Its success was, as well, assured through its assimilation of popular pagan beliefs and practices, and its very un-pagan intolerance and exclusivity, which became more apparent as the Christian emperors ruthlessly suppressed paganism. — Ciceronianus the White

Practically what christianity did. Very well resumed. Hypocrites using hypocrisy to their advantage.

How to sow much confusion in few words. — tim wood

It was a tendency from the 3rd to the 7th century - perhaps the Islamic hordes invading Roman territory - already then, the Byzantine Empire - made them realize that it was a very useless topic to spend their time discussing -.

Are you saying that because the Bible's historicity has come into question so have all the principles we have derived from it for the production of our society? While I would agree that is essentially what has been happening, any principles worth keeping could be kept simply because they're worth keeping. If they get us where we want to go, then that pragmatism is arguably justification enough. — TimefulJoe

Humanity - speaking here of the general masses that makes up our species - is not able to deal with the problem of existence without an eternal father figurehead who can have all the answers for everything. We - again, speaking of all humanity - are not able to rationalize that pain, tiredness, injustice, and all these characteristics that we think as being bad, exist, have always existed and will always exist, and there is nothing we can do to exterminate them. The universe without an answer is something that destroys humanity self-esteem. That is why without a God - and his laws, values, rules, negations and affirmations, etc. - and his "codex" we would not know how to differentiate "good" from "evil", nor is pragmatism able to sustain - through a long term period - these set of characteristics. And now, a question for you: - Do you really think that humanity would be totally pragmatic for its own good?

The reason I say the beneficial parts are not unique is that those parts are mostly, "Don't murder," "Don't steal," which are almost universally agreed on throughout the history of civilization. Not murdering each other is a requisite to successfully living together, after all, and people were living together and had laws about not murdering each other long before any Abrahamic laws came around. — TimefulJoe

Whether unique or not, christian dogmas were the ones that most assimilated the greek concepts of individuality and most importantly, of freedom. Christianity, even though it could be a false belief, is useful for maintaining the spirit of humanity as something worthwhile for continuing existing and moving forward, without letting the darkness of decadence, and more importantly, of nihilism to befall us. In addition, Christianity was able to take old laws and codes - as from Hammurabi, and Cyrus - and transform it into something more rational and less animalistic, where the punishments would be more complex than a simple "imprison him".

Too much credit is given to the Bible for shaping Western thought and especially Western progress. — TimefulJoe

Progress does not exist - in my view -. Society exists, because we build it, what we will do with it in the future, depends simply on our actions right now. Humanity is not an idea of the best, a journey to the transcendental, it simply is, and Christianity - and all other religions ever created - is a way of interpreting and living this existence, and in my view, it is one of the more liberating and that really focus on the "best" of humanity. At least I think it is, because if otherwise we would not be discussing religion in a forum on the internet.

If other religions started majorly questioning their historicity, the societies heavily influenced by a belief in the historicity of those religions would probably have a similar development, such as if that were to happen en mass in Saudi Arabia; — TimefulJoe

You can be sure that this will eventually happen with Islam. Just give it time - while Christianity is 2020 years old, Islam is only 1400 years old - Muhammad started his preaching around 630 AD - - so they still have 600 years to become secularized.

Here and elsewhere so much about Christianity. — tim wood

The real problem begins with Christology. At least so far this conversation has not started.

The New Testament does, at least in some parts, have some notable historical accuracies, but things like the supposed people needing to go to their ancestral homes to be censused for taxing, which as far as I know has no base and would be a disaster and very illogical if actually played out, really makes a good case to question the historicity of what it is saying. After all, if we can't verify something so major happening, why should we accept that a single individual described in great detail was also actually as described? Not trying to repeat myself, but it seems pretty sound, even if it is an old argument. — TimefulJoe

My problem with all this questioning of the historical legitimacy of the Bible is that all this questioning is only possible, because today's society was built by those who took it as an absolute truth. The bible is absolutely full of allegories, myths, and opinions, however, belittling its historical importance as a historical basis for our society, is something that is only possible thanks to itself. You don't see muslims out there questioning whether Muhammad was a historical figure, or buddhists questioning whether Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - was one too - and Siddhartha lived almost 700 years before Jesus -. We can only do it because Christianity has given us that freedom.

I think modern Christianity, especially in its traditions, can be said to be much more a fusion of those things than one might argue original Christianity was — TimefulJoe

Not even the apostles knew what Christianity was; each interpreted the "Logos" in a different way, so St. Thomas in 52 AD in India created the Indian denomination. St. Paul interpreted it in a way that, after him, was interpreted in other more diverse ways - Council of Nicaea, Council of Chalcedon, etc ... -. Christianity is today the culmination of all European history of the Late Classical Age, and of the entire Middle Ages. The problem is that questioning this brings all the metaphysical and religious chaos that Nietzsche has already said. The moment we became aware that Christianity was a human construction, it lost all its value, along with all its historical legitimacy. This is a problem.

big thanks for filling me in on all that — TimefulJoe

No problem :smile:

What do you mean? I haven't heard of Bauer, but I'll go check them out. — TimefulJoe

Bruno Bauer was a german philosopher of the 19th century who theorized that christianity owned more to stoicism than to Judaism and that Christ did not exist as a historical figure. On his "Criticism of the Gospel History of the Synoptics" he argued that Jesus was just a literary figure. In "Christ and the Caesars" he argued that christianity was a synthesis of the stoicism of Seneca the Younger and of the jewish theology of Philo as developed by pro-Roman jews such as Josephus.

Even people who - still today - argue the Jesus is not a historical figure use Bauer's threefold argument:

That the New Testament has no historical value.
That there are no non-Christian references to Jesus Christ dating back to the first century.
That Christianity had pagan or mythical roots.

I just made a comparison with your argument that Jesus may have been the culmination of several jewish and other religious preachers with the fact that Bruno Bauer also saw Christianity as a simple "mixture" of several different beliefs.

Its also possible "Jesus" was a mixture of different, anti-Pharisee/Sadducee teachers from around the same time. Word of mouth, amongst and with other things, can blend figures like that. — TimefulJoe

I am amazed that people are making assumptions that were refuted with Bruno Bauer in the 19th century ... but in the 21st.

Should he be punished regardless? — Lav87

An innocent individual should not pay for crimes he did not commit. There is no logic in making him pay for something that was not made by his hands.

Who should receive the punishment in this scenario and why? If at all. — Lav87

committing suicide, he escaped the punishment written by law for murder. — Lav87

He has already paid the biggest penalty, which is losing the possibility of continuing to exist. In your scenario, he - unconsciously - sentenced himself and paid his penalty. I very much doubt that the penalty enacted by the law would be much more severe than this.

So we are free to believe what we want. — Gregory

Thank the secular contemporary world that has all its basis and foundations in Christianity.

I have made the same mistake. Just try reading more carefully next time. — JerseyFlight

I made no mistake, my dear, I can assure you of this. You who made the mistake of thinking you were talking to a person who wouldn't notice your devious speech tactics. "That it may or may not have existed", this sentence is ambiguous on purpose, so that when people like me, come to ask you about this same sentence, you have already prepared an answer without any depth on the subject and simply to end the discussion.

The reason I said, "may or may not have existed" is because I am familiar with the alternative arguments put forth by Carrier and the like, I am also familiar with Ehrman. — JerseyFlight

Here you speak as if the reader were obliged to have prior knowledge that you - as you claim to have - are aware of these arguments by Carrier and Ehrman, even though you know that you used ambiguous language in your statement.

Carrier does not hold this position out of Nihilism, as you groundlessly here assert, — JerseyFlight

At no time was it said that Carrier supports his lines on the basis of nihilism, and yes that I argued on the basis of nihilism. Try to read more carefully and in less haste to respond.

I could care less if he existed. — JerseyFlight

It is noticeable that when the argument, assumption, opinion, vision, etc ... suits you to come out on top in the discussion, you use them, but when it also suits you to disprove your previous statements, you also do it. Does it smells like "doublethink" just for me? Ah, what did I expect from someone who - here quoting you - "can be considered a contemporary version of Nietzsche"?

This image of yours of a "revolutionary humanist" and your pseudo-philosophical conversation may have worked with others, but not with me. Good day/Good night.

Jesus to be a literary figure that may or may not have existed. — JerseyFlight

Quoting Michael Grant here:

"We can no more reject Jesus's existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."

Virtually all reputable scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Doubting that Jesus had any divine power is acceptable, but doubting his physical and historical existence is the result of the nihilistic mentality that was born during the 19th century. If the existence of Jesus can be doubted, Siddhartha Gautama - the Buddha - himself should be already a myth...

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." ? — Lav87

In many ways yes. The most common use of this mode of justice today is justice done by people's own hands, without all the bureaucracy of the State.

There is net social utility in adamantly rejecting perverse and dangerous ideologies and being seen doing it. We need to make marginalizing people like this a social norm again. It is possible for people to just be wrong. Every idea does not have equal merit. Some need to be removed root and branch. — Pro Hominem

The problem with expressions like these, is that you are using them in a situation where it is not appropriate to verbally attack another individual simply because you do not agree with them. I repeat, we do not live - yet - in times where "marginalizing people like that should be the norm".

This is fairly obviously a tongue in cheek statement to demonstrate how asinine the logical results of his position are. Or perhaps you were referring to the fact that I am wasting my time talking to someone who is obviously deeply committed to their dangerous fantasies and I should respect myself more? — Pro Hominem

I am saying that using aggressive language will not lead to any conclusion other than some injured egos and - eventually - banishment. You may disagree with ech other, there's nothing wrong there, we are not yet living in times of totalitarianism.

You're so right. Just send me your location and I'll send someone over to murder you and take all your stuff. — Pro Hominem

I love to read discussions where people respect each other. :smile:

Does inherited punishment have a place in society? — Lav87

I think we answered that question more than 2.000 years ago when we abandoned the Hammurabi Code for less aggressive and more rational concepts of justice - Cyrus Code for example -. No child should not pay for its father's crimes.

I've heard — Gregory

The individual at his maxim...

is it both "beautiful" and "ugly" or neither "beautiful" nor "ugly" — DonChuko

Both are extremes of the same thing - beauty -. I believe that there is no intrinsic middle ground between the extremes, because the concept of what is "beautiful" and what can be considered as "ugly" is born and designed by the individual. A greater number of individuals agree that such a characteristic is beautiful, it becomes the stereotype, what you expect from people, and vice versa.

A nice read, thanks. — NOS4A2

No, thank you for taking the time to read my text.

I think, from this account, we can see the genesis of liberty. — NOS4A2

Humanity has never seen so much freedom and success as in this brief period of Rome. Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus had no need of praetorian cohorts, or of countless legions to guard them, but were defended by their own good lives, the good-will of their subjects, and the attachment of the senate.

And for last, I quote Edward Gibbon in his "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire":

"The Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of wisdom and virtue."

Maybe you should return to community. — JerseyFlight

And you should stop running from people when they quote your work. Have a good day/good night :smile:

The ego is only a point of view of the world. — EnPassant

One thing is for sure: - We can agree to disagree. :smile:

You are saying that nothing has intrinsic beauty or value unless the ego can get something out of it — EnPassant

It is not just the fact that the ego wants something of it. "Intrinsic" beauty exists only if the individual - or in the case of the crowd, the individuals - and his ego decides that it has intrinsic value. That same being may not want anything concluding that "something" must have a natural value. For something to be beautiful, egoism has to find it beautiful, but it does not necessarily have to want something of the same beauty.

I think it is more correct to say that the ego attaches itself to the things we love: this is what possessiveness means: the ego wants to possess what should simply be loved. — EnPassant

This vision of yours is tied to the prejudice attributed to egoism, so maybe you see the ego as a cancer, a parasite that destroys everything it touches; the ego is seen as something "evil", dark, which brings disgrace, and removing that layer of prejudice is my goal. Egoism was never a monster, but it was transformed into one by the same "negative-egoists" that I mentioned earlier.

looks for food — EnPassant

Again, the stigma that was stuck with egoism. If we exchange "food" for "purpose" and transform egoism into a motivating and potential force to covet not only the complete change of the individual life that each of us has, but also of eventually, indirectly completely change the perspective of life from all over the world, egoism reveals itself as one of the greatest virtues that man allowed himself to lost. You don't change the world by proejecting the change into others, you don't even change the world! You have only the potencial and purpose of fulfilling your individual life, and that's great, because the world changes only when its people change themselves.

Does not write in that style. — Sir2u

We can agree at this point.

Some things are so sublime they almost command our admiration with no reference to the ego. — EnPassant

There is no such thing as "no reference to the ego". Admiration for beauty - love for something other than yourself - is born out of the very human nature of wanting to fulfill your egoism. Admiration is nothing more than one of the infinite possibilities that we - individuals driven by egoism - have and use to make us achieve our purposes. Things exist, and only start to make sense at the level of the individual - in the ego - and that eventually, through communion between egos, creates concepts and comparisons that will be projected as absolute truths to the external world. To say that "something can be sublime to the point of commanding our admiration with no reference to the ego" is the same thing as saying that the physical world can be witnessed through vision to an individual who has never seen and does not even understand the concept of "seeing ". Both would project an inconclusive existence, as they would be imperfect.

the ego attaches itself to almost everything we love purely. — EnPassant

This sentence doesn't make sense because you ignored my argument in a previous answer, that love is also born out of the human ego.

The ego is insecure and fear driven; it wants to take and posses things that should be free. Life should be free of all bondages but the ego wants to take possession. This is what the ego is, a desire to possess. But every ego knows it will eventually fail. — EnPassant

Human egoism cannot have characteristics that only arise from its own use by us - individuals -. Good and bad, security and insecurity, happiness and sadness, all of these and other more characteristics are born from the use of the ego. How egoism will be projected depends on the will of each being, however, I agree on the questions of what the monstrous masses are, what I call as "negative-egoists". People who uncousciously - or consciously - make evil decisions about how to use their egoism.

I don't know if this was a character or someone really serious, but I just know that it was unnecessarily complex and designed to cause confusion. It's Incredible what ever comes up in this forum!

universe's ego — TheMadFool

I'm just talking about the individual egoism of each human being. At no time did I try - or am I trying - to transform it into something that encompasses more things than the individual. I have the slight impression that you are not trying to understand, as you do not agree with my perspectives. No problems, good day/good night.

but can they really be confined to these narrow categories? — philosopher004

And we can narrow it even more.

If you accept that humans are not "evil" but in fact "egoists", you may realize that, in fact, "good" is just a reflection of someone's selfish nature. So, in conclusion, good is unnecessary, but to exist as an option in life, selfishness is bound to exist.

Good and evil can only exist if the ego exists before them both.

? — ssu

It's corrected now - I confused the acronyms -. Thank you for pointing that out.

:naughty: — Pro Hominem

I think you got the point.

I admit there is some truth to this, I consciously have chosen to approach a person like yourself with your dogma, from a different perspective. — JerseyFlight

For someone who says that they place their "duty" over their real interests on philosophy, and are against - and here I quote you - "intellectual responsibility, objectivity, and self-interest", is very easy to see why you did not try to answer my questions in depth in this discussion. You are - and realized that you are - a egoist, and a negative one! It is amazing how those who say they are most concerned about everyone, are the ones who care most about only themselves. Hypocrites using hypocrisy to their advantage - Doublethink! -.

What makes people from wealthy, academical background lean left? — Ansiktsburk

Let's say that having "compassion" for those who have less than you is much easier when you are in a better situation than said miserable.

egoism is a denial of the good — EnPassant

Your argument fails where you claim that "egoism is the denial of what is good". Good is simply a projection of the egoism itself, as much as evil is also. You can make good deeds, have altruistic views on life, and that doesn't make you less or more egoist, as having negative or evil attitudes doesn't make you more or less egoist. You are egoist. It is the human nature.

Hopefully you are just a young person that grew up without guidance, searching for some kind of meaning, and you landed on Ayn Rand. If that is the case I'm here to tell you that you got duped. — JerseyFlight

Your "arguments" are based on personal attacks without any depth on the subject and the discussion in question. I have not seen - until now - any answer from you to my questions about the ego, without any personal opinion or attacks on me. If the purpose of your philosophy is controversy, you are doing a terrible job, because you are simply managing to look bad. Good Day/Good Evening.

I don't think the world would be a peaceful place even if Hitler was not born. — philosopher004

Even without Hitler's presence on the geopolitical scene of the early 20th century, humanity would still enter into clashes like WWI and its continuation. The mentality, culture, and society of the time was heading towards an armed conflict of monumental scale. Hitler only made it happen - in the case of the Second Great War - earlier. Without it we would still have a romanticist Germany trapped in the medieval and modern glory of war for prestige and recognition. Without Hitler, we would still have a weak and cowardly LON that would not act when needed. Without Hitler we would still have Benito and his fascist regime looking for the glory of the Roman Empire in Italy, the red fear with Stalin in the Soviet Union, and Hirohito and his ambitious conquests with the Empire of Japan in Asia. Without Hitler, China would still be dissipated and at war over different ideologies. Without Hitler, the world would still, remain the same.

Life is not an eternal process. — JerseyFlight

I don't get the point of coming, throwing information with no context behind it, just hoping that the receiver understands your thinking ... Want to discuss? Contextualize!

Now you've changed tack, gone off in an entirely different direction. — TheMadFool

How so?

X = Y = Z — TheMadFool

This makes a lot of sense if applied to the abrahamic religions - because the three of them believe in the same god, only with different interpretations of how to worship god - Allah = God = Yhwh - -. If two or more omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Gods exist, their own existences cancel each other out and we would return to a scenario of gods warring against gods. In my view, a pantheon could only exist if the gods were not "all-powerful".

iduals thinking the same conscious thought - especially when their very agreement proves them wrong. :rofl: — unenlightened

It's "really" interesting the arguments presented here. Thank you for your deep contribution to the discussion.

extolling the virtues of the crowd is also to ignore the nastiness of it too. — Forgottenticket

The "virtues" of the crowd are only considered "virtues" because they are a part of the crowd. At the level of the individual, these same virtues become void.

My nastiest moments were being part of a crowd. — Forgottenticket

If an action is inflated to the extreme, it no longer draws attention, as it is now part of the "mass consciousness". Don't get me wrong, selfishness is still there, but totally deformed and corrupted, a shadow of its former self.

I don't see the OP as being the worst person on the board at all. — Forgottenticket

Thank you.

Empathy/love/compassion is to understand and value something beyond the ego. — EnPassant

Empathy, love and compassion are just unconscious methods of proclaiming your egoism towards others. Negative-egoists, by denying their nature, practice actions that they consider as being of external characteristic - of benefit to another - but little do they know that they are only fulfilling their own desires, their egos, indirectly. Again I repeat, being altruistic is not a bad thing, but it is just a more "cordial" way of projecting your egoistic accomplishments on others.

Ok. Provide me with a definition of you, Gus Lamarch and I'll show you you're not unique enough to be different from all of us. — TheMadFool

The problem is that you are trying to contextualize my concept of "unique" as a philosophical principle. - Where is the ego in the Universe? What can you compare it to? Is it something based on a physical world? None of these questions will give you an answer that satisfies you, and the reason is simple: - The individual is enough for itself. The ego, when embraced as part of you - or me - opens up as a field of infinite decisions, without moral, ethical, or metaphysical restrictions; Life is an eternal process of the satiation of the eternal hunger of the egoism, a hunger that if satiated, will also satisfy yourself.