On Abrahamic beliefs, their spread parameters, and the ethical and religious validity of same

[LuisDantas]

How is course correction included in each of the religions you have listed above?

It isn't always; people may and do become dogmatic, self-entitled, negligent, indulgent or simply unwise.

But mainly it is a matter of simply intellectual honesty, acceptance of questioning, sincere discussion among adherents.

Fanaticism and dogmaticism can be detected and corrected. Except when it can not, not least because certain creeds and doctrines can't afford it.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

While Abrahamic beliefs vary considerably, they also show very specific traits that, I want to argue here, put in doubt their ability to qualify either as religions proper or as ethically defensable doctrines.



1. What is an Abrahamic doctrine?

For the purposes of this text, I will define them as creeds or doctrines that adopt some version of Abraham's god - meaning that they specifically declare that god exists; that it is conscious; that it has a will that is in some sense responsible for existence itself; and that it is sufficiently aware of humanity to have communicated with specific people at least once during the history of human existence.

Every single one of those four stipulations is dubious at best. Nonetheless, literal billions of people have been raised to treat them as sacred truths, with varied and significant consequences.



2. What are we calling religions here?

For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.



3. What about God?

I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.



4. But...

No, really. I will not use any variation of god-concepts in my discussion of religions. That is final. That is not negotiable. And ultimately, that is removing a very big and very unnecessary hurdle that gets in the way of meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.

More specifically, "god talk" tends to create the superficial appearance that there is some actual, known-to-exist entity - or at least a clearly defined concept - that the word refers to. And that is just not true at all. Worse still, there are huge social taboos in place and constantly reinforced that make it hard to even point out that lack of object.

We all deserve better than just repeating that mistake for generation after generation.



5. If religions are not about god, what are they about instead?

Sometimes they are indeed about god. Or gods. Or Devas, or Kami, or totem spirits. There are all kinds of entities used for religious purposes, but few if any are expected to be one-size-fits-all answers for everything - except in the Abrahamic traditions, that is. Nor are those entities, which are not always expected to be taken as real by adherents, usually expected to be some source of supreme moral authority that somehow extends even to people who never heard of them.

In truth, god-conceptions are tools, useful mainly as shorthand for certain perspectives and values.



6. So what do I (Luis) consider to be a proper religion?

Religions are activities and exercises that aim to help people (sensitive and rational beings) in dealing with the anxieties and challenges that come from the realization of how little options we have in everyday life and how badly we want to achieve some sort of certainty and stability.

Of particular note is that they are aimed at the specific people and should take personal characteristics into account. Also, religion is a human activity that must take social and even technological circunstances into account; a healthy doctrine allows itself to be reconsidered and course-corrected often, and should in fact have mechanisms to pursue that correction.

Doctrines that do no acknowledge that need, including the Abrahamics, end up owing a debt to its own unsconcious herectics, who often end up doing the course-correction without receiving the proper gratitude in return.



7. Where to Abrahamic creeds stand by that perspective.

In short, they are strange and confused about what would a religion be.

I make something of an exception to Judaism, mainly because they accept that their creed isn't to be applicable for everyone.

Later Abrahamisms, however, aim to be true religions while doing arguably the exact opposite; they expect to build whole doctrines and ways-of-living based on the daring yet foolish bet that there is a creator of existence itself who also expects us to be personally in awe of its moral judgement, despite apparently going out of its way to make its very existence doubtful and inconsequential even if true.

But the main flaw of the Abrahamics is in presenting themselves as a Source of Truth that they would somehow have the right to impose on their own children as some sort of duty-of-belief. That is a disrespectful stance that reflects very badly indeed into the very idea of religiosity.

The idea that such a God is considered the Source of everything makes it very suitable for a one size fits all approach I'd say.
How much of alleged Gods word and/or laws is human projection that may have been relevant in its respective time, is something I often question myself too though.
That's why I consider much of modern society an experiment.

 

[LuisDantas]

The idea that such a God is considered the Source of everything makes it very suitable for a one size fits all approach I'd say.

Many people seem to think so.

To a considerable extent that is precisely why it does not work at all.

 

[PearlSeeker]

That said, Taoism and the Dharmas qualify. So does Shinto. Probably also paganism, including Asatru.

All these include supernaturalism. Asatru means "belief in gods".

 

[dybmh]

It isn't always; people may and do become dogmatic, self-entitled, negligent, indulgent or simply unwise.

But mainly it is a matter of simply intellectual honesty, acceptance of questioning, sincere discussion among adherents.

Fanaticism and dogmaticism can be detected and corrected. Except when it can not, not least because certain creeds and doctrines can't afford it.

So, it sounds like the criteria you listed in the earlier post are not actually represented in the examples of religions you lifted up as positive examples?

Based on this, I wonder if the criteria you listed as negative behaviors are actually represented in Abrahamic practice en mass.

 

[LuisDantas]

All these include supernaturalism. Asatru means "belief in gods".

That may very well be. But to just say that like that is very misleading.

There is belief, and there is belief. From what little I know about the Vanir and Aesir, they are not really comparable to the Abrahamic gods. They have much more human personalities, are much more relatable, and that leads to much less reliance on so-called "mysteries" in lieu of actual doctrine, values and discernment.

What I have seen is that the Abrahamic creeds have set themselves up as a consequence of supernaturalism, to the point that their continued existences rely on a combination of teaching generation after generation to pretend belief or feel guilt for not believing and treating irrational claims as some form of courage that is presumably to be admired.

Worse still, they tend to be set up so that this reliance on supernaturalism (as opposed to the simple presence of supernatural belief in some place of the community of adherents) is fundamental to the doctrine.

No good consequences can come from that.

(Edited to add: incidentally, a little research suggests that the name "Asatru" never had quite that meaning. Asatru apparently refers to the Aesir specifically, which isn't always accurate for that group; and the other part doesn't necessarily mean "belief" exactly, being perhaps more akin to "loyalty", which is much more reasonable and much less dangerous).

 

[LuisDantas]

So, it sounds like the criteria you listed in the earlier post are not actually represented in the examples of religions you lifted up as positive examples?

Does it? How so?

Based on this, I wonder if the criteria you listed as negative behaviors are actually represented in Abrahamic practice en mass.

You mean you do not know? That is interesting, albeit unlikely.

 

[Koldo]

The need is to limit the power of humans. There are authority figures to this day who behave as if they are above the law. Having a divine law giver and divine retribution addresses this need. There is also a need to avoid treating individuals ( including themself ) as if they are flawless and beyond critique. These are needs which are not manufactured by the Abrahamic faiths.

Except it doesn't really limit the power of humans. It limits the power of kings specifically. It creates a religious authority that can circumvent scripture whenever he finds it convenient by claiming that God is now ordering something.

Here is an example: God commanded no killing. Then Samuel said God ordered the killing of the Amalekites. No trial needed. Just kill everyone.

 

[dybmh]

Except it doesn't really limit the power of humans. It limits the power of kings specifically. It creates a religious authority that can circumvent scripture whenever he finds it convenient by claiming that God is now ordering something.

Here is an example: God commanded no killing. Then Samuel said God ordered the killing of the Amalekites. No trial needed. Just kill everyone.

Well, you're right unless the religious authority believes there is divine retibution for circumventing the law. It's all based on the belief. Encouraging a belief in the divine law needs to extend into the clergy. Doing so still puts a limit on human power. Whether or not this is practical or possible is a valid criticism. But my point is that Abrahamic practice addresses a human need to limit its own power that it hasn't manufactured itself.

 

[Koldo]

Well, you're right unless the religious authority believes there is divine retibution for circumventing the law. It's all based on the belief. Encouraging a belief in the divine law needs to extend into the clergy. Doing so still puts a limit on human power. Whether or not this is practical or possible is a valid criticism. But my point is that Abrahamic practice addresses a human need to limit its own power that it hasn't manufactured itself.

It is a double eged sword though. For it grants power to humans, clergy, to command other people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. The binding of Isaac is a great example, a man willing to do anything that God commands.

The abrahamic God is always watching and you must obey (presuming you believe in the divine law). For while it is true that you may be able to run away from a human King, you can't escape from God's wrath.

 

[LuisDantas]

my point is that Abrahamic practice addresses a human need to limit its own power that it hasn't manufactured itself.

Can you perhaps provide an example? I am not quite understanding what you mean.

 

[LuisDantas]

That may very well be. But to just say that like that is very misleading.

There is belief, and there is belief. From what little I know about the Vanir and Aesir, they are not really comparable to the Abrahamic gods. They have much more human personalities, are much more relatable, and that leads to much less reliance on so-called "mysteries" in lieu of actual doctrine, values and discernment.

What I have seen is that the Abrahamic creeds have set themselves up as a consequence of supernaturalism, to the point that their continued existences rely on a combination of teaching generation after generation to pretend belief or feel guilt for not believing and treating irrational claims as some form of courage that is presumably to be admired.

Worse still, they tend to be set up so that this reliance on supernaturalism (as opposed to the simple presence of supernatural belief in some place of the community of adherents) is fundamental to the doctrine.

No good consequences can come from that.

(Edited to add: incidentally, a little research suggests that the name "Asatru" never had quite that meaning. Asatru apparently refers to the Aesir specifically, which isn't always accurate for that group; and the other part doesn't necessarily mean "belief" exactly, being perhaps more akin to "loyalty", which is much more reasonable and much less dangerous).

Also: there are at least two conceivable takes on "belief" for religious and pseudo-religious purposes.

Belief in the literal existence of a proposed deity as a lynchpin for doctrine to rely on is IMO an entirely misguided take. It is not obligatory for the Abrahamics, but from listening to their priests you would assume otherwise. I am in fact uncertain if there is even a point in attempting to salvage religiosity from them.

Asatru seems to be at least well prepared to deal with the far healthier and far more epistemologically sound approach of instead accepting deities as the abstract ideals that they are - an inspirational tool created by humans for human use.

 

[dybmh]

It is a double eged sword though. For it grants power to humans, clergy, to command other people to do what they wouldn't do otherwise. The binding of Isaac is a great example, a man willing to do anything that God commands.

The abrahamic God is always watching and you must obey (presuming you believe in the divine law). For while it is true that you may be able to run away from a human King, you can't escape from God's wrath.

Yes, it's a double edged sword. Although, the example you gave isn't ideal. But I know what you mean.

The point is, in theory, there is an authority over Abraham determining whether or not it was the right thing to do. If Abraham did the wrong thing, he would not be able to run and hide, like you said. No one can run and hide, even the authority, whoever that authority is.

 

[dybmh]

Can you perhaps provide an example? I am not quite understanding what you mean.

Sure! Some ( most? ) people are power seekers. They dominate others for personal gain and rationalize that in a number of ways. Subjegating oneself to a higher power is an antidote to power seeking behavior.

The comment I was replying to was saying that *all* Abrahamic practice creates a problem so that it can solve it. Meaning, it's marketing. "Sir or madam, you're going to hell, but if you do as I say, all of that can be avoided." But if this "hell" concept was manufactucred by the salesperson who's selling the remedy, then it's not a real problem, and the rememdy isn't real either.

I'm saying that there is a natural normal flaw in the human psyche that is addressed. Perhaps it can be addressed better in other ways for some ( many? ) people. But, my point is, it's not a manufactured theological problem that the same theologians have come to solve.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure! Some ( most? ) people are power seekers. They dominate others for personal gain and rationalize that in a number of ways. Subjegating oneself to a higher power is an antidote to power seeking behavior.

I am just not seeing it; in my experience it is instead a sure fire recipe for hipocrisy, malignant self-justification and vindictiveness.

It does not help when said higher power is such a conveniently malleable thing as the hypothetical abrahamic gods.

The comment I was replying to was saying that *all* Abrahamic practice creates a problem so that it can solve it. Meaning, it's marketing. "Sir or madam, you're going to hell, but if you do as I say, all of that can be avoided." But if this "hell" concept was manufactucred by the salesperson who's selling the remedy, then it's not a real problem, and the rememdy isn't real either.

I'm saying that there is a natural normal flaw in the human psyche that is addressed. Perhaps it can be addressed better in other ways for some ( many? ) people. But, my point is, it's not a manufactured theological problem that the same theologians have come to solve.

Sorry, I am just not seeing the logic there.

 

[dybmh]

I am just not seeing it; in my experience it is instead a sure fire recipe for hipocrisy, malignant self-justification and vindictiveness.

It does not help when said higher power is such a conveniently malleable thing as the hypothetical abrahamic gods.



Sorry, I am just not seeing the logic there.

Do we agree that power seeking is a natural human flaw?

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

Many people seem to think so.

To a considerable extent that is precisely why it does not work at all.

What makes something "work", though?
When something happens the way one wants it?
When one loses the ability to experience undesirable events and emotions?
When someone can survive longer than their ancestor?
When someone doesn't have to kill and/or consume life to preserve their own?

When people try to make something "work", it usually is about control, about being useful or desirable to their own judgment; they make it about power and popularity.
When people perceive this as the highest goal in life, it inevitably turns people into control freaks.
It's this disillusion about mankind's wisdom and power that helped me understand what "submission to God" or "following the Tao" means.

 

[Misunderstood]

While Abrahamic beliefs vary considerably, they also show very specific traits that, I want to argue here, put in doubt their ability to qualify either as religions proper or as ethically defensable doctrines.



1. What is an Abrahamic doctrine?

For the purposes of this text, I will define them as creeds or doctrines that adopt some version of Abraham's god - meaning that they specifically declare that god exists; that it is conscious; that it has a will that is in some sense responsible for existence itself; and that it is sufficiently aware of humanity to have communicated with specific people at least once during the history of human existence.

Every single one of those four stipulations is dubious at best. Nonetheless, literal billions of people have been raised to treat them as sacred truths, with varied and significant consequences.



2. What are we calling religions here?

For the purposes of this text, I will define religions as the activities that declare and attempt to discuss, delimitate and cultivate some set of perceptions of desirable virtues, moral values, and conceptions of what should be considered inherently admirable - or, in one word, Sacred.



3. What about God?

I am specifically refusing to use any form of concept of deity, divinity or god in my definition, because I have long concluded that it is very counterproductive to use those concepts even with qualifications or even to challenge them. They have grown meaningless and serve no constructive purpose except perhaps with considerable qualification. The main result of their casual use is deep obfuscation.



4. But...

No, really. I will not use any variation of god-concepts in my discussion of religions. That is final. That is not negotiable. And ultimately, that is removing a very big and very unnecessary hurdle that gets in the way of meaningful discussion and mutual understanding.

More specifically, "god talk" tends to create the superficial appearance that there is some actual, known-to-exist entity - or at least a clearly defined concept - that the word refers to. And that is just not true at all. Worse still, there are huge social taboos in place and constantly reinforced that make it hard to even point out that lack of object.

We all deserve better than just repeating that mistake for generation after generation.



5. If religions are not about god, what are they about instead?

Sometimes they are indeed about god. Or gods. Or Devas, or Kami, or totem spirits. There are all kinds of entities used for religious purposes, but few if any are expected to be one-size-fits-all answers for everything - except in the Abrahamic traditions, that is. Nor are those entities, which are not always expected to be taken as real by adherents, usually expected to be some source of supreme moral authority that somehow extends even to people who never heard of them.

In truth, god-conceptions are tools, useful mainly as shorthand for certain perspectives and values.



6. So what do I (Luis) consider to be a proper religion?

Religions are activities and exercises that aim to help people (sensitive and rational beings) in dealing with the anxieties and challenges that come from the realization of how little options we have in everyday life and how badly we want to achieve some sort of certainty and stability.

Of particular note is that they are aimed at the specific people and should take personal characteristics into account. Also, religion is a human activity that must take social and even technological circunstances into account; a healthy doctrine allows itself to be reconsidered and course-corrected often, and should in fact have mechanisms to pursue that correction.

Doctrines that do no acknowledge that need, including the Abrahamics, end up owing a debt to its own unsconcious herectics, who often end up doing the course-correction without receiving the proper gratitude in return.



7. Where to Abrahamic creeds stand by that perspective.

In short, they are strange and confused about what would a religion be.

I make something of an exception to Judaism, mainly because they accept that their creed isn't to be applicable for everyone.

Later Abrahamisms, however, aim to be true religions while doing arguably the exact opposite; they expect to build whole doctrines and ways-of-living based on the daring yet foolish bet that there is a creator of existence itself who also expects us to be personally in awe of its moral judgement, despite apparently going out of its way to make its very existence doubtful and inconsequential even if true.

But the main flaw of the Abrahamics is in presenting themselves as a Source of Truth that they would somehow have the right to impose on their own children as some sort of duty-of-belief. That is a disrespectful stance that reflects very badly indeed into the very idea of religiosity.

In religions that have a deity; you take the deity out of it; you have no religion, all we have left is humanism. In the Abrahamic religions what do you have if you take God out of it. You have already won the argument; the Bible is meaningless, just a book of stories, most stories in the Bible deal with God and his powers. If we have no God, the stories in the Bible are gone.

The Bible and God give us hope and direction. Without a God, what hope do we have. If things are hopeless in your life and you feel there is nothing left to live for. God says this life is only temporary there is a better life after this this can give us hope to go on. It gives us direction in our lives, something to strive for when we lose our direction. It helps us when life becomes to hard, knowing God is there when life gets to difficult.

Even if there is no God and God is only a crutch to get through life, to have something to hold onto when things are hard, some of us still need a God. I know there is a God, but don't know why those who do not believe in God, or feel they don't need God want to take Him away from all those who need him even if only for support.

I was not going to respond to this thread because you did not want God in the conversation. But seeing the conversation progress, I see that it is not possible to separate a Abrahamic religion from God. Because God is the core of the religion. And in this case I can prove there is a God for this conversation.