From a strictly literary point of view, are these good books?I guess it isn't really a fair question, because they were written for a totally different audience hundreds of years ago, probably meant as a series of passages to be recited rather than something you'd directly read.I constantly see them described as excellently written, moving, essential reading, etc., though.So what's the deal? Are they actually good, or are they just promoted as a proxy for the promoters religion?No autistic religious/atheist shitflinging in this thread please, I am actually interested in answering this question.
I mean the Bible gives comprehensive life advice for pretty much every personal and societal scenario. I haven't read the other two but that's what people mean when they say it's moving and essential.
>>25348892The Torah is a subset of the Bible. Should be the Talmud instead.
Acts 8:30-31 is the only part that is relevant to your experience. No, the Scriptures are not for you; do not attempt to read them without believing or you will go mad as so many others have. There is certainly some obvious literary merit from a secular perspective, especially in the New Testament, but if you read theological texts expecting an entertaining secular novel you're bound to end up complaining it's not a novel like so many other retards here.
>>25348895Reminder that calling the Talmud holy is on par with calling the Summa Theologica holy>inb4 KIKE KIKE KIKE KIKE
All of them have kino and literary parts mixed in with boring autism. Melville's infodumps are kino. Holy books, not so much
>>25348892The Torah is part of the Bible dude, should've placed the Zohar instead.
>>25348895>>25349206Can't tell if you are Jews or making fun of them...>>25348892What is a literary point of view? What does "well written" mean? At the moment I'm reading G K Chesterton's "St. Francis of Assissi," it's very enjoyable and offers valuable context. Maybe start there, if you need to ask.Other than that, thank you. This thread and its replies made me realize how fortunate I was to have the Bible "stories" taught to me by a nun, back in primary school. She focused on the "cool" stuff like Moses, the plagues, all kinds of old testament adventures... she was a nice lady.
>>25348892All three books share the same stories, but the way they are written is quite different. Christianity actually is Jewish texts + its own New Testament. While Islam completely stands on its own with the Quran.Unlike what a lot of people say The Bible isn't a single book. Instead the Bible is a huge collection of books written centuries over time, which also includes the Torah as well. A lot of it is just Jewish history & myths from the Old Testament, some of which you may find interesting and clearly has morality from a very different kind of civilization. The New Testament is actually a small portion of it and gives very apocalyptic vibes with how it is written. Like there's constant passages on how Satan rules the Earth, how Christians will forever be hated, and how celibacy is such a great thing. You can tell Early Christians never expected Christianity to be the most influential religion of all time and I suppose that's why Christianity has such a victim complex ingrained in it.The Quran is basically just summaries of some of the Biblical stories, with threats of hell and promises of big tittied women in heaven thrown in there. In fact the Quran isn't even in chronological order actually, so yeah take what you will from that.You should also know that these books were written in a time before the printing press existed, in fact memorizing the entire Quran is still a tradition in Islam today. These books were written with the expectation that the religious elite would be studying them, not the average man or woman. Overall I would say they're books if you want to understand the worldview of Near Eastern civilization in that time & era, especially the Old Testament. But they're very dated and there isn't anything special about it. The only reason why its so hyped up is cause the Abrahamic religions have been the most successful on the planet.
>>25349279>You can tell Early Christians never expected Christianity to be the most influential religion of all time and I suppose that's why Christianity has such a victim complex ingrained in it.I sometimes wonder about it too. It's spread way too thin (at least "the public-facing side") while its hard core (monks, mystics, celibates etc. both Catholic and Orthodox) are probably in no greater quantity than Jews overall.Constantine the Great is still an unsolved mystery in my opinion, as before his time Christianity was reserved for the upper classes in the West and was in no way for the people (like it is today).
>>25349348>Constantine the Great is still an unsolved mystery in my opinionFor a long time it was mysterious to me too, but now I think it might not be as difficult as it seems. Small eccentric cults were basically a tradition for Roman Emperors and for some decades prior to Constantine, cults like Sol Invictus were being promoted. Constantine's Christianity probably wasn't that big of a deal when he was alive. There was also a lot of syncretism involved in Early Christianity. Gods were turned into saints and the veneration of Virgin Mary is a Christianized version of Goddess worship. However there still was a strong pagan resistance, the most notable one being Julian the Apostate, who died very early in his reign. But a lot of Roman patricians and philosophers still saw Christianity as a fad and held firmly to traditional Roman religions even as late as Justinian's reign.The reason why I believe Christianity eventually became the one and only religion in the Western World, and not just one of many religions, was because it was extremely organized. You have a sacred book that was the backbone of the religion, you have a clean hierarchy of power, you have religious dogma, etc. It was amazing for a large multi-ethnic empire like the Romans. And, people might hate on me here, but Christianity also became a very authoritarian religion that lived off of fear. Heresies, the concept of sins, eternal hellfire. Even today in our modern secularized world, some Christians live in fear of ending up in hell after death.
>>25349394>You have a sacred book that was the backbone of the religionThere was no census on the canon, till, for Catholics, Trent in the 1500's. Despite what many say, Rome and Orange did not define the Canon.>you have a clean hierarchy of powerSorta, see what happened to Ambrose and even Christianity immediately after Constantine, Arianism almost destroyed the God-Man religion.>you have religious dogmaIt was, and it still is in constant flux.>Christianity also became a very authoritarian religionIt was always authoritarian (to an extent). See the life of Ignatius of Loyola and what was happening during his time, all sorts of people, particularly Christian-Roman-Hellenic synchronists, killing eachother over differences on religious traditions and teachings.
>>25348892A single line from The Lotus Sutra is worth more than that icchantika shit.
>>25349548Tell that to your own people then. Also fix your conutry so they dont feel the need to invade. Then you can run your mouth, maybe...
Forgot link >>>/pol/537295876
>>25349348>before his time Christianity was reserved for the upper classesThis is incorrect. Christianity spread among the urban poor and slaves with the whole 'neither jew nor Greek, nor slave nor free' and the promise of rewards in heaven, especially if the current life was one of suffering. Hence the victim complex. Only with Constantine (313 Edict of Milan legalized Christianity; 380 Edict of Thessalonica under Theodosius made it the state religion) did it become safe for upper class Romans to be Christians (since emperors would seize the property of people they didn't like on the pretext of them being Christian).>>25349394>Christianity eventually became the one and only religion in the Western World, and not just one of many religionsTwo main reasons: one, chance. Had (Western) Rome fallen a century earlier, Sol Invictus probably would have been the main religion of the West. A century earlier, Mithraism. A century earlier still, Isis. A century later, Arian (not Nicene) Christianity. A century later still, who knows? With the collapse of the imperial bureaucracy, religion provided the primary common identity across Europe. Second reason, Christianity did not tolerate other religions, and it flourished in an environment where the native religions welcomed syncretism. When the Greeks or Romans encountered other peoples, they were like 'oh, you worship a thunder god who protects men (Thor), that sounds like Jupiter.' Christians, when powerful enough, slaughtered anyone who refused to worship their god (e.g., Northern Crusades). (Note similarities to Islam in the West).>>25349428>There was no census on the canon, till, for Catholics, Trent in the 1500'sTrent was in response to Luther's meddling with the Bible. The canon affirmed at Trent had been recognized since Augustine around 400. The modus operandi of the Catholic Church is to develop dogma only when there is debate about the issue in question. Compare the differences between the Apostolic and Nicene Creeds, especially in relation to disputes over the nature of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
>>25348970eeh not really According to jews, Moses received the Oral Torah along with the written Torah, and the Talmud is a compilation of that oral traditionto them it is in fact holy and literally straight from God
>>25348892Good according to whom?If I showed you a physics book, what makes that a good book? Or a mathematics book?Because I've met a lot of human beings whose concept of "good" makes no sense (and I consider non-sense evil).So if something makes sense, like the OT or the NT Bibles, then it's Good.But if it makes non-sense like the Quran, then it is bad; it's unethical/evil to follow something that is less coherent & contingent than something that is more coherent & contingent (morally it is more ethical to follow 2+2=4 rather than 2+2=5 given the rules/axioms you know). Thus Epistemology becomes something moral, holy, and Good (aesthetically beautiful even).In other words, the Truth is Good and the more truthful something is, the more good the book. The Bible is the truest book I know because it teaches people how to find the Truth/God.
>>25350310>With the collapse of the imperial bureaucracy, religion provided the primary common identity across Europe.Most of Europe was still pagan when the Western Roman Empire fell. It's more like, the Catholic Church was the only institution (which fun fact is the oldest institution on Earth) that kept the Roman Legacy alive in Western Europe, which IMO is far more important than sharing the same religion. Europeans for over a millennium practically worshiped the Roman Empire. And we all know that even if Constantine never accepted Christianity, the Roman Empire would have still been Europe's model civilization due to how significant it was. An institution that kept those traditions alive in a world filled with petty warlords and declining infrastructure felt like a safe haven.
>>25350310Curious how you cut off "in the West" from "before his time Christianity was reserved for the upper classes in the West.">safeWhat does that have to do with anything? If anything you confirm my point, as among the Romans the upper classes were usually strong and virtuous people who did not care about "safe" but only about "folly"... and Christianity was not a folly.>neither jew nor Greek, nor slave nor freeThat is something you need advanced knowledge to interpret, and intimate knowledge of Greek religion(s) of the time.
>>25350530>Curious how you cut off "in the West"Then I address Roman class dynamics. Big deal.>as among the Romans the upper classes were usually strong and virtuous people who did not care about "safe" but only about "folly"Maybe when Cato was alive, but late Western Empire? My point is that if an upper class Roman citizen openly practiced Christianity, his family wealth would be confiscated. If a lower class citizen practiced Christianity, his wealth would be insignificant, even if confiscated. And because it is easier to go from wealth (plus status and legacy and imperial employ) to no wealth, Christianity flourished among the lower classes, especially since it offered eternal, post mortem reward. Add to this the anti-upper class rhetoric (camel through the eye of a needle, the rich man in hell). Even within the family (as a Roman institution where the paterfamilias had absolute authority), it spread among the slaves and the women first. You are claiming pre-Constantine Christianity was (nearly) exclusively an upper class phenomenon in Rome. 'Upper class' refers to an identifiable matrix of liberty, wealth, and status, not 'people I deem virtuous.' The historical evidence opposes your position.>That is something you need advanced knowledge to interpret, and intimate knowledge of Greek religion(s) of the time.Whatever meaning you think this may have based on a pseudo Eleusinian or Dionysian belief structure is irrelevant to the social consequences of such an attitude among the early Christians, namely that they accepted everyone, and this was most popular among the lower classes.>>25350496>Most of Europe was still pagan when the Western Roman Empire fellsee picrel>the Catholic Church was the only institution... that kept the Roman Legacy alive in Western Europetrue>(which fun fact is the oldest institution on Earth)depends how you define 'institution.' Technically the institution of 'pontifex maximus' predates the birth of Christ by about 700 years (if we can ascribe it to Numa) or 500 years (more historiographically sound).>far more important than sharing the same religionIt seems unlikely to me that the Germanics who had fought Rome for 500 years cared more about preserving the legacy of Rome than finding common ground in a common faith. The legacy of Rome as a unifying force would become stronger as the centuries wore on (and with the formation of the HRE), but the actual incidents where Europe united (eg the Crusades) was more about religion, not the legacy of Rome.>the Roman Empire would have still been Europe's model civilization due to how significant it wasOf course, but that seems really post-Medieval.
>>25350753>DionysianAnd of course, the Christian mysteries are derivative of the Bacchic rites.
>>25350753>Whatever meaning you think this may have based on a pseudo Eleusinian or Dionysian belief structure is irrelevant to the social consequences of such an attitude among the early ChristiansThey were socially linked, so how can you say they had no sociap consequences? After all they needed to be specially mentioned. Anyway I wouldn't beat up a poor person because he demands to be called a Christian, nor would I demand charity from a wealthy person just because he declares himself a Christian. So maybe this discussion is useless. But back in those times it was not, hence all the heresies etc...>but late Western Empire?As if they had a choice. The alternative was people dying of hunger etc. in the cities.>My point is that if an upper class Roman citizen openly practiced Christianity, his family wealth would be confiscatedI have no idea what relation you think "openly practiced" and "Christianity"... in fact, judging by both the practices of the essenes, of the Church Faters, and the teachings of Jesus, I guess the original intention was the contrary: live among righteous pagans, and help where you can.The historical evidence confirms my position, even though I haven't yet all the illuminist propaganda that you did, apparently...
>>25350753Overall good response but I do have some counter-arguments to your claims.>see picrelChristianity was weaker the further west you went in Rome. Among cities or elite circles it may have been practiced, but outside of that (where most people would live) pagan traditions were still widely held. When the Saxons arrived in England, whatever power Christianity had was replaced by Germanic Paganism and the Catholic Church sent missionaries starting in 597 AD to bring Christianity back. Same with the Franks in Gaul, as Clovis only converted in 496 AD. Christianization was a slow process and while there aren't too many records in this time period, this is still HUNDREDS of years we are talking about. >It seems unlikely to me that the Germanics who had fought Rome for 500 years cared more about preserving the legacy of Rome than finding common ground in a common faithThe Germanics weren't one people that caused the fall of the Western Roman Empire, this shit just needs to die out already. Many of the tribes allied with Rome. One of the reasons why Arminius died was cause he had issues with Pro-Roman Germanic tribes. Towards the end of the Western Roman Empire, a lot of Germanic peoples that migrated to Rome assimilated into the Roman Empire, many of whom were even running the politics and extremely loyal to Rome. Also the Arian vs. Nicene conflict was very real and it would be the first of many divisions Christianity had in its religion.>but the actual incidents where Europe united (eg the Crusades) was more about religion, not the legacy of Rome.When the Crusades initially occurred in the 1100s, almost all of Europe was deeply Christian for generations. We seem to have an opposite view on this matter. Originally Christian conversion in Late Antiquity/Early Middle Ages came due to the prestige it brought, but over centuries as other religions died out, most Europeans ended up being extremely devouted to Christianity to the point where the religion is apart of the DNA of Western Civilization.
>>25348892>From a strictly literary point of view, are these good books?No. They are much better when they fulfil their purpose as liturgical works. Hear a reading of the Gospel at Mass; hear a Psalm at Vespers or Matins; etc.I don’t know the services for Jews or Muslims but I imagine it’s treated with much the same reverence. Assuming these books can be read like entertainment is so profoundly wrong-headed. Pick up a good book and leave the Bible at church.
>>25350866>They were socially linked, so how can you say they had no sociap consequences?I am saying there *were* social consequences ("namely that they accepted everyone, and this was most popular among the lower classes") in response to your claim that "That is something you need advanced knowledge to interpret, and intimate knowledge of Greek religion(s) of the time." Even if the full meaning of 'neither jew nor Greek' requires esoteric knowledge, as you seem to claim, the social, exoteric result of that teaching was blurring of social distinctions, a phenomenon that naturally finds its place among the lower classes.>As if they had a choice. The alternative was people dying of hunger etc. in the cities.? I am saying late Empire upper class citizens were not virtuous, in opposition to your statement "as among the Romans the upper classes were usually strong and virtuous people" >>25350530. Are you agreeing they were not virtuous? And in terms of feeding the urban poor, as long as you pay the guards, urban unrest mostly means fewer mouths to feed in the coming winter.>live among righteous pagans, and help where you canI do not think the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) permits non-evangelization (ie one has to convert all whom one can). Some English translations say 'make disciples *of* all nations,' which could reasonably be understood as having some believers in each of the nations, but the Greek says 'μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη' ('instruct all peoples'), where πάντα τὰ ἔθνη is an accusative object rather than the partitive genitive necessary for the other interpretation.>The historical evidence confirms my positionI guess we have reached an impasse, since I see no evidence that pre Constantine Christianity was "reserved for the upper classes."
>>25351063My position is that the common religion of Christianity (in whichever of the various forms it took) provided more common ground among Europeans than a lingering commitment to the ideal of 'Rome,' though while Rome existed, the Roman state apparatus was more important than the religion. You say "the Catholic Church was the only institution (which fun fact is the oldest institution on Earth) that kept the Roman Legacy alive in Western Europe, which IMO is far more important than sharing the same religion">>25350496, so if the Roman legacy and the common religion merge, à la Donation of Constantine, we may be arguing too fine a point, as one peasant in 532 may have cared about the religion while his neighbor cared about his grandfather's service in the Roman army.> Christianization was a slow process and while there aren't too many records in this time period, this is still HUNDREDS of years we are talking about.But when there was a sense of unity, it was religion, not the legacy of Rome, correct? The HRE (the best manifestation of the legacy of Rome) derives from Clovis, who sought unity through religion.>The Germanics weren't one people that caused the fall of the Western Roman EmpireRight, but of those who fought Rome, would they have allied with others still loyal to Rome because of the Roman legacy or because of a shared religion? The anti-Roman pagan Suebi fought the pro-Roman Arian Visigoths, but then an Arian missionary from the Visigoths converted the Suebi. Later, after both converted to Catholicism, the Suebi were annexed into the Visigothic kingdom. Religion, not Roman legacy, united the tribes.>We seem to have an opposite view on this matter.Quite possibly. I may have been too hasty in my "religion provided the primary common identity across Europe," without specifying 'primary sociopolitical common identity across Europe.' If hard pressed, I would probably say the ancient, pre Homeric institution of hospitality (formalized as xenia among the Greeks, recognized by Romans in their mores maiorum, illustrated in the Norse Havamal) is the fundamental non-matrimonial European social institution, but there are too many commonalities to treat comprehensively.
>>25351211I think I finally get what you are saying and in large part I do agree with you.>If hard pressed, I would probably say the ancient, pre Homeric institution of hospitalityI would say the Indo-European languages, traditions, and heroic folklores were the earliest common identity across Europe. But IMO the Christian religion, alongside a rival religion in MENA (aka Islam), is what made Europe into being its own unique continent rather than just an interesting corner of Asia. A Neapolitan would share more in common with a Bavarian than a Berber, which is only been possible if there is such a strong ideological connection.
>>25348892>Threemore like 32, there are 30 distinct qorans my guy, and they all claim to be the one and only qoran
>>25351191>the social, exoteric result of that teaching was blurring of social distinctions, a phenomenon that naturally finds its place among the lower classesYou seem to have a fantastic view (probably influenced by socialism/communism) with regard to the so-called social distinctions you claim. You most certainly come from a non-individualist (i.e. not Western) culture. I hope your passion about the subject matter is not just cope...>I do not think the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) permits non-evangelization (ie one has to convert all whom one can)One may argue that he was talking to the 11 disciples tho.Anyway, if you look at the raw facts, the protestants and the megachurches are closest to the recipe you are (subconsciously or not). Enjoy your LGBT priests I guess...
*you are promoting
Anyway this thread reminded me of Jung's comment about kundalini: Western man has no use for their methods because the methods aim to get you from being a machine optimized for street shitting and fucking everything that moves, to talking and thinking... meanwhile Western man already does too much talking and thinking, and should probably take a break sometimes (especially when it comes to technology/technique, see Ellul, and exporing said technology) to look around and enjoy the scenery. The Tanakh & Bible were originally a reminder not to be such a thinking animal, at least that's what I speculate, although wirting the Talmud/Zohar ONCE AGAIN proved that Jews understood nothing (that's not a pun), and don't even get me started on scholasticism or the protestants (freemasonry or communism are just protestantism with the mask ripped off).Finally, I have no opinion on the Quran because I tried reading it and it's schoolboy level fantasy + stuff copied from the Bible, Manicheans, Zoroastrians, + a big helping of Arabic demon-worship... except that the schoolboy is armed and will kill you if you don't learn it word by word.It's a miracle that the people they conquered (Levantines, Turks, Persians, Egyptians, Berbers, and all kinds of mystics) managed to construct something decent —if not beautiful— out of it, by tricking the 50IQ invaders... literally transformed shit into gold... although the average IQ of the invaders only went up 10 points.Yet today is too late even for them, because all the free oil and free communism have taken their minds.Sorry if I offended anyone, it's just how I see things.
>>25351325Largely agreed.>>25351607Personally, I care not a whit about class, I was merely correcting your false claim that early Christianity was socially elitist. I am much more interested in the truth and the history of ideas, of which discipline class is a necessary, albeit distasteful, aspect. Christianity is inherently unnatural, whereas (European) paganism is essentially naturalistic, even if enshrouded in layers of epistemological doubt. Depending on one's own priors, that Christianity is unnatural could mean that it is artificially engineered or that is supernaturally inspired. Regardless, out of the matrix of ideas of Christianity come various modern ideologies like Liberalism, Communism, Feminism and gay rights and such. Protestant megachurches are just as natural an extension as are Catholic crusades. Of course, you need a specific set of historical circumstances combined with a breakdown of certain Christian practices for these ideas to spread in these ways, but Christianity entails a dissolution of social bonds (e.g. forsake your father and mother), and the resulting atomization of the individual can be used in ways far beyond 'follow God.'
>>25351855Now you just sound like a retard wih ChatGPT. Take your strawmen elsewhere, there are still humans talking on /lit/.
>>25348892>is the Word of God (Quran) a good book?LOL!
