Religious Typology Quiz

Doc Dutch said:
You asserted I was religious. Is that a lie
Click to expand...

No, that is called a "mistake". Lies are usually done mens rea. Trust me I did not make that mistake on purpose.

Disagreed on your hate for “people of faith”.
Click to expand...

It would be ironic since I have a lot of Christian friends that I like a LOT. And there's even some stuff in the Bible that I really like! So it would be hard for me to say I "hate" religion.

I’m familiar with the argument but it’s bullshit. Agnostics don’t believe either way or simply accept that either position is unprovable. Atheists assume there is nothing beyond the physical.
Click to expand...

And that raises the question again: if I don't see evidence for anything beyond the physical why would I think there is?

Theists assume there is. Both are acts of faith.
Click to expand...

No; one is assuming something exists without evidence (it's even in the bible that way) and the other fails to believe in something without evidence. The latter is more logically robust.

It doesn't say one side is right or wrong, just more logically robust.

Call it whatever you like, but if you believe “when you’re dead, you’re dead” then you are making an assumption without evidence.
Click to expand...

Not Collecting Stamps is not a "hobby".

All we know is the physical universe. Everything else is a belief.
Click to expand...

QED! We agree!

I simply disagree with the contention that the lack of belief is a form of belief. It is like not-collecting-stamps.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Agreed. It breaks down tribal cohesion and trust.

Wanton murder is one thing. Rape, theft, maiming are lesser degrees of harm to one’s fellow tribal members but still harmful to tribal cohesion. At that level, a moral code is, indeed, a low bar to clear. It’s logical.

As with the Hierarchy of Needs, the higher levels become more “high minded” and less “logical”.

Consider an end-of-the-world scenario such as “When Worlds Collide” or “Dr. Strangelove” where a segment of the population must be selected for saving while the rest are left to die. Those to be saved can be deduced logically by skill set, health and sex. Morality not required even though I think we can agree morality will be necessary for the continued survival of the group.
Click to expand...

A nomadic society on the edge of survival is probably going to have a social framework focused on the collective welfare of the tribe, rather than any sophisticated deep reflection on individual personal ethics and personal individualistic contemplation on meaning in life.

I specifically used the idea that 'wanton' murder would have been frowned upon, but I don't think there was any Paleolithic prohibition on murder in the way we think of homicide. It was supposedly fairly common practice to abandon babies to die of exposure when the tribes food resources could not afford more mouths to feed. The Spartans infamously abandoned baby girls and weak or malformed baby boys to die of exposure. The Cannanites and Phoenicians were reputed to be notorious for child sacrifice.
 
Cypress said:
The Cannanites and Phoenicians were reputed to be notorious for child sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Certainly per the Bible. As they say "history is written by the victors" and the Israelite hill tribes that came down and slaughtered the Canaanites in order to take their land certainly seem to have been victorious in displacing them. Thankfully they were able to leverage their religion to justify the most egregious slaughters.

And in retrospect if you demonize the people you just got done slaughtering it makes the slaughter less unappealing to the other people in the society.

(This assumes there is actual evidence of the various slaughters that are recorded in the Bible. Some may just be "stories".)
 
NovoJank said:
Certainly per the Bible. As they say "history is written by the victors" and the Israelite hill tribes that came down and slaughtered the Canaanites in order to take their land certainly seem to have been victorious in displacing them. Thankfully they were able to leverage their religion to justify the most egregious slaughters.

And in retrospect if you demonize the people you just got done slaughtering it makes the slaughter less unappealing to the other people in the society.

(This assumes there is actual evidence of the various slaughters that are recorded in the Bible. Some may just be "stories".)
Click to expand...
There was no Jewish religion at the time of the Exodus and the wars with the Cannanites, which would have been in the late Bronze age.. There wasn't even a Hebrew bible back then. Judaism as a recognizable religion did not get exist until hundreds of years later, and the Jewish prophets came maybe 800 years after the Exodus.

What we know as the religion of Judaism didn't exist until many centuries after the period of the Exodus.

We have to remember that the Hebrew Bible is, in some sense, a history the Hebrews. The wars of the Israelites in the late Bronze age is part of that historicity.

Hebrew is not necessarily a synonym for Jew. Hebrew was a tribe or tribal confederation. Judaism was a religion that grew out of centuries of oral tradition and blossomed in the Temple period.

Supposedly, the reason Judaism used animal sacrifice was that the child sacrifice that had been common in the near east was no longer accepted ritual practice in the Temple period of Judaism.
 
Cypress said:
A nomadic society on the edge of survival is probably going to have a social framework focused on the collective welfare of the tribe, rather than any sophisticated deep reflection on individual personal ethics and personal individualistic contemplation on meaning in life.

I specifically used the idea that 'wanton' murder would have been frowned upon, but I don't think there was any Paleolithic prohibition on murder in the way we think of homicide. It was supposedly fairly common practice to abandon babies to die of exposure when the tribes food resources could not afford more mouths to feed. The Spartans infamously abandoned baby girls and weak or malformed baby boys to die of exposure. The Cannanites and Phoenicians were reputed to be notorious for child sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Survival is goal number one and there’s safety in numbers. Again, the base of Hierarchy of Needs are the most physical and most logical. It’s higher up that begins to reflect the higher abilities of mankind, but also the least sustainable in a survival situation. A massive disaster like the earthquakes in Syria and Turkey will see all the higher needs go to the wayside as basic survival becomes a priority.

In a survival situation, especially in an age where there’s no birth control or abortion, abandoning the child to die would best protect the life of the mother and the continued survival of the tribe as a whole.
 
Cypress said:
There was no Jewish religion at the time of the Exodus and the wars with the Cannanites, which would have been in the late Bronze age.. There wasn't even a Hebrew bible back then. Judaism as a recognizable religion did not get exist until hundreds of years later, and the Jewish prophets came maybe 800 years after the Exodus.
Click to expand...

Again, the Bible would like to disagree.

I, unlike the Bible, am open to this. I understand there is often little to no evidence for some of the "history" in the Pentateuch. No real evidence of masses of Israelites in the Sinai or even as a significant enslaved population in Egypt.

But the Bible, itself, does make it quite clear that God had established the Israelites as His Chosen people and gave them permission (even helped them) to wage total war and take lands.

Supposedly, the reason Judaism used animal sacrifice was that the child sacrifice that had been common in the near east was no longer accepted ritual practice in the Temple period of Judaism.
Click to expand...

I would like to see some evidence that child sacrifice was that common among the Canaanites. All I know is what I read in the Bible. Do you have any other resources on this topic?

God ultimately did require a human sacrifice, though. That's kind of what Christianity is about.
 
NovoJank said:
Apparently no more or less than you do. But I at least agree that I am capable of error.

When did I do that? Is that another of your flawed assumptions?
Click to expand...
Time will tell.

It was your example. The fact you fault me for not understanding exactly what you meant is telling….and expected.
 
Cypress said:
There was no Jewish religion at the time of the Exodus and the wars with the Cannanites, which would have been in the late Bronze age.. There wasn't even a Hebrew bible back then. Judaism as a recognizable religion did not get exist until hundreds of years later, and the Jewish prophets came maybe 800 years after the Exodus.

What we know as the religion of Judaism didn't exist until many centuries after the period of the Exodus.

We have to remember that the Hebrew Bible is, in some sense, a history the Hebrews. The wars of the Israelites in the late Bronze age is part of that historicity.

Hebrew is not necessarily a synonym for Jew. Hebrew was a tribe or tribal confederation. Judaism was a religion that grew out of centuries of oral tradition and blossomed in the Temple period.

Supposedly, the reason Judaism used animal sacrifice was that the child sacrifice that had been common in the near east was no longer accepted ritual practice in the Temple period of Judaism.
Click to expand...
Is it really surprising that violent atheists cherry-pick the most violent stories of the Bible to support their argument that religion is vicious and evil?
 
NovoJank said:
Again, the Bible would like to disagree.

I, unlike the Bible, am open to this. I understand there is often little to no evidence for some of the "history" in the Pentateuch. No real evidence of masses of Israelites in the Sinai or even as a significant enslaved population in Egypt.

But the Bible, itself, does make it quite clear that God had established the Israelites as His Chosen people and gave them permission (even helped them) to wage total war and take lands.



I would like to see some evidence that child sacrifice was that common among the Canaanites. All I know is what I read in the Bible. Do you have any other resources on this topic?

God ultimately did require a human sacrifice, though. That's kind of what Christianity is about.
Click to expand...

I understand you would like to paint the Jews in the worst possible light, but your assertions are historically inaccurate.

There was no recognizable Jewish religion at the time of Exodus and it's aftermath. The Hebrew Bible didn't even exist then. Exodus purports to be a record of the Hebrew tribe, not a record of the Jewish religion.

The Judaism we are familiar with, and the Jewish prophets only came into being in the Temple period, and really immediately before and after the Babylonian exile. That is many centuries after the Exodus period.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Is it really surprising that violent atheists cherry-pick the most violent stories of the Bible to support their argument that religion is vicious and evil?
Click to expand...

There must be a website with cherry picked quotes from the most objectional passages of the Hebrew bible and instructions on how to rhetorically employ them.
 
Cypress said:
I understand you would like to paint the Jews in the worst possible light, but your assertions are historically inaccurate.
Click to expand...

I will ask you to be VERY CAREFUL. I do NOT want you to accuse me of antisemitism along with all the other things I'm being accused of on here.

Just try to keep it civil, please.

There was no recognizable Jewish religion at the time of Exodus and it's aftermath. The Hebrew Bible didn't even exist then. Exodus purports to be a record of the Hebrew tribe, not a record of the Jewish religion.
Click to expand...

You are incorrect. While I will agree that at the time of the Exodus (an event for which there is no real historical evidence) Judaism as it is known today didn't exist. But the BOOKS themselves, Exodus being key, all are discussions of God's rules for His Chosen People. The Bible is rather explicit that according to the books the nation of Israel and their special relationship with Jahweh God was established LONG before the story of the Exodus.

The Judaism we are familiar with, and the Jewish prophets only came into being in the Temple period, and really immediately before and after the Babylonian exile. That is many centuries after the Exodus period.
Click to expand...

I agree that the Bible is likely not what it purports to be, but that isn't the point.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Is it really surprising that violent atheists cherry-pick the most violent stories of the Bible to support their argument that religion is vicious and evil?
Click to expand...

In some sense, the Hebrew Bible is more honest and transparent than the New Testament.

I feel like the New Testament sort of sugar coats the early history of Christianity.

The Hebrew Bible, in some sense, purports to be a historical account of the Hebrew tribes, and the ultimate evolution of the Jewish religion through the appearance of the Prophets and the development of wisdom literature.

It doesn't sugar coat the historicity like the NT does, and it openly lays out the the violence, immorality, and faults of the Hebrew people and their kings
 
Cypress said:
There must be a website with cherry picked quotes from the most objectional passages of the Hebrew bible and instructions on how to rhetorically employ them.
Click to expand...
Violent atheists have their own little circles.

I used to be on a forum called “Secular Cafe”. The primary participants were about a dozen ardent atheists who vehemently hated anyone who defended the rights of all and any beliefs. For some reason Christianity is the favorite target of violent atheists. Like Jank, they claimed to “disbelieve” and, also like Jank, asked me to prove those religions…which, again like Jank, is a silly request. Needless to say, it was all of them against me. LOL. I had fun but many blamed me for 1) the death of one member who was old, bitter and dying of some severe illness and 2) the eventual demise of the forum.

In short, I’ve heard all the arguments, all the “disbelieve” bullshit and everything the angry atheists have posted on this thread.

FWIW, I’ve heard all the Bible Thumper arguments too, but mostly ignore them. LOL
 
Cypress said:
In some sense, the Hebrew Bible is more honest and transparent than the New Testament.

I feel like the New Testament sort of sugar coats the early history of Christianity.

The Hebrew Bible, in some sense, purports to be a historical account of the Hebrew tribes, and the ultimate evolution of the Jewish religion through the appearance of the Prophets and the development of wisdom literature.

It doesn't sugar coat the historicity like the NT does, and it openly lays out the the violence, immorality, and faults of the Hebrew people and their kings
Click to expand...


IMO, when the books of the NT were chosen, they were in the midst of promoting a new religion (about 300 years old at that point) and sought to present a clear case to both defend and promote it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top