Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 5 Mar 2000 01:58:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1209 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
<<a bunch of stuff here and elsewhere...omitted for the sake of brevity>>
Bill, its hard for me to respond to your comments because you ACTUALLY believe
this stuff and I DO NOT. This is like talking about the quality of the color
of a thing when we already disagree as to its actual color to begin with.
All of your assumptions are based on belief, and my own are based on what I
think is a more objective/universally accepted reality -- a reality where the
assumption is that faith doesn't signify except to the individual believer. I
am commenting from the standpoint of known history as viewed by scientific
methods (i.e. the research of archaeologists), and you read history as suits
your religious needs. My scriptural comments are literal examinations of the
texts and not interpretive comments from the standpoint of someone of faith.
We simply will not draw the same conclusions from these very different
perspectives.
But basically, I would hope that you can see the difference between your views
and what the texts you refer to ACTUALLY tell us literally. But just for the
sake of having an example...
Bill wrote:
<<Moses wrote about events that happened up to 2500 years prior to his
writing about them.>>
Okay.
But to my mind that means Moses is the first representative of those views and
beliefs -- he wrote it! Thats why the first five books of the old testament,
the Pentateuch, are attributed to him. To me that means he was a political
entity in the ancient world working backwards from his day to justify what he
would try to affect in his own present and future. And the people we know he
led did not actually agree with everything he was teaching -- thats why they
were down there worshipping a golden calf and having fun while he was atop a
mountain communing with a burning plant.
If there was already an established belief system with an already known set of
principles, why were the practitioners of this belief so openly and readily
disobeying its principles? Do you see how that doesn't make ANY sense at
all? Will you argue that they believed a thing but were just being naughty
anyway?
And historically there were two priesthoods -- Aaronid and Mosaic. I think
this assertion is an accepted fact from the standpoint of current biblical
scholarship. I would recommend you read "Who Wrote the Bible?" by Richard
Elliott Friedman, or at least go to amazon.com and see what is there about
this book. I could more or less say that the substance of this book is the
basis of my perspective on all things biblical. If you don't agree with what
you find there, then it just proves my assertion that we are coming at it from
two totally different perspectives.
And its hopeless to discuss it further.
-- Richard
P.S. Manna (meaning "What is it?") was insect larvae, and locusts and honey
were considered a delicacy! Gotta envy that John in the desert...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) You're forgetting Abraham and Noah, they were long before this pharaoh and long before formal judaism. The hadn't taken up the views of that heretic, they obeyed the active voice of the God of their fathers. Melchizedek (Gen 14) is called the (...) (25 years ago, 5-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
|
|
|
|
