Pagandawn

<edit> And I see that you are mod, that's not a good sign.
To spell out this ABC feel very embarrassing. You have to look at the context both in this thread and in history.

If the folks who wrote the bible wanted to spread their lies. Why on earth would they be stupid enough to lie about Caesar or other obvious historical facts? <edit>

So xtianity is not alien to my European culture? Howso? Is it not a product from the M-E? Did it not destroy the classical pagan culture?

As explained many times before. It is perfectly alright to be a pagan and an atheist. We don't believe in the reality of any gods. We see our gods as mythical figures from the history of OUR EUROPEAN people.

And when it comes to worship. No heathen ever worshiped any god. He would never submit to such. It was a companionship. If Freya or Thor or whatever didn't fancy her anymore, they could go to hel (not hell). Submission is for xtians (is this a forerunner to SM?).

Pagandawn

Supposed to be? The classical Greek and Roman culture. You know about that? Platon, Aristoteles,Aiskylos... etc The whole classical culture of antiquity. But also all the other European cultures. The nordic, Celtic and Slavic etc.

To force the Europeans to abandon their culture and adopt a foreign one, made ultimate violence and destruction necessary. It was not enough with 20 pages of silliness about a Jewish guy called Yeshua.

Pagandawn

The Romans are US. Not any desert M-E jewish culture.

Well, perhaps not you. You are American?

Pagandawn

Yes, you have a point here. The Bible has an interesting history of perception.

But, in my view the Bible is a simple fraud. The importance of the Bible is an artificial one. It should not have been an influence in European history.

It is a book without any value in it self.

Julian

Unfortunately, your post will be edited (by someone other than me, no worries) because of the ad hominem comments. If it was up to me, I would gladly let it stand for all to see, after all, you make my point for me far better than I ever could.

Obviously, I will discontinue any exchange with you until you learn a few facts, including how to communicate without namecalling. I am certain that others will be willing point out what needs to be pointed out.

Clearly, as you have noted, I have a very low IQ and a highly deficient knowledge of European history and the Christian religion. There is no reason that you should pay heed to anything I have to say on such matters considering your superior insight and analysis.

Julian

Mageth

Yes, there were ancient European cultures, which displaced even earlier cultures. And there have been other European cultures since then. And there are still cultures in Europe. And there will be cultures in Europe in the future.

Things change, Pagandawn. Change is inevitable. Whatever one feels about it today, the fact is that, almost 2000 years ago, a religion that started in a Middle Eastern backwater snuck into Europe through the back door, became institutionalized in Rome, and before long spread through much of Europe, in part violently and in part non-violently.

IIRC, there was even a period when Christianity in Europe came close to dying out, being swept off the Continent, but held on in Ireland, and Irish monks managed to revive it. (I'm not that familiar with the history, but IIRC something like that happened).

And Islam made inroads into Europe as well, particularly in Iberia, holding on there for centuries until finally being pushed out.

Changes...shifts...the complicated history of cultures and religions, in Europe in this case, but it happens everywhere in the world.

It's all history, Pagandawn. Whatever we may personally feel about it, it happened.

The "classical" cultures you mention had their share of "violence and destruction" apart from Christianity.

Regret it all you want. It's history now. Not much you or anyone else can do about it but go forward from here, eh?

Julian

It is worth noting that with the Roman empire covering most of Europe, the Middle East, and northern Africa, the cultural distinctions that are so pronounced today, would have been far less noticable back then. Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, Lutetia (Paris), and so on would have been far more culturally similar than what we observe today.
After Constantine, christianity was never really in any danger of going away. The waves of 'barbarian' incursions consisted mostly of Christians. Alaric I was a christian (sacked Rome in 410, but it was a rather mild sack as these things go), and so was Geiseric (leader of the Vandals who eventually settled Carthage and was the indirect but ultimate cause of the real fall of Rome).
Indeed, this is probably the main reason for many of the cultural differences that we see today between Europe and the Middle East.


Julian

lpetrich

Some of the Bible's "history" is legitimate history.

The Dual Monarchy is well-supported by outside sources, though both the Bible and those sources have editorial slants that can make sorting out fact from fiction difficult.

But before that, David and Solomon might have been princelings of a small area around Jerusalem and not rulers of an Israel-wide empire, and before that, as far as anyone can tell, it's all mythology with bits of garbled legitimate history here and there. The Conquest is mythology, the Exodus is mythology, the Patriarchs are mythology, the Flood is mythology, and the Creation is mythology. The Exodus story could well have been an extremely garbled version of the Egyptians' expulsion of the Hyksos, for instance.

As to the New Testament, a lot of background details are indeed correct, but that does not demonstrate the truth of the foreground details. And there are some clear errors:

The Gospels portray Pontius Pilate as someone who was pushed into sentencing Jesus Christ to crucifixion, while Philo and Josephus agree that he was ruthless even by Roman standards.

Matthew tells us that King Herod ordered the killing of the Bethlehem baby boys, but neither Philo nor Josephus mentioned that, despite claiming that King Herod had killed some family members out of fear that they would overthrow him.

And there are such inconsistencies as the genealogies in Matthew and Luke, and also the resurrection accounts.

Demonstrably false.

I agree.

And there's lots of pseudo-history in the Bible also. There's no evidence that the Exodus, for instance, had happened as described, even though it's likely a rather garbled memory of the expulsion of the Hyksos.
So what? Heinrich Schliemann had found a long-buried city at where the Iliad had described Troy as being. So does that make the Iliad 100% history, Greek gods and all?

Except that it isn't -- the earlier parts are all mythology. And why do you claim that "atheists" refuse to acknowledge that alleged fact?

Why do you call yourself an atheist? What are your personal beliefs?

Pagandawn

Tnx, for that excellent analysis. Exactly my point!

Perhaps you ain't that dumb after all?

<edit>