The Writings of Jesus

[H3LL]

I may be wrong, but it just occurred to me that there is nothing written by Jesus.

Now, as I understand it the story says he was well educated, possibly a rabbi and credited with great oratorical skill.

Was he illiterate?

No notes, nothing? Not even a quick...

"To do. Thursday. Sermon on the mount...Bring fishes and loaves."

How about...

"Happy birthday Peter...Thanks for all the good work."

or

"Mary...Don't forget the eggs for tonight's supper."

Myself, I have Gordon Banks' autograph on the back of a ticket. I've had it for many years. Many of you probably don't know who he was, but I have kept it. He was a famous goal-keeper.

Now I don't like football, I never have and I neither watch it played on TV nor have I ever been to a league football match, but I still keep Gordon's autograph.

By comparison, JC's disciples must have liked him a little more than I liked Gordon Banks and also been more interested in what JC did. Some would say they worshipped the water he walked on.

And there is nothing kept that was written by JC.

Very odd.

My guess is that it is for the same reason that there are no hoof-prints from the IPU.

Does anybody know what the xian angle is on JC's possible illiteracy and/or lack of writing?

[Piscivore]

Q: What is the difference between Moses, Jesus, Kilgore Trout, the IPU, and Santa Claus?

A: Kilgore Trout got published.

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
I may be wrong, but it just occurred to me that there is nothing written by Jesus.

Well, to tell the truth, just about the only written material that has survived to us from the Roman times are those texts that were carved in stone: memorials, cenotaphs, graffiti, and stuff like that. [Edited to add: of course, there are a few exceptional cases where hidden caches of scrolls escaped the ravages of time]

Where we have some texts by Roman authors, they are copies of copies of copies (of copies)*. In general, the oldest manuscripts of Roman texts date from the 9th century or so. The texts of the Bible are exceptional in that there is a large number of relatively early manuscripts dating from the fifth or sixth century or so (I didn't check this, so take it with a grain of salt).

The vast majority of works by ancient writers have been lost. Only a tiny percentage of texts survived.

Now, I don't claim that Jesus wrote any texts at all. But if he did, I'm not too surprised that none survived.

[jmercer]

Good point. Anecdotally (which describes the bible perfectly), we can assume Jesus can write because of the incident with the promiscuous woman and the attempted stoning. (Where he writes something in the sand and then wipes it away.)

Not much that wasn't on stone survives 2000 years, though, as LW pointed out.

[H3LL]

Even a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy a copy of a copy of a copy would be something.

So nothing recorded as written apart from in the sand. Did it say what?

I would have thought getting a bit of parchment to last 2000 years would be a piece of cake for omnipotent beings. Oh well!

[drkitten]

Originally posted by H3LL
Even a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy a copy of a copy of a copy would be something.


Yeah, but unless the original had some sort of theological significance in the writing itself, who would bother copying it?

I mean, your Gordon Banks autograph is great.

But how much would you pay for a someone else to copy out his autograph on a different ticket?

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
Even a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy a copy of a copy of a copy would be something.

So nothing recorded as written apart from in the sand. Did it say what?

One thing to remember is that Christianity grew out mainly from Paul's teachings. Paul wasn't a bit interested in the person of Jesus and several places of NT show him quarreling with the original disciplines who presumably didn't share his views about Jesus.

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

I agree with LW.

In fact an historic JC with actual writings might have been a liability.

After all, if you're up there trying to convert a crowd of people, the las thing you want - in response to your statement that he did such and such in Galilee - is for a smart-alec in the second row to stand up, wave a manuscript at you, and say something like "In here it says on that day he was in Jesusalem, so what you're saying can't possibly have happened".

I suspect that H3LL's comment about the IPU is probably the best answer.

Unless those dastardly Evilutionists have stolen JC's shopping lists from the Dead Sea Scrolls, that is.....;)

YBW

[Brown]

As has been mentioned, there is a passage in the Bible that records Jesus writing. Some scholars question whether the passage is authentic.

This passage is in the well-known story in which Jesus admonished the Pharisees, "He that is without sin may cast the first stone." Jesus was presented with a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. "The laws of Moses say that she should be stoned to death," taunted the Pharisees. "What do YOU say?"

Jesus's famous verbal response was not immediate. Instead, he pretended to ignore the Pharisees for a while.John 8:6 But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.Although it is not reported that what Jesus wrote was erased, neither was what he wrote preserved.

[Ipecac]

I believe the check from the last supper was offered up for sale some decades ago. There were some notations about splitting up the bill, I believe. Those may have been some writings from Jesus. :D

[TragicMonkey]

There are writings on paper that lasted thousands of years. A fraction of what there was at the time, since it doesn't age very well, and people would reuse it for everything from wrapping material to mummy cases, but fragments survive.

Heck, there are legible Egyptian scrolls from well before Jesus.

Admittedly, it takes luck for any given screed to survive such a long time. But it's not unheard of.

Since Jesus was, in his lifetime and immediately after, a cult leader founding an exciting new religion, I'm confident that his followers would have managed to preserve any writings long enough to make copies. I mean, Peter was a Roman, so even if the rest of them were illiterate, he'd have made the effort to secure a few copies, which his successors would copy in turn.

If he had written anything, I'm pretty sure it would have survived. Certainly his disciples would have had it carved in stone before their deaths, anyway, even if all the paper copies wound up used to wrap fish and chips.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I believe the check from the last supper was offered up for sale some decades ago. There were some notations about splitting up the bill, I believe. Those may have been some writings from Jesus. :D

Why would anyone follow a Messiah who won't pick up the check? Divine powers and wisdom is nice, but cheap is cheap.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I believe the check from the last supper was offered up for sale some decades ago. There were some notations about splitting up the bill, I believe. Those may have been some writings from Jesus. :D

I thought they just gorged on the free chips and salsa, and didn't actually order anything from the menu..

This really pissed off the waiter, some guy named Pontius - something-or-other............... No, wait ! I'm getting my characters mixed up...

[phildonnia]

Among the "apocryphal books", the "Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu" was allegedly written by Jesus.

[Brown]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I mean, Peter was a Roman, so even if the rest of them were illiterate, he'd have made the effort to secure a few copies, which his successors would copy in turn.Paul, in addition to being a Jew, was a Roman citizen. Peter was not a Roman citizen.

Paul could write (although some of his epistles were actually written mostly by his secretary, and some of his epistles were probably not written by him at all). But Paul never met Jesus.

Many scholars think that Peter was illiterate. The epistles that bear his name were almost certainly not written by him. (The Second Epistle of Saint Peter is considered to be the "shakiest" book in the entire Bible, and has had the most difficulty being accepted as canonical. Because it borrows from the epistle of Jude, it was almost certainly written after Peter's death. In addition, its style is quite different from that of the First Epistle of Saint Peter, so it is very unlikely that the person who wrote the first epistle also wrote the second.)

The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke are not first-hand accounts. (The Gospel of Matthew was attributed to Jesus's disciple, but the disciple almost certainly did not write it.) The book of John purports to be a first-hand account in some respects and hearsay in others. Some of the first-hand stories are at odds with reports about the same events in other Gospels.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Brown
As has been mentioned, there is a passage in the Bible that records Jesus writing. Some scholars question whether the passage is authentic.

This passage is in the well-known story in which Jesus admonished the Pharisees, "He that is without sin may cast the first stone." Jesus was presented with a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. "The laws of Moses say that she should be stoned to death," taunted the Pharisees. "What do YOU say?"

Jesus's famous verbal response was not immediate. Instead, he pretended to ignore the Pharisees for a while.Although it is not reported that what Jesus wrote was erased, neither was what he wrote preserved.

Good post. I could swear I saw a version where Jesus erased whatever he'd been writing, but I must have misremembered. :)

Judaic lore, etc. has always been a mix of written and verbal memorization. (Copies were hard to come by, and given the dispersed nature of the Jews, often difficult to get access to.) It's entirely possible that the son of a carpenter may not have known how to read or write.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Among the "apocryphal books", the "Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu" was allegedly written by Jesus.

Wow! Know of any internet source where I can browse a translated copy? That's gotta be one of the most controversial books of the bible in existence!

[seayakin]

I always assumed that most Jews were literate because of the requirements of the religion. Is this an incorrect assumption? (Did a quick search on google haven't found anything definitive yet.)

I wrote too quickly. I just came accross this

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html

Comparative data show that under Roman rule the Jewish literacy rate improved in the Land of Israel. However, rabbinic sources support evidence that the literacy rate was less than 3%.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by seayakin
I always assumed that most Jews were literate because of the requirements of the religion. Is this an incorrect assumption? (Did a quick search on google haven't found anything definitive yet.)

I wrote too quickly. I just came accross this

http://faculty.biu.ac.il/~barilm/illitera.html


You might also be interested in this, from this thread: (http://forums.randi.org/newreply.php?s=&action=newreply&postid=1870818479)

Originally posted by LW
Well, the problem here is that the Hebrew script was invented at least a couple of centuries after the time of Moses. Of course, this doesn't absolutely rule out him being literate as there were three scripts in use in the area at that time (Phoenician, cuneiform, and hieroglyphs) but as far as I know, no Hebrew texts has ever been found that use any of those scripts. (The Hebrew alphabet itself developed from the Phoenician one).

But anyway, the four first books of Moses show very clear signs that they were put together from three major and several minor sources. What is more important is that the two oldest of them seem to be written during the divided kingdom. The unknown authors are usually designated by letters. The early ones are:

- "J": Jahvist, who uses "Yahweh" for the name of God. He (or possibly she) probably lived in Southern Judah, possibly in the kings court as his material doesn't contain any specifically priestly stuff in it.

- "E": Elohist, who uses "Elohim" for God. He probably lived in Northern Israel and he was not symphatic for the new form of worship instituted by King Jerobeam, so he probably belonged to some old, well-established priestly family.

In addition to these two texts, some of the texts that later became woven into the Pentateuch, such as the Book of Generations (the begat-lists) and the, what was is called, I can't remember but anyway it was an early code of priestly purity regulations that became a chapter in Leviticus, may have been written during this time. Both "J" and "E" used old legends as a part of their text. While there might have been an earlier written version, it is more probable that the legends were oral at the time.

After Assyrians crushed Israel, the "J" and "E" texts were combined into source "JE". The modern hypothesis (that is still under serious discussion, not all scholars agree on what I'll write next) is that "JE" prompted the temple priests of Jerusalem into writing their own version of the events. This became the source "P" (for "Priestly"). This may have happened during the time of King Hezekiah. The Aaronite priests of Jerusalem insisted that Jerusalem was the only place for the worship of Yahweh and only Aarons descendants can make valid sacrifices while both "J" and "E" contain lots of material about non-Aaronite people sacrificing all over the place. This was not acceptable for the priests so they rewrote the texts according to what they thought was proper.

The two last persons that worked with what was later to become the Pentateuch were "D" ("Deuteronomist") and "R" ("Redactor"). "D" was a non-Aaronite priest who wrote the Deuteronomy and he lived probably in the time of King Josiah and was possibly connected to the circles that produces Prophet Jeremiah. "D" also put together the immediately following books: Josiah, Judges, both Samuels, and both Kings with the help of some older texts (like "The Court History of David") that have later been lost. It seems that "D"s history books originally ended with the reign of Josiah but that he later updated them to contain the history until the fall of Judah.

Finally, "R" put all the existing material that had become attributed to Moses ("JE", "P", and "D") and put them together to create the final version of the Pentateuch. The most probable candidate for "R" is Ezrah who reorganized the religion after the Babel captivity.

Here's one link about the Documantary Hypothesis (http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/2/Judaism/jepd.html).

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by jmercer
Wow! Know of any internet source where I can browse a translated copy? That's gotta be one of the most controversial books of the bible in existence!

Well, it's not in the Bible. It's just one of the many, many, "gospels" floating around before the church fathers decided to make the cut.

I would suspect that most people who cling to the Bible as the inerrant word of God are in ignorance about just how much their faith is based on the actions of an editorial panel in the third century.

In any case, there's no controversy: most people don't really know much about the apocrypha, and those that do dismiss them all as forgeries, fables, etc.

I wouldn't argue that they're not forgeries and fables, but I would question why the same standards of authenticity are not applied to those books that were eventually included in the Bible.

The apocrypha: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

(Edited to clarify the facts: The canons were first formulated in the second and third centuries; these were later reaffirmed by various councils)

[jmercer]

Thanks - great link!

[Bikewer]

Another book in the vein that Phildonnia mentions is Lost Christianities.

The author goes into some detail as to the diversity of belief that proto-orthodox Christians maintained, and the long political process that resulted in the Council of Nicea coming up with what is accepted now as orthodoxy.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195141830/qid=1110912071/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/102-6008503-1911336

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by jmercer
Wow! Know of any internet source where I can browse a translated copy? That's gotta be one of the most controversial books of the bible in existence!

You might find this interesting..

The New "Fragment of an Uncanonical Gospel" Originally appeared in Jewish Quarterly Review XX (1908): 330-346. (http://www.christianorigins.com/uncanonical840.html)

Explore the linked web site.. Lot of interesting stuff..

[jmercer]

Thanks for the links, folks - I'm going to add the online stuff to my fav's, and look into the book. :)

[Gregory]

By comparison, JC's disciples must have liked him a little more than I liked Gordon Banks and also been more interested in what JC did. Some would say they worshipped the water he walked on.

And there is nothing kept that was written by JC.

Nor anything by Socrates; is that evidence that he didn't exist?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregory
Nor anything by Socrates; is that evidence that he didn't exist? Nope..

Your point?

[El Greco]

Well, I'll be damned if Jesus Christ isn't the author of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1878555006/qid=1110916461/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1292640-3133750?v=glance&s=books).

Product Description:
Jesus tells His story in His own words.

[Ipecac]

Originally posted by El Greco
Well, I'll be damned if Jesus Christ isn't the author of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1878555006/qid=1110916461/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/102-1292640-3133750?v=glance&s=books).

Wow, I can't believe that entry hasn't been overrun by countless bad ratings from fundies calling the book blasphemous.

[Yahweh]

The words "Gospel of Q" come to mind, but I think current scholarship is a bit sketchy on whether those writings actually exist or whether they are hypothesis only.

[Gregory]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Nope..

Your point?

I might have stopped sooner than I should have:

Very odd.

My guess is that it is for the same reason that there are no hoof-prints from the IPU.

H3LL stops a little short of actually saying, "this is evidence that Jesus didn't exist," but I'm not sure how else to interpret that, so I mentioned Socrates as a counterexample to that logic.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Gregory

H3LL stops a little short of actually saying, "this is evidence that Jesus didn't exist," but I'm not sure how else to interpret that, so I mentioned Socrates as a counterexample to that logic.

H3LL knows better...

The Socrates thing gets tossed into the ring every so often..

The implications of a non existant Socrates don't seem to be as far reaching as those of a non existant Jesus.. Suggesting it, certainly won't get you banned at " Rapture Ready ", though the " huh ? 's " could reverberate for hours; days maybe...

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Gregory
I might have stopped sooner than I should have:

H3LL stops a little short of actually saying, "this is evidence that Jesus didn't exist," but I'm not sure how else to interpret that, so I mentioned Socrates as a counterexample to that logic.

But good 'ol SOcrates didn't walk on the water or magically heal the sick.... he was an idea person... with (many) ideas which ring as true today as they did 2300 years ago.

JC never did say much of anything which made sense (ask any Christian, they pretend he said something else!) :D

[jmercer]

Just out of curiosity... were there any writings directly attributed to Buddha, or to any of the Gods in the Roman, Greek and Teutonic pantheons?

Or is JC unique in that aspect?

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Ipecac
I believe the check from the last supper was offered up for sale some decades ago. There were some notations about splitting up the bill, I believe. Those may have been some writings from Jesus. :D

Nah! No splitting of the bill. Judas put it on his tab as he knew he could settle-up later.

[stamenflicker]

Christian here... I'm personally glad Jesus didn't write anything, or if he did nothing survived. Human tendency is cling to objectivity and literality. This was precisely the reason Jesus was crucified according to gospel accounts. The Jewish leaders were literalists about the Torah, or their laws. Jesus basically accused them of clinging so much to their laws that they missed the truth.

For example, in one scathing exchange Jesus tells them that they have no right to put off their elderly parents by saying (my modern translation), "We can afford to take care of them because we give so much money to God."

For many people in this world- fundamentalists of all religions and many atheists and agnostics and materialists and whatever other category you want to choose believe that is it more important to be objectively correct than to be intrinsically good, more important to follow the letter of the law than to delve into the moral gray area from which law was determined necessary.

Imagine if Jesus wrote something down. Fanatics and fundamentalists would cling so tightly to those exact literal words, that they would likely justify all sorts of ill. Heck, it has already happened with a second hand account. Imagine that multiplied ten-fold.

Stamen

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Actually, even if JC had written anything down, his followers wouldn't have been able to read it.

A good friend of mine - an American, currently resident in London - mentioned that he'd read about a US politician (he forgot who - sorry!) had spoken up against some multi-language proposal, by saying that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for him!

YBW

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Christian here... I'm personally glad Jesus didn't write anything, or if he did nothing survived. Human tendency is cling to objectivity and literality. This was precisely the reason Jesus was crucified according to gospel accounts. The Jewish leaders were literalists about the Torah, or their laws. Jesus basically accused them of clinging so much to their laws that they missed the truth.

For example, in one scathing exchange Jesus tells them that they have no right to put off their elderly parents by saying (my modern translation), "We can afford to take care of them because we give so much money to God."

For many people in this world- fundamentalists of all religions and many atheists and agnostics and materialists and whatever other category you want to choose believe that is it more important to be objectively correct than to be intrinsically good, more important to follow the letter of the law than to delve into the moral gray area from which law was determined necessary.

Imagine if Jesus wrote something down. Fanatics and fundamentalists would cling so tightly to those exact literal words, that they would likely justify all sorts of ill. Heck, it has already happened with a second hand account. Imagine that multiplied ten-fold.

Stamen

So tell me again... what exactly did he believe/say?

Oh that's right... nothing he said survives today.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by YouBelieveWHAT?
Actually, even if JC had written anything down, his followers wouldn't have been able to read it.

A good friend of mine - an American, currently resident in London - mentioned that he'd read about a US politician (he forgot who - sorry!) had spoken up against some multi-language proposal, by saying that if English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for him!

YBW

"If the King's English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
"Ma" Ferguson, Governor of Texas (circa 1920)

[EdipisReks]

about Socrates, is there anything directly attributable to Socrates that didn't come through Plato?

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

H3LL - thanks!

It's good to know that no matter how obscure the subject, there's somebody in the JREF family who'll help with a reference!

YBW

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by EdipisReks
about Socrates, is there anything directly attributable to Socrates that didn't come through Plato?

Just a quick google search... and there appear to be several sources for Socrates. Plato, of course, is the primary source.

http://research.haifa.ac.il/~mluz/Access/PhilLect11.html

[stamenflicker]

Just a quick google search... and there appear to be several sources for Socrates. Plato, of course, is the primary source.

And the sources that describe Socrates are second hand accounts seperated much further in history than the sources describing what Jesus said. And the sources describing what Jesus said outnumber the sources describing what Socrates said about 1,000 to 1.

Oh that's right... nothing he said survives today.

Incorrect.

Stamen

[LW]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
And the sources that describe Socrates are second hand accounts seperated much further in history than the sources describing what Jesus said.

However, the sources that describe Jesus were written at least several decades after his death, and there is no concrete evidence for the authors having known Jesus personally. At least one ancient writer (Aristophanes) wrote during Socrates' lifetime, and at least 7 of them knew him personally.

And the sources describing what Jesus said outnumber the sources describing what Socrates said about 1,000 to 1.

I disagree with your way of counting the sources since there are no 8,000 separate nearly-contemporary sources of Jesus's life. What there is is a vast number of copies of few sources.



Incorrect.


Agreed. It is quite probable that he really once forbade his students to teach to non-Jews and also that he promised to come back before John the Apostle died. (Both teachings are such that they caused (or could cause) difficulties for the early church, so they are less likely to have been invented from air.)

[stamenflicker]

However, the sources that describe Jesus were written at least several decades after his death, and there is no concrete evidence for the authors having known Jesus personally. At least one ancient writer (Aristophanes) wrote during Socrates' lifetime, and at least 7 of them knew him personally.

I agree with the absence of concrete evidence, here we can only enter into the realm of speculation. As to Socrates however, it has been a while since I reviewed the information, but of those people who "knew" him personally, didn't only one (Plato) make any claims of knowing him outside of very indirect references? I could be wrong on that. Also of the seven you mention, how many have surviving works written in their own hand, and how many are compliations? Just curious, I don't mind researching myself if you would point me in a direction.

I disagree with your way of counting the sources since there are no 8,000 separate nearly-contemporary sources of Jesus's life. What there is is a vast number of copies of few sources.

I agree that it can appear deceiving, however even with the few sources, the volume of them are closer to the occurences than say anything we have on Ceaser and more detailed than most anything else we have on any historical figure. Those who chose to reject the historical record, do so on primarily personal preference, not on an analysis of the research. The existence of a record however does not verify his truth claims, but again to disregard the record while accepting a less substantiated account of any other figure is illogical... that was my only point.


Agreed. It is quite probable that he really once forbade his students to teach to non-Jews and also that he promised to come back before John the Apostle died. (Both teachings are such that they caused (or could cause) difficulties for the early church, so they are less likely to have been invented from air.)

This is such a good point it deserves more emphasis. The internal tensions of both the canonical works and extra-biblical works are so high that construction from "thin air" seems highly improbable. People typically don't sit around for a century and debate a fabrication. At least not without strong dissent among other thinkers-- of which the historical record is noticeably silent.

Stamen

[LW]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
As to Socrates however, it has been a while since I reviewed the information, but of those people who "knew" him personally, didn't only one (Plato) make any claims of knowing him outside of very indirect references?

The link posted above by DangerousBeliefs lists six of his pupils who wrote about him: Plato, Xenophon, Antisthenes, Aeschines, Euclides, and Aristippus. Of these, Plato's and Xenophon's texts have been preserved in detail, and others only in fragments. However, none of the above actually agree on what he teached.

I'm not completely certain but I believe that Sokrate's pupils all wrote after his death. The only writer who wrote about him (or, at least, the only whose works have been preserved to the day) while he was still alive was Aristophanes who ridiculed him in a couple of his plays.

I agree that it can appear deceiving, however even with the few sources, the volume of them are closer to the occurences than say anything we have on Ceaser and more detailed than most anything else we have on any historical figure.

I'm not denying that there's a lot of ancient written material on Jesus and only a few historical figures have more of it. (However, many of the kings and emperors left also physical remains of themselves in the form of stone inscriptions and like. And Jesus lacks these).

Most of that material does postdate Jesus by a significant time period. Also, a significant part of that material was considered to be unreliable already back then: only four of the numerous Gospels were deemed to be truthful and all others were rejected.

he existence of a record however does not verify his truth claims, but again to disregard the record while accepting a less substantiated account of any other figure is illogical... that was my only point.

I agree here. I accept the historicity of lot of other people that have much less evidence for their existence so it would be highly hypocritical from me to claim that Jesus didn't exist at all.

[Skeptical Greg]

stamenflicker :
The existence of a record however does not verify his truth claims, but again to disregard the record while accepting a less substantiated account of any other figure is illogical... that was my only point. As has been pointed out, it is not a question of just ' accepting ' the less documented figure, it has to do with the inconsequential ramifications of doing so.

Socrates didn't exist? So what..

Empires have not risen and fallen in the name of Socrates. Innocents have not been tortured and killed. Wars have not been fought. The believers in Socrates do not enjoy billions in tax breaks..

It is illogical to contend that the significance of the factuality of Socrates existance is comparable to that of God Jr's..

[LW]

Originally posted by Diogenes

As has been pointed out, it is not a question of just ' accepting ' the less documented figure, it has to do with the inconsequential ramifications of doing so.

Socrates didn't exist? So what..


I have never really understood your this argument. You see, I'm an atheist. I do not believe that Jesus was the son of God. For me there is absolutely no difference in the non-existence of Sokrates and the non-existence of Jesus.

I don't think there is any difference in "Jesus was not the son of God so everything that has been done in his name is in vain" and "Jesus didn't exist so everything that has been done in his name is in vain."

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by LW
For me there is absolutely no difference in the non-existence of Sokrates and the non-existence of Jesus.

Are religious organizations exempt from most taxes in Finland?

.................................................. ..

"Jesus didn't exist so everything that has been done in his name is in vain."

I'm sure that is comforting to the victims who were ' done to " in his name..

[LW]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Are religious organizations exempt from most taxes in Finland?

Well, some of them (namely the Lutheran and Orthodox Christian) have even the power of of collecting tax from their members as part of the state tax. I don't like it but I don't think it is going to change in recent future so I have to live with it.

But that's not the point. I really don't see how the non-existance of Jesus would change the matter a bit. Whether he existed or not, the churches do exist. And whether he was the son of God or not, the churches do exist.

And my opinion is that it is more probable than not that Jesus existed and it is more probable than not that God doesn't exist. So I already think that Christian churches are founded on false hope. The non-existence of Jesus wouldn't change this a bit: the churches would still be founded on false hope.

[stamenflicker]

Empires have not risen and fallen in the name of Socrates. Innocents have not been tortured and killed. Wars have not been fought. The believers in Socrates do not enjoy billions in tax breaks..

Empires rise and fall because it is in their natures to do so, such things are inevitable. Religion, of which Christianity is only a part, existing as part of the social landscape and comprised of individuals who are rooted in the political landscape. Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall. If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

As to killing of the innocents, once again this has and would occur regardless of religion. Because innocents are going to be killed as men crave power and because killers are just as capable of being religious as those who don't kill, it is hardly the deciding factor. Last time I checked, Jesus was a victim of murder by both the State and the religious institution of the day (which was aligned with the State)... not to mention 2 million Sudanese Christians since 1994.

And as far a tax breaks go, it is the single greatest advancement a society can make toward the reality of religion, that being the State has chosen to not involve itself or ally itself with any particular religion. Christians are the not the only ones with tax breaks, any religious structure enjoys the same priviledges. And for the record, last time I purchased a Bible, I did pay taxes on it.

Stamen

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Empires rise and fall because it is in their natures to do so, such things are inevitable. Religion, of which Christianity is only a part, existing as part of the social landscape and comprised of individuals who are rooted in the political landscape. Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall. If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

As to killing of the innocents, once again this has and would occur regardless of religion. Because innocents are going to be killed as men crave power and because killers are just as capable of being religious as those who don't kill, it is hardly the deciding factor. Last time I checked, Jesus was a victim of murder by both the State and the religious institution of the day (which was aligned with the State)... not to mention 2 million Sudanese Christians since 1994.

And as far a tax breaks go, it is the single greatest advancement a society can make toward the reality of religion, that being the State has chosen to not involve itself or ally itself with any particular religion. Christians are the not the only ones with tax breaks, any religious structure enjoys the same priviledges. And for the record, last time I purchased a Bible, I did pay taxes on it.

Stamen



Yes all of those things would exist/happen without religion..
People always find a reason to behave badly; however, Socrates isn't one of them and Jesus is..

All you have pointed out is, that if we didn't have Christianity wreaking havoc, some other organization/ entity would have filled the void.

[stamenflicker]

All you have pointed out is, that if we didn't have Christianity wreaking havoc, some other organization/ entity would have filled the void.

I'm saying more than that. I'm saying they already have as history demonstrates. I'm also saying that throwing blame around to one social strata as opposed to the human landscape which occupies multiple strata is bigotry.

People always find a reason to behave badly; however, Socrates isn't one of them and Jesus is..

That's like saying "people will always find a reason to behave badly; however basketweaving isn't one of them but capitalism is..." or "people will always find a reason to drive fast; however unicycles aren't one of them, but Mustangs are."

One carries more power than the other. I just think it bothers you a bit that Jesus carries more social power and influence than Socrates.

So when it comes to human ill do you blame the basketweaver or the tool through which she exerts her influence? Do you blame creators of the Mustang, or the person pressing the accelerator? Do you blame the makers of Hydrocodone or the people taking 32 pills a day?

Stamen

[H3LL]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall. If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

Emphasis mine.

On what basis do you make this wild assumption?

To justify your wild statement. Which period in history are you referencing where there was no religion and an empire rose and fell?

Better still, which part of history had no religion?

You might want to change "religion is just part of the rise and fall" to "religion is a significant part of the rise and fall".

[Kopji]

I just think it bothers you a bit that Jesus carries more social power and influence than Socrates.

Yeah, it bothers me that Mohammad carries more social power and influence too.

Old question and I do not have the answer: IS religion just a useful opiate then? If the poor suddenly realized that they had been lied to all these eons and there was no hope beyond this life, they would rise up and try and kill the 'haves'... who would kill or enslave them first if they could.

So it is in everyone's best interest to have religion: The 'have nots' are happy, looking to their reward beyond death, and the 'haves' are happy remaining safe, and well, having stuff now.

Despite the advocacy of religion as the better of evils, it seems like it would be much harder to control people without superstition and supernatural trappings.

I'd like to see what the world could be like if people faced life as if this were the only one there was. If we had one chance to get it right. If we knew we were the ones responsible for how the world was going.

To the topic, the 'Book of Thomas' worth a read. It is an extra-biblical book that some scholars seem take seriously as being an authentic early record.

It is an interesting book, and portrays Jesus differently, more like a sage than a god.

Apocryphal New Testament Writings
Linky (http://www.tparents.org/Library/Religion/Christian/NT-Canon/ntawrit.htm)

One of the parables unique to this gospel, logion 97 (Empty Jar), was judged to probably be an authentic saying of Jesus by the Jesus Seminar, [FSB] p. 61. The English translation of the "Empty Jar":
(97) Jesus said: "The kingdom of the [Father] is like a certain woman who was carrying a [jar] full of meal. While she was walking [on the] road, still some distance from home, the handle of the jar broke and the meal emptied out behind her [on] the road. She did not realize it; she had noticed no accident. When she reached her house, she set the jar down and found it empty".

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
On what basis do you make this wild assumption?

Well, I myself don't think that religion had much to do with the raise of the empires of Alexander, Romans, and Mongols, for starters. Sure, in the end both Alexander and Ghenghis got elevated into godhood but that happened after they had done the empire building. Oh well, thinking again, for Alexander it happened during it but not before he had already beaten first few of the numerous Persian armies that had been raised against him.

To justify your wild statement. Which period in history are you referencing where there was no religion and an empire rose and fell?

Better still, which part of history had no religion?

You might want to change "religion is just part of the rise and fall" to "religion is a significant part of the rise and fall".

Your argument is not sound. Just the fact that there was religion around during the empire building doesn't imply that it was a significant part of it.

Otherwise you could give arguments like: beer (and other alcoholic beverages) have been present during the whole human history, so beer was a significant part of the rise and fall of empires.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by LW
Well, I myself don't think that religion had much to do with the raise of the empires of Alexander, Romans, and Mongols, for starters....snip

I have no idea where you get your ideas from, but to suggest that religion had little to do with Alexander, and Mongols shows a breath-taking ignorance only beaten by the assumption it didn't have much to do with the Romans.

Even ignoring the previous pantheons of ancient Rome the the words Roman Catholic may offer a tiny clue to your error even if you have not heard of the Holy Roman Empire (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm) (The "Holy" bit is the clue there).

Your analogy to beer is so irrelevant as to be of my scale, although Beer Catholics would add a whole new dimension to religion that I had never considered before.

A monarch claiming right to their position because of beer is something that belongs in a comedy sketch.

Until very recently, most rulers claimed to be placed there by god(s), if not claiming to be gods themselves. Some still do today.

Throughout recorded history many actions would not even be considered, major or minor, without clear approval from god(s) via their earthly representatives. Failing approval it would be required to appease those gods with sacrifice, gifts, prayer, penance or similar to get it.

Originally posted by LW
Your argument is not sound.....snip

Yes it is.
Your arguments is not sound or sensible.

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
I have no idea where you get your ideas from, but to suggest that religion had little to do with Alexander, and Mongols shows a breath-taking ignorance only beaten by the assumption it didn't have much to do with the Romans.

I have my own reasons to believe that I know more about this subject than you. You are, of course, free to disagree but before you do that I'd suggest that look your next sentence again:

Even ignoring the previous pantheons of ancient Rome the the words Roman Catholic may offer a tiny clue to your error even if you have not heard of the Holy Roman Empire (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/national/hre.htm) (The "Holy" bit is the clue there).

In particular, I'd suggest you to put "holy roman empire" into google and look at the first few results. And then do the same while leaving the "holy" out of the search. You might be illuminated. And while you are in that, you could also try "voltaire holy roman empire neither" for some little amusement.

Until very recently, most rulers claimed to be placed there by god(s), if not claiming to be gods themselves. Some still do today.

Yes, that was something that they used to do.

And since there are also nowadays bloodthirsty dictators who do not claim to be on a mission from a god, I think that rather undermines the claim that religion is a necessary precondition of being a bloodthirsty tyrant.

Throughout recorded history many actions would not even be considered, major or minor, without clear approval from god(s) via their earthly representatives.

And recorded history shows a number of war leaders who didn't bother to give any consideration for their religion, whatever it was.

Yes it is. Your arguments is not sound or sensible.

You are free to believe so if you want. This is a free country.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm saying more than that. I'm saying they already have as history demonstrates. I'm also saying that throwing blame around to one social strata as opposed to the human landscape which occupies multiple strata is bigotry.


That's like saying "people will always find a reason to behave badly; however basketweaving isn't one of them but capitalism is..." or "people will always find a reason to drive fast; however unicycles aren't one of them, but Mustangs are."

One carries more power than the other. I just think it bothers you a bit that Jesus carries more social power and influence than Socrates.

So when it comes to human ill do you blame the basketweaver or the tool through which she exerts her influence? Do you blame creators of the Mustang, or the person pressing the accelerator? Do you blame the makers of Hydrocodone or the people taking 32 pills a day?

Stamen
La, la, la , la, la...

Your skills of obfuscation are admirable.. ( Actually they're not, it's just a lame exuse for me to use that word.. )

Maybe we can have another discussion about the evils of pharmaceutical companys, Mustangs and basket weavers..
One carries more power than the other. I just think it bothers you a bit that Jesus carries more social power and influence than Socrates.Indeed! ( not the bother part )

You are the one who has been arguing that a world without Socrates and a world without Jesus are a fair comparison ... It has been my contention that they are not, and the only point I have been trying to make, since the

[ whiney voice ] " Well, we don't have any writings from Socrates, either .... [/] card was played..


Perhaps you can explain again, how the significance of a world without Jesus is of no more consequence than a world without Socrates...

[stamenflicker]

You might want to change "religion is just part of the rise and fall" to "religion is a significant part of the rise and fall".

No I wouldn't even say that because it wouldn't be true. I am tempted to be drawn into a long thread with you but I'm not going to do it. I'm going to suggest you read history... a good reference book might be The Timestables of History, 3rd ed. which outlines various civilizations. I'm going to give you a few just to suffice you, but believe me when I say I won't be bantering back and forth here over it because the factual information is out there for anyone with an open mind.

Summerian, Phonecian, Egyptian (numerous rise and falls), Akkadian, Hittite, Greek, Roman, Phrygian, Assyrian, Ionian, Persian, Mayan, Carthaginian, Macedonian, Goths, Hun, Vandal, Visigoth, Ostrogoth... and more importantly, that's just a snap Western history through 500AD. There is still the Chinese dysnasties to consider, African history, Norse history, etc. etc.

Even if you want to talk about the most current 500 years of history you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that religion was a "signficant" part of any civilization or national demise. The fact is that in the past century, Mao and Stalin killed more people than all the crusades and Holy wars combined. While the Serbian conflict was heavily religious, the conflict in Rwanda was ethnic. Rwanda's confict saw over 25 times the number of people killed. The Cambodian massacres were political not religious in nature.

Stop believing the crap your liberal Western Civ teachers throw at you. Like I said, I'm not debating anything that is so richly documented.

Stamen

[H3LL]

Originally posted by LW
I have my own reasons to believe that I know more about this subject than you.

I suspect believe is the key word there. You are also claiming psychic abilities to read my mind and know what I know, it would seem.

Originally posted by LW
In particular, I'd suggest you to put "holy roman empire" into google and look at the first few results. And then do the same while leaving the "holy" out of the search. You might be illuminated. And while you are in that, you could also try "voltaire holy roman empire neither" for some little amusement.

The link I put there obviously escaped you powers of deduction. FYI it was from google. What did you think? I made a guess at what the URL might be?

So Voltaire says otherwise? I'm sure that has made everyone here forget that they ever heard the words "Holy Roman Empire" and makes all the historians that have studied this imaginary occurance, fools.

Also you fail to address or supply evidence for your claim that Rome was without religious influence from 753 BCE until the formation of RC and/or HRE.

Too difficult for you?

Your statement "reasons to believe that I know more about this subject than you", although not hard to be so, is looking very shaky even against my limited knowledge.

Originally posted by LW
Yes, that was something that they used to do.

I'm no expert, but I suspect the Pope and the Queen of England have a small religious connection, but I'm sure you know different and can present some evidence, as it is only something that "used" to happen.

Originally posted by LW
And since there are also nowadays bloodthirsty dictators who do not claim to be on a mission from a god, I think that rather undermines the claim that religion is a necessary precondition of being a bloodthirsty tyrant.

And recorded history shows a number of war leaders who didn't bother to give any consideration for their religion, whatever it was.

Nice jump from empires throughout history to modern tyrants and war leaders (whatever they are). Was the other argument getting too tricky for you?

I wish I had your ability to make a general statement that sweeps across history from ancient Rome, through Mongolia to (possibly) Hitler and his ilk. I'm impressed.

Originally posted by LW
You are free to believe so if you want. This is a free country.

Belief has nothing to do with my thoughts, just plausible evidence. But then I don't confine my historical understanding to Voltaire.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that beer has had as much impact on empires throughout history as religion has.

FYI, Voltaire is remarkably silent on the subject with regard to beer and empires, but has a analogy about beer and class.

Your singular, misguided opinion has yet to convince me and I suspect, few others.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Summerian, Phonecian, Egyptian (numerous rise and falls), Akkadian, Hittite, Greek, Roman, Phrygian, Assyrian, Ionian, Persian, Mayan, Carthaginian, Macedonian, Goths, Hun, Vandal, Visigoth, Ostrogoth... and more importantly, that's just a snap Western history through 500AD. There is still the Chinese dysnasties to consider, African history, Norse history, etc. etc.


So which one of these is without significant religious influence?

Running away from a debate before it has begun is not going to change the answer from NONE.

Unless your definition of religion is only the Abrahamic ones, then you would be correct. They don't seem to be in the list. I wonder why?

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Even if you want to talk about the most current 500 years of history you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that religion was a "signficant" part of any civilization or national demise. The fact is that in the past century, Mao and Stalin killed more people than all the crusades and Holy wars combined. While the Serbian conflict was heavily religious, the conflict in Rwanda was ethnic. Rwanda's confict saw over 25 times the number of people killed. The Cambodian massacres were political not religious in nature.


The Mao Empire, Stalin Empire, Sebian Empire, Rwandan Empire and Cambodian Empire are all new to me. Can we see some evidence of these empires please?

Maybe you are trying to jump to a different topic, like LW and hope no one will notice.

Try again.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Stop believing the crap your liberal Western Civ teachers throw at you. Like I said, I'm not debating anything that is so richly documented.

Ooooh! Temper tantrum. Are you stuck in a hole of your own making and hoping no one noticed again.

We did.

[Skeptical Greg]

This is funny..

Like the Crusaders would have put a cap on their killing, if the local ' heathen ' population had been more than it was...:rolleyes:


Good thing those Chinese bred like rabbits, so they could show the Christians a thing or two about genocide..


For your reading pleasure " The Christian Hall of Shame " (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/shame.html)

Of course, this is meaningless, since if the Christians hadn't done it, someone else would have stepped up to the plate.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

Even if you want to talk about the most current 500 years of history you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that religion was a "signficant" part of any civilization or national demise. I completely understand where you are coming from.. The European ( Christian ) explorers and colonists from the late 15th century onward, didn't think the native populations of the ' New World ' were very significant either..

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL

I suspect believe is the key word there. You are also claiming psychic abilities to read my mind and know what I know, it would seem.

Oh no, I don't read your mind. It is just the fact that I happen to own about six shelf meters (estimate, I can check if you want to know) of history books and have read much more that makes me assume that I usually know what I'm talking about. (Of course, I'm not always right. In particular, I don't follow journals of professional historians so I tend to lag behind cutting edge research by several years even in the subjects that I'm interested about).

The link I put there obviously escaped you powers of deduction. FYI it was from google. What did you think? I made a guess at what the URL might be?

So you weren't illuminated. Otherwise you might have noticed the first sentence of your link reads:

The Holy Roman Empire (official name: sacrum romanum imperium, 1254; more details below) designates a political entity that covered a large portion of Europe, centered on Germany, from 962 to 1806.


Note the years: from 962 to 1806.

Now, if you had followed my advice and googled also for "roman empire" without the holy, you might have found out that the general consesus among historians is that the Roman Empire ended when the last Western emperor was forced to abdicate in 476. One other possible date would be the death of Theodosius who was the last emperor to rule the united Rome (IIRC).

In case you didn't notice, there's a 500 year gap between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire (if you chose 476 as the end point, that is).

Similarily, the Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with the Roman empire. According to the old online version of Catholic Encyclopedia, that term wasn't even used prior to 16th century when protestants wanted to distinguish themselves from the original Catholic Church while still calling themselves Catholic. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone had used it before to distinguish it from the Greek Church after the separation of 1054.

Since I like to twist wire figures, let me add this: neither the Holy Roman Empire nor the Roman Church has anything to do with the Roman Empire. The fact that you confused them makes me believe that you are not exactly an expert in this area.

So Voltaire says otherwise?

Oh, I included that link as an amusement as I said. I have always loved that joke.

Also you fail to address or supply evidence for your claim that Rome was without religious influence from 753 BCE until the formation of RC and/or HRE.

That is not my claim.

However, your claim is that the Romans built their empire because of their religion. Care to support that one sometime?

Your statement "reasons to believe that I know more about this subject than you", although not hard to be so, is looking very shaky even against my limited knowledge.

Well, it wasn't me who confused the Roman Empire with the Holy Roman Empire.

Nice jump from empires throughout history to modern tyrants and war leaders (whatever they are). Was the other argument getting too tricky for you?

No.

In the modern times there have been guys who have been building (or trying to build) empires without being religious, such as Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein (he became a devout muslim only after losing the first Gulf War).

Your claim is that the ancient empire builders did so because of their religion. (Or at least religion played a significant point in their actions). Do you have any reason to suppose that, say, Ghengis Khan would not have conquered most of Central Asia if he had been an atheist? The existence of modern atheist empire builders suggest quite strongly that religion is not exactly a prerequisite for wanting to build an empire.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that beer has had as much impact on empires throughout history as religion has.


According to Marcus Cato Gaius Julius Caesar was the only person ever to start a civil war while sober. (Source: Suetonius)

[H3LL]

You seem to forget what you wrote.

Just to help you:

Originally posted by LW
Well, I myself don't think that religion had much to do with the raise of the empires of Alexander, Romans, and Mongols, for starters

As it is called "The Holy Roman Empire" and not "The Holy Roman Political Entity Based in Germany" I considered it valid to make a point using it.

However, your quote above I now see is clearly related to the ancient Roman Empire, and an empire for which there can be little debate on the meaning of the word empire.

Originally posted by LW
Oh no, I don't read your mind. It is just the fact that I happen to own about six shelf meters (estimate, I can check if you want to know) of history books and have read much more that makes me assume that I usually know what I'm talking about.

I suggest you read them and not filter out the uncomfortable bits where religion is mentioned in a negative way or shows the enormous power and influence of religion.

Originally posted by LW
(Of course, I'm not always right. In particular, I don't follow journals of professional historians so I tend to lag behind cutting edge research by several years even in the subjects that I'm interested about).

This is to be expected. No problem.


Originally posted by LW
Now, if you had followed my advice and googled also for "roman empire" without the holy, you might have found out that the general consesus among historians is that the Roman Empire ended when the last Western emperor was forced to abdicate in 476.

This is not news, but thanks for taking the time to add it.

Which Roman empire are you talking about in your quote re-stated at the top of this post?

One must assume you mean the ancient one as you dislike my use of "Holy Roman Empire". If so, my comment still stands:

Also you fail to address or supply evidence for your claim that Rome was without religious influence from 753 BCE until the formation of RC and/or HRE.

Originally posted by LW
In case you didn't notice, there's a 500 year gap between the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Holy Roman Empire (if you chose 476 as the end point, that is).

Similarily, the Roman Catholic church had nothing to do with the Roman empire. According to the old online version of Catholic Encyclopedia, that term wasn't even used prior to 16th century when protestants wanted to distinguish themselves from the original Catholic Church while still calling themselves Catholic. However, I wouldn't be surprised if someone had used it before to distinguish it from the Greek Church after the separation of 1054.

Again, not news, but thank you for taking the time.

How is it relevant to my comment, based on your original quote. I repeat:

Also you fail to address or supply evidence for your claim that Rome was without religious influence from 753 BCE until the formation of RC and/or HRE.

Originally posted by LW
Since I like to twist wire figures, let me add this: neither the Holy Roman Empire nor the Roman Church has anything to do with the Roman Empire.

I never said they were, just making a point, perhaps poorly. My bad.

Originally posted by LW
..... makes me believe that you are not exactly an expert in this area.

No need for belief, I clearly stated such was the case in my post.

Originally posted by LW
Oh, I included that link as an amusement as I said. I have always loved that joke.

That's nice to hear. In no way was it intended to divert attention away from your claim that religion has the same influence as beer then?

I'm not convinced.

Originally posted by LW
That is not my claim.

Yes it is. See quote from you at the top of this post.

Originally posted by LW
However, your claim is that the Romans built their empire because of their religion. Care to support that one sometime?

Mind reading again. This is not my claim and is not stated anywhere that I noticed.

My claim, in a nutshell, is that your suggestions that religion has little influence on past empires is plain nonsense.

Also, your suggestion that beer and religion have equal influence on past empires is also nonsense.

I still make the same claim, however much you want to jump about.

Originally posted by LW
No.

I think you meant to say yes here.

Originally posted by LW
In the modern times there have been guys who have been building (or trying to build) empires without being religious, such as Stalin, Mao, and Saddam Hussein (he became a devout muslim only after losing the first Gulf War).

"Trying" isn't doing it.

Just like trying to avoid your beer claim and avoid your claim that religion had no influence on empires isn't doing it.

Originally posted by LW
Your claim is that the ancient empire builders did so because of their religion. (Or at least religion played a significant point in their actions).

This is not my claim. See above.

Originally posted by LW
Do you have any reason to suppose that, say, Ghengis Khan would not have conquered most of Central Asia if he had been an atheist?

He wasn't an atheist, nor was he a pink flamingo in a top hat.

In answer to your question. I have no reason to suppose any hypothetical situation that is contrary to documented evidence is correct. Why should you?

The phase space of hypothetical historical events is infinite. I'm surprised your bookshelf is so small, if that's how you study history.

Originally posted by LW
The existence of modern atheist empire builders suggest quite strongly that religion is not exactly a prerequisite for wanting to build an empire.

What modern atheist empire builders exist today?
Is this another hypothetical if/perhaps/maybe like your atheist Ghenghis?

I haven't forgotten what I asked and jumping around at tangents won't make me forget.

So again:

I'm still waiting for the evidence that beer has had as much impact on empires throughout history as religion.

and

Where is your evidence that religion did not have much to do with empires throughout history?

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
You seem to forget what you wrote.

We seem to be severely talking beside each other.

As it is called "The Holy Roman Empire" and not "The Holy Roman Political Entity Based in Germany" I considered it valid to make a point using it.

The standard terminology (modern terminology, that is) is to reserve the Roman Empire to denote only the ancient empire. Just because there is a chance of confusion, otherwise. So I assumed that my use of "Romans" in the context of empires was unambiguous.

However, your quote above I now see is clearly related to the ancient Roman Empire, and an empire for which there can be little debate on the meaning of the word empire.

Well, actually there can be a little debate since I intended to use the term rather loosely (and incorrectly) to cover also the period of the Roman Republic since that was the time when Rome did most of the actual conquering stuff.

I suggest you read them and not filter out the uncomfortable bits where religion is mentioned in a negative way or shows the enormous power and influence of religion.

As I have posted many times before, I am an atheist. And I don't deny that religion has caused a lot of bad things and that it can have large influence in behavior of leaders and subjects of nations. But I don't think that religion is the root of all evil and religion has also caused good things.

How is it relevant to my comment, based on your original quote. I repeat:

Maybe I should add a little context for my postings. This particular subthread started when Stamenflicker said:

Empires rise and fall because it is in their natures to do so, such things are inevitable. Religion, of which Christianity is only a part, existing as part of the social landscape and comprised of individuals who are rooted in the political landscape. Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall. If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

I mostly agree with Stamenflicker here, though not completely with the last sentence. I would prefer to change it to form: "There have been numerous empires whose rise and fall cannot be adequetely explained by religion."

I suppose that we are using terms very differently here. When I speak of religion as a significant cause in empire building, I think about religions that command their followers to build that empire.

There have been empires whose rise is directly attributable to religion, such as the Islamic caliphate. Here I use plural even though I can't come up with a second example now, but I guess that if I used singular someone would pop up with another example.

However, in the case of the Romans I don't see such a cause. In early history Rome waged continuous wars against their neighbours but those were not religious wars. There were cattle raids, vengeance raids, etc. The neighbours had essentially the same religion. The religion imposed conditions on the warfare, for example, early Romans believed that each war had to declared according to sacred rites and if those were not followed the gods would get angry with them. But this religion didn't make Rome a world power. It's neighbours shared those rites and associated beliefs. What was essential that Romans adopted the total war doctrine. And that was not religious at all. The Roman warfare (after the change) was different from the standard Central Italian in the sense that Romans didn't accept conditional surrenders. They fought until the enemy was totally beaten. And then they added their territory into their own. And Romans refused to negotiate peace when they were on the losing side of the conflict, and only a few enemies had the resources to totally beat the heavily militarized Rome into submission (Gauls being the most famous exception, and one of the rebellions by peoples of the Latinium also managed that but they were content to just demand citizenship).

The nature of an empire is that it either expands or declines. When an empire expands to a new territory, it gets new neighbours. And these neighbours are potential enemies and more importantly, they are places where military commanders may acquire wealth, fame, and power. Religion is not necessary to explain conquerors: desire for wealth, fame, and power is enough. (With the obvious exceptions of conquerors who were motivated by religion, I don't claim that there haven't been any).

It is true that during the late Republic and early Empire there were people who believed that it was the divine destiny that Rome would rule the whole earth. And there were Mongols who thought likewise. Both are documented. But I shall need a lot of convincing and a host of contemporary sources before I accept that it was a significant factor of the empire building.

Let's examine Alexander. His father had created the most efficient army in Europe before dying. His extremely ambitious son took it and started a conquest. I see no need to include religion there in the mix. At least, not before the Egyptian priests declared him a living god, a claim that he may or may not have believed himself. After that he used it as propaganda against his enemies.

Or Ghenghis Khan, who fought whole his youth against the traditional enemies of his tribe, and ended up uniting all Mongol tribes under his command. After that he did what every single nomad Khan of Khans had done before him: attacked Northern China. The fact that China was extremely rich and divided into several warring states is enough reason for the attack. No need to include religion in there. That he later conquered rest of the Central Asia was apparently caused by Mohammed Shah's idiocy when he threated Ghenghis with war (and chopped the heads of his envoys, a serious personal insult). After that Ghenghis didn't dare to leave any powerful enemies in neighbourhood of his empire and started the Westward expansion.

That's nice to hear. In no way was it intended to divert attention away from your claim that religion has the same influence as beer then?

Let's get technical here (I'm logician by profession, historian by hobby).

By what your posted, your argument seemed to me to be:

P1. All cultures have been religious.
P2. Therefore all empire builders were motivated by religion.

To this I presented an argument of similar form:

P1'. All cultures have had alcoholic drinks.
P2'. Therefore all empire builders were motivated by alcohol.

I included it to show the fallacy of your argument. It is not enough to just claim that P2 follows from P1. You have to show why it is so. There are other possible motivations for the conquerors such as wealth and power that don't have anything to do with religion. You have to show that religion has been a significant factor compared with the other factors.

It is not enough to just say that it is. Since if it were, then my argument would be equally valid (because it is of the same form and both have true first premise), and the beer was the most important contributor. This was my point. I'm not claiming that beer was the most important factor (or even as important as religion) .

My example was not taken from air either, since alcohol has had an effect on some wars, though it rarely gets to be decisive. For example, one of the commanders of the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire, this time) of the 30-year war, Pallas was a complete drunk and this interfered badly with his leadership. (He is probably the only commander in history who has managed to get himself bottled up in Denmark by an enemy that started as being bottled up in Denmark).

I think you meant to say yes here.

No, I didn't. I included the modern atheist examples to illustrate the fact that you don't have to be religious before embarking yourself in a project of conquest. Thus, supposing that the previous wars of conquests had not happened without religion is baseless.

"Trying" isn't doing it.

Well, Stalin succeeded nicely as did Mao.

Just like trying to avoid your beer claim and avoid your claim that religion had no influence on empires isn't doing it.

And just for record, I clarify that my position is not that religion had no influence but that it is too strong claim to say that it had significant influence.

He wasn't an atheist, nor was he a pink flamingo in a top hat.

But is there a reason to suggest that he started the conquest because he was religious?

In answer to your question. I have no reason to suppose any hypothetical situation that is contrary to documented evidence is correct. Why should you?

Well, because considering hypothetical situations might give you better understanding of the causes of things.

What modern atheist empire builders exist today?

I wasn't speaking about today. I was speaking about modern times. Depending on the subject, I generally put the start of the modern times somewhere around WWI. Stalin was very much a modern atheist empire-builder. (Even though he got most of his empire as a reluctant inheritance from the Romanov's).

I'm still waiting for the evidence that beer has had as much impact on empires throughout history as religion.

You'll get is as soon as you show that religion was a significant cause for empire-builders. [In case you think I'm serious while writing this, see above].

[stamenflicker]

Running away from a debate before it has begun is not going to change the answer from NONE.

This is why I left this forum. Basically, in spite of my sincere belief that there is intelligence among the atheist / agnostic community, one is hard pressed to find it here.

You said: You might want to change "religion is just part of the rise and fall" to "religion is a significant part of the rise and fall".

I'm saying that is not true to include the word "significant" and you would be hard pressed to find evidence to support your claim. Instead of proving yourself you want to attack what I said:

I said: throwing blame around to one social strata as opposed to the human landscape which occupies multiple strata is bigotry.

You don't want to debate that statement. You want to debate this statement:

I said: Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall. If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

Rather than focus on the fact that I am right, you changed the subject to:

You said: Better still, which part of history had no religion?

Which in no way reflects anything I said.

So I say: I'm not going to argue with an idiot.

Stamen

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by LW

Otherwise you could give arguments like: beer (and other alcoholic beverages) have been present during the whole human history, so beer was a significant part of the rise and fall of empires.

Clearly, beer was not all that significant in the rise and fall of empires, because if the jerks who killed all those people during the rise and fall of empires would have just sat back and had a beer, the human race could have saved a lot of trouble for itself.

And I might add that some of you folks could sit back and have a beer yourselves, and the world would be better for it.

But on the subject of the original post, I was going to add a variant of the Socrates argument, until I saw that someone had beaten me to it. I was going to add a Socrates, Nero, Cleopatra, Herod, and maybe Alexander argument. I don't think writings by any of these people survived, only writings about them. Likewise with Jesus. Now I'm not sure whether the world would be better off with or without any of these people, but I'm pretty sure they all existed.

In the case of Jesus, I'm pretty sure the stories are mostly fictitious, but I think it is extremely likely that there was a real, historical, person behind the legends. Maybe if Josephus hadn't mentioned him, there might be a case that he didn't exist. However, it seems very unlikely to me that a cult about a person could flourish so shortly after his death, if that person had never even lived. Furthermore, I can't actually prove that any of the legends are false. Therefore, the people who do happen to believe them should be treated with respect.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall as witnessed countless times over in world history.

So when has this happened, other than in your imagination?

Can you name a significant empire where there was no religious influence?

You are hypothesising a none existent event to support an argument that is no more than wishful thinking?

The rise and fall of empires is as a result of many factors, religion is part of those many factors and also influences each of them.

Trying to get my head around your woolly thinking, I am assuming you may consider that social, economic, political and possible health issues, among others, can also be a factor in an empires rise and fall.

Religion has strong influence on those factors mentioned, as does each with the others.

Following what seems to be your argument you could equally claim that economics has no part in the rise and fall of empires, because it would still rise and fall because of social, political, health and religious influence.

Extracting one influence and leaving the others to explain a rise and fall is ridiculous.


Originally posted by stamenflicker
Rather than focus on the fact that I am right, you changed the subject to:

You said: Better still, which part of history had no religion?

Which in no way reflects anything I said.

So I say: I'm not going to argue with an idiot.

You made the statement "If there were no religion, empires would still rise and fall". No such event has ever happened.

I can say, "If the Romans had nuclear power, WWII would never have happened" or any number of wild imaginings.

Am I correct? Who can say? Who cares? Does it have any value in evaluating the actual evidence of the historical record? Not really.

As a fanciful thought experiment, it could be fun, but nothing else.

Your statement is just that, a fanciful thought experiment, but you choose to use it as evidence that religion has had no effect on empires and history which is just plain wrong.

Calling me an idiot doesn't raise you argument, weak as it is, to a very credible level. You have failed to show how your fanciful extraction of one influence has any validity in evaluating historical events other than a thought experiment. If I'm an idiot what does that make you?

IMHO those that attempt to re-define history and in particular those that wish to remove the power, wealth, control, horror and torment of religious influence, demonstrated constantly and consistently throughout history, are no better than the holocaust deniers and an insult to the innumerable lives sacrificed to the hunger of religious power throughout history.

You should be ashamed.

[H3LL]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
And I might add that some of you folks could sit back and have a beer yourselves, and the world would be better for it.

Sounds good to me. Cheers :alc:

[stamenflicker]

You said: but you choose to use it as evidence that religion has had no effect on empires and history which is just plain wrong

I said:

Empires rise and fall because it is in their natures to do so, such things are inevitable. Religion, of which Christianity is only a part, existing as part of the social landscape and comprised of individuals who are rooted in the political landscape. Religion doesn't cause empires to rise and fall, religion is just part of the rise and fall...

...throwing blame around to one social strata as opposed to the human landscape which occupies multiple strata is bigotry.

If you hear me saying that religion has never been a signficant part of any empire's rise or fall, you are obviously reading into my statements what you want to read.

However, if you choose to take what I have actually written without extrapolating what you wish to be true about my statement, if you choose to analyze them in their contexts and debate my points, we can have a reasonable discussion. But if you continue to summarize what I've written in such a way that it does not reflect my thoughts, then we cannot have meaningful discussion.

So again your statement:

but you choose to use it as evidence that religion has had no effect on empires and history which is just plain wrong

not only misrepresents my statements, it is in fact an outright attempt to misconstrue what I've written. I am only saying that once again that to say religion is a significant [your word] part in the rise and fall ignores a host of history and cherry picks examples to prove a point that just can't stand on its own merit. This point, you refuse to debate because the evidence is not on your side.

Stamen

[stamenflicker]

Following what seems to be your argument you could equally claim that economics has no part in the rise and fall of empires, because it would still rise and fall because of social, political, health and religious influence.

Not at all, I would argue that economics, greed, and resource competition far outweigh religion as sources of empire rise and fall as the historical witness bears record.

Stamen

[H3LL]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Not at all, I would argue that economics, greed, and resource competition far outweigh religion as sources of empire rise and fall as the historical witness bears record.

Stamen

And you're unable to see any influence by religion in economics, greed and resource competition.

Some would argue that is a good definition of religion.

[Meadmaker]

H3LL,
Very cool smiley.

[LW]

Originally posted by H3LL
And you're unable to see any influence by religion in economics, greed and resource competition.

Some would argue that is a good definition of religion.

Isn't it enough that the religious ones define religion to encompass everything? Do the non-religious people have to do the same?

I've once debated with a born-again Christian who had the opinion that watching tv may be a religion. And that was not in some strange cargo-cult sense but the specific example was that a person who doesn't have any other religion but who spends his leisure time in front of the picture-box worships tv. Mind you, we had some serious difficulties to understand each other in that discussion.

I would say that any good definition of religion includes a bit about "belief in existence of supernatural entities or forces" somewhere within. Or else you easily end up with everything being a religion, even atheism.

[LW]

Originally posted by LW
For example, one of the commanders of the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire, this time) of the 30-year war, Pallas was a complete drunk and this interfered badly with his leadership.

And, of course, here I mean General Gallas, not Pallas.