Are the three Abrahamic texts, and the three religions that derive from them: Judaism, Chrisianity, and Islam...

Are the three Abrahamic texts, and the three religions that derive from them: Judaism, Chrisianity, and Islam, the greatest works that explore human nature?

I personally didnt like the five books

the quran is a pretty good read and would recommend it but it didnt come off super well, probably some of it is lost in translation since I can't read arabic

the bible is the bible, if you havent read it front to back before then you really should, even if youre an atheist it is a major book that impacted human history arguably more then any other

>three
What about mormonism and all the denominations? what about Waldensians and Catharism?
> the greatest works that explore human nature?
no

I hope not. The old testament and the quran are petty tribal power fantasies.

For depth and breadth and subtlety and awareness stick with the Greeks.

Compendia always suck. Too many cooks spoil the broth.

I honestly think Finnegan's Wake is the greatest work on human nature.

abrahamic religions have given us nothing but ruin tbdesu, ruinous spirits and bodies.

you fuck tard, obviously you have never read my diary then

>Islam
no

this desu

>I've never read the OT

OT God literally demands genocide.

have YOU read the OD? it's full of genocide, mass murders, crusades, stoning etc, almost the whole book is about killing infidels

OT*

So is Greek history. I like the OT because it isn't as ideological as the NT. It recognizes mans savage nature and permits him to indulge it as long as he acknowledges Gods primacy and ultimate kingship and ignores false Gods.

Damn Lucifer THICC

Nope
It doesn't glorify this though you idiot. If anything it has less power fantasies than something like the Iliad.

Try the Vedas and the Mahabharat. Puts things like the bible into perspective. The works from India are incredible.

t. katholic

Just read up on Catharism, aren't they basically just Christianity crossed with Plato's Phaedo?

>the three Abrahamic
back to elementary school

I'd fuck his boipuccy

Abrahamics are bretty gud, definitely my favorites out of the ancients but they're great precisely because of their contextual relationship with the surrounding traditions, they don't exist in a vacuum.

>"b-b-but muh violence muh tribalism muh youtube /pol/ tier opinions

Literature isn't for you squeamish pigs, get lost.

>reading about heretics
why would you do this user?

>I get to say who literature is for and who it's not for
Fucking kill yourself

Only a real faggot wouldn't fuck Lucifer's boipuccy.

But Christianity is a heresy, user.

Massive pleb detected.

What's a good translation of the Vedas?

>translation

...

Not genocide.

Yeah that's tricky. Avoid the ISKCON stuff and Prabhupada; the man changes the content.
I'd recommend finding critical translations which go with a word by word part and a textual one.
Go for a few of the Upanishads though (there are lots of translations, so just pick one or two of the same one and you'll get a feeling for it); the three Vedas are pretty confusing and some of it simply isn't relevant.
The great epics though are amazing. The Mahabarat is fantastic and so is the Gita, which is an excerpt and considered a core part of the epic. Read it. But again -and especially in this case- make sure it's NOT the Prabhupada translation by ISKCON.
Cheers!

I would argue it is, but mainly it's clearly glorifying the atrocities advocated.

Big clit detected

>almost the whole book is about killing infidels

Did you hit stop before you hit the prophets or something?

Islam? No. No.

The Bible is certainly a powerful work when it comes to human nature, but Shakespeare is a major contender as well.

Tbqh, Dostoevsky comes closer to human nature more than Shakespeare ever did if you ask me.

Not really comparable. Shakespeare had a manifold conception of human nature, Dostoevsky--and this is where Nietzsche, who had a monolithic conception of human nature, misunderstood him--had an apophatic conception of human nature informed by Orthodox mystical theology. This is why it is very misleading to group him in with conservatism.

Nietzsche didn't have a monolithic conception of human nature at all; I don't get where you have that from.

Accusing Nietzsche of "mono-anything" seems like a bad idea.

I'm not really "accusing" him of it, he just did.

>My idea is that every specific body strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (--its will to power:) and to thrust back all that resists its extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement ("union") with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: thus they then conspire together for power. And the process goes on--

No it's not. You're bad at reading.
Russians can't write.

yes it is. You're bad at reading.

No it's not. You're projecting your pomo garbage onto it.

it's ok to not say anything if you don't know what you're talking about. you obviously never made it past Leviticus

That's not genocide, they're conquering cities.
>it's clearly glorifying the atrocities advocated
where is it glorifying? It clearly says "do this so they don't corrupt you with their abominable ways".
Read the first fucking verse in the screenshot you posted

>thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth