The-Captain Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 NO i haven't. Can you summarize it? Book by Thomas Cahill, he tries to make the case for Jews having developed the idea of linear time rather than the cyclical view of time prevalent before, as well as being the first historians rather than the Greeks. A few other things too, the gist of it is that a lot of western civilization is due to the advent of Jewish thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Book by Thomas Cahill, he tries to make the case for Jews having developed the idea of linear time rather than the cyclical view of time prevalent before, as well as being the first historians rather than the Greeks. A few other things too, the gist of it is that a lot of western civilization is due to the advent of Jewish thought. Oh, I remember that one. I read it years, and years ago. You're right, he tried to make the case for the "unique" status of Judaism, but it all is based on the assumption that the Torah is a literal, historical work. Did really Abram live in Uhr, and did he really move out from there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Book by Thomas Cahill, he tries to make the case for Jews having developed the idea of linear time rather than the cyclical view of time prevalent before, as well as being the first historians rather than the Greeks. A few other things too, the gist of it is that a lot of western civilization is due to the advent of Jewish thought. Oh, I remember that one. I read it years, and years ago. You're right, he tried to make the case for the "unique" status of Judaism, but it all is based on the assumption that the Torah is a literal, historical work. Did really Abram live in Uhr, and did he really move out from there? Yeah that and a heaping of hyperbole and assumptions about the Sumerian mindset. It's a thought though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yeah that and a heaping of hyperbole and assumptions about the Sumerian mindset. It's a thought though. Besides, didn't the Greeks developed history writing too? Even if the Jews were first, it developed in other cultures as well, during times without influence from the Jews. What about the Chinese culture? Did they write history at some time in history? If they did, was it because they converted to Judaism, or had a influx of Jewish culture and literature, or did it develop on its own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The-Captain Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Yeah that and a heaping of hyperbole and assumptions about the Sumerian mindset. It's a thought though. Besides, didn't the Greeks developed history writing too? Even if the Jews were first, it developed in other cultures as well, during times without influence from the Jews. What about the Chinese culture? Did they write history at some time in history? If they did, was it because they converted to Judaism, or had a influx of Jewish culture and literature, or did it develop on its own? Yeah, besides weren't the Jewish people basically Caananites, which would make them a sub-group the larger Mesopotamian culture. As I've read they didn't really become that distinct of a group until the Exile, coincidentally the period when most of the Torah etc. was put into consistent textual form. I'm not trying to denigrate them as a people. I just don't think the idea of them always being a "special" people is accurate in the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hawklord61 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I went through the pains of life, had a mentally abusive mom, lost my dog who was my closest friend, as I've had very few actual friends, my parents divorced, I was a very devoted "super" Christian (even got a plaque with my name on it at the last church I went to for my contributions, volunteer work, and being very knowledgeable of the Bible.). And all the while, God wouldn't even drive the devil out of me so I wouldn't be transsexual. History and real science classes is what made me realize the folly of my twisted faith. Learning about how Christianity had caused alot of war, destruction, and death, nearly caused the lose of all pre-Christian history, and that evolution was nothing like what the church taught got me thinking pretty hard about things. But today, I am damn proud to say I went from one of Christianities best and brightest, into the type of sinner that just the thought of made me cringe. Your probably being a bit too harsh on yourself there ... "into the type of sinner that just the thought of made me cringe." How can you class yourself as a sinner?, all the Christian dogma that was strangling you appears to have been shed due to Educating yourself and surrendering to rationality and reason. Being a sinner is just another label that should no longer have any connotations. Im Glad you are where you are today, its just a shame that it takes so many people so long to see sense. All the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Agreed? Yes. Right? Right. Well, my point really didn't have anything with the increase, or the exact numbers, or method, or trying to prove how amazing the Indians are to have so many believers etc, but rather that you were hinting that there were no believers of the Indian religion in existence anymore. You didn't say it right out, but that was what one of your earlier statements hinted to. So here it is, even if the numbers are estimates, and even if the increase is based on re-converting Indians, they are not ALL Christians. Oh I concede that not all Indians are Christians (some are atheists, some are Jewish, some are animists), but I would also argue that not Christians are Christians... if you know what I mean. There is a huge percentage of Americans who call themselves Christian and know absolutely nothing about the religion other than it has something to do with some blond haired blue eyed guy getting killed by Jews 2000 years ago. Up to that year it is quite possible, but I suspect the trend has changed the last 10 years. But as far as I remember, the trend used to be the other way. It goes in waves, and it's beside the point anyway. We're not discussing the nickles and dimes of the statistics, and we're not here to account for every bean in the jar, but the argument was that only the Jews are UNIQUE, and I disagree, every religion got a unique story to tell. uh... maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 uh... maybe. I think your "quote" tags got a bit screwed up there. My point is that everyone, every culture, every religion, every society got a different or "unique" story. The Jews got theirs, the Muslims got theirs, the Christians got theirs, and even the atheists have a story to tell. So I can't say that a certain "unique" feature of just one of those groups is more special and makes anyone better or above anyone else. Even if the Jews are the only ones who got a "religious-history" background, I agree it would make them unique in that category, but why is that particular background or property any better than any other? Earlier I mentioned the Zoroastrians, and you said something like that they are the same religion as the Jews. What did you mean with that? Another question I have is, if one religion, lets say the Greek mythology, have gods of different kinds doing stuff, heroic things, and other crazy things, etc, and people used to believe it was true. They believe these stories to be their history. What difference is that compared to the miracle riddled Torah where God do stuff, and people believe that to history? Why isn't it the same thing? Why can't both be considered mythology and religious-history? Why is Jewish religious mythology any more reliable and "historical" than Greek mythology? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 uh... maybe. I think your "quote" tags got a bit screwed up there. My point is that everyone, every culture, every religion, every society got a different or "unique" story. The Jews got theirs, the Muslims got theirs, the Christians got theirs, and even the atheists have a story to tell. So I can't say that a certain "unique" feature of just one of those groups is more special and makes anyone better or above anyone else. Even if the Jews are the only ones who got a "religious-history" background, I agree it would make them unique in that category, but why is that particular background or property any better than any other? Earlier I mentioned the Zoroastrians, and you said something like that they are the same religion as the Jews. What did you mean with that? Another question I have is, if one religion, lets say the Greek mythology, have gods of different kinds doing stuff, heroic things, and other crazy things, etc, and people used to believe it was true. They believe these stories to be their history. What difference is that compared to the miracle riddled Torah where God do stuff, and people believe that to history? Why isn't it the same thing? Why can't both be considered mythology and religious-history? Why is Jewish religious mythology any more reliable and "historical" than Greek mythology? Zoroastrians believe in a single creator god... just like Jews, Muslims and some followers of Jesus... not Christians. They have much in common and many suspect Abram was a Zoroastrian or of that bent when he came to Canaan. They myths, the ying and yangs of good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark... the particulars of names and things like that are all culturally peculiar but so what? No one ever called that itinerant Jewish Rabbi the Christians worship "Jesus", "Christ" or even "Immanuel". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Zoroastrians believe in a single creator god... just like Jews, Muslims and some followers of Jesus... not Christians. They have much in common and many suspect Abram was a Zoroastrian or of that bent when he came to Canaan. They myths, the ying and yangs of good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark... the particulars of names and things like that are all culturally peculiar but so what? No one ever called that itinerant Jewish Rabbi the Christians worship "Jesus", "Christ" or even "Immanuel". It's true they are monotheistic, but they're not the same. It's similar, and they have commonalities, and probably they where a major influence on Judaism, but what I raised my eyebrows about was the way you said they were the same, it sounded like you were making a statement Zoroastrians were Jews, or something like that. But I agree, they're the same kind. Zoroastrians is a very tight group. You can't become a Zoroastrian, you have to be born into it. The see their religious background, with Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, and all the other religious ideas, as historical, very much like Jews, as far as I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Zoroastrians believe in a single creator god... just like Jews, Muslims and some followers of Jesus... not Christians. They have much in common and many suspect Abram was a Zoroastrian or of that bent when he came to Canaan. They myths, the ying and yangs of good and evil, order and chaos, light and dark... the particulars of names and things like that are all culturally peculiar but so what? No one ever called that itinerant Jewish Rabbi the Christians worship "Jesus", "Christ" or even "Immanuel". It's true they are monotheistic, but they're not the same. It's similar, and they have commonalities, and probably they where a major influence on Judaism, but what I raised my eyebrows about was the way you said they were the same, it sounded like you were making a statement Zoroastrians were Jews, or something like that. But I agree, they're the same kind. Zoroastrians is a very tight group. You can't become a Zoroastrian, you have to be born into it. The see their religious background, with Zoroaster, Ahura Mazda, and all the other religious ideas, as historical, very much like Jews, as far as I know. Well, they are the same in that they are both explanations with the same foundational preconceptions of mankind, the universe and reality in general. Of course they are not the same, just as Lutheranism and Methodism are not the same or Episcopals and Baptists, Mormons and Ebionites... they come from different cultures, different languages, different times. Religion is not about fact, it is about truth. When the truths are the same, even when the facts are different, then they share the same religion... to me anyway. I have no problem discussing Islam with Muslims, Judaism with Jews because we all believe in the same Mythology. We just use different names and words and describe it in our own cultural context. (A Dollar is not a Euro, but they can both but bread or brot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowWolf Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 Your probably being a bit too harsh on yourself there ... "into the type areof sinner that just the thought of made me cringe." How can you class yourself as a sinner?, all the Christian dogma that was strangling you appears to have been shed due to Educating yourself and surrendering to rationality and reason. Being a sinner is just another label that should no longer have any connotations. I'm not being harsh. I've dabbled in the Occult, have a copy of the Satanic Bible, drink, smoke weed, and live a life I never use to would have even dreamed of. I label myself as a sinner, because I am proud of my status of a former Christian who turned to the "dark side." I don't believe in the Christian dogma of sin, but since to them I am a sinner, I bear the title with pride just so they know I will not return to Christ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kcdad Posted January 19, 2009 Share Posted January 19, 2009 I'm not being harsh. I've dabbled in the Occult, have a copy of the Satanic Bible, drink, smoke weed, and live a life I never use to would have even dreamed of. I label myself as a sinner, because I am proud of my status of a former Christian who turned to the "dark side." I don't believe in the Christian dogma of sin, but since to them I am a sinner, I bear the title with pride just so they know I will not return to Christ. What do you mean, dabble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Posted January 31, 2009 Share Posted January 31, 2009 I left pretty much because the faith left me. I just wasn't feeling it like i once did and looked into it a bit more than i had in the past, (i could now that i was having doubts, as opposed to before where i feared the wrath of god). Things then feel into place. You do bring up an interesting point about the death of loved ones and trying times. These past few years, most of which was spent as a christian, me and my family have been delt a tough hand. I never really blamed god too much as a christian nor too much as an atheist. But i have, on occasion, thought that maybe there was a god who was trying to tell me something with all the crap happeing lately. Like perhaps he was angry with me for leaving the faith and rejecting him or that perhaps he was just trying me like Job. In the early days of my deconversion i struggled with this immensly. The fear of a vengeful god and his hell got to me a little. But as i said, i noticed that the troubles spaned back several years, while i have only been an atheist since april of last year. So i knew that god wasn't trying to punish me or steer me back to him with force. But i came to another conclusion. If there was a god out there who indeed was doing all this to me, then i decided i would have nothing to do with him/she/it. The troubles of late have hit more than just me but also my entire family. I knew that i wanted nothing to do with a god who, in trying to correct me, flings his fury at not only me but many innocent people in the process. But now i know that there is no god and that shit just happens, uniform all over to everyone of all beliefs. I'd also like to add that the troubles that have happened since i have been an atheist haven't made me rethink my deconversion at all nor got me to blaming god. Kind of hard to place a blame on that which doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts