Is Evolution Dagon worship revisited

[Lanakila]

This is controversial, and I was just trying to come up with another angle that I haven't seen discussed here. This is taken from a sermon by my hubby that he preached in Kuwait and sent to me.

Take, for instance, the Philistine’s worship of Dagon. This entity had the body of a fish and the head and hands of a human.

Dagon was originally worshipped as a deity by the ancient Canaanites but was later obtained by the Philistines. Samson eventually destroyed the Temple of Dagon in Gaza (Judges 16:30).

In a related context, an ancient Babylonian myth relates that a supernatural fish deity emerged from the Erythraean Sea who was thought to be a demigod of ancient Babylonian Culture.

Dagon, is thus an early representation of pantheism that perceived life to emerge from the watery abyssal of the primordial oceans.

CAN I SAY PRIMORDIAL SOUP.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Thats an odd one.
I was just going thru Romans 1, and was startled to see how Paul is presenting thier being consumed with the creation instead of the Creator.

I dont know where the line between admiration and worship is.
I am a little concerned that it may start when we begin to redefine His word.


This probably has no direct bearing, but it is quite intriguing;

"For God's wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, holding the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing known of God is clearly known within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. "
(Romans 1:18-23 LITV)

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In a related context, an ancient Babylonian myth relates that a supernatural fish deity emerged from the Erythraean Sea who was thought to be a demigod of ancient Babylonian Culture.

Dagon, is thus an early representation of pantheism that perceived life to emerge from the watery abyssal of the primordial oceans.

So they had a primative myth similar to

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life. "

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:24 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #3



So they had a primative myth similar to

"Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life. "

The Frumious Bandersnatch

"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. "
(Genesis 1:20 KJV)

I hardly see any connection

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I hardly see any connection

You wouldn't. In Babylonian mythology life emerges from water and in Hebrew mythology God "brings forth" life from land and water. The Hebrews were held captive in Babylon so it should not be surprising that elements of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology such as life emerging from water, at least in some sense, became incorporated into their mythic traditions. What one person considers true religion may be considered primative superstition by another.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[Anthony]

Today at 07:42 AM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #5



The Hebrews were held captive in Babylon so it should not be surprising that elements of Babylonian and Sumerian mythology such as life emerging from water, at least in some sense, became incorporated into their mythic traditions.

Hmmm did Moses write the first books before or after he was captured and sent to Babylon.




 

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 10:46 AM Anthony said this in Post #6



Hmmm did Moses write the first books before or after he was captured and sent to Babylon.




 

Very good one.
This is a problem, because true secular historians will confirm(although I dont know how) that the Hebrews stole from other religions and refuse to see the possibilty that it could have been the other way around.

OH, maybe they're using that ''perfect'' dating method again or had a time machine. Who knows.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 10:20 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #2

"For God's wrath is revealed from Heaven on all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, holding the truth in unrighteousness, because the thing known of God is clearly known within them, for God revealed it to them. For the unseen things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things made, both His eternal power and Godhead, for them to be without excuse. Because knowing God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful. But they became vain in their reasonings, and their undiscerning heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became foolish and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into a likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed animals, and creeping things. "
(Romans 1:18-23 LITV)

The last sentence sounds like creationism.  Creationism is god-of-the-gaps theology.  Insert God into a place where there is no material connection between members of the universe. Such as between chemicals and life.

This reduces God to a member or creature of the universe.

I'd say Paul was advocating against creationism.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:01 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #7


Very good one.
This is a problem, because true secular historians will confirm(although I dont know how) that the Hebrews stole from other religions and refuse to see the possibilty that it could have been the other way around.

OH, maybe they're using that ''perfect'' dating method again or had a time machine. Who knows.

First, the Biblical scholars dating the books of the Bible are not secular.  They are Jewish or Christian.  Trying to dismiss fellow Judeo-Christians who disagree with you by kicking them out of Judeo-Christianity simply isn't a valid argument.

The dating is quite simple. The Exodus had to have taken place around 1500 -1600 BC due to the timing of the Egyptian pharoahs. See Werner Kellog's The Bible as History for one summary.  The story of Unt-Napushtim (Noah and the Flood) dates to about 2300 BC or earlier based on pottery, other writings, and standard archeological methods.

Now, if one story comes earlier, that is the source and the later is the copy, unless you would like to deny the arrow of time and cause and effect.

The cosmology -- shape of the universe -- of the OT is Babylonian.  Again, you can compare that to writings of Babylon dating before the Exodus. 

And why not?  Babylonian science was the best of its day.  So the P authors set their theological message of Genesis 1 in the best science of the day.  So did the Psalmists and others. 

The question is: do the theological messages depend on the cosmology?  IOW, are the theological messages just as valid set in the shape of the universe as discovered by science over the last 2500 years?  Most Christians say "YES" and move on.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 07:05 AM Lanakila said this in Post #1

This is controversial, and I was just trying to come up with another angle that I haven't seen discussed here. This is taken from a sermon by my hubby that he preached in Kuwait and sent to me.

Take, for instance, the Philistine’s worship of Dagon. This entity had the body of a fish and the head and hands of a human.

Dagon was originally worshipped as a deity by the ancient Canaanites but was later obtained by the Philistines. Samson eventually destroyed the Temple of Dagon in Gaza (Judges 16:30).

In a related context, an ancient Babylonian myth relates that a supernatural fish deity emerged from the Erythraean Sea who was thought to be a demigod of ancient Babylonian Culture.

Dagon, is thus an early representation of pantheism that perceived life to emerge from the watery abyssal of the primordial oceans.

CAN I SAY PRIMORDIAL SOUP.

Well, I guess you could but Genesis says it so much better...


"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. "
(Genesis 1:20 KJV)


Now that would be primodial soup...

But since Evolution has nothing to do with the primodial soup anyway and Abiogenesis favors life forming deep in the crust or ocean floors and not the earlier primordial soup in shallow puddles, I guess you'd be wrong on just about every count.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:21 AM lucaspa said this in Post #8



The last sentence sounds like creationism.  Creationism is god-of-the-gaps theology.  Insert God into a place where there is no material connection between members of the universe. Such as between chemicals and life.

This reduces God to a member or creature of the universe.

I'd say Paul was advocating against creationism.

Of course you would.

 

[Lanakila]

Oh really, that isn't what I read and studied in my Biology Textbook. Obviously they need to change the info in those textbooks again Lewis.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 12:50 PM LewisWildermuth said this in Post #10




Well, I guess you could but Genesis says it so much better...


"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. "
(Genesis 1:20 KJV)


Now that would be primodial soup...

But since Evolution has nothing to do with the primodial soup anyway and Abiogenesis favors life forming deep in the crust or ocean floors and not the earlier primordial soup in shallow puddles, I guess you'd be wrong on just about every count.

Lewis, I can honestly say that piece of work is the best distorting of scripture I have seen yet.

They really should come up with an award for ''Best Distortion of Scripture" to give out here.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 10:05 AM Follower of Christ said this in Post #13


Lewis, I can honestly say that piece of work is the best distorting of scripture I have seen yet.

They really should come up with an award for ''Best Distortion of Scripture" to give out here.

I did not say I believed that the verse in question supported primordial soup at all FOC..

You must admit that it is a lot closer to a "primordial soup" than the dragon stuff...

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Ha ha ha, this is very funny. Maybe the Philistinian mythology is more in line with what we see in the natural world than in Judeo-Christian mythology. So much for the "everything in the bible is supported by science" idea.

 

Of course I am just kidding.  Evolution is Science, not religion.

 

Suppose that a primitive culture living in the Amazon was discovered to have a mythology that stated that the world was billions of years old, and that all life on Eath had a common ancestry.  YOu know what that would be called?  A COINCIDENCE!

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:02 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #11



Of course you would.

Nice rhetoric. No substance.  Anytime you actually want to post an argument refuting mine, FoC, I'm listening.  But wait, you haven't posted any argument refuting mine yet, have you? 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 01:02 PM Lanakila said this in Post #12

Oh really, that isn't what I read and studied in my Biology Textbook. Obviously they need to change the info in those textbooks again Lewis.

Textbooks constantly get updated, Lanakila, as new data is found.  When was your textbook written? 

Lewis is right.  Darwin's "warm little pond" has been supplanted by hypotheses placing the formation of life at hydrothermal vents or deeper in the crust.  Several papers in the last 10 years have shown that the building blocks and polymers of life can be synthesized at hydrothermal vents.  One paper even shows that protocells can be formed there.

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 02:21 PM lucaspa said this in Post #16



Nice rhetoric. No substance.  Anytime you actually want to post an argument refuting mine, FoC, I'm listening.  But wait, you haven't posted any argument refuting mine yet, have you? 

Paul was a self proclaimed ''Pharisee of Pharisees''. I am sure that he adhered to the letter of the OT.

If you think that you will drag me into a debate as to what Paul meant in that passage, think again.
NOT interested.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 11:02 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18


Paul was a self proclaimed ''Pharisee of Pharisees''. I am sure that he adhered to the letter of the OT.

Paul certainly did not adhere to the letter of the OT after he was converted to Christianity.  That was the basis of his whole battle with the Jerusalem disciples, remember? Paul relaxed the Laws to allow gentiles to become Christians whereas Peter was requiring gentiles to become Jewish before they could become Christian.

Paul cut and pasted OT theology to fit the new theology and Christology he developed.  Paul basically constructed a new religion on the fly.  You can admire or criticize him, but the one thing you can't do is claim that Paul adhered to the letter of the OT.

If you think that you will drag me into a debate as to what Paul meant in that passage, think again.
NOT interested.

Creationism fits the description of the passage. Creationism's god-of-the-gaps theology leads directly to making God a creature.

LOL! Of course you don't want to discuss it.  Because it shows that creationism isn't Christian theology.

FoC, Francis Bacon realized 400 years ago that creationism led inevitably to heresy.  You are simply demonstrating that this is so.  Here is what Bacon said:

"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv

FoC, it has been an article of faith among creationists that they are the "good guys" defending Christianity against the horde of "pagan" evolutionists. It's way past time that faith was examined to see if it is reality.

What I am seeing as I examine the issue is that creationists are not the "good guys", nor does Scripture support them against evolution.  Instead, creationism is based on the sin of pride and leads to heresy and apostasy.  Creationism also, by making God be testable, sets Christianity up to be falsified by science.  This is wrong. Science can't falsify Christianity.  But creationists blithely continue despite the possible destruction of Christianity.  More pride again.

Rather than being the "good guys", my conclusion is that creationism is the greatest danger Christianity has ever faced.  If Christianity is to survive, then Christians are going to have to continue to stand up to it and resist it. 

 

[Follower of Christ]

Today at 11:43 PM lucaspa said this in Post #19

Today at 11:02 PM Follower of Christ said this in Post #18


Paul was a self proclaimed ''Pharisee of Pharisees''. I am sure that he adhered to the letter of the OT.

Paul certainly did not adhere to the letter of the OT after he was converted to Christianity.  That was the basis of his whole battle with the Jerusalem disciples, remember? Paul relaxed the Laws to allow gentiles to become Christians whereas Peter was requiring gentiles to become Jewish before they could become Christian.

Paul cut and pasted OT theology to fit the new theology and Christology he developed.  Paul basically constructed a new religion on the fly.  You can admire or criticize him, but the one thing you can't do is claim that Paul adhered to the letter of the OT.

If you think that you will drag me into a debate as to what Paul meant in that passage, think again.
NOT interested.

Creationism fits the description of the passage. Creationism's god-of-the-gaps theology leads directly to making God a creature.

LOL! Of course you don't want to discuss it.  Because it shows that creationism isn't Christian theology.

FoC, Francis Bacon realized 400 years ago that creationism led inevitably to heresy.  You are simply demonstrating that this is so.  Here is what Bacon said:

"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv

FoC, it has been an article of faith among creationists that they are the "good guys" defending Christianity against the horde of "pagan" evolutionists. It's way past time that faith was examined to see if it is reality.

What I am seeing as I examine the issue is that creationists are not the "good guys", nor does Scripture support them against evolution.  Instead, creationism is based on the sin of pride and leads to heresy and apostasy.  Creationism also, by making God be testable, sets Christianity up to be falsified by science.  This is wrong. Science can't falsify Christianity.  But creationists blithely continue despite the possible destruction of Christianity.  More pride again.

Rather than being the "good guys", my conclusion is that creationism is the greatest danger Christianity has ever faced.  If Christianity is to survive, then Christians are going to have to continue to stand up to it and resist it. 

With every post you make, it becomes more evident that you understand little to nothing of scripture.