Scripture: Moral Guide or Ink-Blot?

[evangelicalhumanist]

Well, the 2008 Lambeth Conference has managed to make no decisions regarding ordination of practicing homosexuals or blessing of same-sex marriages. They’ve avoided the open rift, although the rift lurks there still. Conservatives in the church accuse Archbishop Williams of allowing the liberal branches of the church in Canada and the United States to drift into heretical theological interpretations of the bible. And Archbishop Nzimbi of Kenya made it clear that the Anglican churches in Africa and other nations in the southern hemisphere would continue to create parallel church structures to serve North American conservatives. The road to schism is still clear and easily traversed.

As always, throughout this long, long debate, there has been a tremendous amount of scripture invoked to support one side or the other. And why not? Scripture is particularly good at that. (Throughout this article, I shall use “scripture” to include both oral and written traditions assumed to be revealed or inspired. This is not a strictly accurate reading of the word, but it answers my purposes.)

Scripture, it seems to me, is essential to theism. All other evidence supporting theism (ontological, cosmological, etc.) have been shown to fall miserably short – at most they might support a kind of deism, but not a great deal more than that. Our notions of “what God is like,” – or wants or hates – comes from scripture.

But as we can see in the same-sex debate alone, scripture is hopelessly conflicted. I don’t want to present a complete catalogue here, as that has been done endlessly. Still, I’ll provide evidence for what follows in the footnotes for those who need it.

To start with, God, as we find him in Christian scripture, has a pretty spotty moral record of his own, punishing people for the sins of others (1), meting out extremely inappropriate punishments for minor offences (2), and so on through a dreadful litany in the Old Testament.

But maybe God can’t be accused of sin in His own right, and maybe those things were done for reasons we can’t understand – an oft-heard apologetic. Maybe. Who knows? Still, that being said, surely we can assert that it would be wrong for God to demand of people that they do what is unambiguously wrong – wrong per the very scripture we’re talking about, including all those “thou shalt nots” and prescriptions for what thou shalt. “Unless I say otherwise?” No, I don’t think that will wash. And yet, there is an awfully lot of that. The list of crimes ordered by God is long (3), and the Bible permits an awful lot of stuff almost universally considered evils today (4).

Okay, but maybe one may argue that most of this occurs in the Old Testament, while the New is more directed toward morally uplifting and hopeful messages. Looks true at first blush, but surely we can see that while the New Testament doesn’t provide gruesome histories of plagues, genocide and destruction, surely those very things are yet prophesied there and promised there. (5) And we mustn’t forget that “Jesus died for our sins,” which seems to fly in the face of a loving God. Surely He can forgive sins without demanding a sacrifice. That doesn’t appear very loving on the surface.

Is there good stuff in scripture? Oh, absolutely! Tons of really admirable moral teaching going far beyond the obvious (theft, murder, etc.) is evident in the scripture of nearly every religion. These include, for example, the numerous versions of the “golden rule,” concern for the oppressed, charity for the disabled and indigent.

But therein lies the problem: if scripture contains both good and bad teachings, how are we to differentiate between them? And the answer, as I suggested above, should be obvious: we do it by invoking our own understanding of right and wrong. We’ve always done this, which is why passages that support selling daughters are ignored, passages that urge us to kill those unlike would be illegal hate speech if uttered as a public exhortation.

Anyway, the point of all this is no more than to show that all scripture presents a confused picture of God, an extremely ambiguous moral framework, and a source for arguing every kind of polar opposite.

We cannot forget that the same scripture gave us 38,000 Christian denominations, sects or variants, or that it can exist comfortably with evolution or deny evolution completely, that it can be the source for “A Letter to Louise” and for “God hates fags!”

Now, I don’t doubt for a moment that theists, especially the really thoughtful, struggle with these same issues. I’m not using these arguments to denigrate their beliefs, nor could I, since they are often much more familiar with them (and the apologetics concerning them) than I am. My point is rather that scripture, however you look at it, contains some really good stuff and some really bad stuff. And it is left completely to us to determine which is which. We’ve been doing that for a long time, and through that time there have been various passages held up as models, or variously ignored. Which is touted and which ignored change regularly with the passage of time as our knowledge, understanding and cultures change.

Thus, what we finally discern is that scripture is the ink-blot through which its readers see themselves. That being the case, it is time to put aside scripture – the writing, after all, of men long dead – and speak for ourselves. What we love or hate, countenance or forbid, we must do for our own reasons and own up to that. Because it is, in the end, our own reasons that inform us, as we can clearly see by the ability to find scriptural support for almost any position. That we find scriptural support for our own position is because we found what we wanted and stopped looking.

If scripture can provide justification for so many complete opposites, then it is the quintessential reductio ad absurdum, and therefore utterly useless as anything other than a personal soul-mirror for those who revere it. I urge all those tearing the Anglican Communion apart to reflect on that before they meet again. I urge both sides to consider carefully whether they are attempting to speak for God, for humanity, or for themselves.

===============================================================
(1) First-born of Egypt killed, for Pharaoh’s sins. Twenty-four thousand Israelites killed because a few had sex with Midianites. Seventy thousand killed because David took a census. All humans punished for Adam’s sin, all women condemned to painful childbirth for Eve’s. The Samarians’ children and women threatened (Hosea 13:16).

(2) 2 Kings 2:23-24, bears tear 42 children to pieces for calling the prophet Elisha “bald-head.”

(3) Kill adulterers (Lev. 20:10), homosexuals (20:13) and people who work on the Sabbath (Ex. 35.2). Cast into fire those who eat blood (Lev. 7:27), have skin diseases (13:46), have sex during his wife’s period (24:16). Daughters of priests who turn to prostitution must be burned (21:9). Ethnic cleansing is rife (Ex 34:11-14, Lev. 26:7-9, Num. 21:33-35, Deut. 2:26-35), not to mention the Canaanites, Hittites, Hivites, Perizzites, Girgashites, Amorites and Jebusites (Josh. 1-12). He commands the Israelites to show no mercy to those on His hit list. (Deut. 7:2) and to “not leave alive anything that breathes” (20:16).

(4) Slavery (Lev 25:44-46, Eph. 6:5, Col. 3:22), fathers selling daughters into slavery (Ex. 21:7), cruelty to slaves (Ex. 21:20-21, Luke 12:45-48), rape of female captives (Deut. 21:10-14), beating children (Prov. 13:24, 23:13), polygamy, including concubines because it’s only adultery to have sex with a married woman (Lev. 18:20)

(5) Cities not accepting Jesus at the second coming will be destroyed (Matt. 10:14-15, Luke 10_12). God will flood the earth (Matt. 24:37), or set it on fire (2 Pet. 3:7, 10), but not until much destruction and loss of life (much of Rev., esp. 6:8). And we mustn’t forget the eternal damnation and fiery furnace that awaits many (Matt. 7:13-15, 13:42, 25:41)

[Baruch]

Well, the 2008 Lambeth Conference has managed to make no decisions regarding ordination of practicing homosexuals or blessing of same-sex marriages. They’ve avoided the open rift, although the rift lurks there still. Conservatives in the church accuse Archbishop Williams of allowing the liberal branches of the church in Canada and the United States to drift into heretical theological interpretations of the bible. And Archbishop Nzimbi of Kenya made it clear that the Anglican churches in Africa and other nations in the southern hemisphere would continue to create parallel church structures to serve North American conservatives. The road to schism is still clear and easily traversed.

Yes, but the ArchCant today put more distance than that between the Anglican Communion, and the N American liberals. He stated that they are forbidden to make more gay bishops, and that there and in Great Britain where it also occurred, there are to be no more same sex blessings. Similar mainline churches have made similar prohibitions, but simply expelled disobedient clergy, rather than proposing a two tier system of conservative and liberal (conservative on top of course) to preserve the broader Communion, as seems to be the incipient modus operandi proposed this Conference by moderates.

As always, throughout this long, long debate, there has been a tremendous amount of scripture invoked to support one side or the other. And why not? Scripture is particularly good at that. (Throughout this article, I shall use “scripture” to include both oral and written traditions assumed to be revealed or inspired. This is not a strictly accurate reading of the word, but it answers my purposes.)

Scripture, it seems to me, is essential to theism. All other evidence supporting theism (ontological, cosmological, etc.) have been shown to fall miserably short – at most they might support a kind of deism, but not a great deal more than that. Our notions of “what God is like,” – or wants or hates – comes from scripture.

That is a curiously Jewish definition of scripture ... I take it you mean prophetic inspiration in general, expressible in some verbal form (but Zen Buddhists would object). In the sense you mean it, I agree, it seems to be necessary for theism ... Zen Buddhists not being theists.

But as we can see in the same-sex debate alone, scripture is hopelessly conflicted. I don’t want to present a complete catalogue here, as that has been done endlessly. Still, I’ll provide evidence for what follows in the footnotes for those who need it.

To start with, God, as we find him in Christian scripture, has a pretty spotty moral record of his own, punishing people for the sins of others, meting out extremely inappropriate punishments for minor offences, and so on through a dreadful litany in the Old Testament.

But maybe God can’t be accused of sin in His own right, and maybe those things were done for reasons we can’t understand – an oft-heard apologetic. Maybe. Who knows? Still, that being said, surely we can assert that it would be wrong for God to demand of people that they do what is unambiguously wrong – wrong per the very scripture we’re talking about, including all those “thou shalt nots” and prescriptions for what thou shalt. “Unless I say otherwise?” No, I don’t think that will wash. And yet, there is an awfully lot of that. The list of crimes ordered by God is long, and the Bible permits an awful lot of stuff almost universally considered evils today.

I completely agree. The Tanakh (we don't call it the Old Testament, since that presupposes the Christian insult) is an ideologically selective and well edited collection of mutually incompatible early Jewish religious writings, more relevant in the period 625 BCE to 70 CE than today, the core of it having to do with the theologically puritanical royal theocracy started by King Josiah and completed by the sons and grandson of King Herod. It is not the complete collection by any means based on surviving manuscripts. And rabbinic Judaism is based on the Sadducee and Pharisee oral interpretation of the first five books of the Tanakh, called Torah, collected initially in the Mishnah, around 220 CE. It is originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not King James English. Either G-d is immoral in human terms, or taken as a whole, the divine inspiration of the collection is questionable, or both. I believe both. To be more up to date, if G-d was moral, the HaShoah and countless other human sins would have been prevented. No human father would escape life in prison for child neglect even a jot as great as G-d's apparent neglect. But I suggest you read "The Trial" by Elie Wiezel. Also "Jesus And Yahweh: The Names Divine" by Harold Bloom, for two Jewish responses to this G-d.

Okay, but maybe one may argue that most of this occurs in the Old Testament, while the New is more directed toward morally uplifting and hopeful messages. Looks true at first blush, but surely we can see that while the New Testament doesn’t provide gruesome histories of plagues, genocide and destruction, surely those very things are yet prophesied there and promised there. And we mustn’t forget that “Jesus died for our sins,” which seems to fly in the face of a loving God. Surely He can forgive sins without demanding a sacrifice. That doesn’t appear very loving on the surface.

I agree completely. The New Testament, is an extremely complex collection of quasi-Jewish religious writings, also mutually incompatible, originally written in the Jewish dialect Yavanic (Judeo-Greek) (see Yiddish for comparisons). It is also selective and ideological, not coming into its present edited form before 325 CE, but parts of it certainly existing at least as far back as 200 CE (earliest complete manuscripts). It is extremely syncretistic; partly Jewish (Pharsaical and Kabbalistic), partly Hindu/Buddhist, partly Near Eastern pagan including Egyptian and Phoenician/Canaanite and Greek (including Prometheus, Mystery Religions, Socratic/Stoic/Cynicism) ... partly in the forms of burlesque religious novellas (Gospels), and the edited pastoral and theological letters of the most brilliant Jewish heretic of all time, Paul of Tarsus). It is also incomplete, other early Christian apocrypha being just as relevant as the books that made the final cut (plus early Church Fathers quote from Jewish Apocrypha as well). To accept the NT as is, is to implicitly accept the ideology of the Church, hardly an unbiased opinion.

Is there good stuff in scripture? Oh, absolutely! Tons of really admirable moral teaching going far beyond the obvious (theft, murder, etc.) is evident in the scripture of nearly every religion. These include, for example, the numerous versions of the “golden rule,” concern for the oppressed, charity for the disabled and indigent.

But therein lies the problem: if scripture contains both good and bad teachings, how are we to differentiate between them? And the answer, as I suggested above, should be obvious: we do it by invoking our own understanding of right and wrong. We’ve always done this, which is why passages that support selling daughters are ignored, passages that urge us to kill those unlike would be illegal hate speech if uttered as a public exhortation.

Well not so obvious historically. The Church or Synagogue is supposed to interpret it for the illiterate multitude, particularly thru the medium of sacerdotalism (priests and rabbis who can read and write) and traditionalism (meaning of catholicism horizontally and vertically). The printing press and general literacy messed this all up. The continuing freeing of Christians from the Papacy and of Jews from the ghetto messed this all up. There aren't supposed to be 15 million interpretations of Torah or 2 billion interpretations of Bible. How should we interpret it today? Any damn way we want to, and we do. Some still want institutional authority (Papacy, priest, minister, rabbi if clerical ... elders if lay ... living or dead) or they expect the scripture to interpret itself (literalists) or they take it as metaphorical poetry useful at times in contemplating eternity (in my case). I am just not as Medieval as the average person (except in mysticism), so institutional authority is something I more or less do without, being literate myself, more than sufficiently literate not to take scripture literally, any more than I would take Tom Sawyer as history/biography.

Anyway, the point of all this is no more than to show that all scripture presents a confused picture of God, an extremely ambiguous moral framework, and a source for arguing every kind of polar opposite.

We cannot forget that the same scripture gave us 38,000 Christian denominations, sects or variants, or that it can exist comfortably with evolution or deny evolution completely [rest edited out as objectionable ... G=d loves gay and lesbians].

Now, I don’t doubt for a moment that theists, especially the really thoughtful [added ... thanks but I don't deserve it], struggle with these same issues. I’m not using these arguments to denigrate their beliefs, nor could I, since they are often much more familiar with them (and the apologetics concerning them) than I am. My point is rather that scripture, however you look at it, contains some really good stuff and some really bad stuff. And it is left completely to us to determine which is which. We’ve been doing that for a long time, and through that time there have been various passages held up as models, or variously ignored. Which is touted and which ignored change regularly with the passage of time as our knowledge, understanding and cultures change.

Superficially correct. You know more about scripture more than the average theist. Good scripture is a collection of paradoxes, which the logical and rational and literal, break themselves in vain like ocean waves against great continents. But a mystic knows that the waves and the stones are one and the same, that it is not necessary for the waves to break the stones, and that the stones are ontologically already wet, that dualism is a dual-usion. What is a weakness to you, is the strength of it. Great scripture like the Bible, Quran, Gita, Dao De Jing, Dhammapada ... are life developing organons of metaphysics, achieving quite the opposite of what Aristotle was trying to achieve with his organon; his logic, his metaphysics. Living with paradox, rather than trying to resolve it into a false clarity.

Thus, what we finally discern is that scripture is the ink-blot through which its readers see themselves. That being the case, it is time to put aside scripture – the writing, after all, of men long dead – and speak for ourselves. What we love or hate, countenance or forbid, we must do for our own reasons and own up to that. Because it is, in the end, our own reasons that inform us, as we can clearly see by the ability to find scriptural support for almost any position. That we find scriptural support for our own position is because we found what we wanted and stopped looking.

If scripture can provide justification for so many complete opposites, then it is the quintessential reductio ad absurdum, and therefore utterly useless as anything other than a personal soul-mirror for those who revere it. I urge all those tearing the Anglican Communion apart to reflect on that before they meet again. I urge both sides to consider carefully whether they are attempting to speak for God, for humanity, or for themselves.

How typical, you Aristotelian you, to believe in the Law Of Excluded Middle. That something is either one thing or another, but not both. The ultimate reductio ad absurdum is logic itself, you Vulcan ... but real life is not like that, just toy problems like the design of computer circuits. Per Derrida, you are right, and Derrida was Jewish, and therefore very smart, but no rabbi ... scripture is not a single mirror, but what you experience in the fun/horror house of mirrors, some mirrors distorting one way, some another, so you can perceive yourself tall or short, fat or thin, according to the mirror of your inner self image. And best yet, stand between two mirrors facing each other, and you can see eternity there! Infinity upon infinity, with Esse Homo smack dab in the middle of reality itself!! I agree that poor men use scripture poorly as they use everything else poorly ... to quote the Gospel Of Thomas ... they are the poverty. But mystics must beware peering too much into the Abyss, because the Abyss in peering back also into you! So of course only the humble can look into it, without going mad. Nietzche's failing wasn't that he was irrational, but that he wasn't humble, that was his madness. To address your final sentence, consider that each of those Anglican factions are speaking for G-d, for humanity and also for themselves.

Well Scarecrow, I have set all your strawmen alight. Perhaps Dorothy will come and put out the flames. But remember that the reason why the Scarecrow thought he needed a brain, was that he didn't realize he was already smart. You are that. Meanwhile I accept defeat, Dorothy will never part with the Ruby Slippers. I have my flying monkeys to tend to ... cackle shreeeek! If you think carefully, you will realize that Glenda and I are one and the same.

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, but the ArchCant today put more distance than that between the Anglican Communion, and the N American liberals. He stated that they are forbidden to make more gay bishops, and that there and in Great Britain where it also occurred, there are to be no more same sex blessings. Similar mainline churches have made similar prohibitions, but simply expelled disobedient clergy, rather than proposing a two tier system of conservative and liberal (conservative on top of course) to preserve the broader Communion, as seems to be the incipient modus operandi proposed this Conference by moderates.

Ah, but in the Anglican/Episcopalian version, this is done under the convenient fiction that it is merely pro tem, pending further discussion and conference. Face-saving all round, don't you think?

That is a curiously Jewish definition of scripture ... I take it you mean prophetic inspiration in general, expressible in some verbal form (but Zen Buddhists would object). In the sense you mean it, I agree, it seems to be necessary for theism ... Zen Buddhists not being theists.

Yes, I did mean in the sense of prophetic inspiration, as I mentioned early in the piece. It seems to me that deism would not assume even so much of the deity as that it might share some anthropomorphic need to communicate.

Either G-d is immoral in human terms, or taken as a whole, the divine inspiration of the collection is questionable, or both. I believe both.

You will appreciate that, sans belief in God, I can't believe both. I am therefore left with nothing but that scripture is inconsistent enough that it cannot have been inspired by the same source. And at that the same time, that very inconsistency is a fundamental part of my argument (that it is more usual to find a reflection of one's own beliefs and prejudices there than to find that which would contradict them).

To accept the NT as is, is to implicitly accept the ideology of the Church, hardly an unbiased opinion.

Didn't I say that?

Well not so obvious historically. The Church or Synagogue is supposed to interpret it for the illiterate multitude, particularly thru the medium of sacerdotalism (priests and rabbis who can read and write) and traditionalism (meaning of catholicism horizontally and vertically). The printing press and general literacy messed this all up. The continuing freeing of Christians from the Papacy and of Jews from the ghetto messed this all up. There aren't supposed to be 15 million interpretations of Torah or 2 billion interpretations of Bible. How should we interpret it today? Any damn way we want to, and we do. Some still want institutional authority (Papacy, priest, minister, rabbi if clerical ... elders if lay ... living or dead) or they expect the scripture to interpret itself (literalists) or they take it as metaphorical poetry useful at times in contemplating eternity (in my case). I am just not as Medieval as the average person (except in mysticism), so institutional authority is something I more or less do without, being literate myself, more than sufficiently literate not to take scripture literally, any more than I would take Tom Sawyer as history/biography.

Robert G. Ingersoll and I are in agreeement (I checked) that priests and rabbis set the whole "interpretation of scripture" thing up as a very thinly disguised way to gain a little power over (and cash from) the masses.

That which a god, capable of what scripture claims for this God, wants us to know we would know. And you'll find that in scripture, too.

Living with paradox, rather than trying to resolve it into a false clarity.

I'm not so certain that mystics are any better at living with paradox than realists. We're both trying to make sense out of it, but we've chosen different axioms as our point of departure.

I might add, probably gratuitously, that the axioms of the mystic generally include something of what it is that is trying to be resolved. Nothing supports itself so well as a circular argument.

To address your final sentence, consider that each of those Anglican factions are speaking for G-d, for humanity and also for themselves.

Well, that's my argument. If they are speaking for God, then they are lying, since on the basis of confused scripture they cannot know what God would have them say. If they are speaking for humanity, then they had best go out and find out what humanity would have them say, not assume that they know what is best for humanity -- because they, and everyone else, cannot know what is best for anyone other than themselves. And thus, as they are speaking for themselves, let them live according to their own word, but ask nothing more of others.

Well Scarecrow, I have set all your strawmen alight. Perhaps Dorothy will come and put out the flames. But remember that the reason why the Scarecrow thought he needed a brain, was that he didn't realize he was already smart. You are that. Meanwhile I accept defeat, Dorothy will never part with the Ruby Slippers. I have my flying monkeys to tend to ... cackle shreeeek! If you think carefully, you will realize that Glenda and I are one and the same.

I always build my strawmen out of damp straw. They'll survive a little yet.

And do you look good in a frilly, sparkly blue dress? I'm afraid I don't.

[Baruch]

Circular arguments are precisely what good theology is made of ... and since circularity is a fundamental logical error ... good theology is implicitly in error, from a logical point of view. But since I embrace the larger irrational (Sacre bleu Monsieur Descartes!), that is a bone I can swallow, whereas Vulcans will just have to pass the plate.

Sacerdotalism is what it is, and all institutional religions (a circular definition to me) practice it ... it is just that the work of scripture interpretation is much more complicated these days, so that even the literate hoi polloi are dazzled! I lived it with my wife (still a Methodist pastor 5 years ago). But you really can't find as many illiterate peasants in Oklahoma as you can in Cairo, so the imams are safe yet

The Anglicans do have a clever way of postponing the future indefinitely ... and they have to do it with less authority than the Catholics though, since they are Papa-less and the Queen no longer cuts heads off. Are you not at least a little sympathetic ... here you have the nobility, military, priesthood and merchants still fighting over who gets to take advantage of the peasants/proletariat, 5 millenia later after this all started. And the priesthood not controlling power, or war, or materialism ... have only smoke and mirrors at their disposal ... is that pluck, brass or chutzpah?

One can actually included the Zen Buddhists in my scheme, if you admit that all of experience is prophetic, not just the verbal part. Galileo and Kepler felt that way ... as proper Pythagoreans though, they did admit mathematics as the divine language rather than Italian or German.

Does G-d have needs? I think so, at least the need for self disclosure ... isn't that what we are really doing here? Here is the choices ... we can be in denial that human experience, not just scripture, is inconsistent ... or seeing that it is ... we can vainly try to reconcile it all with itself like Aquinas ... or simply give it all up as impossible and attempt to excommunicate the irrational rather than the heretic. It is fundamentalist, in metaphysics, to believe that the world is consistent, particularly in terms of binary logic, rather than fuzzy logic. Realist is not the same as rationalist. Don't try to change terms in mid argument I am a realist, but not a rationalist. I suggest you are a rationalist, but not a realist. Rationalists don't live with paradox, they deny it ... but a realist can live with paradox, because that is the way things are!

Neither the Wicked Witch nor Glenda wore a blue sparkly dress .. but Glenda did wear a pink sparkly dress ... please adjust the tint on your TV next time you watch it!

Shalom

[evangelicalhumanist]

Circular arguments are precisely what good theology is made of ... and since circularity is a fundamental logical error ... good theology is implicitly in error, from a logical point of view.

But isn't that precisely what people like me have always said? If "good theology" is "bad logic," then nothing at all can be reasoned about theology.

What doesn't figure -- at least for me -- is the nature of that being that would create the wherewithal for doing logical reasoning, and then exempt itself from it. Which is why I've always felt that theology is not the "study of God," but the "study of the ideas of men concerning the stuff they haven't figured out yet."

That is to say, theology seems like nothing so much as the effort to say we know what we categorically do not know.

[Baruch]

Exactly, well put. I agree that theology is a waste of time, and even worse than a waste of time, because you falsely think you are getting somewhere. Rationalization won't help, since it is delusional or dishonest to the core. Zen clearly shows that true spirituality comes from intuition (unconscious) and non-verbal experience (so much for scripture). In that way, even scripture is potentially harmful, and for literalist fundies, it truly is harmful to them. Better for them to revert to the shamanistic practices of the Stone Age, rather than try to read something into scripture that isn't there, in a language and culture they don't even understand. Most folks don't even understand the language and culture of King James I of England (James VI of Scotland), let alone ancient sectarian Jews and their Hebrew language. Best for the Christians to just give the Bible back to us Jews, both parts of it (since both parts are Jewish), best for them to go back to their European paganisms (like Ashatru), that they were torn out of by the Roman Catholic Church, back to their tribal kingdoms. Europeans might then understand themselves, rather than pretending they are Romans or Jews or Greeks ... when they are neither. Self alienation for almost 2000 years.

Shalom