On Presentism

" Now, what I will - for instance - always criticize atheists/atheism for, is - when it occurs - what we may call 'presentism'. That is: We take modern standards and apply them to matters of the past - arguing that a Wise, Good, Eternal, Infallible God should know those things and tell us as much - as opposed to requiring us to figure that out. "

It is however not that simple, when our heart's desires or moods override our rationality. At that point the question isn't the educational background of what moral standards we adhere to, but one of how to deal with transgressions. That in turn isn't as simple as 'punishment' either, in as far as there are societal and cultural factors at play. Society and Culture here being abstract entities that are however figuratively in charge of executing moral judgment. And stuff. It's ... complicated.

An adjacent topic are generational shifts. These would be, I'd say, the most visible aspect of this. That is: Despite us having like the very same official codex of laws and morality for centuries - including expressions of art and philosophy - the effective "moral coding" might be drastically different ... from decade to decade.

We can so find, in regards to Christianity, that Christian cultures can drastically vary from one another. And with a usually crisp and clear moral message as that of Christ - it would only take ... "so much" for people to throw all the compassion and love out of the window. One issue that's often brought up is the matter of Slavery - which is somehow still a hot topic in the USA, though here in Europe ... it's really not. And while arguing that the Bible advocates for Slavery (which is certainly an exaggeration) may be a relevant issue over there - over here it really isn't!

Fascism would be another example. Here in Europe - or Germany in particular - the aftermath of World War 2 proliferated anti-fascistic sentiments. But now that enough time has passed for that awareness to have evaporated somewhat - it's almost like we're cycling back a century. And in the USA, well, Anti-fascism might just be a matter of having "won" World War 2 - and now people are struggling to find another war to win at. Cos Murica - or whatever.


But sure. The individual cultural and geological backgrounds do matter. So the idea would be, that when given a perfect cultural and geological - and perhaps more - background - we should, from there, be able to move on with 'perfect wisdom' as it were. And this is similar to what I'd call "the fascistic delusion" of ethical cleansing.

For, the idea to simply impose a moral framework - isn't all that new; And in as far as it hasn't really 'fixed' all that much; The only conclusion some people seem to be capable of arriving at is that maybe it hasn't been tried hard enough just yet. But also, every time we loop around to this issue - so it would seem - we may also think that some minor adjustment to the "moral coding" might be a good idea.


On the other hand however I think there's a similar trap or fallacy in arguing that our morality yet had to evolve. As if we somehow got magically smarter over the decades. I'm certainly guilty of that; And I still find myself justified for the most part. But - people on the other side ... may do so too.
On this side I however would argue, that we did individually grow - and advanced cultural crucibles make it so that this wisdom of the ages is somehow echoed back at us also. Though at the heart of it we yet remain flawed human beings.

So - I think it's about balance. Individual and Cultural aspects need to basically team up for us to "win" - sotospeak. The problem possibly being "the cultural elite" or how to call it - or well, systemic issues and perhaps people who re-enforce them.

Anyhow - what I was trying to get at here is, that every culture - so far, no matter how vile, did possibly have something we could call righteousness. So, if we'd be taking the concept apart into one-liners, motivational quotes ... base principles and concepts ... we could find cultures that adhered to them; Or cultural adherances - more to the point - that would however have some cultural bend to them.
Matters such as Brotherhood, Loyalty, Codes of Honor, Patriotism, Financial Collectivism, Religious Monoculture, Religious Multiculture; It's all there somehow, strapping the individual into a sense of what's right and good - rooted in a given cultural understanding.


What, I'd argue, has so far however been a struggle ... takes us to Marxism. For, with Socialism and Communism or whatever might pass as Marxism ... it's similar to Christianity. Whatever good ideas and virtues and beliefs there are ... they don't seem to quite make it to the top. Give or take. And where Christ ranted against Riches - Marx spoke of the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie.
Though arguably it's also never quite that simple or one-sided.

For, say about the Capital owners what you will - they're yet somewhat inevitable. And to make Marx' dream a reality - that ... wouldn't just ... happen, like out of nowhere. Though we might like God to have made it a thing and stood by it - protecting it - ... that I think is what we can after all identify as the crux of the whole story.

So - for the time being at least we can take pause, ponder upon it - ignoring whether or not God should've done X or Y or Z and stuff - and just understand that at least for now that would be the big challenge we'd face going forward - as per what actually 'is'.


Now, naturally we will however always also return to a few core matters. Whatever we could aspire now, that would enable a better future, are things that God could or should have done a long time ago. And therein Progressives might find a reason to turn away from God - and Conservatives to adhere to Tradition. A.k.a. - we'd be going nowhere.

And along those lines - there would also be the question of the wheel. Who invented it, who appropriated it and who re-invented it.


It would in all this however seem to be hubristic to dream of some 'final solution'. Though we; And in that regard we don't need to really care about who this 'we' were; might face problems that might "end society" - I don't think that that's all that new either.
And we might find ourselves thinking that if this or that problem got fixed - we could finally be free from problems alltogether. And yea, the Bible allows for us to believe in some 1000 years of actually doing alright. And by the end of those 1000 years people might be wondering - expecting the return of Christ, people crunching the numbers and such - and that is a time that actually concerns me. But, safeguarding against a possible decline then might be me just overthinking things.

Which is weird - because people then might be flinging shit against me because ... reasons. Though we'd think, on the other hand, that 1000 years of having done alright would be an indicator as to ... what's going on. But maybe by then things changed enough that we're at a similar spot as we are today; And yea, so people might be looking for the next Prophet. ...


But - so, there is, at any time perhaps - a best possible solution. Yet does its viability hinge upon the individuals that are to participate in it. Which is, ideally, everyone. And - well. I mean, thinking about Slavery; There's the issue of how Slavery and Racism are connected - in the modern sense - though that might not have always been the case. But so there's also the term "Colonizer". Which can really be a stand in for all sorts of things - where now the carrier of a solution is at any rate an invader of sorts to the contemporary way of things. And people might take issue with that, simply based on a matter of vibes.
It is thereby not unfair to think that our struggle these days is effectively with our ancestors. They are giving us a hard time; Depending on where you come from and whom you're talking to. Religion is thereby just like ... a neat wrapper for thinking of it in a neater packaging.

So, yea. While I doubt that people had slaves because the Bible said so - I'm not sure how things would have been if it explicitly said something against it. If the culture of Israel had however been more enlightened - they would have looked at their history and made it a matter of principle to be against slavery. And rape for that matter. But alas ... here we are ... somewhat plagued by the ghosts of the past.


So - the ultimate Ghost of the Past - in my worldview - is the Babel incident. I mean, it is ... through the Biblical lens ... at the heart of these issues. So, had God - instead of scattering us accross the Globe or perhaps the Universe - just made 'Zion' a thing - like, giving Babel a paint-job with some updated moral coding - we wouldn't have these issues. We'd be growing up with sound doctrine - perhaps maintained by some Omega Level High Priest with Superpowers - or magic wells and what not - some [insert fictional utopic society] type of stuff ... but that's not the world we live in.

And why?

Well. I did here somewhat play myself. Though I thought I had something smart to say about it - I yet arrive back here as though I hadn't said anything - and somehow ended up confirming what I tried to denie. Give or take. I mean ... here's the thing:

The thing(s)

1: Politics v Religion
As we get to this point, we're yet again dragged into political problems - centered around religious matters. It might not seem that way, but it's still the problem. Because:

2: Salvation Politics
Good Politics imply Salvation - and to aspire Salvation is Religion.

Therefore:

3: Proper Salvation
Is the key to these things.

Let me explain:
At first - we may want to analyze 'why' it is, that we couldn't ... find this prolonged unity. I mean, let's just say that God did create this Utopia but that we have somehow lost it. Why is it, that we couldn't make it back to it? We might find reasons in Religion and Culture and stuff - or so: Babel. But what is really the problem?

The way I see it, it is that we're thinking in terms of abstracts. Religion and Culture aren't ... 'real' ... because they're merely approximations of what's familiar to a localized group of individuals. And yet these approximations are as though they have a life or mind of their own. And by "living in a society" we do inevitably have some part of it. Whether we're totally in sync with it or absolutely divergent doesn't really matter. Through the familiarities we have acquired - we are a part of it. Maybe not to how it acts towards the outside, but still of it's internal cohesion. So, when speak of "America" for instance, there is America as an entity that acts outwardly - and then there's America as a contemporarily deeply polarized mess. And as of that there are like ... different 'types' of Americans that, along how the system is wired and past and such, are still part of how America acts outwardly. Give or take.
I mean, taking two cultures - one might take the most right wing and the most left wing individual from each - they might be virtually the same - although the cultures themselves might be drastically different. But so the struggle between the two, implying one, wouldn't between each and every individual respectively - but the abstraction at large.

Within this 'clash of cultures' then, there's a matter of familiarities and how well or unwell they would mix with others. Then there's also the matter of hegemonies - what cultural nuances are associated with them and how it affects the weaker aspects of either group. So, getting along with 'an individual' of "the other group" might be perfectly fine - but extrapolating from there onto the cultural clash at large ... that's what people would typically get hung up over. Possible reasons to hold on to grudges could be modes of Justice, ways of leadership, routines of decision making ... expectations, demands, etc..

The point

To separate Religion from Politics - as to my regards - is a matter of the individual and it's part in society. Religion 'as' Politics would have it, that the Religious framework is taken as some sort of Political rule and imposed onto society as a means of order. Religion 'as' of Christianity/Gnosticism however would have it, that the Religious framework is taken as an individual tool for the individual to self-actuate in correspondence with God; As to interact with society as an individual rather than an extension of an ideological framework.

Like so, it would seem as though this world was made to allow us to be the worse version of ourselves. Or to however challenge us. To say: It appears to be so, that by God's plan, we would need to be "allowed" to be the worse of ourselves, in order to overcome - our own self in that regard - and be thereby capable of participating in some kind of "Greater Good".


But ... that also just ... loops around. In a way. In this sense, we need Evil in order to be Good - to say that if we accomplished Utopia - how could people still self-actuate?
And yea ... this is however also how we come back around to presentism. If we got there - we'd still have to self-actuate in order to maintain it. But so I can - I think - confidently conclude one thing:

The primary difference between 'the Babel Solution' and a Utopian alternative is, that by the Babel solution - we first have to self-actuate in order to get to the Utopia in the first place.

Subsequently we may assume - and while it might always remain a hypothetical it could be more or less pointless - that if we'd manage to make it from ourselves it'd be of a higher quality or internal cohesion or cultural wealth - than if we merely had to maintain it. Which is, however, now where we get to those 1000 years issue. Or rather: At some point people would exist that were to merely maintain it - for to them it might as well have always been so. But arguably it'd yet go well for like ... another 800 years or so.


So yea, I'm not entirely sure ... where this takes us; But I consider this progress ... at least for myself ... and yea, for now at least;
...
is that ... so.