Sure, but what's nice about it is that you don't have to take it all literally. You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations.
That's sort of what a lot of other religions are missing. The idea that it's not literal.
> You can take the metaphors, and some of the prescriptions as to how to behave or to best deal with some situations.
Then I've got better ideas. You kind of need the man in the sky or it's pointless noise.... Ie just a list of personal preferences invented by someone, followed by a bunch more. That's the number one reason god was invented.... To make it so peasants can't argue against the rules
It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules. If religion is not needed for control, then your argument is weakened. It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard. Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
> It looks like with religion not in the picture as predominantly as in the past, peasants still don’t argue against the rules.
The priestly class has become less relevant, yes. I never said it was the only game in town, or the only way to justify force
> It also looks like religion has been around before peasants and is present even in relatively flat hierarchy communities and proto-societies where control was less relevant or hard.
I wouldn't equate that to today's religion. Pagan beliefs about the sun chasing the moon aren't what I'm talking about, I can forgive true misunderstandings about physics and astronomy etc... I'm talking about prohibitive moral codes originating from a ruling class concerning the domestic and mundane
> Historically, power structures co-opt rather than invent religion.
To amplify cgio's point, the historical secret of Judaism's survival, as well as the reason it has been hunted and attacked by empires for millennia, is that it chooses a commitment to a cultural belief system over fitting into the dominant empire culture of its day, and over blind loyalty to a Caesar. Which isn't to say that it also can't be loyal. But it presents an easy target for Caesars, because it is essentially non-conformism bottles as a religion.
Neither Christianity nor Islam, nor any other religion I'm aware of, elevates non-conformism and individual identity and personal responsibility in a similar way. It requires developing a moral or ethical framework that is internal rather than dictated by the group, and that is the nature of Jewish education. God could simply cease to exist - morality is asking questions.
To your point, that includes an acceptance to non-conforming within the religion itself, which is why a large number of people identify as nonreligious. It's a fairly common misconception among Christians and Muslims and atheists who grew up in those religions that
>> You kind of need the man in the sky or it's pointless noise.
That is true if you grew up in a religion that delineates its morality based on what God says to do, or based on a fear of Hell, where the religion or the culture doesn't provide any other reason for acting morally. In that case, once you decide that religion is bunk and God doesn't exist, what is there to keep you from acting like a beast? That's a problem with those religions.
I've struggled to explain the difference with Judaism to Christians I know. What I found was an effective way of saying it was to avoid the word "morality" completely, and use the word "ethics". Maybe you do need the man in the sky to have morals the way Christians conceive of those, but don't lose your ethics just because you find out God is Dead, do you?
Its full of superstition from a couple thousand years ago.