As the topic suggests, what's the difference between modern religions and the polytheistic Greek, Celtic, and Roman faiths? Is there really a difference? And I don't mean differences in what they believe, I mean on a more fundamental level than that. For example, how do you rationalize one religion as true when all of them have about the same amount of evidence? (none.)

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Well, from a Christian standpoint, we historically know that Jesus existed. We historically know that He was killed, crucified, you know, and He had followers, disciples, etc. And, according to John, if Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, all of Jesus' teachings would all have been worthless as a religion, and He was only a cool guy. So that's where the evidence meets the faith.

__________________
steve

Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum!
NOTE: If you agree with what I have said in this post, there's a new feature on Political Fever that allows you to express agreement. Look in the top right-hand corner of my post, and you should see a little silver scales button. Please, use that.However, sign it with your username so I know who sent it please...thanks all.

Yeah, but we also have evidence that Mt. Olympus exists, namely that it does. I mean, I could hypothetically dispute the facts here, but that's sketchy and I have no reason to; rather, I'll just point out that the fact that Jesus existed doesn't really prove anything in Christianity.

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

Again, this points to my belief that all major religions are essentially the same, and that different ones are slightly different takes on attaining the same sort of goals. Different ones have different amounts of credibility, but none really add up to a lot.

__________________
In a thread "Why are there Chrisians?"

Judaism, Christianity and Islam are considered religions "of the book" - they are based upon singular documents that are reputed to be divinely inspired or divinely created.

This is entirely different than every other religion (or mythology) in the world that does not have a singular and divinely inspired book to identify the religion by.

Hinduism has the Bhagavad Gita.

__________________
01100001 01101000 00100000 01101011 01101001 01101100 01101100 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100001 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101110 00100000 01101001 01101110 00100000 01110100 01100101 01111000 01110101 01110011 00111111

But those older religions surely had their holy texts, too. What's the difference between those and the Bible, in that case?

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Religions of the book begin with the book and the book is held to be authorative.

There is no authorative holy-book in any mythology.

As for the assertion of Buddhism, I'm not sufficiently familiar with its precise origin or the status of that particular title. I'll look into it.

But the fact is, Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all identified as "religions of the book".

Indeed, they are referring to the same book and the same God.

Yes, yes.

Judaism has long been like the kid at recess who always sits alone over in the corner and gets picked on and blamed for things when the bullies feel like acting up. I wouldn't say that the monotheism itself captured people's interest more than polytheism, because if so, then the spiritual "shift" from many gods to one god, would have happened long before and with Judaism, not Christianity.

But when Christianity came along, it somehow trampled all other gods. As for why this happened, I think it may be the "Father God" sentiment. Zeus and Athena weren't always looking out for your best interest, but this one God was so magical that he could tend to every need and answer every prayer simultaneously, and there was no need for wealth or noble birth to be accepted - ANYONE could tag along with the Christian gang.

And as for the original question, the reason that Christianity is often perceived as being so completely different from the other religions is that, in order to truly believe it, you have to believe that every other religion is wrong. At least, to the extent that anything that doesn't follow the Bible is based upon something other than God and can't be right. So there's no need to actually consider other theories/religions or seriously analyze potential evidence against something; if it doesn't align with the Bible, it can't be true, no matter what. With this mentality, the fact that the old religions don't have one god automatically makes it completely the opposite and totally unrelated.

On that note, I've often wondered what sorts of funny reactions I'd get if I were to start practicing polytheism. Worshipping the ancient gods and praying to Apollo for guidance while praying to Mars and Mithras for military victory, etc. etc.

you will be looked on as a nut case by some, other wouldnt care.