I only have a familiarity with Christianity and the “no other gods before me” thing. I am curious what other religions have to say about it.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think the trick here is “written”. I can’t speak for Islam, but the Bible says nothing about killing all infidels and apostates. Maybe some old papal decrees endorse it if you’re catholic.

    Killing people for being different or questioning your ways is a time-honoured tradition for everyone.

    • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      I don’t think it is very important what exactly is written down. These books contain lots of contradictions. And they’re made to a degree so people can find what they’re looking for. It’s all interpretation and the same book can and has been cited to start wars, kill the neighbors, sell them to slavery, torture people. Or be nice to them. Considering societal norms and killing people: It’s all in there, you can oftentimes pick.

      And I’m not sure what’s in the old testament. As I know it, it probably also doesn’t talk negatively about killing apostates. It’s probably at least allowed to kill them. I haven’t opened a bible in 20 years, I’d need to look it up. if it’s there, it’s probably with all the “their blood shall be upon them.” lines in leviticus.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        The trick with the old testament is that it was written across a good chunk of the bronze age. Some of the early-written passages don’t even assume monotheism or a unified Jewish identity, and as a result you see other slightly later ones selling it pretty hard (how hard is not worshiping a golden cow, really?). Joshua killed many, but I don’t know off the top of my head to what degree that was about religion, versus ethnicity or literally just standard pillaging procedure. Almost certainly different writers had different perspectives.

        White gentiles weren’t even in the picture until Paul’s letters, though, so I’m confident they weren’t directly given permission for anything.

        • rufus@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          You’re right. My brain kind of skipped a bit on the fact that what we call the Old Testament is also an accumulation of texts from a larger timespan.

          I was under the impression that all of that was more a tribal thing. This is the story of the descendants of Jacob, the Israelites, Samaritans etc. Versus Babylonians, Egypts, Assyrians… And group identity was very important. You can’t rob your direct neighbor who is part of the same group. That would leave everyone in anarchy and chaos, not a somewhat stable society. So instead you burgle rivaling groups of people, steal their food, donkeys, women, and make them your slaves. It’s not really about ethnicity or religion. All of that is more a means of having a strong cohesion within your group and have them fight against the rivaling groups, not amongst themselves. Or a stronger group will take your things. Tribes also are friendly towards some other tribes and might share a common enemy. The content of the stories and traditions isn’t that important, but it’s what makes you distinct from your rivals, regulates who you’re allowed to enslave and gives a feeling of belonging to your group and also reassures you that you’re right. But in my view it’s more a means of forming stable tribal structures, and not a cause of something. I’m not a historian, though.