BULLSEYE.



Yes, I've taken a LOT of history. And if YOU understood history beyond the glossy surface, you would understand that religion is...just read what I quoted from MissMelsWell.



Wrong. Over power and resources.



wrong, over resources and controll of trade routes.



Wrong, over equal rights and land controll.



Power.



Power



that's a tactic to get good men to kill for something that they don't benefit directly from...namely wealth and power.

No war has ever been fought simply because people disagreed on religion. There is ALWAYS another motive, a resource. Historically, and in the present day, when there is no resource in contention, different religions get along just fine.

I agree wholeheartedly Neo.

Religion is just a veneer that warmongers use to hide their greed. Its hard to argue that the Crusades were over anything other then greed. The amount of people who went to make their fortunes is staggering, and the fact that the pope said it was their religious responsibility just helped to patch their conscience

..........i dont know what to say sir............his skull, its so thick...and Dense, you cant get anything through to it!
nothing you tell him will go through! he wont believe any of it, even if its true!!!
sir, i dont understand it....its like nothing ive ever seen. he just doesnt wanna beleive it!!!! what do i Do!??!!??
i honestly cant believe youre still denying this. you dont understand how many people (much smarter and more eductaed on the subject) would diagree with you as well.
i never argued about some having other motives, just the fact that Religion was there, and in SOME cases, the cause.

Resources is usually what it's all about. War is armed robbery writ large; you have, I want, I take. Religion is more often the excuse than the cause. Joshua fought for a homeland for the Jews. It was about resources, but because the Jews worshipped different gods, it was about gods, too.
Doug

No Religion was not the Cause, Religion was the Excuse.

The fact is that when a pope says to go to war it is invariably over the riches that said war will bring the church, and thus the pope.

Greed is the key factor behind wars, The Greed of the USA in Iraq, The Greed of the English and the Spanish in there many colonial Wars. The greed of the Church in the Crusades.

When it gets right down to it greed is the main cause. Other reasons may include getting out from under oppression and such but for the most part religion plays little part as the cause. I'm an Aethiest and I doubt a Theist is going to attack me simply for that, but they might go me for my Corvette

You can't get through the "god box" don't you know ?

Here's a good response >linking the two> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASqJAT1W3r0...feature=related

something that's REALLY bothered me is how we're almost trained to utter the phrase "oh my god" when something bad/surprising happens.

when i catch myself say it i get so angered.

a little off the immediate topic.

Ok, where are they? Citations?



Not of a war. No war was ever fought over a religious difference. Wars are fought over resources, be they land, power, water, money, natural resources, etc. Religion is just an identifying and motivating factor.



Yes, you have it right.



Merely an identifying and seperating factor.

If we're talking about the bible, though, I can't rebutt a point based on biblical passages.



Yup. And, to be accurate, the Pope really didn't have the power to pull all of christndom into war. It was usually the other way around...the pope offering a favor or support to a monarch if they would go to war, or a monarch seeking the pope's endorsement for his war in order to get his human chattle and vassals to go along with him. In this way, religion has done a great disservice to mankind. How many wars would not have been fought in the middle ages if the pope stood up and said that it was against God's will?



Right. But a theist who needs a friend to help jack your ride might say to his friend "look a that filthy Athiest! Spreading his hate of God across our neighborhood! It's in the bible that we shall not allow his kind to have nice things! It's our duty to take his corvette!"

And then people would say that the ATlantisRises war was about religion. But it wasn't. It was about getting his corvette.

That's very much against the rules to most Christians, so it's not Christianity's doing. You can stop getting mad at yourself.

Don't allow yourself to be blinded Agent... Neo is right on this one. No historian will tell you wars were started based solely on religion. I can't think of a single one. Now, wars were supported by the religious and God and religion were used as a rally point to whip people up into a fervor over the real reasons.

North/south Ireland wasn't a battle between protestants and catholics, it was a war between nationalists and unionists. There were citizens who wanted to distinctly remain Irish, separate from Great Brittian who are "Nationalists" and they also happen to be largely Catholic. The Unionists want to be considered "British" HOWEVER, There are Catholics who are Unionists, and Protestants who are Nationalists. It was a war about politics and nationality not religion... although religion was a nice little rally point for BOTH sides.

Was religion the primary reason for the "Troubles?" Certainly not. No historian would say it was. Did it play a "part"? Yes, absolutely.

Most wars can be seen this way, once you peel away all the propaganda and find out what people are REALLY fighting against and for. it always comes down to resources, be they governmental, national, natural, whatever... resources.

Exactly. No nation is going to risk it's own resources over religion. And in places where there is no resource competition, religions live in harmony.

But you can always say that the conflict is because of power, influence, or whatever, even if the only reason is religion.

???

No I can't.

You can't find any major conflict that had religion as a the main reason. Yet, it is used in almost every one as a rallying point and a point of rationalization. I don't blame religion itself for this, I blame stupid people who buy into it.

Well if there is a conflict between two neighboring religions and there are no resources to fight over, you can always invent them - land, power, influence or whatever was the cause of the conflict, not religion.

What's the difference? It is the religion which is used.

and if you think back to the middle ages and the crusades, think back to what life was like back then...

1. a largely illiterate population. (this is STILL a problem in many Muslim countries).

Ok, now think back to oh, Richard the I, Phillip the II and Henry II all powerful kings, who wanted control of trade routes and resources in the middle east. None of them were utterly devout Christians (although history makes them out to be that)... For pete sake, John, Richards brother, got in so much trouble with the Holy Roman emporors that England got put under excommunication a few times during his reign. However, the populous of their kingdoms were largely simple humble christians.

How do you get a bunch of illiterate people, with no real communications in place, to come fight for something they don't particularly understand? DUH, you tell them the one thing they WILL understand whether it's true or not. "It's God's Will"

I can pretty much assure you that Richard, Phillip and Henry weren't very devout Christians... but they were smart. Use your illiterate population to fight fiercely for the wrong reasons (God)... mostly because they'd NEVER fight if they understood the real reasons which they didn't.

I don't have to, as there are always resources at the root of every major conflict.

There has never been a conflict between two neighboring religions without a competition for resources.



MelsWell, today, even when most of us can read, it still happens. And is happening now.

Oh, I don't deny that... I was speaking historically mostly and demonstrating how Richard and his partners in crime were able to pull off what they did and why.

We still see this happening in the middle east today. A huge illiterate population who are being told what is true by people with alterior motives, and they have no ability to find it out for themselves.

Once you educate a population to think for themselves, you tend to see a lot of secularism take the place of violent fundementalism.

Oh my God!

'Michelle' date='Dec 18 2007, 02:13 PM' post='2046384'] "That's very much against the rules to most Christians, so it's not Christianity's doing. You can stop getting mad at yourself."

Well, either it's asking for help [Christian and other theists] or taking the name of God in vain [ a nono for theists ]
As a habit ... so it's a habit

'MissMelsWell' " Oh, I don't deny that... I was speaking historically mostly and demonstrating how Richard and his partners in crime were able to pull off what they did and why. We still see this happening in the middle east today. A huge illiterate population who are being told what is true by people with alterior motives, and they have no ability to find it out for themselves. Once you educate a population to think for themselves, you tend to see a lot of secularism take the place of violent fundementalism.'

Agree with most of your posts' content. But, I think it was the Italians who were more savvy about trade then, rather than the three kings.

The Battle of Lepanto stopped further Muslim incursions into Europe at that time. And then came the colonial expansions east and west of Europe.

Muslims had been invading Christian lands and the people were offered the sword or conversion since 711 when Muslim invaders conquered most of Iberia. This is hardly 60 years after the the death of the Prophet of the Religion of Peace, and no possible excuse of self defence could be advanced for these invasions. Attacks on the Byzantine Empire went on for a long time by the Muslim Turks. The Byzantine Christians asked for help from Christians in Europe, and it was clear that if Constantinople fell then all of Europe would be vulnerable.

If Muslim control of many strategic seaports could be weakened, then Venice and Genoa, had a chance to the lucrative sea trade in spices, silks and other valuable eastern goods. Later of course, Portugal lead the way and Spain also joined the exploration for sea routes, followed by Holland and England.

Fear of loss of land and other resources for sure. And profit motive from an expansion of trade. But also protection from forced conversion, protection for Christian pilgrims in lands where Muslims were in control.

Side notes: as soon as they were free of Muslim rule the Portuguese declared pork their national meat; with the seas open to exploration rapidly came exploration and trade and the opening up of the rest of the world. Great good and great ill accompanied all this.

I'm an Atheist and proud of it

'MissMelsWell' "Oh, I don't deny that... I was speaking historically mostly and demonstrating how Richard and his partners in crime were able to pull off what they did and why. We still see this happening in the middle east today. A huge illiterate population who are being told what is true by people with alterior motives, and they have no ability to find it out for themselves. Once you educate a population to think for themselves, you tend to see a lot of secularism take the place of violent fundementalism."

Hello Ms MW

Agreed with most of your analysis, but not sure whether the three kings were as savvy as the Italians about trade. Certainly many of the illiterate populations, were moved by the God call.


The Battle of Lepanto stopped further Muslim incursions into Europe at that time. And then came the colonial expansions east and west of Europe.

Muslims had been invading Christian lands and the people were offered the sword or conversion since 711 when Muslim invaders conquered most of Iberia. This is hardly 60 years after the the death of the Prophet of the Religion of Peace, and no possible excuse of self defence could be advanced for these invasions. Attacks on the Byzantine Empire went on for a long time by the Muslim Turks. The Byzantine Christians asked for help from Christians in Europe, and it was clear that if Constantinople fell then all of Europe would be vulnerable.

If Muslim control of many strategic seaports could be weakened, then Venice and Genoa, had a chance to the lucrative land trade in spices, silks and other valuable eastern goods. Later of course, Portugal led the way and Spain also joined the exploration for sea routes, followed by Holland and England.

Fear of loss of land and other resources for sure. Also profit motive from an expansion of trade. But also protection from forced conversion, protection for Christian pilgrims in lands where Muslims were in control.

Side notes: as soon as they were free of Muslim rule the Portuguese declared pork their national meat; with the seas open to exploration rapidly came exploration and trade and the opening up of the rest of the world. Great good and great ill accompanied all this.

QUOTE
Joshua fought for a homeland for the Jews. It was about resources, but because the Jews worshipped different gods, it was about gods, too.



It was the Bible that convinced me that the Hebrews were fighting for a homeland (resources) and not for their gods. If you fight for god, you need only defeat the enemy so you can convert him. If you fight to replace him in his own land, you have to kill everybody or behave in very barbaric ways so that those who aren't killed will move away, leaving their lands to you. Deuteronomy 31 is about REPLACING the Moabites, not about converting them. The Hebrews anihilated the Amalekites and the Bible brags about it. In this respect, the Hebrews were behaving in exactly the same manner as did the Nazis 3000 years later. What goes around, comes around.

I don't think you need to rebutt the Bible. It says the same things you're saying.
Doug

I agree 100%



I have posted this list in the past

MASS KILLINGS AND CRUELTIES ORDERED, COMMITTED, AND APPROVED BY GOD.

The entire population of the earth at the time of Noah, except for eight survivors, in a flood. "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Gen 7:23 [Jehovah, the first mass-murderer, starts His bloody career.]

Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding plain, by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Gen 19:24 Lot and his family fled. [What about little innocent children in the city and around on the surrounding plain.]

All the first born of every family in Egypt, including children of those in dungeons and the successor to the throne of Egypt's Pharaoh, by God on the first Passover night. Ex 12:29 [Of those that are in prison and the first born of the cattle??????]

All the hosts of Pharaoh, including the captains of 600 chariots, who drown in the Red Sea whilebpursuing the Israelites. "... and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea." Ex 14:27-28
[The Christian God is so childish He has to murder instead of using His brain. He could have made them too sick to walk.]

Victims who perish in the conquest of seven nations in Canaan by the Jews under Gods guidance so that the Jews can occupy their lands as God had promised Abraham in Deut 7:1,2. The Hittites, Girgash**es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites were all destroyed, every man, woman and child and mercy was shown to none. [Would have made Hitler and Custer feel good.]

Amalek and his people, by the edge of the sword, because God wants to fight with Amalek from generation to generation (maybe just for fun). The Israelites win if Aaron helps Moses to hold up his hands. [At times of crisis, God gets whimsical. People are dying everywhere and God wants to see Moses's palms.] Ex 17:11,16

3,000 Israelites die at the hands of their brothers, the Levites, every man, their brothers and their companions. Ex. 32:27 [These were the orders of God who would brook no disloyalty, a self styled "jealous" God.]

Rulers of Israel, eleven in number after spying for forty days that wouldn't invade the Promised Land are killed by a plague. Num. 14:37 [The first term limitation?]

250 Levite princes of the Jews who challenged the leadership of Moses. When Moses points out the injustice of killing the whole congregation God relents briefly, then swallows up two of the princes, "their wives, sons and little children", then sent a fire to consume the remaining princes. Num. 16:1-40 [The Christian God lies too.]

14,700 people die by plague who protest to Moses about the prior killing of the 250 princes. Aaron makes an atonement to stop the plague. Num 16:41-49 [The Christian God seems bent upon destroying helpless people.]

The Canaanites at Hormah, utterly destroyed, every man woman and child, by God at the request of the Jews. Num 21:3 The Amorites at Hesbon, Israel "took all these cities". Moses sums up the slaughter: "We... utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones." Num 21:25 and Deut 2:34

All the sons and subjects of Og, about whom the Lord said to Moses: "Fear him (the king of Bashan) not, for I have delivered him into thy hand." None was left alive. Num 21:34-35

24,000 Israelites who cohabitated with Moabite women and worshiped Baal. "And the Lord said to Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun..." Num 25:4,9 [Definitely a civil rights violation.]

All the males and the kings of the Middianites, because they worshiped idols, and all their wives and male children were sold into slavery. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, vex the Midianites, and smite them." Num 25:16-17 and Num 31:7-8

The subjects of two kingdoms on the east side of the Jordan, in order that Reuben and Gad might seize the land for their own as a gift from God. Num 32

The Ammonites, decimated by the Lord so that Lot might possess their land. Deut 2:19-21

The Horims, slain by God in order that Esau might take their land. Deut 2:22

All the citizens of Jericho, except for a whore and her family. "And they utterly destroyed all in the city, man and woman, young and old, and ox... with the edge of the sword." Josh 6 "They" make a grisly game of it , using the superstitious number 7 popular in the Bible. [Joshua competes with Moses, the leader he replaced, for the title of Gods number 1 hit man as he follows Gods orders.]

12,000 men, women and children die in a treacherous ambush conceived and directed by God. Joshua, with the usual mindless hocus-pocus, holds out his spear until all the inhabitants are dead. The city was then burned. Afterwards Joshua builds an altar and offers thanks to God. Josh 8:1-30 [A political monster worships a Murderous Monster of a Deity.]

All the people of Makkedah, and their king hanged, by Joshua. Joshua 10:28

All the people of Libnah. Not a soul remained. Joshua 10:29-30 [Joshua and God were agreed upon the finality of capital punishment.]

All the people of Gezer, with none remaining, are killed. Josh 10:33

All the people of Eglon, none remaining, are killed. Joshua 10:34-35

All the people of Hebron, "All the cities and souls that were in them". Joshua 10:36-37

All the inhabitants of the country of the hills, and the south of the vale, and the springs and their kings, he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40 [Joshua simply kills everyone else.]

The inhabitants of Gaza, Askerlon, and Ekron, killed by Judah and Caleb. Judges 1:18-19

10,000 Moabites, killed by the Israelites. Judges 3:29

10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites die at the hand of Judah and Simeon. Judges 1:4 [Isn't it nice how the body counts always come out as nice round numbers?]

120,000 Midianites die by the hands of Gideons three hundred men. Judges 8:10

50,070 people of Bethshemesh, struck dead by God because a few of them looked at/into the Ark carrying the stone tablets. 1st Samuel 6:19 [The murderous Christian God keeps the grave-diggers busy with overtime burying the innocents.]

70,000 victims (more round numbers?) die of a pestilence sent by God because David took a census.11 Sam 24:15

Although Adam and Eve have no sense of right and wrong when they eat of the Tree of Knowledge, God accuses them of sinning and tosses them out of their home. Prejudging the human race he then decrees that all shall suffer for this "sin" by returning to the dust from which Adam was made. The Christian God curses women with painful birth. Gen 3

Cain kills Abel because God is partial to altar sacrifices, preferring animals to grain. Gen 4 [The Christian God plainly doesn't like vegetarians.]

At the time of the Flood, a disaster not uncommon to the tradition of other religions, Noah, an imbiber, and his family are the only persons deemed righteous enough to be saved from drowning. All others, including pregnant women and children, are given no opportunity to survive the rising waters. Gen 7,8

Again attributing sin to innocents God fails to find even 10 persons, or embryos in any stage of gestation, saintly enough to escape the fire and brimstone (Biblical napalm).

God turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt when she looks back in horror at what is happening to her friends and neighbors. Gen 19 [Today many Christians oppose any abortion as a God forbidden murder. Where is the logical precedent here? The Omnipotent Christian God is the Abortionist to abort all abortionists.]

Abraham is certainly willing to do what ever the Lord demands of him, even when God orders him to kill his son. But all turns out Ok when an angel yells really loud to Abraham that it was just a test to see how much he loved God. Isaac is very lucky indeed. Abraham may have been near deaf at his age and the Angel was calling long distance from heaven. [Truly a miracle.] Gen 22

When Sarah gets jealous and insists, proven Abraham consigns Hagar and Ishmael to the deserts to die. Gen 21 [Does this qualify as domestic abuse or violence?]

Pharaoh orders all midwifes to strangle new born Jewish children. Of course they refused. Pharaoh then orders them to throw the babies into the river. Ex 1:18,22 [What's interesting to note here is that some Christian parents at the present time deny their children blood-curdling television and give them blood-curdling Bibles.]

Moses kills an Egyptian deliberately for beating an Israelite. Ex 2:12

He then becomes God's Lawgiver. One of his commandments straight from God is thou shalt not kill (murder). [Two wrongs don't make a right. Was Moses a murderer even before he led the Israelite rebellion??]

God tries to kill Moses, because his son by a Middianite woman is not circumcised. His wife, angered, circumcises the boy with a sharp rock and throws the foreskin at Moses's feet. God then lets Moses off the hook. Ex 4:24-26 [God has priorities, including the horrible genital mutilation of young boys.]

After first purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he will not see the Israelites free, God, through the black magic of Aarons rod, visits ten terrible plagues upon the unsuspecting Egyptians. Ex 7-11 [Even the innocent animals are victims of this truly evil black magic.]

The needless, brutal slaughter of the Passover night is the intended result of another hardening of Pharaohs heart by an egotistical maniacal God who wishes to parade his power. Ex 12:29 [Thus God continues his propensity for making the innocents suffer for the guilty which culminates in the crucifixion of His own innocent Son Jesus.]

More heart hardening by God causes Pharaoh to chase the Israelites into the Red Sea, where the soldiers die by drowning. Ex 14:28 [If God could harden pharaoh's heart he could have caused pharaoh to let them go free. Nothing to it.]

For "offering strange fire before the Lord", two sons of Aaron, priests of the tabernacle, are struck dead. Lev 10:1-2 [Not to worry, replacements are on the way.]

A blasphemer curses the name of God in the wilderness camp, and God orders him stoned to death: "And he children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses. Lev 24:23 [The rocky terrain of Palestine broods ill for miscreants and protesters. (Again God could have changed his heart and not killed him.)]

Israelites who complain, with good reason, in the desert, are burned with fire by God in the uttermost parts of the camp. Num 11:1 [Evidently the Christian God loves the smell of roasting, poaching, baking, broiling or burning human flesh?]

Seeing that the Jews are dissatisfied on their journey to the Promised Land because they have no flesh to eat as they had in Egypt, God typically loses his temper again and in a childish way sends a vast excess of quail, enough to cover the ground a days travel in each direction and they stack up to a height of more than 3 feet. As the people started to eat the fruits of their labor "God smote them with a very great plague." Num 11:31-33 [I guess it was better to be a vegetarian after all. Remember Cain?]

The Israelites are forced to wander for 40 years in the desert so that the older people would die. Num 14 [The Christian God despises old people.]

A man caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath is ordered by God to be put to death, and the wandering tribes comply. Num15:35-36 [A novel approach to the homeless problem?]

Challenge of the authority of Moses (remember him murdering people in Egypt?) by anyone always brought out the worse in God, and he buries alive the wives and children of the two princes who oppose Moses. Num 16:32-35

After striving to reach the Promised Land for forty years, Moses and Aaron are denied entry because Moses had struck a rock in anger to obtain water. Moses is allowed to look at it once though just before he dies. Num 20:11-12 and Deut 34 [The Christian God might have shown a little compassion for Moses who was probably at his wits end.]

God turns Miraim into a leper after she criticizes Moses for marring an Ethiopian woman. Such unions were contrary to Jewish custom and also disapproved of by God for everyone except Moses. Num 12:10



With the above list.....still don't have a problem?

Check this: "EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO THE ABRAHAMIC GOD'S DIVINE GLORY"

With religion itself? NOPE.

MYSELF, I don't like religion. it's not for me. But I won't tamper with the right for others to have religion.

The list you posted is largly from the bible and may not have happened at all.

Religion is a reflection of the people who create it. And the neohistoric Israelites were obviously a very violent people, as were their contemporaries.

All religions today do not still behave this way. To condemn religion en masse because of the old testament's violent undertones is not logical.

I have often said the Abrahamic God is a violent god.....born in a violent religion.....in a violent time.....by violent people.

Very true.

But people in the western world, by and large, don't practice the religion that way anymmore.

Read the bottom of the link....under "20th Century Church Atrocities"

Not everything done by a catholic can be blamed on the religion.

Hitler was a vegetarian. Is vegetarinaism responsible for the Holocaust, then?

I agree that religion is the one thing that can make a good person do unspeakable evil and think they are doing the right thing.

I would rather there were no religion because of that.

But I'll still defend people's right to have their religion as long as it doesn't hurt anyone
and not all religion hurts people
many religios people never hurt anyone
And even do great things for our society.


Communism is a athiestic instutition
Sureyly, we don't condemn athiesm
based on what happened in the gulags and purges

I don't like religion but I agree with your post.

I hate blood -sausages, and they would have never existed, if i had my way> but I don't mind people eating them as long as they aren't made of human blood

people should do great things for their society without the god coersion=it's only logical & beneficial for all,but some people.............

*********
religion has been there Numerous times, when it comes to fighting and killing. did i say it was the cause of every fight/battle or major conflict? no. has it been there? yes. has it been a factor? sometimes yes. you cant deny that. sure resourses are there too, always. just like i never said religion is the sole cause of the war in iraq. thats about oil. but then you have ************ like G.W. saying 'god told me to go over to iraq. to fight'.
see my point? suicide bombers are promissed some number of virgins in 'heaven' or w/e theyll call it. because of their religion their getting that. my point was its been there......alot. and it has caused problems (in life) whether you choose to beleive that or not. your call

It has never been
the cause of any major conflict
The cause is always struggle for resources
religion is just used as an excuse
to get people riled up
and to seperate "us" from "them"



suicide bombers bomb because they are part of a fight for resources
The virgins in heaven thing
only gets them to carry out the act and believe that they are going to be rewarded
the fight itself
is over resources, not religion
religion is just an enabling factor
if there was no struggle for resources
there would be no suicide bombers



"youre" is spelled with an apostrophe, "you're"
it's a contraction of "you are."

oh my god ahahahah, you know you've got no comeback or anything good to say when.................... ah, priceless.
you notcied how i put it in up there that time? yeah. like that? just so i didnt have to hear you whine about something, because you dont know what to say, or come back with (but it wont happen again...still cant believe you had nothing to resort to but that).
and the suicide bombers dont fight for resrouces. are you mental? theyre going to Die!!! they just get what their RELIGION promisses them in their after life. geeze man. get with it. how blind are you? really.
and wait...so now, youre say religion is a factor in this? like what i have been saying before? almost the whole time?
mulder 1, neo 0.

it appears that I wrote
14 lines in rebuttal to your post

apparently your computer
only is displaying the last two lines I wrote



They are willing do die
so that their side
can win the fight for resources
they are convinced to do this
by using religion as a motivating factor
in a fight over resources



Say whatever you need to
in order to save face

It seems a reminder is in order Here


3c. Profanity: Do not use profanity, crude, vulgar language or attempt to intentionally bypass the profanity filter.

3d. Trolling: Do not troll the forums. We define a 'troll' as someone who's purpose on the forum is to create as much disruption as possible, offend as many people as possible or otherwise disrupt the forum service intentionally for personal amusement.

3e. Flamebaiting: Do not intentionally instigate "flame wars" or bait others in to making personal attacks.

3f. Abusive behaviour: Do not be rude, insulting, offensive, snide, obnoxious or abusive towards other members.

Yes, religion can cause those with lack of common sense to do unspeakably unfair, and cruel acts in the name of a faith that they pretend to abide by correctly. However, that obviously does not make them all this way. I would like to think of myself as a spiritual person...and the main reason I have ever prefered not to be around Athiests is due to the spiteful attitude. I wouldn't try to speak for all of them, as there are many intelligent people who claim to be Athiest. However, the few that I've met always seemed spiteful, and obnoxious toward other religions and spiritual people in general. Basically, every Athiest I have had the opportunity to meet had a giant stick up their a***.

See, that's interesting. Because before this forum, every athiest I knew was mellow and had a live-and-let-live attitude.

save face? ha! ive been winning this argument with you since we started. religion has been there sooooooooooooo many times when it comes to these problems. sure, a bomber will do it to help their side, to become victorious. because their religion tells them what they will get, in the after life, if they do so. its not like 'mike, go suicide bomb them for us' 'uh...k. whats in it for me though?' 'hmm, well uh..ill get back to you later on that, once i think of something. cool?'
how can i make that any clearer to you? im stumped
you keep thinking im ruling out resources as a cause in any battle/fight. i dont know why

we are (IMO) like that still. i dont bash any religion. just believe what you want. i may ask why you do so. but i dont like to fake fun of someone for their faith or beliefs.
seeing as i believe in many "odd" things myself. i dont wanna be a hypocrite.
maybe you just do know any of the ones on here, on a personal level. i dont know neo, so i cant make any judgments on him. and i wont.

This thread seems to have gone around in circles.

I'd like to point out that the thread is about Aethiests and why people are prejudiced towards Aethiest. It is not a discussion of the reason behind wars. If you want to discuss wether religion is the cause of war or not I would suggest a new thread is in order, indeed I suspect it would be quite an interesting thread. However in the mean time please try to keep a little closer to the subject of this thread.


Thanks,

AtlantisRises

And we are led to believe that California is one of the most progressive states.

Seriously, that has been my experience...the reason I don't spend any time with them. It seems that most have a chip on their shoulder just daring you to knock it off.

EDIT: A reminder....I am one...

While some of the events described in the Bible may refer back to historical events, they have been so twisted in the re-telling that they are barely recognizable. Below are some tidbits I have dug up about the first five books of the Bible:


There actually was a very large flood about 2800 BC. Many ancient peoples preserve a memory of it in their legends and there is geologic evidence at Eridu and the marshes near the mouth of the Euphrates. Astrological/astronomical details place this flood in May of 2807 BC. Sumerian texts divide the history of Mesopotamia into "the kings before the Flood" and "the kings after the Flood." At this time the Egyptian first dynasty was nearing its end; the contemporaneous second dynasty would continue for another 200 years. Obviously, the Sumerians and Egyptians, among others, survived the Flood, meaning that Noah's Flood was NOT a world-wide event. This leaves the interpretation of the Bible with a problem: the coroboration from other, independent writers needed to establish the event as historical, would not be possible if those writers had died in a global flood. A literal interpretation would require that the event be considered myth, or at least, legendary.

Noah was innocent: God built in a flood plain.


Sodom and Gomorrah may have been Bab edh-Dhra (Sodom) and Numeira (Gomorrah). These two ruins match the description given in the Bible, but unless somebody digs up a stone with the name "Sodom" engraved on it, we will probably never be able to make a definitive connection (Gomorrah means "submerge" so we are not likely ever to find a place by that name, but it does strongly suggest the existence of another city still under the waters of the Dead Sea.). The buildings were water-proofed with bitumen (natural tar). Apparently, somebody got careless with a cooking fire...

There is a "pillar of salt" nearby - a mineral deposit created by a spring. It is called in Arabic: Lot's Wife. If you think it a miracle that Lot's wife looked back and turned into a pillar of salt, consider that it happened to me: I looked back and turned into a telephone pole. But seriously, these sites may be the source of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah.


Bietak's excavations at Tell el D'aba (The ancient Hyksos capital of Avaris.) uncovered the graves of a large number of children. Apparently, this is the source of the "slaying of the innocents" story. The Hyksos were the probable ancestors of the Jews, so the incident didn't even involve the Egyptians (whose capital was 400 miles away at Thebes). The story is about Hyksos killing other Hyksos.

A way to date the Exodus would be to find a Pharaoh whose "first-born son" died as a child. There are only three that I could find: the first son of Ramses I died as a child; his second son, Seti became Seti I. Merneptah was the 13th son of Ramses II, 12 others having died earlier. Merneptah's first son, Seti-Merneptah died as a child; his second son became Seti II. The Pharaoh Amenmesses is a potential prototype for Moses: he was Seti II's half-brother and opposed him in a civil war. Amenmesses was defeated and vanished (disappeared into the desert?); 21 years later, an unknown commander, purportedly with military exerience, took a mining expedition into Sinai where it remained for 40 years before funding was withdrawn by Ramses VI, forcing the now-unemployed miners to make exactly the trip described in Exodus.


There are at least two ways to look at the story of the Red Sea Crossing: 1. Pharaoh's army was pursuing with hostile intent. The crossing of the "Red Sea" was a night-time maneuver using a "pillar of fire" (a miltary signalling device) to deceive the Egyptians while the Israelites escaped across the shallow ford. 2. "Pharaoh's Army" was the military wing of an Egyptian mining expedition which crossed last. In either case, the army was caught in mid-channel by converging surge waves.


The Hittites were defeated by the Pelest (Philistines) about 1193 BC. Ramses III defeated the Pelest in 1187 BC and settled them in Gaza where their descendents (Palestinians) still live. If the Israelites were afraid to use the coast road because of the Philistines, that leaves a six-year window for the Exodus. If there were Hittites in Canaan 40+ years later, they would have been refugees. At the time of the conquest, the Hittites were not a military threat to anyone. God wasn't real successful at eliminating the Amorites: their descendents still live in Jordan.


The Amalekites were a real tribe. Their pottery type, known as negebite ware, is the most common one in Sinai. By following the route of the Exodus on a map and noting where in the sequence the first battle with the Amalekites was, you can identify their home as Feiran Oasis, the largest oasis in southern Sinai. Even so, it is pretty small and there wouldn't have been very many people for Israel to conquor. There is a small hill in the middle of a plain to the east of Serabit el Khadim, now covered with an open stand of junipers. The site fits the story to a tee, complete with Moses standing on the hill. But guess what? There's no archeological evidence that a battle ever took place here - not a broken sword or shield, not a lost knife - nothing. Draw your own conclusions, but it seems to me that if the battle ever happened, it happened somewhere else and maybe at a different time.

Bonus question: how was Hur (one of the two people who supported Moses' arms) related to Moses?


The story of Moses ordering the killing of 3000 Israelites almost-certainly originated with later travelers who noted a great many graves at Serabit el Khadim and invented a way to explain them. The graves are still there and belong to Egyptian miners who had been working the deposits for several hundred years at the time of the Exodus.


The second level at Tell Masos shows evidence of having been destroyed by an earthquake (The same one that swallowed Korah and the other rebel priests?). The site was rebuilt.


The exact location of Hormah is in doubt, but the best candidate seems to be Tell Mihl, eight miles east of Beersheba in Wadi Beersheba. The problem is that Arad (now an Israeli National Park and Archeological Site) wasn't occupied. Arad is a later Iron Age site. Israel could not have suffered a defeat at Arad and been driven back to Hormah until centuries after the Exodus. This incident appears to be a complete fiction, at least, as applied to the Exodus.


Moses' wife (Zipporah) was a "Midianite." At the time this story is taking place, they are deep inside MOABITE territory, over a hundred miles from Midian, camped on the Plains of Moab within sight of Jericho. The shrine at which some of the Israelites worshipped was a shrine to Baal Peor, located on Mount Peor. The priest at the shrine was Balaam, a man who really existed, sort of an ancient televangelist for Baal. The verses are in error: the protagonists were the Moabites under Prince Balak vs. the Israelites under Moses.

Balaam refused to pronounce a curse on the Israelites which were then threatening Jericho, presumably because he did not wish to offend God (He was a priest of Baal, what did he care about the Israelites' god?).

Balaam is among those murdered by the Israelites, his thanks for trying to help them.

Archeologists seem divided as to when it was that Jericho's walls collapsed. One group says about 1500 BC, which would be consistent with Ahmose' soldiers extracting revenge on the Hyksos. Another says around 1140 BC, which would be consistent with several hundred settlers (who did not keep pigs) arriving in the Judean hill country. The jury is still out on this.


Abraham - the name occurs in Egypt in the late 11th Dynasty (c. 1990 BC). The biblical Abraham lived at Shur, modern Abu Suweir meaning "Father of the Wall." The wall in question is the Wall of the Prince, Egypt's system of fortifications along its eastern border, built by Amenemhet I to keep out the riff-raff (like Abraham). BUT: part of that fortification system was a canal, or mote, built by Sesotris III about 1830. Shur received irrigation water from the canal, without which it was barren desert. In order for Abraham to settle there, the canal must already have existed. So, the biblical Abraham arrived in Egypt about 160 years AFTER his name did. Conclusion: there was more than one Abraham.


The story of Moses killing an Egyptian appears to originate with Djehuti, a supervisory priest and member of Hatshepsut's court who killed a man named Ptah-Sokar (reason unknown) and buried the body in the sand. Later writers say that when called to account for the crime, he fled to Joppa, returning to Egypt years later.


Moses, himself, had "uncircumcized lips." I take that to mean he was not circumcized, but use your own judgement. The Hebrews apparently got the practice from Egyptian priests. Where they got it from is a matter of conjecture.


I think it was Josephus who gave a considerably different account in Against Apion. He even named the Pharaoh: Seti I.


The campsite is Taberah, probably the spring Bir el-Thifeiriya, located about 3.5 miles north-northwest of Serabit el Khadim. The list of names from Numbers 11 and Exodus 17:8 do not match up with each other. If the battle with the Amalekites took place at Rephidim (Ex 17:8), then Taberah is west of Rephidim and Ex 17:8 is correct. If it took place in the vicinity of Feiran Oasis, then Numbers 11:3 is right. Bir el-Thifeiriya is west of Serabit el Khadim (Rephidim); thus, Exodus 17:8 agrees with what is on the ground.


The disease in question matches the description of coturnism, a type of poisoning caused by eating the meat of poisoned quail. Historically, it is known only from the area around el-Arish and not from mid-to-southern Sinai. The name Kibroth-hattaavah is probably a contraction derived from Gebel Haweiti and Naqb Hawa (Haweiti-Awad). The graveyard Erweis el-Ebeirig in Wadi Murrah fits the description and is probably the source of the story. The name Kibroth-hattaavah means "Graves of Hunger" according to Numbers, but is a reference to the wind in Arabic.


My point is that most of the Exodus story is a legend, based only loosely on history. It contains numerous errors of geography and fact. If its authors made this many mistakes with geographical and historical details that I CAN check, I cannot rely on it as a source of information on details I cannot check (theology, God, etc.). This book is not what it claims to be: the Word of God.
Doug

I had my giant stick surgically removed as it was causing me to be spiteful and obnoxious towards the religious people who put it there.

Found a couple

The Wars of Religion, Part I

The Wars of Religion, Part II

I came to the same conclusion years ago

Did you read them before posting them?



The wars were over power split along religious lines. NOT over religion itself. The wars were over which group would hold POWER (a resource) not over religion itself.

Why do people keep saying it has nothing to do with religion ?

I am sure most of them were deeply religious>they just got their interpretations messed up (& then again maybe not).

That's the problem with the old books.

You can interpret these texts any way you see fit. Why do you think there are so many christian sects now ?

This is the problem with religion and the people that adopt it.

The answers are ALL OF THE ABOVE >one thing leads to another>many people are greedy- bottom line>religious or not but religion can make it

convinient because you can always claim you are doing it for thr GREATER GOOD (aka GOD) and believe it too !!!

People kill, take,give and maim just like their god (their role model)


Horrendous things are easier to do in god's name or will> people are and have always been so gullible & people feared for their lives> back then really

There was no democracy>things were done by the sword>even conversion

Of course....I am a very proficient reader.

Did you do more than just glance at them?


Christianity....the most fractured religion there has ever been.

I have said this before and I will say it again....far too many people are determined to remain ignorant of any real-world data that doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. Those that try to remain genuinely open minded simply do not realize the magnitude of the lies they have been told about history, about values, about religion. They take the facts of history and average them with the dogmas of their religion and think the truth lies somewhere in the middle…..sadly it does not for history is written by the victor.

Yes.

And most factions have fought to achieve or maintain political power
In wars over POWER with religion acting as the dividing lines
but the wars are not over religion
but over power
which is a resource.

does catholic attack protestant because the protestant doesn't believe in icons or confession? (or whatever...)
No. They fight to achieve and maintain power, land, influence.
Not over religion
If not religion, there would be some other dividing line
for people to kill each other over.

you are so correct Zannie ((HUGS an old freind) I would add that its only getting worse as in the educational system they have dumbed down the children by telling them what to think instead of showing them how to think and limiting the amount of data they can have.....as long as you can get those to not think critically you can slip things by them or get them to obey relatively easily..(BF skinner comes to mind ...lol)

indeed few see this as so many filter through a either or construct... One of my favorite sayings is 'being ignorant isn't so much a shame as being unwilling to learn" Ben Franklin...and that is what religion creates very often it implements ideas in a way that it narrows ones view, the jesus lore fits here 'forgive then father for they do not know" is dead on..... ,when you are taught this is the only truth you by default become a defender willing to do anything in the name of your cause..it creates slavery to the idea as the construct intends............ if you have no expectations you will be grateful for any ole thing and call it a blessing....its a framework used for control... and tragic i agree...

((how are you mon amie)))

Amen.

After practically every history lesson my kids ever took I had to explain the other side of the story to them. One teacher complained that my kids were challenging what he said. I asked "Well, are they right?" No further problems. I don't think he knew.

Just as examples, how many American kids can tell you what and where Kasserine and Lundy's Lane were (Battles that the US lost.), or why the Battle of Oriskany (What? You never heard of it?) was fought in the middle of a wilderness? What was the British strategy for the American Revolution? What was the American one? What did Blennerhasset Island have to do with the Constitution? What was the Muslim input into US slavery? What is the biblical basis of slavery? Who was Levi Coffin? Who was Akhenaten? What does he have to do with the Bible? Etc. History is a lot more than a bunch of dates.

At least, my kids are well-rounded in history, now.

One of my biggest disappointments with the main-line Protestant churches is that they have the resources to really dig into biblical history and find out the true stories. Instead, they spout fairy tales. They don't even know what the Bible says about most issues (even the preachers don't know). Their scholarship is an insult to the word. The Catholics, at least, are a little better, though they have a lot to hide and are pretty good at hiding it. The best scholars I ever met on the subject of Jesus' life were both rabbis!

It's not enough to know why you're right. You have to have an answer when the other guy says you're wrong. You can't do that knowing only one side of an issue.

I spent twelve years getting through high school. In that time I could have got an education.
Doug