The United States of America is not in the Bible
Book Title: The United States of America is not in the Bible: and Neither is Argentina
by Arcane Sandwich
It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. And it is also a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. Neither is Australia, neither is the United Kingdom. None of these are biblical countries.
Philosophical and Political Question (or: a Question in Philosophy of Religion and Political Philosophy): Does it matter, in any meaningful way, for ordinary citizens, that none of the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible?
Metaphysical counter-question (in the form of an objection): Suppose that it did not matter, in any meaningful way, for the lives of ordinary citizens. Would that fact somehow answer the metaphysical anti-Nietzschean question (for it is a religious question, as well as a political question) that is being asked in the first place? To wit: contrary to Nietzsche's famous phrase (to wit: "There are no facts, there are only interpretations"), there are indeed facts, because it is not an interpretation to say that the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible. It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase.
So this is not trivial, in any way, as far as philosophy is concerned. It has political consequences, as well as religious consequences.
by Arcane Sandwich
It is a fact that the United States of America is not in the Bible. And it is also a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. Neither is Australia, neither is the United Kingdom. None of these are biblical countries.
Philosophical and Political Question (or: a Question in Philosophy of Religion and Political Philosophy): Does it matter, in any meaningful way, for ordinary citizens, that none of the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible?
Metaphysical counter-question (in the form of an objection): Suppose that it did not matter, in any meaningful way, for the lives of ordinary citizens. Would that fact somehow answer the metaphysical anti-Nietzschean question (for it is a religious question, as well as a political question) that is being asked in the first place? To wit: contrary to Nietzsche's famous phrase (to wit: "There are no facts, there are only interpretations"), there are indeed facts, because it is not an interpretation to say that the aforementioned countries are not in the Bible. It is, instead just a brute fact. And that brute fact, by itself, refutes Nietzsche's aforementioned famous phrase.
So this is not trivial, in any way, as far as philosophy is concerned. It has political consequences, as well as religious consequences.
Comments (53)
Did you know that the Mormon religion, founded in the United States, actually believes that Jesus Christ visited America on a spiritual plane?
According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus appeared to a group of Nephites in the Americas in 33 AD. That the Nephites were descendants of ancient Israelites who traveled to the Americas around 600 BC.
That Jesus visited the Americas to establish his church, as he did in Jerusalem. That when Jesus returns to Earth, he will first go to Jerusalem and then to Missouri. So the Mormons kind of retro-fit America into the Biblical myth.
There was also a myth that Jesus visited England, subject of the poem, and later the hymn Jerusalem, Oh Did Those Feet In Ancient Times. (Rather a stirring hymn, too.)
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
It never seemed to matter to me, although clearly it does to others. I suppose it depends on whether you believe the facts related in the Biblical texts are significant due to matters of geography and history, or whether the symbolic and spiritual truths they are intended to convey are meaningful outside that context. Plainly for much of the history of the Christian West, the 'Holy Land' occupied the role of the Axis Mundi, the spiritual 'centre of the world', however with the discovery of the New World, and increased awareness of global cultures other than the Christian, this sense cannot help but have faded in the popular imagination.
(Also see The Jerusalem Syndrome.)
Yes, I'm aware of that. It's a fascinating discussion in Philosophy of Religion, as well as Political Philosophy (as well as Metaphysics).
Quoting Wayfarer
But then the question here, from a Federal point of view, is if Mormonism is a religion or a christian denomination. It's not the same thing. If it's a religion, then it has to prove (in a legal sense, for the purpose of taxing, among other things) that it is not a christian denomination (they speak of Jesus Christ as being identical to God, do they not?). The burden of proof is on them in this case.
Quoting Wayfarer
Again, I would take a Pragmatic stance here: how would a Federal Government bureaucrat look at this? What's his point of view on this? Think of him as if he were a stock character in a Shakespearean play, or whatever. You don't have to agree with him, you would just try to imagine if these other groups are indeed religious groups (as opposed to religious sects, for example, among other things).
Quoting Wayfarer
Indeed, for Eastern countries (for example), in which Buddhism or Hinduism are the religious majorities, where Christians of all denominations are the minority, the question of the OP becomes even more meaningful in both philosophically political as well as philosophically religious senses.
But you know how Westerners are, @Wayfarer. To someone of your education in Eastern Religions and Philosophies, it must be obvious to you how arrogant Westerners are, in matters of philosophy.
For example, maybe someone believes that his/her country is Babylon from the Book of Revelation.
I'm from Argentina. It is a fact that Argentina is not in the Bible. And if someone interprets that Argentina is metaphorically mentioned in the Bible, then I would say that facts matter more than mere interpretations.
Quoting Zebeden
People have the right to interpret whatever they want. It doesn't mean that they're right.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Are there not many brute facts that undermine FN's observation? Pretty sure that he would have accepted as a brute fact that if we were to kill a writer that writer would compose no more books.
Both.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes. The facts studied by the sciences, for example. Physical facts, chemical facts, biological facts, sociological facts, and psychological facts.
Quoting Tom Storm
Is that a fact or an interpretation?
This works as long as there is a clear distinction between a fact and an interpretation. If interpretations are taken as facts ("There are no facts, there are only interpretations"), then one can say that "Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. Therefore, Argentina is in the Bible!"
Then I would deny the statement that Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. I would say that it is not. Since it's an extra-ordinary claim (to wit, it's not an ordinary claim, since the Bible doesn't mention Argentina), it follows that the burden of proof would be on you (not me) in this case. ("you", in the sense of anyone who wishes to claim that Argentina is Babylon from the Bible. The burden of proof is on that person. I can simply deny that claim until evidence or reasoning is provided for such an extra-ordinary claim).
Seems to be a fact. In this case a biological, psychological, sociological fact.
Why does it matter what countries are mentioned in the Bible?
In Matthew 28:19-20 Jesus is recorded as saying - Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
World domination seems to be built into the text.
It matters in international politics. People don't take these matters lightly, at least not everywhere. Wars are often caused by such matters. I'm not saying that religious conflicts are the only cause of Wars, but they're one of its causes, in some cases.
Step this out in dot points by way of an example. I am assuming you mean Israel?
Or the Crusades. Or some of the massacres in Asia. Or some of the massacres in Africa. Or some of the massacres in South America.
The common theme is the manipulation of justifications as excuses for action.
But aren't most facts tied to a value system and a narrative rather than being bias free? For instance, for those who think the Bible is myth, it doesn't matter what the Bible says. There's also the problem that human beings never seem to agree on facts. What impartial body do we appoint to determine what the facts of any given matter are?
And here's another way to look at it: Argentina favors Catholicism over every other Christian denomination, and it favors Christianity over every other religion. Until the mid 90's, every president had to be Catholic. Argentina's official religion, which is in the 2nd article of our Constitution, says that Argentina's Federal Government is Catholic.
Up until recently, abortion was illegal in Argentina. Unlike the USA, we never had legal abortion clinics here. Women used to die during clandestine abortions. And one of the main reasons why it took so long to legalize abortion, was because of the opposition of the Catholic Church. They oppose abortion on religious, ethical and political grounds, and they make their case by way of philosophical and biblical arguments.
EDIT: Here are some useful links for this discussion:
Religion in Argentina (Wikipedia)
Catholic Church–state relations in Argentina (Wikipedia)
What do Argentine people believe in? Religion and social structure in Argentina (CONICET)
But what does this give you? Step out the logic further? What are the implications of this fact?
I don't believe that there is such a thing as a Biblical country. It's a construct. What I do believe is that certain countries have imposed values and identities upon citizens and use a selection of facts to maintain that identity.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
You are simply talking about a Christian nation (a construct), which like democracy or dictatorship is held in place by contingent factors. The question here is probably should one particular interpretation of one bronze age myth be used by a country to enforce values on its citizens?
Of course not, at least not in the case of Argentina. What does Argentina have to do with Catholicism specifically, or with Christianity in general? Nothing, because Argentina is not in the Bible to begin with. And that's not a mere interpretation. That's just a brute fact. So, at the very least, we need to reform out Constitution once again. Then we need to go over a bunch of State Laws, as well as Statutes and Ordinances. Yes, this problem leaks down even to those lower levels.
Argentina's policy, from the entire country to every city and town, should not be based on one bronze age myth used by a country to enforce values on its citizens. It should be based on secular, Enlightenment thought instead. In other words, it should be based on science, not religion.
So what? Christianity is not a map, it is based on spreading the message to all nations. The goal is for the entire world to become Christian. Hence missionaries and conversions.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
Well as an atheist I would largely agree with this. But a country becomes Christian by conversions and by cultural practices. It is not a geographic matter, it's built out of axioms not mountains and floodplains. I think that's the nub of our differences.
Jesus specifically asks his followers to take his message and establish his word in all nations.
Biblical writers & ancient redactors didn't know that the Americas existed. They weren't discovered until many centuries after the Bible was written. However, since 70-90% of Argentinians are Catholics those ideas brought over by the Spanish and the missionaries did stuck in the minds of the people. Why do you think this is? Is it just the power of European brainwashing and church organization or is there something else at play?
Argentina is a modern Nation-State. And, as all modern Nation-States, it is not Biblical. Hence, it is not subjected to Biblical Law. Therefore, there is no reason to even mention the Catholic religion in the 2nd Article of our Constitution, for example.
Quoting Tom Storm
Then why isn't Argentina a Protestant country? Or a Mormon country? Why does the government have to favor Catholicism? It has no good reason to do such a thing, it amounts to what can only be described as religious favoritism, and therefore we shouldn't continue to do it.
That is a deep question and I have no good answer to it. The best that I can offer in that sense, in matters of explanation, is that it's due to historical reasons. I wouldn't call it "European brainwashing". The Enlightenment of the 18th Century is not "European brainwashing", for example.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
History and culture. Once a system of values is established it sticks. It becomes culture. Look at all the people on this site who are convinced that the religion of their family and culture is true.
Quoting Arcane Sandwich
A state becomes Biblical if the dominant culture says it is. You have not addressed this:
Quoting Tom Storm
Tell that to the families of the women that died during clandestine abortions. Tell it to the ones that survived to tell the tale.
Quoting Tom Storm
What does the term "nation" refer to, in that case? You can choose the easy way out, as Quine does, and declare that the referent of the word "nation", just like the referent of the word "gavagai", is inscrutable. Or, you could do the reasonable thing instead, which is to assume that there are nations that are biblical and there are nations that are not. Israel is a biblical nation. Argentina is not. Simple as that, as well as factual.
If, on the other hand, you want me to argue against Matthew, I would instead ask you to interpret that passage first, because I suspect that my disagreement is not with Matthew himself, but with your interpretation of his words.
But, by fact do you mean Truth? Because I think that's up to interpretation. And, if fact and Truth are not the same, what is the difference? Does Truth even deal in difference?
That's not what a brute fact means in philosophy. A brute fact isn't just "a fact we can confirm". A brute fact is a fact you can't explain with deeper more fundamental facts.
We can explain why the bible doesn't mention those places. Simply, the civilizations that produced the bible didn't know about them.
"Confabulate" would be a better term.
He was unfortunately banned.
It would be better to say that a brute fact does not have any further explanation.
it's not just that the explanation is not available to us, but that things just are that way.
Don't worry - there was more involved in banning Sandwich. You are safe.
Babylon (OT).
Rome (NT).
Whether there is a turtle riding a horse in the clouds in the sky depends upon what your purpose is for cloud gazing. Are you looking for inspiration or are you trying to figure out if it's going to rain? I would think if the former, you wouldn't ask a meteorologist what's in the clouds, nor do I think you would be confused as to the different ways clouds might be interpreted.
One could believe the clouds hold inspiration and precipitation simultaneously without being troubled by the fact that they hold those two things in very different ways.
Mormons consider the Book of Mormon to be another testament of Jesus Christ. North and South America are central to this new New Testament.
I dont give a fuck if AS(s) Boy isn't even here... heres the facts. WHO THE FUCK SAID THERE ARE NO FACTS ONLY INTERPRETATION? Nietzsche said there are no MORAL FACTS ONLY MORAL INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENON...
When you're a retard who doesn't read Nietzsche, perhaps you shouldn't comment on trying to refute Nietzsche. There's a reaaon Ole boy AS was posting 33 times a day... Nietzsche spells it out: Powerlessness.
I swear, middling fuck wits thinking they know something...
We can see Nietzsche discusses this very concept as early as HATH (Aphorism 2), all the way to Ecce Homo and Antichrist... Which even Peter Gast gets right in WtP...
"I hate Nietzsche, so I want to try and refute something Nietzsche doesn't even say." 99% of "Bannos/Low calibre Russels" in the world.
Though, I suppose if you fancy a shit interpretation... don't be surprised when you end up covered in the shit of your own poor interpretation.
Here's another retro-edit placing a non-biblical country into the biblical narrative. You have mentioned this, but for others...
Jerusalem
source: William Blake
And did those feet in ancient time,
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!
And did the Countenance Divine,
Shine forth upon our clouded hills?
And was Jerusalem builded here,
Among these dark Satanic Mills?
Bring me my Bow of burning gold:
Bring me my Arrows of desire:
Bring me my Spear: O clouds unfold:
Bring me my Chariot of fire!
I will not cease from Mental Fight,
Nor shall my Sword sleep in my hand:
Till we have built Jerusalem,
In Englands green & pleasant Land.
Are you more interested in the absence of Kenya, the US, or Mongolia in the Bible, or Nietzsche's denial of facts? Seems like the latter, since there wasn't any reason for biblical authors to mention places that didn't figure into the narrative. It seems like a non-issue to me.
Nietzsche was ahead of his time, I suppose--no facts, just opinions.
"An example of the second class of prophetic figures is found in Proverbs (vii. 6–26):—“For at the window of my house I looked through my casement, and beheld among the simple ones; I discerned among the youths a young man void of understanding, passing through the street near her corner: and he went the way to her house, in the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night: and, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtil of heart. (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house: now she is without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait in every corner.) So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him, I have peace offerings with me; this day have I paid my vows. Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee. I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with striped cloths of the yarn of Egypt. I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon. Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves. For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey: he hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed. With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as fetters to the correction of a fool: till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her.”
The general principle expounded in all these verses is to abstain from excessive indulgence in bodily pleasures. The author compares the body, which is the source of all sensual pleasures, to a married woman who at the same time is a harlot. And this figure he has taken as the basis of his entire book. We shall hereafter show the wisdom of Solomon in comparing sensual pleasures to an adulterous harlot. We shall explain how aptly he concludes that work with the praises of a faithful wife who devotes herself to the welfare of her husband and of her household. All obstacles which prevent man from attaining his highest aim in life, all the deficiencies in the character of man, all his evil propensities, are to be traced to the body alone. This will be explained later on. The predominant idea running throughout the figure is that man shall not be entirely guided by his animal, or material nature; for the material substance of man is identical with that of the brute creation.[8]
An adequate explanation of the figure having been given, and its meaning having been shown, do not imagine that you will find in its application a corresponding element for each part of the figure; you must not ask what is meant by “I have peace offerings with me” (ver. 14); by “I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry” (ver. 16); or what is added to the force of the figure by the observation “for the goodman is not at home” (ver. 19), and so on to the end of the chapter. For all this is merely to complete the illustration of the metaphor in its literal meaning. The circumstances described here are such as are common to adulterers. Such conversations take place between all adulterous persons. You must well understand what I have said, for it is a principle of the utmost importance with respect to those things which I intend to expound. If you observe in one of the chapters that I explained the meaning of a certain figure, and pointed out to you its general scope, do not trouble yourself further in order to find an interpretation of each separate portion, for that would lead you to one of the two following erroneous courses; either you will miss the sense included in the metaphor, or you will be induced to explain certain things which require no explanation, and which are not introduced for that purpose. Through this unnecessary trouble you may fall into the great error which besets most modern sects in their foolish writings and discussions; they all endeavour to find some hidden meaning in expressions which were never uttered by the author in that sense. Your object should be to discover in most of the figures the general idea which the author wishes to express. In some instances it will be sufficient if you understand from my remarks that a certain expression contains a figure, although I may offer no further comment. For when you know that it is not to be taken literally, you will understand at once to what subject it refers. My statement that it is a figurative expression will, as it were, remove the screen from between the object and the observer." Maimonides, 1190.
That is, focusing upon the literal in a work meant as metaphorical misses the point. So, no, it does not matter that America is not mentioned in the Bible, nor does it matter that the earth never flooded nor the sea never parted.
But the Book of Mormon is a little different, because Blake is using poetic license, while the Book of Mormon contains zero poetry. (that's not a critcism: it's a genre categorization. The Bible has poetry within it while the Book of Mormon does not contain any)
Also, the Book of Mormon claims that certain events surrounding the United States in particular are the literal fulfillment of some of the prophesies of Isaiah.
I've not read the Book of Mormon, and it isn't on my list of books to read. It came out of the "burnt over territory" of up-state New York, where there was a lot of what one could call either religious innovation or religious lunacy, depending on one's feelings about it. There was a lot of religious fervor around that time -- the Second Great Awakening of religious activity in the United States.