The cross on which Jesus was crucified wasn't necessarily the cross as depicted by Christianity. It could have been, but could also have been a simple T shape, or some other shape. Flavius Josephus says the men of Titus' legions crucified Jews in a variety of different ways after taking Jerusalem. Sometimes a person was crucified on a single pole, hands over his head. Sometimes a person was crucified with his head down, which I imagine would have been somewhat difficult if the cross of Christianity was used. So I doubt there was any established practice.

Crucifixion was considered a humiliating form of execution, and wasn't practiced on Roman citizens. The fact that Jesus was crucified served to discourage conversion among "better off" Romans because it was associated with the death of slaves.

Variations of the cross were also used as a pagan symbol long before the time of Jesus.

Apparently the use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity began during the reign of Constantine, along with the chi-rho symbol, after crucifixion had been abolished. By that time Christianity was well-established in the empire, so I doubt the cross had played much of a part in the spread of Christianity to that point

Millennia of rationalizing apologias, obfuscating mystifications, dogmatic indoctrination, schismatic martyrdoms, and countless more sanctified atrocities could no more "interpret" away the fact that Jesus did not return in the lifetimes of those to whom he'd pronounced his prophesy any more than Papal writ changes the fact that the Sun does not go around the Earth and that, as Galileo said of the Earth, "Eppur si muove." — 180 Proof

That unabashed apologist, C.S. Lewis, called Matthew 24:34 "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." A refreshing moment of honesty from the man who argued that as Jesus said he was the Son of God (well, John said he said that) he must be the Son of God. Only a liar or a madman would claim he was the Son of God if he wasn't, reasoned Lewis. But Jesus clearly wasn't a liar or a madman, he continued, so it follows....sigh.

However, freedom, to be real, requires the ability to reject i.e. negate all influences. I guess some might say I'm referring to radical/fanatical freedom. — TheMadFool

That we may be free to do something may be a desirable condition to be in, but I don't think we derive glory, or infamy, from being in that condition. That we may derive from the exercise of judgment, i.e what we decide and do while being free.

The ability to not bow to the demands of anything, opposing reason itself, which is invariably a great risk and may involve losing more than an arm or leg, your head perhaps, is freedom in full glory. — TheMadFool

We all have the ability to oppose reason, in a manner of speaking, but it seems less than clear to me that exercising that ability is glorious, though it may sometimes be spectacular. One can choose to act stupidly or unreasonably, certainly, and spectacularly so if circumstances permit. Perhaps that's the most those who are deliberately stupid or unreasonable may aspire to in this world.

Immanuel taken from Isiah, who used it in reference to the messiah, and the house of David, not necessarily a divine figure, as I said. And Paul also called Jesus the "first born of creation" (not the creator") and "God's image" (just as we are).

There's no question Paul felt Jesus was more than human, and as someone born in Tarsus, where several Stoics lived and taught, and given his self-proclaimed mission to the Gentiles, Paul was familiar with pagan thought to an extent and I think it's likely he was influenced by it and his writings reflect that. So the Hellenization of Christianity began. But those were early days, and Jesus as Logos, the Word made flesh, and the Jesus who declares himself God does not show up until the Gospel of John. The authors of the earlier Gospels somehow neglected to note that Jesus said he was God, or didn't think he said that, or that it was not important enough to mention if he did. It's in John and thereafter we see Jesus being made the One God, as Christianity sucked up more and more of ancient pagan views and tried to merge them with the holy book of the Jews. Which necessitated, alas, Three Persons in one God

Offpoint, probably. But Pierce was fond of the number three. Maybe he got there from the Trinity.

Not really germane to the thread topic, but this is clearly false; e.g., see Matthew 1:23, Mark 1:1, Luke 3:21-22, Philippians 2:5-11, and Colossians 1:15-20, just for starters. — aletheist

Well, no. And that's part of the problem faced, more or less, and debated over centuries. Immanuel, or the Son of God, isn't necessarily God. There were of course lots of sons of gods running about the ancient Mediterranean. For example, Augustus was divi filius, divine son, and was called such in coinage widespread over the empire in Jesus time. Then, there was Appollonius of Tyana, also proclaimed son of the divine or son of god by some. There were many pagan sons of god.

But more pertinent perhaps is the fact that the were quite a few sons of god in the Jewish tradition as well, and that the messiah wasn't defined as God. Angels were called sons of God, as were the kings of Israel. So the fact that Jesus is referred to by the earlier Gospels as Son of God, or born of the Father or the Holy Spirit, and was exalted by God above all others, doesn't, and didn't, make him God to the satisfaction of some. Just being born generally means one didn't exist prior to being born or conceived and that makes one different from God the Father, who existed always.

That's why there were Christians for a time who didn't believe Jesus was God, although he was divine and a kind of subordinate God, but having come later he was necessarily not the same divine being. The orthodox view through the years came to be that Jesus as "one in being" with the Father, one and the same even though his son and human for a time, but even after the empire became Christian there were several emperors who were not orthodox, and were instead Arian. Jesus eventually became not just the Son of God, but God the Son. There's a significant difference.

This term was used centuries before Jesus, and Christians (as good sales people do with references) used a familiar term to apply it to Jesus and grab the attention of listeners. — Mapping the Medium

"Borrowed" may be a better word. They borrowed so very much.

This particular borrowing (of "logos") was likely a part of the gradual deification of Jesus and his--uncomfortable, I think--identification with the Father and the uncertainly defined third member of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost or Spirit. Jesus wasn't referred to as God in the earlier Gospels, or in Paul, so the concept of logos served developing Christianity well. If, that is, you wanted Jesus to be God and not merely a man or an intermediary, or a lesser heavenly power.

Well, Pierce actually wrote it, and it was published, about a century after the U.S. was founded. Maybe someone noted that already.

Perhaps "Enmity" would be a more appropriate choice of name. But then irony may be intended. (Flagged!)

Regardless, I think part of Stoicism's appeal is that it provides a way of living which is less dependent on metaphysical and religious assumptions than others, and yet promotes tranquility. Ancient Stoics believed in an immanent divinity, but a modern Stoic need not believe in one of any kind, nor is there any requirement that a particular systemic philosophy of the nature of reality be constructed or accepted

https://entertainment.theonion.com/noam-chomsky-announces-las-vegas-residency-1819578692

There is no escaping Chomsky. Like God, he's omnipresent.

Truth isn't dead. Truthfulness has been coughing up blood for some time now, though.

Most of the old pagans probably accepted there were masters wherever there were people. Gods as well, I think. I don't think the existence of God was a subject of much debate, then, except in Athens.

Yes, I think Nietzsche correctly noted the difference between the pagan perspective and the Christian perspective, though Dionysus isn't the god I'd appeal to in making the distinction. The pagan view of prayer and in other things is very practical, grounded in our experience of life in the world, not in our rejection of it. Of course one propitiates the gods; any sensible person would.

It strikes me it would make more sense, and show greater respect, if we propitiate, rather than petition, God (or the gods). The ancient pagans were wiser than we are in dealing with the divine. Instead of begging for favors, they assured their receipt by doing what pleased those whose favor was sought--killing certain kinds of animals in a certain manner, performing certain rituals, saying certain words, etc. They had no illusions regarding the gods; they didn't think they were all-good or all-knowing. Instead, they knew full well that above all they were dangerous if not given their due. One accommodates the divine rather than worships it.

I think that generally speaking, we have become like people who have soiled themselves and are well satisfied to have done so. Smug about it, even. Of course we say "Fuck you, Greta." What else would someone happy to be in that condition say, to anyone who complains of the smell?

Alas, I am indeed a voice in the wilderness of philosophy, crying out "Make straight the way of the Law!"

In this, as in so much else, the Law rules. What is the difference between "I have" and "I own"? Merely the difference between having something and having the legal right to something. Note that I say "legal right." That is to say an enforceable claim to it, not some feeble claim of entitlement which is hopelessly mewed by those who dream of having a legal right but instead have a vague, fuzzy belief in a "right" somehow existent outside the law, like God is said to exist outside the universe.

Yes, I know the old saying "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." And in fact possession over a period of years, open and obvious and unchallenged, may result in ownership, by operation of law, i.e. because that's what the law says. Otherwise, the saying at most is an acknowledgement of the fact that it can be difficult, and expensive, to establish legal ownership, and that often discourages someone from claiming it.

Laws were developed so those who want property and can get it can keep it.

This is the Word of the Law!

Well done, Wallows.

Old Ben Franklin said we had a republic, if we can keep it. Turns out we can't. Nor does it seem we want one. We want to eat well and get laid, and if that's provided for, we're content with any form of government.

i'm uncertain what "philosophy of religion" is, frankly (nor do I know what "philosophy of law" is, for that matter). While I think debating the existence of God is a waste of time, philosophy of religion may include other things and some of them may even be interesting.

I used to comment now and then as ciceronianus in his old Rationally Speaking blog. That was before he became interested in Stoicism, though after I was. I have his book on Stoicism, and enjoyed it. I think your questions are good ones.

Is there a difference between "nothing" and "the nothing"? As I recall, The Nazi wrote that we encounter "the nothing" only when we're "suspended in dread" but in referencing the nothing he may not have meant just any old nothing, which presumably we could encounter without being suspended in dread. Just curious.

I suppose this is another way to describe the divide between the traditions.

https://existentialcomics.com/comic/146

Damned if I know. What formal training I had was analytic, and ordinary language, with pragmatism thrown in. Now some say pragmatism "bridges the gap" between the analytic and continental traditions, whatever that may mean. On my own I've been delving into ancient philosophy. Don't like much modern continental stuff; too obscure for my wordly, legalistic mind. Like Popeye, I am what I am and that's all that I am.

I like having you around. Reminds me of the good old days when we used to argue about stuff. The fifties I think it was. — Baden

Thank you, I like seeing you, and others, are still around as well. I have a tendency to be silly, I admit, but am generally stable except of course when H-H-H....when Hei...well, I try to avoid mentioning the name. "The Nazi" I'll call him, to avoid any trouble.

We need to figure out how to attract new, active members who aren't cranks, and we need to figure out how to not be such bigheaded jerks. — Terrapin Station

Neither cranks nor bigheaded jerks will survive the return of Jesus, though it seems at least one horsee will. My return, of course, only added to their number. Well, not the number of horses.

I'd have thought that would be a German breed of horse.

Turnover rate here, you mean?

I abstained from the forum for some time but returned eventually, as Jesus will do to this world, so it is said, though presumably with greater fanfare, riding a white horse I think though I don't know why. My absence had no effect, nor I would guess does my presence. Both, though, are indicative of turnaround, and so we may say that turnaround makes no difference, really, or is a wash; but I suspect turnaround 's due to the fact that topics in this forum and in philosophy generally recur and become dull to many until interest revives in either the topics or chance to debate them.

If history is any guide, the turnaround will continue until Jesus makes his reappearance which if I recall correctly will result in the end of the world, and thus of turnaround generally. Something to look forward to, then.

Ah, the easy pleasure of setting up, and knocking down, straw men.

Well, God's Form perhaps.

God's pets. That's us.

The efforts made over the years to explain that the God portrayed in the Book of Job is just, merciful, and loving are so sophistical, so brazen, so shamelessly contrived in support of deplorable misconduct and cruelty, that even I, a lawyer of vast experience and incomparable ability, blush when they're made.
,

Unfortunately, Epicurus was right:

"Nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little."

What alternatives are available that we've been deprived of?
— Ciceronianus the White

This is actually part of what's sometimes made the existential dread I've been suffering from this past year so horrible. — Pfhorrest

? — Ciceronianus the White

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the fact that there are no alternatives is a part of the existential dread that you suffer.

I'm uncertain how to address that beyond suggesting that it is unreasonable to feel dread regarding or be disturbed by the fact that it isn't possible to have something we want to have, or to be something we cannot be, or for the universe to be something it is not.

But I may misunderstand you.

I'd say there's nothing heroic about Stoicism, or at least my version of it. It's merely to take the universe as it is, without imposing on it any of our expectations, hopes, dreams, longings for purpose or meaning. it seems to me to be "merely" a sensible perspective. The universe is worthy of reverence and awe, and we're parts of it, but there's no reason to think we have a special place in it which makes it dance to our various tunes, so to speak, and so no reason to be shocked to learn it won't do so. Things just are. Maybe some day we'll learn why, maybe not, maybe it will make no difference whether we do or not.

One must have a mind of winter, as Wallace Stevens wrote in The Snowman, to understand that winter simply happens, no matter what we think, feel or do. The same as winter on Horace's Tuscan seas. So...what? What is extraordinary or unbelievable about this, what is there to contend/despair over? What alternatives are available that we've been deprived of?

It's hard to think of the author of Beyond Good and Evil as a tolerant man, but I may not be giving him his due, true.

The justification for patience regarding what comes, if justification is required, is that for the most part what comes will come whether we wish it to or not, whatever we may do or not do, and to be wretched and miserable about what is outside our control is unwise.

He knew a great deal, especially of the classics, but it was never enough for so intolerant a man.

Listen to Horace before Nietzsche, and others. Ode I. 11, Tu ne quaesieris (Do not ask):

Leucon, no one's allowed to know his fate
Not you, not me. Don't ask, don't hunt for answers
In tea leaves or palms. Be patient with whatever comes.
This could be our last winter, there could be many more,
Pounding the Tuscan Sea on these rocks.
Do what you must, be wise, cut your vines,
And forget about hope. Time goes running,
Even as we talk. Take the present
The future's no one's affair.

Two thousand years and we're none the wiser.

I see too much of Frantic Freddie Nietzsche in this thread. The man who lambasted the Stoics and yet shamelessly borrowed from them the concept of amor fati, which he then seemingly failed to accept (being too much a devotee of Dionysus, perhaps, as opposed to Apollo).

Nobody is born a nihilist, I think. Nietzsche was perpetually disappointed in us, and makes a poor guide to life, to living.

I don't think Stoicism is a religion, as typically conceived, but I do think a Stoic can be religious.

It's hard to judge Epictetus, as it happens he wrote nothing and what we read is from the notes of his student Arrian. But it's particularly hard to judge him from the Enchiridion, which you quote. His God can sometimes seem almost personal rather than detached, now and then. I think the Stoics sought tranquility rather than detachment (I think there's a difference). The comparison of a child to a cup may be in the nature of a spiritual exercise as Pierre Hadot speculates, to prepare oneself to accept the hazards of life without despair.

Some of the ancients thinkers had more sense than we do; they were more sensible than we are when it comes to considering how to live. They didn't allow speculation regarding the transcendent to clutter their thought. It's that speculation, and an inflated sense of self-importance, which creates despair when shown to be dubious at best.

Consider: We exist, and are part of a vast universe that is wondrous; fearing and desiring what is outside of our control causes us pain, and causes pain to others, and is to be avoided. That, for me, is the essence of Stoicism. Most if not all of what we consider bad or evil conduct results from the fear of or desire for things or people which we do not have but want or want to avoid. The only thing we can know (not that we know, completely), that is worthy of reverence is the universe, which we can experience. A simple ethics, and a simple "religious" feeling.