RE: Brahma and Abraham
September 15, 2020 at 7:48 am
(This post was last modified: September 15, 2020 at 8:11 am by The Grand Nudger.)
Character creation ex nihilo is also deliberate in this sense. OFC authors use tropes, deliberately. That's syncretism. Th same way that so many of our shows today end up espousing those tropes despite being originally created by distinct authors.
They can't help it, it's the world they live in.
Trade relations between hindus and hebrews are older than old magic book, and the similarities between the theological traditions has never been lost on researchers. Then we have exile, where the group that would go on to write old magic book as we know it had even further contact. This is even recorded in old magic book. The issue of abraham is not the only bit considered for syncretism, either. There's nothing wrong with people being aware of a competent narrative device and using it, and nothing strange about two theologies with vast points of agreement finding value in each others stories and creating versions of that story that speak more directly to them and their specific beliefs.
One simple change helps people to contextualize this. "Early hebrews" are phoenicians displaced by war to baghdad, and further, who returned to their (real or percieved) place of origin and wrote an establishment myth for their -current- state, not as a historic treatise. They were now calling themselves judeans (after the redneck cousin to isreal, judah, which was spared in that war due to it's not being worth shit). That might be why the "ancient" battles in old magic book, purportedly set in 3-1k bc or some such trash, are really accurate representations of warfare between 6-8oo bc. What's truly hilarious, is that some went back and tried to convince the people still there that they were the legitimate rulers of the region, because of this story..and the people there didn't buy it.
You're arguing that there was no deliberate intent, but ofc there was...it's not the deliberateness that you're rejecting, it's something about that deliberateness. A negatively valued but silent assertion. Deliberate as euphemism for bad or untoward or duplicitous. Sure, it was never that (there was no singular author to have an ill will to assert) - but that won't mean that it wasn't syncretic.
They can't help it, it's the world they live in.
Trade relations between hindus and hebrews are older than old magic book, and the similarities between the theological traditions has never been lost on researchers. Then we have exile, where the group that would go on to write old magic book as we know it had even further contact. This is even recorded in old magic book. The issue of abraham is not the only bit considered for syncretism, either. There's nothing wrong with people being aware of a competent narrative device and using it, and nothing strange about two theologies with vast points of agreement finding value in each others stories and creating versions of that story that speak more directly to them and their specific beliefs.
One simple change helps people to contextualize this. "Early hebrews" are phoenicians displaced by war to baghdad, and further, who returned to their (real or percieved) place of origin and wrote an establishment myth for their -current- state, not as a historic treatise. They were now calling themselves judeans (after the redneck cousin to isreal, judah, which was spared in that war due to it's not being worth shit). That might be why the "ancient" battles in old magic book, purportedly set in 3-1k bc or some such trash, are really accurate representations of warfare between 6-8oo bc. What's truly hilarious, is that some went back and tried to convince the people still there that they were the legitimate rulers of the region, because of this story..and the people there didn't buy it.
You're arguing that there was no deliberate intent, but ofc there was...it's not the deliberateness that you're rejecting, it's something about that deliberateness. A negatively valued but silent assertion. Deliberate as euphemism for bad or untoward or duplicitous. Sure, it was never that (there was no singular author to have an ill will to assert) - but that won't mean that it wasn't syncretic.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
