/rel/

[Anonymous No.21045947]

Christians were Atheists to the Romans, because the Christians didn't value anything in the world and held nihilistic and solipsistic views by contrast to the native polytheists who had essentially all the same gods but just different names for them.

I would argue that 'good' examples of christians or muslims also do not literally believe in the god in the same way (today anyway; historically also st. basil or st. benedicts good deeds didn't hinge on their faith in the god of the bible), but it's impossible to tell apart two people who both claim to believe but one does bad and one does good; that's the flaw inherent with verbal profession of unverifiable beliefs.

>the essential nature of religion is mythological, and not intellectual.
They'e complimentary; with the best examples of polytheism the 'state gods' are the focal point for the related industries w/ priests as the custodian and teachers of those industries - how far we want to connect this with the practical sciences (industry specific) is maybe another topic (lengthy essay required), 'but' ... insofar as mythologies/theologies relate to the temples/gods these are lessons 'of' the character of the god and so would be intellectual (be it early science - predicting weather - or poems like ovid), whereas 'religion' - or familial piety - would be 1000% about ones own personal ancestors and not so much about the gods as people themselves.

This is the difference between state gods and personal gods, anyway; the state is around the person and it's good that the understand it, but the personal gods - the ancestors - exist/ed and so don't require this "belief" aspect that the christian/muslim/etc. requires of 'their' god.


>1) the gods/temples/guilds were useful in major ways and didn't need to all back on 'faith in unknowable things' - the temples were like guilds and banks and hospitals and colleges etc. so the origin point for 'faith' in the sense muslims/christians think about the religion has nowhere to come from,
>2) believing venus is a real person is not that different from thinking father christmas is a real person; that is: a kid or a very mentally enfeebled adult might think of the gods as people but anyone with sense would not - is this belief a serious intellectual poiiton that would provoke debate or requre refutation by the ancient romans or greeks? fuck no. find me a serious textbook refuting belief in father christmas, this would be an absurd thing to write because the 'belief' isn't a serious thing in the first place.

most importantly though:
>3) the roman, anyway, was more focused on the ancestors than the gods; the ancestors are real people who don't require faith to believe they exist/ed lol (and this ancestor thing is far more common across the world than focus on specific gods - east asian shinto e.g.)

[Anonymous No.21045950]

re: The "Literal" vs. "Allegorical" of the Roman Religion; or the childs comprehension of Literal Gods (Literal Father Christmas) vs. the State Gods (the banks, the hospitals)
and: "no need for faith that ones grandparents were real people" and "where was the need for belief in 'the gods as real people'?

[Anonymous No.21046588]

I don't understand why Christians and Pagans hated each other. Neoplatonism and Christianity only different in some details and it is essentially the same religion.

[Anonymous No.21047035]

>>21046588
>Neoplatonism and Christianity
"Neoplatonism" did not exist as a concept to be conflated or equated with Jewish theology in the 1st Century.

[Anonymous No.21047089]

>>21046588
They didn't, really. They nailed Christ to a cross to keep the peace. He was riling up the Jews and they didn't feel great about it either.

I think all the Greeks and Romans knew their pantheon was fake and gay, which is why the Byzantium readily converted to Christianity without too much of a fuss.

[Anonymous No.21047116]

>>21047089
>without too much of a fuss.
elaborate on this. I'd love to hear the story.

[Anonymous No.21047208]

>>21047089
>They didn't, really. They nailed Christ to a cross to keep the peace. He was riling up the Jews and they didn't feel great about it either.
which very strange since Jesus said several times to honor and obey Caesar; and his attack on the money-lenders was actually enforcing Neros own policy against currency exchange.

>I think all the Greeks knew their pantheon was fake and gay,
this is true.

The Romans had already forgotten a lot of their traditions by that point in time anyway, things like bringing in that disgusting foreign cult of eunuch priests (attis and cybele) after the Punic War was the precursor to the Christians in a lot of ways.

The interesting thing is that it was all enforced under pretense of egalitarianism and tolerance of foreigners. One of the main offenses of Iulius Caesar was bringing strange monkey-creatures into the Senate and using them to vote stack in his favor.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21047220]

>>21045947
>Christians were Atheists to the Romans, because the Christians didn't value anything in the world and held nihilistic and solipsistic view[...] [SIC]


NO; PAGANS REGARDED CHRISTIANS AS «ATHEISTS» BECAUSE THEY RENEGED WORSHIP OF DEITIES.

NIHILISM, AND SOLIPSISM ARE ANTICHRISTIAN, AND «ISMS» THAT ARE CHARACTERISTIC OF HERETICS, PAGANS, AND ATHEISTS.

[Anonymous No.21047275]

>>21047220
ooo an interesting reply, hello COEMGENUS

>>Christians were Atheists to the Romans, because the Christians didn't value anything in the world and held nihilistic and solipsistic views
And you deny this? Have you ever met a Christian and heard their opinions on their delusions of immortality and how the world around them doesn't matter and is "made by the devil", et al.?

I'd love to argue about this. There's also the obvious point of having their brains and intelligent comprehension of logic and virtue and history and science replaced by a screwball of extremely violent and babyish Jewish theology (character of Old Testament God) which they demanded wasn't even allegorical, or to be learned lessons from, but was totally literal accounts of real life.

>NIHILISM, AND SOLIPSISM ARE ANTICHRISTIAN
I disagree. In over a thousand (or probably more) discussions with christians I've either participated in or heard it is an inescapable fact that their character is unlearned and viceful; solipsism is a polte way to s hving closed off the brain to reality, nihilism refers to their character of vice.

Atheism in the original sense still fits to describe Abramics; in that they consider nothing of the world to be sacred in any respect, regarding other people as nothing, spising the material world, lusting after immortality, declaring their opinion to be akin to the god-creator of all the galaxies, belieivng themselves chosen and special; whilst remaining either completely evil or ignorant in their day to day character, which is understandable when their holy text is examined and their God is demonstrated to have cursed for eternity (original sin) the first two humans for the 'crime' of desiring to differentiate right from wrong, in order that they could do good.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY/Ar.iI No.21047325]

>>21047275
>And you deny this? Have you ever met a Christian and heard their opinions on their delusions of immortality and how the world around them doesn't matter and is "made by the devil", et al.?

>I'd love to argue about this. There's also the obvious point of having their brains and intelligent comprehension of logic and virtue and history and science replaced by a screwball of extremely violent and babyish Jewish theology (character of Old Testament God) which they demanded wasn't even allegorical, or to be learned lessons from, but was totally literal accounts of real life.

>I disagree. In over a thousand (or probably more) discussions with christians I've either participated in or heard it is an inescapable fact that their character is unlearned and viceful; solipsism is a polte way to s hving closed off the brain to reality, nihilism refers to their character of vice.

>Atheism in the original sense still fits to describe Abramics; in that they consider nothing of the world to be sacred in any respect, regarding other people as nothing, spising the material world, lusting after immortality, declaring their opinion to be akin to the god-creator of all the galaxies, belieivng themselves chosen and special; whilst remaining either completely evil or ignorant in their day to day character, which is understandable when their holy text is examined and their God is demonstrated to have cursed for eternity (original sin) the first two humans for the 'crime' of desiring to differentiate right from wrong, in order that they could do good.


READ THE HOLY BIBLE, THE WORK OF SAINT THOMAS OF AQUINAS, AND THE WORK OF LUIS DE MOLINA; GO TO MASS, OPEN YOUR HEART, AND YOUR HEAD, TO GOD.

[Anonymous No.21047333]

>>21047220
>ATHEIS
also....

When comparing the Roman Calendar and religious customs to the Christians, you will find the Christians have abandoned 80% of the religious year and the customs people were supposed to be following; carrying the goblet to the forum t dawn, following the lunar cycle of each month, commemorating the sacred holidays, learning the lessons of everything, d so on.

For a 1st Roman to just stop this and stay home; to stop going to festivals, to ignore the feasts or not take part in community affairs (public feasts, community events, festivals, etc.), would entirely resemble a mean-spirited antisocial attitude of both solipsism and nihilism; but 'verbatim' this would be why they resemble persons of "no religion", as they had ceased to participate in very high energy religion, in exchange for doing really nothing whatsoever with their time and refusing to take part in the community.

... well, until they took over and declare many of these feasts and festivals to be about one of their martyrs or, more famously, their martyrs birthday instead when the stars align into a little cross on the winter solstice.

[Anonymous No.21047354]

>>21047325
A one sentence answer? I expected more from you, Cumgenius.

[Anonymous No.21047382]

>>21047325
>READ THE HOLY BIBLE
............ i wrote so many great points you could discuss with me and THIS WAS YOUR ONLY REPLY XD

NOT TO WORRY THEN, IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE YOU DO NOT DARE ENTER INTO A DISCUSSION WITH ME ON THE SUBJECT OF YOUR OWN FALSE PROFESSIONS OF SELF-AGGRANDIZED SLOVENLY 'PIETY'; YOUR SOLIPSISM OF UNVERIFIABLE INSISTENCE OF SUPERIORITY OVER ALL YOUR FELLOW MEN, WHICH WOULD BE RAPIDLY REVEALED TO BE HOLLOW NONSENSE WHEN EXAMINED FOR PROOFS.

MAY YOU REPENT AT THE GIANT FOOT OF EMPEROR CONSTANTINE AND EMBRACE THE IMPERIAL CHURCH IF YOU EVEN WANT TO BE 'ACCURATE' IN YOUR SLAVISH ADORATION OF MY ANCESTORS; CEASE YOUR HERESY OF CATHOLICISM AND BEGIN YOUR LIFE GATHERING MONEY TO REPAY THE 1,600 YEARS OF BACK-TAXES AND MANPOWER OWED TO THE IMPERIUM OF THE ROMAN PEOPLE AND THEIR FOREIGN ALLIES IF YOU WISH, IN YOUR DEEDS, TO BE HELPFUL IN YOUR PRESENT INCARNATION.

VAL.

>>21047354
ikr

[Anonymous No.21047408]

>>21047325
>THE WORK OF SAINT THOMAS OF AQUINAS, AND THE WORK OF LUIS DE MOLINA
I DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO YOUTUBERS BECAUSE THE ADVERTS ARE ANNOYING.

[Anonymous No.21047412]

>>21045947
>Christians were Atheists to the Romans
retarded statement
>Christians held solipsistic views
retarded statement
>I would argue that 'good' examples of christians or muslims also do not literally believe in the god in the same way
retarded statement
>historically also st. basil or st. benedicts good deeds didn't hinge on their faith in the god of the bible
retarded statement
Stop posting, you braindead mouthbreather, this is the stupidest drivel I've read this week.

[Anonymous No.21047442]

>>21047412
>>Christians were Atheists to the Romans
>retarded statement
No, it's literally true. This is a bad start for us to discern the credibility of your thoughts, anon.

>solipsistic
answered this more fully here: >>21047333

you're forgiven for not reading it, it mustve taken you some time of type your reply and you may have missed it.

>>I would argue that 'good' examples of christians or muslims also do not literally believe in the god in the same way
>retarded statement
Actually, no. I've heard plenty of people, both personally and elsewhere, who express that they know most of the religion is bogus. The same reasoning would apply to any religion; if a person who wishes to do good can manage to it through the religion, then they may as well.

which follows,
e.g.
> st. basil or st. benedicts good deeds didn't hinge on their faith in the god of the bible
And their deeds didn't.

> you braindead mouthbreather, this is the stupidest drivel
I'm glad you were driven to abuse, anon. It reveals your very learned, temperate and highly virtuous character that you derived through your religion, you animal-brained little criminal incel you.

[Anonymous No.21047465]

>>21047442
>I've heard plenty of people, both personally and elsewhere, who express that they know most of the religion is bogus. The same reasoning would apply to any religion; if a person who wishes to do good can manage to it through the religion, then they may as well.
especially if they would be arrested or prevented from running a soup kitchen, or flsely ccused f thought-crime, if they handed out soup to the poor or tried to stop people drinking contaminated water, and they didn' remember to say "lord jesus" when they went about doing it.

it's not unlike how media and people in public speaking today hve to pepper their entire sentences with caveats about how they're into child sex and cross-dressing and rehousing drug barons and terrorists in their neighborhood and stuff, as they give their speech on the totally unrelated subjects that they're there to actually talk about.

[Anonymous No.21047487]

>>21045947
>who had essentially all the same gods but just different names for them.
Neopagan drivel. Not everyone subscribed to muh interpertation. The Romans probably became nihilistic and atheistic by the time christianity was rising. The priests failed their tasks I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.21047490]

>>21047442
>No, it's literally true
If this were "LITERALLY TRUE" then, logically, Romans would have had to believe that Christians did not believe in any God. By definition an atheist is someone who "does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". So if the Romans "LITERALLY" thought that Christians were atheists, they would have to "LITERALLY" think that Christians did not believe in the existence of a god or any gods. But this is not the case, is it? The Roman pagans knew that Christians believed in Jesus as God. The Roman pagans also knew that Christians believed in Yahweh, the God of the Jews. We know that the Romans knew this because they wrote about the Christians in these terms. The Romans knew that Christians believed in and worshiped Jesus and/or Yahweh. They knew this. They knew that Christians worshiped some form of god, even if it wasn't the pagan deity. The Romans knew this because monotheism wasn't anything new. The Romans had coexisted with Jews for centuries before Christians came about, and the Romans knew that the Jews believed in a singular deity called Yahweh. They knew this because they lived among the Jews and respected their old tradition. The Romans knew that Christians were a sect of Jews with Jewish origins. They knew what being a Jew entailed: worship of one singular deity (Yahweh). They knew that Christians worshiped Jesus as (or with) a singular deity called Yahweh. The Romans did not "LITERALLY" see Christians as not believing in the existence of ANY GOD OR GODS. The Romans knew that Christians believed in a god. Therefore the Romans did not "LITERALLY" see Christians as atheists. Why are you being such a fucking moron about this? Good lord you're insufferable.

[Anonymous No.21047498]

>>21047208
>The Romans had already forgotten a lot of their traditions by that point in time anyway
I think it wasn't as general as many people make it out to be with these things. I think, like today, their society was filled with different 'types' of groups who had different values.

[Anonymous No.21047509]

>>21047490
Thanks for typing this, I too hate the retards that constantly make YouTube historian tier threads on /lit/. It'd be one thing if they were able to argue like the pagans, but those pagans would get headaches reading the drivel these fools post.

[Anonymous No.21047525]

>>21047408
kek

[Anonymous No.21047529]

>>21047490
>If this were "LITERALLY TRUE" then, logically, Romans would have had to believe that Christians did not believe in any God. By definition an atheist is someone who "does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods". So if the Romans "LITERALLY" thought that Christians were atheists
hahaha they did say this! Are you just denying the accusation or legitimately unaware that Christians and Jews were considered Atheists because of (the things i mentioned)?

I forget the guys name but one christian or jewish person wrote a little book in the 2nd or 3rd century about how christians weren't atheists at all, because it was said and thought so often.

>The Romans knew that Christians were a sect of Jews with Jewish origins. They knew what being a Jew entailed: worship of one singular deity
Of course, 'and' they knew that the Christians had turned their back on the Jewish temple and gone off on some other path.They had abandoned their traditional theolgoy, and could eb tought of as being a-theistic for this reason also.

That's the actual Christians - the Jews who followed Jesus and Paul - 'not' the Romans or Greeks or Syrians who followed them. both were apostates. factually speaking.

>>21047465
>drivel.
lol you couldn't refute anythin I said here: >>21047442 I guess

Sorry, not a neopagan. Not yet anyway, but it would be fun to snatch the mic from a christian street preacher and giving a PRAISE MARS to the passersby.

All religion is a Live Action Role Play. Never forget this, drivel anon.

[Anonymous No.21047546]

>>21047509
>drivel
How many times are you going reply to yourself, without answering anything I've said, using your special word? WE CAN TELL IT'S YOU BCOS NOBODY USES THIS WORD you malding faggot


> It'd be one thing if they were able to argue like the pagans, but those pagans would get headaches

>>21047498
>I think, like today, their society was filled with different 'types' of groups who had different values.
I think, honestly, you've not read what was said,
"3) the roman, anyway, was more focused on the ancestors than the gods; the ancestors are real people who don't require faith to believe they exist/ed lol"

There were the State Gods whose temples were banks and hospitals and military camps, industry specific, then there were the Ancestors themselves.

I do understand how this resembles nothing like the concept of 'god/religion' that people commonly have, that was largely the point of this thread to discuss this ..

> It'd be one thing if they were able to argue like the pagans, but those pagans would get headaches
I agree. A norse pagan with an axe would not be interested in a highly regimented religious life with a calendar of almost daily observations.

[Anonymous No.21047550]

Losing arguments and becoming rude is a national pasttime for Christians.

[Anonymous No.21047555]

>>21045947
based. Athiests and Religious Zealots can't wrap their heads around the fact that ancient people weren't retarded like they are. They knew the universe was crazy complex and used the only tool they had to share knowledge (stories.)

[Anonymous No.21047558]

>>21047089
>readily converted to Christianity without too much of a fuss
Not only does /lit/ not read literature, /lit/ doesn't read history either!

[Anonymous No.21047562]

>>21047558
That'd be you who doesn't know about the God Fearers and the Greek Jewish movement during the second temple period.

Greeks converted heavily to the God of Israel before Jesus. The reason is they, being a bunch of city states worshipping rival gods, understand that idolatry divides us.

A united Helen, a united and free world even, is only possible through the one true god.

[Anonymous No.21047563]

>>21047555
i only just realized this post would upset both the Atheist and the Zealot. Two small minority groups who cause the most drama and who nobody likes anyway. Good.

[Anonymous No.21047565]

>>21047490
>the Romans did not "LITERALLY" see Christians as atheists
Oh but they did! If you refuse to worship any of the public gods but instead a deceased man who performed magic tricks no one else saw except cult members, and you only meet at night to do this, you are definitely a weird degenerate godless freak as far as the normative members of the society are concerned. If the Romans then had the media technology we now have, they'd be replying to christers with troonjak memes and telling them to get crucified

[Anonymous No.21047569]

>>21045947
this thread belongs on /his/

[Anonymous No.21047571]

>>21047562
>Greeks converted heavily to the God of Israel before Jesus.
xd do you really believe Plato, idiot though he was, believed in the Jewish God from the Eden Story? And would have approved of genital mutilation of ones own children? are you on crack

[Anonymous No.21047576]

>>21047562
>Greeks converted heavily to the God of Israel before Jesus
You have this backwards. The Israelites began to speak Greek and intermarry. The assimilationists lost at first, e.g. the Jewish war against the Seleucids which began as a civil war between two camps of Judaism one Hellenizing and one anti-Hellenizing, but with the rise of Christianity—after Jesus obviously—the more conservative wing becomes a minority and you get the Greek conversion to Judaism+.

[Anonymous No.21047587]

>>21047562
ah but there is a rather large flaw in this narrative, anon, as before Jesus arrived the religion of the Jews was evil and heresy, according to your religion. Otherwise there was no point for Jesus, right? The Greeks couldn't have been into Jewish Theology 'and' have been reformed Jews following Jesus and been right both at once.

[Anonymous No.21047589]

>>21047569
hold on, I'll remember the name of that person who wrote that jewish-christians weren't atheists after all, then the thread can be considered /lit/

[Anonymous No.21047590]

Some relevant reading on Roman views of Christianity!

[Anonymous No.21047615]

>>21047562
>A united Helen
*tears down the groves of athens to build a wall around athens* img. related.

>>21047487
>Not everyone subscribed to muh interpertation
that's probably true, drivel anon, although the connection of the great similarities of the original - organically arising - gods in this manner is a strange kind of universal commonality we have. The Romans, anyway, recognized this. It was, you'll recall, a few exceptions who decided to be morons and engage in religiously inspired wars and persecutions. Namely the Christians and the Jews.

Did you know the Celts had their own version of Hercules as far back as the Etruscan times? Ogmios.

[Anonymous No.21047625]

>>21047590
ty, now we're /lit/

>>21047569
happy?

[Anonymous No.21047637]

>>21047576
There is also the seldom-told era immeiately after Constantines death, when his son Constans had Paul Catena go around using non-belief in the christian religion as an excuse to arrest and falsely imprison potential political dissidents; arrest governors etc., from Brittania to Egypt.

He was the one at the trail held by Emperor Julian, who had him burned to death for his crimes.

So there was also that lending itself to the 'rise of christianity'.