Jenže tohle není žádný trolling - to je realita, před kterou se schováváš. Vzal sis k ruce šovinistickou válečnou propagandu pouštního kmene doby bronzové a řekl sis: tohle je univerzální moudrost která byla seslána přímo z nebe a podle které se budu snažit žít. A protože jsi mazaný Cizinec, tak jsi dobře věděl, že na přímo tam takové věci nejsou - jak jsi ostatně sám mnohokráte napsal: že dříve jsi to tam vůbec neviděl. To bylo v dobách, kdy jsi ještě četl Bibli správně - četl jsi v ní to, co tam doopravdy je.

No a pak jsi na sobě trošku zapracoval a začal jsi to číst jinak - aby ti bylo příjemně, zkrátka abys sám sobě mohl pohodlně lhát, ale řekněme poněkud inteligentnějším způsobem, než to třeba praktikuje Leonet.

Co píšete dál, nu opravdu, jen poukazuje na Vaše primitivní myšlení. Nu jste přeci jen materialistický člověk.

Archaeological data reveal that the peoples of ancient Canaan shared material culture and patterns of daily behavior, including religious behavior. Although a few scholars still claim otherwise, we cannot, from the dirt of Syria-Palestine, distinguish Israelite from other Canaanite religious practices (Noll 2001a, pp. 140–64). This is not surprising; identical environment and culture results in very similar religious experiences and behaviors. One should not expect archaeological data to betray an Israelite religion that is significantly distinctive from its Canaanite context (Dever 1987; Thompson 1992; Handy 1995; Niehr 1995, 1999; Becking 2001; Dijkstra 2001b; Vriezen 2001).Likewise, careful study of the Bible demonstrates that the distinction between “false” Canaanite religion and “true” Israelite religion is so superficial that one doubts whether most ancient readers of these texts were impressed by the excessive rhetoric of biblical prophets (Noll 2001b; cf. Thompson 1995 for discussion of the historical circumstances of this rhetoric). Any religion’s god is the invention of those who worship that god. Societies with many gods invent a specialist for each human need. Societies that prefer only one god invent a general practitioner who can meet all these needs. In all cases, the purpose of a god or set of gods is to provide a counterintuitive – and therefore strangely compelling – foundation for the prevailing morality and customs of the society. The worshipers commit to these counterintuitive gods because they alleviate existential anxieties, rationalize a moral order, and ground their commitment in something seemingly more lasting than the whim of personal convenience (Atran 2002, pp. 263–80). Therefore, one cannot reasonably expect biblical religion to look very different from its environment, which was the source and author of its morality and customs.An example of biblical polemic against “false” Canaanite religion illustrates the point. The book of Kings tells a story in which a prophet named Elijah pits the Israelite god Yahweh against a Canaanite god named Baal (1 Kings 18). The reader has no difficulty imagining the bewilderment of the people who, in verse 21, respond to Elijah’s challenge with silence. Ancient sources demonstrate that both gods control the weather, ride on clouds, defeat mythical beasts that symbolize the chaotic floodwaters threatening the earth, and rule as divine king. With smoke pouring from his nostrils, Psalm 18’s god rides a beast called a cherub (a divine lion with oxen hooves, eagle’s wings, and a human head) to rescue his human king. Psalm 29’s god convulses the earth with his thunderous voice and sits enthroned over the chaotic floodwaters while minor gods sing his praises. The irony in the story of Elijah was not intended by the ancient author but is evident to a religion researcher: Elijah seeks to differentiate himself from those with whom he shares almost every aspect of his own worldview. It is what he shares with the worshipers of Baal – not just meat sacrifice for a weather god who acts miraculously but also the worldview in which such a god becomes necessary – that most troubles Elijah. Because Yahweh and Baal are distinguishable in name only, the narrated miracle that allegedly falsifies one and affirms the other is trivial. “The radically ‘other’ is merely ‘other’; the proximate ‘other’ is problematic, and hence, of supreme interest” (J. Z. Smith 2004, p. 253; see also Greenstein 1999, pp. 57–8).

Vítězit,a rozbíjet národy železem jako hrnčíř nádobí budeš .

Láska,a milování v praxi.

Ježíšek nám vyrostl, a ejhle už to není otloukánek pro nastavování tváře, pro milování nepřátel, je to terorista s pudy násilníka.