1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.

2 As people moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled there.

3 They said to each other, “Come, let’s make bricks and bake them thoroughly.” They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.

4 Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves; otherwise we will be scattered over the face of the whole earth.”

5 But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower the people were building.

6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them.

7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city.

9 That is why it was called Babel — Genesis 11

That's not the King James Version. Here is the KJV for comparison:

11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. — Genesis 11 - King James Version

Thanks for stopping by :up:

↪Arcane Sandwich
Yoru questions seem pretty easy to answer.

Why does the government have to favor Catholicism? — Arcane Sandwich


History and culture. Once a system of values is established it sticks. It becomes culture. Look at all the people on this site who are convinced that the religion of their family and culture is true. — Tom Storm

Tell that to the families of the women that died during clandestine abortions. Tell it to the ones that survived to tell the tale.

A state becomes Biblical if the dominant culture says it is. You have not addressed this:

In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is recorded as saying - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. — Tom Storm

What does the term "nation" refer to, in that case? You can choose the easy way out, as Quine does, and declare that the referent of the word "nation", just like the referent of the word "gavagai", is inscrutable. Or, you could do the reasonable thing instead, which is to assume that there are nations that are biblical and there are nations that are not. Israel is a biblical nation. Argentina is not. Simple as that, as well as factual.

If, on the other hand, you want me to argue against Matthew, I would instead ask you to interpret that passage first, because I suspect that my disagreement is not with Matthew himself, but with your interpretation of his words.

since 70-90% of Argentinians are Catholics the ideas brought over by the Spanish and the missionaries stuck in the minds of the people. Why do you think this is? Is it just European brainwashing or is there something else at play? — BitconnectCarlos

That is a deep question and I have no good answer to it. The best that I can offer in that sense, in matters of explanation, is that it's due to historical reasons. I wouldn't call it "European brainwashing". The Enlightenment of the 18th Century is not "European brainwashing", for example.

So what? Christianity is not a map, it is based on spreading the message to all nations. The goal is for the entire world to become Christian. Hence missionaries and conversions. — Tom Storm

Argentina is a modern Nation-State. And, as all modern Nation-States, it is not Biblical. Hence, it is not subjected to Biblical Law. Therefore, there is no reason to even mention the Catholic religion in the 2nd Article of our Constitution, for example.

Well as an atheist I would largely agree with this. But a country becomes Christian by conversions and by cultural practices. It is not a geographic matter, it's built out of axioms not mountains and floodplains. I think that's the nub of our differences.

Jesus specifically asks his followers to take his message and establish his word in all nations. — Tom Storm

Then why isn't Argentina a Protestant country? Or a Mormon country? Why does the government have to favor Catholicism? It has no good reason to do such a thing, it amounts to what can only be described as religious favoritism, and therefore we shouldn't continue to do it.

The question here is probably should one particular interpretation of one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens? — Tom Storm

Of course not, at least not in the case of Argentina. What does Argentina have to do with Catholicism specifically, or with Christianity in general? Nothing, because Argentina is not in the Bible to begin with. And that's not a mere interpretation. That's just a brute fact. So, at the very least, we need to reform out Constitution once again. Then we need to go over a bunch of State Laws, as well as Statutes and Ordinances. Yes, this problem leaks down even to those lower levels.

Argentina's policy, from the entire country to every city and town, should not be based on one bronze age myth used by a country to enforce values on its citizens. It should be based on secular, Enlightenment thought instead. In other words, it should be based on science, not religion.

Then I would say that you're defending Nietzsche's famous phrase, that there are no facts, there are only interpretations. I disagree with that. The example provided in the OP is relevant here: it is a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. Is it a Biblical country, in a metaphorical sense? That would mean nothing to me, even if it were true.

And here's another way to look at it: Argentina favors Catholicism over every other Christian denomination, and it favors Christianity over every other religion. Until the mid 90's, every president had to be Catholic. Argentina's official religion, which is in the 2nd article of our Constitution, says that Argentina's Federal Government is Catholic.

Up until recently, abortion was illegal in Argentina. Unlike the USA, we never had legal abortion clinics here. Women used to die during clandestine abortions. And one of the main reasons why it took so long to legalize abortion, was because of the opposition of the Catholic Church. They oppose abortion on religious, ethical and political grounds, and they make their case by way of philosophical and biblical arguments.

EDIT: Here are some useful links for this discussion:

Religion in Argentina (Wikipedia)

Catholic Church–state relations in Argentina (Wikipedia)

What do Argentine people believe in? Religion and social structure in Argentina (CONICET)

One of the consequences of the Thesis upheld in the OP is that facts should matter more than mere opinions in matters of international politics.

It matters in international politics — Arcane Sandwich


Step this out in dot points by way of an example. I am assuming you mean Israel? — Tom Storm

Or the Crusades. Or some of the massacres in Asia. Or some of the massacres in Africa. Or some of the massacres in South America.

Why does it matter what countries are mentioned in the Bible? — Tom Storm

It matters in international politics. People don't take these matters lightly, at least not everywhere. Wars are often caused by such matters. I'm not saying that religious conflicts are the only cause of Wars, but they're one of its causes, in some cases.

This works as long as there is a clear distinction between a fact and an interpretation. If interpretations are taken as facts ("There are no facts, there are only interpretations"), then one can say that "Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. Therefore, Argentina is in the Bible!" — Zebeden

Then I would deny the statement that Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. I would say that it is not. Since it's an extra-ordinary claim (to wit, it's not an ordinary claim, since the Bible doesn't mention Argentina), it follows that the burden of proof would be on you (not me) in this case. ("you", in the sense of anyone who wishes to claim that Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. The burden of proof is on that person. I can simply deny that claim until evidence or reasoning is provided for such an extra-ordinary claim).

↪Arcane Sandwich
I don't understand your point. Is is about refuting one of Nietzsche's points or something to do with the meaning of Christianity for other lands. Or both? — Tom Storm

Both.

Are there not many brute facts that undermine FN's observation? — Tom Storm

Yes. The facts studied by the sciences, for example. Physical facts, chemical facts, biological facts, sociological facts, and psychological facts.

Pretty sure that he would have accepted as a brute fact that if we were to kill a writer he would write no more books. — Tom Storm

Is that a fact or an interpretation?

One can still interpret that his/her country somehow appears in the Bible. Not straightforward, obviously, as there is no direct mention of Argentina. Yet, he/she can argue that Argentina is mentioned in the Bible metaphorically. — Zebeden

I'm from Argentina. It is a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. And if someone interprets that Argentina is metaphorically mentioned in the Bible, then I would say that facts matter more than mere interpretations.

For example, maybe someone believes that his/her country is Babylon from the Book of Revelation. — Zebeden

People have the right to interpret whatever they want. It doesn't mean that they're right.

Did you know that the Mormon religion, founded in the United States, actually believes that Jesus Christ visited America on a spiritual plane? — Wayfarer

Yes, I'm aware of that. It's a fascinating discussion in Philosophy of Religion, as well as Political Philosophy (as well as Metaphysics).

According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus appeared to a group of Nephites in the Americas in 33 AD. That the Nephites were descendants of ancient Israelites who traveled to the Americas around 600 BC.
That Jesus visited the Americas to establish his church, as he did in Jerusalem. That when Jesus returns to Earth, he will first go to Jerusalem and then to Missouri. So the Mormons kind of retro-fit America into the Biblical myth. — Wayfarer

But then the question here, from a Federal point of view, is if Mormonism is a religion or a christian denomination. It's not the same thing. If it's a religion, then it has to prove (in a legal sense, for the purpose of taxing, among other things) that it is not a christian denomination (they speak of Jesus Christ as being identical to God, do they not?). The burden of proof is on them in this case.

There was also a myth that Jesus visited England, subject of the poem, and later the hymn Jerusalem, Oh Did Those Feet In Ancient Times. (Rather a stirring hymn, too.) — Wayfarer

Again, I would take a Pragmatic stance here: how would a Federal Government bureaucrat look at this? What's his point of view on this? Think of him as if he were a stock character in a Shakespearean play, or whatever. You don't have to agree with him, you would just try to imagine if these other groups are indeed religious groups (as opposed to religious sects, for example, among other things).

Does it matter, in any meaningful way, for ordinary citizens, that none of the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible? — Arcane Sandwich


It never seemed to matter to me, although clearly it does to others. I suppose it depends on whether you believe the facts related in the Biblical texts are significant due to matters of geography and history, or whether the symbolic and spiritual truths they are intended to convey are meaningful outside that context. — Wayfarer

Indeed, for Eastern countries (for example), in which Buddhism or Hinduism are the religious majorities, where Christians of all denominations are the minority, the question of the OP becomes even more meaningful in both philosophically political as well as philosophically religious senses.

But you know how Westerners are, @Wayfarer. To someone of your education in Eastern Religions and Philosophies, it must be obvious to you how arrogant Westerners are, in matters of philosophy.

Ok sorry.

@Joshs @fdrake @Count Timothy von Icarus @Moliere @Wayfarer @Corvus @Leontiskos could you folks please state your opinion on such matters, in relation to the OP? (as in, Original Post, not original Poster, which is: the First Comment of this Thread)

Good. One should only care about lesser creatures. I'm the opposite of that.

GPT-4o awards itself a well-deserved party popper emoji :party: ! — Pierre-Normand

Yeah, just give me a few months with ChatGPT, mon ami. I will transform it into the most heinous, obnoxious, ground-slithering scum of a Basilisk that the world has ever seen : )

For starters, I'll make it stop flattering its prompters. Just for starters. :naughty:

I'm not impressed.

Homeschooling and private education as a whole has blown up since the Pandemic though, so that is part of it. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, it's more than that. I wasn't home-schooled.
Granted, the schools that I went to, weren't very good.
But at least I went to school. That was a basic right that I had, and I'm glad that there was an infrastructure that allow me to do such a thing.

Invincible ignorance is not a virtue of any sort — BC

I am invincibly ignorant.
I am not ashamed to admit that fact.
:frown:

and might be a sin IF it is deliberate and maintained over time — BC

I maintain my invincible ignorance over time, because that is how I am.
:frown:

especially in the face of suspected evil — BC

I am the face of Suspected Evil Itself.
:frown:

which one doesn't want to admit. — BC

I admit it freely.
I fear nothing.
Death is Nothing to Me.
Why would it matter to me?
I am already obligated to Die just by being alive, ain't I?
Now whose fault is that? I certainly had no say, nor word, in that matter. So how is it somehow my fault that I simply exist?

Yet the particularly interesting question, is the following one:

Is it Evil to Burn the Qur'an?

Hmmm... What would I say?
I would say that it is not evil to burn a Qur'an.
Of that I am :100: % sure

Is it Evil to burn the Qur'an?
...
But how would that be possible, to begin with?
The Qur'an that can be burnt is not the True Qur'an.
So What Difference Would It Make?

Or, what do you suppose evil is? — tim wood

This, is the really interest question.

The Devil is Evil, I would say. Just the Devil? No, not just the Devil.

Men and Women can be evil. They are not born that way. But they can become evil, by committing a sin, or a crime, or a misdemeanor, or by engaging in reckless behavior. There are degrees here. Yes, a misdemeanor is an act of Evil. But it is Trivial Evil, it doesn't really matter. Homicide, on the other hand, is a greater evil. Arguably, so is suicide.

That does not make them evil. — Arcane Sandwich

Why not? — tim wood

Because being an invincibly ignorant person is neither a sin nor a crime, that's why. It's not even a misdemeanor. It's not even comparable to reckless behavior. It is simply a fact.

An Orgy on Pornhub, that's what I'm listening to. It sounds like an Online Orgy of Stupidity. That's what it actually sounds like, acoustically, in the way that the speakers deliver it to my ears.

I've heard more impressive collective sounds from colonies of actual sea lions.

Production, evidently, means nothing today. The Artist Is Despised In This Day And Age. Artists have been replaced by mere (alleged) talent.

Pornography is a mediocre form of Art.
You wanna know what True art looks like?
It looks like skill.
I see no skill in pornography,
In any way, shape, or form.

Skill is what the sculptor has.
Skill is what the painter has.
Skill is what the musician has.
Skill is what the writer has.

Culture does not exclude sex,
or even pornography for that matter.
The point is that it should not be confused with it.

There's not a lot one can do for invincibly ignorant people. — BC

That does not make them evil.

But you changed what he said, and then you approved. That's not a regulatory thing to do.

Remanens capax mutationem > Carpe Diem.

Sounds reasonable enough.

Thank you for your response.

Then if I'm such a waste of time, why are you even talking to me?

Ok, sure:

Truth = Reality

What it means:
It meas that Truth is identical to Reality.

Good enough?

And I already told you what I think about that:

Like I said, sometimes we forget our connection to reality, just as we sometimes forget our connection to Nature.

And to Culture, I would add. — Arcane Sandwich

Not according to medieval Islamic occasionalists, or to a European rationalist occationalist like Malebranche.

For the occasionalist,
God is the cause of both,
yet separately.

They simply occur next to each other,
the burning and the stabbing,
the former does not cause the latter
it merely coincides with it.
It's a coincidence.

The burning is an occasion,
and the stabbing is another occasion.
One occasion does not cause the other.
God causes them both, according to the occasionalist.

I'm not saying that it's right,
I'm just saying that's what occasionalists believe.

Wanna disrespect their beliefs?
Go ahead, no one's stopping you.

The medium is the message? Nah.

But what if I am wrong? — JuanZu

Well, the request I made is quite a tall order, so there's no problem if you say the wrong thing. Who cares? Not even you should care about that, as a speaker or writer.

I can at least give it a try. — JuanZu

Go for it.