kcdad

Abraham didn't introduce monotheism... he certainly didn't believe there was only one God. He believed he should worship only one God... B-I-I-I-I-I-G difference.
It wasn't until the later prophets after the Babylonian exile that The Jews (not The Hebrews) became believers in the existence of only one God.

What is the FIRST Commandment?

kcdad

Creation, Tower of Babel, The Great Flood, Job... oh, take your pick

spamandham

There is nothing in the text you idolize that states other nations should worship the Hebrew god. Naturally, they thought their god was superior, but it was acceptable for foreigners to worship foreign gods. Neither is there any command to proselytize. There is passive and explicit acceptance that other nations have their own gods.

From a Hebrew scriptural perspective, the Hebrew god is not the god of all nations, it's the god of Israel.

Species8472

The attitude of the OT towards other people is quite arrogant in this respect. Israel is the chosen, the rest are just trash. Even Jesus expressed the same attitude at times. It wasn't until Paul that it was accepted to convert us heathens. There is little in the OT, or even the gospels, to defend Christianity today.

IamJoseph

Yes, there is. Its one of the 7 Noahide laws encumbent on all, declared before the advent of religions.



Only by example [as in being a light unto others]; any inducements, enforcements, carots or blackmail, etc are forbidden.

Believe what you like - you are still subjective to the laws. A good polytheist is better than a bad monotheist, applies. Thus 'Equal rights to the stranger as the inhabitant'.

[quote]

The issue is governed by 'THERE IS NO OTHER' - also mathematically a sound advocation; however, it is only of merit when it is voluntary by the nations. Till then, the laws apply equally to all. IMHO, this is inherent with all human beings, and I suspect all life forms - eventually, all belief and all religions are directed at one singular source - no matter which path is taken. The Hebrew bible is correct.

THE BUCK STOPS AT ONE. :wave:

IamJoseph

Arrogance and the attaching laws do not culminate in your conclusion. There is no immunity to anyone. However, I do agree it appears a recipe for disaster: exemplifed best in the story of Joseph, where his own brothers saught to kill him over preference shown him by their father. The end conclusion of that story, however, gives a deeper and greater message. Perhaps all mankind is tested - it is no fun being chosen anyway - no oil, no land, no substance - just never ending disdain!

'NEXT TIME, PLEASE CHOOSE SOMEONE ELSE' - The Fiddler on the Roof.

Keith&Co.

Every so often, an archeological find is reported that someone, somewhere, can match to an event or location in the Bible.
For the most part, even skeptics of the more outrageous contents of the Bible are perfectly willing to admit that the thing was written some time ago, and the authors wouldn't have been completely ignorant of the world around them at the time.
Historical elements in a book written during history aren't really worth getting excited about, for either side.
There was a King Darius, and the daric coin was named after him, and a character in the Bible was paid in darics. No one has a problem with that. Of course, the daric payment is for an event that supposedly preceded Darius' birth, and many people have a problem with that.:huh:

But back to the finds. The Faithful like it when archeology shores up their interpretation of the Bible. And they probably should. The finds are something the critics can't ignore, they're cataloged and verified and show up in those heathen secular museums and all that shit.

But isn't there an important distinction right there? The very unearthing of history that the Faithful celebrate is different from the scriptural account. It's received differently, handled differently, interpreted differently.
Maybe the biblephile should really examine the differences to see just why ruins under dirt are better history than words written on scrolls.

I mean, say my kid tells me about his day out with Grandpa. They went to the circus, they went to Hooters, they went to the zoo and a tiger escaped and grandpa chased it back into his cage with his cane, then they went to State Street and grandpa talked to a lady who was very hot and wore only her underwear. If independent research reveals to me that there is, indeed, a zoo in town, and there is a tiger exhibited there, it is a far cry from validating the tiger-escaped story, even if i can find no way to prove that the outstanding tale never happened.

spin

The good news is that according to christian logic it is self-validating and should be considered true until proven false. It plainly should be read at two levels, for beyond the mere historical content there is a parable of the weak overcoming adversity through divine inventiveness. The fact that it functions on these two levels validates its genuineness.




spin

Sheshonq

Back to that special pleading again, Roger?

If an ancient text contradicts what we already know from science, archaeology, history, or other lines of evidence then it's quite appropriate to say that the text is most likely wrong, or flat-out wrong. We would treat any modern text that way; why do you set up a different standard for ancient texts?

Your approach seems to be that since a particular claim in antiquity is unique and uncorroborated, we must still judge it. Even though unique and uncorroborated, we have some kind of obligation to put the statement into one of two buckets -- either (1) true or (2) false. There is a third option: (3) of unknown accuracy.

I'ts noteworthy that you continually skip that option. Perhaps if you weren't wedded to a binary view of the world, your imagination could stretch to the idea that there are claims from antiquity where we simply don't know if the claim is true or false. If you weren't uncomfortable with the idea of academic uncertainty, perhaps you wouldn't feel compelled to bucketize all claims from antiquity into either (1) true or (2) false.

The fact that a particular claim is unique and uncorroborated should also be a warning to you not to place too much emphasis on it. That doesn't suit you, we all realize; but it's the most intellectually honest way of evaluating a claim.

spamandham

No it isn't. I even quoted the text for you. You simply insist on a ridiculous interpretation that I'm sure no-one outside your cult agrees with.

Obeying laws that carry capital sentences is *not* proselytizing. Are you capable of honest discussion at all, or does your cult teach you to lie for Moses?

Mathematically sound? Are you insane? Almost nothing you say makes a goddamn lick of sense.