Alexander the Great had followers who believed he was the son of a god. — Athena

What do you think this meant to them?

It is a term we find in the Hebrew Bible. It is a term used by Paul in much the same way. A son of God is someone, a human being, who holds a special favored place in God's eyes. Due to the influence of Greece and Rome it came to be understood as something more. A son of God was transformed into the only begotten son of God and of the same substance, homoousios.

Why would you think Jesus was a real person and not Abraham? — Athena

As far as I know, there is no evidence that Abraham was a real person. What difference do you think it makes?

Should we passively let people die if that is the will of God, or should we take a moral stand and do what people working together can do? — Athena

I agree. Arguments based on the will of God are incoherent.

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism.

Rather than argue about whether Abraham was a real person I think that it is within the stories that the substantive issues lie. The story of the sacrifice of Isaac, for example. It is held up as a shining example of faith, but I see it as an example of fanaticism. — Fooloso4

I agree that is fanaticism. I think the story was created to stop people from sacrificing their sons to a god. I think Hedrews told stories to make a point and I don't think they take them literally except for the comments of lineage which they take very seriously, and many of them may believe a god gave them land which is right up there with lineage. Wouldn't this be true of all tribal people?

The more literal meaning of Adam and Eve begins with Greek-influenced Christians and the reason for that is metaphysical and dependent on words and concepts the Romans did not have until Constantinople and the Nicene Creed. Christians were killing each other because they did not agree about Jesus being God or the son of a god before Greek words/concepts resolved the issue.

I believe lineage was very important to the Hebrews because lineage played a strong role in a person's position in the tribe. This would have increased when the Hebrews transitioned from herders sharing everything in common to farmers who individually owned land. For me, the importance of lineage plays a role in believing Abraham was a real person.

This link explains the controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

I guess the question of the reality of Abraham belongs in this thread. Like who cares and why?

For me, it is a simple sociological fact that tribes had leaders who were chosen by followers, and the people could change who they followed, so a pharaoh or any other leader held power as long as the people believed this person was favored by the gods, but if a flood or a drought or invaders destroyed too much land and took too many lives the people would fault the leader and get a new one. Exactly as we do today. :rofl: Whatever, I don't think individuals and their names are that important. Why would it matter if it were Abraham people followed, or a person with a different name?

I think it matters that the origin of the story is Ur and they adopted Sumerian stories and moved towards Egypt. Why did they do that? I think it is interesting that at the time Abraham left Ur, the neighbors had started invading and put an end to Sumer. I think it is likely Abraham and his people were fleeing chaos and the destruction of their businesses. That is a little more believable than "God" told Abraham to leave.

Here we are with the argument of this thread. It was not a man possibly named Abraham who is responsible for the move, but warring neighbors and the destruction of Sumer. Yes, someone led the move but why were the people willing to move? The voice of God heard by one person, or the destruction of Sumer and the end of safety?

hen it is very likely that you are a deluded fool — universeness

But love, it doesn't matter. :grin: The placebo effect works and here is the problem with arguing that God does not exist with people who experience the blessing of that God every day.

Also, I think it is wise to be open-minded. As I called on Artemitris to help me get to civilization I was being open-minded allowing myself to feel protected and seek a safer situation. You know, we see what we are looking for. It might be best to not be too literal in believing what we believe or disbelieving. Creating space for the good to happen increases the chances of good happening.

What is the nature of the literally-minded person? :shade: When we close our minds and get too uptight about what we believe, it is fanatical, no matter what we believe.

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.

Universeness cautions us to have good judgment and we don't want to be too fanatical either.

I think the story was created to stop people from sacrificing their sons to a god. — Athena

There may be some truth to that, but the story is not a prohibition against human sacrifice. If others are to be like Abraham it would be by not withholding their sons from sacrifice. (22:16) It was God who stays his hand and provides the ram. For Abraham to have made this substitution himself would have been to fail to demonstrate his faith and obedience.

I don't think they take them literally — Athena

This presents a slippery slope. Even if the story is not taken literally, does this mean that they would
believe that God does not speak to man, that the Law and Commandments do not come from God?

For me, the importance of lineage plays a role in believing Abraham was a real person. — Athena

I agree, but it is not simply a question of lineage but birthright. Cain is the firstborn of Adam and Eve, but the lineage goes through Enoch. Ismael was Abraham's first son, but Isaac inherits.

The eldest son has the birthright but time and again in the Hebrew Bible stories the younger son steals it. Esau was Isaac's firstborn but Jacob deceives his father and inherits. Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity.

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not. — Athena

I found 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective and mine amusing. I'm not seeing how what you said is related.

May 2024 be a better duration for you Athena than any previous year in your existence!

But love, it doesn't matter. :grin: The placebo effect works and here is the problem with arguing that God does not exist with people who experience the blessing of that God every day. — Athena

This matters very much! For thee most important reason there is, and for a reason that you also hold as paramount, 'the truth!' It is impossible to experience the blessings of a non-existent. The problem that non-religious and anti-theistic people have, is simply that the god posit is currently unfalsifiable. That is the only hope that the theists have for the continuation of their woo woo.
All god candidates, remain utterly hidden and science cannot prove that there is absolutely no source intent, in the true origin story of our universe and a species such as us, that can generate meaning and purpose at the level we can demonstrate, which can have very significant impact on the local regions of space we can currently occupy. Humans never existed for the vast majority of the 13.8 billion years existence of the universe.

As I called on Artemitris to help me get to civilization I was being open-minded allowing myself to feel protected and seek a safer situation. — Athena

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct?

Creating space for the good to happen increases the chances of good happening. — Athena

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

What is the nature of the literally-minded person? :shade: When we close our minds and get too uptight about what we believe, it is fanatical, no matter what we believe. — Athena

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

Brothers are often the source of division rather than unity. — Fooloso4

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity? Compared to 'brothers'?

Are gods not a far bigger source of division rather than unity? — universeness

Yes. But the issue is lineage and birthright.

See the discussion above about Moses and the god of their fathers : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864423

The story of Moses is a story of unification.

Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables?
Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history?
We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers.
The story of Spartacus is a story of unity as well, is it not? The unity of all Roman slaves, in common cause of overthrowing those who would enslave. Is it not the case that every group of humans who ever struggled against conquest or control by any other group of humans could be described under the title 'a story of unity?'
No doubt, some such stories are based on some real human events, that did actually happen, but had nothing to do with anything supernatural and were exaggerated and sensationalised in each new telling, depending on who was using the story and for what purpose.
There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person.
Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did?

Are we talking about the lineage and 'birthrights' (a far more controversial term) of real historical people or invented characters who appeared in ancient fables? — universeness

I am talking about the stories in the Hebrew Bible.

Birthright is controversial. The stories I mentioned are a rejection of the practice.

Do you think the Moses fable is the first story about unification in human history? — universeness

I don't.

We have been exchanging and inventing such stories since our days as hunter gatherers. — universeness

Yes. Stories told and heard along trade routes as well.

There is no evidence of any significance at all, that the Moses character, as described in the bible, was ever a real person. — universeness

I agree.

Is there any character from the bible that you believe 100% existed and did exactly what the bible describes they did? — universeness

No. I do not read the Bible stories as if they were history.

Are you any flavour of theist sir? You do of-course, not have to answer, but I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others. Either or neither is ok with me, but I would just like a little clarification, if you are willing to provide such. I know we have exchanged before and you are well qualified in philosophy, but I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist.

Are you any flavour of theist sir? — universeness

No.

I am just trying to confirm whether or not you are simply making academic/technical/philosophical points or you are supporting your own or the theistic worldview of others. — universeness

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome.

I can't remember if you have already declared yourself theist or atheist. — universeness

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live.

Thank you for your clarifications, they really help me understand your general stance much more.

Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image. — Fooloso4

I could not agree more.

I am interested in the interpretation of texts. What these texts say about the gods is a reflection of what they say about man and In turn they have influenced how we have come to see ourselves. Genesis 1 says that God made man in their own image. I say that man makes gods in their own image.

But a theological discussion should also take into consideration the other root. Two texts to be considered are Plato's Euthyphro and Aristotle's Metaphysics. Both put philosophy above the claims of the theologians and do so by pointing to the limits of what we know, which falls short of knowledge of first things.

Another is the revolution of Modernity in the work of Bacon, Descartes, and others. Until quite recently all educated westerners read and knew the Bible. The theologians read it piously, the philosophers impiously. Theirs is a program for the perfectibility of man. To will without error. In other words, to make man into a god. What separates men and gods in Genesis is overcome. — Fooloso4

A very well formed, explained and balanced description imo.

I am pistically atheist and epistemically agnostic. Lacking knowledge I make no claims about gods but I am not uncertain in terms of what I believe and how I live. — Fooloso4

Live long and prosper! We need such thinking and thinkers to thrive and such as the MAGA style of thinking and thinkers to 'evolve' a little more, imo.

I do not disagree with anything you said but find an issue with the connection between inheritance and family position determining one's lot in life. That is important to this thread of who has a chance of being great and who does not.

My head is screaming about what we know of redlining and the whole prejudice and property issue. We are living with a God who makes this possible and I think we need to do more about this. Democracy is supposed to give everyone equal opportunity and this begins with education but millions of people did not and do not have equal opportunity because we do not have equal education. People of color and Asians did not have equal property rights, equal educations, or equal opportunity and instead of pegging this as a racial problem, we need to peg it as a social organization problem in our democracy. If our nation, our democracy, is to be Great we need to follow the rules of democracy.

One of my favorite quotes is this one “Unless we’re motivated by principle in our voting, we walk into a mirrored echo chamber, where there’s no coherence,” Kucinich That is not possible if we do not learn the principles and reasoning of democracy. Living by principles requires a lot of maturity and depends on education to do so.

This is completely different from religion and being as children who obey a Father in heaven. As you said there are serious problems with living with stories about people and God. Exactly how should we interpret those stories? A self-evident truth is one we can know empirically and Bible stories can not be checked as we can check self-evident truth. There may be some value to being as children, but democracy requires adults.

No, you were just trying to stay calm and carry on. Avoid panic in a scary situation and use your focus to think your way out. I also got lost in the Scottish hills once, with a companion, in bad weather. We had no equipment to stay in the hills overnight. We got back, almost 9 hours late, exhausted and confused, scrambling in the dark, with one small torch, losing its power. We learned to be better prepared. Nowadays, the GPS software on mobile phones, makes the chances of getting lost in the wilds, much more unlikely. Your 'Artemitris' appeal has been rendered even more unnecessary, by mobile phone tech, how's that for an example of science making god appeals more and more defunct? — universeness

Right, I was just trying to stay calm but the is the goddess Artemis who helped me do that, the same as Jesus helps a Christian. It does not matter what gods we call upon, they all help us in the same way. I think this is a truth we need to share. One reason this point is important is to realize the futility of arguing with a Christian or Muslim about the existence of God because in their minds they experience the power of this God every day. They experience God as surely as I experienced Artmetris helping me get to safety. :lol: A GPS can not help us out of our life problems as well as a god can. But in some situations, a GPS is more helpful.

I agree, and the best way to do that is to do all we can to discover better and more robust ways, to protect human life against all scenarios that might destroy or damage it. Practical, logical, effective methodology, not appeals to non-existent sources of aid. The placebo effect is only useful for encouraging a PMA or positive mental attitude but it is a very limited and 'hit or miss' type methodology. It should only be used in desperation. It is pretty close to a 'if you are falling from a high building, you are as well to flap your arms, perhaps you will grab a flagpole on the way down,' act of desperation, just like 'oh please help me Artemitris!'

Here we have to be careful. I don't think life would be as much fun if we didn't have our problems. For darn sure the young do not want to listen to older people who desperately want to impart their wisdom gained through experience. The young want to experience life and figure out how to resolve their problems on their own. Someone asked Jesus why he spoke in parables and he explained people will listen to stories. Parables and folk tales have been passed down for many centuries because even the young will listen to them and learn the moral of the story. We might want to pay attention to that wisdom when we consider making textbooks to teach children how to read. The old reading books taught children more than the ability to read.

I am not suggesting being literally minded in all scenario's. But I am also saying that we should never, ever, ever value special pleading to gods as anything other that acts of sheer desperation and it is far far better to keep as calm as you can in difficult situations and use your rationale and whatever practical and logical skills you have to survive whatever threat you are facing.
In your scenario, planning your way back to civilisation and applying that plan, was much more useful and significant, than your self-comforting(placebo effect) appeal to a non-existent.

I think you are missing the power of a story. It does not have to be a god. If can be the story of "The Little That Could", or "The "Red Hen" or the puppy who learned how to be brave. IT SHOULD NOT BE, stories that teach our children ideas we do not want them to have, such as "Captain Underpants" stories about a school principal wearing only his underwear and a cape. Those books, as many books in school libraries today, are disrespectful. While I was volunteering in a school library I listened to teacher reading a book that was nothing but socially inappropriate behavior, because the jerk thought it was funny. He must have felt my outrage as I glared at him because he began explaining those things are funny because they are socially inappropriate. If I were a parent with a child in school, I would be furious if my child came home and did inappropriate things to be funny because that is what my child in school. Think Socrates and his outrage about the harm that could be done by some stories of the gods.

Stories are powerful and they can bring out the best in us or the worst. That is what schools need to consider when picking out books for the library not just pleasing the children by feeding them junk food and junk literature. I feel so sorry today for parents having the schools undermind their efforts for their children to be mentally and physically healthy. As one teacher told me when I questioned why the library had junk literature and not the classics, she said that is what the children will read. :gasp: The job of the school is to teach the children better.

And my walks along the river on a perfect are not desperate moments. I love being overwhelmed by the beauty all around me and expressing my appreciation to the Mother Goddess. Like some people are racist because of the stories they tell themselves, you are prejudiced against the gods because of the stories you tell yourself such as a person has to be desperate to think of a god. I am glad this came up because our feelings can be love and appreciation. We can love the tree spirits and hug them. I think I have a different experience of life than you do. Lucky for me I live in Oregon where there are many tree huggers. :grin: Live is more than empirical and material things. It is also how we feel about it all, and how we feel depends on our stories. Everything I have said this morning is about our stories and feelings. That is real but not material.

How about considering it is as we believe it to be? We can experience a wonderful love or not.
— Athena

I found 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective and mine amusing. I'm not seeing how what you said is related.
3 days ago — wonderer1

:chin: It is as we think it is. I am acknowledging people have different experiences and there is not one truth that makes all others false.

I do not understand what you mean by 'the grass is greener' nature of Tom Storm's perspective.

Great men and women make big changes because imagine things could be different and they make them so. Often this requires many followers. Humans can imagine what can be and make it so. That means life is more than matter. How do some have such vision?

↪Fooloso4 I do not disagree with anything you said but find an issue with the connection between inheritance and family position determining one's lot in life. — Athena

Yes, this is a serious problem. Do you have any solutions?

Well, that is a very old problem with the eldest son being in the best position to inherit the family's wealth and the younger sons relying on Vikinging.

Fortunately trading increased the opportunities for wealth and industrialization increased opportunities even more. Eventual education plus new technology increased opportunities and national wealth. Merit hiring was practiced by the ancient Greeks which led to a revolt with the Hebrews who wanted to maintain their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit.

The Maccabean Revolt (Hebrew: מרד החשמונאים) was a Jewish rebellion led by the Maccabees against the Seleucid Empire and against Hellenistic influence on ...
‎Maccabees · ‎Judas Maccabeus · ‎Battle of Elasa · ‎Seleucid army — Wikipedia

Merit hiring was practiced by the ancient Greeks which led to a revolt with the Hebrews who wanted to maintain their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit. — Athena

According to the article you cited:

Seleucid King Antiochus IV Epiphanes launched a massive campaign of repression against the Jewish religion in 168 BCE.

What is the source of the claim that the revolt was in response to a threat to their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit?

What is the source of the claim that the revolt was in response to a threat to their system of jobs depending on heritage, not merit? — Fooloso4

Here us one explanation of the power struggle. There are differing opinions about why there was a conflict. But for sure there was a power struggle.

In the 2nd century BCE, Judea lay between the Ptolemaic Kingdom (based in Egypt) and the Seleucid Empire (based in Syria), monarchies which had formed following the death of Alexander the Great. Judea had initially come under Ptolemaic rule but fell to the Seleucids around 200 BCE. Judea at that time had been affected by the Hellenization initiated by Alexander the Great. Some Jews, mainly those of the urban upper class, notably the Tobiad family, wished to dispense with Jewish law and to adopt a Greek lifestyle. According to historian Victor Tcherikover, the main motive for the Tobiads' Hellenism was economic and political.[10] The Hellenizing Jews built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, competed in international Greek games, "removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant".[11] — wikipedia

The author of the First Book of Maccabees regards the Maccabean revolt as a rising of pious Jews against the Seleucid king (who had tried to eradicate their religion) and against the Jews who supported him. The author of the Second Book of Maccabees presents the conflict as a struggle between "Judaism" and "Hellenism", concepts which he coined.[16] Most modern scholars argue that King Antiochus reacted to a civil war between traditionalist Jews in the Judean countryside and Hellenized Jews in Jerusalem,[17][18] though the king's response of persecuting the religious traditionalists was unusual in antiquity, and was the immediate provocation for the revolt.[19] According to Joseph P. Schultz, modern scholarship "considers the Maccabean revolt less as an uprising against foreign oppression than as a civil war between the orthodox and reformist parties in the Jewish camp",[20] but John J. Collins writes that while the civil war between Jewish leaders led to the king's new policies, it is wrong to see the revolt as simply a conflict between Hellenism and Judaism, since "[t]he revolt was not provoked by the introduction of Greek customs (typified by the building of a gymnasium) but by the persecution of people who observed the Torah by having their children circumcised and refusing to eat pork."[19]
— wikipedia

Interestingly, Christianity is also about the conflict between orthodox Judaism and Hellenism.

One more thought, what is happening in Israel and Palestine today is the same old Jewish conflict that makes some Jews as easy to get along with as Christians and some Jews being passionate about elementing any who interfere with their claim to absolute power.

Orthodox anything is bad for peace. Jew, Christian, or Moslem. We make a huge mistake in speaking of these religious groups as though they are not divided and in conflict with themselves. Antisemitism my ass! As some Muslims are peaceful people some Christians and some Jews are peaceful people, and some of each are the enemies of peace on earth and we need to be honest about this reality.

As some Muslims are peaceful people some Christians and some Jews are peaceful people, and some of each are the enemies of peace on earth and we need to be honest about this reality. — Athena

The problem, I think aptly identified by Sam Harris, is the ideology, not the people. There are varying degrees of commitment, but the further from a true commitment we get, the less problematic things become. Which is a serious indictment of the ideology, rather than elements of human nature. You can get almost every positive aspect from religion (particularly the Abrahamics) without it, or at least without the type of commitment religion requires.
Conversely, you can't randomly get the type of despicable behaviours we see out of the depths of religion (particularly hte Abrahamics) without that kind of commitment, and in most cases, without that particular ideology.

I've a love/hate (take those words very lightly) relationship with those who 'adhere' to a religion by bastardizing it - they avoid the negatives, but also avoid a genuine commitment.

In place of this false unique — Isaac Kramnick

You seem to be asking us to choose between a post modernist view of the self or a "false" view of the self.

Is that not akin to seeking my opinion regarding which cookie is better, the good one on the right or the terrible tasting one on the left.

Why would I choose the "false" view?

The problem, I think aptly identified by Sam Harris, is the ideology, not the people. There are varying degrees of commitment, but the further from a true commitment we get, the less problematic things become. Which is a serious indictment of the ideology, rather than elements of human nature. You can get almost every positive aspect from religion (particularly the Abrahamics) without it, or at least without the type of commitment religion requires.
Conversely, you can't randomly get the type of despicable behaviours we see out of the depths of religion (particularly hte Abrahamics) without that kind of commitment, and in most cases, without that particular ideology.

I've a love/hate (take those words very lightly) relationship with those who 'adhere' to a religion by bastardizing it - they avoid the negatives, but also avoid a genuine commitment. — AmadeusD

Why not the people and the psychological and sociological causes of their behavior? As I see the mess in Israel and Palestine millions of people of just trying to live their lives and a handful of people have brought them to war.

The leader of Isreal was elected. Why did he win the election? What about all those who did not vote for him and do not approve of his behavior? I don't think ideology is the point of power but male egos.

Billy Graham made a terrible mess of things when he bonded Evangelicals and the US government. Now we have people who think God favors Trump and their Christian mission is to get Trump into the seat of power so he can do what God wants him to do. I don't know if that is an ideological problem?

The Muslims who are in favor of war are the same as the Jews and Christians who like to believe they are doing to the will of God whenever they engage in war. Worshiping the God of Abraham and David, may be an ideological problem? But the people who all worship the same God do not agree on the ideology. I sure wish we could resolve this problem and change the behavior.

Why not the people and the psychological and sociological causes of their behavior? As I see the mess in Israel and Palestine millions of people of just trying to live their lives and a handful of people have brought them to war. — Athena

Your final sentence can be true, regardless of my assertion - and I agree - but in reference to those who have "brought them to war": Because the crucial difference between analogous situations in which people are not committing theocratic war crimes, and this one, is that the ideology doesn't demand it in those others, whereas in this one, it does. That's why i noted its not an indictment of human nature. People react to their environments - granted. But people are only driven to the type of irrational acts of war, with the addition of a commanding ideology. WRT other Abrahamics, Judaism is famously amenable to update and has had many. Christianity, partially the same, but partially the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. We have nothing similar for Islam given it's self-imposed exile from Western thought.

I don't think ideology is the point of power but male egos — Athena

You realise Judaism is based almost solely on the teachings and exemplars of patriarchs, right? I don't have much more than an eyeroll here, tbh. Such a tired way of assessing complex ideological threads. No offense meant, that's just my take.

The Muslims who are in favor of war are the same as the Jews and Christians who like to believe they are doing to the will of God whenever they engage in war. — Athena

Except, the latter aren't actually doing that any longer, almost universally. Their ideology has been amenable to update and has removed the irrational, self-defeating policies of the 'Angry God' origins of their faith. They are not promised Paradise for killing innocents, and themselves.

t partially the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. — AmadeusD

You are stirring my thoughts! However, I am a little explosive on this subject, :rage: That emoticon needs to be jumping up and down and throwing a tantrum. That being expressed, I will take a few deep breaths and see if I can be rational. :lol:

Right now we have run away Christianity and a serious lack of knowledge of what the Enlightenment has to do with democracy and all the brakes that were put on going to war. I don't know if I can explain this without a pack of cigarettes and I quit smoking over 30 years ago. Stupid emotions. Hey, my doctor gave me a little pill that may help. Hold onto those thoughts. I will be back I am going to see f if I can boost my reasoning and reduce my emotional reaction.

fair enough, and I am extremely appreciative of the humility there, even if it isn't warranted :P

Right now we have run away Christianity — Athena

This should be very, very fun....

I look forward to a thoughtful response!

the Enlightenment has acted as a shield against runaway Christianity for the most part. We have nothing similar for Islam given it's self-imposed exile from Western thought. — AmadeusD

I have been reading about the war issue and see this is a very complex subject.

Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.

— Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775[10] — Wikipedia

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Anti-Imperialist League used Faneuil Hall to protest America’s growing imperialism. The league argued against militarization and the creation of an overseas American Empire and asserted that the principles the United States had been founded upon needed to extend to foreign policy as well. — Boston National Historical Park

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."[62]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. — Wikipedia

All this talk is talk of nature and human rights are a totally different way of thinking about humanity and human rights and the best way to organize ourselves than how the Holy Roman Empire presented reality and God's will. What is our nature and what does a god have to do with how we organize ourselves and behave? The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? Islam is a blend of Judaism and Christianity with the same god and prophets. While Christian Europe was in the Dark Ages, Muslims were advancing and thanks to them, we were able to retrieve our Greek and Roman past that had been preserved in writing but had no value to the Christians who struggled in fear of losing their souls and immortality, and so subjected themselves to Church and the King's authority. To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow:

Oh man, the religious issue makes a mess out of everything. I am trying to get back to being our own authority instead of subjects, and how this extends to international relationships and the ideology of anti-imperialism. Like the original Star Trek, we don't engage with others unless asked and it is not our mission in life to go around the world making everyone Christians. But if they want to learn better farming technology, we gladly share that. The Enlightenment not religion and being subjects to authority.

The Creator and Nature's God is not the God of Abraham. The enlightenment is about empirical thinking, not being a subject to authority that must be obeyed. — Athena

Yes.....quite right. Unsure what the implication for our exchange is here. My points essentially rest on this.

What are those principles and why is Jefferson in such a huff? — Athena

self-determination, in large part.

Islam's separation from Western thought? How does that work? — Athena

By it being entirely separated from Western Thought from about 1100AD. By religious warfare, ironically.
We stole from Arab scholars, for sure, but that doesn't mean our thought are intertwined systems. We nicked sources and ran away with them. Islam stayed put, and is still there today, for the most part. Developing algebra isn't relevant to what we're discussing here.

To this day Evangelicals fear that unfamiliar information could be Satan and should not be trusted, so do not wear a mask or get a vaccine but turn against the government based on empirical information because it is the handmaiden of the Devil trying to steal our souls. :brow: — Athena

Whcih harms only them. They do not have an ideological commitment to harming others.