| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Wha happen to vast r. wing conspirac
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Wha happen to vast r. wing conspirac

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Wha happen to vast r. wing conspirac
    Posted: 29 Sep 2016 at 02:31
Watching old television of Hillary blaming the 'persecution' of her husband on the vast right wing conspiracy, wondering whatever happened to it?  Did finding out that her husband was actually schtooping an intern change her mind about it?  
Or maybe riding bitch on the back of former Democrat turned republican Ben Nighthorse Campbell's Harley change her mind.  (She was criticized for that risk (no helmet??) because she was risking herself as a democrat, and the margin was close in the Senate, she responded, 'hey if we had wrecked, it would have wiped out one Democrat, and one Republican.  It would equal out.'  "Riding Bitch" refers to a woman, riding on the back of a Harley or a Hawg, in this case it shows her character (that she has one), and is meant in respect.
But my question still remains, whatever happened to blaming everything on the vast right wing conspiracy.  Did the conspiracy change? did her attitude change?  Or is just submerged, waiting to get out at the right time?

It was said that the Clintons, coming from Arkansas where you could fit the republican party in a phone booth, weren't used to the concept of loyal opposition.  Did that change when working across the aisle in the Senate?  I think so, I hope so, but I would like to hear what others think. 

Nighthorse Campbell was the only Indian in the Senate, and when the democrats lost the Senate, they were going to cut him because of their seniority system from the Committee on Indian Affairs, so he joined the Republicans because they would allow him to stay on the committee.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 00:11
This deserves a response.

According to Hillary, the plot has thickened. The right wing cabal took great encouragement from their success in tricking Bill into sticking his cigar in places where the sun doesn't shine. Oh but that was after they murdered Vince Foster and dumped him in a park in a manner which was so obviously not a suicide that the people would naturally point the finger at the Clintons. Plus they hypnotised her into saying she arrived in Bosnia under sniper fire even though film footage shows the exact opposite.

Then they worked their cunning magic to trick her into voting to go into Iraq and fund every single wasteful military adventure after she became a Senator, thereby making her look like a warmonger. They certainly worked behind the scenes to help Obama beat her for the 2008 Dem nomination. And when she became Secretary of State they went even further by compromising her perfectly secure private server, and tipping off Libyan rabble who killed off a US Ambassador to embarrass her.

These days they have grown hugely in power. They are now commanded by Vlad the Slav, who confounds her every foreign policy move for the fun of it. Aussie tech nerd Julian Assange works around the clock to undermine her data security so people know she cheated Sanders out of the election. And a mystical reptilian being known as Pepe the Frog has developed a cult following which has rendered roughly 1/4 of Americans "deplorable & irredeemable". And somehow all of them have conspired to make a reality tv star more electable than her with her several decades experience in public office (he's currently 2 points ahead in the polls).

None of her scandals nor shortcomings are her fault. Clearly it's all one big conspiracy.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 00:52
It sounds like you're saying that she is still whining about being a victim of plots of others, although she might not be referring to the "vast right wing conspiracy" as such.  That wouldn't be good for the election for her.  Like I asked, is such claims submerged? just waiting to come back?

Personally, I don't understand the supposed "vast right wing conspiracy,' it has always seemed like the democrats have a much more efficient machine, allied with the press and the bureaucracy in order to get their way.  Most people in the US are right of the perceived center, but the press and the metropolitan areas are more vocal.  The right has the religious right, but if they were effective at all, don't you think Roe vs. Wade would have been overturned by now?  Our society is protected from prayer in schools.  But things that are genuinely scary, AIDS and drugs, those things are tolerated.

I am not sure what you mean by her several decades of experience in elected office, she had one full six year term and two more years as senator, plus four years? or six years? as Secretary of State.  Obviously she was politically active in the White House, and in Arkansas.  But that is not elected.  As Secretary of State, she wasn't given much room by Obama to maneuver, the exception being Libya which she and Samantha Powers convinced the President to intervene. 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 01:17
I said several decades in public office, though didn't specify that the office was an elected one Wink
Yes I am including her time as First Lady and as wife of the Arkansas Governor. Both valuable political experiences with many opportunities to exercise influence.

She is indeed whining about being the victim of yet another plot. In the 90s it was supposedly a cabal of bible thumping hicks headed by machiavellian GOP schemers who hated "progress". Today she's practically said that Putin, Assange, Trump, the white supremists, and the "deplorables" are all working in tandem to undermine her. In the 90s her husband did cheat and lie, she did do insider trading, Vince Foster was murdered, and she did obstruct criminal investigations into her wrong-doings - but she cried victim and declared it all a plot. Today she has graduated on to vastly more sophisticated and sinister misdeeds - but still cries victim and claims it's all a plot.

If there's a conspiracy, it's coming from the left. Even in my country I search our local news sites which are saturated with sensational articles about sexual allegations against Trump and have almost no coverage of the Wikileaks info. Those sites that do give it one or two lines mention innocuous trivia while omitting the damning revelations concerning Hillary and her Party. News media in my country and yours are both united in pushing an anti-Trump narrative that's so obvious to many people that it's no longer convincing. A recent Rasmussen poll revealed that only 6% of Americans consider the establishment news media to be trustworthy. In the Wikileaks, Russia is gearing up for war, the Dems have been shown to have rigged their own primaries, Hillary's staff have commented on how she has began to hate large segments of the American population - and there's not a peep about any of the from the big news media.

And yes the Cultural Marxists who populate journalism and the infotainment media are quite happy to ignore the majority, and push their vision for social mores onto the stupefied bulk of the population. They'll hide whatever they choose from you, and spin you a dishonest narrative so you go along with whatever they tell you. And people will follow like sheep until they disconnect from the media establishment and connect with a trustworthy alternative source of news and information.


Edited by Constantine XI - 16 Oct 2016 at 01:21
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 05:12
Any time more than 3 people get together 2 of them will conspire. Yes the rich often conspire against the rest of society. Politicians conspire with criminals. Conservatives conspire against liberals and vice versa. Captains and kings rule the world in secret.

Sometimes the insane see things others don't because we don't want to see them.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 06:26
https://blogs.chapman.edu/wilkinson/2016/10/11/what-arent-they-telling-us/

None of these conspiracy are even consequential and perhaps that is the point. The conspiracies people believe in don't directly effect their lives. The ones that effect them such as wall street picking Obama's cabinet they refuse to concern themselves with.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 21:26
Three men can keep a secret if two are dead.

Two jews, three opinions.  (an implicit argument _against_ "Jewish" conspiracy theories).

The butler did it.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 22:38
Why wouldn't there be a Jewish conspiracy the way they have been treated. If I was Jewish I would have a hard time trusting anyone. The great right wing conspiracy as far as it is manifested in WASP philosophy keep Jews from being members of the country club in this city until a few decades ago.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2016 at 23:18
The Jews have been expelled from 109 countries over the course of recorded history. Many of these nations were highly successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith societies. And 109 are just the incidents we know about from the historical record, the real figure is likely much higher.

Does anyone stop and ask, why did all of these diverse societies over and over feel that these people had to be expelled?
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 00:36
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The Jews have been expelled from 109 countries over the course of recorded history. Many of these nations were highly successful multi-ethnic, multi-faith societies. And 109 are just the incidents we know about from the historical record, the real figure is likely much higher.

Does anyone stop and ask, why did all of these diverse societies over and over feel that these people had to be expelled?


The Jews seem to have hit on the best way to maintain racial purity. Only females can control the certainty of paternity.

Judaism is fairly unique among philosophically sophisticated religions in being racially exclusive. Combine that with the close link in Judaism between religion and politics and non Jews are completely alienated. Any exclusive group is likely to be viewed with suspicion by the excluded. Combine the exclusion with unusual intellectual aptitude and conspiracy theories about Jews are almost unavoidable.

Interestingly if you consider Islam as a branch of Judaism by eliminating the racial exclusion Islam almost conquered the world. By retaining the politically exclusive nature of Judaism Islam not only conquers geographically but given the unassailable nature of faith based systems it conquers and roots out all political and cultural diversity. The Muslim branch of Judaism is not persecuted as an exclusive ideology because where it goes it becomes the dominate culture. Where it cannot dominate it tends to fade away exactly because it discarded racial purity. Judaism persists in alien cultures because reproductive instincts are stronger than cultural bias.

Some people even suggest that the Catholic church endures because it encourages reproduction but only allows adherents to marry. Taking a page from Judaism?
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 01:22
Or it could be that women get raped by soldiers, and the Jewish community accepts the offspring regardless of the patrimony.  Making the best of a bad situation.  You are accepted as Jewish if your mother is Jewish.  One can talk about Jews being a racial group, but then again there are Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews.  If you look at the greatest of Jewish philosophers, Moses Maimonides, one finds a different different definition of what it means to be Jewish, a conceptual definition, which is minority view in Judaism, but is still there.  The importance in Judaism, however, is more a matter of practice, not as much, a matter of belief.  Orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.  Of course, one can convert to Judaism, it is just that they typically don't prosletyze (after all, belief isn't _as_ important), and one is Jewish if one parents (mother) is Jewish, a traditional way of looking at one's identity.

There is a story of a kingdom where the king decided that he wanted to have a state religion, and so he invited a priest, a rabbi and a mulla to his capital.  Each of course, said that his religion was best, but the priest and mulla both agreed that Judaism was the second best.  So his kingdom converted en masse to Judaism.  So Judaism does conversion, but they tend to try to convince you out of it, so you really have to want it.  Different from Christianity or Islam.

They didn't _have_to_be expelled, they were expelled due to politics, scapegoating, bad BO or whatever else, but they didn't have to be expelled.

and no, wolfie there is no "great right wing conspiracy," there are conspiracies, and some are from people on the political right.  but most people in Hillary's great right wing conspiracy, are just people who don't like Hillary.  I prefer her to the Donster, but it is the matter of the lesser of two evils.
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 02:20
Originally posted by franciscosan franciscosan wrote:

Or it could be that women get raped by soldiers, and the Jewish community accepts the offspring regardless of the patrimony.  Making the best of a bad situation.  You are accepted as Jewish if your mother is Jewish.  One can talk about Jews being a racial group, but then again there are Ethiopian and Yemeni Jews.  If you look at the greatest of Jewish philosophers, Moses Maimonides, one finds a different different definition of what it means to be Jewish, a conceptual definition, which is minority view in Judaism, but is still there.  The importance in Judaism, however, is more a matter of practice, not as much, a matter of belief.  Orthopraxy, not orthodoxy.  Of course, one can convert to Judaism, it is just that they typically don't prosletyze (after all, belief isn't _as_ important), and one is Jewish if one parents (mother) is Jewish, a traditional way of looking at one's identity.

There is a story of a kingdom where the king decided that he wanted to have a state religion, and so he invited a priest, a rabbi and a mulla to his capital.  Each of course, said that his religion was best, but the priest and mulla both agreed that Judaism was the second best.  So his kingdom converted en masse to Judaism.  So Judaism does conversion, but they tend to try to convince you out of it, so you really have to want it.  Different from Christianity or Islam.

They didn't _have_to_be expelled, they were expelled due to politics, scapegoating, bad BO or whatever else, but they didn't have to be expelled.

and no, wolfie there is no "great right wing conspiracy," there are conspiracies, and some are from people on the political right.  but most people in Hillary's great right wing conspiracy, are just people who don't like Hillary.  I prefer her to the Donster, but it is the matter of the lesser of two evils.


You really are insulting.

The great WASP conspiracy could stand in for the great right wing conspiracy at least in the not so distant past as I suggested. Today it's hard to say because people are less overt in their prejudices.

BTW you didn't address the question.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 03:36
My apologies W,
I don't see prejudice and inertia as something behind "a conspiracy."  Conspiracy involves a choice (like heresies), which is stepping out of the realm of our usual unthinking way of living.  When conspiracy is not in variance with tradition and custom, it is fetishizing or idolizing tradition or custom.  Conspiracies are intrinsically for changing the status quo, even if they're there to make someone rich or famous or well known.
So I don't see the right as much for conspiracies, reflex action, yes, but not really, conspiracies.  

Whereas, intellectuals tend to be on the left, on the right are scholars, who tend to put what they are studying first.  I see intellectuals as "progressive" and by "progressive," I mean that they are trying to improve things, and ultimately, "solve" them.  Scholars have more of an appreciation of the law of unintended consequences, and therefore try to take people as they are.  Intellectuals assume that they know better, and that they know how to fix people.  If they mean "fix" as in to "fix" a dog, make it sterile,  then I think they can, if they mean fix as in repair or make better, no, I don't think so.

Conservatives look at things and when they see something they don't understand, they tend to want to leave it alone.  Liberals tend to look at things and when they see something they don't understand, they want to get rid of it.  The best route lies somewhere in-between.

Does any of that make sense Wolfie?  And don't just say no, say what you like, what you don't like, critique it, if you will. or don't....:(  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Oct 2016 at 05:47
There are the overt prejudices and then there are the conspiracies that try to enforce the logical consequences of those prejudices. While it was perfectly acceptable to publicly express racial hatred in the south Klan members still concealed their identity when enforcing the unwritten rules in a segregated society.

None of which really has much to do with why Jews are repeatedly singled out for extermination or expulsion.



We could start another thread to discuss the psychological differences between conservatives and liberals but in short I would stick to a more classical definition. Conservatives resist change and liberals embrace it. As to the distinction between scholars and intellectuals I don't think anyone would be classified as an intellectual if they were not scholarly.

One of the problems today is that many of the people we look up to as intellectuals come from science. The assumption being that science requires logic and reason and is evidence based. Certainly relying on logic, reason and evidence is desirable. The problem arises when people trained in science have to deal with complex, chaotic systems such as societies that are resistant to being reduced to formulation. In addition to some extent the egos of many in the scientific community has left the "soft" sciences be dominated by politically motivated progressives. Conservatives are some what to blame for the exodus of the scientifically trained to the regressive left by clinging to the superstitions of religion and unquestioning patriotism but in the end ego explains the exodus more thoroughly. The "pseudo" sciences of sociology and psychology in the minds of many liberal intellectuals is preferable to the unreasoning traditions of the conservative establishment represented by corrupt corporations, the military industrial complex and religious bigots. Unfortunately those people attracted to logic and reason are often poorly equipped to deal with the complexity and duplicity inherent in human nature.

Many intellectuals are also drawn to socialism because it appeals to their instinct to formulate solutions. Capitalism relies on natural selection largely devoid of traditional concepts of reason. Those prejudices for traditional problem solving formulas however are likely to fade as new solutions for dealing with complex, chaotic systems emerge. Stephen Wolfran's new kind of science is evidence that we may be on the verge of dealing with complexity by the marriage of Darwinian selection and traditional formulation. In any case as the problems with planned societies become more evident the intellectual community appears to be moving back to the political center. Ego again is likely to make this impossible for the current intellectual class but there are glimmers of hope as the excesses of social justice warriors are coming under increasing criticism from our left leaning intellectuals.



Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Oct 2016 at 23:56
In different cultures there are different notions of science.  In German, science is Geschichte which means any organized body of knowledge, so for example, history is a form of Geschichten.  In France, sociology and psychology are 'branches' of philosophy.  In France, there is not the desire in psychology or elsewhere, to imitate the 'hard' sciences, the way those 'fields of knowledge' wish to do so in the United States.  On the other hand, in American academia, Marxism doesn't predominate intellectual life the way it has in the past in France or much of Europe, one exception being to that predominance is the Austrian school of economics, Von Mises and Hayek.  Marxism has its influence in the States, but it is more around the fringe [the fringe which postmodernism places at the center.  (for example, we must accommodate in bathrooms the .01 percent of the population who decides their gender is different from their biological sex), the tail wags the dog].
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2016 at 02:08
Okay, to answer your question, W.

In Babylonian, Akkadian, probably Sumerian, etc, etc, there is a treaty format whereby parties are defined, and the great king (suzerain) requires the lesser king (vassal) to recognize his gods (the suzerain), and in turn he recognizes the lesser king's gods.  The suzerain defines the terms that the vassal has to follow, and also what obligations the suzerain will heed.  If the vassal breaks the terms, the gods will curse him, his reign will be recognized as illegitimate, and whatever the suzerain want to do to him, is justified.  The vassal is not allowed to enter into other treaty relations without permission of the suzerain.

Do you see the problem?

Basically, Exodus and the decalogue can be mapped out and interpreted as a suzerainty-vassal treaty between YHWH (Jehovah), and the Jewish people.  This means that the ancient Israelite people cannot make treaties with anyone else, because the Israelites (and thus the Jews) cannot recognize other gods.  Everybody else in the ancient Mediterranean recognized each other's gods including the Emperor, or for that matter, kings in the past.  The Jews were given an exception to this, because the Romans respected the antiquity of Jewish traditions, but eventually, with the constant unrest in ancient Palestine, Rome suppressed the Bar Kochba (? I think that is the right name), revolt, destroyed the Temple, and at that point the diaspora and Rabbinic Judaism came into the forefront.

Monarchy is based on the divine right of kings, and so as long as the king was a good king (a tolerant king), the Jews were okay.  They also had a role in society as money lenders, and doctors.  But of course, they couldn't refuse to lend to kings, and sometimes the kings would prefer killing or expelling them and confiscating their property to paying them back.  On a more social level, they made good scapegoats.  With Christianity claiming to be a universal religion, Judaism was something that violated that sense of order.  That was not as much of a problem with kings and aristocracy, but with democratization, the masses present a tyranny more extensive than any kingship.

Tyrants (kings, presidents for life) can be good in the short term for minorities, in the long term being allied with tyrants can really breed resentment.  Look at the Coptics and Mubarak in Egypt, or Assad and the Syriac Orthodox Christians in Syria.

All this doesn't explain everything, but it can give you an idea of how the Jews have gotten (for better or worse) where they are today.



  
Back to Top
wolfhnd View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 18 Feb 2015
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 816
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wolfhnd Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 Oct 2016 at 13:22
The details are interesting but the key remains the ability of Jews to maintain their identity living within alien cultures.

For comparison we could look at Ireland and see how despite persecution they maintained their Catholic identity. As I suggested earlier it is at least in part due to mating conventions. The ability of an ideology to parasiticly infect children is enhanced if both parents are carriers.

The analogy between cultural and genetic evolution shouldn't be seen as concrete but as Steven Linker pointed out in the blank slate the absolute rejection of biological determinism is politically motivated. The blank slate paradigm is a necessary component of current social justice movements. Interestingly it is a necessary component of the religious right as well. To suggest that there are two equal valid approaches to the social sciences most likely means you are enamored of one or the other or a mix of these two faith based systems.

That is not to say that reason and evidence are missing from historical, political or other soft sciences but that they are more susceptible to political parasitism residing in the Liberal arts.
Back to Top
franciscosan View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 1702
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Oct 2016 at 01:34
Palestine is in the crossroads of the near East, with the Hittite empire in the Northeast, Egypt in the South-Southwest, the Tigris-Euphrates valley,  Phoenicia, Persia, etc, etc.  In order to keep their identity in the face of external pressures, they came up with a way of reinforcing their identity through a suzerainty-vassal treaty, not between a great king and lesser kings, but between God and a people.  Of course, we do not have a pure account of this "procedure,"  What we have is books that were written and rewritten numerous times, as the elite of the community (Levites?) saw fit.  Tradition, conservatism and, frankly, literary brilliance, limited the rewriting to a certain extent, whereas political necessity at times called for it.  Scholarship looks at the different sources for the Penteteuch, as J, E, P, D, with the earliest being J.  Of course, one doesn't have to look at the books of the Bible through the lens of scholarship, nor as a suzerainty-vassal treaty, but it can be useful.  Or of course, one can declare it all parasitic, throw the baby out with the bathwater, and wash your hands of every thing.:( 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.