Do you believe in God?

[John Arne]

Yeah, nice one.

Actually, you mean like yo respect other people's opinions on gun control or healthcare? There is nothing wrong with debate and disagreement.

[QE Harold Flair]

I think this poll/thread encapsulates most perfectly the underlying reasons for the downfall of Western Civilization. Sad. Whatever you may believe, the fact that the views of most individuals on the subject are voiced in a matter of fact yet apathetic way, despite the existence at the very least of compelling philosophical / rational reasons on both sides of the argument, underlines the failure of our secular leftist education system.

We'll see how you feel in twenty years, once your mortality becomes less theoretical.

The downfall of Western civilization are currently arriving in Europe, en masse.

I'm also amused at the usual religious attemtps at scaring people into believing. Fuck you.

[Henry]

I think this poll/thread encapsulates most perfectly the underlying reasons for the downfall of Western Civilization.

What downfall?

[Spammer]

Mert is just a parody of himself on her to entertain himself. Just lol at him. I do the same thing by pretending to be Christian Nade on a Sheffield United forum.

[Henry]

More a delusion, then. Much like Muslims today will kill themselves, and others, for a similar delusion. It serves as no evidence of anything being true.

Philosophically speaking, a universalist monotheism is a big step forward from tribal polytheism. "Truth" in ancient cultures can't really be judged by modern standards. These people didn't have the conceptual substructure necessary to come to the conclusions that we do in the 21st century.

You might legitimately call a young earther "delusional" these days. You can't really do it for a 1st century Jew.

[QE Harold Flair]

That's great, Henners. But now we do.

'Delusional' only denotes that you believe something with strong evidence to the contrary, and I'd say dead people not resurrecting after 3 days is a fact. Even if you don't want to call it that, all that matters is that they were almost certainly wrong. I'd still say it's a lot more likely that they flat out lied, personally.

[Bartholomert]

Philosophically speaking, a universalist monotheism is a big step forward from tribal polytheism. "Truth" in ancient cultures can't really be judged by modern standards. These people didn't have the conceptual substructure necessary to come to the conclusions that we do in the 21st century.

You might legitimately call a young earther "delusional" these days. You can't really do it for a 1st century Jew.

You'll be a deist within 10 years, theist within 20. Your thought processes and mode of inquiry on the subject will lead you inevitably down that path.

Good for you.

[QE Harold Flair]

I wonder what makes you say that? What have you learned about the existence of the invisible, magic man in the sky that you din't know beforehand?

[Henry]

You'll be a deist within 10 years, theist within 20. Your thought processes and mode of inquiry on the subject will lead you inevitably down that path.

Good for you.

The reason that monotheism is superior (in the Hegelian sense) to polytheism is that it reduces the domain of the supernatural. Instead of explaining all of nature in mystical terms, it allows for a single aloof deity with natural laws doing most of the work. The deism of the enlightenment is a further progression, and atheism another still.

Of course, socially, polytheism has advantages in promoting a greater degree of tolerance.

Now, tell us how civilisation has collapsed.

[Henry]

That's great, Henners. But now we do.

'Delusional' only denotes that you believe something with strong evidence to the contrary, and I'd say dead people not resurrecting after 3 days is a fact. Even if you don't want to call it that, all that matters is that they were almost certainly wrong. I'd still say it's a lot more likely that they flat out lied, personally.

It's debatable the extent to which earliest Christians believed in the resurrection at all. As with much else, there is a definite progression in the gospel writing with regard to it, from the earliest (Mark , 70AD) relating no resurrection stories at all to more numerous and more elaborate appearances through Matthew, Luke and John. These were written after the defeat of the Jewish revolt had shattered hopes of an earthly redemption and necessarily shifted the emphasis of millennial cults from what would happen in the here and now, to what would happen after death (as per Paul's brand). Prior to that, there were doubtless claims of people having seen Jesus (which credulous followers would have believed) but the focus was probably on his future return to instigate the "Kingdom of Heaven" as the more apocalyptic sections of the New Testament preserve.

If being "wrong" is the only thing that matters, then you argue that man made virtually no progress until the European enlightenment, which is pretty stupid. But then, that's what you are, having no desire to learn about any of the subtleties or complexities of any of this.

[ItalAussie]

We'll see how you feel in twenty years, once your mortality becomes less theoretical.

Fear of death alone isn't a great reason to decide on a religious stance. If that's the prime motivator, then it's just wish-fulfilment.

[QE Harold Flair]

It's debatable the extent to which earliest Christians believed in the resurrection at all. As with much else, there is a definite progression in the gospel writing with regard to it, from the earliest (Mark , 70AD) relating no resurrection stories at all to more numerous and more elaborate appearances through Matthew, Luke and John. These were written after the defeat of the Jewish revolt had shattered hopes of an earthly redemption and necessarily shifted the emphasis of millennial cults from what would happen in the here and now, to what would happen after death (as per Paul's brand). Prior to that, there were doubtless claims of people having seen Jesus (which credulous followers would have believed) but the focus was probably on his future return to instigate the "Kingdom of Heaven" as the more apocalyptic sections of the New Testament preserve.

If being "wrong" is the only thing that matters, then you argue that man made virtually no progress until the European enlightenment, which is pretty stupid. But then, that's what you are, having no desire to learn about any of the subtleties or complexities of any of this.

Yes, it is all thatr matters. Because then the rest of it comes crumbling down. I mean if people jujst want the tenets without all the nonsense then that's fine by me. But I don't see in what way anyone can be a Christian without believing in the claims of Jesus.

[Henry]

Yes, it is all thatr matters. Because then the rest of it comes crumbling down. I mean if people jujst want the tenets without all the nonsense then that's fine by me. But I don't see in what way anyone can be a Christian without believing in the claims of Jesus.

You don't know what the claims of Jesus were. Your understanding of this is extremely simplistic and child-like.

[QE Harold Flair]

You don't know what the claims of Jesus were. Your understanding of this is extremely simplistic and child-like.

The claims made for Jesus, namely that he rose from the dead and performed miracles, was born of a viirgin etc. are central to most Christians. They're not mere take it or leave it little fantasies

[mikem]

For Henry and GS

I asked my old rabbi who taught at University of Chicago's School of Divinity for his list of good books on jewish history. I've not read any of them and left out the old multi-volume stuff (Heinrich Graetz and Salo Baron if curious). The commentary is his.

Most popular current textbook:
H. H. Ben-Sasson, History Of The Jewish People (Best all around textbook. It is still a 1,000+ page textbook with different authors.)

Popular Histories:
Max Dimont, Jews, God and History (Good for a popular history and is apparently the most popular by how many people asked him about it during dinner parties, but then again an Amazon search also shows the very Disneyesque titled "The Amazing Adventures of the Jewish People" by the same author.)
Paul Johnson, A History of the Jews (Dismissive but said it is exceedingly popular.)

[Henry]

Cheers, I'll take a look at those.

[mikem]

He also recommended three books on historical thought as opposed to survey. Did not list them because it did not seem like what you were looking for, but they all seem more interesting to me:

Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History
Simon Dubnow, History and Nationalism
Leora Batnizky, How Judaism became a Religion (which sounds interesting enough that I may actually read it at some point)

[QE Harold Flair]

Do you have any more books about Jews?