Robert said
Yes and no. For example, they certainly saw people like Adam and Eve as real historical people, but their manner of interpreting scriptures also allowed them an incredible degree of freedom in reading the texts, sometimes even to comic extremes. They were very comfortable with symbolic and secondary meanings.
I suspect that the ancients wouldn’t have really understood the distinction between “literal” and “figurative” which so obsesses moderns.
Philo of Alexandria, an older contemporary of Jesus, wrote extensive allegorical commentaries, including on Genesis. He says is that the six days of creation are not literal but represent “the principles of order and productivity” that God used to create the universe. He used a kind of pre-Christian Logos Theology. God didn’t literally say “let there be light” but he breathed the world into existence through his Word, etc. Philo also interpreted Adam and Eve allegorically: Adam represented human rationality, Eve the sensuous nature. The Garden represents the power of the soul. The serpent is pleasure.
More generally think if you look up various topics from Genesis in the Jewish Encyclopedia [online] there’s usually a section about what the rabbis thought. Sources for Jesus’ time are scarce but by the second c. they were speculating all over the place. For example, several thought that Eve’s relationship with the “serpent” consisted of illicit sex. And by that time, certainly, they were no longer thinking of a literal snake. Here’s a link to the Genesis Rabbah, which recorded the views of various rabbis in the 4th-6th centuries. ** you do not have permission to see this link **
This is an interesting discussion. I would point out that this is an enduring pattern in religious history–some will argue for a literal interpretation, and others will not. Origen would have been in the same position as Philo in the early Christian church, telling pagan skeptics that he himself didn’t literally believe everything in the gospels. The same basic set of personality types and approaches will crop up in any belief system, religious or secular. And intellectuals are much less likely to be fundamentalists, though there are exceptions to that rule.
There is always a variety of belief within each belief. ALWAYS.
But after thousands of years, we only have a small smattering of the variety and complexity of what Jews believed in the ancient world. The Old Testament books are themselves pretty varied, but we must assume that all this emphasis on correct behavior wouldn’t be there if all or even most Jews were adhering strictly to these codes.
Two points.
First, Jesus says not one word of the Law shall perish, then leans into the beatitudes, where he seems to contradict things like “an eye for an eye.”
Second, in Timothy we see that all scripture is useful for learning. the translation “scripture” seems to be self serving to the translators, since the original words seems to mean “writing” when used in other Greek works.
So I think that in Jesus’s day there was the realization that technical contradictions existed, but the written words were so inspired as to be useful anyway.
As for Genesis itself, since New Testament authors quote other works containing these characters, the authors seem to regard the other sources as on par with a Genesis that was probably not yet or just recently part of a Jewish “canon.”
Murderous intentions between Jews and Christians (who were still technically Jews) were all one way at first–a section of Jews were enraged by this heresy (for reasons that are not hard to explain), and behaved very badly towards this new minority in their midst, who were entirely peaceful at the time, if perhaps annoyingly persistent in their insistence that a crucified Galilean was Messiah.
So without pointing fingers at anybody (since all of us, as humans, bear the Mark of Cain)–if Jews had expressed their disagreement with Christian ideas in a completely non-violent way–would Christians still have expressed such deep bitterness against unconverted Jews in their writings, which would then be used as an excuse to engage in xenophobic treatment of Jewish minorities in later eras?
We should all be wary of casting stones, since as recent history shows, even long-abused minorities often forget what that feels like once they become majorities. It’s not our beliefs that make us the way we are so much as it’s the way we are that warps our beliefs.
These days, a lot of atheists hate Christians and Jews and Muslims about equally, and that minority has been known to get pretty violent as well, when it got into power. Can’t we all get along? ::sigh::
There aren’t a lot of people willing to be identified as atheists. In the US the polls rarely top 3%. Most of the atheists of my knowledge don’t hate anybody. What they object to is the undeserved sense of privilege that the pious enjoy in our culture and their willingness to use the organs of government to coerce behavior. I have no interest in converting anyone to my position but I do object to having someone’s religion forced down my throat. If everyone would mind their own business there wouldn’t be much of a problem. Unfortunately Christians especially seem constitutionally unable to do this. It would be interesting to see if Christianity could long survive without being privileged in some way. (I suspect the fear that it cannot hides behind a lot of the coercive efforts of our current crop of theocrats. The overwhelming support of evangelicals for Trump is basically an admission that they can’t change people’ minds so they will make them do right legislatively.)
Polls are anonymous. The same polls show people turning away from organized religion, having no problem with saying “I don’t go to church” so why isn’t atheism gaining ground faster?
People aren’t identifying themselves as atheists to pollsters, even if they aren’t religious, partly because they want to leave the door open to free form belief, but also because the term has become synonymous with a certain attitude that many people find abrasive and offputting and (frequently) ill-informed. Like the ones who say “Jesus didn’t exist as a physical person, and I don’t care that most scholars say this is nonsense. I’m going to find the few who will tell me what I want to hear and buy their books and videos, and post to the internet to tell people who believe he did exist how stupid they are.”
I’m assuming most atheists aren’t like that (the one avowed atheist I know well in real life is one of the most opinionated and overbearing people I have ever met in my life, but a friend is a friend, and I just tiptoe around the subjects that set him off.)
They’re not the ones who are the face of atheism–it’s Dawkins, Dennett, and (RIP) Hitchens. It’s Sam Harris saying “Hey, just as a thought experiment, maybe we might need to nuke some Muslims.” Oh, and let’s not forget that guy who shot several Muslims because they were using a parking space he thought was his. And somehow, it’s never a woman, or a person of color. I know there are atheists who are women, or black, or Latino, or etc. I just never ever see them representing atheist opinion, because atheist opinion is dominated by white guys.
Atheism can be just as judgmental and bigoted as the worst theists–and when atheists do get power, as happened in Russia, China, Cambodia, etc–well, do I need to say it? Whole lot of death and oppression, which shouldn’t have happened if the problem was just people believing in God.
The fact is, when people of a certain personality type identify very strongly with a particular body of opinion, religious or otherwise, they tend to get bigoted about it. God isn’t the problem, because we can make ideas into gods very easily (technically, all gods are ideas, right?) Right now, most people of that type are at least nominally religious because, as you say, being an avowed atheist isn’t a good way to make friends and influence people. But if that ever changed, all those people would become atheists, and atheism would as bad (or worse) than religion ever was.
I don’t decide who my friends are based on what they think about God (I’m far from certain what I think about God). I base it on whether we have shared interests and values. (Mainly, I base it on whether my dog gets along with their dog, if we’re being honest).
But the moment I defend religion in any way, or express admiration for the historical Jesus as I have come to understand him, atheists line up to attack me from the safety of their computers. They do in fact have plenty of power in proportion to their overall numbers, and they clearly want a lot more. Fundamentalist Christianity is losing ground in this country, for which I’m grateful. Fundamentalist Atheism would be no improvement. But I comfort myself with the thought that atheists are, by and large, horrible evangelists.
I believe Jesus was 100% right about the Sheep and the Goats. That is the only correct way to divide people. As individuals, based on their behavior. And that takes time and effort. So we simplify, use things like religion, race, gender, etc. Well, it doesn’t work. And it never will.
Who has to fear real oppression for their affiliation here? Muslims. Black Christians. Jews (has anybody ever done a mass shooting at an atheist meeting?) Catholics who happen to be Latinos. Not atheists. Nobody cares. You get trotted out here and there on Fox News, but nobody is scared of you. Nobody is oppressing you. Nobody is coming for you. Nobody is shooting you down en masse.
And can I ask–are you speaking up for anybody else? Maybe if they run out of the other groups, then it’ll be your turn. Might want to speak up now. I would for you. If they ever did come for you. Not holding my breath.
The share of religiously unaffiliated adults in several Western European countries is comparable to the share of religiously unaffiliated adults in the U.S., but American “nones” are more religious than their European counterparts. About a quarter of Americans (23% as of 2014) say they are atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular,” similar to the shares of religiously unaffiliated adults in the UK (23%) and Germany (24%). But while secularization is evident on both sides of the Atlantic, unaffiliated Americans are much more likely than their counterparts in Europe to pray and to believe in God, just as U.S. Christians are considerably more religious than Christians across Western Europe. In fact, by some of these standard measures of religious commitment, American “nones” are as religious as – or even more religious than – Christians in several European countries, including France, Germany and the UK.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
______________________________________________________________________________________
Except for a few and partial exceptions, everyone doubts once – or always – about matters of religious faith, the existence or not of the supernatural realm, life after death, reward or punishment for eternity, existence of the soul or spirit, etc.
It happens that many people, the majority, need to live with certainties, with hopes in a better life, with the comfort of not fearing death, and so they believe.
But there are also many people who, like me, carry on the skeptical inquiry and systematic doubt in the blood, in the deepest part of their nature, and therefore, we cannot believe.
I don’t think that you’re drawing the line correctly. Yes, there are those who need certitude, simple answers to complex questions, and those who feel more comfortable in the grey areas, where the truth often lies.
But many of the first type are atheists, and many of the other are theists, albeit of an unconventional bent.
And really, there’s no need to put a label on yourself at all.
And I would argue the ones who choose ‘unaffiliated’ when a pollster calls are saying precisely that. They are also refusing to affiliate with the religion–yes, religion–known as atheism.
It is very important to point this out that the so-called “Nones” by and large are NOT self-identified atheists. They’re simply part of a healthy growing trend to “believe what you want but mind your own business about it”. This trend is devoutly to be encouraged since we live in a culture besotted by Christian evangelicals and fundamentalists whose favorite activity is telling everybody else what they should think and how they should live and who expect the state and the culture to privilege their beliefs. It’s mightily encouraging especially to see the young folks leaving the organized church in droves.
I tell my Christian friends not to be too worried about this. When it ceases becoming necessary to feign belief in order to prosper in our society all the barnacles and leeches and hangers-on who participate for advantage will drop away and the Church will consist of only sincere believers. Surely not a bad thing. As a secularist and a skeptic I am personally interested to see if Christianity can compete on a level playing field.
gavriel said
Can you point to some ancient jewish source in which the author does not read the seven days of creation literally?
I am not sure how ancient you wish to get, but it of interest that Maimonides did not include a literal 6 days of creation in this Thirteen Principles of faith. Neither will you find it in Rabbi Yosef Albo’s “Sefer Ha’ikarim”. I was taught that this is because they understood from the usage of the word “yom” (day) in Bereshit (Genesis) that the Torah was not interested in forcing the interpretation of a literal 24 hour day.
I would say more, but sadly, I have forgotten more than I ever knew.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)