@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)

Can you stop tagging me in these things please. I'll comment on them if they interest me at the time. Thanks.

Ok sorry.

It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. — Arcane Sandwich

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

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.

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.)

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. Plainly for much of the history of the Christian West, the 'Holy Land' occupied the role of the Axis Mundi, the spiritual 'centre of the world', however with the discovery of the New World, and increased awareness of global cultures other than the Christian, this sense cannot help but have faded in the popular imagination.

(Also see The Jerusalem Syndrome.)

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase. — Arcane Sandwich

Are there not many brute facts that undermine FN's observation? Pretty sure that he would have accepted as a brute fact that if we were to kill a writer that writer would compose no more books.

↪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?

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. — Arcane Sandwich

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!"

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).

Is that a fact or an interpretation? — Arcane Sandwich

Seems to be a fact. In this case a biological, psychological, sociological fact.

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

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.

World domination seems to be built into the text.

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.

It matters in international politics — Arcane Sandwich

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

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.

I find it hard to care much about this. Politics simply uses religious, historical or scientific rationale as justifications for taking action. Whether it is who should be in what country, or who gets to call themselves male or female. None of this is tied to anything more substantial than the manipulation of a set of claims, to which one can easily respond with a set of counter claims. Often it's the one with the best army who "wins" the debate - not the relative merits of the discourse.

The common theme is the manipulation of justifications as excuses for action.

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.

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. — Arcane Sandwich

But aren't most facts tied to a value system and a narrative rather than being bias free? For instance, for those who think the Bible is myth, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. There's also the problem that human beings never seem to agree on facts. What impartial body do we appoint to determine what the facts of any given matter are?

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)

he 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. — Arcane Sandwich

But what does this give you? Step out the logic further? What are the implications of this fact?

I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Biblical country. It's a construct. What I do believe is that certain countries have imposed values and identities upon citizens and use a selection of facts to maintain that identity.

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. — Arcane Sandwich

You are simply talking about a Christian nation (a construct), which like democracy or dictatorship is held in place by contingent factors. 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?

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.

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 — Arcane Sandwich

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.

Argentina's policy, from the entire country to every city and town, should not be based on one bronze age myth be 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. — Arcane Sandwich

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.

Biblical writers & ancient redactors didn't know that the Americas existed. They weren't discovered until many centuries after the Bible was written. However, since 70-90% of Argentinians are Catholics those ideas brought over by the Spanish and the missionaries did stuck in the minds of the people. Why do you think this is? Is it just the power of European brainwashing and church organization or is there something else at play?

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.

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.

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.

Argentina is a modern Nation-State. And, as all modern Nation-States, it is not Biblical. Hence, it is not subjected to Biblical Law. — Arcane Sandwich

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

↪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.

I guess we aren't going to make any progress here. Thanks.

Thanks for stopping by :up: