Ideological armor

[lpetrich]

There is an interesting difference between Greek mythology, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. A difference that is likely much broader.

In Greek mythology, nobody warns against worshipping other deities or believing in false belief systems, though it does warn against being disrespectful to the gods.

In the Old Testament, priests and prophets denounce worship of any deities other than the One True God, but they are presumed to be outsiders.

In the New Testament, we get warnings about "false Christs/messiahs and false prophets" and "what is falsely called knowledge" in addition to foaming at the mouth against the scribes and Pharisees. These are all warnings against people and beliefs and practices *inside* the community, as it were.

I call it "ideological armor", because it is a way of protecting against rival belief systems and practices. Greek mythology had little or no ideological armor, the Old Testament has some, and the New Testament has even more. Christian history has even more, in the numerous attempts to fight various heresies.

Ideological armor is not necessarily a bad thing. It helps to be at least somewhat skeptical, to avoid being gullible. In fact, Carl Sagan's famous dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence can be interpreted as a form of ideological armor. But this form of ideological armor can be used inappropriately, by demanding inappropriate burdens of proof and by goalpost-moving.

[Metacrock]

There is an interesting difference between Greek mythology, the Old Testament, and the New Testament. A difference that is likely much broader.

In Greek mythology, nobody warns against worshipping other deities or believing in false belief systems, though it does warn against being disrespectful to the gods.

In the Old Testament, priests and prophets denounce worship of any deities other than the One True God, but they are presumed to be outsiders.

In the New Testament, we get warnings about "false Christs/messiahs and false prophets" and "what is falsely called knowledge" in addition to foaming at the mouth against the scribes and Pharisees. These are all warnings against people and beliefs and practices *inside* the community, as it were.

I call it "ideological armor", because it is a way of protecting against rival belief systems and practices. Greek mythology had little or no ideological armor, the Old Testament has some, and the New Testament has even more. Christian history has even more, in the numerous attempts to fight various heresies.

Hey Ipie long time no see. Both bodies or work (Greek and J/C) are produced by a community. he warnings about false teaching and so on are the result of communities embattled as a result of their beliefs. They gave everything they and invested their lives in it why should they just allow some other group to take it over and change what it's about.

Ideological armor is not necessarily a bad thing. It helps to be at least somewhat skeptical, to avoid being gullible. In fact, Carl Sagan's famous dictum that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence can be interpreted as a form of ideological armor. But this form of ideological armor can be used inappropriately, by demanding inappropriate burdens of proof and by goalpost-moving.

atheists have ideology and armor and brain washing and the whole nine yards,

[lpetrich]

Hey Ipie long time no see. Both bodies or work (Greek and J/C) are produced by a community. he warnings about false teaching and so on are the result of communities embattled as a result of their beliefs. They gave everything they and invested their lives in it why should they just allow some other group to take it over and change what it's about.

That does not really answer the question. It seems much more like after-the-fact just-so stories than real historical investigation.

atheists have ideology and armor and brain washing and the whole nine yards,

And are thus much worse than fundie theocrats, right?