Talk:1st commandment

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Deleted explanation)
 
(response)
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
In addition, I see no indication that the "other gods" would enslave their followers. I think that part of the commandment is adequately explained by positing that YHWH (or his priests) don't like competition.
 
In addition, I see no indication that the "other gods" would enslave their followers. I think that part of the commandment is adequately explained by positing that YHWH (or his priests) don't like competition.
 +
 +
: I am not sure towards whom this side is geared. If your intended audience is convinced atheists then why not stop at the "God Faq"? I was under the impression that this side is intended for people like me who are sitting on the fence, who want to think about the topic a while before deciding. In that case you need to address the strong argument of the opposing view, not the weak one. So if there are two ways of interpreting something I think it is necessary to address the stronger interpretation.
 +
 +
: In the case of the first commandment from a literary viewpoint it is almost a triviality that the opening line would set the theme for the rest and the mentioning of the liberation from egypt is reflected in the choice the israelites got in Joshua 24,15. My wording might not have been entirely appropriate but I think the meaning was correct.
 +
 +
: Therfore I beleive that the atheist argument is ineffective unless it addresses that interpretation. On second thought I concur that "Explaination" was not a good heading to choose, but I really think that it should be mentioned one way or the other.
 +
--[[User:Tordmor|Tordmor]] 03:54, 25 November 2008 (CST)

Revision as of 04:54, 25 November 2008

Deleted explanation

I deleted User:Tordmor's explanation because I don't see anything in the 2nd through 10th commandments that mentions the exodus, so I don't see how the 1st commandment sets that up as a theme for what follows. In addition, its mention here comes across less as "I set you free; aren't I a great guy?" and more "I set you free; now you owe me", IMHO.

In addition, I see no indication that the "other gods" would enslave their followers. I think that part of the commandment is adequately explained by positing that YHWH (or his priests) don't like competition.

I am not sure towards whom this side is geared. If your intended audience is convinced atheists then why not stop at the "God Faq"? I was under the impression that this side is intended for people like me who are sitting on the fence, who want to think about the topic a while before deciding. In that case you need to address the strong argument of the opposing view, not the weak one. So if there are two ways of interpreting something I think it is necessary to address the stronger interpretation.
In the case of the first commandment from a literary viewpoint it is almost a triviality that the opening line would set the theme for the rest and the mentioning of the liberation from egypt is reflected in the choice the israelites got in Joshua 24,15. My wording might not have been entirely appropriate but I think the meaning was correct.
Therfore I beleive that the atheist argument is ineffective unless it addresses that interpretation. On second thought I concur that "Explaination" was not a good heading to choose, but I really think that it should be mentioned one way or the other.

--Tordmor 03:54, 25 November 2008 (CST)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox