Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 4 Mar 2000 02:25:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1043 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> The Vikings didn't seem to have a problem with gods from other religions
> existing. ....
I am reading right now Colleen McCullough's _Caesar_ (book number 5 of her
excellent novels) and there is a passage where she has a fictitious conversation
between Caesar and the chief Druid, Cathbad. Caesar is anxious to make an
impression, gain psychological advantage, influence people. Cathbad is resolved
to resist this invader. But his side is losing the war, so he says "Why would
the Danaan (our gods) desert our side?" Caesar replies, "Just as in the world of
men, things are not static in the world of the gods. Perhaps they struck a deal
with Jupiter Optimus Maximus." (In other words, maybe they want you to join
Rome.)
The earlier Quirites, even more superstitious, were always performing rites to
woo the other people's gods over to their side, promising Juno nice temples in
Rome and so on. Everybody believed in everybody else's.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) The Vikings didn't seem to have a problem with gods from other religions existing. The God of the Jews, Christians and Mohammad is the one and only, as far as I understand their collective faiths. Hindus I don't know - they shouldn't have a (...) (25 years ago, 3-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
