GakuseiDon

Fair enough, I left off the quotes. Sorry for misquoting you - my bad. Thanks.

GakuseiDon

I can't see that there is any inherent problem in your "Romeo and Julian" example. It depends on what claims are being made. But why not cast it in terms of theology?

(The OT claims there were other gods)
1. I feel that the other gods in the OT were actually demons.
2. I compose a theology that states there is only one God and that the others were demons.
3. I still claim that the OT is relevant.

Nothing wrong there. The OT would not be irrelevant, it would just be an incomplete understanding of Christian theology, i.e. what the OT writers regarded as "gods" were actually demons. Is there anything in the OT that would contradict such a view?

spin

But do you understand the easy meaning change implied?


spin

Amlodhi

I didn't go back and check Doc X's original comments, but IIRC he mentioned that we are not restricted to biblical sources.

The basic premise that is being put forward here is not taking the bible at face value. Because the OT was (mostly) written, edited and finalized by later advocates of monotheistic Yahwism, it can only be expected that it would reflect that viewpoint. IOW, it is a singularly biased source. (Although there is the occasional revealing crack.)

However, as mentioned, we are not constrained to stay within the confines of the biblical text. Recent archaeological discoveries (particularly the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra) have shed a great deal of light on the ongoing development of Near Eastern deities and religions. These texts make a strong case that YHWH didn't start out as the "end all/be all" but only attained such status (in the minds of the Judeans) over a lengthy period of development.

IOW, rather than YHWH being the only "true" God amongst a pantheon of "created" gods, all the gods were created . . by men. Judah, (as with all the other nations), naturally and over time, simply elevated the god of their choice to supreme status.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

GakuseiDon

Sure, no argument there.

You can see that both LP and I agree with that. That is certainly how parts of the OT present it. Does this contradict Christian theology? Well, no it doesn't - and that is all LP (and I) are saying. Is Christian theology wrong? That is a separate question. No doubt it is the more IMPORTANT question, but it's not the one being argued by LP and me. From your comments earlier, I see you recognise that, Amlodhi.

I love to debate, but it becomes impossible when the other person won't or can't engage the topic of debate.

Fair dinkum, I've argued against less dogmatic inerrantists than some here! Perhaps it's time to take a break. Thanks.

spin

I don't believe you. When you don't attempt to understrand what you are talking about, how can you love to debate?

Fair dinkum, I've argued against less dogmatic inerrantists than some here! Perhaps it's time to take a break. Thanks. [/B][/QUOTE]

When you support this contradiction until you are blue in the face:

(ot) They are gods
(nt) They aren't gods

then I recommend that you take a break and reconsider the meaning of life.


spin

Doctor X

GD:

When you have El deciding what country gets YHWH methinks YHWH did not create El.

To cut to the chase with all of the above, my believing it is "Romeo and Julian" does not change the fact that it is "Romeo and Juliet," and the text will reflect that. Extra-biblical texts--such as the Urgaritic myths--also contradict the idea that YHWH created El. The OT does not just have demons, it has "gods," and "sons of god/gods."

As I indicated to LP earlier, the problem for Christians--leave aside the polytheism of a god and a son!--is that if they take the OT at all literal they are stuck with its polytheism. If they do not take it literally, they are caught trying change its meaning still.

Spin:

Who created Junior? That is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind [Stop it!--Ed.] That question probably drove Christian mythmaking. Stuck with Mk you have a son of a god. Okay! Sounds like another demigod on Earth--powerful, important, and all of that. You do not get him equivalent to Big Daddy. Drive this further, people uncomfortable with such a story have him around "since creation." What does that mean?

Frankly, the NT texts--Synoptics and Jn, even, do not seem bothered by these questions.

--J.D.

LP675

Spin, are you agreeing with me that Dr X made a mistake? (It seems to me you are)

LP675

Whoa! This is freaking me out , someone actually agreeing with me here!
What state are you from? (BTW did you know this was in our constitution? “the people of NSW, VIC, SA QLD and TAS, humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God, have agreed to unite in one indissoluble Federal Commonwealth…�
Do you think we could make a case that atheism is unconstitutional?

GakuseiDon

Well, I'm a theist, which means I'm inflicted by the religion meme - I have no choice!

I'm in VIC. No, I never knew that was in the Consitution! Interesting!