demoninho

Does the bible promote secularism, or did the world become secular in spite of christianity?


(don't know whether this is the correct forum :blush: )

Jabu Khan

I'd say the bible was more a response to secularism. An attempt to destroy it and replace it with an imperialistic god-emperor mind-set.

davidbach

I do not think that we can go that far. There are some parallels, though. The history of the OT revolves around the development of a monotheistic God that has no specific "being", but is rather "beingness" itself. (OK, I know this is highly simplified and maybe controversial, but describe it for yourself.) As a consequence, the idea of worshipping a golden calf, the sun or any other materialistiic phenomenon is anathema.

The result is that if you no longer deify the sun (for example), you are free to examine it without pre-conceived notions getting in the way. In other words, scientifically. So you are not offended to discover that the earth goes round the sun, not vice versa.

Sadly, there are those who totally misunderstand the bible and take an opposite reading. Let them go live in the stone age!

David.

Roger Pearse

In a sense. The hostility to paganism and superstition led to a much more secular mindset. If there is only one god, you can hardly worship the stars, which means that astronomy starts to be possible. Etc.

All rather a question of judgement, tho.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

lpetrich

That's metaphysical bullshit that does not describe the Biblical God at all; that entity is not depicted as Pure Being, whatever that might be, but as a Universe-controlling anthropomorphic superbeing.

Actually, it's the idea of worshipping any gods other than a certain one.

That is one big fat non sequitur, because all one's doing is claiming that a different god is controlling the Sun.

Heliocentrism was first proposed not by anyone in the Bible, but by someone who was at least nominally a Hellenic pagan -- Aristarchus of Samos. davidb, how could a pagan be capable of discovering anything?

No Robots

Not at all. See here.

Amaleq13

IIRC, this description of God does follow from the self-identifying, biblical term "I am".

davidbach

I an not sure that I should reply to this, but here goes.
As I said, describe it for yourself. Not very far from my description, though.

Now that is non sequitur!

Roger Pearse offered just about the same line of reasoning, I agree with his post.

Thanks to No Robots and Ameleq13. I feel vindicated.

post tenebras lux

Sounds more like a much later post hoc rationalisation of some silly magical thinking: that words have power, and that knowing the true name of god would give power. Hence the commandment not to take his name in vain, etc.

Actually, that same old magical thinking is still alive in christianity today when dealing with demons and other causes of sickness: in the name of Jesus I command thee ..., etc.

Malachi151

What a bunch of absolute nonsense.

The Roman world was largely secular prior to about the 3rd century CE, when the Roman Empire began getting into problems, and the power of the State as well as the Priesthood began asserting themselves more.

When the Christians took over in the 4th and 5th centuries they certianly extended the power of religion in public policy to a degree never before seen in the Roman world.

This business of Christians being "secular reformers" who "opposed superstition" is the biggest bunch of hogwash.

And, I should add, the main things that the Christians opposed were not "pagan beliefs", afterall they integrated many of them, the main thing that they railed against was Epicureanism, Atomism, and Stoicism, all of the secular materialist worldviews.