This is all a bit of a moot point.

The first question of all of this is why is anyone here regarding this particular middle-eastern iron-age religion as more worthy than any of the other thousands of religions that have been dreamt up over the past few millennia?

Is there anything different about this religion than all the others other than popularity and longevity? I.e. has this one provided any actual evidence of it's "truth" any more than Odin or Horus?

I can't see that it does and why people that claim it does expect to be treated with any more respect than if they said, "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden."

numbers 4:15: and pops told me i'm special

sunlore wrote:You guys are all overlooking the fact that Jesus Christ was in fact Jules Caesar.

No, he wasn't. There are surviving writings from Roman historians and journalists, most notably Pliny The Younger, whose writings date to around 100 C.E., mentioning a religious cult with origins in the vicinity of Jewish Palestine, which had been giving the Romans a lot of grief.

I seriously doubt that Jews would have taken to worshiping a Roman Emperor as their Messiah, since their Messiah was supposed to be a great military leader who would ultimately deliver their land and people from foreign occupation.

Gramsci wrote:This is all a bit of a moot point.

The first question of all of this is why is anyone here regarding this particular middle-eastern iron-age religion as more worthy than any of the other thousands of religions that have been dreamt up over the past few millennia?

Is there anything different about this religion than all the others other than popularity and longevity? I.e. has this one provided any actual evidence of it's "truth" any more than Odin or Horus?

I can't see that it does and why people that claim it does expect to be treated with any more respect than if they said, "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden."

I agree with you that favoring one religion over all others is ultimately very closed-minded. I personally don't subscribe to any particular organized faith. I feel that religion, being in essence nothing more than a politicization of spiritual matters, creates deep divisions and misunderstanding between cultures and so is not really in the best interest of humanity as a whole. I acknowledge the good things that have been done in the name of religion or in the name of religious beliefs, but I really don't think that religion is necessary for the existence of charity or philanthropy, or for the promotion of common moral or ethical codes either. There are many examples of secular organizations which promote good works, moral codes, and ethical standards without the intervention of religion. On the flip-side of this, have always been religions which leave the subject of morality to be handled by other social institutions or philosophies (the coexistence of Buddhism and Confucianism in many East Asian countries is a handy example).

However, to equate religion with "fairies in your garden" is to trivialize the meaning that people all over the world attribute to their faith. I think religion does ideally exist to serve a higher purpose than just the promotion of silly myths, I just have serious doubts as to how well religions actually serve this purpose in practice.

I think the real point of this discussion is why a major world religion has grown up around the characterization of a man as a god, when that man is never even quoted in their very own religious texts as explicitly making that claim himself. All these unbelievable miraculous works have been attributed to this man as 'proof' of his divinity, without him actually ever stating unequivocally that he's the incarnation of God.

It leads me to ponder the observation that for most Christians, the focus of their faith is more on the explicit belief that Jesus was a god (a claim he is never actually quoted in scripture as making) and they seem to be completely missing the basic point of all the moral precepts that he actually did teach, which were basically pacifism, forgiveness, leniency and devotion to serving others.

Gramsci wrote:This is all a bit of a moot point.

The first question of all of this is why is anyone here regarding this particular middle-eastern iron-age religion as more worthy than any of the other thousands of religions that have been dreamt up over the past few millennia?

Is there anything different about this religion than all the others other than popularity and longevity? I.e. has this one provided any actual evidence of it's "truth" any more than Odin or Horus?

I can't see that it does and why people that claim it does expect to be treated with any more respect than if they said, "I have fairies at the bottom of my garden."

I guess the Biblical texts and the history are fascinating in themselves. I couldn't care less about what modern Christians read into it, at the end of the day.

I would be surprised if Gramsci has even read the Bible.

Even if you're not a Christian, the Bible is a moving, gripping and fascinating book. It's a real page-turner, full of little vignettes and stories with deep moral lessons behind them. It's also the basis for literally hundreds of years of European culture. Perhaps only THE ODYSSEY or THE DIVINE COMEDY or Shakespeare's final tragedies are more important works of literature, both in a historical sense and in an aesthetic sense.

That's why it's worth talking about.

Welcome back FUCKING Humprey Bear !!!!!!

There's a lot of really sick-ass shit in the Bible as well.

http://aethlos.com/biblenotes.htm

Purely as a work of literature though, it makes a scintillating read, once you get past the part with all the 'begats.'

Genesis, Chapter 11 wrote:10 These are the generations of Shem: Shem was an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood:

11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters.

12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber:

15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters.

16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg:

17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters.

18 And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu...

NerblyBear wrote:I would be surprised if Gramsci has even read the Bible.

Even if you're not a Christian, the Bible is a moving, gripping and fascinating book. It's a real page-turner, full of little vignettes and stories with deep moral lessons behind them. It's also the basis for literally hundreds of years of European culture. Perhaps only THE ODYSSEY or THE DIVINE COMEDY or Shakespeare's final tragedies are more important works of literature, both in a historical sense and in an aesthetic sense.

That's why it's worth talking about.

Except that the Bible isn't the work of one guy, and was never really a single product called "The Bible" until a long time afterwards.

Colonel Panic wrote:

sunlore wrote:You guys are all overlooking the fact that Jesus Christ was in fact Jules Caesar.

No, he wasn't. There are surviving writings from Roman historians and journalists, most notably Pliny The Younger, whose writings date to around 100 C.E., mentioning a religious cult with origins in the vicinity of Jewish Palestine, which had been giving the Romans a lot of grief.

You should pick up that crazy book anyway, if you're at all interested in this kind of thing.

I just might. I enjoy reading about all kinds of strange ideas.

Lately though, all my reading time has been monopolized by tech books...