From My Perspective...

[Gary Childress]

As far as I'm aware, the Judeo/Christian Bible is more or less a compilation of stories roughly outlining the history of a very particular clan of people originating and dwelling in a particular region in the Middle East over 2000 years ago. There were doubtless thousands of such groups of people who dwelled in various regions around the world at the time. In contemporary terms it sort of seems a bit like documenting the history of Switzerland and its people and then 2000 years from now (for whatever reason) having a substantial number of human beings spread across the Earth continuously reciting the 20th Century history of Switzerland as somehow the most significant story of humanity.

I generally consider myself "agnostic". Among religious terms, it seems like the most fitting term of any I have encountered to describe my orientation with regard to "religion". However, in spite of my own reservations and skepticism, whether the Judeo/Christian God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not, it does seem pretty extraordinary (and noteworthy) how many of us seem to be particularly enamored with the history of that particular clan of people, despite the fact that the vast majority of us probably have only the most tenuous hereditary connection with them (in relative terms) at best.

[HexHammer]

God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not

Read the Book of Judas.

[Gary Childress]

God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not

Read the Book of Judas.

For whatever it's worth, at first glance I saw "Read the Book of Jobs" and sort of thought that was funny in relation to my term CEO.

[gaffo]

As far as I'm aware, the Judeo/Christian Bible is more or less a compilation of stories roughly outlining the history of a very particular clan of people originating and dwelling in a particular region in the Middle East over 2000 years ago. There were doubtless thousands of such groups of people who dwelled in various regions around the world at the time. In contemporary terms it sort of seems a bit like documenting the history of Switzerland and its people and then 2000 years from now (for whatever reason) having a substantial number of human beings spread across the Earth continuously reciting the 20th Century history of Switzerland as somehow the most significant story of humanity.

I generally consider myself "agnostic". Among religious terms, it seems like the most fitting term of any I have encountered to describe my orientation with regard to "religion". However, in spite of my own reservations and skepticism, whether the Judeo/Christian God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not, it does seem pretty extraordinary (and noteworthy) how many of us seem to be particularly enamored with the history of that particular clan of people, despite the fact that the vast majority of us probably have only the most tenuous hereditary connection with them (in relative terms) at best.

two things to note to understand per your above observaions (which is apt BTW).

Judao-Mislim-Chrsitain view of "god" only prevails due to:

1. this forum is "Western" - not Indian, so no/few Hindus here
2. per "Western" views, there was no writing - so nothing about Nertis/Wotan/Thor/etc..........(or similar Gods in other European regions (my mention is per Germanic Tribal Gods - of course there were similar Spanish/Franch/etc gods too.............i only do not know their names in my reply here). via the "barbarians". all that survived were the God from the literate..............Zeus/Jupiter/etc...........and latter YHWH (after the Roman's turned their back on their Pantheon).

without literacy (and without a forum that is not "Western") - expect those gods to die with history.

Hinudism suvives due to literacy - though this forum is western and so we do not hear from Hindus.

had indians not had the written word their gods would have died along with Nertis/Wotan/Thor etc..............long ago.

[gaffo]

God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not

Read the Book of Judas.

Book of Judas - thanks to one battered surviving copy found in the the 1970s - is a gnostic work.

not sure of your point - just noting that work.

[gaffo]

God is in fact the CEO of the universe or not

Read the Book of Judas.

For whatever it's worth, at first glance I saw "Read the Book of Jobs" and sort of thought that was funny in relation to my term CEO.

I like Book of Job - written 250 BC (its bleak in it futility, but humble), and read it years ago.

not read the newer Gnostic work Book of Judas (200 AD) though know some about it and Gnostic theology.

welcome discussion on either/both.

[HexHammer]

Book of Judas - thanks to one battered surviving copy found in the the 1970s - is a gnostic work.

not sure of your point - just noting that work.

For whatever it's worth, at first glance I saw "Read the Book of Jobs" and sort of thought that was funny in relation to my term CEO.

I take neither of you have read the book of Judas.

[Gary Childress]

Book of Judas - thanks to one battered surviving copy found in the the 1970s - is a gnostic work.

not sure of your point - just noting that work.

For whatever it's worth, at first glance I saw "Read the Book of Jobs" and sort of thought that was funny in relation to my term CEO.

I take neither of you have read the book of Judas.

Speaking for myself, that is correct.

[HexHammer]

Speaking for myself, that is correct.

You always prefer to stay glaringly ignorant as always, and rather want others to hand feed you everything.

[Gary Childress]

Speaking for myself, that is correct.

You always prefer to stay glaringly ignorant as always, and rather want others to hand feed you everything.

Given the subject matter of Christianity (ostensibly involving matters entirely transcendental to anything we humans experience prior to death--and therefore beyond any ability to verify), and given what familiarity with the Bible I do possess (for example, knowledge of clearly erroneous accounts of history and cosmology present in Genesis), it seems fair to me to conclude that further exploration of Christianity, though fascinating from a trivia standpoint, is likely not indispensable for being a rational, and thoughtful person.

Is there anything particularly salient in the book of Judas which renders a person incapable of adequately being a good human being in absence of reading it?

[HexHammer]

is likely not indispensable for being a rational, and thoughtful person.

Is there anything particularly salient in the book of Judas which renders a person incapable of adequately being a good human being in absence of reading it?

I'm sorry you are neither rational nor thoughtful, that is but a huge delusion.

Why don't you watch the video and find out, you can make it at x 1.5 speed, so it's quickly done .....but no, you insist on being hand fed every bit of information, you are unable to do it yourself.

[Gary Childress]

is likely not indispensable for being a rational, and thoughtful person.

Is there anything particularly salient in the book of Judas which renders a person incapable of adequately being a good human being in absence of reading it?

I'm sorry you are neither rational nor thoughtful, that is but a huge delusion.

Why don't you watch the video and find out, you can make it at x 1.5 speed, so it's quickly done .....but no, you insist on being hand fed every bit of information, you are unable to do it yourself.

Your curt replies which have lacked even minimal substantiation of the claims made in them don't really lend too much in the way of evidence of you being a particulary rational or thoughful person either. So there's that.

Not sure if you are aware of this but not everyone is obligated to take time out of our lives to read whatever you tell us to read, sans any kind of further elaboration on why we should make that sacrifice of time. I mean, saying "read the book of Judas" absent any sort of explanation of why one should do so is pretty uninformative and inconsiderate. I don't know if that bothers you. It would bother me if I did the same thing. But maybe I'm just inordinately more thoughtful and considerate than I should be.

Assuming you've read the book of Judas and assuming you understood what you read. It seems realistic to expect that you would be able to provide a few points in relation to what you read tying it into the suggestion for others to read it. Going even further, if you've read the book of Judas, you should be able to deliver a thoughtful reply to my OP based on what you read in place of demanding others to go read it for themselves. There really should be no need for any of the rest of to do the redundant investigation for ourselves. If you put thought into it, there's a very good reason for people to share their mastery of a topic in lieu of the demand for others to go read the same things. There are a lot of books out there and not a single human being on this Earth has the time and resources to read every one. Therefore, in the interest of progress in any debate between each other it's generally acceptable to expect people who have read certain things to share their expertise on the matter. That's why scholars who are experts in particular areas of study don't typically go around demanding that others read all the same things they've read in order to discuss matters relating to their expertise.

Easiest example, if I go to a doctor for advice on a health issue I'm having, he might tell me I ought to start eating more of some particular food. If I ask, "why", instead of telling me to go read all the medical journals he's read for the answer, he would probably instead give me a short answer in his own words to my question based on his own knowledge and mastery of the material.


So, going back to what I wrote in the OP, feel free to respond to any of the statements I made in it based on your reading and digestion of the material in the book of Judas and based on the assumption that the reason you responded with the suggestion to go read the book is because there is indeed a tie in with what I stated in the OP and the material in that book.

[HexHammer]

Your curt replies which have lacked even minimal substantiation of the claims made in them don't really lend too much in the way of evidence of you being a particulary rational or thoughful person either.

I've known you for a VERY long time, and no sorry ..you have a very delusional view of yourself!

...sorry!

[Gary Childress]

Your curt replies which have lacked even minimal substantiation of the claims made in them don't really lend too much in the way of evidence of you being a particulary rational or thoughful person either.

you have a very delusional view of yourself!

...sorry!

OK. Sure.

On a side note of philosophy humor, I can sort of imagine someone having said that to Bishop George Berkeley, in which I could sort of fancy Berkeley replying with the utmost dignity, "I agree!"

[gaffo]

I take neither of you have read the book of Judas.

no, but thanks for Bart Ehrman known about it for about 6 yrs now.

i understand it is now published in english.

eventually i buy a copy and read it.

might take me a few years to get around it though.

many other things for me to read/life and such/etc..............