When You Think About It In Layman's Terms

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Thus, to say religion was created as a tool to control masses, is simply a misunderstanding of intention and usage.

A2D

I don't believe I said that.

Though if you don't think it can happen (religion as tool for manipulation) perhaps look at the way Martin Luther's views were used by the Nazis and the overall effect on the German population.

GTG, will look back later. I would like to discuss the cults you mention.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by Sinter Klaas

 

Okay, so with a fairly small amount of digging I have found what you're referring to and they are called "cargo cults". Basically, these cargo cults form rather rapidly from events or encounters with some powerful "force"(for lack of a better term) beyond the understanding of that particular culture.

Now that we know HOW they are formed. Let's move on to the next question: WHY?
We know that the particular "cargo cults" we're speaking of were formed when met face to face with foreign cultures and technologies. They reacted in a manner that is....quite interesting if you ask me, but that's not my point.

My point being this:

As compared to other modern religions, Christianity in specific as it is the main course of discussion within this thread, what correlations can be made between the rise of cargo cults and the rise of Christianity? i.e. What was the profound and powerful "force" that prompted the rise of Christianity?

A2D

I think that Jesus was a composite figure. Jesus was represented as a metaphor of the Jewish culture of the time, that was crucified, like the 6000 Jewish men and women who were crucified on the hills outside the walls of Jerusalem during the Roman Siege of Jerusalem, and even more souls killed throughout the Jewish wars.

Jesus was made to "rise again" through the Roman Catholic Church. There was a need to crush the Jews, who refused to cooperate with the Roman god theme. The RCC soon made Jewishness illegal, banning the Sabbath, etc.

My two cents....................

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


WHOA WHOA WHOA....hold on just a second....

Richard Carrier huh? (Bold added for clarity)

As an advocate of atheism and metaphysical naturalism, he has published articles in books, journals and magazines, and also features on the documentary film The God Who Wasn't There, where he is interviewed about his doubts on the historicity of Jesus.[3]

Source
Doubts...okay....not refuting historicity but doubting it...acceptable....NEXT!

He is a supporter of the Christ myth theory. In his contribution to The Empty Tomb Carrier argues that the earliest Christians probably believed Jesus had received a new body in the resurrection, and that stories of his old body disappearing from its tomb were developed later. He also argues it is less likely but still possible the original body of Jesus was misplaced or stolen.

Source

OH YES!! These statements here are just GOLDEN!! How can Mr. Richard Carrier argue for or against something if he doesn't believe the event OR EVEN THE MAN ever even existed? The statements he makes there are RELIANT on the acceptance of a historical figure JESUS CHRIST.


So....what were you saying?

A2D

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Thus, to say religion was created as a tool to control masses, is simply a misunderstanding of intention and usage.

A2D

I don't believe I said that.

Though if you don't think it can happen (religion as tool for manipulation) perhaps look at the way Martin Luther's views were used by the Nazis and the overall effect on the German population.

GTG, will look back later. I would like to discuss the cults you mention.

I didn't mean to imply that you had said that. My intentions were to wrap things back around to the initial OP.Sorry for the misunderstanding. Also, I'm acutely aware of the misusage of religion. However, misusage does not equate overall function and purpose/intent.

So again, my concluding stance towards the OP(religion as a tool for manipulation/control) is that the purpose of religion is in no way whatsoever decided by the improper use thereof.

A2D

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

The quotes you mention seem nice, but are opinions that have no solid evidence. There is no way (as yet) that this position can be genuinely supported, without special pleading. Such as beginning with acceptance of scripture as historically reliable. The quote above seems to be an "argumentum ad populum" (appeal to numbers) fallacy.

By no means am I intended to appeal to numbers I'm simply asking the question...Why do THEY believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ? Archaeological findings? Historical writings? The list can go on but I think you get the jest.

I personally think that with the evidence currently available to us, Jesus Christ ACTUALLY BEING a historical figure, fits the data better than any other explanation.

It can actually get WAAAAY more complex by examining how instances or even people become historical FACT. ...but I'll leave that for another time and place.

A2D

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

WHOA WHOA WHOA....hold on just a second....

Richard Carrier huh? (Bold added for clarity)
Doubts...okay....not refuting historicity but doubting it...acceptable....NEXT!

So secular historians still frowned on, like much of the last 2,000 years? I put the link, to show he is a real historian with a Ph.D, if you look further you will see why he has changed his position from "was probably based on a real person" to "was entirely mythical". It is because he did the same thing (looked further). Not just doubts, he definitely refutes christ as a historical person.

Perhaps you could find his hypothesis?

Nice of you to accept (based on misconception still), but not relevant. If you agree he is a historian, that will be enough.

Just a brief outline here.....
www.youtube.com...

OH YES!! These statements here are just GOLDEN!! How can Mr. Richard Carrier argue for or against something if he doesn't believe the event OR EVEN THE MAN ever even existed? The statements he makes there are RELIANT on the acceptance of a historical figure JESUS CHRIST.


So....what were you saying?

A2D

Zzzzz....zzzzz.....zzzzz. Please don't jump to your conclusions so easily, re read the above.

Gtg.

I am always surprised when people say that Jesus was mythical. Of course they have to disregard all of the New Testament, but they never present any historically valid reasons to disregard it. I'm further surprised when they fail to see that even secular writers mention Him. Among others, two references in Josephus, Lucian, Pliny, Tacitus, and the Talmud.

This is certainly one of the pons asinorum of any discussion of this topic. The other, of course, is the existence of God. The faulty position there takes one of two forms: "You can't absolutely prove there is a God," "I don't like the God described, and can't understand Him," or both.

This doesn't seem to be so much thinking about it in layman's terms, as it is thinking about it in skeptic's terms.

Sorry if I'm ranting.

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
By no means am I intended to appeal to numbers I'm simply asking the question...

yes.....and inferring the answer via an appeal to numbers fallacy.....

Why do THEY believe in the historicity of Jesus Christ? Archaeological findings? Historical writings? The list can go on but I think you get the jest.

They are forced to such belief, in lieu of the evidence that would make it reasonably incontestable historical fact. It is a very contestable belief. Can I see your archaeological evidence please, out of curiosity?

I certainly do get the "jest" (sic).

I personally think that with the evidence currently available to us, Jesus Christ ACTUALLY BEING a historical figure, fits the data better than any other explanation.

That is quite a reasonable statement. I don't think it does.

It can actually get WAAAAY more complex by examining how instances or even people become historical FACT. ...but I'll leave that for another time and place.

Would never have known that .Will you really.....?

Originally posted by charles1952
Of course they have to disregard all of the New Testament, but they never present any historically valid reasons to disregard it. I'm further surprised when they fail to see that even secular writers mention Him. Among others, two references in Josephus, Lucian, Pliny, Tacitus, and the Talmud.

The new testament, really? Including the gospels considered by mainstream historians as wildly fictitious and interpolated? So you are now accepting wishful thinking and christian interpolation of known historians....?

This is certainly one of the pons asinorum of any discussion of this topic. The other, of course, is the existence of God. The faulty position there takes one of two forms: "You can't absolutely prove there is a God," "I don't like the God described, and can't understand Him," or both.

How about.....there is no evidence of god, that one slip by you.....?

This doesn't seem to be so much thinking about it in layman's terms, as it is thinking about it in skeptic's terms.

Absolutely, over a very long time. That's the way to approach it and all other claims IMO, even scientific ones. Yet I am still not an atheist.

Sorry if I'm ranting.

I'm used to it. You are forgiven (see how easy that was, God?)

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Just a thought....
Why do the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus Christ if "there isn't any evidence"...?

There is evidence. But, not in the history books. The evidence is in the word.

After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me,

-- Jeremiah 31:33-34

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

-- John 10:27

And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

-- Luke 8:10

The question is not whether there is evidence. The evidence is obvious. The question is whether you can see and understand the evidence that is there.

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

So secular historians still frowned on, like much of the last 2,000 years? I put the link, to show he is a real historian with a Ph.D, if you look further you will see why he has changed his position from "was probably based on a real person" to "was entirely mythical". It is because he did the same thing (looked further). Not just doubts, he definitely refutes christ as a historical person.

Perhaps you could find his hypothesis?

Nice of you to accept (based on misconception still), but not relevant. If you agree he is a historian, that will be enough.

Zzzzz....zzzzz.....zzzzz. Please don't jump to your conclusions so easily, re read the above.

Gtg.

Not frowning upon him. I know about him. I've read his reviews and I've read the books he has reviewed. I've seen his debates. I know his theories. I did not at all jump to conclusions. Richard Carrier has changed his views several different times and still cannot match any other theory to the currently available evidence better than a historical Jesus does.

William Lane Craig has basically recycled Carrier's theories several times over every time they debate. At first, Carrier had to disregard his "possible 2 body" theory, then he moved to completely refute historical Jesus and also lost the debate. We haven't really heard from him since....

A2D

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

They are forced to such belief, in lieu of the evidence that would make it reasonably incontestable historical fact. It is a very contestable belief. Can I see your archaeological evidence please, out of curiosity?

Originally posted by Agree2DisagreeI personally think that with the evidence currently available to us, Jesus Christ ACTUALLY BEING a historical figure, fits the data better than any other explanation.

That is quite a reasonable statement. I don't think it does.

I don't completely understand why you are writing to me in such a manner. You seem....disgruntled to say the least. However, you say that they are forced to contend that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, but you also say it is a very contestable belief. How can so many historians be forced to a belief that is so easily contestable? I cannot make any logical sense of that statement.....

Also, given the currently available evidence, what do YOU think best fits the data?

(Also, I did not STATE there was archaelogical evidence available....(hint: ?)

A2D

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

Thanks for your response, but I wish you could have gone into more detail.

The new testament, really? Including the gospels considered by mainstream historians as wildly fictitious and interpolated? So you are now accepting wishful thinking and christian interpolation of known historians....?

I don't believe the Gospels are considered as wildly fictitious by mainstream historians, indeed had they been wildly fictitious, it is doubtful that they would ever have been heeded. The Gospels were written when many of the citizens of that region were still alive, they could have testified to their falsehood, but there is little record of that. Could you point me to where the majority of historians believe them to be "wildly fictitious?"

I don't understand what you are referencing with the "wishful thinking" and "interpolation" remark. In which of those categories do you place Pliny's letter to the Emperor asking for advice on how to deal with the Christians?

How about.....there is no evidence of god, that one slip by you.....?

No, not actually, I just didn't think that people believed it. Proof of God? No. Evidence of God? Of course.

There are other areas of evidence, but four that come to mind are:

The existence of the Universe.
The existence of complexity, specifically life.
The existence of absolute moral values.
The existence of Jesus and the history of His life.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

.....there is no evidence of god, that one slip by you.....?

Astounding. Did you know there was absolutely no evidence that reaching a temperature below absolute zero was possible....until we found out that it was....

Famous quote right...You've probably heard it...."That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens

^^That's basically what you're saying. You're saying since we have no evidence of God(that is acceptable under your specifications), that you completely dismiss His existence. But is this right? Can we really dismiss anything that doesn't have evidence?

With regards to the famous quote provided by Mr. Hitchens, let's examine....What does Hitchens mean when he says "evidence"? No one really addresses this...but generally speaking, what comes to mind is EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or also, SCIENTIFIC evidence.

However, scientific/empirical evidence is not the only type of evidence available in almost all circumstances. Anecdotal, circumstantial, testimonial, and personal experience all come to mind as types of evidence. One could possibly even argue that logic and reason can be used as evidence.

So, "There is no evidence of God"....according to whom? Is this empirical evidence that we're speaking of?

If it is, which I'm relatively certain it HAS to be for you to say there is "none", then let me ask you this....What empirical evidence do we have for the composition of an atom?

(Things to remember: 1)empirical - definition - Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
2)We study subatomic particles by relative inference.Implying that if there were 2 particles that behaved exactly the same under the same circumstances, one would go completely unnoticed...)

A2D

Originally posted by qualm91
His laws are his laws, no matter what.

Even if he spoke to you and said "No more Facebook for you, Miss"?

They don't get "outdated" they stand no matter what.

You are contradicting yourself. You just said that God's laws are his laws, no matter what.
You can't then say that God can't say what he wants "no matter what"?.

From day one of humanity, things wen't wrong.
The apple. Flooding the world as things went haywire. Didn't help. Punishing individuals, cities..
People expected the one. God sent the one. God said "Now then, happy? Just stop. Ok?", and at least some got it and the world became a bit more civilized.

The fact that the Old & New testament are nonsense doesn't mean that it should be attacked with nonsense, it'd just build on the myth.

Research has verified the presence of religion in very early hominids and even some of our closer relatives in the great apes. Religion is merely a biological function. And most beneficial too! All humans need to feel hope/ meaningful existence/ a reason to live. When people have a deficit of hope, religious beliefs come to the rescue and protect against disillusionment leading to suicide.

reply to post by qualm91


Your tone is that of an arrogant youth, trying to discern reality through half opened eyes, and half learnt wisdom.

Even you admit, that you are young and limited in experience.

Now, as far as the argument goes; no, the God of the bible is not that which has brought forth our existence.

The God of the bible is merely truth mixed with fiction to control the masses. There is nothing more alluring to the human mind than the light of truth ciphered, broken and littered among lies; it becomes the ultimate egg hunt. It keeps us busy. How we long for the hope that dangles in front of us, like sweet fruit.

Man grasps for their own 'transcendence' because man is not happy with their current situation, man is not happy with endless suffering.

'Jesus' was an avatar, born on this earth, to become enlightened to the true existence of what is. Just like all avatars or enlightened beings, they drew in a few men who followed them closely for their own attainment of enlightenment and 'transcendence.' But as all things pass, so did the true teachings. People who resonate with the ideas of the spirituality taught flocked to the religion and without proper understanding, took it over from the last passing generation. And so, the religion has become like any other institute of man, a political institute. And its true teachings lost.

The truth does not lie within external pursuits, for all external things are that of form, and even what we consider to be internal. When something is formed, and can be communicated, even if it is not, consider this external, as it can be distinguished, and in its distinguishing, it has become external to that of nothingness. And all external things, pass away. There is no eternal grounding to them.

Extraterrestrials did not create us. Did they create the universe? Did they create themselves? No, our 'creation' has been with the universe since its beginnings. We have always been, as a thought precedes the action, and the action precedes its full cause and reverberation throughout history, so have we been.

Seek to ask more questions, and be happy to have less answers.

reply to post by qualm91


You forgot Jepthah. IMO, the worst incident, condoning murder combined with misogyny. This 'god' didn't let Isaac be sacrificed, but a young juicy virgin? You bet!

Judges 11

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of an harlot: and Gilead begat Jephthah.
[...]
29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon.

30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,

31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.

So apparently a daughter counts as a 'what', not a 'who'.

32 So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hands.

33 And he smote them from Aroer, even till thou come to Minnith, even twenty cities, and unto the plain of the vineyards, with a very great slaughter. Thus the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel.

34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.

35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the Lord, and I cannot go back.

So, he thought he was going to get off easy, and that his dog would beat his daughter out the door?

36 And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the Lord, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the Lord hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon.

37 And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.

38 And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains.

39 And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she knew no man. And it was a custom in Israel,

40 That the daughters of Israel went yearly to lament the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite four days in a year.

That is the story that finally nailed the coffin shut on my Christianity. It took a good, long time too! For 17 years I made apologies for this story, denying to myself what I knew to be true: the 'spirit' of this 'god' had directly manipulated affairs to arrange the murder of a virgin girl by her own father.

Absolutely barbaric

reply to post by qualm91

The Lord has no problem killing children for calling someone bald, obviously. Doesn't that seem a bit harsh? Would YOU be okay with your children being murdered for calling someone bald?

Oh my, this is the Old Testament God...he really chilled out a bit after having a kid you know....

First, thanks for the OP.

The pattern we see here - "there are people of a certain faith who are hypocritical and unkind, therefore I will point out certain passages of their chosen holy text that prove the entire concept of their religion is flawed and useless" - is a depressingly familiar one.

Admittedly, I come from the UK, and Christianity in general isn't quite so zealous and loud-mouthed here as it is in the US; but don't let a small, very vocal minority ruin it for everyone else.

Personally, I fundamentally disagree with the concept of religion; I think it is a crutch people use that tells them how they should live their lives, so that they don't have to take responsibility or think things through for themselves. Having said that, there are plenty of people who subscribe to religions (including Christianity and Islam) who do real good in the world. Selfless, decent people who acknowledge that the texts on which their faith is based are flawed, historical documents, but that they contain the seeds of something worthwhile.

I have no problem with people who wish to label themselves (for example) "Christian", so long as their intention is to promote peace and love, and so long as they remember that other people are entitled not to believe the same things they do. Fortunately, I have met a few people who fit that description.

I don't need to be a Christian to appreciate that Jesus is an excellent role model - rather like Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. To me, it doesn't matter if he was "magic", or the "Son of God"; the real miracle of Jesus is that he has managed to inspire good in a significant number of people.

The people that hold Jesus up as a justification for what are obviously hate-filled acts are not "Christian" in the sense of being "Christ-like". They are sad, ignorant individuals, and I pray for them. Not to any particular deity... I just cast my thoughts out into the universe and hope that some day they'll see the light of compassion.

We spend so much time as humans focusing on what makes us different. Perhaps if we focused on what it was we have in common, we might get somewhere.

Just my tuppence