A Son of God? Edit 1.0003 erthona, billy,leah,71deg

[tectak]

Thanks  for this...it needed analysis from somebody. I am not sure I fully appreciate your points because the subject matter of the poem is deliberately low-key and hopefully uncontroversial...it is interesting that religion is the only subject in which one can hold no views at all and offend everyone. Onwards.

Coming in here quite late (and haven't read all comments thoroughly) but would question use of "gods" plural.  East or West? Do you see a different deity? No, if you  believe Allah is also Jehovah God, yes if you don't. Me? I go with the flow...sometimes yes, sometimes no. You see, I just don't know. Do you? That is my point  Also, why the limitation of "century" singular?  Even "millennium" isn't the correct time span when one is writing about "religion" as a concept. Nope. Not the religion. The bombing Also, you take the Western thought way out and refer, geographically to "Holy Land" No. I didn't. I said holy land. Never mentioned Holy. Again, this is point making. Sorry, I am being a pratt....but holy is just a word to me. when what you are saying is the place is not "Holy" (nothing wrong w/this, but it only enslaves the poem in traditional Western thought. Third stanza:  Have a problem with "they"…do you really think that these gods think in humanistic terms? I don't believe gods think...I don't believe in gods. It would be pointed to capitalise one believer's fantasy god and not the others....so I don't. Capitalising Lord may be a mistake, but a Lord does not need deifying...just respecting. It is a mankind-thing.To push off these reasons as to why Man kills and maims on the gods (there's that plural word again) conveniently lets Man off the hook for any of the historical damage, doesn't it? Circle squared. I rest my case. Only if you believe in gods

The elimination of any capitals on Son of Man or God(s) but still having one on Lord (see the problem with plural vs singular?) is confusing also. They / He / It either "are" or "aren't" deserving of capitals.  

Just a side note: not sure you need the additional editorial (…"politically incorrect"…) at the end either. To any atheistic thinker, this isn't politically incorrect at all.  It's only purpose served would be to influence how a reader would grasp the poem "before" reading. Let the poem stand for itself without the sidebar.

Last point taken and accepted. It has gone.
Best,
tectak

Well, you seem to have an answer for all my critiques and/or criticism, and since I have nothing else to offer you except a point that's not really "in" the poem, and you took care of that one, said poem must be complete, at least from my end.  I won't bother you again. Just one thing though…can't help it: if you don't believe in gods/God/deity/ Lord or otherwise, how can you write a poem telling me how they think (have to assume this b/c of the way they command and/or kill, both high levels of emotionality, truly a divine characteristic for anyone, let alone a god). By the way, you have offended me not in the slightest. I enjoy a respectful dialogue about lots of topics. Good luck w/the poem.

Hi 71,
Good egg. You know that my avatar is Lingua in Maxillam. This piece is very tongue in cheek and was never otherwise. Your points were valid in every sense but the piece was on its third edit and was probably becoming passe....in other words it had become the imago....content wise. Punctuation and grammar issues have not yet been fully thrashed.
I will say again that I appreciate your input. I apologise if I offended you by suggesting you were offended when you were not, in fact ...er...offended. I know how offensive that can be
Very best,
tectak