There's a very common misconception that in ancient times, people literally believed in the most ridiculous parts of polytheistic religions. But this is incorrect, most people did not believe that a chariot pulls the sun across the sky, not in a literal sense at least. The way ancient pagans saw the world was actually not that different from how modern Christians do today (outside of a few uneducated rural people maybe, nobody, no matter how devout, genuinely believes God is a literal flesh and bone old bearded man who lives in the clouds, rather seeing that as symbolic).

Outside of a few uneducated rural people maybe, nobody, no matter how devout, genuinely believed creatures like Centaurs or Sirens were real. Educated Greeks and Romans often interpreted myths allegorically or symbolically. Think of Plato, who criticized literal myth but acknowledged their metaphorical value; or Stoics, who reinterpreted gods as forces of nature or aspects of the soul. By the time of the Roman Empire, especially from the 1st century BCE onward, educated pagans interpreted myths allegorically and often integrated philosophical systems like Platonism, Stoicism, or Neoplatonism into religious thought. A pagan priest or philosopher in 300 CE did not believe in Zeus the same way a peasant in 800 BCE might have. Just like no serious modern Christian believes heaven is literally "above the sky" in a three-tiered universe anymore.

Thousands of years of Christian and Islamic writers satirizing pagans as stupid has created the modern misconception that Greco-Roman polytheists living in the late Roman period held the same religious beliefs that their predecessors from the time of Homer did, which couldn't be further from the truth. This would be like thinking modern-day Christians believe the sun revolves around the earth because their ancient counterparts did.

>>17811262 (OP)
It's not actually the easiest line to draw because e.g. some christians "really believe" the earth is 6000 but what does that actually mean? The average wigger or korean can't count to 6000 and doesn't have a clear idea of what 6000 peas in a pod looks like, far less 6000 years. It's a matter of abstract representation. It's not possible to believe something you're completely ignorant of.

People forget that some pagan cults in Europe did actually survive to the 19th/20th century

Every single one of them is
>small village
>worships a tree shaped like a man
>or needs to say some prayer every year so a local sea god won't get angry
>or worships a rock for good luck

Something like that. I suspect the idea of ancient European paganism being universally everyone worshipping the major pantheon of gods is wrong, people outside big cities may have just worshipped random local totems or icons

Which is hilarious given that neopagans completely ignore this side of the thing they're trying to reconstruct

>>17811335
It's how the majority of Christians operate. That's why religious education and internal mission are necessary.

>>17811335
I don't think people worshipped an entire pantheon, but within a given geographical space, what could be described as a unified cultre exhibits shared myths, fetishes, symbolism in its art and so on. and I can believe that at one point they arrived on worshipping different gods for different tasks, for example a fisher/sailor would be more invested in his relationship with the god of the sea, whereas a hunter living innawoods would invest more in his relationship with the wood god/goddess. the fertility god/goddess aka the sky god and the earth mother god are constants over most observed cultures though

>>17811262 (OP)
You only think those things are ridiculous because you grew up in a secular world with access to a proper education and scientific information on how the world works
During most of history the majority of people believed in the literalist interpretations of their religious myths, that isn't limited to pagans but to also christians jews and muslins that believed in things like the world being created in 6 days and the Noah arch being a historical event
The educated people only starting doubting their myths and/or coming up with alternative allegorical interpretations when they start discovering that reality didn't agreed 100% with their myths, and for most of history that was restrictive to an educated elite

>>17811328
>some christians

>Americans
Ftfy

>>17811328
OP is correct and it helps to remember that literalism in Christianity developed in post reformation in the 17th century. Literalism in Hinduism started with medieval Vedanta traditions as a response to Purva-Mimasa. Islam is the only one that really always had literalism and that was connected to it's views of prophets.

We know Mesoamerican peoples did not think of religion as out there in the world but as a kinda embodied reality, one became part of divine forces and reality was something like a divine cornfield. Pic related.

Buddhists were always metaphysical antirealists and antifoundationalists.

Judaism historically saw most narratives as centered on the Jewish community via convenants and not literal events. Pagan religions often in the mediterannent and near east where often very focused on local rituals and different views of myths standing for different realities.

>>17813105
Literalism in Islam is also relatively new though, to some extent at least when it comes to the legal rulings. As far as theology though goes then yeah, no Muslim would ever call anything in the Quran mythical or metaphorical

>>17813220
Pic is a good academic book on this. Basically, it starts with the materials we have including Muhammad ibn Ishaq's sirah and Ibn Kathir and states how the various figures of older prophets was treated literally and as a type of rote historical and legal text. This stuff actually predates a lto of the traditional things we associate with Islamic dogma. This was likley an intentional break from the typological ordering of narratives found in Christian texts like the Alexandrian and Antiochian catecthical schools and a break from Jewish midrash.

>>17811328
>It's not possible to believe something you're completely ignorant of.
That works the other way as well: the average person "knows" the universe is 15 billion years old and the Earth is not flat, but they "know" it only in the sense that adopting the opposite position would expose them to societal ridicule.
For the average person who will never be on a spaceship, the world may as well be seen as a flat disk, and you may also believe it's 6000 years old, that is a lot more generations you can think of anyway

The bible, its prophets and jesus christ himself literally preached that heaven is a physical place in the sky

Obviously this is pure retardation so that's why it's never mentioned in Sunday sermons

>>17813596
>I hate God
Tick tock.

>>17813689
Your god claims heaven is in the sky lol

Why should I believe anything else your cosmic jew says when he's already been proven wrong

>>17811262 (OP)
Plato also got burned for saying so, Socrates died over telling that planets were floating rocks in space, the mere concept was baffling

>>17813038
But you don't have to be educated to doubt though. You can just be smart though lacking in instruction and arrive at your own independent conclusions. Like kids realizing Santa doesn't exist on their own without being told.

>>17811262 (OP)
Those soulless morons killed their own religion in their excessive 'rationalism' (like all forms of ideological 'rationality' it requires you to adopt their particular unjustifiable form of logic).
By just devaluing traditional religious beliefs into being mere barbaric and primitive campfire stories that were metaphors for natural processes or euhemerized ancient people, they turned spirituality itself into a vacuous process where a large portion of the society didn't believe in anything and thus were obsessed with finding novelty in foreign religious cults to fill that gap. Isis, Mithras, Christ, Mani just being 4 examples.
In the case of Christianity this lot got its claws into it early, and transformed it into a Platonic chimera, where incompatible Jewish and Platonist religious ideas are combined together while everyone pretends they aren't contradictory.

>>17813587
yes, exactly... so what's the difference in practical terms? One is biblical literalism another is secularism, yet they're practically the same. You can "literally believe" anything you want as long as you aren't called to interact with it or back up those beliefs.

>>17811262 (OP)
>most people did not believe that a chariot pulls the sun across the sky, not in a literal sense at least
How do you know that? Most people's beliefs were not recorded.

>>17814250
It's complete bullshit. Why should anyone come up with an explanation for the sun rising and setting at all, other than boredom? Of course it's some guy's wagon, they would've had no other way of describing it.

The Black Hebrew Israelites claim American blacks are the real Jews. Are they right?

>>17813948
the point is that most people didn't have any information that would contradict the literalist interpretation of their myths, even a smart person wouldn't automatically doubt the myths that were push as truth through their whole lives if they don't have any experience or information that contradict the myth
even today most religious people only default to allegorical interpretations to avoid public ridiculous and that is only the case due the success and prestige of secular academic institutions and science, and even today you still have plenty of people that believe to some degree of literalism

>>17814824
There were black israelites randomly in my small hometown and they were there with some frequency until the local amish drove them out (violently). True story, why would I lie about this? WHY would I lie, I ask you this. Because I'm not lying. I'm NOT LYING. OK?

>>17814824
das my nigga big kosher

>>17815172
The idea of literalism itself is a kinda late development in most societies outside of Islamicate ones. In the European world, the idea arose with the idea of plain text in the Christian Humanism movement. In the case of some places in far east asia the idea arose like around the 19th century. The idea itself only as we recognize only really existed from english Protestant Christianity. Islam had it's own version but for the most part that was not copied by anyone whereas the English kinda spread it.Pic is a good book on this.

>>17811262 (OP)
>>17813105
>>17813220
>We know Mesoamerican peoples did not think of religion as out there in the world but as a kinda embodied reality, one became part of divine forces and reality was something like a divine cornfield. Pic related.

I would caution that this is a point of debate/contention, though I haven't read that book in particular

It's pretty well established that "teotl" in Nahuatl doesn't mean just deity, but also spirit, demon, ghost, etc. It's a general term for supernatural beings, like "kami" in Japanese religion. So it also just meaning anything strange or awe-inspiring makes sense from that perspective.

There's also an element to it where the identities of deities is kind of fluid and bleed into each other: gods have many aspects and those can mix attributes of different gods, like Xilonen is a goddess associated with irrigation for agriculture and is an aspect/variant of both Chalchiuhtlicue (the river goddess) and Chicomecoatl (the maize goddess).

Some interpretations of Aztec religion take that further and argue that gods are less distinct entities and are more roles or "costumes" which are personifications of specific concepts, and gods only exist in the context of idols or deity impersonators adorned in that role, or to go even further, where "teotl" is a monist energy force and everything in the world from people to water to the ground and air, and gods as personifications of natural cycles, is just that energy moving in different ways

But these later two interpretations are more radical and have critics, especially by Nahuatl linguists, but have some support as well (I'd say the former of those last two or something close to it is fairly popular overall). Personally I feel like they're probably useful at least as analytical lenses to draw connections with even if they aren't necessarily what an actual Aztec person thought about their religion as a whole

>>17811262 (OP)
>>17813105
>>17813220
>We know Mesoamerican peoples did not think of religion as out there in the world but as a kinda embodied reality, one became part of divine forces...

I would caution that this is a point of debate/contention, though I haven't read that book in particular

It's pretty well established that "teotl" in Nahuatl doesn't mean just deity, but also spirit, demon, ghost, etc. It's a general term for supernatural beings, like "kami" in Japanese religion. So it also just meaning anything strange or awe-inspiring makes sense from that perspective.

There's also an element to it where the identities of deities is kind of fluid and bleed into each other: gods have many aspects and those can mix attributes of different gods, like Xilonen is a goddess associated with irrigation for agriculture and is an aspect/variant of both Chalchiuhtlicue (the river goddess) and Chicomecoatl (the maize goddess).

Some interpretations of Aztec religion take that further and argue that gods are less distinct entities and are more roles or "costumes" which are personifications of specific concepts, and gods only exist in the context of idols or deity impersonators adorned in that role, or to go even further, where "teotl" is a monist energy force and everything in the world from people to water to the ground and air, and gods as personifications of natural cycles, is just that energy moving in different ways

But these later two interpretations are more radical and have critics, especially by Nahuatl linguists (who tend to favor at least a somewhat more literal/straightforward interpretation of Aztec religion, teotl being like kami aside), but have some support as well (I'd say the former of those last two or something close to it is fairly popular overall). Personally I feel like they're probably useful at least as analytical lenses to draw connections with even if they aren't necessarily what an actual Aztec person thought about their religion as a whole

>>17815390
>The idea of literalism itself is a kinda late development in most societies outside of Islamicate ones
the church father believed that the genesis was a literal historical event, that the Noah arch was real, medieval noble tried to trace their lineages back to Noah and other mythical figures and the whole of christianity rest on Jesus literaly comming back from the dead
Literal interpretations was historically the norm

>>17815456
I believe that is a totally fair view of it. It is clear that even in their philosohpical production there were competing metaphyscial accounts. Emblematic of the work I am thinking of is work in comparative philosophy and religion. David Carrasco's Religions of Mesoamerica
Cosmovision and Ceremonial Centers come to mind but pic is related.

Generally, other societies don't have a view of substance metaphysics connected to a correspodence theory of language however to sustain literalism. Most societies have other models of language and philosophy. The comparsion with Kami for example you point to or the account like Maffie's which make it is closer to something like Buddhist Mikkyo is another and this seems to be connected to different ways of thinking of reality as processual. The Aztec view may not be metaphysically antifoundationalist like the Kami of Shinbutsu shugo. Even in other cultures with substance metaphyscis like India, the idea of language as being totally carving reality is not necessarily found to enable literalism. Rather Vedic ritual is held to reflect some metaphyscial reality and langauge is a way to grasp that ritual. One major difference that can be found is the idea of viewing oneself as being passive to belief formation, beliefs are found out there in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQiu5BhI83w&list=PL8Nxd4OXpzqnK97Go28_2MlmnCQIi3wDv&index=15&t=26s


Here is an example of Shinbutsu-shugo as found in Tendai Buddhism to compare to the Aztec view.
Certain Imperial Shinto accounts might even be closer to the Aztec view in their movement towards metaphyscial realism and monism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcVyAEGwHB8

>>17815489
No, they didn't. Pic is a good academic history of this. There was a type of literalism assocaitted with gnostic religions in their approach to genesis which generally influenced the Christian interpretation to do the opposite. The Antiochian Catechetical school which was the closest to literal and was sometimes interpeted that way in Europe that way by reformers at least what they had of it anyways, tended to think of history as a type of sacal narrative reflecting a kinda metaphysical lack. Reality consisted of tropes of human failures. This contrasted with the Alexandrine interpretations which was more symbolic of metaphyscial realities rather than analogically tropes .

>>17815494
I posted an additional video for another post and is not directly relevant.

>>17815494
>Rather Vedic ritual is held to reflect some metaphyscial reality and langauge is a way to grasp that ritual
that's a latter cope that was adopted once they gather enough information about the world to build substantial challenges to the validity of their myths and religions, and even so that was a view restricted to a small educated elite, not the common folk
that is what happen with all cultures once they learn enough about reality to realize that their beliefs makes no sense and their religion might be wrong

>>17815509
That was true of Purva MImasa which is one of the Brahmanical Hindu religions. However, if we assume that Vedic Hinduism is closer to it's living relatives like Nuristani religion, a religion practiced by Indigenous people from Afghanistan we can still this view where the gods are both natural forces and immanent as beings but also abstract. Pic is of an effigy. In fact, the general trajectory after encountering Islam and the west was a movement towards more literal views, metaphysical idealism in Vedanta basically allowed for Puranic literature to be understood differently in the long term.

>>17815501
>No, they didn't
they did
during most of history the genesis was considered a literal description of how the world was created, noah flood was wildly considered a historical event until the XIX century and to this day you have to believe that Jesus literaly performed miracles and came back from the dead to be a christian
Symbolic and metaphysical interpretations where the minority and only accepted once there was undeniable evidence that those myths couldn't had happened

>>17815530
They did believe Jesus did those things but they saw those as reports as in eyewitness accounts. Not as literal as we think of it now. One way to think about it as the "literal" as a concept needs a lot of metaphysical elements and philosophy of language that only make sense after scholasticism and the reformation. Some scholars argue that it was closer to something like a hermeneutic of obedience," in which believers learn to interpret Scripture the way the biblical authors did as part of a chain of authority, this way everything reflected a kinda of ritual or sacremental view of reality. Basically, the litrugy game first to interpret things. This was acutally one of the main points seperating Christianity from later developments of Judaism. Basically, both interpeted Second Temple Rituals as reflecting rituals but what those rituals pointed to was different. Pic is of a book pointing out the connection and how details and dates in the old testament had ritualistic value.

Basically, liturgy and ritual in this type of worldview is reality. This reflects various claims we would identify as metaphysical. One way to think about it is that "literalism" arose as a way to kinda remove the ritual part and find beliefs you could point to independently of it. This is why literalism is associated so much with disenchantment. Although, theoretically, that is not always the case. Things like the Vedic world view had no reincarnation or soteriological vision for example, this can be seen in early Purva Mimasa, but their world was not explained by the rituals, the point was the rituals.

>>17815539
No, you are just playing word games now
Christian today believe the gospels are eyewitness accounts and that the things written there literally happened, just like the church fathers back them
All the pseudo BS you are babbling are cope educated people start to come up to justify parts of their religion being ridiculous and even there they believed most of the bible to be historical accounts with things like the Noah flood being as historical as the roman empire and Moses as real as Constantine
Also ritual interpretation is irrelevant to this discussion

>>17815539
>>17815544
>literalism couldn't exist before the word was defined
ok
>so people defaulted to believing everything they heard was a metaphor
no

>>17811328
Pretty much every Christian denomination has moved past thinking the earth was 6000 years old, this has been the case in Catholicism and Orthodoxy for quite some time, Protestants took longer and still have some holdouts but that's because of how splintered Protestantism really is.

>>17817606
american website. get out thirdy