E Vs C. Really now???

[LuisDantas]

What you just posted converges with a suspicion that I have formed, @metis .

I think that the modern insistence of adherents to Abrahamic creeds that they are supposed to believe in the literal existence of their deities is a new, perhaps very new development.

It makes sense to me that for most of the story of religions and pseudo-religions their focus would be in storytelling as opposed to claims of literal truth and particularly literal monotheism of a creator god.

For one thing, most communities would be all too aware that there are competing claims. In practice that had limited significance; those communities would not have even the opportunity to compare beliefs very frequently, due to pratical considerations such as geographical distance, language barriers and political rivalry. The demand that existed was largely for the establishment of symbolic language and identity-forming narratives, as opposed to some accademic need for establishing the constracting merits of competing narratives. At the end of the day very few people would consider switching tribes out of abstract theological concerns.

 

[metis]

What you just posted converges with a suspicion that I have formed, @metis .

I think that the modern insistence of adherents to Abrahamic creeds that they are supposed to believe in the literal existence of their deities is a new, perhaps very new development.

It makes sense to me that for most of the story of religions and pseudo-religions their focus would be in storytelling as opposed to claims of literal truth and particularly literal monotheism of a creator god.

For one thing, most communities would be all too aware that there are competing claims. In practice that had limited significance; those communities would not have even the opportunity to compare beliefs very frequently, due to pratical considerations such as geographical distance, language barriers and political rivalry. The demand that existed was largely for the establishment of symbolic language and identity-forming narratives, as opposed to some accademic need for establishing the constracting merits of competing narratives. At the end of the day very few people would consider switching tribes out of abstract theological concerns.

Ya, as I very much agree with your points here. As a case in point, during biblical times, dreams were considered to be messages ("visions") from God in many cases.

Speaking of which, last night I dreamt I ate a huge marshmallow, and this morning my pillow was missing!

 

[shunyadragon]

Sorry, but you just can't expect anyone to take such a claim at all seriously.

Maybe there is some form of qualification or scope delimitation missing here?

I will follow up with references since I studied anthropology and archaeology in college, but I had some questions.

If the ancient societies did not believe in their Gods and the involvement of their Gods' personal involvement in their world what did they believe in?

The ancient cultures made sacrifices of animals and sometimes humans in the theme of their stories of Gods. Are you saying they did not believe it?

They had variable, but often similar Creation stories involving th the Gods they believed in. Without science, there is no evidence that they did not believe in them. If they did not believe in the stories involving Creation and the intimate involvement of their Gods they handed them down orally from each generation, in carvings, and then meticulously wrote them down what did they believe in?

Even with the sophistication of the Greeks and Romans for the most part, they did believe in their Gods and their intimate involvement in their lives and made sacrifices to their Gods, There are some philosophers that questioned these beliefs, but most believed. Though when Rome became Christian the literal Creation Genesis story and intimate involvement of the Christian God was universally accepted.

 

[LuisDantas]

I will follow up with references since I studied anthropology and archaeology in college, but I had some questions.

If the ancient societies did not believe in their Gods and the involvement of their Gods' personal involvement in their world what did they believe in?

I do not expect that they would "believe" in anything in a sense similar to what present day Abrahamism seems to propose as necessary.

Instead, I assume that they had a more pragmatic view of their lives and believed in or estimated odds of achieving certain situations and goals according to their previous experience, the advice of their mentors and elders, and whatever information they might have of people and events with a reasonable chance of affecting them.

It would be a bit odd if they deviated much from that, IMO.

The ancient cultures made sacrifices of animals and sometimes humans in the theme of their stories of Gods. Are you saying they did not believe it?

Yes. A few stragglers probably did believe in the supernatural, of course. But those rites are made mainly for the ritual, the sense of significance and the sense of bonding that comes with it.

The taboos that also come with those rituals may well appear superficially to be belief, I suppose. I certainly have been presumed a believer often enough for similar reasons.

They had variable, but often similar Creation stories involving th the Gods they believed in.

I don't know about "often". What I know of ancient beliefs suggests a wide variety that is in itself a strong indicator of no overall convergence of origins nor of nature.

In fact, if I wanted to find a common denominator among creeds and myths I would probably choose something more similar to general conceptions of incorporeal but very human-like spirits than to gods as such.

I suspect that, ironically enough, one of the reasons why the Abrahamic gods became so widespread is because they are so exotic and unlike any belief that arises spontaneously. Allah of Islam is something of an exception; he is characterized as a supernatural tribal chieftain of sorts, considerably more humanlike than HaShem, Jesus or the Bahai God(s).

Without science, there is no evidence that they did not believe in them.

Not sure what you mean to say here. Are you proposing that I should assume theistic belief as a default until and unless I find some sort of solid scientific evidence to the contrary?

If so, then I guess I disagree on both counts.

If they did not believe in the stories involving Creation and the intimate involvement of their Gods they handed them down orally from each generation, in carvings, and then meticulously wrote them down what did they believe in?

As noted above, probably not much, perhaps nothing at all. I don't think ancient societies had too much space for what we call belief these days.

You will notice that even today we pass down traditions that we are not expected to believe in either. Often those are the most thrilling of all. Belief is hardly necessary to build an ethnic mythology.

Even with the sophistication of the Greeks and Romans for the most part, they did believe in their Gods and their intimate involvement in their lives and made sacrifices to their Gods,

Actually, they believed in the usefulness of myth to tell tales. They even made an explanation for why animal sacrifices should be made with the parts that would be least desirable.

Trick at Mecone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Greek gods, from what I know, where mostly a literary device. While Roman gods were mostly a matter of ceremony and status, to the point that Emperors were at points both deified by the State or decreed favored by Jupiter or Hercules as a recognition of political value.

Roman imperial cult - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Tetrarchy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a reason why even today so few people claim to believe in Olympian Gods or to want to renew their cults.

There are some philosophers that questioned these beliefs, but most believed. Though when Rome became Christian the literal Creation Genesis story and intimate involvement of the Christian God was universally accepted.

The first part I very much doubt, the second is very much wishful thinking.

 

[shunyadragon]

I do not expect that they would "believe" in anything in a sense similar to what present day Abrahamism seems to propose as necessary.

Instead, I assume that they had a more pragmatic view of their lives and believed in or estimated odds of achieving certain situations and goals according to their previous experience, the advice of their mentors and elders, and whatever information they might have of people and events with a reasonable chance of affecting them.

It would be a bit odd if they deviated much from that, IMO.



Yes. A few stragglers probably did believe in the supernatural, of course. But those rites are made mainly for the ritual, the sense of significance and the sense of bonding that comes with it.

The taboos that also come with those rituals may well appear superficially to be belief, I suppose. I certainly have been presumed a believer often enough for similar reasons.



I don't know about "often". What I know of ancient beliefs suggests a wide variety that is in itself a strong indicator of no overall convergence of origins nor of nature.

In fact, if I wanted to find a common denominator among creeds and myths I would probably choose something more similar to general conceptions of incorporeal but very human-like spirits than to gods as such.

I suspect that, ironically enough, one of the reasons why the Abrahamic gods became so widespread is because they are so exotic and unlike any belief that arises spontaneously. Allah of Islam is something of an exception; he is characterized as a supernatural tribal chieftain of sorts, considerably more humanlike than HaShem, Jesus or the Bahai God(s).



Not sure what you mean to say here. Are you proposing that I should assume theistic belief as a default until and unless I find some sort of solid scientific evidence to the contrary?

If so, then I guess I disagree on both counts.



As noted above, probably not much, perhaps nothing at all. I don't think ancient societies had too much space for what we call belief these days.

You will notice that even today we pass down traditions that we are not expected to believe in either. Often those are the most thrilling of all. Belief is hardly necessary to build an ethnic mythology.



Actually, they believed in the usefulness of myth to tell tales. They even made an explanation for why animal sacrifices should be made with the parts that would be least desirable.

Greek gods, from what I know, where mostly a literary device. While Roman gods were mostly a matter of ceremony and status, to the point that Emperors were at points both deified by the State or decreed favored by Jupiter or Hercules as a recognition of political value.

There is a reason why even today so few people claim to believe in Olympian Gods or to want to renew their cults.



The first part I very much doubt, the second is very much wishful thinking.

Do you realize that Fundamentalist Christianity and a literal understanding of Genesis and Exodus dominated Christianity up until the Reformation? . . . and still is believed by up to 40% or more of Christians today. The various non-literal interpretations are what is relatively recent in Christianity. In a similar time frame, there was a Reformation intellectual movement in Judaism

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you realize that Fundamentalist Christianity and a literal understanding of Genesis and Exodus dominated Christianity up until the Reformation?

I don't doubt that clerics of higher hierarchy said as much, for what it is worth.

That falls way short from being evidence that literal belief was at all common at the time, however.

. . . and still is believed by up to 40% or more of Christians today.

Is it? I would not know. It is very hard to tell.

Brazil has the largest Catholic population in the world and quite a few Protestants to boot, and yet even here there is more of a taboo against questioning those beliefs than an actual respect for them. Most people just don't want to be perceived as too confrontational.

The various non-literal interpretations are what is relatively recent in Christianity. In a similar time frame, there was a Reformation intellectual movement in Judaism

Unlikely in the extreme (except for the Judaism Reformation, of course). We know for a fact that Christianity had plenty of variant interpretations from very early on - Gnostic Christianity, Adoptionism, Pelagianism, you name it. And this is talking about those elaborate enough to have well established names.

But maybe you have some evidence that you might want to share?

 

[shunyadragon]

Let's take the Greeks as a later ancient more educated culture. What did the Greeks believe?

Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths?

Though each city-state in ancient Greece worshiped their own deity, there were outliers, such as Socrates, who had their own philosophies.

www.thoughtco.com

Ancient Greeks and Their Gods​

By
N.S. Gill
Updated on June 18, 2018
It pretty clear that at least some level of belief in the gods was part of community life among the ancient Greeks, just as it was for the Romans (community life was more important than personal faith).

There was a multitude of gods and goddesses in the polytheistic Mediterranean world. In the Greek world, each polis--or city-state--had a particular patron deity. The god might have been the same as the neighboring polis' patron deity, but cultic observances might be different, or each polis might worship a different aspect of the same god.

Greek Gods in Everyday Life​

Greeks invoked gods in sacrifices that were part and parcel of civil life and they are civil--sacred and secular meshed--festivals. Leaders sought the gods' "opinions", through divination before any important undertaking. People wore amulets to ward off evil spirits. Some joined mystery cults. Writers wrote stories with conflicting details about the divine-human interaction. Important families proudly traced their ancestry to the gods or the legendary sons of gods who populate their myths.

Festivals--like the dramatic festivals in which the great Greek tragedians competed and the ancient Panhellenic games, like the Olympics--were held to honor the gods, as well as to bring the community together. Sacrifices meant communities shared a meal, not only with their fellow citizens but with the gods. Proper observances meant the gods were more likely to look kindly on the mortals and help them.

Nonetheless, there was some awareness that there were natural explanations for natural phenomena otherwise attributed to the pleasure or displeasure of the deities. Some philosophers and poets criticized the supernatural focus of the prevailing polytheism:

Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the gods
all sorts of things which are matters of reproach and censure among men:
theft, adultery and mutual deceit. (frag. 11)
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands
or could draw with their hands and accomplish such works as men,
horses would draw the figures of the gods as similar to horses, and the oxen as similar to oxen,
and they would make the bodies
of the sort which each of them had. (frag. 15)
Xenophanes

Socrates was charged with failing to believe properly and paid for his unpatriotic religious belief with his life.

"Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young."
From Xenophanes.

We can't read their minds, but we can make speculative statements. Perhaps the ancient Greeks extrapolated from their observations and powers of reasoning--something they mastered and passed down to us--to construct an allegorical worldview. In his book on the subject, Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths?, Paul Veyne writes:

"Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory."

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't doubt that clerics of higher hierarchy said as much, for what it is worth.

That falls way short from being evidence that literal belief was at all common at the time, however.



Is it? I would not know. It is very hard to tell.

Brazil has the largest Catholic population in the world and quite a few Protestants to boot, and yet even here there is more of a taboo against questioning those beliefs than an actual respect for them. Most people just don't want to be perceived as too confrontational.




Unlikely in the extreme (except for the Judaism Reformation, of course). We know for a fact that Christianity had plenty of variant interpretations from very early on - Gnostic Christianity, Adoptionism, Pellagianism, you name it. And this is talking about those elaborate enough to have well established names.

But maybe you have some evidence that you might want to share?

More to follow. You have a very naive optimistic view of the history of humanity and religion. You need to get your head out of the intellectual clouds and do some of your own home work in the real world.

 

[LuisDantas]

More to follow. You have a very naive optimistic view of the history of humanity and religion. You need to get your head out of the intellectual clouds and do some of your own home work in the real world.

I have been told worse. I have also learned to give that all due value.

 

[LuisDantas]

Socrates was charged with failing to believe properly and paid for his unpatriotic religious belief with his life.

And right there you point out the fragility of your own claims.

Were literal belief in the Greek gods truly widespread and deeply held, Socrates' discourse would not be perceived as a danger to the patriotic expectations, now would it?

 

[shunyadragon]

The prevalence of the literal or 'plain reading of the text' was championed early sy St. Jerome in the 4th century and has been with us since.

Hermeneutics | Definition, History, Principles, Examples, & Types | Britannica

Hermeneutics, the study of the general principles of biblical interpretation. For both Jews and Christians throughout their histories, the primary purpose of hermeneutics, and of the exegetical methods employed in interpretation, has been to discover the truths and values expressed in the Bible.

www.britannica.com

Literal interpretation asserts that a biblical text is to be interpreted according to the “plain meaning” conveyed by its grammatical construction and historical context. The literal meaning is held to correspond to the intention of the authors. This type of hermeneutics is often, but not necessarily, associated with belief in the verbal inspiration of the Bible, according to which the individual words of the divine message were divinely chosen. Extreme forms of this view are criticized on the ground that they do not account adequately for the evident individuality of style and vocabulary found in the various biblical authors. St. Jerome, an influential 4th-century biblical scholar, championed the literal interpretation of the Bible in opposition to what he regarded as the excesses of allegorical interpretation. The primacy of the literal sense was later advocated by such diverse figures as St. Thomas Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, John Colet, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have been told worse. I have also learned to give that all due value.

. . . except doing the homework yourself.

 

[shunyadragon]

And right there you point out the fragility of your own claims.

Were literal belief in the Greek gods truly widespread and deeply held, Socrates' discourse would not be perceived as a danger to the patriotic expectations, now would it?

Failure to respond with Duck, Bob, and Weasel. . . smf the failure to come up with any references yourself, except your opinion.

 

[LuisDantas]

Failure to respond with Duck, Bob, and Weasel. . . smf the failure to come up with any references yourself, except your opinion.

As I said: all due.

 

[robmil]

There's no "i.e." about it.

There is nothing sinful about sexual reproduction in any religion, so far as I am aware, and most certainly not in Christianity.

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God

 

[Subduction Zone]

For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God

One can be spiritually minded without claiming that God is a liar. In fact it makes one more likely to be spiritually minded.

 

[robmil]

There's no "i.e." about it.

There is nothing sinful about sexual reproduction in any religion, so far as I am aware, and most certainly not in Christianity.

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

You appear to have an odd interpretation of that verse.

 

[metis]

Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

What about all the people who lived before Jesus' time?

BTW, welcome to RF.

 

[robmil]

What about all the people who lived before Jesus' time?

BTW, welcome to RF.

Obviously, lt is always true, before and after his time.
Thanks for the welcome.