or mythology.
Again, you are reaching.
Equating the deity or deities of other people's religions with the evil villain of your own pantheon is a form of bigotry with a pedigree as old as human history.
But Crom, strong in his mountain, pays no heed.
Equating the deity or deities of other people's religions with the evil villain of your own pantheon is a form of bigotry with a pedigree as old as human history.
But Crom, strong in his mountain, pays no heed.
Oh, sure, but does Crom have a sidekick with a submarine licence? Hmm?
What do peeps think of this?
You can call it what you want, but even if they lump a bunch of religions together under theirs, they consider themselves Christians, they espouse a sect called the "Christian Community," they use te Bible and say grace to God's eternal word, and all that stuff, and dollars to donuts whatever you may think of their syncretistic crackpottery, Satanism is not a part of it. Whatever your own sectarian bias, it just plain is not.They all say that but it's just a play on words. I looked up antroposophy and the guy Steiner who formulated it claims to encompass all religions.
Vixen?
http://egyptian-gods.org/egyptian-gods-baalBaal was a God of Thunder, originally from western Semitic. He was worshipped in Egypt from the 18th dynasty of the New Kingdom. His name Baal also spelled as Ba'al. ... His cult center was built for him at Baal Saphon near Tanis in the northern Delta.
Egypt: Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period (2050-1550 BC)) The Middle Kingdom is the period in the history of ancient Egypt stretching from the establishment of the Eleventh Dynasty to the end of the Fourteenth Dynasty, between 2050 BC and 1652 BC.
https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/egypt02-04enl.html
Moses:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Moses-Hebrew-prophetf this is true, then the oppressive pharaoh noted in Exodus (1:2–2:23) was Seti I (reigned 1318–04), and the pharaoh during the Exodus was Ramses II (c. 1304–c. 1237). In short, Moses was probably born in the late 14th century bce.
In short Ba'al worship in Egypt preceded Moses. Belz?
You can call it what you want, but even if they lump a bunch of religions together under theirs, they consider themselves Christians, they espouse a sect called the "Christian Community," they use te Bible and say grace to God's eternal word, and all that stuff, and dollars to donuts whatever you may think of their syncretistic crackpottery, Satanism is not a part of it. Whatever your own sectarian bias, it just plain is not.
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
The ancient Jews did originally have a female deity who was decisively banished from all mention and it was considered blasphemous to do so.
Your trotting out names means zippo.
Certainly Anthroposophy is a lifestyle and an overall way of looking at things, with many subsets, including Waldorf education, biodynamic gardening, eurythmy, an assortment of utter bollocks, and (whether you credit it or not) an actual religious sect that uses a translation of the Bible as a scripture and calls itself Christian. You can call anything anything, of course, and there is nothing, clearly, that prevents anyone from being a fool, but if you call yourself a Christian and use the Bible as your scripture, it takes yet another fool to presume that the God referred to is Satan.If they are 'praying to God's eternal word' they are not Christian. 'God' can mean anything you like.
Steiner's is a lifestyle, rather like mindfulness. He advocates meditation which is clearly 'eastern'.
Sure, and people move about even in ancient times and surprise, their ideas move with them. 40.000 years ago, people were crossing oceans with apparent aplomb.As I already referenced, Belz, Ba'al was worshipped the Middle Egyptian Dynasty circa 1000BC
No evidence for Moses or the exodus.which should cover Moses by the time he led his people out.
So what?Moses:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Moses-Hebrew-prophet
In short Ba'al worship in Egypt preceded Moses. Belz?
Certainly Anthroposophy is a lifestyle and an overall way of looking at things, with many subsets, including Waldorf education, biodynamic gardening, eurythmy, an assortment of utter bollocks, and (whether you credit it or not) an actual religious sect that uses a translation of the Bible as a scripture and calls itself Christian. You can call anything anything, of course, and there is nothing, clearly, that prevents anyone from being a fool, but if you call yourself a Christian and use the Bible as your scripture, it takes yet another fool to presume that the God referred to is Satan.
Sure, and people move about even in ancient times and surprise, their ideas move with them. 40.000 years ago, people were crossing oceans with apparent aplomb.
No evidence for Moses or the exodus.
So what?
You keep on talking about moses as though he was real.
The identity of Pharaoh in the Moses story has been much debated, but many scholars are inclined to accept that Exodus has King Ramses II in mind. The Bible confirms that the Israelites were to build “supply cities, Pithom and Ramses, for Pharaoh.” Egyptian records confirm that the kings of the 19th dynasty (ca 1293–1185 B.C.E.) launched a major mili*tary program in the Levant. As part of this effort, King Seti I (ca 1290–1279 B.C.E.) built a new garri*son city, which his successor, Ramses II (ca 1279– 1213 B.C.E.), later called Pi-Ramesses. Ramses II also built a second city dedicated to his personal patron, Atum, called Per Atum. These two cities are quite possibly the biblical Ramses and Pithom.
As I already referenced, Belz, Ba'al was worshipped the Middle Egyptian Dynasty circa 1000BC which should cover Moses by the time he led his people out.
I see. You are one of these people who thinks if you say a thing it becomes so.
Why can't you own to your mistake? You didn't say that Ba'al was worshipped within Egyptian territory at some point in time. You said that the name Ba'al in the bibble was a clear reference to Egyptian mythology.
That was FALSE. Stop trying to pretend that your claim was about something else that could be technically correct and admit to your mistake.
I'm not sure where the thread is going now.
Are we trying to find new definitions for each word in "run a world satanic ring" to see if there's some combination which covers what Epstein did?
If a lowly SUN or DAILY MAIL reader understands what is meant by satanic goings on then I am not sure why people on a sceptics forum are unable to grasp it.
I stand by it as that is how serious theologians describe it.
You stand by a factually wrong claim because of another factually wrong claim?
Look, when Moses raged at his people for building a golden calf it was because they reverted back to the gods served in Egypt which they had just escaped from.
Did you really expect Exodus to go off on a tangent as to the 'history of Ba'al in Canaan and the Levant and how the worship of same spread to the Middle Egyptian dynasty'?
Look, when Moses raged at his people for building a golden calf it was because they reverted back to the gods served in Egypt which they had just escaped from. Did you really expect Exodus to go off on a tangent as to the 'history of Ba'al in Canaan and the Levant and how the worship of same spread to the Middle Egyptian dynasty'?
The Great Inception Part 12: From Baal to Zeus to Satan – The Changing Face of the Storm-God
Ba`al was the main enemy of Yahweh in the Old Testament. One could argue that he was even more of a villain in the Bible than Satan, who’s only mentioned in fourteen Old Testament verses, in the books of 1 Chronicles, Job, and Zechariah. Ba`al, on the other hand, appears 106 times in 88 verses (including personal and place names, like Baal-zephon).https://www.thegreatinception.com/l...-to-satan-the-changing-face-of-the-storm-god/
As Baal worship involved the sex act, through sacred prostitution, this may have been an attraction for some, though this would have opened them to the dangers of the magic rituals, punishable by death according to the Laws of God. Also many of the "holy days" for Baal worship seemed to coincide with those designated for worship of God Himself. So Satan was clever indeed in the way he enticed folk away from the true God, using confusion and counterfeit.
Steve Maltz
May 2013
Let's not forget that this entire sequence of arguments started because you claimed that Egyptian gods were satanic and that depicting their symbols was a sign of satanism.
Which is patently untrue.
You arrived at this line of argument because you said Epstein might have Egyptian symbols on one of his buildings, for which you offered no evidence.
So you're supporting an assertion you refuse to prove with another assertion, that turns out to be false, and then you move in to another assertion tangentially connected to the last, but with no relationship with the thing you set out to prove...
This whole thread is just you running away from your own claims while pretending we should accept them.
Shockingly enough, this has nothing to do with your claim.
What now?
Watch this clip at between 1:00 and 1:08. This boffin does use the words Ba'al, Egypt and paganism interchangeably.
Not so much rage as amusement that you should cling so tenaciously to an idea. The chew toy takes life far more seriously than the dog. If you want to believe than nobody can be a Christian without sharing some unspecified doctrine you hold necessary, and that all those who do not are Satanists, then so be it.Talk about a circular argument. You were the one who brought up Anthroposophy claiming it was Christian and therefore not satanic. And then you worked yourself up into a rage.
If a lowly SUN or DAILY MAIL reader understands what is meant by satanic goings on then I am not sure why people on a sceptics forum are unable to grasp it.
Some hope, clearly in vain, for better than lowly.If a lowly SUN or DAILY MAIL reader understands what is meant by satanic goings on then I am not sure why people on a sceptics forum are unable to grasp it.
Not so much rage as amusement that you should cling so tenaciously to an idea. The chew toy takes life far more seriously than the dog. If you want to believe than nobody can be a Christian without sharing some unspecified doctrine you hold necessary, and that all those who do not are Satanists, then so be it.
I think holding so adamantly to a foolish idea clouds one's discourse, and makes it difficult and unrewarding for others to sort out whether there's anything worthwhile in it. If you wrap an idea in error few will bother to open it to find out if there's truth underneath.
No, that is not my position at all.
Denying that occult practices exist is ignorant IMV.
No, that is not my position at all.
Denying that occult practices exist is ignorant IMV.
It's a good thing that no one is doing that.
It's your specific, and shall I say gish-gallopy, claims that we take issue with.
Logical fallacy #6: appeal to the crowd.
I have never denied that occult practices exist and if you think so you missed the point entirely, since I argued the exact opposite. You asked, earlier on, for the names of any occult practices that were not "Satanic." I provided a few that, in my mind, are not Satanic, but are certainly what I would characterize as occult, and you in turn, certainly seem to have argued that those that claim to be Christian are not, and that all of them are, in fact, Satanic, because, it appears, you equate occultism with Satanism. If that is not your position now, perhaps you could suggest what your position actually is, because something certainly has been lost in translation.
I continue, in any case, to believe that Satanism is a specific thing that is not something else, and that Epstein, even if he toyed with the terminology and allure of a mishmash of occult ideas, was far more guilty of bad taste and eclectic fantasy than of anything actually Satanic.