Fellow religionists. The non-affiliated and secular people mean our religions no harm. Why do you choose to kill them?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

The judges in Inquisition Trials were hardly imaginary.. they were real qualified people, that to prove on court if needed why even a Bishop or Priest was guilty or not. Biased of course. Regardless modern law systems learned from such Trials - was innovation that people had to be heard first, rather than stoned to death in public square.
Also depends on which Inquisition you refer too. Medieval Inquisition is not the same as Spanish one.

Thought police? There was no such technology to monitor such things that far back then. Though I could agree on the term "propaganda force/ information gatherers" or "cultural police". Historically, Inquisitors only went as far as the King of the land allowed/commanded them to. If a King told them to get lost, they had little choice but to go somewhere else.

Even in cases without Inquisition, you had replacements. In Protestant countries, you had Witch Hunts. In Russia, Oprichnina. And so on.

Inquisitions, to me, are synonymous with witch hunts. All religious oppression can be seen as inquisitions.

You say that inquisitors were real qualified people.

They were indeed real but to suggest that a person who believes in talking serpents and donkeys and will adore a genocidal son murdering God is qualified to judge other and their beliefs is quite droll.

Regards
DL

[fkizz]

Inquisitions, to me, are synonymous with witch hunts. All religious oppression can be seen as inquisitions.

That's a strech of imagination. Those are not Inquisitors, simply their role in society is similiar.

You say that inquisitors were real qualified people.
They were indeed real but to suggest that a person who believes in talking serpents and donkeys and will adore a genocidal son murdering God is qualified to judge other and their beliefs is quite droll.

I could elaborate on Genesis history, I posted once a text from ~234 AD comenting that such history is not meant to be taken literally, but I would go offtopic.

What's your take on Secular Governments performing torture and death penalty intimidations in order to get info or confessions?

[Iskar]

Aggression against a worthy evil foe is quite justified. Right?


A naïve view.

I'll explicitly mark sarcasm next time I use it, so as to avoid confusing you.

Those religions are still getting their ideology from the same book as in the past and as you can see by their homophobic and misogynous ways, they have yet to seek civilizing.

I have no need to discuss past and present harm as it should be obvious to you that it continues on a daily basis.


Which assumption exactly?

Regards
DL

So your argument is that because religious people these days use the same texts as 1000 years ago that inevitably causes them to be evil? Right, I'll be off to my parish's weekly witch hunt and poke-the-heretic evening. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) None of the Catholic or otherwise religious people I know cause harm on a daily basis. Maybe you should familiarise yourself with modern, e.g. post-2nd-Vaticanum, exegesis. For while the texts may be the same as 1000 years ago (which strictly speaking they aren't, due to corrected translations and whatnot) their interpretation has changed considerably.

The assumption I am criticising is that you make a sweeping generalisation of religiously minded people and simply claim that they cause harm, based on no data whatsoever.

I agree that the religious have the wrong focus.

It might be beneficial to drop the inadmissible generalisations and stop talking about "the religious" as a monolithic block. There are simply so many differences between traditionalists, liberal followers, reformers, fanatics, etc. even within a single religion, let alone the differences between various confessional groups and entire religions, that simplistically talking about "the religious" completely invalidates any point you might try to make.

I do take issue with, "Everyone should be allowed to choose what to believe, as long as it doesn't involve hurting anyone else."

The last I agree with but not the beginning of your statement.

I do not think we should use force to correct those who think foolishly but I think it our duty to correct them by argument. I follow one of the few biblical wisdom sayings.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; evenas a father the son in whom he delighteth.

Do unto others my friend. I doubt that you would want to foster poor thinking and would wish to be corrected.

Regards
DL

So, are you against freedom of religion? (I.e. the right to choose what one wants to believe in religious matters.)

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That's a strech of imagination. Those are not Inquisitors, simply their role in society is similiar.
I could elaborate on Genesis history, I posted once a text from ~234 AD comenting that such history is not meant to be taken literally, but I would go offtopic.

What's your take on Secular Governments performing torture and death penalty intimidations in order to get info or confessions?

I am not fond of the death penalty as governments should be trying to teach of the veneration of life. That is hard to do when they are talking it.

As to torture, reciprocity is fair play and in the case of an insurgent enemy where terror is the main goal, reciprocity is fair play.

Governments may be justified in torture of jihadists as the needs of the many victims they produce outweighs the needs of the few that might face torture. Terror seems to be the governments goal as I do not think they get much information out of torture.


---------------

Iskar

"So your argument is that because religious people these days use the same texts as 1000 years ago that inevitably causes them to be evil?"

Yes.

Have you seen much change to their homophobia and misogyny that was not forced on them by the state. I have not.

They also read their salvific Jesus the same way and have maintained their immoral view that human sacrifice and the punishment of the innocent instead of the guilty is somehow good justice.

"None of the Catholic or otherwise religious people I know cause harm on a daily basis."

Neither do I but some do.

African witches andJesus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr6gvtYrga8

Jesus Camp 1of 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACyLTsH4ac

Death to Gays.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyuKLyGUHNE

Further to you daily comment. Do they turn their homophobia and misogyny on and off like a switch only on certain days?


" The assumption I am criticising is that you make a sweeping generalisation of religiously minded people and simply claim that they cause harm, based on no data whatsoever."

See above links and comments.

"So, are you against freedom of religion? (I.e. the right to choose what one wants to believe in religious matters.)

As I said, belief cannot be denied or banned. Actions stemming from those belief is all we can deal with on a direct basis.

If a theist want to believe in fairies sitting in my underwear, he is welcome to that belief but if he tries to have a peek, then he will get more than what he bargained for.

Do you think we have a duty to correct really stupid or immoral thinking in our neighbors?

Regards
DL

[Iskar]

I'm sorry, your blatant ignoring of the entire development of Christianity since the reformation alone makes any sensible discussion on this matter futile. Tellingly you completely ignored my paragraph about modern exegesis, as naturally that would make your argument "the texts are the same so people are the same" falter. I suggest you educate yourself on the history of Christianity or any other religion for that matter and then we can continue the discussion.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

I'm sorry, your blatant ignoring of the entire development of Christianity since the reformation alone makes any sensible discussion on this matter futile. Tellingly you completely ignored my paragraph about modern exegesis, as naturally that would make your argument "the texts are the same so people are the same" falter. I suggest you educate yourself on the history of Christianity or any other religion for that matter and then we can continue the discussion.

I suggest that you look at the present homophobic and misogynous Christianity that promotes substitutionary atonement as somehow just regardless of the past.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNu...s_digest-vrecs

Regards
DL

[Iskar]

Give me reliable data, scientific papers, official statistics, not youtube videos, please.

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

Give me reliable data, scientific papers, official statistics, not youtube videos, please.

You do not seem to like what I provide so go do your own research.

You may want to believe that the non-affiliated mean harm to religionists.

I will wait for you to give me reliable data, scientific papers, and official statistics to show that your view is correct.

Regards
DL

[chriscase]

It seems to me there is a large gap between the popular reconstruction of "original" Christianity attempted by those who call themselves Gnostics and the body of generally accepted historical fact. It's not unlike modern day Wiccans who use imaginative interpretations of folk symbols and historical straws in the wind to attempt a reconstruction of pre-Christian European folk religions. Thing is, it's virtually impossible to distinguish what's historically supportable from our own imagination when we do something like that. The actual evidence is very sparse and hard to interpret. But more to the point, the attempt itself is predicated on an assumption that is quite dubious - that there is even a certain "pure" form or thing to be reconstructed in the first place.

OP, you structure your arguments as if there must have been a pure, original form of Christianity that was indeed objectively good, or at least radically so in context. What if this supposition is incorrect? How can you be sure you and others like you aren't simply filling in the blanks from your own imagination and desire?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

It seems to me there is a large gap between the popular reconstruction of "original" Christianity attempted by those who call themselves Gnostics and the body of generally accepted historical fact. It's not unlike modern day Wiccans who use imaginative interpretations of folk symbols and historical straws in the wind to attempt a reconstruction of pre-Christian European folk religions. Thing is, it's virtually impossible to distinguish what's historically supportable from our own imagination when we do something like that. The actual evidence is very sparse and hard to interpret. But more to the point, the attempt itself is predicated on an assumption that is quite dubious - that there is even a certain "pure" form or thing to be reconstructed in the first place.

OP, you structure your arguments as if there must have been a pure, original form of Christianity that was indeed objectively good, or at least radically so in context. What if this supposition is incorrect? How can you be sure you and others like you aren't simply filling in the blanks from your own imagination and desire?

There are few if any historical facts in the bible. If there were, historians would have been writing of the so called history in scriptures. They do not. Sure, some names and locations are/were real, but all works of fiction have some of the same tipe of real places in them to engage the reader better.

I will go by what my favorite biblical history scholar and others think of the reality and history within scriptures. Almost nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo

You might wonder what kind of reality will come from a book that begins with a talking serpent and a genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

[fkizz]

There are few if any historical facts in the bible.

Lets assume all Bible is false. Then, Ancient Greece didn't exist, Roman Empire didn't exist, Babylonia didn't exist, Hebrews didn't exist, Judeah didn't exist, Judeah-Roman wars never happened, Pharaos didn't exist, death by Crucification didn't/doesn't exist and anything else I'm probably missing.

This just as a small sample. The existance of such societies and institutions is confirmed by other non-biblical sources.

No offense but your view on a 2000 year old compilation of texts is too emotionally charged to produce good fruits. Each of them has their own context. Book of Job is literally 4000 years old and adresses similiar issues to the ones you raise in complaint. Some say it's older than book of Genesis.
Give it a try.

[Abdülmecid I]

It is out of the question that any passage of the Bible has been written down more than 3,000 years ago. We know, based on the Gezer calender, that the structure of the paleo-Hebrew script, even during the 10th century B.C., was too fluid to allow such compilations. The book of Job itself was probably composed during the early Achaemenid years. Regarding the rest of your argument, taking the vast majority of the Bible's claims with a pinch of salt does not mean we reject every information included as phantasy, especially if said information is also corroborated by external sources, like some innumerable litterary and archeological data. No need for grossly hyperbolic arguments. Anyway, have you really read the Bible, fkizz? Because, if you had, you should have known that neither Ancient Greece (with the possible exception of the Epistulae) nor the Jewish-Roman wars are mentioned there. It would be a bit awkward if they were, considering that the relevant texts are canonically supposed to have been created before these conflicts.

[Inhuman One]

That the bible is an old book is well known, but even then many books can be fiction.
The stories of Greek Mythology also mixed history with fiction, and the biblical mythology is no different.

To search for the truth, you'd need more than one source of information. Many things in the bible simply can't be possible.
The plagues of Egypt for example. If they happened Egypt would have crumbled and be conquered by its neighbours, unless they'd all stay away from that cursed land. In that case mentions would be in other sources of this cursed Egypt.

Still pretty impressive that the Egypts where able to chase the fleeing slaves with chariots despite all lifestock and horses being killed by a plague, and soldiers still able to function after all crops where destroyed.. no food available = dead people. All fish already died from the nile turning into blood.

[chriscase]

There are few if any historical facts in the bible. If there were, historians would have been writing of the so called history in scriptures. They do not. Sure, some names and locations are/were real, but all works of fiction have some of the same tipe of real places in them to engage the reader better.

I will go by what my favorite biblical history scholar and others think of the reality and history within scriptures. Almost nothing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEpc1zhcuo

You might wonder what kind of reality will come from a book that begins with a talking serpent and a genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

That's fine but it doesn't really address the point I raised. Do you think there is such a thing as real (original, true) Christianity? If so, why?

[fkizz]

Anyway, have you really read the Bible, fkizz? Because, if you had, you should have known that neither Ancient Greece (with the possible exception of the Epistulae) nor the Jewish-Roman wars are mentioned there. It would be a bit awkward if they were, considering that the relevant texts are canonically supposed to have been created before these conflicts.

Erhm, are you aware it was Roman Soldiers, not Hebrews, who Crucified and speared lance of longinus into Jesus? It was Romans who Cruficied Jesus and other rebel Hebrews aswell? Are you aware Poncio Pilatos was not an Hebrew? What could be Roman Military and Admnistration doing in an "independent" Judeah?

Whole story of Jesus is during (sometimes to deadly point) tensions between Romans and Judeah... That would only end with Emperor Hadrian ~300 years later of Jesus story. So yes you can claim that there was no literal battle/war going on, but the tensions and seeds for the first roman-jewish wars were there. It even serves as documents showing tensions brewing big time between Judeah and Rome.

On Ancient Greece, there are reference on OT to Hebrew festivals that celebrate their victory against Greece. Well not Delian League of Pelopennesian War that would be defeated by Sparta, but the Hellenic world of afterwards. Hannukah, Maccabeus, should ring some bells. Celebrates Hebrew victory against Greek Speaking Seleucid Empire, legacy of Alexander the Great.
So yes, it's there aswell, provided you dig enough. Without Ancient Greece there would be no Macedonia/Alexander/Seleucid Empire.

On the dating of the contents of the books, becomes a matter of preference, is the book written where the contents of oral tradition are written, or did the content of the book exist before when it was passed by Oral Tradition? A tad philosophical question, answer depends on this.

Asking me if I read the Bible? Well not the whole of it, but enough to easily pass this type of low effort questions.
Do research better for more significant ones next time, this questions don't give the best of impressions so to speak. Hope you learned something with this.

To search for the truth, you'd need more than one source of information. Many things in the bible simply can't be possible.
The plagues of Egypt for example. If they happened Egypt would have crumbled and be conquered by its neighbours, unless they'd all stay away from that cursed land. In that case mentions would be in other sources of this cursed Egypt.

Well I think that texts/information that come from millenias ago often will have mistortions and former literal facts are turned into symbolic allegorical facts, a simple game of playing telephone in a circle can introduce the point.
I'd wager putting the point/lesson of what happened into symbolism and allegory preserves better the core message rather than having a long story full of side details, and thus survives the test of time better.

That said, the plagues sent upon the Pharaoh were fears that Egyptians had that could happen to them. Now the interpretation and which is closer, is another story.

[Abdülmecid I]

Jewish-Roman Wars is a name given to a very specific series of conflicts, first starting more than 30 years after the death of Jesus and ending with Hadrian 120 years later, not 270. The only time Roman forces extensively fought against Jewish soldiers was during the civil war between Aristoboulus II and Hyrcanus II, an intervention not described by the Bible and never called as a Jewish-Roman war. Annexations were not always particularly violent, especially in cases concerning client kingdoms, like that of Israel. An execution, under the insistence of the Jewish clergy, and the supposed prevailing unrest cannot possibly b defined as a war, regardless of how much someone tries to distort the meaning of the word.
Regarding the Seleucids, again I don't see how can the term ancient Greece mean a Macedonian dynasty, with Sogdian roots, whose capital was based on Syria and which never controlled any European territory, the continent where Greece is supposed to be located. Pretty much like claiming the British defeated the Portuguese, during the Falklands war, because Portugal is similar to Spain, the state which colonized South America.
Finally, I am certain that the contents of the book of Job existed long before they were written down, although I doubt it existed in 2,000 B.C., a time when not even the concept of Jewish people existed. However, it is undeniable that there would be many variations, which probably contradicted each other and did not necessarily propagate the same moral message (which can vary from praising the notions of patience and faith to justification of unprovoked massacres).

[Copperknickers II]

Lets assume all Bible is false. Then, Ancient Greece didn't exist, Roman Empire didn't exist, Babylonia didn't exist, Hebrews didn't exist, Judeah didn't exist, Judeah-Roman wars never happened, Pharaos didn't exist, death by Crucification didn't/doesn't exist and anything else I'm probably missing.

What? So because a fictional book is set in a real historical timeperiod, that makes it real? Is Shakespeare a historian, then? Are the Sherlock Holmes stories all based on real events? For that matter, if the Bible is a real historical text, what about the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, the Epic of Gilgamesh? Presumably they are also historical chronicles?

[fkizz]

Jewish-Roman Wars is a name given to a very specific series of conflicts, first starting more than 30 years after the death of Jesus and ending with Hadrian 120 years later, not 270. The only time Roman forces extensively fought against Jewish soldiers was during the civil war between Aristoboulus II and Hyrcanus II, an intervention not described by the Bible and never called as a Jewish-Roman war. Annexations were not always particularly violent, especially in cases concerning client kingdoms, like that of Israel. An execution, under the insistence of the Jewish clergy, and the supposed prevailing unrest cannot possibly b defined as a war, regardless of how much someone tries to distort the meaning of the word.

Yes I could've been more accurate no doubt, but the time period of Jesus Crucification is indeed in the resentment brewing up of Judeah-Rome that ends with the Hadrian supressing Bar Kobva revolt. Which is linked to Roman-Jewish wars. Years are not magically separate from each other.

You took me too literally, I was raising up a rethorical provocation at Gnostic Christian Bishop, which you took as a literal re-reviewed assertion.
Keep in mind I was giving a reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop on his assertion that possibly ALL of Bible is false, not making a thread with an OP about "Bible and its links with History".

Also don't forget that some people have duties to do outside of TWC, are not paid to post here, sometimes are posting with mind refreshed, others tired after a busy day, which can lead to slips in writing. Yes I did slip up timeframe of Emperor Hadrian with Emperor Constantine I'll give you that one.

Regarding the Seleucids, again I don't see how can the term ancient Greece mean a Macedonian dynasty,

You don't see how conflicts with a Greek speaking Greece originated Empire may have an Historical link with Ancient Greece?
I mean.. following such type of thought, someone who lived years in independant Brazilian Empire has no connections or cultural links whatsoever with mainland Portugal in times of its first dinasty.

Pretty much like claiming the British defeated the Portuguese, during the Falklands war, because Portugal is similar to Spain, the state which colonized South America.

Portugal is not similiar to Spain, and in terms of Portuguese colonies, you forgot to add Africa, India and China, and Portugal has 600 years old alliance with England, so faction wise the "sloppy comparison" would be to say "Portugal won falkland wars, because its ally UK gave by proxy, Spain a defeat".

Finally, I am certain that the contents of the book of Job existed long before they were written down, although I doubt it existed in 2,000 B.C., a time when not even the concept of Jewish people existed. However, it is undeniable that there would be many variations, which probably contradicted each other and did not necessarily propagate the same moral message (which can vary from praising the notions of patience and faith to justification of unprovoked massacres).

We are fairly in agreement, given much of book of Job is not about typical religious rituals, compared to the rest.

What? So because a fictional book is set in a real historical timeperiod, that makes it real? Is Shakespeare a historian, then? Are the Sherlock Holmes stories all based on real events? For that matter, if the Bible is a real historical text, what about the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, the Epic of Gilgamesh? Presumably they are also historical chronicles?

Given History is written by the winners historians rather than both sides historians, I'm feeling tempted... but I'll pass.

To understand said time periods better you should read up literature of said time periods, is there anything outrageous about this claim?

[Gnostic Christian Bishop]

That's fine but it doesn't really address the point I raised. Do you think there is such a thing as real (original, true) Christianity? If so, why?

If Christianity exists today, which it does, then there had to be an original Christianity. I am not sure what you mean by "true".

I see Christianity arising from then plagiarizing of what was first the Chrestian religion and their writings which I think was the original consolidation of Jews and gentile who later needed a new name and chose Gnostic Christianity.

I doubt that theory can be proven today but there are the odd hints as shown in how Christianity changed the name Chrestian to Christian in the books they chose to plagiarize.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...&v=rAt-PAkgqls

I think that the original Jesus archetype was of the Gnostic persuasion as he was certainly not preaching what the bible preached in terms of a God above.
Matthew 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if thereforethine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man loveme, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come untohim, and make our abode with him.

Romans 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinateto be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn amongmany brethren.

Regards
DL

[chriscase]

If Christianity exists today, which it does, then there had to be an original Christianity. I am not sure what you mean by "true".

It doesn't necessarily follow that there must have been an "original" Christianity. Christ himself might have had some ideas that we'd call original, but it probably does not rise to the level of a doctrine, certainly not given that he didn't write anything we can lay our hands on. The doctrinal expression of Christianity, even at its earliest sources, is open to multiple interpretations. I would strongly suspect, therefore, that the notion of a pure Christianity is an imaginary construct that bears virtually no relationship to historical Christianity. It's the illusion of age and/or originality that lends an aura of truth and/or purity to this notion of Christianity, but we have no reason to believe in any of that.