Jump to content

Blood

Regular Member
  • Posts

    2,709
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Blood last won the day on July 21 2019

Blood had the most liked content!

About Blood

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Houston, TX, USA
  • Interests
    Ancient history, religion
  • More About Me
    Average person.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

1,209 profile views

Blood's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

1.1k

Reputation

  1. I believe "Judeo-Christian" is a modern (post-1920s) construction. Nobody from 100 to 1900 talked about "Judeo-Christian values." The main appeal of Christianity is that they were better than the Jews. They were the real chosen people, not the Jews. They (in their minds) triumphed over the Jews. The Bible was written by Jews for Jews. Unfortunately, they made the serious error of evangelizing (never a good idea), and brought in some Greeks and Latins ("Gentiles") to the fold at a certain point. After awhile, some of this faction decided that while the texts themselves were pretty cool, the whole "Jewish" aspect of the religion had to be whitewashed. There were no copyright laws in those days. So they essentially not only stole the main intellectual property of the Jews (which would have been bad enough), they compounded the theft by audaciously writing new scriptures that demonized the Jews. These actions have been the main source for the schizophrenia of the West for the last 2,000 years.
  2. I haven't read the book, but I think about this subject often. A big part of the problem, in my opinion, is the interpretation of who "the founders" of the United States are, and the decision to omit the previous 170 years of social evolution from the discussion, as if that epoch was irrelevant to what happened in the 1770s-80s. Some of the early migrants to North America were leaving England or Holland for religious reasons. The Separatists ("Pilgrims") left Holland, where there was religious toleration, for Plymouth, along with other non-members of their sect. The Separatists were highly religious and idealistic. But their tiny sect didn't last in North America. The Puritans left England because of ongoing hostility to their rebellious ways by the Stuart kings. They were much more successful in the new world than the Separatists. The Massachusetts Bay Colony that they founded flourished despite rigid rules and no toleration for other sects. Still, Puritanism was not evangelical, they did not try to spread their faith and it remained limited to their region, and not influential outside of it. The main settlers of Virginia and Carolina were Anglicans, who were strongly opposed to the Puritans. The settlers of Pennsylvania were Quakers, a liberal form of Christianity from northern England. They were opposed to the Puritans and Anglicans, but had a high degree of tolerance for all religions. Most of these sects were opposed to Catholicism, which was illegal to practice in 10 out of 13 colonies before the war. So, in most cases, the main people establishing local governments in North America were doing so under the pretense of some form of Christianity. These sects were at odds with one another. They had no intention of ever "uniting" with one another. The whole purpose of their migration was to establish autonomy for their sect, with no oversight from the Church of England. The sole exceptions being Virginia and Carolina. There was no thought whatsoever about ecumenicism with the other sects colonizing North America in most cases. All of these sects were opposed to monarchy except the Anglicans in Virginia and Carolina. So the ideology of the American Revolution was ever-present from 1620 onward. The Great Awakening was a revival movement in the 1700s that ignited religious enthusiasm throughout the land. The point of all this is to demonstrate that North America from 1607-1787 was deeply immersed in a multiplicity of Christian sects, ideas, and enthusiasms. The "separation of church and state" was not necessary because if you didn't like the religious authority in one area, you were free to migrate to another area, or move to the hinterlands and start your own religion. The people are "the founders" of the United States, not a few elected officials who met in Philadelphia in 1787. So it doesn't matter what the religious ideas of the latter are. The people had already broken from the king of England in 1620. The only thing "founded" in 1789 (after the new Constitution was ratified) was a central government with unlimited taxation powers, a court system, and a small standing army. No national church was founded, but that is a trivial point since there never was anyone calling for such a thing, and the vast majority practiced some form of Christianity. The majority of people were still Puritans (Congregationalists), Anglicans (Episcopalians), Baptists, Quakers, Methodists, etc. These are the ones referred to as "we the people" in the Constitution of 1787. They were the ones who ratified the new Constitution. Had the Puritans (for example) seen the new Constitution as a threat to their religious authority in Eastern Massachusetts, they surely would have voted it down. Very few people saw the new central government as being, in any way, hostile to Christianity. The personal opinions of a few people who drafted the document was irrelevant.
  3. The colonists' rebellion was illegal. But they never agreed to be militarily occupied after the French and Indian War concluded. Those kinds of things tend to stir resentment toward authority. Resentment translates into political action, and political action sometimes cannot be resolved through peaceful means.
  4. "The Confederacy" was an illegal enterprise. Statehood was granted to each new state by the original 13 states with the legal agreement that they would exist as singular political bodies subservient to the supremacy clause of the Constitution. The moment that a "Confederacy" was formed, they had broken the law and they no longer had any rights. You arrest people who break the law, or else the law is rendered meaningless.
  5. I get the impression that most American Christians believe in "the elect" theology, whether or not they belong to a "Calvinist" sect, or even know what Calvinism is.
  6. That's my perspective as well. The Bible is basically just Hellenized "Epic of Gilgamesh" fan fiction, plus some pseudo-philosophy from some eccentric people. The kind of stuff Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels would have written if he'd lived in ancient times.
  7. The Gospel of Mark doesn't read like oral history at all. He's just intertextually re-writing Greek Old Testament stories with some Homeric bits. And if the other gospels take Mark as their base text, that means they aren't oral history either. All religions consist of made-up stories intended to keep people in awe. Christianity's no different.
  8. The most surprising aspect of the Bible is that a significant number of people were willing to go to the trouble of copying it down, word for word, year after year, century after century. Why? Why did people allow the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish to fade into dust, forgotten, but not the Bible? Texts live a very fragile existence. It's astonishing that people didn't simply give up copying it down at a certain point. The second most significant aspect of the Bible is that non-Jews were strongly attracted to it, even though it is clearly written solely for Jews. That's very strange. Why the attraction? If there was similar attraction to other religious texts, we have no record of it. We have no record of Greeks appropriating the holy scriptures of Syrians or Persians, even though they were deeply interested in the Persians. There must have been a large number of people who played significant roles in this process, but we have no idea who they were, why they did it, when they did it, or where this process occurred. The appropriation of the Hebrew Bible by non-Jews is the most shocking example of intellectual property theft in world history. Not simply for the theft, but for having the audacity to demonize Jews in the process. There is no parallel to this crime in ancient or modern history.
  9. It isn't surprising that 1 Corinthians 13 is cited so often, as it is one of the very few passages in the entire New Testament that has any philosophic or literary value. That's not very impressive when you consider that Shakespeare, for example, has hundreds of passages of profound meaning, and he wasn't claiming to be a god or inspired by a god. 98% of the Pauline epistles sounds like they were written in a lunatic asylum by a deranged psychopath. It's cultic psycho-babble meant to instill fear, paranoia and guilt on the reader or listener.
  10. The author certainly makes it clear that fundamentalist Christianity = political conservatism. The Senate majority is Republicans, and Republicans are the instruments of God's will.
  11. This sums it all up beautifully. The evolution from "Invisible people in the sky" to "fewer invisible people in the sky" = "rationalism" to primitive modern minds. This is probably the biggest delusion of all.
  12. That's pretty scary to think about.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.