It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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
Source
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 Agree2Disagree
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.
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.
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
Just a thought....
Why do the majority of scholars accept the historicity of Jesus Christ if "there isn't any evidence"...?
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
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.
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 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?"
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....?
No, not actually, I just didn't think that people believed it. Proof of God? No. Evidence of God? Of course.
How about.....there is no evidence of god, that one slip by you.....?
.....there is no evidence of god, that one slip by you.....?
Originally posted by qualm91
His laws are his laws, no matter what.
They don't get "outdated" they stand no matter what.
So apparently a daughter counts as a 'what', not a 'who'.
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, he thought he was going to get off easy, and that his dog would beat his daughter out the door?
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.
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.
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?