Enough is Enough

When is Humanity Going to Get That We’re All in This Together?

Solomon Wasn’t a King, He was a Pagan God

Posted by honestpoet on February 20, 2007

Now things make even more sense. Here’s a link that deals with the historical basis for the myth of King Solomon and his temple.

And here’s one that confirms the lack of evidence for any historical truth to Kings David or Solomon. And the article’s a review of biblical archeology, that was linked from Christian Century, not a tract from some atheist with an axe to grind.


18 Responses to “Solomon Wasn’t a King, He was a Pagan God”

  1. whig said

    To the contrary, it affirms the importance of Solomon as an historical figure, though it adds some complexity to the question of exactly who he was and where he lived. A person who was important and influential in the ancient world would be known by many people and each would tell their stories in their own metaphor or context.

  2. whig said

    I think you confuse religion with literalism, or fundamentalism.

  3. honestpoet said

    He’s not a historical figure. Are you dense? He’s a mythical figure. That’s my whole point.

  4. whig said

    I am not dense, and there is no need for that kind of thing. I respect your intelligence but ask for your tolerance and understanding. There is no necessary dichotomy between these two categories, when the truth can be an intersection of them. The sort of Aristotelian dualism which pervades much of your argument is itself not well founded. There are two sides to the coin, and both are equally present at all times. Yin and Yang. You wish to believe that there must be either science or religion, but they are both necessary.

  5. whig said

    If you define your terms to include only the evidence that fits your conclusion, you will always seem to be right in your own mind. But you exclude evidence you do not like, and define your historical method to include only that which can be proven without reference to written records, and by that measure I never existed once I am gone.

  6. honestpoet said

    Dude, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I not only see religion as unnecessary, but toxic. There is no common ground here. Science is not yang to religion’s yin. Science is a methodical pursuit of truth. Religion is a glorification of past lies and an intentional ignorance. While they seem to be opposite sides of the same coin, they’re not. It’s not like dark/light, male/female, tall/short, each side needing the other to define itself. Science could get on quite well without religion. In fact, it could get on marvelously if religious fools like Bush didn’t ceaselessly try to block it.

    You see me as misguided, unenlightened, without your mystical experience (though you could be wrong there). I see you as deluded.

    And that’s okay.

    You say the truth can be an intersection between these two ways of seeing. But that’s not necessarily so. The truth is whatever the truth is, not what we want it to be. I do my best to discover the truth; I don’t pretend I can dictate it.

  7. honestpoet said

    Whig, you posted one while I was typing. Slow down.

    You will have left artifacts that prove your existence, not just these words. You are not and will never be a myth. You’re a person, who uses pots and pans and takes a crap and writes to your mother (I hope). Letters will remain, photographs, myriad artifacts that every living person leaves behind.

    I’m not saying no written record can suffice as proof. I’m saying the Bible, with its supernatural claims and its complete lack of physical artifact, is too questionable to consider historiography. If there were real written proof of the biblical claims, such as records of trade with neighboring nations, which exist for all other contemporary kingdoms, those would be proof enough. But no such record exists.

    It’s bunk, Whig, plain and simple. You may not like it, but that doesn’t change matters. Personally, I’ve yet to understand why you should care so mcuh.

  8. whig said

    I care about communicating efficiently, and using metaphors is necessary to do so. You insist upon taking everything literally and then deny that it has any truth. I could continue on with the eyes-atop-the-pyramid metaphor and start bringing in all sorts of other constructs to describe the experience of higher consciousness, and the importance of understanding it.

    The point is that this has been done by societies long past, and they have left a record of their stories to help us understand how they saw the world and how they created relationships between one another. We have things we can learn from them. Some people, perhaps including yourself, think that we should start over with a blank slate and forget all of human knowledge that preceded some date, because that knowledge was not collected in accordance with modern methods of measurement and recording.

    I am not the one who ever insisted that the Bible is literally true in all of its details. I have said consistently that it is metaphor in many parts, and details are illustrative more than important points of actual fact. You could say from this that you would not consider me religious, but I am telling you it’s just a different kind of religious faith than you are used to.

  9. whig said

    And in keeping with the subject of your post, who is to say that Solomon was not regarded as a King by some people, and as a Pagan God by others. Thus he could be both, according to different scriptures.

  10. honestpoet said

    Actually, Whig, in my experience your watered-down religion is perfectly common. It’s pretty much just the fundies and your type.

    I’m not sure why people today seem to think that folks a long time ago were in on some secret that we’ve got to rediscover.

    Yes, looking within, attaining a higher consciousness, maintaining communication between our animal selves and our intellect is all very important. But the Bible is still a load of bull.

  11. whig said

    I’m not watered-down, though. That’s what you’re missing. The “fundies” as you call them are not more religious than me, most of them are fakes, hypocrites and dupes, as you would agree.

    But you dispose the baby with the bathwater. True religion is not what you have been told, nor is the Bible the only scripture that has relevance to our understanding. It is just one tradition, and if it is the best tradition or worst that would not be provable except in the carrying out of the process and seeing what metaphors work best for bringing about a better world.

    I do not discount science, and it is a fine way of discovering some things, but when your science is prohibited by law, how do you teach your children?

  12. honestpoet said

    You defy the law, like any GOOD American.

  13. honestpoet said

    “And in keeping with the subject of your post, who is to say that Solomon was not regarded as a King by some people, and as a Pagan God by others. Thus he could be both, according to different scriptures.”

    It doesn’t matter what he was regarded as. It matters what he WAS. And he never was a king. He never was ANYTHING except a creation of the human imagination, like any god.

  14. whig said

    Yes, it’s a shame that those ancient people were such bad Americans, they had to conceal what the were saying because they didn’t want to be stapled to a tree. Nevermind that America wouldn’t exist for a few thousand years, and even in this country I have friends in jail, one of whom was convicted of watering a plant.

  15. honestpoet said

    Whig, I was talking about YOU, not the ancients.

    I forgot you’re obsessed with the Bible for some strange reason. I wouldn’t expect someone who lived thousands of years ago to have the same ideas as I do now, with the benefit of the intervening centuries.

    You know, I don’t think you even read any of these links. You’re arguing on principle, not on fact.

    And I don’t even want to argue. Go smoke a bowl and quit bugging me.

  16. whig said

    I do read your links. But I respect your desire to be left alone.

  17. whig said

    I hope I can offer you a link, and ask your opinion.

  18. honestpoet said

    There’s no doubt in my mind that the authors of the New Testament were pro-pot. I’ve seen this stuff before, and I’m all for the “new wine”!

    But it’s a work of fiction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: