*credit to madmikesamerica for the info. — The scientific philosopher

A reading of the Bible yourself will reveal even more appalling stuff, and some very pleasing passages as well.

There are various threads running through the OT: there are the prophetic threads, the holiness threads, the historical threads, the liturgical threads, and so on. Warfare in Biblical times and places was brutal, and sometimes the intent was genocidal: kill the women, children, and men, making sure that nobody survives. The holiness threads include some fairly brutal guidance for people who behave contrary to the local norms.

So, as has been noted elsewhere, the Bible is basically adult reading material, and one has to parse out the brutal from the pacifistic passages, like Isaiah 52:7,

How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"

We will pass over in silence the fact that sometimes "feet" were a euphemism for "penis". For instance, in one passage, there is reference to someone "covering their feet" and another someone shaved their feet. Probably not their feet, more likely their dick. Or, in a passage someone touches his father's thigh and swears loyalty. I bet it wasn't his "thigh" that he swore on.

But never mind that.

One has to remember that ancient Israel was founded in the middle of a cross roads between various competing power blocks, and had to defend itself, and even then didn't succeed a good share of the time.

It is possible to pull several quite different narratives out of the Bible for one's own use.

There are many other atrocities in the bible and I urge you to research them. — The scientific philosopher

Is there a point to this? The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore [fill in the blank].

Is there a point to this? — T Clark

Are you serious? The guiding book of one of the world's most popular religions is filled with misogyny, homophobia, genocide, and racism and your response is basically, so what?

As a non-Christian who's only skimmed parts of the Bible, I'm wondering if there's a fundamental distinction to be made between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to these sorts of issues? To my knowledge the more troubling things in the Bible--at least from our current perspective--are only found in the OT, while the NT seems much more aligned with modern values.

I'm largely ignorant as to how the reconciliation between the two takes place, other than being vaguely aware of explanations which point to the radically different historical contexts in which they occur.

I will say, however, that it seems as though many secular and progressive-minded people--who are often hostile to religion in an unqualified way--often mock and ridicule Christians and Christianity without realizing how deeply it's influenced their own values and beliefs. The religion has clearly been appropriated by racists, imperialists, and other reactionaries to justify heinous things, but it's also inspired many an anti-slavery abolitionist, anti-war pacifist, etc. through the years when these positions may not have been as popular or respectable as they are now.

Things like compassion for the less fortunate, the equality of all souls before God, and the inherent value and dignity of all human life seem to have their origin in the NT, right? The Enlightenment (and it's later development into socialism) are even understood by some, like Hegel and Nietzsche, as the secularization of these Biblical ideals.

And it's precisely this lingering moral influence that motivated Nietzsche's critique of Christianity! Or, more properly perhaps, his critique of the specific values which it was the first to articulate (compassion, equality, etc.) at the expense of a more "natural" and honest appraisal of the necessary conditions for an affirming life.

I've found it a bit odd that some of the most militantly non-religious, anti-Christian people frame their critique of it (more charitably, it's historical distortions, which they generally make no effort to distinguish from more genuine expressions) in terms of the very values that arose through the religion they're so strongly criticizing. Seems a little unfair. Apologies for the digression.

Things like compassion for the less fortunate, the equality of all souls before God, and the inherent value and dignity of all human life seem to have their origin in the NT, right? — Erik

No.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/
https://www.zmescience.com/science/anthropology/early-human-societies-sexual-egalitarian-90534534/

I could go on.
There's absolutely no evidence that any of the values Christianity claims were instilled by Christianity. Every single one can be seen directly in pre-Christian societies and can be seen having been eroded in heavily Christianised societies, it's absolute nonsense to say that Christianity has anything to do with these values.

We only have one history so we cannot possibly use that fact that things turned out as they did to justify a belief that they can only have been the result of influences around at the time. Unless we can re-run history without those influences it is nothing but idle speculation.

What I imagine was meant is, in the context of christianity.

I'll take a look at each of these links and maybe respond in more depth later, but I did read some of the blog post and found it interesting. I don't think that positing hunter-gatherer tribes as largely peaceful and egalitarian necessarily precludes also acknowledging the significance of Christianity in disseminating similar positions within much larger and more stratified societies. Maintaining the equality of all members within a tribe of 20-50 people seems quite a bit different than acknowledging the equality of all people within all tribes.

I'm also a little suspicious of the idea that hunter-gatherer tribes maintained a deep respect for the individual autonomy of those tribal members. I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that the mere notion of individual autonomy could only arise within a fairly sophisticated moral and intellectual framework. Furthermore, the claim the author makes regarding this commitment to individuality seems vitiated by the his later claim that:

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

How does putting intense pressure on each member to conform to the egalitarian values of the tribe square with their ostensible valuing of the autonomy of each individual? I'll read it through again to see if there's a solution to the dilemma, but that seems a bit contradictory. To me, it would appear that individuality would need to be subordinated to the larger goals of the group in order to maintain its collective existence.

But I'm honestly not emotionally-invested in this issue, and if it turns out that I'm wrong then I'll gladly shift my position and give credit where credit is due. Or perhaps other, much more knowledgeable members who may be partial to Christianity (or religion more generally) will pick up the position I briefly outlined and defend it in a way that I'm incapable of.

Wow, for a moment, I thought this is @charleton >:O

I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that the mere notion of individual autonomy could only arise within a fairly sophisticated moral and intellectual framework. — Erik

I'm curious as to why you would assume this, perhaps you could expand?

How does putting intense pressure on each member to conform to the egalitarian values of the tribe square with their ostensible valuing of the autonomy of each individual? — Erik

Pretty much in the same way as any respect for egalitarian values must. We cannot just let murderers murder out of respect for their autonomy, because it interferes with the autonomy of another. Tribes living from hand-to-mouth recognised that if one tribe member got ideas of grandeur that could literally be deadly to the tribe's survival, relying so heavily as it does on co-operation. At least, that's the theory.

Maintaining the equality of all members within a tribe of 20-50 people seems quite a bit different than acknowledging the equality of all people within all tribes.

I'm also a little suspicious of the idea that hunter-gatherer tribes maintained a deep respect for the individual autonomy of those tribal members. — Erik

I think your problem is based on a lack of basic knowledge. People who study h/g Society would not accept your caricature. In the world c 15kbp the entire world was covered with 1000s of disparate groups of humans. Understanding them has to come from extant h/g societies. What we can learn from these studies is that there is NO possible caricature that fits and the diversity of the strategies covers every conceivable extreme in human culture. If we were to chose the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon, we find possibly the most bellicose, vicious and aggressive way of life, misogynistic and hateful. Contrast that with the Hadza, and the San of Southern Africa and we get the most kind, thoughtful egalitarian and sharing strategies that put any so-called Christian to shame. In particular the !Kung San have no word for thanks you, since sharing, giving and co-operating are the norm. They scorn ostentatious gestures of generosity, have no concept of property except for one or two personal items.
Looking wider you can find gender equal tribes, where women hunt and men look after the children. And the complete opposite where women are nothing more than chattel, like biblical society.

But make no mistake the "Original Affluent Society" , characterised by Marshal Sahlins, that is egalitarian is a fact of human society and still today more than just history.

I'm curious as to why you would assume this, perhaps you could expand? — Pseudonym

Provisionally, I'd say that when I think of individual autonomy I think of things like the Cartesian ego, an emphasis on the primacy of subjectivity and self-consciousness, a "rich inner life," and social contract theory grounded in atomic individuality, just to name a few. These and related concepts took a very long time to develop in the West.

I imagine most "experts" would agree that the ancient Greeks had reached a fairly high level of social and philosophical complexity during the times of Plato and Aristotle, and yet to my knowledge even they hadn't developed a notion of autonomous individuality comparable to our modern understanding of it.

These and other things seem to be preconditions for making any sense at all of autonomous individuality. But I'll assume the idea as it relates to hunter-gatherer tribes may be used in a much different way than we currently use it. If so, I think that difference should be highlighted in order to avoid confusion.

Pretty much in the same way as any respect for egalitarian values must. We cannot just let murderers murder out of respect for their autonomy, because it interferes with the autonomy of another. Tribes living from hand-to-mouth recognised that if one tribe member got ideas of grandeur that could literally be deadly to the tribe's survival, relying so heavily as it does on co-operation. At least, that's the theory. — Pseudonym

Well, let's at least acknowledge the massive difference between expressions of individuality which involve murdering other individuals and the much more benign examples offered up by the writer, like "boasting" and "putting on airs."

I think your problem is based on a lack of basic knowledge. People who study h/g Society would not accept your caricature. — charleton

Isn't the "noble savage" a caricature?

That's the picture painted of the hunter-gatherer in the blog post I read. It's likely that both sides simplify and ignore things that don't fit their model.

But you could be right. I sincerely appreciate being disabused of my ignorance on matters such as these.

Yes. JJ Rousseau used the idea effectively in a political platform used to critique so-called 'civilised' society. With most caricatures there is much to recommend it factually.

For sure, and I appreciate Rousseau's doing so. It seems like the motif goes much further back than modern times even, with Tacitus (if I recall correctly) favorably juxtaposing the barbarian Germanic tribes with the effeminate and decadent Romans of his time.

an emphasis on the primacy of subjectivity and self-consciousness, a "rich inner life" and social contract theory grounded in atomic individuality, — Erik

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of behaviour which might demonstrate some of the above traits that is common in modern society but absent in hunter-gather society. That might help to clarify things.

... the much more benign examples offered up by the writer, like "boasting" and "putting on airs." — Erik

I thought I had just explained how, in hunter-gatherer society, these are far from benign, is there something you don't understand, or disagree with.

I thought I had just explained how, in hunter-gatherer society, these are far from benign, is there something you don't understand, or disagree with. — Pseudonym

Maybe you could offer examples of what forms of "autonomous individuality" were commonly embraced and practiced in those early hunter-gatherer societies. If boasting is seen as a threat to the tribe, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how respect for the freedom of the individual has much meaning. Current prejudice, perhaps.

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of behaviour which might demonstrate some of the above traits that is common in modern society but absent in hunter-gather society. That might help to clarify things. — Pseudonym

Individual rights as enshrined in our political constitutions. Specifically things like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as developed in liberal democracies; the Reformation idea that each individual stands in a relationship to God alone and does not need a mediating clergy; a language in which concepts like individuality and "self-consciousness" seem to posit an inner/outer split that's probably not as natural or as obvious as it now seems to us and which seems to underlie assumptions about autonomous individuality, etc.

But maybe you can point out the historical precedents underlying hunter-gatherer individuality, though, as evinced in their language and customs. So far, what they understood by autonomous individuality appears to be a far cry from what we understand by it. Will you acknowledge that we may talking about vastly different notions here? And that we may be retroactively projecting certain ideas and values that have meaning for us onto previous groups that they may not have ascribed to or even understood in our sense? Seems an incredibly ahistorical approach.

Maybe you could offer examples of what forms of "autonomous individuality" were commonly embraced and practiced in those early hunter-gatherer societies. — Erik

Certainly.

1. Hunter gather tribes almost never tell their children what to do, there are no schools, no formal education and children are free to do exactly as they please. From Gosso, "Hunter-gatherers do not give orders to their children; for example, no adult announces bedtime. At night, children remain around adults until they feel tired and fall asleep.… Parakana adults [of Brazil] do not interfere with their children’s lives. They never beat, scold, or behave aggressively with them" Contrast this with the forced education of modern societies.

2. You could look at Shu Nimonjiya's work with the Mlabri of Northern Thailand where she concludes "...personal autonomy is an important social principle among the Mlabri. In fact, they said, “For us, ‘freedom’ is to think alone and do alone”.

3. Robert Moïse concludes after living with the Bayaka "individuals [are] deeply committed to personal autonomy are able to produce an enduring social order based on extensive cooperation and a "dense" sociality. He argues that this is achieved though a decision-making process which approaches each decision by maximising the ability for each participant to do as they please.

I'm not sure how many examples you want, but I'm happy to dig out as many as you're interested in reading.

Individual rights as enshrined in our political constitutions. Specifically things like freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience as developed in liberal democracies, the Reformation idea that each individual stands in a relationship to God alone and does not need a mediating clergy, a language in which concepts like individuality and "self-consciousness" seem to posit an inner/outer split that is probably not as "natural" or obvious as it now seems to us, etc. — Erik

I'm still not seeing where you're getting your data from. You've said rights are enshrined in our constitutions, but not provided any evidence that they were not similarly enshrined in the unwritten social codes of early hunter gatherers. What evidence do you have that freedom of speech was ever restricted in hunter-gatherer societies, any more than it is today? I've just provided examples of how freedom of conscience is held in very high regard in hunter gatherer societies, I'm not seeing any contrary evidence that any such societies ever disregarded it.

I think possibly, as Charleton earlier suggested, you may simply be coming at this with modern society's prejudices about hunter gatherers, or am I still missing your point?

But even Tacitus recognised that Rome prevailed. I'd put Tacitus in the camp of bigging-up your opponents to make yourself look good for conquering them.
He also seemed to be genuinely interesting in the way the Germans ran their political system, and historians and anthropologists use him as a source, especially in the interests of proto-democracy.

Fair enough, Pseudonym, but what if their children boasted? Would they be reprimanded like the adults? Are we to assume that children were given perfect freedom to do as they pleased and yet the adults were forced to rigidly conform to group values?

And also, pointing out that hunter-gatherer societies didn't subject their kids to schools or formal education of any sort is really odd, for the obvious reason that these things didn't even exist, and this because there was no need for them given the specific circumstances of the life of the tribe.

Concerning #2, the very idea of "personal" autonomy implies some sense of separateness from others. Again, if this term is being used in a special sense then IMO it should be clarified accordingly. As it is it carries strong connotations of the freedom of individuals to think and act in ways that aren't completely determined by larger social pressures and constraints. It's a matter of degree, though, and I'll gladly concede that absolute freedom and autonomy is a fiction.

I think I should also point out that this debate seems to have larger implications for many people that it doesn't for me. I'm not trying to disparage "primitive" peoples at all; in some ways they may have been much more advanced than us, and I'd like to explore these possibilities. This contrast appears to be way of criticizing "advanced" modern civilization in the very way that Rousseau did during his own time.

If that's so, then I want to make it clear that I'm not an uncritical proponent of the values and assumptions underlying our fast-paced consumerist world by any stretch. I'm actually a romantic of sorts who longs for a more "simplified" and less-alienated way of being than what we typically find in the West these days.

And when I say simplified I don't necessarily mean it in a negative way, and likewise more "developed" does not always equate to being superior in every way; in fact it could run contrary to being "developed" in essential ways: morally, ethically, environmentally, artistically... So I'm partly sympathetic to the position you're proposing here, but also haven't found much of it to be all that convincing so far.

Just wanted to throw that out there to avoid possible misunderstanding.

The key thing is that the adults are not reprimanded, they are ridiculed, or ostracised (in extreme cases). Children are treated the same way (except ostracisation, of which I have come across no examples involving children). It is a responsive justice, not a retributionary one, individuals are not forced to conform, they may do as they please, but so may the rest of the tribe, including ridiculing and ostracising.

Not that this is the place for such a discussion, but the key difference is the means of survival. Without land ownership, any individual has the means to their own survival, they can choose, should they so wish, to abandon the tribe and just wander around hunting their own food. Land is not owned, food is not owned. Thus a person is actually 'free' to do as they wish. Membership of a tribe is voluntary in that no member of a tribe actually creates a situation which restricts the ability of any other member to fend for themselves. This is contrasted with modern society where membership of society is not voluntary. The members of a society (through force of arms) create and maintain a situation where it is not possible for a person to abandon the tribe and fend for themselves. All land is owned, hunting is not free. The function of any social coercion to conform is therefore radically different in a society where one actually has a choice, than in one where one does not.

But even Tacitus recognised that Rome prevailed. I'd put Tacitus in the camp of bigging-up your opponents to make yourself look good for conquering them.
He also seemed to be genuinely interesting in the way the Germans ran their political system, and historians and anthropologists use him as a source, especially in the interests of proto-democracy. — charleton

Good points. I'll have to dust off Tacitus' book and give it another read.

Are you serious? The guiding book of one of the world's most popular religions is filled with misogyny, homophobia, genocide, and racism and your response is basically, so what? — Pseudonym

Here's what I said:

Is there a point to this? The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore [fill in the blank]. — T Clark

I didn't dispute the litany of terrible things the church was accused of, I asked a question. What is the point of this? What do we do with this information? What conclusion do we draw? Let's try a few:

The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore.....

• no one should believe in the Christian God.
• no one should believe in any God.
• religion should be outlawed.
• Christians should be put in jail.
• people shouldn't give their money to religious institutions.
• the Christian church is evil.
• the clergy should be put in jail.
• we should stop giving tax breaks to religious institutions.

Are those the things you want? If not, what? The way the original post was presented, there seemed to be a point of view. This didn't seem to be presented just for information. There was a point. What was it?

Are we supposed to believe that all the stories you read in these books are true?

This is a philosophical forum; the implication of your dismissal is that there is no philosophical discussion that results from the immorality of the bible (either that or you were just being belligerent and trying to ruin someone else's legitimate discussion just because you're not interested in it).

So why no similar interjection on the many threads discussing other aspects of the bible? Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text. If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas.

We either take the bible as a whole or we pick each idea we like from it and ignore the ones we don't. If we do the latter then the bible need not be mentioned aside from a brief credit as to the origin of the idea, if we do the former then the atrocities it condones need to be accounted for by normal moral standards.

In either case I can't see any situation in which they are irrelevant to philosophical discussion.

Are we supposed to believe that all the stories you read in these books are true? — Bitter Crank

Have you not heard of Religion? That is pretty much the deal. There are literalists and there are those who think the bible is just metaphor, but you're really clutching at straws to suggest that the several genocides, beatings and abuse are some kind of metaphor, for what exactly?

So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it.

In neither case are the points made the the OP irrelevant.

Have you not heard of Religion? — Pseudonym

I was referencing your response to Erik, and the quotes about hunter-gatherers, not the Bible. I don't totally disbelieve what the authors said about hunter-gatherers, but I am suspicious of anthropologists' observations and conclusions. For one thing, HG groups are small, and whatever it is about them doesn't translate very well to societies with even 10,000 members, let alone 320 million to over a billion members. The other thing is the idea that these groups are the same now as they were 12000 to 15000 years ago, and earlier. Doubtful. Some anthropologists seem to suggest that civilization killed the hunter gatherer star. If so, tough bounce.

As far as the Bible is concerned,

Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text. — Pseudonym

The Bible is neither a load of irrelevant nonsense nor is it a philosophical text. There may be "irrelevant nonsense" in the Bible, and there is some philosophical material. But the Bible is mostly a multi-purpose text that was accumulated, revised, and edited to suit various purposes at various times.

In other words, its a problematic book, OT and NT both.

We either take the bible as a whole or we pick each idea we like from it and ignore the ones we don't. If we do the latter then the bible need not be mentioned aside from a brief credit as to the origin of the idea, if we do the former then the atrocities it condones need to be accounted for by normal moral standards. — Pseudonym

I recommend that you keep the ideas I like, and skip the rest.

Certainly the behaviors described in the OT, especially during the conquest of the "promised land" by the Hebrews was brutal, which conquest generally was, in those days--and more recently, too. Yes, the approach was genocidal in intent, even if it wasn't genocidal in fact. And certainly, we shouldn't take the behavior of Israel in it's formative years (all BCE) as exceptional. Warfare and conquest was brutal pretty much across the board. I don't like it, but that's the way it was. Of course, we civilized moderns NEVER do anything wantonly brutal, ghastly, genocidal, cruel, murderous, etc. as we carry out 20th/21st century policy.

Humans are a bad lot, I tell you.

This is a philosophical forum; the implication of your dismissal is that there is no philosophical discussion that results from the immorality of the bible (either that or you were just being belligerent and trying to ruin someone else's legitimate discussion just because you're not interested in it). — Pseudonym

As I've asked in two posts so far, what point is the scientific philosopher trying to make? What are the implications of the terrible things he says the church has done? Why can't he, or you, answer my question. And if you don't want to, fine, but don't pretend I'm being belligerent. Have you noticed that he has not commented since his original post? Here's what the Site Guidelines say about people who start threads:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

So why no similar interjection on the many threads discussing other aspects of the bible? Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text. — Pseudonym

So, you've gone back and checked my posts since I joined in April? I comment on religious topics sometime, but it's not my main topic of interest. I generally take the side opposite those who are being rigid and ideological. It's funny - sometimes it's the pro-religion side and sometimes the anti-religion side. How was TSG's OP philosophical.

In either case I can't see any situation in which they are irrelevant to philosophical discussion. — Pseudonym

I agree, but TSP's OP was not a philosophical discussion. It was a statement of what he sees as the facts with no discussion of what the significance of those facts are.