5 ms·

Knowing what causes lightning has no bearing on how one should treat one's neighbor. You can use science to make a rocket, but science has no comment on whether

Knowing what causes lightning has no bearing on how one should treat one's neighbor. You can use science to make a rocket, but science has no comment on whether you should point it towards the Moon, or towards a neighboring country. Assuming we're "smarter" than our ancestors because we can make nuclear bombs and iphones is a pretty simplistic take, and completely ignores the traditional worldview that brings meaning to the Bible and to ancient stories. Looking back at traditional writing from a modern viewpoint and dismissing what you read because it doesn't fit your modern expectations is really robbing you of the opportunity to participate in what it meant to be truly human for most of human history.

darkwater 5y ago
I think you are missing my point completely, as I said in other messages the content of the Bible on the cultural, philosophical and historical level is very important. My biggest issue, implicit in my initial comment, is that we as humanity should grow up and stop needing a mythical figure like a "God Almighty" to care about our neighbor. Also we don't need a god that tells us that, for example, homosexuality is bad or that pork or crab should not be eaten.
- dotancohen 5y ago
  I neither agree nor disagree with your point. To understand your point better, in your view of neighbourly care, why should I personally care about my neighbor? If he has an X-Box and I want an X-Box, why shouldn't I just take his? What is the axiom upon which you base your moral code?
- prometheus76 5y ago
  Ancient Romans and Greeks would tell us to grow up and accept that might makes right, slavery is essential to the functioning of society, only men should vote while women supplicate local deities, and that wearing pants is barbaric. So "growing up" is not exactly a recipe for a reliable moral value system. People are not convinced by facts, and there are infinite facts that need a hierarchy in order to be understood or interacted with. Stories and narratives and cultures provide that cultural hierarchy. Christianity was a huge shift in cultural dynamics and it spread like wildfire and quickly engulfed paganism because Christianity teaches that God is actually a Person that you can have a relationship with (instead of Aristotle's notion of God as First Mover or First Idea), and that anyone, regardless of background, wealth, education, or ethnicity, can have access to that relationship. It turns out, people can relate to, be influenced by, and learn from participating in stories with other people a LOT more than they can by changed by propositional debates and lectures. It's the difference between learning to fight by joining a martial arts class, or from just reading a book about martial arts.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    Out of an interest in late antiquity, I've been fascinated by the change from paganism to Christianity. Under paganism, rites were carried out to secure favor for the society and if there was a personal aspect, it was transactional (if you grant me favor, I will make such-and-such a sacrifice). But this tradition also contained various mystery cults wherein secrets would be revealed to you upon initiation (the popularity of which increased in late antiquity). Early Christianity can be seen to function in this mystery cult niche, but why should it have proven to be so successful? My suspicion is that the personal aspect of religion and revelation became increasingly important. Why that might be is good fodder for speculation. To relate this to the part of what darkwater you are responding to: > My biggest issue, implicit in my initial comment, is that we as humanity should grow up and stop needing a mythical figure like a "God Almighty" to care about our neighbor. And the heart of your response: > It turns out, people can relate to, be influenced by, and learn from participating in stories with other people a LOT more than they can by changed by propositional debates and lectures. I have the sense that there was a moment in western culture (vaguely late golden/silver age of Roman literature) when we could have stepped past religion into philosophy. Stoicism was well-regarded, its aim (like cynicism and epicureanism) was to achieve a state of ataraxia, tranquility, and a major portion of the curriculum was logic. But a mass shift in mentality towards personal divine revelation took place instead, so I (reluctantly) have to agree with you.
    - prometheus76 5y ago
      Stoicism put a person at the whim of the Fates. It was essentially Calvinism, where you could not affect your destiny, because you were either chosen by the gods, or you weren't. Shakespeare summed up Stoicism well when he said "as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." Contrast that with the proposition of Christianity, which is that the Creator of the Universe, because of His infinite love for creation, humbled Himself and condescended so low as to be a Person born in a cave to a poor family, suffered betrayal by almost all of his closest followers, suffered an ignominious death, then rose from the dead on the third day after His death, thereby conquering death by death, and you, poor, broken, sinful, incorrigible you, can have a personal relationship with the God-man who calls Himself Jesus Christ.

darkwater 5y ago

I think you are missing my point completely, as I said in other messages the content of the Bible on the cultural, philosophical and historical level is very important. My biggest issue, implicit in my initial comment, is that we as humanity should grow up and stop needing a mythical figure like a "God Almighty" to care about our neighbor. Also we don't need a god that tells us that, for example, homosexuality is bad or that pork or crab should not be eaten.

dotancohen 5y ago
I neither agree nor disagree with your point. To understand your point better, in your view of neighbourly care, why should I personally care about my neighbor? If he has an X-Box and I want an X-Box, why shouldn't I just take his? What is the axiom upon which you base your moral code?
prometheus76 5y ago
Ancient Romans and Greeks would tell us to grow up and accept that might makes right, slavery is essential to the functioning of society, only men should vote while women supplicate local deities, and that wearing pants is barbaric. So "growing up" is not exactly a recipe for a reliable moral value system. People are not convinced by facts, and there are infinite facts that need a hierarchy in order to be understood or interacted with. Stories and narratives and cultures provide that cultural hierarchy. Christianity was a huge shift in cultural dynamics and it spread like wildfire and quickly engulfed paganism because Christianity teaches that God is actually a Person that you can have a relationship with (instead of Aristotle's notion of God as First Mover or First Idea), and that anyone, regardless of background, wealth, education, or ethnicity, can have access to that relationship. It turns out, people can relate to, be influenced by, and learn from participating in stories with other people a LOT more than they can by changed by propositional debates and lectures. It's the difference between learning to fight by joining a martial arts class, or from just reading a book about martial arts.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  Out of an interest in late antiquity, I've been fascinated by the change from paganism to Christianity. Under paganism, rites were carried out to secure favor for the society and if there was a personal aspect, it was transactional (if you grant me favor, I will make such-and-such a sacrifice). But this tradition also contained various mystery cults wherein secrets would be revealed to you upon initiation (the popularity of which increased in late antiquity). Early Christianity can be seen to function in this mystery cult niche, but why should it have proven to be so successful? My suspicion is that the personal aspect of religion and revelation became increasingly important. Why that might be is good fodder for speculation. To relate this to the part of what darkwater you are responding to: > My biggest issue, implicit in my initial comment, is that we as humanity should grow up and stop needing a mythical figure like a "God Almighty" to care about our neighbor. And the heart of your response: > It turns out, people can relate to, be influenced by, and learn from participating in stories with other people a LOT more than they can by changed by propositional debates and lectures. I have the sense that there was a moment in western culture (vaguely late golden/silver age of Roman literature) when we could have stepped past religion into philosophy. Stoicism was well-regarded, its aim (like cynicism and epicureanism) was to achieve a state of ataraxia, tranquility, and a major portion of the curriculum was logic. But a mass shift in mentality towards personal divine revelation took place instead, so I (reluctantly) have to agree with you.
  - prometheus76 5y ago
    Stoicism put a person at the whim of the Fates. It was essentially Calvinism, where you could not affect your destiny, because you were either chosen by the gods, or you weren't. Shakespeare summed up Stoicism well when he said "as flies to wanton boys are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport." Contrast that with the proposition of Christianity, which is that the Creator of the Universe, because of His infinite love for creation, humbled Himself and condescended so low as to be a Person born in a cave to a poor family, suffered betrayal by almost all of his closest followers, suffered an ignominious death, then rose from the dead on the third day after His death, thereby conquering death by death, and you, poor, broken, sinful, incorrigible you, can have a personal relationship with the God-man who calls Himself Jesus Christ.