The software does not permit me to read PMs.

Hey I was not accusing him of anything, I was asking if someone else was. Maybe he is not aware of the page? Maybe by bringing it to his attention I am giving him a chance to defend himself, get the page taken down? He has no special access on this site so I couldn't just pm him. I considering the worst it accused him of was being a troll and not whiling to put money behind his views I did not think it was that big a deal especially because it was refering to some  stuff in 1996. But whatever not a big deal.

Perhaps but as we know for a fact it could not possibly have been written in bibleland by the people of bibleland it is reasonable to explore where and by whom it was written. Or are you incurious about the origins of all religions?

It is loosely based upon the Yahweh/Ashara religion of region. This is well known. Ashara goes back at least to Ishtar and Yahweh at least to a mention in Ugarit. But that is not the subject.

The subject is who wrote the books of the OLD TESTAMENT and thereby INVENTED the Yahweh cult. That the OT dates to AFTER the most "recent" book was supposedly written and cannot have originated in the land of the people who came to be its (short term) practitioners is the subject.

I do not know how to make it clearer than that but I will try if you still do not grasp it.

It is technically incorrect to call a cult a religion.

I am new here, and I am not a bible historian by any means, but I would suggest supporting quotations from bible scholars, historians, etc., complimented by a bibliography.  With supporting details that can be verified, your essay would be much more concrete.  If a serious rebuttal were written by a theist, it most certainly would include supporting facts from published works, and your work itself would not be able to contend on a professional level.  Without supporting opinions from recognized authors, you will fall short I believe.

If I am mistaken and there is a bibliography, I apologize I didn't notice it.

The thesis of your essay and the conclusion you will draw is fascinating.

In this matter I have little interest in the professional level as I have read much of their material.

Take for example my statement, we know for a fact it could not have been written in bibleland by biblelanders. I say this because I cannot find any evidence of a literate culture in bibleland which could have created it. I have tracked down every reference to such a culture I can find. Not a single one of them presents evidence of it. But professionals ramble on about it, at time to book length, without even once admitting there is no evidence.

How about an entire book on the scribal culture of ancient Israel which is "described", in reality fabricated, by analogy to what we know of cultures where it did exist. I just went through a paper about the style of the language used in the OT books which almost literally promised to produce contemporary non-biblical material to make its case. Not a single word was presented when entire paragraphs were a minimum to make the case in the title. And just to show it was not to academic for me, there was not a single reference or footnote suggesting such paragraphs existed.

Citing academic opinion is only for demonstrating it is biased towards those who pay the bills.

If you are interested in an unorganized view of some of the intended contents look to the top articles in the upper right column of my website www.giwersworld.org . Note those articles are dated and change is the only constant in this.

You will see the basis for my assertion that the Maccabe "revolt" was merely a proxy war between the Seleucid and Ptolemy empires. It was not anti-Greek in the least. It was between which Greek side to choose. The Maccabe side is the Ptolemys, the Greek rulers of Egypt.

I see your point in not referencing outside sources within your work.  Who would the intended audience be for your essay?  Or is it a work designed to be universally recieved?

My apologies for not being clearer. I did not intend my mod edit to be considered an official or unofficial warning, although I now see that it probably appeared that way.

You are correct, it's not a terribly big deal. For me it's more a matter of principles and ethics, of giving people a level playing field, and not spreading potentially unreliable rumours around (intentionally or not). I know you didn't mean any harm, so don't worry about that. I just made a discretionary mod edit, and was trying to explain why I did.

My main point to you was that you are free to post specific details from the primary sources into this thread (e.g. by quoting, and then linking to show where you got the quote from), and I would not object to that. My objection was based on posting a link to a site where Nony has no power to post his own rebuttals to those accusations made there. He has that power here, so it's fair to post them here (if they are from primary source, not just rumours). But to simply post a link to a collection of accusations? To me, that's rumour mongering. And I'm sick of rumour mongering, no matter if it's intentional or not. That's the reason I removed the link and sent it to Nony.

Again, I would have no objection if you post information here from a primary source. But that requires you to personally vet that information yourself and decide for yourself what you think is probably legit or probably not. When you personally go through this process, you are in essence taking responsibility for what you post in this thread. If you end up posting false claims and allegations (rumours), then that is something you will have to personally own up to.

But if you just post a link to a bunch of claims, you are essentially avoiding responsibility for those claims. "Hey, I don't know if they're true. I just heard them from somebody (who heard them from somebody, etc.)" That's rumour-mongering, and IMHO, it is unethical and I will object to it.

Please note: I have not read any of the claims made on that page against someone (who you can't even confirm is Nony). I only scanned the linked-to page, then went to the root domain to see what the organization was, and saw immediately that it could not be considered an un-biased source of information in any discussion about Nony (or whoever it is they are accusing).

Therefore, I am not saying that the claims are true or not. I am saying that the fact that you don't know if they are true or not, and only post a link to a secondary source, is not a legitimate move in rational discourse, IMHO.

Again, you are free to post specific claims from specific sources, if you think they are legitimate points to raise or questions to ask. But you must make that judgment yourself, not just link to some website somewhere.

Does this help make it more clear where I'm coming from?

And again: This is neither an official nor unofficial mod warning. It is a discretionary mod edit by me personally. I will post a thread in the mod forum to get feedback from other mods on whether I made a mistake or not.

If all religions are cults then it is also true that all religions are religions and all cults are cults which are null statements.

As to your nonsense about minorities, it is inconceivable you have missed by condemnation of those who refuse to recognize the human and civil rights of Palestinians.

That which is given is not a right. That which is given can be taken away. Rights cannot be given. Rights can only be recognized or denied.

Your lack of understanding of a subject you misrepresent is unacceptable.

As I said not a big deal. I understand why. I don't feel the need to argue about it.

I am not targeting any audience. I am trying to keep it along the lines of a scientific paper by merely presenting the facts without an interest in what people make of them. In other articles I have found I can keep it neutral by simply invoking an atheist non-interest when it comes to places where value judgements appear unavoidable.

Of course I would like to avoid them entirely.  As we have seen here, it allows the closet believers to launch into personal attacks to avoid addressing the issue.

I'm rubber and you're glue should not leave the kindergarten schoolyard.

For the moment I can live with a definition that has but one apparent exception and then in only one aspect.

In this case I could add the brain-washing techniques such as everyone hates us. That goes back to at least the 1st c. AD and was based upon people refusing to believe the most absurd claims made by Judeans. Literally, people refuse to believe our nonsense solely because they hate us. www.giwersworld.org/ancient-history/hate-jews.phtml

The 'we are hated' nonsense extends to the claim there was anti-semitism in the US when in fact Jews experienced nothing different from any other wave of new immigrants. Because of their religion? Catholics had the same problem making Jews no different from the Irish and Italians.

I could also go into the psychological pressure that forces atheists and at times even christian converts to declare they are still Jews despite all rhyme or reason but that would be cheating.