Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama

The Imperial cult of ancient Rome identified emperors and some members of their families
with the divinely sanctioned authority (auctoritas) of the Roman State.
Its framework was based on Roman and Greek precedents, and was formulated during
the early Principate of Augustus. It was rapidly established throughout the Empire
and its provinces, with marked local variations in its reception and expression. ...



The cult of the Emperor as a particularly offensive instrument of pagan impiety and persecution.[1]
It therefore became a focus of theological and political debate during the ascendancy of
Christianity under Constantine I. The emperor Julian failed to reverse the declining support
for Rome's official religious practices: Theodosius I adopted Christianity as Rome's state religion.

Rome's traditional gods and Imperial cult were officially abandoned. However, many of the rites,
practices and status distinctions that characterized the cult to emperors were perpetuated in
the theology and politics of the Christianized Empire.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_cult_of_ancient_Rome
And Paul, as a Roman citizen, had had to learn the notion of men becoming gods. It seems to me an important consideration when we weigh up the way Christianity developed. It would be very satisfying to know what Jesus really thought!
 
I know some people do consider Western Civilization to be whatever happened in Europe and America since the Indo-European migration or Classical Greece. That doesn't really make much sense to me, because then we're counting radically different cultures as being part of the same civilization. We're saying a Catholic Theocracy is the same civilization as a Democratic Republic. And yeah, I know that cultures evolve. The Democracy of Weimar Germany is not exactly the same as the Democracy of the Federal Republic of Germany. And the culture of Ireland is not the same as the culture of Finland, despite them both being Democracies. But all of these cultures, regardless of period or region, have the same Western cornerstones that were established during the Enlightenment. Sure, there was a backlash against secularism and science during the Romantic period, but we didn't abandon those Western cornerstones. We were still expanding upon things like Democracy and free speech.
If "Western Civilization" is anything that happened in Europe since Classical Greece, then there really are no Western values. Anything from Democracy and Secularism to Dictatorship and Theocracy can be considered Western values, which makes the term meaningless.

It sounds to me like your focus is on democratic institutions and scientific innovation as the final word on western civilization.

To me, political systems and the scientific method are only two elements that define Western civilization. I believe our lives as prodigy of Western civilization are a result of a rich tapestry of interlocking events, movements, religious and intellectual currents which have occured in the west in the last 2500 years
 
It sounds to me like your focus is on democratic institutions and scientific innovation as the final word on western civilization.

To me, political systems and the scientific method are only two elements that define Western civilization. I believe our lives as prodigy of Western civilization are a result of a rich tapestry of interlocking events, movements, religious and intellectual currents which have occured in the west in the last 2500 years

Well I agree that the past does influence the future. The Greeks were influence by Ancient Egypt. But the civilization of the Greeks was so incredibly different from that of Egypt, that we all acknowledge them as being two different civilizations. I'd even say Sparta and Athens were extremely different cultures, with one being a free society full of art and philosophy, the other being a totalitarian society all about war. So sure, our modern world has been influenced by Pagan Europe and the Middle Ages, as well as Asia and the Middle East, but the modern Post-Enlightenment world is different enough to be considered a civilization separate from the Middle Ages.
 
Well I agree that the past does influence the future. The Greeks were influence by Ancient Egypt. But the civilization of the Greeks was so incredibly different from that of Egypt, that we all acknowledge them as being two different civilizations. I'd even say Sparta and Athens were extremely different cultures, with one being a free society full of art and philosophy, the other being a totalitarian society all about war. So sure, our modern world has been influenced by Pagan Europe and the Middle Ages, as well as Asia and the Middle East, but the modern Post-Enlightenment world is different enough to be considered a civilization separate from the Middle Ages.

I do not think we are that far apart, it comes down to semantics and perspective. Socrates would say it comes down to how one defines terms and boundaries.

I watched a lecture on 19th century philosopher GWF Hegel, and his view of european history strikes me as essentially correct. The concept of freedom, individuality, and democracy in the modern west is unique and did not just randomly happen in a vacuum. It was the cumulative effect and culmination of European history over two millennia. The seeds of the Enlightenment were fertilized in the intellectual traditions and the polis of classical Greece, and in the spirituality, equality, and ethics of early Christianity. The role of an autonomous soul, personal salvation, and a code of ethics taught by Jesus were the origin in the west of what came to be a visceral sense of individuality, equality, and autonomy.
 
I understood your claim denied Jesus ever historically existed, not that you only denied his divinity.

Lots of people think Jesus was only human, a great prophet of God, but not a divine being who was resurrected.

One billion Muslims believe that.

Jesus never existed. He's a mythological religious figure, like Buddha or Zoroaster. The magical elements of the Jesus story are clearly impossible, and when you take those away, you're left with vague morality teachings that are largely plagiarized from a text called The Book of Enoch, written around 100 BC.
 
Jesus never existed. He's a mythological religious figure, like Buddha or Zoroaster. The magical elements of the Jesus story are clearly impossible, and when you take those away, you're left with vague morality teachings that are largely plagiarized from a text called The Book of Enoch, written around 100 BC.

Have you ever read the New Testament? Do so, and then read some mythological stories. The fantasy bits in the Gospels are clearly read back from the notion that Jesus was the Messiah and therefore must fulfil the prophecies. Read The Apology and ask yourself if Socrates belief in his Daemon renders this 'mythological', and then try what Buddha has to say, and see whether he existed. Mythological figures don't come out with things like the Sermon on the Mount, nor do may people die for them.
 
I do not think we are that far apart, it comes down to semantics and perspective. Socrates would say it comes down to how one defines terms and boundaries.

I watched a lecture on 19th century philosopher GWF Hegel, and his view of european history strikes me as essentially correct. The concept of freedom, individuality, and democracy in the modern west is unique and did not just randomly happen in a vacuum. It was the cumulative effect and culmination of European history over two millennia. The seeds of the Enlightenment were fertilized in the intellectual traditions and the polis of classical Greece, and in the spirituality, equality, and ethics of early Christianity. The role of an autonomous soul, personal salvation, and a code of ethics taught by Jesus were the origin in the west of what came to be a visceral sense of individuality, equality, and autonomy.

I pretty much agree with all of that, except the part about Christianity. I see the Enlightenment as being a step in the opposite direction from Christianity, for reasons I already outlined earlier.
But yeah, in typical human fashion, people used Christianity to justify unchristian ideas. There were Enlightenment philosophers who used Christianity's concept of equality in soul to justify Democracy, despite Democracy being opposed to Christianity. Eh, whatever got the job done.
 
I do not think we are that far apart, it comes down to semantics and perspective. Socrates would say it comes down to how one defines terms and boundaries.

I watched a lecture on 19th century philosopher GWF Hegel, and his view of european history strikes me as essentially correct. The concept of freedom, individuality, and democracy in the modern west is unique and did not just randomly happen in a vacuum. It was the cumulative effect and culmination of European history over two millennia. The seeds of the Enlightenment were fertilized in the intellectual traditions and the polis of classical Greece, and in the spirituality, equality, and ethics of early Christianity. The role of an autonomous soul, personal salvation, and a code of ethics taught by Jesus were the origin in the west of what came to be a visceral sense of individuality, equality, and autonomy.

I pretty much agree with all of that, except the part about Christianity. I see the Enlightenment as being a step in the opposite direction from Christianity, for reasons I already outlined earlier.
But yeah, in typical human fashion, people used Christianity to justify unchristian ideas. There were Enlightenment philosophers who used Christianity's concept of equality in soul to justify Democracy, despite Democracy being opposed to Christianity.
 
Henry VIII was King of England from 1509 until his death in 1547.

Martin Luther 1483-1546

Magna Carta Originally published on 15 June 1215

What is the Magna Carta in simple terms?
The Magna Carta (Latin for “Great Charter”) was a document
that gave certain rights to the English people.
King John of England agreed to it on June 15, 1215.
The Magna Carta stated that the king must follow the law.
He could not simply rule as he wished.

Middle Ages = 1100 to 1453. The period of European history
from the fall of the Roman Empire in the West (5th century)
to the fall of Constantinople (1453)

the government system involving a two house legislature adopted in England as the House of Lords and House of Commons by William of Orange, then transferred to the US as the Senate and House of Representatives was first created by a guy name John Calvin in Switzerland during the Reformation in the 1400s........
 
the government system involving a two house legislature adopted in England as the House of Lords and House of Commons by William of Orange, then transferred to the US as the Senate and House of Representatives was first created by a guy name John Calvin in Switzerland during the Reformation in the 1400s........

:nolovejesus:
 
The Lords and the Commons go back way before William of Orange or Calvin. I think people should leave history alone if they know nothing much about it.
 
The Lords and the Commons go back way before William of Orange .

as do the teachings of John Calvin.......William is the person who ended the persecution of protestants in England......the battles between Catholics and Protestants obviously had been going on for a hundred years......
 
I pretty much agree with all of that, except the part about Christianity. I see the Enlightenment as being a step in the opposite direction from Christianity, for reasons I already outlined earlier.
But yeah, in typical human fashion, people used Christianity to justify unchristian ideas. There were Enlightenment philosophers who used Christianity's concept of equality in soul to justify Democracy, despite Democracy being opposed to Christianity.

That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization
 
That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization

I'd say the difference is that Jefferson and Smith failed to live up to their own Enlightenment ideals, whereas the Popes who allowed slavery were simply following their own religion.
 
Lesson #1 for neophytes living in the ashram is:
we are spirit soul not the material body

“O descendant of Bharata, he who dwells in the body is eternal and can never be slain. Therefore you need not grieve for any creature.” (Bhagavad-gītā 2.30)

The very first step in self-realization is realizing one’s identity as separate from the body.
“I am not this body but am spirit soul” is an essential realization for anyone who wants to
transcend death and enter into the spiritual world beyond. It is not simply a matter of saying
“I am not this body,” but of actually realizing it. This is not as simple as it may seem at first.

Although we are not these bodies but are pure consciousness, somehow or other we have
become encased within the bodily dress. If we actually want the happiness and independence
that transcend death, we have to establish ourselves and remain in our constitutional position as pure consciousness.

Living in the bodily conception, our idea of happiness is like that of a man in delirium.
Some philosophers claim that this delirious condition of bodily identification should be cured by
abstaining from all action. Because these material activities have been a source of distress for us,
they claim that we should actually stop these activities. Their culmination of perfection is in a kind
of Buddhistic nirvāṇa, in which no activities are performed. Buddha maintained that due to a
combination of material elements, this body has come into existence, and that somehow or other
if these material elements are separated or dismantled, the cause of suffering is removed.

Consciousness cannot be denied. A body without consciousness is a dead body.
As soon as consciousness is removed from the body, the mouth will not speak,
the eye will not see, nor the ears hear. A child can understand that. It is a fact
that consciousness is absolutely necessary for the animation of the body.
What is this consciousness? Just as heat or smoke are symptoms of fire,
so consciousness is the symptom of the soul. The energy of the soul, or self,
is produced in the shape of consciousness. Indeed, consciousness proves
that the soul is present. This is not only the philosophy of Bhagavad-gītā but the conclusion of all Vedic literature.

The impersonalist followers of Śaṅkarācārya, as well as the Vaiṣṇavas following
in the disciplic succession from Lord Śrī Kṛṣṇa, acknowledge the factual existence
of the soul, but the Buddhist philosophers do not. The Buddhists contend that at
a certain stage the combination of matter produces consciousness, but this
argument is refuted by the fact that although we may have all the constituents
of matter at our disposal, we cannot produce consciousness from them.
All the material elements may be present in a dead man, but we cannot revive
that man to consciousness. This body is not like a machine. When a part of
a machine breaks down, it can be replaced, and the machine will work again,
but when the body breaks down and consciousness leaves the body, there is
no possibility of our replacing the broken part and rejuvenating the consciousness.
The soul is different from the body, and as long as the soul is there, the body is
animate. But there is no possibility of making the body animate in the absence of the soul.

Because we cannot perceive the soul by our gross senses, we deny it.
Actually there are so many things that are there which we cannot see.
We cannot see air, radio waves, or sound, nor can we perceive minute
bacteria with our blunt senses, but this does not mean they are not there.
By the aid of the microscope and other instruments, many things can be
perceived which had previously been denied by the imperfect senses.
Just because the soul, which is atomic in size, has not been perceived
yet by senses or instruments, we should not conclude that it is not there.
It can, however, be perceived by its symptoms and effects.

Source contin.
https://prabhupadabooks.com/bbd/1?d=1
 
I'd say the difference is that Jefferson and Smith failed to live up to their own Enlightenment ideals, whereas the Popes who allowed slavery were simply following their own religion.
Generally not good form to compare people of 1750 to people of the first century. Slavery was universal in the world of antiquity. By Jefferson's time both Christians and non-Christians around the world were reflecting on the immorality of slavery.

Augustine, the greatest Christian philosopher of late antiquity stated that slavery was not a natural state, it was not God's intention. Slavery was a result of sin.

The bible is probably the most revolutionary book of antiquity in that it maintained the soul of the master and the slave, the soul of man and woman were equal in the kingdom of heaven. That implication of equality was absolutely radical by standards of the ancient world.

Again, corruptible humans misusing institutions to justify their own means. There were many Christians who abused the name of Christ to justify slavery. That debate has been essentially over for centuries.
 
That's fine if that is your opinion. Human institutions can be repressive and discriminatory. Christian institutions had a history of repression. Enlightenment thinkers also belonged to or enabled repressive institutions. Thomas Jefferson participated in the institution of slavery, and I really don't think Adam Smith thought women had a right to vote, or to equality in education, or work.

I am drawing a distinction between corruptible humans and corruptible human institutions, and the underlying epistemological philosophies of early Christianity and Greek intellectual achievement.

Wrapping up, I comedown on the side of the vast majority of historical scholars as to the foundations and influences of western civilization

It seems to me that all human institutions are essentially about power, whereas any serious belief system or 'religion' is about the nature of reality and decent behaviour within it and what the two things might be. Alas, the two will inevitably overlap. Sometimes, fortunately, that overlap can be creative.
 
Generally not good form to compare people of 1750 to people of the first century. Slavery was universal in the world of antiquity. By Jefferson's time both Christians and non-Christians around the world were reflecting on the immorality of slavery.

Augustine, the greatest Christian philosopher of late antiquity stated that slavery was not a natural state, it was not God's intention. Slavery was a result of sin.

The bible is probably the most revolutionary book of antiquity in that it maintained the soul of the master and the slave, the soul of man and woman were equal in the kingdom of heaven. That implication of equality was absolutely radical by standards of the ancient world.

Again, corruptible humans misusing institutions to justify their own means. There were many Christians who abused the name of Christ to justify slavery. That debate has been essentially over for centuries.

But it's not misusing the Bible or Christian tradition when the Bible, the Catholic Church, and the Protestant Churches allowed slavery. I'm not trying to judge the Founders by today's morality, I'm just saying that their views on slavery were consistent with Christianity, and the reason "today's morality" exists is because of the Enlightenment.
Augustine is an example of a Christian going against Christianity when he said slavery was wrong.

To be perfectly clear, I'm not saying all Christians were or are in favor of slavery. I'm saying slavery ended because of Enlightenment philosophy that Christians embraced despite their own religion's teachings.
 
Back
Top