ellauri159.html on line 567: I’m aware that “knightly virtues” sounds a lot like a fedora wearing “nice guy”. If you go back in history, I don’t think you can deny that knights were pretty badass and nothing like the modern day “nice guy”. The difference is that a real knight was strong and powerful. A “nice guy” tries being nice because he is powerless. There is a big difference. Suggested post: A gentleman is not a “nice guy”
ellauri499.html on line 189: No. In the Bible, “Baal” isn’t portrayed as a “good guy” who’s only problematic in a narrow exception—it’s presented as a false god (i.e., something Israelites are warned not to worship). The “prophets of Baal” in the Elijah story are shown as wrong/misled competitors to Yahweh, and the whole confrontation is framed to discredit Baal. As for Nehemiah (the biblical figure) is not a known part of a “Baal vs. Yahweh prophets” story in the way Elijah is—Nehemiah’s work is mainly about rebuilding/leading after the Babylonian exile and religious reforms, not debating Baal as a supernatural rival.
ellauri499.html on line 199: You can challenge details without concluding Baal is “a good guy” Even if the historical reality was messier—some Israelites may have practiced Baal alongside other deities, or cultic life may have varied by region—the biblical authors are not trying to give a neutral ethnography of Baal worship. They’re constructing a moral/religious lesson. So the most you can often responsibly say is: we can’t take every characterization at face value as history, not that Baal is being misrepresented as good.
ellauri499.html on line 210: That said, even if we accept that the biblical text is “tainted” (redacted/polemical), it still doesn’t automatically imply “Baal was a relatively good guy” in any straightforward moral sense. What it does imply is something more historically plausible:
xxx/ellauri446.html on line 351: What’s your opinion of Obadiah? Was Obadiah a “good guy” or a “bad guy”?
5