Aristotle in my humble opinion missed one important type of fallacy, which is Partial Truth Taken As Full Truth. A perfect example being evolution. Nobody doubts that it is partially true but is it the Full Truth? Evolution is at best a crude and uncertain tool in Nature's hands. To believe that Nature managed to turn bacteria into human bodies consisting of 10 trillion cells, each of which is an amazing little factory, seems like a little bit of a stretch to me. And there are just too many inexplicable features in animals and humans to believe it all happened only through evolution, like the eye, and like self-aware intelligence, and many more. Why did the Neanderthals not evolve, but remained pretty much the same for two hundred thousand years, never even inventing the bow and arrow (or for that matter the throwing spear)? Why have chimps not evolved into higher organisms? There are a thousand reasons why evolution seems only a partial truth, and only really one reason to believe it is the full truth, namely scientific conformity and fear of being branded unscientific. — Joe0082

If you can't even project your thoughts in a way that you understand them, don't expect that bodies externally to yours will understand.

But this does not have to imply that life_even complex life_ can't reach similar states by following other pathways. — Jack Cummins

This is the point I want to focus on in this discussion. We developed a cosmological rationalization of extraterrestrial life completely independent and distant from that which exists on Earth - us -, and in this movement, we ended up transforming this search into a quasi-metaphysical objective to be achieved: - To prove that intelligent life completely different from ours exist.

The "Ontological Principle" shows that this type of conclusion is erroneous, and if it is erroneous, the search is being in vain. One of the following two scenarios below are more plausible than a life based on magma - for example -:

Or (1) extraterrestrial intelligent life is identical or very similar to that presented on our planet;
Or (2) Humanity is the only intelligent life in the Universe.

If both scenarios are analyzed, it is visible that, evidently, the second staement is correct, therefore, the Ontological Point necessarily remains as being of Humanity.

Point of view is necessarily from a single vantage point -- not many.
Multiple points of view can exist, but not in a single vantage point. This is a one to one relation.
Absence of evidence that there is another intelligent life existing in the universe, doesn't mean absence of multiple vantage points. The error here is, the impossibility of accessing or being in multiple vantage points is not being considered. — Caldwell

What it seems to me that you are not understanding is that I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of intelligent life outside the Earth. I'm just making it clear that all the theories and hypotheses about the possibility of this life are just that, theories and hypotheses about a "probability", the same ones that are supported by an erroneous interpretation of existence, which suggests that life on Earth is unique and intrinsically biological to Earth's ecosystem.

Theories and hypotheses about possibilities sustained on a false basis, are fallacious, and therefore, unable to refute the argument that I present:

"Until proven otherwise, Humanity is the only evidential intelligent life in the Universe, and by direct consequence, the Ontological Point of existence."

So far, I only read responses that try to strength the theories and hypothesis agains the argument, but that do not refute it.

Could the schools get any worse? Does anybody in public life ever tell the truth anymore? Could political polarity be any worse? Could the fact that the health care system is corrupt beyond your wildest dreams be any more evident? So on and on and on... — synthesis

Every time someone mentions the symptoms of the decay and collapse of secular society in this historical cycle, I only regret to know that we - humanity - have caused this twice in the past - the Bronze Age and the Classical Age - and we do not we seem to learn... Maybe we need collapse as much as birth.

Hasty generalization fallacy. — 180 Proof

As I always say, someone who refuses to try to understand the argument, and is blinded by contradictory bias, will not present an answer worth discussing.

If humanity is the centre of consciousness in the universe, it raise the question of what is our role in it.? It would almost seem to make us like gods. Also, we could ask did it happen randomly? Is there any purpose underlying evolution?Of course, it is so difficult to know for sure and even if we are at this point, it doesn't mean that there have never been other beings, perhaps much more advanced and sophisticated than us. Part of the problem is that we see through the human perspective, which does appear to be the ultimate one, but it is not possible for us to go beyond being human beings in order to see from another position. Of course, there have been religious teachers but they still were living as humans too. — Jack Cummins

My reasoning is not being based on some metaphysical idea of "sacred destiny" or "cosmic purpose" for humanity, but on the ontological interpretation of existence, which, until now, shows that humanity is the only point in the Universe with self-awareness, and not because that is a purpose, but by chance.

As I said, if evidence is found that intelligent life exists, this discussion and argument can be dismissed, but until then, it remains valid.

The Drake equation is:

N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);
and

R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

It is interesting this theory which makes us questioning if it is worthy or not discover if we are alone or not in this vast universe. — javi2541997

You clearly did not understand my proposition, given that you are using an ontologically invalid argument - Drake's Equation - to defend your view.

My criticism is directly related to this type of theoretical argument that builds conclusions that affect external factors without any kind of concern with the internal consequences - the human experience itself -.

If life outside of Earth exists, we should look for it as if we were looking for Earth and Humanity, because the probability of inteligent life being identical to ours is greater than it being formed from - for example - minerals - lithoids - or other chemical elements - Methane, Helium, Plasma, etc... based life -.

When you say "overdetermine a cause" does that mean there are other possible causes of the phenomenon in question? — T Clark

Indeed, the existence of other causes is not an impossibility within this reasoning. The point in question is the unnecessary attention that humanity overlaps with those causes that exclude it from the equation. In the scientific community, the question being asked should be:

- Is there extraterrestrial life? And if it exists, why should it be different than the one found on Earth?

And not:

- Is there extraterrestrial life different than the one on Earth?

Can you give an example of an argument that doesn't affect external factors but has an internal consequence? — T Clark

"Humanity is the only sentient life on the Universe"

If, in fact, my ontological proposition is correct, this is an example of an argument with internal consequence, without affecting any external factor:

- All intelligent extraterrestrial life is hypothetical; - External Factor -
- Humanity is evidently intelligent; - Valid ontological argument -
- Therefore, Humanity is the only intelligent life. - Internal consequence -

"Does Existence have any objective/universal meaning?" — SmartIdiot

Experience is Craving; Craving is the Individual; The Individual is Existence; Existence is Man, and Man is Egoism. We are ontological Gods who seek Being and Experience in all possibilities, be they trivial and mundane, to the metaphysical and unreal.

Even with the finiteness and the limit, even what does not exist and it is pure idea will allow itself to be created by humanity, because we, through our nature, are doomed to this destiny: - The destiny of self-realization, be it consented or not.

Thoughts? — javi2541997

It is not surprising that Bakunin would see the act of man to isolate himself and remain alone as a selfish act, since he believed that man was by nature a communal being.

Ironic that in his youth, being the son of nobles, he spent most of his time isolated in his private library reading the most diverse books.

The hypocrisy of the left making itself present!

Does anybody in the West still want to be free? — synthesis

Your question is directed much more towards the historical figure of humanity, than towards something intrinsically individual.

We have reached the point where our abstract-moral principles and values are no longer balanced with our technological advances. Given that, we enter decadence, because we have the means, but we don't have the right morals to use those same means.

The only result of a fragile and chaotic relationship like this, is collapse.

Freedom is no longer discussed by the sake of freedom, but for the sake of power.

The whole idea of the flood is extremely interesting. My own reading has often been in esoteric literature, and some of the writing is of questionable authority. However, some make the link with the lost continent of Atlantis, although I realise that Atlantis is quite likely mythical. It does seem that Sumer seems to be a starting point from the various sources I have read. — Jack Cummins

I believe they are based on some historical fact - at the moment unknown - not recorded in the most distant past - Neolithic? Chalcolitic? -.

The Sumerians themselves also had in their mythology, the equivalents of the Christian Adam and Eve, in their own Paradise, with their own Forbidden Fruits, and with their own Snake. The best thing is that we have a contemporary representation of it - from Sumer -.

The Adam and Eve Cylinder Seal ( circa 2100 BC ):



The seal depicts two seated figures, a tree, and a serpent. And as the assyriologist George Smith said:

"The Adam and Eve seal hsd two figures, male, identified by his head-dress of horns as a god, and female, on each side of a tree, holding out their hands to the fruit, while between the backs of the figures is a serpent."

The point is that the Sumerians already knew, or at least adopted, the tradition of the myth of the primordial couple and their fall from paradise, of the prehistoric people who preceded them - the Ubaid culture -.

There is something that we still don't know of our anthropological history.

I am interested to know if you think it has particular significance, and even that is why it may have become 'lost'. — Jack Cummins

My interest arises from the anthropological connection of the Hebrew - and consequently, Christian - myths with the Sumerian ones, which in practice, were the first human civilization - everything began in Sumer -.

Somehow, all the myths and religions of the world tell a common story - obviously it is completely buried in millennia of distortions, inventions, opinions and false ideas - that could give us some trace of vision in the pre-historic Neolithic period.

All have the narrative of the "flood myth" in one way or another - it can be found from pre-Columbian America to pre-dysnastic China - and also the "old good times myth", which, in short, is a common memory of "utopian" times tens of thousands of years ago that can also be found in all cultures - from Scandinavia to southern India -.

Perhaps this book that I am referring to in the post, which is unfortunately lost, could contain some kind of anthropological and even archaeological information about the most distant past - about 5,000 to 6,000 years BC, where our historical records end up -.

I forgot to get back to you on this. I read your essay. I enjoyed it. You and I definitely see the world differently. But then, that's no surprise. — T Clark

It is great when someone sets an example as to how feedback can be given with respect even if we are in disagreement. Thank you, and in indeed, we disagree!

One of your old posts? — T Clark

My article, "Egoism: Humanity's Lost Nature"

One aspect which I think is worth you considering is how this connects to your whole philosophy of egoism. The needs of those in power over others is probably different from those of the individual. It is hard to know the awareness of the individuals, even the elite. How much was conscious? Perhaps we are going beyond the mythical at this point. But, sometimes the intention or motivations may need to be disentangled from mythic understanding of reality. — Jack Cummins

Even though many of the choices made by the Christian elite were within the aspect of "mass mentality", they were all still individuals, who were carried away by - what I call - "Negative Egoism", the irrational, instinctive, primitive part of Man.

Their preaching of a message of a perfect symbolic world, ended up justifying their distortion of the material physical world.

In a way, Christianity, in its core principles, is a duality of Victory x Victory.

The elite would transform the world in such a way that its image would remain intact, while destroying the individual's freedom to establish themselves permanently in the upper caste of the hierarchy - the elites -, while following a message of "postmortem reward".

Their faith comforted them when they remembered what they had done to the world.

They were so valuable, that God became flesh and sacrificed himself for humanity. A beautiful rhetoric that says:

"Look! No matter how evil and wicked we are, if we repent, we will go to the eternal reward!"

Justified debauchery and carnage...

I think what you mean is that I'm wrong. — T Clark

Indeed, "fallacy" can be used in many ways.

There is a good, non-supernatural argument that existence is not independent of awareness, but it will take us into Taoism, which I think is beyond the scope of this thread. — T Clark

Please introduce me to this argument - or start another discussion if it is of interest to you - as I strongly disagree.

My position is based on the proposition of "Cosmic Ontologism", or as I prefer to call it, "Natural Egoism", where existence is independent of self-consciousness, because the very substance of existence is its "Craving for Craving", that is, Existence is its own cause.

Existence is a human concept. — T Clark

Here you have committed a fallacy, as "Existence" is independent of the awareness of its existence.

The Earth had 4 billion years of where it existed even without an observer to become aware of its existence.

If Jesus's message is the main aspect of Christianity, I do not see why it has to be based on belief in magic. Of course, there is so much more to this, such as miracles and the resurrection. These are much more complex than the idea of the virgin birth of Jesus, but it does seem that for some people they all come together in a whole perspective on reality. — Jack Cummins

We have to take into account that, in the period when Christianity was structured, humanity still came from traditions and principles linked to the mythological and mythical.

Religion is a way of, in periods of subjective chaos, reconstructing society in an objective - absolute - way. For the Christian faith was one that could not be questioned. It was "The Word", therefore, it was the substantial truth of reality.

Christianity, for many, was a way of bringing purpose back, not only to their lives, but to the whole of Roman society, which until now - 2nd and 3rd centuries - was afflicted by the inconvenience of too much prosperity and plurality.

Obviously, the elites of the religion were the only ones with a complete understanding of thr dogmas and how the cult worked. In their views, the cosmogony of Christianity could not be questioned, and when Celsus, with his criticism, ended up revealing the contradictions found in the foundation of Christianity, they quickly rewrote it to agree with their arguments.

In conclusion, why do they focus so much on this aspect of the faith? The need to strengthen and establish a new dogma for the converted masses as truth.

There's a Japanese/Chinese (East Asian, don't know which particularly) Jesus, a Syrian Jesus, an Egyptian Jesus, yes an Ethiopian one. — Dharmi

Latin, Greek, German, English, Polish, Russian, Swedish, Danish, etc...

This also happens with Judas as a traitor of Jesus. What about this person? Has he even existed? Just another metaphor from the church using a person model? — javi2541997

As I already said, I believe that Jesus, his mother, his father, his apostles, existed as historical people, so, yes, I believe that Judas also existed.

However, whatever his role in the life of Jesus had been, this is already pure speculation.

In the "Gospel of Judas", a book considered apocryphal by the Catholic Church, we have another version of Judas:

"Jesus is able to teach Judas the true meaning of his life, ministry and death. Mankind can be divided into two races, or groups. Those who are furnished with the immortal soul, like Judas, can come to know the God within and enter the imperishable realm when they die. Those who belong to the same generation of the other eleven disciples cannot enter the realm of God and will die both spiritually and physically at the end of their lives. As practices that are intertwined with the physical world, animal sacrifice and a communion ceremony involving "cannibalism" - the consumption of Jesus' flesh and blood - are condemned as abhorrent.

Eleven of the disciples Jesus chose to spread his message misunderstood the central tenets of his teaching. They were obsessed with the physical world of the senses. They continued to practise religious animal sacrifice, which pleased the lower gods but did not help to foster a connection with the true God. They wrongly taught that those martyred in the name of Christ would be bodily resurrected."

Ths Gospel is carbon-dated between 210 and 260 AD, so I think that its legitimacy could be questioned, yet, how could we know?

I posted a message on my chat app and someone responded with "no comment" but isn't "no comment" itself a comment? Is not taking sides tantamount to creating a side, a side that takes no sides? There's a difference between remaining silent and uttering the words, "I don't want to say anything". It's like announcing, "I don't want to exhale" but to speak one has to exhale. — TheMadFool

It is the projection of a corporeal action through writing.

If your conversation had been in person, the person's reaction would be silence.

Here's another point, Nazareth doesn't even seem to have existed during the time of Jesus. What's more, it doesn't even seem to be the case that he was from Nazareth. He wasn't called "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Bible, but "Jesus the Nazorean" and you can just look up the words in the text. Nazorean means something like a guru in modern contexts, it doesn't mean a particular place. — Dharmi

Indeed, there are some Christian denominations and historians who, because they know of this curiosity, change his name from "Jesus of Nazareth" to "Jesus of Galilee".

So when someone is so transform during the centuries it makes so difficult to believe in him. Because it makes a free interpretation about a human where he was a prophet in a dessert but ended up creating symbolism about cross/jesus representation. But it looks like there is some marketing flying around. — javi2541997

Christianity has always valued the image of Jesus, for he is the incarnation of God, therefore, a projected image of the "Perfect Man", and it is obvious that with the migration of Christianity to Western Europe, and, later, northern Europe, his "nature" would be transformed to appear more appealing to new converts.

This Christian policy is visible even in the Modern Age, where the first Jesuit priests who had contact with the Japanese, promptly transformed Jesus into an Asian Man for their translation of the Bible to Japanese:



We even have "Ethiopian Jesus":



I find the ability of an entire population disgusting, to transform the suffering and death of an individual, into political justification and personal gain.

It's just, horrendous ...

The idea of the virgin birth probably needs to be seen in connection with a worldview which sees sexuality and the body in a negative way. Apart from that, when you look at symbolism in the Bible, it does seem that so much of this may be derived from other traditions, especially Egyptian ideas. — Jack Cummins

The point that cannot be overlooked is that the Christian Church, since its beginnings, was based on the principles of theological and dogmatic conversion and structuring of the masses and their beliefs.

Let's face it, if the historical Jesus existed, he was conceived like any other human being. His mystification as being conceived of a virgin birth arose from the need to rewrite his worldly past. For, "how could the Son of God have been conceived in a carnal way?", which Christians saw - through the Demiurge - as being evil and being part of Satan.

His "pure" birth is now seen as "facts" for the simple reason that Christians won the battle against the classical world. It is obvious that they would spread a message that would be concordant to their governmental and societal plans.

How coincidental was the fact that, shortly after the story of Jesus's birth was published for all to see - by Celsus -, Christians came up with a Gospel entirely focused on the "sanctity" and "purity" of his birth. It is very, very convenient.

Therefore, I reiterate, if there is a historical characteristic of Jesus that we can verify, with evidence that supports the hypothesis as being real, it is that:

"Jesus was not conceived by God in a virgin birth, but by two ordinary humans in a normal sexual act."

No.

I don't deny the possibility, there's just no sources to actually check it out. — Dharmi

I answer the same to your hypothesis.

but part of the process is the destruction and recycling of the original body. — Aoife Jones

What constitutes me as being "I" is my unique perception of existence, so no, the person who left the machine, even if he is equal in appearance, personality, aesthetics, method, etc... would not constitute "I", because as you well put it, it is necessary to "destroy" one in order for the other to "exist".

There's no "transferring" of information, only "replicating" information.

However, if your question comprises only the perception of other beings in question to me, then yes, I would still be "I", but only in the external; the view of others.

We actually don't have any sources outside of the Gospels. This very common, but false, statement has been debunked pretty thoroughly in David Fitzgerald's book "Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed At All" where he deconstructs Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius etc etc. and Richard Carrier's book "On the Historicity of Jesus" does this also. — Dharmi

Well, my hypothesis is that Jesus was a bastard son of a Roman soldier named "Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera" with Mary, who had been labeled an "adulteress" during his - Jesus's - lifetime. Jesus, during his activity was a "Prophet of Social Change - Apocalyptic Prophet", or as Gerd Theissen puts it:

"There are three main elements to the activities of Jesus as he effected social change, his positioning as the Son of man, the core group of disciples that followed him, and his localized supporters as he journeyed through Galillee and Judea. He was preparing his fellow Jews for the "End times", but one that would only affect negatively, the Romans - his enemies -. Jesus was the "Marginal Jew", who knowingly marginalized himself in a number of ways, first by abandoning his profession as a carpenter and becoming a preacher with no means of support, then arguing against the teachings and traditions of the time while he had no formal rabbinic training."

The Pagan-Roman writer, Celsus, in his Logos Alēthēs - On The True Doctrine - affirms:

"Jesus, their "Son of God", was the result of an affair between his mother Mary and a Roman soldier called Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera. How convenient of them - the Christians - to forget that his "holy" mother was convicted of adultery. Even so, they glorify her name in songs in those rotten and desecrated "temples of God". They are the worse of the hypocrites."

In addition, we have to consider the whole process of what was selected to be put into the Bible and what was excluded. There was so much tension surrounding the Gnostics and, we now know of the Gnostic gospels after they were discovered. One figure who I believe was of central importance was Origen. I haven't read that much about him, but I did come across the idea that even though he was part of the mainstream Church, he may have had some affiliation with Gnostic thinking. — Jack Cummins

This is another interesting point to be discussed:

"How much of the esotericism and Gnostic mysticism ended up being assimilated by the Christian Church - Catholic and Orthodox -?"

Because at the beginning of what would become the official Church of the Roman State, many Gnostics infiltrated the organization with the intuition to transform it so that it followed their dogmas.

A beautiful example of this phenomenon is the mystical teacher "Valentinus", who almost became Bishop of Rome - Pope -, and he just didn't end up sitting on Peter's throne because he denied the offer. Valentinus had a very specific vision and belief; so specific, that his followers would later be called "Valentinians" by the Church. Valentinus's dogma - the pieces that remain to this day -:

"Valentinus believed in an androgynous Primal Being, its male aspect called Depth, and its female aspect Silence, from which pairs of other beings emanated. Fifteen pairs were eventually formed, totaling 30 — the Aeons described by Marcus, who was a disciple of Valentinus The last Aeon, Sophia, fell into ignorance and was separated from her consort, and this resulted in the material creation and all its evils. She was divided into two: Her higher part returned to her consort, while her lower part became trapped in. this physical world.

The whole Valentinian concept of salvation lay in the rescue of Sophia by the Son, or Savior, in whom all the Aeons are integrated. Sophia had brought forth spiritual seeds in her image of her, but they too, were in ignorance. To awaken and mature the seeds, the lower Sophia and the Savior influenced the Demiurge (Craftsman, or Creator), a lower deity, to create the material world and human beings. This Demiurge is no other than the Biblical God of the Jews."

As he had great influence in the Church, and as he even for a short time, was one of the most influential Christians of his time, it is not to be doubted that some influence, his dogma, like so many others, ended up being assimilated to the which is currently known as "The Canon" of the Catholic Church.

I have reason to believe otherwise, but believe otherwise is different than know otherwise. But my hypothesis is that Jesus was a literary fabrication, used to sell the Gnostic-Hellenistic Judaism of the Pauline sect. It was sort of a clever metaphor to hide their secret mystery teachings, theological, metaphysical, cosmological and otherwise, from the eyes of the unlearned and unsophisticated. — Dharmi

Right. I have always had some intuition that some of the books written by the Christian Gnostic sects of the second century were original records of some of the sayings of Jesus Christ, but that, as they were not seen as being politically favorable by the Church and the Roman State, they were taxed as being "heresy" and banned, being lost.

I do not believe that Jesus was a myth created by the sects of the time, because Bruno Bauer - German philosopher of the 19th century - had written more than 2 works trying to prove the inexistence of Jesus as a historical figure - Christ and the Caesars: The Origin of Christianity from Romanized Greek Culture -. However, much of his argument is supported by the historical and archaeological ignorance of the time. Currently, we have historical evidence - from sources contrary to Christianity - and archaeological that yes, probably someone named Yeshua - Jesus in Aramaic - would have lived in the province of Judea within the span of time in which the biblical Jesus would also have existed.

These are two perspectives that were strongly affected by homogeneity and Christian dominance during the Middle Ages.

2nd Peter, an epistle forged by a Christian sect responding to a different Christian sect, has the opposing sect claiming Jesus was just a "cleverly devised myth" in 1:16. Which seems to fit the story. Aside from that, Clement, Origen and other Christian Church Fathers were saying there were secret teachings that were only passed on orally. And we unfortunately can never know what those were. — Dharmi

This is a point that I never heard. Could you give me your sources so I can go a little deeper? I'll be grateful.

^ — Dharmi

At last, he started to quote me!

If Jesus existed, all of the sources about him are fabricated and not historical. — Dharmi

Indeed. We can affirm that "some guy, called Yeshua, at Judea, at that time, probably lived", But more than that, no.

On the other hand, there was not only persecution of pagans by Christians but actual cultural genocide, if not OMNICIDE against not just Greco-Roman paganism, but Germanic, Indian, Aztec, Mayan whatever that Christians have been committing for eons against us. — Dharmi

Well, this can also be said of Islam, however, my point with this discussion is to show that Christianity did indeed destroy the classical world, however, it did build the contemporary world.

My dyactomy is to see Christianity as "the flame that burnt down the Classical Age" but that was "the fire that lightened up the Modern Age".

I believe Jesus Christ existed. He was just a prophet who wanted to change the reality in Roman Empire. — javi2541997

I also believed faithfully that Jesus Christ could have existed, and that he was just an apocalyptic prophet from the province of Judea. However, after a more in-depth and detailed study of the very figure of Jesus Christ, I do not believe it is possible to affirm any characteristics about his life.

The figure of Jesus Christ had been so distorted, so changed, so adapted, that it is impossible to distinguish the false from the real.

We have paintings from the 3rd century - less than 200 years after his death - that put him as a philosopher among his apostles:



And - from the same period - we have images of him as a jewish shepherd:



And also, we have him as a young, beardless, greek man:



We even have what appears to be an anti-Christian "graffito" where Jesus has a donkey head:



- In greek, its written: "Alexamenos worships [his] god." in mockery.

A historical fact is that Jesus was seen physically, only by his followers, and by some minor Roman officials, who were not important, and very insignificant for the political world of the Mediterranean - the province of Judea was considered the periphery of the Roman world -.

What many people forget is that Christianity was not created and invented by Jesus Christ. The Christian message that reached the roman "gentiles" - elites -, had been the one rewritten by Paul of Tarsus, and therefore, it was not the exact message of Jesus, as he wrote only what would appeal to them.

It reminds me of Islam. While muslims may claim that a good portion of what is currently found in the Quran has been said by Muhammad, since he has acted politically and extensively to preach his word, Christians cannot. Christians, at the very best, can only struggle between what Bible's message is closest to that of Jesus.

Among all these statements, I personally still believe that there is a way to discover the true history and physiognomy of Jesus, but this must be looked for in the sources that criticize the Christian movement of the time.

The intolerance was all one direction. — Dharmi

No.

Christianity adopted this more "militant" view thanks to Roman persecutions:

Neronian Persecutions - 64 AD -;
Domitian Persecutions - 89 to 96 AD -;
Trajanian Persecutions - 98 to 117 A -;
Marcanian Persecutions - 142 AD -;
Persecution of Lyon - 177 AD -;
Septimian Persecutions - 197 to 205 AD -;
Maximian Persecutions - 235 to 238 AD-;
Decian Persecution - 250 AD -;
Diocletian Persecutions - 284 to 305 AD -;
Galerian Persecution - 306 to 307 AD -.

Obviously, after becoming the governmental majority - thanks to Constantine -, Christians would use their power to act in the same way that the pagans had acted before them. The problem is that the Christians would, eventually, win.

the term 'pagan' itself, which is an insult which means a country hick, an uneducated yokel. A fool. — Dharmi

Fact. The "religion" that we currently refer to in Rome, was not a religion in the terms currently applied, but rather, was a set of traditions inherited from the republican and monarchical periods of Rome. Values ​​and principles that were probably inherited from the Greeks, but here we have already entered the scenario of hypotheses.

Roman traditions functioned in the same way as Christian traditions already in the 19th century, where they were functional until they - the people - became aware of such traditions, which then, when perceived, could be questioned, and once questioned, their structuring of society ends fragmenting.

Julian - known today as the "Apostate" - is a good example of how, once established the weaknesses and ambiguities of the Roman tradition, they could no longer be re-established in such a way that they behave as before:

"After gaining the purple, Julian started a religious reformation of the empire, which was intended to restore the lost strength of the Roman state. He supported the restoration of Hellenistic polytheism as the state religion. His laws tended to target wealthy and educated Christians, and his aim was not to destroy Christianity but to drive the religion out of "the governing classes of the empire.

Even so, Julian's short reign did not stem the tide of Christianity. The emperor's ultimate failure can arguably be attributed to the manifold religious traditions and deities that paganism promulgated. Most pagans sought religious affiliations that were unique to their culture and people, and they had internal divisions that prevented them from creating any one "pagan religion". In truth, there was no Roman religion, as modern observers would recognize it. Instead, paganism came from a system of observances that one historian has characterized as “no more than a spongy mass of tolerance and tradition.” - Jonathan Kirsch, God against the Gods

The same thing is happening today.

If you haven't read "The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World" I believe it's called, HIGHLY HIGHLY recommend. — Dharmi

The best historical source is the study of Roman civilization itself.

What happened to them is happening today:

Immigrant Crisis; Germanic Invasions
Environmental crises; 5th century "Little Ice Age"
Doublethink; Theodosius I bias towards the barbarians
Polarization; Christians and Pagans
Authoritarianism; Dominate period
Decadence; Christian Gnosticism
Hedonism; Christian Gnosticism - Phibionites -Carpocratians -
World Tensions; Roman - Sassanian Wars
Low Birth Rates; Cicero's writings
Secularization; Pax Romana
Economic crisis; Diocletian Inflation Crisis
etc...

It is ridiculous how forgetful we - humanity - are!

Now most of my social circle would likely me label me as nuts for thinking this way, but I suspect that within the group of philosophers in here, there are others who take a similar perspective. Am I wrong? — dazed

Man is a type of God, who observes the world around him and makes poetry, while being tied and bound by finitude for his biological temporal existence. His desire for creation, for experience, is the only thing that can lead him to total and absolute apotheosis.

He may live the way he want. Who in the end should feel fulfilled is him and only him.

Yes. Probably because it emerged another political power that could face government one. Remember the fact that Vatican is literally a State. Pope is like a governor of the world/his world. So, since the day Pope randomly said to Henry VIII, “hey you cannot divorce from your woman because the Bible forbids it” completely blown up his mind.
It was a fight about governance. I respect the people who believe in God or religion. But it is clear that is just another power itself. They played a very important role in some countries and education. When this kind power somehow conflict themselves something can happen. Who should control the education of masses? Education or religion? Well this is one of the biggest debates about governance.
Some countries preferred the education other the religion. In those countries whose system/education is religion, the secular power increased a lot. — javi2541997

Fact, public opinion completely forgets that the papacy is still, even if absolutely geographically insignificant, a sovereign state. One of the questions that most intrigues me about the papacy is how is it still independent, as its legitimacy to be a secular power, supposedly prescribed by Constantine - the Emperor himself - in his "Donation of Constantine", has been proved false by Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, in 1439–1440:

"In his gratitude for God and his servants on Earth, "Dominus Noster Pious Felix Augustus" - Our Lord with His Piety, Emperor - Constantine determined to bestow on the seat of Peter power, and dignity of glory, vigor, and imperial honor, and supremacy as well over the four main sees: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth. For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gives landed estates in Judea , Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and the various islands.To Sylvester and his successors he also grants imperial insignia, the tiara, and the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions."

Yes, I know, it is ridiculous, but that really was the justification for the secular powers of the Pope throughout the Middle Ages. However, its illegitimacy had been proven over 600 years ago, and even so we continue to allow such a contradiction to exist.

Such a contradiction that goes completely against the dogmas of the Catholic Church, and yet, here we are discussing its legitimacy while the Pope constantly rules over his "States".

"Religio" - Religion - is the purest proof that humanity, being unable to accept its egoistic nature, turns its longing for power into its own justification for the struggle for power. It is a completely empty concept that has been given substance by our wants.

We created the religion and its dogma - by revelation -;
People should follow it;
We use the religion for our own gains;
That goes against the dogma;
We accept it;
If God was real - the Christian one - it should act in some capacity against the breaking of its dogma;
He doesn't;
Therefore, he doesn't exist.