|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 0:27:18 GMT
The accusation that religion evolved or was created by the powerful to maintain the placidity and compliance of the ruled is a common trope. People make the same claims about the Bible. What's odd (to me) is that the prominent prophetic tradition recorded in the Bible is a direct contradiction of that claim. In ancient Israel, the government was effected with three complementary roles (analogous, but different, from the American system of legislative, judicial, and executive): monarchy, priesthood, and prophets. The two official "branches of government" were the monarchy (to embody God's rule) and the priesthood (to facilitate right standing with God). However, the third semi-official "branch of government" were the prophets—spokespersons for God that, more often than not, challenged the official government for idolatry and abuse of power. There is more "prophetic literature" in the Old Testament than texts that authorize and legitimate the monarchy and priesthood.
So I'm pretty sure that trope doesn't fit...
|
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 15:25:01 GMT
The accusation that religion evolved or was created by the powerful to maintain the placidity and compliance of the ruled is a common trope. People make the same claims about the Bible. What's odd (to me) is that the prominent prophetic tradition recorded in the Bible is a direct contradiction of that claim. In ancient Israel, the government was effected with three complementary roles (analogous, but different, from the American system of legislative, judicial, and executive): monarchy, priesthood, and prophets. The two official "branches of government" were the monarchy (to embody God's rule) and the priesthood (to facilitate right standing with God). However, the third semi-official "branch of government" were the prophets—spokespersons for God that, more often than not, challenged the official government for idolatry and abuse of power. There is more "prophetic literature" in the Old Testament than texts that authorize and legitimate the monarchy and priesthood. So I'm pretty sure that trope doesn't fit... It's a little more complex than that. Religion is a tool for the powerful. History is replete with examples and I am not speaking only of Christianity. The fact is that it is also something that has taken many years, nay centuries to take it's current form and it's like a tree (with many rings) or an onion if you will. If it was designed by a single tyrant to serve his purpose. It would be much more obvious but Tyrants usually know that they can't do that. I believe an Egyptian pharaoh (that were almost considered as gods themselves, so that should tell you how much power he had) tried unsuccessfully to start a monotheistic religion an was murdered for it (most likely by the priests of the former religion). |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 15:35:15 GMT
The accusation that religion evolved or was created by the powerful to maintain the placidity and compliance of the ruled is a common trope. People make the same claims about the Bible. What's odd (to me) is that the prominent prophetic tradition recorded in the Bible is a direct contradiction of that claim. In ancient Israel, the government was effected with three complementary roles (analogous, but different, from the American system of legislative, judicial, and executive): monarchy, priesthood, and prophets. The two official "branches of government" were the monarchy (to embody God's rule) and the priesthood (to facilitate right standing with God). However, the third semi-official "branch of government" were the prophets—spokespersons for God that, more often than not, challenged the official government for idolatry and abuse of power. There is more "prophetic literature" in the Old Testament than texts that authorize and legitimate the monarchy and priesthood. So I'm pretty sure that trope doesn't fit... It's a little more complex than that. Religion is a tool for the powerful. History is replete with examples and I am not speaking only of Christianity. The fact is that it is also something that has taken many years, nay centuries to take it's current form and it's like a tree (with many rings) or an onion if you will. If it was designed by a single tyrant to serve his purpose. It would be much more obvious but Tyrants usually know that they can't do that. I believe an Egyptian pharaoh (that were almost considered as gods themselves, so that should tell you how much power he had) tried unsuccessfully to start a monotheistic religion an was murdered for it (most likely by the priests of the former religion). And yet the dominant narrative of the Bible undermines the tyrants. I believe you're referring to Akhenaten. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 15:35:39 GMT
The accusation that religion evolved or was created by the powerful to maintain the placidity and compliance of the ruled is a common trope. People make the same claims about the Bible. What's odd (to me) is that the prominent prophetic tradition recorded in the Bible is a direct contradiction of that claim. In ancient Israel, the government was effected with three complementary roles (analogous, but different, from the American system of legislative, judicial, and executive): monarchy, priesthood, and prophets. The two official "branches of government" were the monarchy (to embody God's rule) and the priesthood (to facilitate right standing with God). However, the third semi-official "branch of government" were the prophets—spokespersons for God that, more often than not, challenged the official government for idolatry and abuse of power. There is more "prophetic literature" in the Old Testament than texts that authorize and legitimate the monarchy and priesthood. So I'm pretty sure that trope doesn't fit... Creating a new religion is often perilous because it challenges the old ones and the people (often powerful themselves) that are profiting from them. When the Christians (my interpretation) created their religion, at first they were persecuted for it. Until they put one or two monarchs in their pocket and then they became the persecutors... |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 15:38:23 GMT
It's a little more complex than that. Religion is a tool for the powerful. History is replete with examples and I am not speaking only of Christianity. The fact is that it is also something that has taken many years, nay centuries to take it's current form and it's like a tree (with many rings) or an onion if you will. If it was designed by a single tyrant to serve his purpose. It would be much more obvious but Tyrants usually know that they can't do that. I believe an Egyptian pharaoh (that were almost considered as gods themselves, so that should tell you how much power he had) tried unsuccessfully to start a monotheistic religion an was murdered for it (most likely by the priests of the former religion). 1) And yet the dominant narrative of the Bible undermines the tyrants. 2) I believe you're referring to Akhenaten. 1) As I said: onion peels.
2) bingo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 15:51:15 GMT
1) And yet the dominant narrative of the Bible undermines the tyrants. 2) I believe you're referring to Akhenaten. 1) As I said: onion peels.
2) bingo.
Well, here are some examples: 1) The dominant narratives (in proportional terms) in the Bible are the prophetic texts which challenge status quo and unjust authority. 2) The New Testament also upended unjust social division and the hope of resurrection eroded the fear of death, such that the early church defied the tyrants because the tyrants greatest too of coercion, death, was undermined. 3) In a more recent case, historically, enslaved Africans in Haiti were given edited Bibles which expurgated references to liberation...for obvious reasons. The Bible must be edited to be used as a tool of subjugation (whether literally edited or kept from people through language barrier, etc.). |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 15:54:03 GMT
1) As I said: onion peels.
2) bingo.
Well, here are some examples: 1) The dominant narratives (in proportional terms) in the Bible are the prophetic texts which challenge status quo and unjust authority. 2) The New Testament also upended unjust social division and the hope of resurrection eroded the fear of death, such that the early church defied the tyrants because the tyrants greatest too of coercion, death, was undermined. 3) In a more recent case, historically, enslaved Africans in Haiti were given edited Bibles which expurgated references to liberation...for obvious reasons. The Bible must be edited to be used as a tool of subjugation (whether literally edited or kept from people through language barrier, etc.). You know. The bible says a lot of things, some of them pretty horrifying, IMO. I can give you examples of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 17:33:52 GMT
Well, here are some examples: 1) The dominant narratives (in proportional terms) in the Bible are the prophetic texts which challenge status quo and unjust authority. 2) The New Testament also upended unjust social division and the hope of resurrection eroded the fear of death, such that the early church defied the tyrants because the tyrants greatest too of coercion, death, was undermined. 3) In a more recent case, historically, enslaved Africans in Haiti were given edited Bibles which expurgated references to liberation...for obvious reasons. The Bible must be edited to be used as a tool of subjugation (whether literally edited or kept from people through language barrier, etc.). You know. The bible says a lot of things, some of them pretty horrifying, IMO. I can give you examples of that. And that doesn't undermine the point that the general tenor of the Bible is to undermine tyranny. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 18:07:45 GMT
You know. The bible says a lot of things, some of them pretty horrifying, IMO. I can give you examples of that. And that doesn't undermine the point that the general tenor of the Bible is to undermine tyranny. Why do you think King James translated it in gibberish? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 20:19:18 GMT
And that doesn't undermine the point that the general tenor of the Bible is to undermine tyranny. Why do you think King James translated it in gibberish? I wouldn't say it was "gibberish," but there are a couple of reasons that the KJV is an inferior translation, and one of those reasons is the subtle affirmation of government (and elevated language) that actually undermined the intent of the translation. I'm sure the translators had good intention, but when the King authorizes the translation, there will necessarily be influence there. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 20:28:10 GMT
Why do you think King James translated it in gibberish? I wouldn't say it was "gibberish," but there are a couple of reasons that the KJV is an inferior translation, and one of those reasons is the subtle affirmation of government (and elevated language) that actually undermined the intent of the translation. I'm sure the translators had good intention, but when the King authorizes the translation, there will necessarily be influence there. First keep in mind that I am not just talking about the religions derived from the bible but all of them and I'll say this, whatever the intent of the bible initially (and I don't think this intent was as laudable as you believe it is) , religion has been a tool for the acquisition and the keeping of power for millennia, and it still is. It's ironic that we owe this say to you people but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is particularly apropos in this case. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 19, 2024 21:21:30 GMT
I wouldn't say it was "gibberish," but there are a couple of reasons that the KJV is an inferior translation, and one of those reasons is the subtle affirmation of government (and elevated language) that actually undermined the intent of the translation. I'm sure the translators had good intention, but when the King authorizes the translation, there will necessarily be influence there. First keep in mind that I am not just talking about the religions derived from the bible but all of them and I'll say this, whatever the intent of the bible initially (and I don't think this intent was as laudable as you believe it is) , religion has been a tool for the acquisition and the keeping of power for millennia, and it still is. It's ironic that we owe this say to you people but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is particularly apropos in this case. Yes, religion has been a tool for the acquisition and keeping of power. I'm arguing that the Bible is a poor tool for that. There's a reason it was kept from the masses for centuries. There's a reason translation into the common tongue was forbidden (and punishable by death). |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 19, 2024 23:27:41 GMT
First keep in mind that I am not just talking about the religions derived from the bible but all of them and I'll say this, whatever the intent of the bible initially (and I don't think this intent was as laudable as you believe it is) , religion has been a tool for the acquisition and the keeping of power for millennia, and it still is. It's ironic that we owe this say to you people but "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" is particularly apropos in this case. Yes, religion has been a tool for the acquisition and keeping of power. I'm arguing that the Bible is a poor tool for that. There's a reason it was kept from the masses for centuries. There's a reason translation into the common tongue was forbidden (and punishable by death). Kept from the masses? Why not just destroy it, if it's so threatening? Entire libraries have been destroyed by tyrants, e.g. the huge library of Alexandria for example, by a fanatic ruler who thought books were useless because everything you needed to know was in the Koran (what a coincidence, books burned in the name of religion, I'll bet it the first and only time that happened...  ). Yet this most inconvenient book for the powers that be has been kept intact and recopied for generations... It doesn't quite plead for your case, does it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2024 2:45:32 GMT
Yes, religion has been a tool for the acquisition and keeping of power. I'm arguing that the Bible is a poor tool for that. There's a reason it was kept from the masses for centuries. There's a reason translation into the common tongue was forbidden (and punishable by death). Kept from the masses? Why not just destroy it, if it's so threatening? Entire libraries have been destroyed by tyrants, e.g. the huge library of Alexandria for example, by a fanatic ruler who thought books were useless because everything you needed to know was in the Koran (what a coincidence, books burned in the name of religion, I'll bet it the first and only time that happened... ). Yet this most inconvenient book for the powers that be has been kept intact and recopied for generations... It doesn't quite plead for your case, does it? Because tyrants can claim to be the "spokesperson for God" by being the gatekeeper of the sacred text. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 20, 2024 8:05:06 GMT
Kept from the masses? Why not just destroy it, if it's so threatening? Entire libraries have been destroyed by tyrants, e.g. the huge library of Alexandria for example, by a fanatic ruler who thought books were useless because everything you needed to know was in the Koran (what a coincidence, books burned in the name of religion, I'll bet it the first and only time that happened... ). Yet this most inconvenient book for the powers that be has been kept intact and recopied for generations... It doesn't quite plead for your case, does it? Because tyrants can claim to be the "spokesperson for God" by being the gatekeeper of the sacred text. Hence religion being a tool for the powerful... |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2024 13:50:31 GMT
Because tyrants can claim to be the "spokesperson for God" by being the gatekeeper of the sacred text. Hence religion being a tool for the powerful... And people make the same claim about the Bible. My claim in the OP is that that isn’t true. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Apr 20, 2024 16:25:40 GMT
Hence religion being a tool for the powerful... And people make the same claim about the Bible. My claim in the OP is that that isn’t true. Well, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't intended as a tool for the powerful (which I don't think I'd agree on) but that's what it's become and in the end, it's all that counts. |
|
thor
Legend
Posts: 20,410
|
Post by thor on Apr 20, 2024 22:07:48 GMT
And people make the same claim about the Bible. My claim in the OP is that that isn’t true. Well, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't intended as a tool for the powerful (which I don't think I'd agree on) but that's what it's become and in the end, it's all that counts. The intent was (and is) to keep people in line. You could say that the 10 Commandments are a derivation (and not a large one) of the social mores of a tribe of desert nomads. All of them are aimed at keeping internal conflict down within the tribe. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2024 22:55:36 GMT
Well, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't intended as a tool for the powerful (which I don't think I'd agree on) but that's what it's become and in the end, it's all that counts. The intent was (and is) to keep people in line. You could say that the 10 Commandments are a derivation (and not a large one) of the social mores of a tribe of desert nomads. All of them are aimed at keeping internal conflict down within the tribe. Have you read through the thread? Or are you commenting without context? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Apr 20, 2024 22:56:13 GMT
And people make the same claim about the Bible. My claim in the OP is that that isn’t true. Well, I suppose you could argue that it wasn't intended as a tool for the powerful (which I don't think I'd agree on) but that's what it's become and in the end, it's all that counts. Except that Christians who challenge the powerful have been inspired by the Bible to do so. |
|
