The Truth about Religion

[ughaibu]

I had transcendental rep in mind.

[cwes99_03]

Either this is all bullshit or I should rep Pyrotex, if somebody can disentangle for me, I'll act accordingly.

 

I think the premise of the thread was pretty far out and find it hard to believe that the argument is still going on.

 

The mere title suggests that there are a bunch of lies out there about religion (though I don't think there are many people here who would argue that point.) However, the ability of any one person on this thread or anywhere to identify all the "truths" about any particular religion is going to be suspect, and probably not going to be nicely discussed and rationally decided. Thus I don't see how this thread, with the fight over who has the better interpretation of the Bible, is still standing on it's own two feet.

[cwes99_03]

You know a thread is going to be bad when its title contains Truth with a capital 'T'.

 

Yep, they saw it coming a long way away.

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03: Religion, as a concept, is not concerned with the Bible or any other text, religion exists at a meta-level to the details of practice.

[cwes99_03]

Come to the religion vs philosophy thread and discuss that, if you please.

[Abstruce]

Either this is all bullshit or I should rep Pyrotex, if somebody can disentangle for me, I'll act accordingly.

 

This thread is to point out that most Religions are based on lies.

 

This is the Truth about Religion.

 

If one takes folklore as reality, one is lying to one's self.

 

If you look at the clips I posted at the beginning of this thread you will see there is good evidence that the Jesus character in the Judea Christian religion is not an actual historical figure.

 

Yet there are many in the United States, who worship this fictional character without investigating True history.

 

JQ

[Southtown]

Southtown

 

You build your arguments using biblical text as support.

And you skirt the debate and spew observation without actually backing your points; kinda ironic for someone such as you who advocates a strictly empirical belief system.

 

Granted, we are talking about the history of Judaism, yet this thread addresses the Truth about Religion.

People use the bible as evidence against religion, and I simply challenge their logic. If you disagree with me, you are free to refute my points.

 

The basic argument I put forth here, that the bible holds little truth, plenty of folklore and myth.

 

This is the Truth about Religion.

 

JQ

You make that claim but expect a response that does not involve the bible?

[Southtown]

Christians do more than just carry copies of the OT. More and more and more, the fundementalists use the OT to support their theology, their morals and their politics. There are over 1,100 individual direct commands in the OT, and fewer than 20 in the NT. Many Christian churches today simply cannot justify their existence without the OT.

Shame on them to even try. :hihi:

[Dyothelite]

Wow this HAS become a scriptural debate.

[Southtown]

And THE BIBLE was first brought up in post #1 via a few docu-trailers.

[catholiboy]

Are you saying Religious people are bad?

 

JQ

 

Even I would have to admit that yes, some people are bad and religious at the same time.

 

Whether or not the badness necessarily progresses directly from the dogma of the religion is another matter; i.e whether there is something fundamentally wrong with the religion, or whether it has merely become political.

 

To externalize is to indoctrinate.

But to indoctrinate is to politicize.

 

This is, in many ways, a problem for religion, and I think it lies at the heart of all religious dispute.

[Pyrotex]

...What about the other references? And the similarities they bear? Surely even a slight mention is justified when backed up by more than one far-removed source.

I thought "Jesus" (the Eng. equiv. of the Gr. Iesous) was the way Greeks prefered to pronounce "Joshua" ...

1. There are only 3 or 4 references to a "Joshua" or "Jesus" in all the writings of all the great scholars and historians from say, 0 - 100 AD. And there were lots of scholars in that time, more than known for any earlier time, or any later time up to the Middle Ages. Perhaps 40 known scholars, writing on EVERYTHING going on!! And only 4 teensy (1 sentence or 1 paragraph) references to jesus. Two of them are known "later inclusions", including the one in Josephus. This boggles the mind if Jesus was such a critical historical figure.

 

2. "Joshua". You are correct. My bad.

[cwes99_03]

Pyro, I'd rep you for humbly admitting a mistake, but it won't let me. Sorry, old man :cup:.

[Southtown]

1. There are only 3 or 4 references to a "Joshua" or "Jesus" in all the writings of all the great scholars and historians from say, 0 - 100 AD. And there were lots of scholars in that time, more than known for any earlier time, or any later time up to the Middle Ages. Perhaps 40 known scholars, writing on EVERYTHING going on!! And only 4 teensy (1 sentence or 1 paragraph) references to jesus. Two of them are known "later inclusions", including the one in Josephus. This boggles the mind if Jesus was such a critical historical figure.

He was not a critical historical figure at the time. He was an embarassment. He was killed like a criminal. And the 'establishment' sure as hell didn't want to validate his actions by publicizing everything. The Jews even supposedly held the trial at night. And Paul was chasing the apostles to Damascus to snuff them out when he had his vision. There were many bystanders who believed the preaching during and after his death, but I doubt they wanted to end up like he did. Even the disciples forsook him and fled.

[Pyrotex]

He was not a critical historical figure at the time. He was an embarassment. He was killed like a criminal. And the 'establishment' sure as hell didn't want to validate his actions by publicizing everything.....

We are talking about the first century AD, not the 20th Century. There was no "establishment". Be very careful about assuming that modern associations, concepts, rules of engagement, et al, were as common place in other centuries as they are now.

 

Josephus wrote about a LOT of disreputable folks. Famous thieves and murderers, even rebellion leaders. He dedicated pages, even scores of pages to such people. Writers and historians might be bought by emperors and kings, but do not imagine in your wildest dreams that they were influenced by apostles and magistrates hundreds of miles away.

[cwes99_03]

Note: modern history books likewise make no mention of Jesus. Go to any high school, grammer school, even college level world history book and you probably won't find more than a sentence about Jesus. You may find tons about the catholic church, but not necessarily about many of it's prominent members.

There may have been scores of other texts written on Jesus. These texts may (and it is actually likely) have been destroyed by opponents of the religion he began. Book burning wasn't uncommon. There also wasn't a lot of unbiased reporting back then either.

[Southtown]

We are talking about the first century AD, not the 20th Century. There was no "establishment". Be very careful about assuming that modern associations, concepts, rules of engagement, et al, were as common place in other centuries as they are now.

 

Josephus wrote about a LOT of disreputable folks. Famous thieves and murderers, even rebellion leaders. He dedicated pages, even scores of pages to such people. Writers and historians might be bought by emperors and kings, but do not imagine in your wildest dreams that they were influenced by apostles and magistrates hundreds of miles away.

I beg to differ. It was all about divinty in ancient Rome. The Emperors demanded that the citizens worship them. And Christians called it idolatry.

 

Imperial cult Ancient Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Hence the birth of Catholicism through Constantine I, the first pope.

 

Pope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Words of the Beast