Religion, war and violence

Religious people like to claim that their religion is the one that is going to bring peace to the world, or that their religion in one of many peace-bringing religions out there. They say that followers of their religion, believers in their god(s), donators to their church will be infused with a sense of peace and tranquility and will not want to do harm unto men. Yet in the real world, the history of religious dogma has been the story of constant warfare and strife. Even now we see horrible monstrocities committed in the name of religion all over the globe. What gives?

Consider the case of the Māori people and the Moriori people of New Zealand. The Māoris lived on mainland New Zealand, and the Moriori a few hundred miles to the east on the Chatham Islands. The Māori had been a warlike people, while the Moriori had a tradition of resolving their conflicts with peace and consensus building. When the Māoris heard about the islands the Moriori were living on, they sent a few hundred soldiers over to invade. The Moriori tried to issue a peace offering, but before they could their villages were being burned, their citizenry raped and slaughtered. The Māori people survive today. The Moriori do not.

The same kind of clash has undoubtedly occurred in the past between people of warlike religions and people of peacelike religions. The outcomes of those conflicts are going to be heavily in the favor of the warlike groups, so we should expect to see warlike religions surviving today. No surprise, then, that's exactly what we see. It's a kind of Darwinian natural selection. So that's one reason we see people fighting for religion: if peaceful religions had superior survival rates, warlike religions would have died out long ago. Granted, there are some seemingly peaceful religions whose members do not spread their beliefs by violence, the main ones being Buddhism and Taoism. (Incidentally these two religions also do not posit the existence of deities. Hmm...) So the process of natural selection didn't completely kill off all peaceful religions, but remember that there are far more Christians and Muslims than Buddhists or Taoists. In any case, the comments here do not apply to Buddhism and Taoism. I am dealing only with those religions whose members are willing to kill for their beliefs.

Besides teaching militancy in general, there is another feature of the warlike religions that might make warriors of the religion better fighters: belief in the afterlife. When you believe that there is an afterlife in which you will be eternally rewarded, you are much braver on the battlefield than the atheist who is shaking in his boots about the prospect that his consciousness may end forever. With no belief in an afterlife, 9/11 would never have happened. There would be no suicide bombers anywhere. Who knows how many massacres might have been avoided if there was no such thing as the maxim "Kill them all and let God sort them out"? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins theorizes that that is the reason why almost all cultures have some sort of belief in the afterlife: all of our ancestors who didn't were beaten on the battlefield.

As for why religions quarrel with each other, it isn't hard to see why. Religious people have some very deep-rooted beliefs about how the universe operates. These beliefs influence the life of the believer every day, and like anybody they are reluctant to just give up on something they have invested so much time and effort in. It's a big disappointment to realize that you've been working your whole life to get on the good side of a deity that doesn't exist. So they hold onto their beliefs with steadfast faith, complete unquestioning dogma in the ideas which their culture has taught them. And, incidentally, they don't have any real proof that their religion's tenets are any truer than those of any other religion. But this does not sway the believer, who must under all circumstances not change his mind about anything — there are severe psychological and social implications in changing your mind about such fundamental issues as religion. The human brain being what it is, people are very reluctant to do so, even when it means believing in things for which there is no evidence or even things which run counter to the evidence.

So what do two people of differing religions do when they meet each other? Say, for example, a Christian happens upon a Muslim. They discuss their differing belief systems, and realize they have quite a dilemma on their hands: they both have gods who claim that disbelievers in the One True Religion will be severely punished in the afterlife. And yet these are two very different gods with different rules about human affairs, different stories about how the universe works, different demands for its believers. So they can't both be right. They might try to argue the points for a while, with such arguments as "Allah makes me feel tingly when I pray" and "my cousin Joe swears he saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwhich", but soon they will realize that they're in an even bigger dilemma than they started out in — it looks like neither of them is right, or at least that neither God is willing to come out and offer proof of his existence. They just can't seem to dig up any arguments that will make everybody believe in whichever God they grew up believing in.

So they result to the only thing which can possibly resolve such a dispute: violence. From the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition down to Palestinian suicide bombers and the Kashmir conflict, religious conflict all boils down to that simple inability for any religion to show that it is the right one. When scientists have competing theories, they don't kill each other to show the righteousness of their One True Theory. Why do that when you could just argue the evidence and show your opponent that your point of view is undoubtedly the right one? Any good scientist realizes that if he can't do that, if he can't show how his theory best fits the evidence, he has no right claiming the theory to be true in the first place and ends up revising his position. This never happens in religion though, because religions believe themselves to be immune to logic, objectivity and experimentation. There's no evidence, you just have to believe it. Or else. When was the last time you heard a church say something like "Our previous statement x was controversial, and after considering all the arguments of our opponents, and scrutinizing the available evidence, it seems that Islam was right all along about this." Scientists make such concessions all the time. But religions cannot, for the simple reason that they don't have any evidence to scrutinize. When they do look at the evidence all they see is a conspicuous absence of anything suggesting the supernatural even exists, much less that it works according to the model proposed by their particular faith. In those rare cases where a religion does make a concession like that, it takes a really long time. For instance, it took the Roman Catholic Church 359 years to concede in 1992 that Galileo was right after all about the Earth not being at the center of the universe.

On the surface it seems like peacelovers have a simple task ahead of them: teach people to use critical thinking, to base their beliefs upon evidence and to not blindly accept things which don't have any observable evidence going for them. But everybody knows it isn't really that simple. In some countries you can still be killed for saying something like that. And there are lots of people who claim they really do have proof — Creationists and the like. It's really faulty "proof", but they're not scientifically literate enough to realize their errors and ultimately it's clear that their "science" is really based on faith. They will not make any falsifiable scientific theories because their "scientific" theories are so entwined with their religious worldview that they would see falsification of the "science" as falsification of the religion, which as I've explained is something that is simply inconceivable for most religious people. Even those who don't claim to have proof seem almost impenetrable by logic: they think that it's okay to have "faith" in an idea if it's comforting enough, even if there isn't anything to show that it's true.

Religious faith is extremely durable. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people alive who are religious will die that way. If we are going to get anywhere in promoting critical thinking, we need to start with the children. Let's teach critical thinking to our children while they are still young and religious indoctrination has not yet rendered the child's worldview immune to logic. Let's stop teaching them to just memorize facts and start teaching them how to do good science, how to rigorously test all new ideas, how to judge whether a theory is in accord with the available evidence, and what to do about theories which are not. Maybe the generation that grows up with that kind of education will be the generation to turn this world into a beautiful, peaceful, religion-free place, and they can spare the world the horrors of religious conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

So they result to the only thing...

---

Of course, that should read "resort", not "result".

interesting concept! survival of the fittest, eh? :thumbsup:

what about buddism though? it seems peaceful enough yet it survives. :confused: tis a paradox. i suppose theres an exception to any rule.

with these kind of statistics we could assume that any alien race we encounter in the future would be very well armed. combine that with any religons tendancy to see other points of view as inferior :(

perhaps though, once a group is able to defend itself well enough by going through this warlike stage it only then has the option to revert back to a peaceful nature. hopefully :)

I think any extraterrestrials we meet will have gotten well past this stage. Species that hold on to warlike religions, I suspect, end up eventually wiping themselves out.

Excellent essay. There's absolutely nothing with which to disagree.

All this seems so bleak to me, because it is only intensifyling. On the short- and medium-terms, I am very pessimistic, I think the fundamentalists on all sides will get stronger until some sort of world-wide cataclysmic conflict ensues. I really don't see anything happening that could prevent this...

However, on the long term, I am optimistic. I believe that it will take that cataclysmic conflict to wake people up. Hopefully our descendants will take advantage of this.

dont worry, it wont be any later than 2060 or so, most of us wil llikely be alive when the worst comes, let's all have a party for those of us who live to see the worst pass :D

As long as their are different religions then there will always be conflict. You can not convert everyone to one religion because not everyone agrees about the same things. Hell, I have a hard enough time finding anyone who thinks remotly close to me when it comes to God and whatever. And as for faith, you do not have logic to have faith...or else it isn't faith. To have faith is to believe in and trust the unknown. Faith is your logic when you can't prove something. As far as buddists and that religion goes...well even that has its limits. I once agreed with the ideas and the teaching when I was younger...but then I grew up and asked questions like; why do they sell you books on meditation when they do not believe in material wealth? Why must you have a buddha statue? Well soon I saw that it was like most other religions, corrupt. That is why I don't like to say I am a certian religion. I have faith in God, not complete faith but I'm only young and still questioning things. Who knows I might change everything and decide that God is a hoaxs. I already think the Bible is a novel. The best seller of its time and the New Testamint is part two of the book series. I choose to not trust the Bible because it was made from lies. For now I have faith in God alone.

fine, mud, join my religion:

we worship existance, no two gods are alike, and we dont care!



plus we dont have a name for the "religion" so we can just be spiritual, and unlabeled. :D

I see Buddhism as more a of a philosphy (and so apparently did the "buddha") thats probably why it didnt go the same road as others (that were religions).

Great post One ,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MudFu

And as for faith, you do not have logic to have faith...or else it isn't faith.

---

Exactly. Logic is a way of reliably obtaining information about the universe. Faith is pretending to have knowledge that you could not possibly know from evidence, which is illogical.

Quote:

---

To have faith is to believe in and trust the unknown.

---

No, faith is pretending to have knowledge of the unknowable. Not being based on evidence and logic, it is not a reliable way of obtaining knowledge about the universe. It is nothing but guesses believed in absolutely.

Quote:

---

Faith is your logic when you can't prove something.

---

On the contrary, there is no kind of logic that can be applied when you can't prove something one way or the other. When scientists don't know something about their field of study, they boldly state "I don't know". When people of faith find something about the universe they can't prove one way or the other, they say with certainty "It surely must be this way and anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar". And, predictably, another person of faith will state that he is a liar for believing what he believes. When you do not have evidence for something, you have to be able to say "I don't know". Just because there are mysteries about the universe doesn't mean you need to make up explanations for them and then pretend your guesses are facts.

My point is that we need to abandon this idea of "faith" in things for which there is not sufficient evidence. That is the core of critical thinking, of science itself, that wonderful mode of thinking that routinely provides the world with incredible new discoveries beyond the wildest imaginations of the previous generation. And what wonderful progresses has faith made for humanity? Nothing but oppression, war, censorship, intolerance and superstition. Science often has to clean up the mess that faith has left for it. Science had to climb enormous hurdles to get the germ theory of disease accepted over the demon theory and to get the heliocentric universe accepted over the biblical geocentric universe. Now in this country we are in a struggle to get the theory of evolution accepted over the theory that the Earth was created all at once sometime in the late Stone Age.

Let's abandon all this faith stuff and base our beliefs on evidence, shall we? All these faith-based theories made before we had all the evidence have historically been incredibly unreliable in reflecting the truth.

Thanks again ermi ;) , Prevented me from having to essay ;). I hate when people compare any sort of faith to any sort of logic. My favourite is "you have faith in your logic dont you?"! That one is my fave fallacy (from any "faithful believer")

Between you and Flesh I dont even have to post really ;).


SSW thats more like it (except the worshipping anything part) nothing stops you from being spiritual without accepting science and reality as well . :rasta:

It's just the whole illusion's are illusions thing that just doesnt add up (everything can't be an illusion as many have pointed out before other than myself). But striving for the answers is what makes us open minded :) . Not deciding we "have them all" already......

i retain a spiritual logic, which can be chalked up to faith, as it is only proven on an individual scale; you have to experiance it yourself to prove it to yourself, and you can prove it only to your own self.

it is like astral projection, you cannot prove to anyone else that you were, indeed, out of body.

Actually if you read up on Astral Projection you can , apparently many are supposed to be able to see the silver cord as well some have claimed ability to move solid objects in their transitory state. Unfortunately never under clinical conditions nor able to guess right something (such as an upheld card) while claiming to be in an astral state (and then returning to tell someone what the card said)

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive you've gotta keep the personal definitions out of it if you want anyone to even give it more than a remote glance. Schizophreniac's perceive things that arent there....does that mean they are?.......(even though 2 different schizo's see two different things?....are they both right?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

I see Buddhism as more a of a philosphy (and so apparently did the "buddha") thats probably why it didnt go the same road as others (that were religions).

Great post One ,

---

I agree. Same goes for Taoism. These two religions/philosophies don't really concern themselves with the supernatural and pretending to know things they could not possibly know. Rather, they concern themselves with life here on Earth and how we can make the world a better place for ourselves and for others. They don't really have anything to "prove" through violence.

But the question is, why did they survive in the face of the warlike religions? Well, if we look at the really successful warlike religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism) we see that they come from places of high civilization, that is, people with the technology to use weapons capable of threatening other peoples into conversion and slaying those who don't comply. However, the places that Taoism and Buddhism have spread (China, Southeast Asia, Korea, Japan) these places were too far away for the warlike religions to invade, and the Chinese, who had effective cultural control of East Asia, were far too advanced to be forcibly converted by other peoples. In India, however, where Buddhism originated but Hinduism was predominant, we see Buddhism has almost completely died out under the influence of Hinduism. When Buddhism spread to East Asia, there was no pre-existing religion per se; just Confucianism, which was again really just a philosophy.

I have optimism in the future of humanity. I think the responsibility of having to maintain a technological society will force people to turn to science and thus to critical thinking as a means of solving problems. In this age of widespread scientific understanding and critical thought, I suspect that religions like Christianity and Islam will surely die out since they make wild claims about the origins of the universe that don't have any evidence for them. But philosophies like Buddhism and Taoism may very well survive, since as general life philosophies they are not the sort of things that will disintegrate when rational thought is applied. When Buddha or Lao Zi says something, he is saying it as a suggestion, not as absolute undeniable fact like Mohammed or Joseph Smith. Buddhism and Taoism are based on real life experiences by people in the physical world, rather than the superstitions of a few "prophets" who claim they have the answers to all the unsolved and unsolvable questions. That may be what ultimately secures their continued survival in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Actually if you read up on Astral Projection you can , apparently many are supposed to be able to see the silver cord as well some have claimed ability to move solid objects in their transitory state. Unfortunately never under clinical conditions nor able to guess right something (such as an upheld card) while claiming to be in an astral state (and then returning to tell someone what the card said)

Faith and logic are mutually exclusive you've gotta keep the personal definitions out of it if you want anyone to even give it more than a remote glance. Schizophreniac's perceive things that arent there....does that mean they are?.......(even though 2 different schizo's see two different things?....are they both right?)

---

the question at hand, with the schizophrenics percieving two different things is not what they see, but weather or not they both see something in the same place at the same time, or under the same circumstances.

the mind is able to make some things appear any way it wants, untill ignorance, fears, and doubt are cast aside with clarity.

I give up on you SSW , as I said in the other thread your constant double standard and your tweaking of definitions to suit your point (but only at the time) is indicative that you really have no idea what your talking about. Try just one philosphy class or join a debate team you need to learn consistency more than anything. It's clearly implied they at the same time would perceive something different in the same place (if you couldnt see that(as it was the main part of the arguement without it , it wouldnt even be what we were discussing) then you obviously tried to twist my words to fit your point, I find you in contempt of "logic" (instead of contempt of court, lil joke, VERY little ;) ).

"the mind is able to make some things appear any way it wants, untill ignorance, fears, and doubt are cast aside with clarity"

There I quoted you , the mind is not a separate entity WE are the mind, Try a neurology book please(or just speak to a high school biology teacher for christsakes). Also if I want Red to appear blue , it doesnt happen sorry, if some part of my brain is damaged or my ocular nerves (or even my cornea) PERHAPS possible but otherwise nope. No matter how much I try to convince myself of it once again science prevails. But I forget those are just simple illusions of science....that can be repeated ad nauseum with the same results everytime.....for everyone......

Consistency my friend stop the shifting

SSW I think I might take you up on that offer. A relgion of no name and no specific God. Existing is enough for me. And sorry guys you can't break my faith with your words of logic. I wouldn't be very faithful if I changed my beliefs based on ideas or others. You are right that Faith is not proof but I still choose to have faith because faith can do wonders for you. I have faith in many things other then a religous faith. I have faith in humankind. I have faith that no matter what comes out way, we can do the best to ensure the best. I have faith that some good is in people (my sence of good because I know good/bad is a P.O.V). Faith keeps me going in hard times. It gives me a reason to go on. Faith and Logic maybe very different but faith is just as important. I am a logical person to a sence. I hate that I am logical because it holds me down. Faith will bring me to a better place. Even if I am wrong, I do not care because I have spent my life so far looking at something in many ways. If you think faith don't make sence well...logic do not always make sence. We think it do because that is what we are told and what we see. We can see wrong and we can learn wrong. Remember, there was a time that it was logic that the world was flat.

Oh and as for the red and blue. how about if you are colour blind? Then your logic is wrong... You learn something is red but someone else learns it is it is blue. Basicly they see red and call it blue but you will never be able to tell them different because you see it as blue also. Which one is wrong? The colou blind person or you

so, if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like your problem is much less with religion and more with the closeminded tendency to make realworld truthclaims out of religious "knowledge". As was already discussed, buddhism and taoism are much more philosophical in outlook, or at least, neither claims to truth in such a way that renders other religious views false.

Is the problem religion then? of the fundamentalist outlook?

Colour blind is a biological error...sorry it fits my definition perfectly I was waiting for that Mud, thanks for not dissappointing me ;). I would be right as human eyeballs are built just like mine. (as are yours unless you have errors in them.....)

But your claims of faith for all those things is simply disingenuous(to me), Are you positing that you simply believe those things with no evidence(not the god one). Which means not taking into account ANY factual information such as the nature of humans to help each other etc. That wouldnt be faith it would be a logical conclusion (however if you do have faith in all those things without any shred of evidence then yes it is faith otherwise nope....) And , power to you , I just prefer to perceive a mistake and correct rather than assuming it will fix it itself.

Your world is flat logic is false as well (in fact a complete fabrication) it was never logical nor did anyone without a religious bent posit that....sorry(remember the church wanted to burn galileo but thankfully he was friend's with some high muckety mucks in the church). Even the ancient greeks knew it was round....it's called math they were good at it.....(also the simple logic they saw a sail coming over the horizon before the hull.....). Nice try on the defamation of logic too bad it doesnt hold up. There's lots of assumptions religious types make that have no bearing in reality. Bill O Reilly and Pat Robertson are prime examples of those that do it daily and make alot of money doing it as well....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Religious people like to claim that their religion is the one that is going to bring peace to the world, or that their religion in one of many peace-bringing religions out there. They say that followers of their religion, believers in their god(s), donators to their church will be infused with a sense of peace and tranquility and will not want to do harm unto men. Yet in the real world, the history of religious dogma has been the story of constant warfare and strife. Even now we see horrible monstrocities committed in the name of religion all over the globe. What gives?

Consider the case of the Māori people and the Moriori people of New Zealand. The Māoris lived on mainland New Zealand, and the Moriori a few hundred miles to the east on the Chatham Islands. The Māori had been a warlike people, while the Moriori had a tradition of resolving their conflicts with peace and consensus building. When the Māoris heard about the islands the Moriori were living on, they sent a few hundred soldiers over to invade. The Moriori tried to issue a peace offering, but before they could their villages were being burned, their citizenry raped and slaughtered. The Māori people survive today. The Moriori do not.

The same kind of clash has undoubtedly occurred in the past between people of warlike religions and people of peacelike religions. The outcomes of those conflicts are going to be heavily in the favor of the warlike groups, so we should expect to see warlike religions surviving today. No surprise, then, that's exactly what we see. It's a kind of Darwinian natural selection. So that's one reason we see people fighting for religion: if peaceful religions had superior survival rates, warlike religions would have died out long ago. Granted, there are some seemingly peaceful religions whose members do not spread their beliefs by violence, the main ones being Buddhism and Taoism. (Incidentally these two religions also do not posit the existence of deities. Hmm...) So the process of natural selection didn't completely kill off all peaceful religions, but remember that there are far more Christians and Muslims than Buddhists or Taoists. In any case, the comments here do not apply to Buddhism and Taoism. I am dealing only with those religions whose members are willing to kill for their beliefs.

Besides teaching militancy in general, there is another feature of the warlike religions that might make warriors of the religion better fighters: belief in the afterlife. When you believe that there is an afterlife in which you will be eternally rewarded, you are much braver on the battlefield than the atheist who is shaking in his boots about the prospect that his consciousness may end forever. With no belief in an afterlife, 9/11 would never have happened. There would be no suicide bombers anywhere. Who knows how many massacres might have been avoided if there was no such thing as the maxim "Kill them all and let God sort them out"? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins theorizes that that is the reason why almost all cultures have some sort of belief in the afterlife: all of our ancestors who didn't were beaten on the battlefield.

As for why religions quarrel with each other, it isn't hard to see why. Religious people have some very deep-rooted beliefs about how the universe operates. These beliefs influence the life of the believer every day, and like anybody they are reluctant to just give up on something they have invested so much time and effort in. It's a big disappointment to realize that you've been working your whole life to get on the good side of a deity that doesn't exist. So they hold onto their beliefs with steadfast faith, complete unquestioning dogma in the ideas which their culture has taught them. And, incidentally, they don't have any real proof that their religion's tenets are any truer than those of any other religion. But this does not sway the believer, who must under all circumstances not change his mind about anything â?? there are severe psychological and social implications in changing your mind about such fundamental issues as religion. The human brain being what it is, people are very reluctant to do so, even when it means believing in things for which there is no evidence or even things which run counter to the evidence.

So what do two people of differing religions do when they meet each other? Say, for example, a Christian happens upon a Muslim. They discuss their differing belief systems, and realize they have quite a dilemma on their hands: they both have gods who claim that disbelievers in the One True Religion will be severely punished in the afterlife. And yet these are two very different gods with different rules about human affairs, different stories about how the universe works, different demands for its believers. So they can't both be right. They might try to argue the points for a while, with such arguments as "Allah makes me feel tingly when I pray" and "my cousin Joe swears he saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwhich", but soon they will realize that they're in an even bigger dilemma than they started out in â?? it looks like neither of them is right, or at least that neither God is willing to come out and offer proof of his existence. They just can't seem to dig up any arguments that will make everybody believe in whichever God they grew up believing in.

So they result to the only thing which can possibly resolve such a dispute: violence. From the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition down to Palestinian suicide bombers and the Kashmir conflict, religious conflict all boils down to that simple inability for any religion to show that it is the right one. When scientists have competing theories, they don't kill each other to show the righteousness of their One True Theory. Why do that when you could just argue the evidence and show your opponent that your point of view is undoubtedly the right one? Any good scientist realizes that if he can't do that, if he can't show how his theory best fits the evidence, he has no right claiming the theory to be true in the first place and ends up revising his position. This never happens in religion though, because religions believe themselves to be immune to logic, objectivity and experimentation. There's no evidence, you just have to believe it. Or else. When was the last time you heard a church say something like "Our previous statement x was controversial, and after considering all the arguments of our opponents, and scrutinizing the available evidence, it seems that Islam was right all along about this." Scientists make such concessions all the time. But religions cannot, for the simple reason that they don't have any evidence to scrutinize. When they do look at the evidence all they see is a conspicuous absence of anything suggesting the supernatural even exists, much less that it works according to the model proposed by their particular faith. In those rare cases where a religion does make a concession like that, it takes a really long time. For instance, it took the Roman Catholic Church 359 years to concede in 1992 that Galileo was right after all about the Earth not being at the center of the universe.

On the surface it seems like peacelovers have a simple task ahead of them: teach people to use critical thinking, to base their beliefs upon evidence and to not blindly accept things which don't have any observable evidence going for them. But everybody knows it isn't really that simple. In some countries you can still be killed for saying something like that. And there are lots of people who claim they really do have proof â?? Creationists and the like. It's really faulty "proof", but they're not scientifically literate enough to realize their errors and ultimately it's clear that their "science" is really based on faith. They will not make any falsifiable scientific theories because their "scientific" theories are so entwined with their religious worldview that they would see falsification of the "science" as falsification of the religion, which as I've explained is something that is simply inconceivable for most religious people. Even those who don't claim to have proof seem almost impenetrable by logic: they think that it's okay to have "faith" in an idea if it's comforting enough, even if there isn't anything to show that it's true.

Religious faith is extremely durable. There is no doubt that the vast majority of people alive who are religious will die that way. If we are going to get anywhere in promoting critical thinking, we need to start with the children. Let's teach critical thinking to our children while they are still young and religious indoctrination has not yet rendered the child's worldview immune to logic. Let's stop teaching them to just memorize facts and start teaching them how to do good science, how to rigorously test all new ideas, how to judge whether a theory is in accord with the available evidence, and what to do about theories which are not. Maybe the generation that grows up with that kind of education will be the generation to turn this world into a beautiful, peaceful, religion-free place, and they can spare the world the horrors of religious conflict.

---

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

Sorry Mellow, Christ swore to upheld the old laws (Old testament laws.....) those are some pretty bad mean laws too ;). I guess Jesus wasnt a true christian though (by your definition) :). This is all of course if you believe the bible (which is the only evidence for Christ in the first place despite dogmatic fundies claims that there is archeological proof, funny how no one can ever find this archeologist or the evidence he supposedly found :). Not saying he didnt exist just saying theres no evidence). (The claim of Roman writings(factual ones not fables ie: ledgers, court documents) about him can't be found in any museum go ahead email em ;) they do respond). Or if your near my location(southern ontario) go to the ROM :)(one of my fave places in the world...yes im a dork) and ask one in person ask many in person!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Sorry Mellow, Christ swore to upheld the old laws (Old testament laws.....)

---

I don't actually remember that in the new testament anywhere. Actually quite the opposite. But where in the new testament do you think JC said that?

And yeah, honestly I think the scientific community will have to concede that there's strong evidence that there was some guy calling himself Jesus working as a spiritual teacher sometime in the 35CE period. Nothing about his divinity, but just existence.
Just because you're choosing to rep science doesn't mean you can make it just stop working for people of other beliefs. Science will give you the truth only if you're willing to start from a place of no pre-existing beliefs (which I personally don't even think is possible). But don't try and use it just as a way to doubt away other structures. Do some research of your own...

Um poly check the next thread for the cites ;). Also Discovery recently even did a special , Jesus was in fact one of the most popular names in the Jewish Caste back in those days its like saying "John Smith", so unless he's(whoever is presenting said evidence) referring to a specific preacher that started a religion (when it was actually Paul who started the religion after Jesus's death according to scripture of course). Sorry theres still no evidence of that, im willing TO believe if it did come up. But as of yet theres none, sorry. Least thats what every archeologist ive ever communicated with has said (and its the general consensus apparently according to the majority of museums) So im inclined to take their word for it (even over my own ;) ). Not saying it's not possible nor would I necessarily disbelieve it were I to be told but I would ask for evidence yes.

I did do my research......always have always will.......Email the ROM if you dont believe me or any local NON religion based museum (ie: archeologists not theologians).

Sorry if I peeved ya off, but the scientific community hasnt conceded anything yet in that regard (despite your claim they will have to). Once again I do, do my research....It's fairly simple all museum's and universities have mailing lists (including email) and 99% of professors or archeologists not in the field will respond by the end of the week.....(id agree with your "no pre existing beliefs" as any scientists goes into a hypothesis testing hoping he's right, however mostly he's wrong thats how it progresses).

So I think i'll keep "trying" to stick to the facts :). (especially when it throws doubt on any structures , whether there mine or someone elses :) ). I have no problem admitting im wrong if someone can prove it.

Music? Um, why don't you just provide your own cites? I'm just saying, I've leafed through the book and never saw that. I'd hate to end up arguing with the discovery channel though.
If you want to raise the skeptical problem for Jesus, I suppose you can. I just think it would be kinda stupid. Onesided so to speak.
Or do you also doubt that some guy named Socrates (or was it really just Plato?) was kicking it in Greece around 400BCE?
It sounds like you want to deny history to some extent. Understand, I'm not saying there was a "Christ", but there must have been some source of the Q documents, right? (Did the discovery channel cover that?)

You're of course entitled to whatever beliefs you wish to have. Its just when I read your posts I sympathize with how I can only imagine a smart but devout christian feels when he reads a post by some fundamentalist redneck about how god hates queers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mellow Man

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

---

That's one of the rationalizations that Christians like to give. "Oh, those murderers aren't real Christians". But what makes one a real Christian? I can't just say "Oh, Stalin wasn't a real atheist" just because I don't agree with what he did. Stalin was an atheist, and so am I. I don't have any problem with that. But don't pretend that "real Christians" can't kill or or use violence, especially since that's how Christianity got spread so far and wide in the first place.

It's not hard to find horrendous cruelties and monstrocities in the Bible. We see God ordering his chosen people to commit genocide (1 Samuel 15:2-3), God killing almost every living thing on Earth because some humans irritated him (Noah's Flood), God killing innocent children for the crimes of their parents (the Egyptian plagues), etc. Whether or not Jesus personally approved of killing and violence doesn't really matter. It's what people make of the religion that matters.

Of course I can tie Christianity to such things as the atrocities of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Crusades on violence. In their times, almost all Christians supported these actions. It doesn't matter whether or not they had the same interpretation as you about Jesus's stance on violence; that's what Christianity was at the time. These people had a set of beliefs about Christ and the supernatural which they called Christianity, and not having a better word for it, that's what I call it. If they weren't Christians, what were they? Certainly they believed strongly in the divinity of Christ, or else they wouldn't have killed in the name of that belief.

Being Christian doesn't mean you do everything in accordance with every principle set out by Jesus Christ. Otherwise, you're not being a "true Christian" because you're holding a conversation with non-believers. Remember what Jesus said about avoiding people with different religious views in Romans 16:17-18:

Quote:

---

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

---

Regardless of whether you call violent Christians "real Christians" or not, we need some way to explain all the violence and murder done in the name of Christianity. The people who call themselves Christians have historically not been a peace-loving bunch. They have a warlike doctrine and I was just trying to explain how that came to be, and what can be done about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

so, if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like your problem is much less with religion and more with the closeminded tendency to make realworld truthclaims out of religious "knowledge". As was already discussed, buddhism and taoism are much more philosophical in outlook, or at least, neither claims to truth in such a way that renders other religious views false.

Is the problem religion then? of the fundamentalist outlook?

---

more like a philosophical version of science.

we want to look at the world with the same volume of logic as a scientist, yet without proving anything, or having anything available to prove anything.

completely mental exerscise, whereas science is a different form of exerscise which relies on physical sources.

oh why, i ask you, must the greatness of the creater of the universe be proven (or disproven) by the contents of the universe it created?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

so, if I'm hearing this correctly, it sounds like your problem is much less with religion and more with the closeminded tendency to make realworld truthclaims out of religious "knowledge". As was already discussed, buddhism and taoism are much more philosophical in outlook, or at least, neither claims to truth in such a way that renders other religious views false.

Is the problem religion then? of the fundamentalist outlook?

---

I think this kind of outlook is inevitable in those belief systems which are more "religious" than "philosophical", that is, they make claims which cannot be verified or falsified by observation and logic. Whether you accept the entire Bible as literally true, or just believe vaguely in God and the divinity of Jesus and such, you're going to need such an outlook. You're going to have to make claims that you just can't prove to disbelievers. But Buddhism and Taoism don't make any wild claims about invisible creatures like gods and souls, so they don't have anything which needs to be taken on faith.

If you want to find out why something is about the Buddhist or Taoist worldviews, there's usually a logical answer to be found, and if you don't agree with something that's okay. There is no such concept as "heresy", because there is nothing to be heretical about. In Taoism, the Tao is just a metaphor for how the universe works, it isn't a real entity that you have to believe is "out there" somewhere, ready to intervene in our world if you ask it real nice. Taoism doesn't pretend to have all the answers on how the universe works. It's just a way of trying to find out. When the Taoist disagrees with someone, he tries to talk it out, because it usually can be talked out if you're not discussing invisible worlds full of invisible creatures that we can't detect.

But in Northern Ireland, they can't just "talk out" whether or not the Pope is God's spokesman. There is just no real logical way to settle that argument with words since it deals with things which can't be measured or observed, which is why they resort to violence to solve their dispute. The "pro-life" extremist can't just prove to the abortion-performing doctor that God considers fetuses sacred, so he resorts to bullets to deal with the problem. The Chechen independence movement can't prove to the Russian government that Allah wants Chechnya to be a separate country, so they resort to terrorism to get their point across. This is just what happens when people make up gods which they deeply believe in but for which there just isn't the slightest bit of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mellow Man

True Christian would have no part in any evil thing! period ,can't blame hate,ethic cleansing,violence,muslim v.s. Christian,the crusades,or the RC church killing millions,,,,these things can not be accounted for being affilated with Christians simply because Christ himself would deny you if you were envovled in any of these things.......Atrue christian would be like Christ!.....so it is not fare to tag christianity as being that way.....Christ drew up a completely different concept for us,........

---

are you sure christ would deny violent people? i mean in the new testament it seems likes hes haveing a good old time thinking about all those 'sinners' who are gonna 'burn in hell fire' -
a man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
fuck man, you have to admitt thats one cruel ass mother fucker, its sounds as if he's about to get off at just the thought of people having to burn forever.

thank 'god' your god-child myth is just that, a myth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

are you sure christ would deny violent people? i mean in the new testament it seems likes hes haveing a good old time thinking about all those 'sinners' who are gonna 'burn in hell fire' -
a man in Luke 16:24 cries: ". . .I am tormented in this FLAME."
In Matthew 13:42, Jesus says: "And shall cast them into a FURNACE OF FIRE: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
In Matthew 25:41, Jesus says: "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting FIRE,. . ."
Revelation 20:15 says, " And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the LAKE OF FIRE."
fuck man, you have to admitt thats one cruel ass mother fucker, its sounds as if he's about to get off at just the thought of people having to burn forever.

thank 'god' your god-child myth is just that, a myth.

---

You might also want to mention the following quotes from Jesus:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51)

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You might also want to mention the following quotes from Jesus:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law." (Luke 12:51)

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

---

it seems to me like the only people who read the whole bible are athiests (or a christian w/ no reading comprehension skills). the entire thing is just smut man, not even the good kinda smut but the cheap ass 40 year old herpe infested heroin junkie kinda smut.
israelites are killing for land, gods killing people for sport.
any christian who read leviticus or deturanomy knows that the punishment for practically any disobedience to the law is death.

Howdy Oneironaut,

You therorize:"So what do two people of differing religions do when they meet each other? Say, for example, a Christian happens upon a Muslim. They discuss their differing belief systems, and realize they have quite a dilemma on their hands: they both have gods who claim that disbelievers in the One True Religion will be severely punished in the afterlife. And yet these are two very different gods with different rules about human affairs, different stories about how the universe works, different demands for its believers. So they can't both be right. They might try to argue the points for a while, with such arguments as "Allah makes me feel tingly when I pray" and "my cousin Joe swears he saw an image of the Virgin Mary in a grilled cheese sandwhich", but soon they will realize that they're in an even bigger dilemma than they started out in â?? it looks like neither of them is right, or at least that neither God is willing to come out and offer proof of his existence. They just can't seem to dig up any arguments that will make everybody believe in whichever God they grew up believing in.

So they result to the only thing which can possibly resolve such a dispute: violence. "


The koran demands that it's followers slay all infidels,non-muslims and non-believers,to decieve them and wait for the moment to slash their throat,whereas,a Christian is expected to turn the other cheek and to overcome Evil with Good..not react with violence or deception.

When I lived and worked in Saudi,one of the biggest no-no's,was to mention God or Christ on the street or anything to do with Christianity. We couldn't say Grace before we ate in public..we were hated every moment for being Christians and there was no peaceful intentions in any muslim that we met there.

The defense of the Free World,is a just war..that over 98% of all conflicts in the world,are because of muslim jihadism,is not coincidental. The koran demands that the world be converted to a state of Darfur..an islamic caliphate.

What say you ?

Have a good one ....

I don't disagree with you at all that Islam is a very dangerous and violent ideology, but trying to replace it with Christianity is only going to make things worse. All religions that make dogmas of unprovable claims about the universe are the problem. Islam is a particularly militant and intolerant strain of faith, but all faith needs to be extinguished and replaced with the light of reason and logic. As long as people pretend their unproven guesses about how the universe works are absolute fact, there will be religious conflict. We need to abandon religion and embrace science. It's the only hope our species has if it wants to survive in a technological age.

Howdy Torog,

i dont recall seeing you post in the spirituality boards much, but it sure is nice to see a new face every once and a while! :D i hope you feel at home! :D

Have a good one...
:D



sounds to me like muslamic is a faith in a diety, whose power relys on the efforts of believers.


almost like another form of satanism, but i know that to be mostly false, though in appearance they are a petty and single minded religion, they are deeper than the skin shows, the same goes for all religions truly, it is only that the majority of followers are deulded and conditioned to believe and interpret the religion(s) improperly :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

it seems to me like the only people who read the whole bible are athiests (or a christian w/ no reading comprehension skills). the entire thing is just smut man, not even the good kinda smut but the cheap ass 40 year old herpe infested heroin junkie kinda smut.
israelites are killing for land, gods killing people for sport.
any christian who read leviticus or deturanomy knows that the punishment for practically any disobedience to the law is death.

---

Yeah true, according to the Bible if your children are disobedient, you have to stone them to death. Some "good book" that is.

Exodus 21:15 and 21:17

Quote:

---

And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death.

And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

---

Leviticus 20:9

Quote:

---

For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

---

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Quote:

---

If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

---

Even Jesus agrees with this, when he says this in Matthew 15:4

Quote:

---

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

---

So, if you want to be "true Christians", Torog and Mellow Man, you ought to start by stoning to death your children next time they disobey you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juggalo420

it seems to me like the only people who read the whole bible are athiests (or a christian w/ no reading comprehension skills). the entire thing is just smut man, not even the good kinda smut but the cheap ass 40 year old herpe infested heroin junkie kinda smut.
israelites are killing for land, gods killing people for sport.
any christian who read leviticus or deturanomy knows that the punishment for practically any disobedience to the law is death.

---

But then again, the Bible is really just the history of the people of Isreal, as written by themselves. The New Testament is, in effect, just an appendix. It's just a place where that particular people wrote down and gathered their laws, their customs, and their justification for waging war on other peoples. In other words, it's like revering and basing a religion on a bad history book.

Because in the end, that's what it all boils down to. God is nothing more than an attempt at rationalizing a people's actions... "God told us to do it, he said it was OK, God commanded me to kill all the women and children of those filthy Canaanites." It's an argument that's been used for 3,000 years, and it's still used today (e.g. Bush). And I don't care how condescending this sounds, but religious people are truly childlike. You need to be childlike to believe in these stories, because if you're an adult and you act like a responsible, intelligent, reasonable and inquisitive adult, it's INEVITABLE that you will discover the core of religion: BULLSHIT.

I stand firm in my belief that religion has contributed NOTHING good and meaningful to society except for fear, misery and death. It makes people accept misery during their lives with the promise of a better life after death (but of course, if you kill yourself, it doesn't count...). Religion has brought nothing but strife, division and conflict wherever it rears its ugly head; the Middle East (Arabs and Jews are both semitic peoples, their languages are very similar, they are essentially one people that split up years ago), Northern Ireland, the wars of religion that ravaged Europe about 400 years ago, the Pakistan-India conflict... These and many more are nothing but people being blinded by their "faith" (is there an uglier word?) to do actions of unspeakable horror.

Forget the after-life, concentrate on your present life! After you die, you won't feel anything. If you want to believe there's a place where spirits go, fine, but like I said, that's amazingly childlike. But don't sacrifice your present life for the benefit of something which nobody knows anything about. It's stupid. There is no judge, there is no hell, YOU ARE YOUR OWN JUDGE.

Sorry for the long post, but thoughts are occurring to me as I write. It seems to me that religion, apart from everything said above, also serves another purpose: It releases individuals from any kind of responsibility. It makes people think that they are not in control of their lives, some "higher power" is. Again, it comes back to the question of the childishness of religon. Only children shy away from responsibility. A rational, intelligent, inquisitive adult takes responsibility, he takes control of his actions and of their consequences. He is not worried about an afterlife, because that's just what it is: after-life. He knows that his "now-life" is the most important thing. Religion is the will to nothingness, it is the lack of any sort of responsibility. It tells you to sit back, be a good person, and God will take care of everything for you.

Well, I guess I ran out of steam, so... yeah.

I provided my cites in the previous post about what you were questioning me on(its not music obviously as the cites arent there if you'de checked the two other top threads meh , you might have found it. Sorry if that was too much work to click or look up my recent posts. Next time ill double post and provide cites in both threads ok? Yes it was quite broad in reaching (it was a 2 hour program its hard to go on about Jesus in the "factual" sense for 2 hours without much evidence (ie: in reality one passing statement that ONE man named Jesus pissed off ONE unknown roman senator who then had him pass judgement on him. If I was looking for a pastor named "John Smith". It would be fairly even in my hometown's phonebook to find one (population 100,000) the likelihood is high , very high. (like I wish I was now har har). I'm not saying that there was NO Jesus ever , just that current evidence suggests the biblical jesus is a farce. There were over 600 sects of what we call christianity today (of course they couldnt call it that back then as christ was supposedly still alive) it's the whole grey issue. I could claim anything about anyone with a common name for example (look at alexander the great so many people claim he did this and did that (not archeologists) and by proxy no I dont necessarily believe them either (not the archeologists but the claimants of alexander).

Plato and Socrates have secular writings about them and continued a long line of teachers. Who were consistent. The apostles disagree constantly (thats my problem) someone claiming fact when theres "Barely" a shred of evidence. I will admit the possibility but I'm not going to believe it till at least one more "shred" comes up or at least another shred corroborates it. I certainly wouldnt convict a man cuz I "thought" he was the guy (but no other evidence).

Also sorry I forget threads move but all 4 are packed together. I didnt realize reading my arguements (that are exactly the same as the one in here was too difficult).

Nice attempt on the cheap shot basically calling me a "fundamentalist atheist" it would be more accurate to say im an "asshole atheist" ;), as there is no "atheist doctrine" ;). I am an asshole about it , and ill fully admit it. The entire christian religion claims by its existence that I and 90% of the population will end up in hell...(completely illogical) that gay are unnatural (despite it being completely natural) and when you contradict science with postulations not backed by any facts I feel the need to respond. I'm sorry im not a bleeding heart type that cares about someone who has no idea about even his own religion but then tells other people about it....Shit I like mellow but the christ proselytizing meh , I call people on it. Just as you attempted to call me on my "spew" (and I do appreciate it if you can prove me wrong ill be the first to admit it on any subject).

Once again I've done more than just leaf through the book (all 14 versions) I used to be a christian as a child (forced indoctrination). I'm not denying history to any extent. But feel free to throw a few more veiled insults around with a false analogy I'll be happy to respond :).

(for reference some claim the Q documents claim jesus was a buddhist as well as other crazy and unconfirmable claims...I dont see the correlation nor how that would prove a religious teacher named Jesus existed at this exact time you say (and the bible says) but I will concede perhaps one of the over 600 sects had a "jon smith" that was written about so technically I will retract my statement that there's no proof for any Jesus I'll definitely concede that). However I seriously doubt any christian is talking about "jesus the guy who was just a man who taught a certain small sect of jewish folk something during the roman empire".)

I also forgot the q documents are not considered "historical facts" by the community (archeologists , anthropologists , etc. In fact Kloppenborg is neither the first to try and find stratification in said documents nor the first to be disavowed and shot down by others like the rest of the community.) you can insert where it says kloppenborg any of the following names as well that have been discredited (Siegfried Schultz,Arland Jacobson,Dieter Luhrmann the list goes on) When in fact even these people (several in original german) didnt even claim it proved anything to anyone just that it might be a WAY of finding a neutral time line for such previous claims. Not even the claim itself. So no I dont put much weight behind them but I'm still willing to admit "jesus" existed , but just some guy named jesus (not even necessarily a teacher). It would be akin to me denying that "john smith" lives in the town im currently in (any Jon smith).....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Polymirize

I don't actually remember that in the new testament anywhere. Actually quite the opposite. But where in the new testament do you think JC said that?

And yeah, honestly I think the scientific community will have to concede that there's strong evidence that there was some guy calling himself Jesus working as a spiritual teacher sometime in the 35CE period. Nothing about his divinity, but just existence.
Just because you're choosing to rep science doesn't mean you can make it just stop working for people of other beliefs. Science will give you the truth only if you're willing to start from a place of no pre-existing beliefs (which I personally don't even think is possible). But don't try and use it just as a way to doubt away other structures. Do some research of your own...

---

Your correct my friend! Jesus was the opposite of alot of the old testement teachings! thats why Jesus said I give unto you a new gospel!......Jesus came to make the law truth not back up the old Law!...............Moses says eye for an EYE jesus says you shall bring no harm to any man?????? I could go on forever with this stuff......................Weirdo is one of those people who hang out in atheist boards all the time lookingh for good stuff to arm himself with lol.....but yet has not even grasp the Bible or Christ!.......he didn't even understand the parable,metaphor about the tree that didn't bare fruit!....so that tells me alot there.............peace...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weirdo79

Um poly check the next thread for the cites ;). Also Discovery recently even did a special , Jesus was in fact one of the most popular names in the Jewish Caste back in those days its like saying "John Smith", so unless he's(whoever is presenting said evidence) referring to a specific preacher that started a religion (when it was actually Paul who started the religion after Jesus's death according to scripture of course). Sorry theres still no evidence of that, im willing TO believe if it did come up. But as of yet theres none, sorry. Least thats what every archeologist ive ever communicated with has said (and its the general consensus apparently according to the majority of museums) So im inclined to take their word for it (even over my own ;) ). Not saying it's not possible nor would I necessarily disbelieve it were I to be told but I would ask for evidence yes.

I did do my research......always have always will.......Email the ROM if you dont believe me or any local NON religion based museum (ie: archeologists not theologians).

Sorry if I peeved ya off, but the scientific community hasnt conceded anything yet in that regard (despite your claim they will have to). Once again I do, do my research....It's fairly simple all museum's and universities have mailing lists (including email) and 99% of professors or archeologists not in the field will respond by the end of the week.....(id agree with your "no pre existing beliefs" as any scientists goes into a hypothesis testing hoping he's right, however mostly he's wrong thats how it progresses).

So I think i'll keep "trying" to stick to the facts :). (especially when it throws doubt on any structures , whether there mine or someone elses :) ). I have no problem admitting im wrong if someone can prove it.

---

Paul never started the christian faith???? where you get that too? he taught unto gentiles and others,as well did peter,and ther rest of the apostales...paul played a bigger role then most of the select! but was only serving his master who was Christ.......Therefore paul pushed for Christ not paul! therfore it was Christ who put fourth paul on the road of teaching the truth!...........................but lets not forget about all the saints over the 2000 years that also picked up the truth and headed out with the gospel! unto the world! ...........even if paul was here today he would probably tell you how wrong you are!...........