the more I look into ancient Greek culture and philosophy and literature the grosser it becomes. — Moses

For example?

Pervasive ableism and classism as I said before. Deeply entrenched in the culture and in their lit. I'm not your teacher, Jackson, go read the Odyssey or the Iliad or Plato or Aristotle.

EDIT: also forgot to mention sexual immorality with young boys.

I know more about Greeks than you. But, you refuse discussion, so we are done.

my response is commensurate on the effort that you give. so far you've given me nothing. the illiad and the odyssey were picked out by nietzsche as examples of "master morality" that idolizes nobility and the able-bodied and dismisses the weak. it just idolizes those who are strong and beautiful and denigrates those who aren't. the greeks held in poor regard those who had trouble speaking, they were considered cursed by the gods. diogenes slightly improves on this view by just calling the disabled deficient.

the odyssey is just about the great becoming greater. honor seeking. the poor were typically considered low.

more: Plato's doctrine of forms is inherently ableist in that it posits a single, perfect able-bodied standard of beauty. aristotle believed disabled infants should be left to die. what about the movie '300'? the noble fit western warriors lost and civilization collapsed because a disabled guy didn't know his place.

It's as well for that Islam preserved the classical texts Christianity destroyed so that they could become "gateway philosophies". Doubtless that was God's plan all along, to plunge us into the good, cleansing middle ages, and then bring us out of that darkness.

Yes, to be plunged into the dark ages was a very good thing. The problem is that when the principles of a culture are untrue, corrupted by falsity, or other forms of vice, and philosophers point out these problems, no one really listens. That's what happens in this forum, when I point out the falsities which are currently abundant in mathematics and physics. People here say, the principles serve their purposes, so unless I have something better to offer, forget about criticizing those conventions. But since the principles serve their purposes, no one is inclined to look for better ones. Therefore it is necessary to first recognize the principles as bad, and destroy the bad principles, thereby providing the necessary conditions for the development of better ones. The phoenix rises from the ashes.

It's as well for ↪Dermot Griffin that Islam preserved the classical texts Christianity destroyed so that they could become "gateway philosophies". Doubtless that was God's plan all along, to plunge us into the good, cleansing middle ages, and then bring us out of that darkness. — Banno

Yes, but perhaps the Eastern Church, like the Eastern Roman Empire, kept some of them too for a time. I'm not sure. But the Latin Church never like those guys anyhow, and probably was happier to deal with Islam than heretical Christians.

dark ages — Metaphysician Undercover

Any good reason why "it" was called "the dark ages"?

Wikipedia says that this was a period of cultural, intellectual and economic decline in Europe and surely because of that civilization as we know it was delayed by, what?, a coupla friggin centuries.

However, I'd like to compare morbidity and mortality statistics, adjusted for confounding factors, of the so-called dark ages with those of other ages. It matters in my humble opinion, oui? Quite possibly the dark ages were a period of relative peace. Dunno!

That's what happens in this forum, when I point out the falsities which are currently abundant in mathematics and physics. People here say, the principles serve their purposes, so unless I have something better to offer, forget about criticizing those conventions. But since the principles serve their purposes, no one is inclined to look for better ones. Therefore it is necessary to first recognize the principles as bad, and destroy the bad principles, thereby providing the necessary conditions for the development of better ones. The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

What does destroying a bad principle look like? I understand skepticism. I get the idea that we live in our time of ideas. But what does destroying a bad principle look like?

It looks like forgetting something.

Zoroastrianism — Dermot Griffin

One of the earliest recognized (recorded) religions is Zoroastrianism. All regional practices from centuries before Christ, including Zoroastrianism and Sumerian religions became modified to suit a narrative that benefited their cultural context and comprehension of their own dogma. All these religions exhibit excessive syncretism, which charts a map or link to how they have diverged in various parts of the world.

It's analogous to the childhood game "telephone," in which one player passes a message to another until the message finally reaches the person who first whispered it. The message might be the same, but the phrasing might be different. Another possibility is that the message significantly changed.

More than 30,000 Christian sects separate into or coexist as a whole within the Christian faith.

Even the "brethren" who identify with Christianity contend with the messages/interpretations of the Scriptures due to translation issues, preferential issues, cultural practices, and the unreliable sources from which it arose, e.g., The Dead Sea Scrolls.

Many scholars believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in eleven caverns between 1947 and 1956, came from the Essence (Jewish monastic and apocalyptic sect) compound in the Qumran desert.  

Only twelve of the nine-hundred scrolls discovered by archaeologists were "most intact," although still in terrible condition; the remaining 25,000 fragments were considerably more damaged and less legible. Out of more than 100 scribes, only three wrote more than one Scroll.

What makes the Scrolls even more intriguing is that only 8–9 unpaid non–Jewish scholars had the initial approval to transcribe them. It wasn't until 1994 that the Scrolls became published.

Additionally, no names identify the most significant Biblical figures in the New Testament, but many academics believe they are encoded throughout the texts' writings.

Currently, more than 400,000+ religions worldwide, along with 30,000+ Christian sects, further divide the philosophy of religion. Whether you identify as Christian or otherwise, there is a 0.00025 percent chance that you will choose the "correct" religion (correct meaning heaven, paradise, reincarnation, etc.), and a 99.99974999... percent chance that you will choose the "wrong" religion (wrong meaning Hell, eternal suffering, destruction of souls, etc.).

All of us on this forum may as well pay the lottery if we're feeling that lucky.

The phoenix rises from the ashes. — Metaphysician Undercover

I like the metaphor used to describe your position on the matter.

That metaphor is probably as old as humanity, describing the rebirth of the soul, after an individual's death. When one dies it is replaced by another. I believe Christians tried to adapt the metaphor to symbolize Christ's resurrection, but it doesn't really work, because the point of the Phoenix is that the dead one is replaced by a new, distinct one, not a resurrection of the old.

Right on. Many old customs and parables have been adapted (or rather appropriated) by Christianity, particularly the metaphor for the resurrection. It's almost as if they stole someone else's homework but made it seem original by using phrases like "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust," etc. It is a symbolic phrase that the average follower may readily understand because they haven't actually studied the Bible (only the "positive" Scriptures). However, the Puritan revivalist Jonathan Edwards in the 18th century employed much more effective literary devices in his sermons. He wanted to intimidate people into fearing God by using the "fire and brimstone" tactic.

Maybe that shit which Banno referred to was the fire and brimstone of God's wrath.

Only one out of the thousands of mutually exclusive religions can be true whereas all of them can be false. The latter is the smart (sane) bet; yet the world's always been overrun by gullible suckers who are ready at moment's notice to get off their calloused knees just long enough to go murder or be murdered by each other's children in order to "defend" one Holy Lie "against" some other Holy Lie. :death: :pray: :eyes:

The latter is the smart (sane) bet; yet the world's always been overrun by gullible suckers who are ready at moment's notice to get off their calloused knees just long enough to go murder or be murdered by each other's children in order to "defend" one Holy Lie "against" some other Holy Lie. — 180 Proof

I think a proper analysis would reveal to you that most of the killing which has occurred in the wars we have seen is materialist based, the desire for property, territory, land, rather than based in an ideological Holy Lie. But the killers might claim the name of God in an attempt to justify their materialistic greed.

Maybe that shit which Banno referred to was the fire and brimstone of God's wrath. — Metaphysician Undercover

↪Christopher Only one out of the thousands of mutually exclusive religions can be true whereas all of them can be false. The latter is the smart (sane) bet; yet the world's always been overrun by gullible suckers who are ready at moment's notice to get off their calloused knees just long enough to go murder or be murdered by each other's children in order to "defend" one Holy Lie "against" some other Holy Lie. :death: :pray: :eyes: — 180 Proof

I wholly agree. I suppose this is the reason why most people agree that it is better to have faith in something than in nothing. However, they intend it to suggest that it is "helpful" in life. Like you said, their ignorance fuels the "US vs. THEM" attitude, which results in violence against those they perceive as their enemies, or rather, told are the enemies.

:up:

Even if that's true, given just a little thought, MU, the religious kill each other in the name of Holy Lies which command "thou shalt not kill" and "love each other" whereas the so-called "materialists" are not nearly as murderously – sacred-ends-justify-profane-means – hypocritical and dishonest about their motivations. Faith in (demonstable, hearsay) falsehoods facilitates vicious self-deceptions, as Voltaire points out

Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.

:fire:

Even if that's true, given just a little thought, MU, the religious kill each other in the name of Holy Lies which command "thou shalt not kill" and "love each other" whereas the so-called "materialists" are not nearly as murderously – sacred-ends-justify-profane-means – hypocritical and dishonest about their motivations. Faith in (demonstable, hearsay) falsehoods facilitates vicious self-deceptions, as Voltaire points out — 180 Proof

I think what I said, or at least meant, is that the materialists kill for material gains, and they claim this killing to be in the name of God, i.e. for an ideological purpose. These are the ones who are "hypocritical and dishonest about their motivations". You may have observed, or heard about these people who kill for materialist purposes, and heard how thy claim to be killing for an ideological divinity, and wrongly concluded that they were hypocritically killing for that divinity, when in reality they were killing for material gains.

And I'm referring to those religious believers who murder each other for "spiritual", not material, gain. They're usually called "holy warriors" & "martyrs". No doubt, Popes, Patriarchs, Bishops, Imams, Ayotollahs, Mullahs, High Priests and other religious leaders who call for "holy war" (or "justify" state aggressions) are often / mostly motivated by material gain for their religious organizations but not the "true believer" foot soldiers – "the flock" whipped-up and driven to slaughter with consecrated fairytales about defeating the infernal conspiracies of Them "evil-doers" that's preached by their "Shepherds" – sheep converted into rabid wolves against "the hounds from hell". The "false believer materialists" who either lead or use a religion are one thing; my point here concerns religious true believers who have always willingly martyred each other and each other's children for their respective Holy Lies.

mostly motivated by material gain for their religious organizations but not the "true believer" foot soldiers – "the flock" whipped-up and driven to slaughter with consecrated fairytales about defeating the infernal conspiracies of Them "evil-doers" that's preached by their "Shepherds" – sheep converted into rabid wolves against "the hounds from hell". — 180 Proof

These people "the flock" are murdering for the purpose of material gain of the organization, as you state. That they are brainwashed fools, and think that they are murdering for some other purpose, is beside the point.

my point here concerns religious true believers who have always willingly martyred each other and each other's children for their respective Holy Lies. — 180 Proof

But these people, the brainwashed fools, do not know that what they say is untrue, because they believe it. Lying is deceiving, i.e. knowing what one is saying is not the truth. These people believe it to be the truth, so they are not lying, and you cannot say it's "their respective Holy Lies". The lying is being done by those "High Priests" who are motivated by material gain rather than true religion (actually True Religion is a brand name). So they are not properly characterized as "Holy Lies", they are better called "materialist lies".

I didn't say the sheep were lying. It's the Shepherd who is lying and using the Holy Lie to get "true believer" sheep to slaughter one another like wolves. Try responding to what I write, MU, instead of what you misread into what I write, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

What I think often happens is that people don't see the similarities. I listened to a Catholic Priest talking about this. He said that Buddhism can in the beginning teach you important things but later on Buddhism won't be of that much help.
My understanding is that all religions speak of how there are more to being a human than focusing on the material world. The solutions are different!
Also, Buddhism rejects materialism, I think. I've yet to hear a Buddhist who likes Feuerbach.

Well yes Buddhists do not typically accept Jesus as their lord and saviour. If you want to make the case that Buddhism pulls one towards Christianity in an indirect (and therefore fuzzy) way, by means of drawing one's mind towards metaphysical or "spiritual" matters, then the claim (that x can pull one towards Christianity) can stand for almost anything. It's too broad, too vague.