Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Flat earthers deny the evidence. The rational mythers follow the evidence that you must ignore, as it is in the NT and 1 Clement.
You are quoting Jesus and the victory of God by NT Wright, a Christian. Zindler believes Jesus did not exist, probably because we have evidence for Tiberius, such as coins, he had towns and villas built. He was a consul five times, and that is how the Roman calendar worked, by naming the consuls for the relevant year. We even have eyewitness accounts.
It is not a fact. There are zero independent sources from the first century, whereas Tiberius has hundreds.
You lose credibility by ignoring 2 Peter, that is an argument against Christians who said the gospels are fables. By ignoring Hebrews, that said Jesus was a divine being sacrificed only once, in heaven, in a temple not built by human hands (unlike the annual Jewish sacrifice in Jerusalem). You do not need to believe Jesus existed on earth to be a Christian, Paul even said Jesus was an angel.
Are you claiming Paul did not believe Jesus was a flesh and blood person crucified and risen?
I mean, I really hope quotes and citations aren't necessary to show the obvious: Paul admits to only meeting Christ after the Resurrection, being the least of the Apostles, as he calls himself, but accepts the testimony of others that Jesus was a flesh and blood person who was crucified, died, and raised.
Hebrews Chpt. 2 clearly states Jesus came down as a flesh and blood person too, "fully human in every way" I have no clue what you mean by Jesus being sacrificed in heaven in a temple. If you mean Chpt. 9 and the analogy between the high priest who must enter the Temple, on earth, once every year to atone for sins, while Jesus entered the heavenly house of his father once to atone for all of our sins, I would suggest reading it again with an eye toward metaphor.
On the other point, how many other 1st century Galilean carpenters have extensive paper trails? Using your own logic, think about Matthew and the guards being placed at the tomb. It is a "tell" that what critics of Christians in the first century were saying wasn't "Jesus didn't exist" or even "the tomb wasn't found empty" it was "the body was stolen."
The Christ as Myth theory originated in the Enlightenment and is considered a fringe theory, mostly advanced by the activist atheists types these days. Modern scholarship is focused on how little we actually know about the historical Jesus, not whether he existed at all.
The fact remains, Dave, that you are not addressing my actual points, preferring to perform an ad hominem attack: you think I'm wrong about x, therefore I can't possibly be right about y (or anything else, apparently). One has nothing to do with the other; they are different topics on which I am in principle independently persuadable on -- you only have to present your evidence.
I do not "lose credibility" "refusing" to acknowledge "the reality". I acknowledge that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe Jesus is historical and, way beyond that, divine (Muslims excepted). I simply don't strongly agree with their historicity arguments and I do not agree that popularity guarantees correctness. You have Tertullian as a hostile witness, a stele that proves the historicity of Pilate, and the obviously doctored Tesimonium Flavium. It isn't much to go on, like it or not. But if it's enough for you, great, now prove that this historical Jesus raised the dead and walked on water and made water into wine using the vast array (*cough*) of independent, non-religious attestations to his ministry and miracles, the earthquakes and darkness at noon and zombies walking the streets. I'll wait!
Overall yes. In specific cases, not at all. In others, somewhere in between. But in the main, yes. I'd estimate on a total historical basis that religion has been a direct cause of war about 1 times in 8 and contributing cause or accelerant maybe 4 times in 8.
Often such questions are not black and white. It's nuanced. I didn't make it that way, so don't shoot the messenger.
Religion has supported just 6% of all wars since recorded history, 8% is the high. 50% of religion that did support war is Islam.1,763 wars cataloged by Phillips and Axelrod since 8000 B.C., 123 to be precise, were considered “religious wars.”
Religion has supported just 6% of all wars since recorded history, 8% is the high. 50% of religion that did support war is Islam.1,763 wars cataloged by Phillips and Axelrod since 8000 B.C., 123 to be precise, were considered “religious wars.”
I question that data because what do you consider "support"?
For example, during the Vietnam War I clearly remember:
Special church services to pray for our soldiers.
Prayers in regular church services for our soldiers.
Presidents almost always ending speeches and broadcasts about the war with "and may God bless the United States Of America...implying that god was on our side, which certainly was not disputed by mainstream churches.
In other words what I might call 'passive support'.
I question that data because what do you consider "support"?
For example, during the Vietnam War I clearly remember:
Special church services to pray for our soldiers.
Prayers in regular church services for our soldiers.
Presidents almost always ending speeches and broadcasts about the war with "and may God bless the United States Of America...implying that god was on our side, which certainly was not disputed by mainstream churches.
In other words what I might call 'passive support'.
It appears... You'll twist anything, deny anything, including science and history, to fit your ideology. To what end?
If you question the data lets see some alternative facts... to support your thinking. Your example is lame.
I question that data because what do you consider "support"?
For example, during the Vietnam War I clearly remember:
Special church services to pray for our soldiers.
Prayers in regular church services for our soldiers.
Presidents almost always ending speeches and broadcasts about the war with "and may God bless the United States Of America...implying that god was on our side, which certainly was not disputed by mainstream churches.
In other words what I might call 'passive support'.
That's people and groups using religion to gain support.
The religion itself may not support war at all
That's people and groups using religion to gain support.
The religion itself may not support war at all
Religion does not have to permit itself to be used. Last time I checked, a pastor decides what will be promoted in the services over which he presides.
However I will say that given the fact that there's a war and there are people fighting it, I would not consider offering prayers for the safety of the combatants to be supporting war. Although it would be more neutral and less normalizing to offer such prayers for all the combatants on both sides, and to pray for peace. Not that it will change a thing, but it's an understandable expression of sentiment, so far as it goes.
The problem comes in when a sect becomes nationalistic / jingoistic and starts either asking god to bless the enterprise of war, or in some cases even claims that he approves. And why not -- Jehovah was originally a Jewish war God, and regularly commanded genocide in the conquest of Canaan. Indeed, the ruthlessness of that conquest is doubtless a subtext for current activities in that area of the world. It moves the Overton Window such that things that shouldn't be thinkable -- particularly for a people who suffered such depredations in their own recent history -- become thinkable, then excusable, then routine.
Mind you, it is not JUST religion that is at fault here. Eugene Debs is a an example of someone with principles who opposed war, and was imprisoned for treason as a result, by the US government which considered it seditious to oppose the WW1 draft. It is religions, governments, and religions and governments exploiting each other as useful fools. It is the military-industrial complex hungry for profits. It is a lot of things. But religion IS in the mix.
Religion has supported just 6% of all wars since recorded history, 8% is the high. 50% of religion that did support war is Islam.1,763 wars cataloged by Phillips and Axelrod since 8000 B.C., 123 to be precise, were considered “religious wars.”
I have heard the figure 17% in another study, but these things will vary depending on what the criteria for "support" (and even the criteria for "war") is. It is somewhat subjective, which is why the conversation around it is so slippery.
By "criteria for war" I mean, were the Crusades wars or not? Are related forms of violence like the Inquisition rightly counted in with more conventional wars? What about guerrilla wars and insurrections and coups? What about the bombing of medical clinics that perform services unwanted by the religious? Some of these things are not wars as such but they are the same sort of violence leading to death, just on a smaller scale.
Pope Pius, one would hope, preferred peace to war but attempted to appease Hitler with an under the table understanding that if Hitler left Church personnel and assets be, the Church would be silent about his other activities. Does this count as "supporting war"?
I concede that, whatever the exact figure, a minority of wars are explicitly religious. As I suggested, though, religion can catalyze war even if the war isn't about religious issues. I think that is much more common. For example, "Christian Zionists", which is what most fundamentalist Christians are, very much support the war in Gaza and object to the slightest opposition, such as making military aid conditional in any way. If that's not supporting war, I don't know what is -- regardless of one's views about the justness or character of that war. In that particular conflict, the war could not long continue without US military support, which is steadfast primarily because of religious factions in the US. Yes there are geopolitical factors as well but I think fundamentalist support is the lynchpin.
I question that data because what do you consider "support"?
For example, during the Vietnam War I clearly remember:
Special church services to pray for our soldiers.
Prayers in regular church services for our soldiers.
Presidents almost always ending speeches and broadcasts about the war with "and may God bless the United States Of America...implying that god was on our side, which certainly was not disputed by mainstream churches.
In other words what I might call 'passive support'.
That's people and groups using religion to gain support.
The religion itself may not support war at all
And did the religion speak out and say, "Stop doing that?" Or did they remain mostly silent, thus acquiescing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
