Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[RCSaunders]

There are other thinking species besides homo sapiens.

Can you recommend any of their books?

Interesting! I wonder what WE were doing until the first book came out!

Who is, "we?" As far as I know, this is not about history, it is about what is so now.

Most animal species have been around longer than human beings. If the animals can think, they had the jump on humans. Their civilization should have surpassed any human development by now, shouldn't it? And they would have written books long before human beings did. But they didn't.

[RCSaunders]

We're so superior--

Who said anything about, "superior." That's your evaluation. I've only pointed out that animals do not think. In terms of raw survival, many species are superior to human beings.

[Immanuel Can]

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power.

Well, I don't think you know Him, so I think you're maybe poorly positioned in imagining that. You don't evince a good knowledge of God's character, for sure.

God is either tribal or universal.

This does not follow. One could be both-and.

You, for example, are a member of a particular nation, age, location, and gender. Does any of that keep you from being a member of the human race?

If God is universal then God is not a chauvinist vis a vis other species.

You could not say so, unless you were somehow already possessed of the absolute certainty that other species are rightfully equal to human beings. But from where would such a "right" derive, if it were true? If you don't believe in God, nothing and nobody can give animals universal and essential "rights." Mankind, can, at most, choose to attribute value to animals if they wish to...but are under no ultimate obligation to do so, if they choose otherwise.

So there can be no "chauvinism" in such a world, and certainly no "speciesism" -- all animals, including mankind, are just accidental byproducts of an indifferent universe -- space detritus. And space-detritus, no matter how assembled, has no intrinsic "rights."

But I think you don't even believe your own line on that. Are you actually going to say that a cat has as much intrinsic value as a mosquito? Are you going to say a man and a fish, a paramecium or a bed-bug have equal value and rights? Really?

Speciesist.

[Lacewing]

He's lost my respect since he never responds to me except with some patronising quip.

He's really not all he seems to be.

No, he's not.

His responses drip with arrogance and undeserved superiority. I've come to think that his elaborate facade (in which I visualize him wearing a powdered wig) is an attempt to conceal his foolishness.

Take this profound logic:

You can say you don't think the authorship is authentic, and give your reasons for saying so, I suppose; but if the ascribed authorship of the originals is at all truthful, then that argument wouldn't work.

He lives on "IF" statements to continually support an imagined world that he wants to convince others he knows better than they do. No, I don't even believe much of what he says is true/real for HIM because of the twisted way he uses it against people. Rather, it is primarily a tool to serve his ego. Sorry if my bluntness is offensive -- but what is expected in response to such dishonesty as he or anyone employs (consciously or not)?

I think it is better to drop the charades and meet on a more truthful and equal playing field. No one knows "more" spiritually, that anyone else "should" know... so just get off it. All such stories delivered with superiority are propping up the storyteller. I do not trust people who do that. They are focused on self-glorification despite the dishonesty and disconnection it requires. It is a manifestation of evil as much as any other supposed evil that requires dishonesty and disconnection.

[Belinda]

Your God, Immanuel, is first and foremost God of Power.

Well, I don't think you know Him, so I think you're maybe poorly positioned in imagining that. You don't evince a good knowledge of God's character, for sure.

God is either tribal or universal.

This does not follow. One could be both-and.

You, for example, are a member of a particular nation, age, location, and gender. Does any of that keep you from being a member of the human race?

If God is universal then God is not a chauvinist vis a vis other species.

You could not say so, unless you were somehow already possessed of the absolute certainty that other species are rightfully equal to human beings. But from where would such a "right" derive, if it were true? If you don't believe in God, nothing and nobody can give animals universal and essential "rights." Mankind, can, at most, choose to attribute value to animals if they wish to...but are under no ultimate obligation to do so, if they choose otherwise.

So there can be no "chauvinism" in such a world, and certainly no "speciesism" -- all animals, including mankind, are just accidental byproducts of an indifferent universe -- space detritus. And space-detritus, no matter how assembled, has no intrinsic "rights."

But I think you don't even believe your own line on that. Are you actually going to say that a cat has as much intrinsic value as a mosquito? Are you going to say a man and a fish, a paramecium or a bed-bug have equal value and rights? Really?

Speciesist.

If God is a universal God he covers the tribe(s) where he originated. I agree some gods can be both ethnic and universal. If he is limited to the tribes(s) of his origin i.e. has no transethnic capability then he is what I call tribal and cannot be both ethnic and universal .The transethnic capability of the Judeo Christian God is an important characteristic for any god, and this is why the Judeo Christian God spread beyond his tribe of origin.


Values are apportioned by human beings to species or whatever. I am a sort of human being who says some species are more important than others. We have learned recently to value bees and other pollinating insects a lot more than sort of previously, so the values we apportion to this or that species re or should be flexible according to the situation.

I'd call a chauvinist a person who presumes they are more important without question and acts accordingly. I am willing to be flexible as to relative importance so I am not a chauvinist.

[Immanuel Can]

I agree some gods can be both ethnic and universal. If he is limited to the tribes(s) of his origin i.e. has no transethnic capability then he is what I call tribal and cannot be both ethnic and universal .

Well, a tribal "god" and the Supreme Being, "God" are not even remotely the same kind of entity. So you've got a category error there.

Values are apportioned by human beings to species or whatever. I am a sort of human being who says some species are more important than others.

That's all arbitrary, though. If human beings are, themselves, nothing but animals, what does it matter what they "apportion," and why are they indebted to "apportion" any value to any entities at all?

And why should the "importance" of a species be determined by their relative utility for human uses? Doesn't that, itself, place human beings as the locus and determiner of the value of other animals? It sure seems to.

If animals are all bearers of "rights," then who grants those rights, if humans are also just animals?

[Dubious]

Can you recommend any of their books?

Interesting! I wonder what WE were doing until the first book came out!

Who is, "we?"

Well I figured as an official member of the homo sapien club you would know.

[Belinda]

I agree some gods can be both ethnic and universal. If he is limited to the tribes(s) of his origin i.e. has no transethnic capability then he is what I call tribal and cannot be both ethnic and universal .

Well, a tribal "god" and the Supreme Being, "God" are not even remotely the same kind of entity. So you've got a category error there.

Values are apportioned by human beings to species or whatever. I am a sort of human being who says some species are more important than others.

That's all arbitrary, though. If human beings are, themselves, nothing but animals, what does it matter what they "apportion," and why are they indebted to "apportion" any value to any entities at all?

And why should the "importance" of a species be determined by their relative utility for human uses? Doesn't that, itself, place human beings as the locus and determiner of the value of other animals? It sure seems to.

If animals are all bearers of "rights," then who grants those rights, if humans are also just animals?

Jahweh was a tribal god who became capable of being adopted by other tribes. Maybe the fact that Jahweh was physically transported by nomads during their landless wandering was part of the reason Jahweh had that ability. The "Supreme Being" is another name for transethnic God.

The "importance of a species is determined by their relative utility for human uses " because of the urge to live. It is a contingent and pro tem fact that humans can so humans do.
Humans are animals that can apportion rights and so humans apportion rights. All animals are bearers of rights is as far as I know an ethic adhered to only by active members of the Jain religion.

[Sculptor]

I agree some gods can be both ethnic and universal. If he is limited to the tribes(s) of his origin i.e. has no transethnic capability then he is what I call tribal and cannot be both ethnic and universal .

Well, a tribal "god" and the Supreme Being, "God" are not even remotely the same kind of entity. So you've got a category error there.

Values are apportioned by human beings to species or whatever. I am a sort of human being who says some species are more important than others.

That's all arbitrary, though. If human beings are, themselves, nothing but animals, what does it matter what they "apportion," and why are they indebted to "apportion" any value to any entities at all?

And why should the "importance" of a species be determined by their relative utility for human uses? Doesn't that, itself, place human beings as the locus and determiner of the value of other animals? It sure seems to.

If animals are all bearers of "rights," then who grants those rights, if humans are also just animals?

Jahweh was a tribal god who became capable of being adopted by other tribes. Maybe the fact that Jahweh was physically transported by nomads during their landless wandering was part of the reason Jahweh had that ability. The "Supreme Being" is another name for transethnic God.

The "importance of a species is determined by their relative utility for human uses " because of the urge to live. It is a contingent and pro tem fact that humans can so humans do.
Humans are animals that can apportion rights and so humans apportion rights. All animals are bearers of rights is as far as I know an ethic adhered to only by active members of the Jain religion.

There is some doubt if Jews made any journey across the desert. There is no record of Moses and his crew in Egypt (possibly the most comprehensive historical record of the period), and, of course there are key flaws in the biblical account.
Modern Israeli archaeologists are now trying to pitch a claim that jews are autochthonic to the reagion of Palestine, and that the biblical story is more of a foundational myth.
One thing is clear from the archaeology - the jewish religion is a lot more recent than the bible might suggest. Not thousands of years BC, but hundreds.

[Belinda]

Well, a tribal "god" and the Supreme Being, "God" are not even remotely the same kind of entity. So you've got a category error there.


That's all arbitrary, though. If human beings are, themselves, nothing but animals, what does it matter what they "apportion," and why are they indebted to "apportion" any value to any entities at all?

And why should the "importance" of a species be determined by their relative utility for human uses? Doesn't that, itself, place human beings as the locus and determiner of the value of other animals? It sure seems to.

If animals are all bearers of "rights," then who grants those rights, if humans are also just animals?

Jahweh was a tribal god who became capable of being adopted by other tribes. Maybe the fact that Jahweh was physically transported by nomads during their landless wandering was part of the reason Jahweh had that ability. The "Supreme Being" is another name for transethnic God.

The "importance of a species is determined by their relative utility for human uses " because of the urge to live. It is a contingent and pro tem fact that humans can so humans do.
Humans are animals that can apportion rights and so humans apportion rights. All animals are bearers of rights is as far as I know an ethic adhered to only by active members of the Jain religion.

There is some doubt if Jews made any journey across the desert. There is no record of Moses and his crew in Egypt (possibly the most comprehensive historical record of the period), and, of course there are key flaws in the biblical account.
Modern Israeli archaeologists are now trying to pitch a claim that jews are autochthonic to the reagion of Palestine, and that the biblical story is more of a foundational myth.
One thing is clear from the archaeology - the jewish religion is a lot more recent than the bible might suggest. Not thousands of years BC, but hundreds.

Perhaps I am too credulous of Biblical historicity, My main point is Jahweh evolved into a transethnic God. This point is not wittingly made by any Biblical source so it's not part of any foundation myth.

[Sculptor]

Jahweh was a tribal god who became capable of being adopted by other tribes. Maybe the fact that Jahweh was physically transported by nomads during their landless wandering was part of the reason Jahweh had that ability. The "Supreme Being" is another name for transethnic God.

The "importance of a species is determined by their relative utility for human uses " because of the urge to live. It is a contingent and pro tem fact that humans can so humans do.
Humans are animals that can apportion rights and so humans apportion rights. All animals are bearers of rights is as far as I know an ethic adhered to only by active members of the Jain religion.

There is some doubt if Jews made any journey across the desert. There is no record of Moses and his crew in Egypt (possibly the most comprehensive historical record of the period), and, of course there are key flaws in the biblical account.
Modern Israeli archaeologists are now trying to pitch a claim that jews are autochthonic to the reagion of Palestine, and that the biblical story is more of a foundational myth.
One thing is clear from the archaeology - the jewish religion is a lot more recent than the bible might suggest. Not thousands of years BC, but hundreds.

Perhaps I am too credulous of Biblical historicity, My main point is Jahweh evolved into a transethnic God. This point is not wittingly made by any Biblical source so it's not part of any foundation myth.

Um. I think it would be very misleading to say that a god evolved in this way, or even that this one in particuar did.
There is not a more monoethnic god that the god of the Jews, since Jews do not allow non jews into their religion.
I'm assuming that you consider the jew's god as "the same" as that of Christianity and Islam. But this is actually not the case.
As these religions were born they were not born primarily from Jews converting; but a range of other peoples all over north africa and europe and beyond. With each instance of conversion, local gods were modified to fit the new messianicism. So that, for example, Odin, evolved into the Christian god, and so on. For all but a tiny percentage of the literate were aware of the fact that Jesus was a Jew(or what a jew was), most performed a syncretisation of existing beliefs, not the wholesale adpotion of a foreign god, which would have been totally anathema. And, of course, for the most part, antisemitism where present, made sure that nothing of the kind was even thinkable.
With each new colonisation of Islam and Christianity modifications of existing religions were performed by overlaying the new message. This occurred pretty much the world over through conquest, colonisation, invasion and trade.

To insist the Jahwah was multiethnic or transethnic, and that Jahwah itself evoloved is an essentialist claim that cannot really be bourn out. Gods are not things in themseves, they are just ideas. Ideas are communicated like viruses, and viruses adapt and mutate in each host, The main difference is that ideas are not limited by the viablity of DNA, but just the hopes, fears, and reason of the hosts, and no material is exchanged when you get an idea from an external source.

[Belinda]

There is some doubt if Jews made any journey across the desert. There is no record of Moses and his crew in Egypt (possibly the most comprehensive historical record of the period), and, of course there are key flaws in the biblical account.
Modern Israeli archaeologists are now trying to pitch a claim that jews are autochthonic to the reagion of Palestine, and that the biblical story is more of a foundational myth.
One thing is clear from the archaeology - the jewish religion is a lot more recent than the bible might suggest. Not thousands of years BC, but hundreds.

Perhaps I am too credulous of Biblical historicity, My main point is Jahweh evolved into a transethnic God. This point is not wittingly made by any Biblical source so it's not part of any foundation myth.

Um. I think it would be very misleading to say that a god evolved in this way, or even that this one in particuar did.
There is not a more monoethnic god that the god of the Jews, since Jews do not allow non jews into their religion.
I'm assuming that you consider the jew's god as "the same" as that of Christianity and Islam. But this is actually not the case.
As these religions were born they were not born primarily from Jews converting; but a range of other peoples all over north africa and europe and beyond. With each instance of conversion, local gods were modified to fit the new messianicism. So that, for example, Odin, evolved into the Christian god, and so on. For all but a tiny percentage of the literate were aware of the fact that Jesus was a Jew(or what a jew was), most performed a syncretisation of existing beliefs, not the wholesale adpotion of a foreign god, which would have been totally anathema. And, of course, for the most part, antisemitism where present, made sure that nothing of the kind was even thinkable.
With each new colonisation of Islam and Christianity modifications of existing religions were performed by overlaying the new message. This occurred pretty much the world over through conquest, colonisation, invasion and trade.

To insist the Jahwah was multiethnic or transethnic, and that Jahwah itself evoloved is an essentialist claim that cannot really be bourn out. Gods are not things in themseves, they are just ideas. Ideas are communicated like viruses, and viruses adapt and mutate in each host, The main difference is that ideas are not limited by the viablity of DNA, but just the hopes, fears, and reason of the hosts, and no material is exchanged when you get an idea from an external source.

You mistake my basic assumption, which I presume you share. Jahweh was an idea not something with ontic existence. Of course, the ancient Jews did not know Jahweh was an idea born of human minds. Many still do believe there is an entity that inserts ideas into human minds, ideas of truth, goodness and so forth. Polytheists also believed in powers such as Venus, Neptune, and Mars that insert ideas into people's minds. Many people nowadays have not understood ideas are engendered by minds instead of external gods.

Most people still believe in absolute time and space. They don't understand these are not external truths but are relative to the observer.

[Sculptor]

Perhaps I am too credulous of Biblical historicity, My main point is Jahweh evolved into a transethnic God. This point is not wittingly made by any Biblical source so it's not part of any foundation myth.

Um. I think it would be very misleading to say that a god evolved in this way, or even that this one in particuar did.
There is not a more monoethnic god that the god of the Jews, since Jews do not allow non jews into their religion.
I'm assuming that you consider the jew's god as "the same" as that of Christianity and Islam. But this is actually not the case.
As these religions were born they were not born primarily from Jews converting; but a range of other peoples all over north africa and europe and beyond. With each instance of conversion, local gods were modified to fit the new messianicism. So that, for example, Odin, evolved into the Christian god, and so on. For all but a tiny percentage of the literate were aware of the fact that Jesus was a Jew(or what a jew was), most performed a syncretisation of existing beliefs, not the wholesale adpotion of a foreign god, which would have been totally anathema. And, of course, for the most part, antisemitism where present, made sure that nothing of the kind was even thinkable.
With each new colonisation of Islam and Christianity modifications of existing religions were performed by overlaying the new message. This occurred pretty much the world over through conquest, colonisation, invasion and trade.

To insist the Jahwah was multiethnic or transethnic, and that Jahwah itself evoloved is an essentialist claim that cannot really be bourn out. Gods are not things in themseves, they are just ideas. Ideas are communicated like viruses, and viruses adapt and mutate in each host, The main difference is that ideas are not limited by the viablity of DNA, but just the hopes, fears, and reason of the hosts, and no material is exchanged when you get an idea from an external source.

You mistake my basic assumption, which I presume you share. Jahweh was an idea not something with ontic existence. Of course, the ancient Jews did not know Jahweh was an idea born of human minds. Many still do believe there is an entity that inserts ideas into human minds, ideas of truth, goodness and so forth. Polytheists also believed in powers such as Venus, Neptune, and Mars that insert ideas into people's minds. Many people nowadays have not understood ideas are engendered by minds instead of external gods.

Most people still believe in absolute time and space. They don't understand these are not external truths but are relative to the observer.

It's not so much that I mistake your assumption. I reject the means you employ to describe what you mean.
When you use the phrase "My main point is Jahweh evolved into a transethnic God.", puts the ontic cart before the ideal horse. It is the ideals that are driving religon; not real gods.
Christians in no way worship Jahway, but just a modified idea of a much older concept of god which owes more to roots from Celtic, or Germanic, Olmec, Swaheli (etc) myths, than to Jewish ones; when you think about the ways in which religious ideas are spread.

[Immanuel Can]

Jahweh was a tribal god

Nah.

Just the only one there is.

[Dubious]

Jahweh was a tribal god who became capable of being adopted by other tribes.

It was the word of a god who wanted to create some 'Lebensraum' for his chosen people by any and all means. Remind you of anyone? The difference is the incredible saga and symbolism of the story. Another very important aspect which gives it an aura of numinosity and therefore authority is the King James translation made in Shakespeare's time. The translation, beautiful though it be, is as full of holes as Shakespeare's history plays. Also, the Jews didn't invent monotheism. It was a well understood concept long before Moses came along in the flesh or as a mythical figure. It just wasn't everyone's cup of tea. The O.T. was also a Declaration of Independence from the polytheistic pantheons surrounding them. This was a very effective way to 'inscribe' uniqueness upon the character of a nation striving for its own existence surrounded by far greater empires.

To maintain this story as 'God's Word' is frankly far beyond the logos of sanity. That's what makes it 'paradoxical'. But taken as a synthesis of history, saga and legend it is entirely consistent within itself and the general history of the Middle East. As with the Jesus story, it could not have been written until long after the event. Then, as always, the legend and myth aspect supervened. It was a secular saga made sacred as Tradition, certainly not so as an endorsement of god.

The OT is the 'Mein Kampf' edition of a struggling nation.