Yeah, and I was taught in Yeshivah that we don't know who Amelek is. (Some extremists have a hunch.) — Wheatley

I prefer the non-literal approach, where Amelek represents evil and the reminder that such actually exists. One shouldn't have sympathy for the devil I suppose it is to mean.

I prefer the non-literal approach, where Amelek represents evil and the reminder that such actually exists. One shouldn't have sympathy for the devil I suppose it is to mean. — Hanover

Good. :up:

I also deny the historical accuracy of the Old Testament. That is, that didn't actually happen. — Hanover

I think that most scholars today doubt the conquest of the Promised Land was actually a conquest, and are inclined to think that the Jews didn't destroy the Canaanites, but actually merged with them, though many of them moved into the area now known as Lebanon.

The problem is that Christianity is presented here as to have a "privilege" in intolerance compared to other religions. Or that its teaching is worse than other religions.
People oppressing others is a global, continuous behaviour that you meet it everywhere! Religion, states, jobs, relationships etc.Everywhere!And throughout history. Based obviously in human nature. Human lust for power. And people express it with all kind of ways.

One of the best "vehicles"(especially in global scale) for that are religions. All kind of religions. To claim that Christianity(not even all religions but especially one!) is to blame for that, it's ridiculous. As if its teaching is more oppressive, intolerant than others.

Christianity of coursed used for that purposes also and became oppressive and intolerant. But it's how it was "used" for other purposes. Just an excuse for economic, political, power reasons as one group of people to oppress others! It was made VIA Christianity also. Not CAUSE of it. That's the whole point and that's why an argument like that is impossible to stand logically.

The problem is that Christianity is presented here as to have a "privilege" in intolerance compared to other religions — dimosthenis9

I think you're right. Most religions ask unacceptable behavior from followers and seek to impose their often bigoted and unsophisticated views on the world. Christianity comes up here most often because that's the dominant and priviledged religion of the West and the one that's crashed into us (often to our cost) the most.

But again I agree - human beings don't need religion to be dreadful - politics and business can produce similarly dire behaviors. But the difference with religion is it makes unverifiable claims about bettering the world. It persistently makes claims that belief in god is somehow a positive, transformative power and the evidence for this never stacks up.

Religions should stop playing the morality card and recognize that they have nothing to offer that any social club can't offer too. Although not all that many social clubs seem to institutionalize child abuse and misogyny to the same high levels... but you get my point.

One of the best "vehicles"(especially in global scale) for that are religions. All kind of religions. To claim that Christianity is to blame for that, it's ridiculous. As if its teaching is more oppressive, intolerant than others. — dimosthenis9

Yes, I understand. But Christianity has a rather remarkable position in world history, in the West especially, but through European colonialism and imperialism and the priests and missionaries who followed its progression throughout other parts of the world as well. Christianity is, I think, unique in its commitment to expansion.

The Christian Roman Empire actively suppressed paganism and spread the Christian religion throughout the extent of the Empire. The conversion of the barbarian tribes in the Latin West and the acceptance of the supremacy of the Roman pontiff and Church assured its predominance even after the fall of the Western Empire, and continued in the West through the times of the Roman successor states established by the Vandals and Visigoths and Franks, into Medieval times and up to the Reformation. Even after the Reformation, Protestant Christianity was dominant along with Catholicism. The Eastern Orthodox Church was prevalent in the Eastern Roman Empire which continued Roman rule up to the time of the Arab conquests and it and the Eastern Empire held on for about another 700 years.

Priests and monks followed the conquistadors to the Americas, and then the French, and missionaries accompanied the Protestant colonial powers, English and Dutch, there and elsewhere. This led to the suppression of non-Christian religion wherever the Europeans went. Christianity sought converts, and Christians sought land, money and power. That suppression wasn't as successful in India, China or Japan, and Islam replaced it in other areas, but its success in assimilating is astounding.

Christianity comes up here most often because that's the dominant and priviledged religion of the West and the one that's crashed into us (often to our cost) the most. — Tom Storm

Exactly.

But the difference with religion is it makes unverifiable claims about bettering the world. It persistently makes claims that belief in god is somehow a positive, transformative power and the evidence for this never stacks up. — Tom Storm

True. I agree. But is it the only field that you see hypocrisy all over around us? And more specific hypocrisy used as to remain in power? I m not surprised as to be honest. Well in fact if religions weren't making such claims that would surprise me!

Religions should stop playing the morality card and recognize that they have nothing to offer that any social club can't offer too. Although not all that many social clubs seem to institutionalize child abuse and misogyny to the same high levels... but you get my point. — Tom Storm

I do. Not that I disagree with what you wrote here about that morality card(it's their strongest one) . But the thing is that religions would never recognize such a thing. That would mean the end of their existence. It's like asking from a wolf to stop eating sheep.

...John Chrysostom.. — Ciceronianus

He's the fellow who was ecstatic that the writings "of the Greeks have all but perished and been obliterated... Where is Plato? nowhere! Where Paul? In the mouths of all".

What is sickening is the way these Christian vandals gloried in the destruction; and now they deny it happened.

I prefer the non-literal approach, where Amelek represents evil and the reminder that such actually exists. — Hanover

AH. So adhering to the OP. It's not meant to be factually correct, because we found out that it doesn't match the facts.

What would one think if we had an independent account of their destruction? Then it would be factual?

MIght be right. Seems convenient. SO we move to

The problem is that Christianity is presented here as to have a "privilege" in intolerance compared to other religions. Or that its teaching is worse than other religions. — dimosthenis9

The problem is the Christian denial of the less tasteful aspects of their history.

I think you're right. — Tom Storm

But insufficiently so. I can't help but see parallels between these historical events and the stolen generations, the children in Canadian schools, and religious pedophilia. The claims to moral authority are bankrupt.

AH. So adhering to the OP. It's not meant to be factually correct, because we found out that it doesn't match the facts.

What would one think if we had an independent account of their destruction? Then it would be factual? — Banno

If we learned there were no actual Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, would the moral that even the coldest souls are capable of redemption be impacted? That there was no talking fox means his sour grapes story is bullshit?

That our myths are fictional does not impact their truth. Those who smugly prove that Washington never chopped down a cherry tree really miss the point.

We use myths to advance ideals. Reality never lives up to the myth. It can't. The real world is complicated and nuanced.

That our myths are fictional does not impact their truth — Hanover

Well it does if you are basing you entire life, and that of your family, upon literalism. No one looses anything if Tiny Tim is a fiction. It's a tall tale. If we lose Jesus, the cost is considerably higher (for most believers).

Those who smugly prove that Washington never chopped down a cherry tree really miss the point. — Hanover

True. But consider the ramifications if Washington himself was proven not to exist...

We use myths to advance ideals. — Hanover

I agree. That in effect is the topic of my thread on Confirmable and influential Metaphysics.

If we learned there were no actual Ebenezer Scrooge or Tiny Tim, would the moral that even the coldest souls are capable of redemption be impacted? That there was no talking fox means his sour grapes story is bullshit? — Hanover

Quite right. It is worthy of note that this thread puts things the other way around - what was taken as historically veridical, when found to not be so, is re-interpreted as a moral fable.

To my eye, and I suppose you will agree, the dive into darkness that followed the destruction of classical culture was tragic. — Banno

There are all sorts of historical tragedies. The Roman destruction of the second temple that I referenced was considered a dive into darkness by the Jewish people and it is still commemorated to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tisha_B%27Av

Had it not been for the destruction of the temple, I would still be able to make burnt offerings to Yahweh, but, alas, I'm now stuck listening to sermons in synagogue.

Also, to throw this in there, the evolution to monotheism was a positive moment in the intellectual history of humanity. It moved us from a world of competing anthropomorphic physical gods to a single incorporeal conceptual god posited to offer meaning and generalized explanations for the our existence. I can buy into the idea that the political upheaval created by the emergence of Christian power wasn't an all positive event, but I can't see why one would harken back to the days of Mars and Neptune and think that represented advanced civilization.

There's nothing to keep someone from opening a church today that worships the Greek and Roman gods. Well, there's lack of demand, but other than that.

If we lose Jesus, the cost is considerably higher (for most believers). — Tom Storm

The object isn't to take Jesus. It's just to note that whether he actually walked the earth and did the things suggested shouldn't matter. So the claim goes, salvation from eternal damnation requires faith that Jesus died for your sins. I take that to mean that one should accept the tenants advanced by Jesus (e.g. peace and humility) should he wish to see the world a better place today and forever forward (i.e. eternally). It offers the building blocks for heaven, which is an ideal, which is why we create myths.

The literalism dumbs things down considerably, offering a single person some sort of eternal Disneyland if he says he agrees with the New Testament.

He's the fellow who was ecstatic that the writings "of the Greeks have all but perished and been obliterated... Where is Plato? nowhere! Where Paul? In the mouths of all". — Banno

That's the fellow. John "Golden Mouthed." He was renowned for his eloquence, which he learned from his teacher, Libanius of Anitoch, one of the last pagan philosophers and rhetoricians. John turned on him and condemned him. But as a fifth century Christian zealot said, reputedly: "There is no crime for those who have Christ."

There's nothing to keep someone from opening a church today that worships the Greek and Roman gods. — Hanover

Well, they probably won't open a church, but there are people who worship the ancient Greek and Roman gods even today. The modern ethnic religion called Hellenism is derived from ancient Greek polytheism. The international organization called Nova Roma champions the Cultus Deorum Romanorum, a reconstruction of ancient Roman religion. There are various virtual temples on the Web, including those dedicated to Iupiter, Iuno and Minerva.

Well, they probably won't open a church, but there are people who worship the ancient Greek and Roman gods even today. — Ciceronianus

Thus erasing the tragedy brought about by the Christians by resurrecting the demolished ancient Roman culture.

It's not meant to be factually correct, because we found out that it doesn't match the facts. — Banno

This just feels so lazy. A story doesn't survive 3,500 years of transmission because it accurately relates what happened 3,500 years ago (gets the facts right). That people developed writing and wrote it down gives us a more reliable indication that the story has not changed (or changed little) from its first writing, but again, lack of change is not reason enough to keep telling the story.

People, in each successive generation, have their reasons for telling, re-telling, preserving, and transmitting that story between themselves and others. The interpretation of the story being passed is up to each person hearing it - there is no interpretation inherent in the words/symbols/history. Imposing your view on interpretation for all of those people for all of time is just that - an imposition. When actual members of a religion tell you that they don't read the words literally, you can't just dismiss them as if they aren't exactly what the religion is.

You know what exegesis is. You know what critical literary theory is. You even know what philology is. You understand that stories are used (religious or not) for lots of reasons independent of whether the story is understood the same way by the teller and the receiver, the invoker and the audience. How your brain goes to pot when it comes to considering religion isn't clear to me, but it would be nice if you took some of your critical skills and actually used them to understand what is going on.

@Banno And as a "historical" matter, it might be nice to do some serious thinking about myth/mythology and how they function/ed in society. This would be particular useful given your typical agreement with the idea that religion is meant to be a tool to exploit the masses. Why you don't see your holding out of such views as necessarily in contradiction to the idea that religions intend to be "factual" is a mystery. If the people espousing religion the loudest believe it to be false and just an easy way to dupe the sheeple, then the "intent" of the religion has nothing to do with how factually accurate it is, but how effective it is at advancing the agenda of its proponents.

Thus erasing the tragedy brought about by the Christians by resurrecting the demolished ancient Roman culture. — Hanover

Not even Christianity could utterly destroy ancient pagan culture. After all, Christians in attempting to provide some intellectual legitimacy to Christianity borrowed liberally from pagan philosophy (mostly neo-Platonism and later aspects of Stoicism and Aristotle's thought) where they could. Early Christians of the upper classes passed through the same cursus honorum and had the same education as similarly situated pagans for a time, until oppression began in earnest after the reign of Constantine.

But a great deal was lost, and there is much that we just can't know, especially when it comes to religious practices, as in most case the only sources we have are the writings of Christians who obviously had an enormous axe to grind. The tragedy can't be erased, unfortunately.

especially when it comes to religious practices, as in most case the only sources we have are the writings of Christians who obviously had an enormous axe to grind. — Ciceronianus

History belongs to the victor. cf Postcolonial theology

The destruction of the Temple is widely acknowledged.

The destruction of 90% of classical literature is swept away, denied, and those who point to it castigated.

it might be nice to do some serious thinking about myth/mythology — Ennui Elucidator

Indeed.

The destruction of 90% of classical literature is swept away, denied, and those who point to it castigated. — Banno

I acknowledge it's some serious sad shit. I cry with you. What do you need me to say?

As to the question of whether the pain they brought was because that's what religion do, especially the monotheistic ones, that's where we disagree. I'm also not sure the Romans were all kind folks either.

Banno doesn't seem to understand that when there's a pile of crap out back you get rid of it. Sure, someone will tell you later that some of that crap actually had some value, but this doesn't mean that getting rid of the pile of crap was the wrong thing to do. If it's seen as a hazard the appropriate thing is to dispose of it.

What do you need me to say? — Hanover

Nothing. You are not obliged to reply to my posts. It's your choice. It suffices to hear you acknowledge the issue.

To all, Christianity introduced charity is a way that was not found in other religions and philosophies. They built hospitals and freed slaves, things previously unheard of. They also smashed masterpieces of art and architecture that were hundreds of years old and persecuted all but to extinction any alternative ways of thinking.

if one allows religion not to be factually correct, to consist in metaphor and allegory, for the betterment of mankind, then does that mean it need not be honest?

Faith: not wanting to know what is true. — F.N.

The Abrahamic apologists on this thread have shown themselves to lack intellectual honesty and integrity on par with Holocaust, (US) systemic racism, anthrogenic climate change & pandemic deniers. :brow:

If one allows religion not to be factually correct, to consist in metaphor and allegory, for the betterment of mankind, then does that mean it need not be honest? — Banno

I concede your every point when you claim that horrors were committed in the name of religion, but blame always lies at the feet of people, not religions, not governments, not corporations, and not whatever mechanism they weaponize. The horrors people have commited in the name of religion go far beyond destroying literature and culture. Such is child's play in the scheme of things.

But I see the same horrors at the hands of government. How can you participate in government knowing what a past it has had? Might your response be "not the government I believe in"? Substitue "religion" in there for me.

The Abrahamic apologists on this thread have shown themselves to lack intellectual honesty and integrity on par with Holocaust, (US) systemic racism, anthrogenic climate change & pandemic deniers. — 180 Proof

This is boring to say the least. One doesn’t have to be an apologist to be a get-on-with-itest. We take what we want from our inheritance and leave the rest to the dust bin of history. People suck. They have always sucked. We all come from rape and murder and conquest. Our history is one of horror and stuff for which our ancestors should be ashamed (even if they celebrated themselves). We can look at the past and say, “They were assholes, we can do better” and still speak English without “apologizing” for the sins of our linguistic forbearers. The difference between those with religious education (in the secular sense) and those without is that those with education can look back and see the change and multiplicity in religion as an authentic expression of religious communities, not as apologetics. Stagnation is not something to be praised either in thought or religion. You live and learn.

People calling themselves Christian both proclaimed the legitimacy of slavery and fought for its abolition. Neither group was an apologist or any less Christian than the other. History (constructed as it might be) simply does not bear out an enduring strain of religion from early adoption through hundreds of years of people carrying on its name, iconography, or myths. Even in its foundation Christianity had multiplicity of thought with warring factions, some of which continued on and some which were snuffed out.

And not that it will help, but here are some important people writing to the Pope about literalism.

From

"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church"

Presented by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993

F. Fundamentalist Interpretation

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by "literal interpretation" it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical- critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

The fundamentalist interpretation had its origin at the time of the Reformation, arising out of a concern for fidelity to the literal meaning of Scripture. After the century of the Enlightenment it emerged in Protestantism as a bulwark against liberal exegesis.

The actual term fundamentalist is connected directly with the American Biblical Congress held at Niagara, N.Y., in 1895. At this meeting, conservative Protestant exegetes defined "five points of fundamentalism": the verbal inerrancy of Scripture, the divinity of Christ, his virginal birth, the doctrine of vicarious expiation and the bodily resurrection at the time of the second coming of Christ. As the fundamentalist way of reading the Bible spread to other parts of the world, it gave rise to other ways of interpretation, equally "literalist," in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. As the 20th century comes to an end, this kind of interpretation is winning more and more adherents, in religious groups and sects, as also among Catholics.

Fundamentalism is right to insist on the divine inspiration of the Bible, the inerrancy of the word of God and other biblical truths included in its five fundamental points. But its way of presenting these truths is rooted in an ideology which is not biblical, whatever the proponents of this approach might say. For it demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research.

The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language and that this word has been expressed, under divine inspiration, by human authors possessed of limited capacities and resources. For this reason, it tends to treat the biblical text as if it had been dictated word for word by the Spirit. It fails to recognize that the word of God has been formulated in language and expression conditioned by various periods. It pays no attention to the literary forms and to the human ways of thinking to be found in the biblical texts, many of which are the result of a process extending over long periods of time and bearing the mark of very diverse historical situations.

. . .

In the context of this thread discussion, when I refer to "Abrahamic apologists" I mean defenders of the institutions of JCI religions and their sanguine, ignominous histories and not either individuals or "beliefs & teachings". If, in the last couple of Occidental millennia, "faith" has meant anything, it certainly has meant believing in the unbelievable in order to defend the indefensible ... in the name of insert______here.