> The idea I've seen proposed was that the wealthy and elite in exile were presented with an opportunity to recover their heritage and homeland if they demonstrated they had a heritage/ Does this sound right?

I'm not qualified to say anything with certainty of course, but from what I know it is pretty clear that the Torah is not a singular, constructed narrative. It is compiled from at least four, relatively easily distinguishable sources who conflict in many aspects of the histories and theologies they present.

Exactly when and why these sources got combined into one text is highly debated, but from what I have heard it likely happened in multiple stages from the destruction of the northern kingdom 720BC onward until -and maybe even after- the babylonian exile. It has not been composed for one specific reason, or at one point in time.

One of the early main reasons could have been to integrate refugees from the north and their culture into the south. Another later on, that most of the traditional leadership in judaism had been destroyed, -the Levites, the house of David and the north-, and the priests of the remaining house of Aaron that ruled during the theocratic phase of judaism, sponsored by the persian kings following the exile, making adjustments to legitimize their power.

One thing that is also rather clear though, is that whatever the Bible says is not a accurate description of the religion of the common people. It's strictly a religious text by and for the political elites of the country, and what they would have liked their countries religion to be. The vast majority of the people could not read it and never visited Jerusalem, much less the Temple, and likely never heard an official priest speak. There are loads of archeological evidence that monotheism and worship in only Jerusalem was not as prevalent as the writers of the bible would like you to believe, for example. They lived their own lives with their own problems, and so they had their own faith apart from whatever the elites were doing. Worship of a female god and wife of Yahweh, Asherah, seems to have been prevalent for quite a while. That makes perfect sense to me: why would a peasant worship a patriarchal god of kingship when his wife is in labor and the rains fail to arrive? He would naturally pray to Asherah for a healthy birth and Baal for the rain instead. That's why the bible condemns such things all the time, because it no doubt happened A LOT.

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

But then, cooperation can be implicit, collective, and cultural as well as organised and/or interpersonal. We thrive and survive together with all those in our group - which can be as large as a country, at least.

So, there are a number of, say, moral psychological consequences of being part of a group. Group solidarity and loyalty is one of them, because I depend on everyone else in the group, and: 1) I am committed to helping the other group members; 2) I am sure they would do the same for me. You could say, the limits of my group mark the limits of my inclusive fitness - because all my fellow group members, together, are helping me to thrive and survive.

There may come a time where someone may try to save a drowning person. Who would he or she sacrifice him or herself for? Most probably, a child, or a loved one. I think this is the caring instinct rather than the group loyalty instinct. The caring instinct evolved as parental care in birds and mammals, and became available for use in humans for interdependent social living situations.

>Suppose I do just want to make other people happy. I just want to help end suffering for other people.

That's being prosocial. You wish well for others. I have formalised this propensity in terms of evolutionary ethics, in "Perfect Compassion", p. 33. The opposite is to thrive at the expense of others, whether knowingly, or unknowingly, and whether or not it is enjoyable to do so, sought out, etc. That is called D, the Dark factor of personality ("Dark and light traits", p. 182).

The two extremes are joined by a continuum of how generous one is, or its opposite: how exploitative and harmful. See a diagram of sorts: "Unconditional love", p. 178.

I don't actually evaluate either one from any kind of viewpoint - I only describe them. Most people are prosocial (p. 193), and that's the way I personally like it.

>You are what you are. You will always do what you want to do. The question is only how should we structure our society around that, so that we are all most likely to succeed at our own goals.

I am sadly pessimistic that the corrupt and wicked will not end up killing the world. Narcissists rule the day and cause the most destruction and chaos.

It seemed to me the whole point of the Bible was to not hoard wealth. I follow Jesus’s teachings, and believe the true corruption “or Satan” is the church itself. They worship the institution and use the word for personal gain. The true deceivers.

Jesus was just like, hey I’m god but also human but I’m also you and we are god and the Holy Spirit.

We are gods, mindfulness is enlightenment, distraction from self is sin.

Schizorantover

>and yes, it’s ridiculous on its face and throughout.

What exactly is "it" referring to here?

they definitely seem to be lacking in the self-awareness/sense of irony department

[deleted]

(working backwards from weirdly specific shit that I already want to be true) FOOL, I HAVE DEDUCED THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF ALL KNOWLEDGE

[removed]

Sounds like you apply that label to most people.

I actually self-identify as a heathen, but I only moonlight as a troll.

Ironic thing is they still use mythology, a collection of myths: a widely held but false belief.

Are you saying the reason child birth is painful and that women have periods is not due to sin? There possibly can’t be any other explanation. /s

I could chuck a cold polly-o and hurt somebody with it.

Not so sure that's true, if God is an abstraction of self-representation in some form, then surely culture and representation come first?

It may provide insight into your stance on staying alive (that may be contrary to your self-perceptions on it, at times).

>Considering that: did you get vaccinated for COVID?

why?

I'm determined to enjoy this entire article, but I see this type of thing on reddit all the time, and that's the notion that what academics call "modernity" in terms of agriculture, tool use, abstract thinking, and singing/dancing, is somehow related to the emergence of conscience and the metaphorical concept of Adam and Eve.

I'm pretty sure that the appreciation of God by some occurred long before what we would more accurately describe as culture.

You actually come off kind of like a heathen internet troll, TBH.

I'm about to read the article, but your comment about the religious elite and King Hezekiah made me think of the notion that much of what was recorded for that time and times many centuries and millennia before, was a reflection of the scholarly assembly and authorship of these materials during the Babylonian exile in the 6th century BCE.

The idea I've seen proposed was that the wealthy and elite in exile were presented with an opportunity to recover their heritage and homeland if they demonstrated they had a heritage/ Does this sound right?

I've always accepted that to mean that anything passed on or shared prior to that time was strictly an oral tradition.

I was coming at it from the perspective that most people tend to prefer not being killed (or dying in general).

Considering that: did you get vaccinated for COVID?

"(...)engaging with a language structure that does not have to be literal to be profoundly true, a point already accepted by most believers in most arenas outside of the scientific..."

What? lol, scientist in some degree apply this too.

Newton invented a force that he couldnt see, or touch but "feel" and create all his "world" around it. Years after his dead with Einstein we learned that it's not a force but a consequence of the bind of space-time, but the force itself dosnt exist.

But for Newton until his dead Gravity was like god.

So, to some degree scientist apply this too.

you won't think that cheese is mental gymnastics when you feel the kinetic energy of mozzarella at 0.2c

And why not? People out here saying it's allegory, which is kinda fckin rude to say about a culture's creation myth. Pretty sure Genesis is just the Jewish story of creation.

Interpretation is how we get Christian absurdities like Satan in the Garden. It's just a snake.

Yes