I agree.

This one place holds significance to EVERYONE, religious and secular; for the secular, it has historic and aesthetic value. For those of the Abrahamic belief systems (Jews/Christians/Muslims) who hold this place holy, it's the one thing they can agree to share (although I will bet that each sect eyes the place with longing and wishes it were ALL theirs) but at least all three can agree that this place is significant to each other, and moreover can agree to SHARE it as well.

Now, if they all could remember this lesson when it comes to sharing this PLANET, we all (secular and religious) would be much better off!

I think the lesson is Israel might not be perfect but does alright.

A corollary question would be pick someone else in the middle east that would do a better job.

It doesnt take middle easterners to come up with some ridiculous religions. Look at the Abrahamic religions and the talking snake crap, Scientology with their xenu and their thetans, and Mormonism with their god living on planet Kolob.

Oh, and you can fuel your car with hydrogen, methane, or a number of other combustible materials, with some modification. Or, we could actually wane our dependence on their oil and use electric, at least as a supplement.

Christianity came out of the Middle East.

Yes, P&V, Abraham was an Arab.

Sciencefictionology came out of L. Ron Hubbard's @ss and is not a religion, it's just a cult.

And Moronism is based very loosely on your standard Abrahamic desert fare, with a dash of up-too-late-drinking-the-night-before.

What is your line between religion and cult? All I see in your response on that is the general "big religion labelling the little religion as a cult" fare. They have beliefs that are just as ridiculous as those of christianity.

Also, regardless of the origin of mormonism, its still @!$%#ing stupid. Magic underwear? Get the @!$%# out of here.

And it doesnt really matter what ethnicity abraham was. What does it matter to the point?

IndigoRage sid:

Only two things come from the middle east: Oil and Lies.

The entire Abrahamic belief system came from the Middle East, Jews, Christians and Muslims. Jesus was most likely a Middle-Eastern man, so were Mary and Joseph. The ancient polytheistic religions got started with Semitic polytheism in Babylonia (present-day Iraq) and Assyria (parts of present-day Egypt, Persia, Syria, Arabia, Israel, and Cyprus.)

This actually segued into the worship of their head god 'Ilu' to the monotheistic 'El', and that's where you get the Jewish/Hebraic 'Elohim', which after some language drifts ('El' to 'Al' to 'Allah') became Allah of Muslim tradition. And we all know that the Jewish faith split off into two sects, Jews and Christians, and the rest, as they say, is history.

Hinduism came from Persia and India, and is the world's third-largest religion after Christianity and Islam. Buddhism also started in India.

So practically ALL of today's major world religions came from the Middle East. Now, as to whether all religions lie, that's based on personal opinion.

Last time I tried, middle eastern religions didn't fuel my car very well....

The development of religion was man's first attempt at explaining the world around them. Then Science (which in a way, is almost its own religion, just one based on tangible, provable fact) evolved as a skeptic's way of explaining what religion simply deemed a miracle. And Science is what fuels your car--in fact, it is what made the very existence of your car possible. So yes, in a very technical way, religion did make your car possible and does fuel it.

sorry, no. religion has been the worst enemy of science since the inception of science. Just ask galileo how good religion was for science, or the evolutionary biologists of today who have the ignorance of creationism to deal with how well science and religion work together.

It is DESPITE religion that your car works. And it is DESPITE religion that you have fuel for your car. Even if both were born from curiosity, one is driven by what makes one feel good, the other is driven by repeatable, demonstrable evidence.

ALL religion is horsepucky, no matter where it came from.

It's just the ones from the middle east (Judeasm, Christianity and Islam) that have done the most damage to human advancement. Not to mention male-female relations.

It's just the ones from the middle east (Judeasm, Christianity and Islam) that have done the most damage to human advancement. Not to mention male-female relations.

Not to mention the female-their own genitals relations.

Actually, people-their own genitals. Circumcision is genital mutilation as well

I always snicker when people are treated separately from religion, government, and corporations. They are all organizations of people.

In the 20th century, atheists made up the difference in mass destruction and slaughter for their under performance for much of the history of man.

The real lines of battle should be drawn between people capable of empathy and the sociopaths/psychopaths that can not. Until humanity comes to grips with that segment of its population that seek to take control of *any* organization of people and lead them into destruction and death, the human condition probably isn't going to improve much.

P&V: Amanda isn't too far off. Early religion, specifically, the old polytheistic religions, did not eschew science, but were formed to explain everyday phenomenon - from the rise and set of the sun (Apollo's Chariot, Ra, et al) to the cycle of seasons, to why we fall down.

And some, especially the ancient Greek and Roman pantheons, even had deities associated with advancing technology.

But, and here is where Amanda and I are going to diverge and disagree...

As the newer monotheistic faiths came crawling out of the desert, one of their first and most important missions was to completely discredit and destroy all previous faiths.

The jews have spelled this out quite clearly in the holy laws (the mitzvots) :

601. Not to keep alive any individual of the seven Canaanite nations.
602. To exterminate the seven Canaanite nations from the land of Israel.
613. To destroy the seed of Amalek.

And I don't think we even need to discuss the views of Islam vs. The Infidel

Then... many modern practicing pagans, myself included, can trace the roots of our beliefs to non-middle-eastern locals - such as the Heathens who follow the Old Norse traditions, Shamans and Medicine Men still practicing as their tribes have since their people first crawled out of the ground in North America.

But as to validity of them...

I would question the validity of any religion that commands its followers "Thou Shalt Not Kill" on page 31 and then turns around and says to commit genocide 20 pages later, and emphasizes the extermination of a specific family bloodline, as a divine mandate. This just stinks of human perversion of religion in the name of conquest and domination.

And yes, I am also quite aware that many early religions had "enemies" as well - the Frost Giants, the Titans, trickster spirits, etc. However...

For the Norse, these gods would sacrifice themselves against their enemies during the time of Ragnarok. And humans were merely warned away from Tricksters, never commanded to engage or destroy them - in fact, they were taught to respect them all the same.

For me, this has far more credibility than "Do not commit murder, unless it's a Caananite or a decendant of our enemy, then it's ok."

And since you asked...

When is it a religion, when is it a cult?

It's a tricky question, but... if tenants include things like:

Alienating family, friends or loved ones who disagree with teachings
Actively engaging in illegal activities (Operation: Snow White)
Prehistoric nuclear weapons
Genocide

it's most likely a cult. And Scienefictionology has all of these, and then some going for it.

I love the arguments on the subject of jesus, since there is no real evidence that he even existed in the first place. No contemporary accounts, no physical evidence, nothing outside of the bible. and considering the problems with consistency and the factual errors involved in that book, it is necessary to look to outside evidence to be able to reasonably accept his existence.

Oh, and of course there was no sign a god ever visited there. The god christians talk about is either non-existent or existent and no different than a god that doesnt exist, as it produces no actual effects in reality. If it did, we should be able to test for those effects, but when we do, the results come back negative.

In a thousand years people will still be dicussing Jesus. But in a couple of 100 no one will care about or discuss P&V. Won't even care if he ever really existed or not. Is that really why your P&V?

We still discuss Ra. Does that make Ra real?

The popularity or staying power of an idea says nothing about the truth of the idea.

PV your comment is believable only if you have not read history. Josephus, Pliny, Tacitus, Origen, among others, referenced Jesus as an historical personality. In fact there are more contemporary and historically proximate references to Jesus than most widely accepted characters from ancient history. If reasonability is the standard and contemporary non-Biblical documentation is the criteria, then the historic existence of Jesus is supported quite well.

There is contemporary "proof" of Jesus' existance. The Jewish historian Josephus, who was employed by the Romans, mentions Jesus in his writings and discusses the crucifixion.

Josephus's comment is widely held to be forgery, as his supposed comments are not only not in his handwriting, but out of character for him in both tone and content. Not to mention that he was born after jesus supposedly died, so he isnt a contemporary.

Tacitus was born about 20 years after the supposed death of jesus, so HE isnt a contemporary, either.

Origen is about 150 years late to the party, so he is out as well as a contemporary.

Pliny is the ONLY one on your little list there that was even alive during the supposed time of jesus, but just barely so. He would have been 10-13 at the time jesus supposedly died. But the issue isnt that. Its that his supposed reference is not a reference to jesus himself, but to people worshipping jesus, and the writing in question is 30-50 YEARS after jesus supposedly died. Again, not a contemporary.

Got anything better? Lets see some of the "more contemporary and historically proximate references to Jesus" (although I find your assertion absolutely hilarious. Thanks for that.)

First of all, your argument does not hold against the normal standard of historical research. In comparison to other accepted personalities of the same period Jesus' existence is well documented. Further note I said contemporary or proximate and all on the list meets that claim. Your pithy response not with-standing, your assertions of forgery are not universally accepted among historians at all. Additionally, many of the written references that exist cite contemporary sources. Your bias is blinding you to real historical research of the subject.

I dont really care if someone heard through someone else who heard through someone else that jesus was real. Proximate claims mean nothing when you have no firsthand accounts to actually establish the fact in the first place, and the ONLY supposed firsthand account is of the bible, which cannot be factually verified (insomuch as it claims supernatural @!$%#)

I mean, i have heard people claim that they knew a friend that saw a UFO. Does that mean I should believe that claim?

And my claims are the claims of actual historians, not christian apologists. Maybe if you did some research on the subject, you would see that.

So, i challenge you to actually counter my rebuttal, instead of dismissing it without actually demonstrating where I am wrong. You could, for instance, cite a historian that isnt a christian apologist that actually accepts the josephus account as historical fact and NOT forgery.

Louis H. Feldman surveyed the relevant literature from 1937 to 1980 in Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Feldman noted that 4 scholars regarded the Testimonium Flavianum as entirely genuine, 6 as mostly genuine, 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations, and 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.

So while not universally accepted the authenticity of the passages in Josepus are not rejected by even a majority of the studies. Further, if we must reject all Christian appologists then those anti-thetical to Christianity must be rejected for bias as well.

Also, few (yes there are some) historians secular or otherwise doubt that Jesus existed as an historical figure. True, some argue the religious/divine nature attributed to Him in the Biblical texts. Anyone who claims that Jesus did not exist or that He was not at a minimum a reformist minded Jew is shouting against the preponderance of history. Of course it is possible to shove your fingers in your ears, close your eyes tight and mumble blah, blah, blah to avoid reality. That is always a choice.

To borrow from an old song, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it for me"

And, "I've read the back of the book and we win!"

Amen. Come, Lord Jesus, Come

That last sentence was uttered by Mary Magdalene, his wife.

OH, you are an evil one! shame, shame

not everything. But it does usually take religion (or something like it) to get generally good people to do truly evil things.

There is good and evil in everyone. Someone who is inherently good will not start suddenly doing 'evil' things just after exposure to religion or a particular religion; someone who is inherently bad will not start suddenly to do 'good' just after exposure to religion/a specific religion. The inherent proclivity is always there and it takes a number of environmental factors that can contribute o a person doing 'evil' or 'good'.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in.

i didnt say what you are claiming I said. I said that it usually takes religion or something akin to it to get generally good people to do truly evil things.

Not only that, but religion also provides very good cover for the types of mental illness that spawn irrational violence. People saying that they feel god telling them to do things in their lives sounds very similar to the symptoms of some forms of schizophrenia.

Besides, what IS the difference between a schizophrenic who hears voices and a "normal" person who hears a god?

And if those people really do talk to god, why does god seem to pick people who end up being inarticulate and ineffective at spreading his message?

This comment has to be one of the most inane and uninformed things I have ever read. All evil is created by the Church? I suppose you are unaware of Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Nero - I'm getting writers cramp just typing the list. Evil is a human trait that knows no political, ideological, geographic, or religious boundries. Has religion been used as a tool by evil people; yes. But so have those who do evil used skin color, family membership, water, precious minerals, etc etc to motivate others to follow their agenda to do harm.

considering that a good deal of the fighting that goes on is the direct result (or secondarily related) to the whole "my god is better than your god, and my god tells me to kill you" mindset, I would have to agree.

The number of people killed in the name of one god or another is just staggering. and it doesnt just apply to war, either. witches being burned, people being shot for not believing or disagreeing with the belief of the shooter, LEGAL clinics being bombed. I could continue with that list, but the point is clear.

I doubt that will do it. Non-religious groups have done very well in being just as bloodthirsty (USSR, China, Cambodia, Nazi Germany) We'll find another reason to hate and always have. Studies have shown that even kids will always find a way to rank people according to some difference, real or imaginary and denigrate others who fall outside 'their' group. We'll hate for skin color, language, culture, economic status, political affiliation (witness the U.S. recently), sexual orientation, eye color, tribal affiliation. Some of those can sometimes be linked to religion but they don't have to be. Humans will take any handy reason to hate others.

True, but one of the most popular and cohesive reasons for killing one another is religious beliefs (or differences in religious beliefs). Resources and security are probably the other big ones.

If you do the numbers, non-religious mass murder has dwarfed religious violence in the modern era. In the Soviet Union, over 20 million killed to further the Communist cause. Pol Pot killed millions in Cambodia as they emptied the cities and marched everyone to reeducation camps. The Cultural Revolution in China killed close to 10 million and nearly 100 million were imprisoned and punished. The biggest killer of innocents in the 20th century; Communism.

I love how you conveniently leave out almost the entirety of human history when trying to defend your position.

As if people only invented killing one another in the last 100 years or something...

Again your pithiness is not a response. I quite clearly cite the modern era. Is that the complete record of human violence? No, but my point does make the argument that religion is clearly not the only or even main source of violence and evil. If religion was the only source of evil then those regimes that manifestly reject religion should be the most peaceful societies in human history. Yet the list above shows that not to be true. If religion was the sufficient and necessary cause of evil, the modern era, removed from superstitious foundations by rationality and science would be the ideal test for an examination of causality and evil. Given those assumptions it is reasonable to select modern examples of violence and evil. Thank you for your attempt at avoiding real history once again.

and where did I say it was the only or main source of violence. I said it was ONE popular reason. Then i listed more reasons.

And no, it is not reasonable to cite the relatively downplayed influence of religion, especially as compared with the period before 100 years ago, given the decrease in the power of religion in the world. they used to rule unequivocally almost everywhere. Now, most countries have non-theocratical governments, and the influence of religion is beginning to wane. However, even with the waning of the overbearing presence of a religious government, the propensity of religious belief is still very high.

Also, you are comparing straight numbers to numbers. In the last 150 years, the population has gone from 1.5 billion people to 7 billion people. There are simply more people available to kill in the modern era, so the numbers will be inflated comparatively.

However, I would like to thank you for avoiding real comparisons.

Ok, rz, now you've drawn me into this...

The writings of Josephus are an admitted forgery. But that much aside - let's talk about people killed "in the name of god".

Islamic Jihads, Christian Crusades, Catholic Inqusitions - they estimate the nazis put to death some 11 million people. The Church has put to death very likely just as many "witches, wizards and warlocks" throughout its bloody, brutal and I'd even volunteer blasphemous history.

For me, it's hard for me to pick a "lesser evil", The Church or the Nazis.

Bhuddists don't start wars. Maybe they know something we don't.

Up Uranus?

lol sorry, had to.

You mean Kolob? Why it's right around the corner. You can only see it if you're wearing your magic underwear. I've heard that the Mormons melted the golden plates years ago when the price of gold rose sharply.

It's either 'cynical' or 'ecuminical'. Or maybe 'cutical'.

P&V is 'raging against the machine' (disorganized religion).

Nuke,

Wiki is not a reliable source, because anyone can change the information given.

I have tried to tell mankind many times over the years that there was indeed a "higher power" involved in the design and installation of all three of these Abrahamic religions, but that "higher power" was by NO MEANS Divine in nature, it was in fact outside offensive totalitarian ETs, and these ETs have long conspired to one day steal and annex our extremely valuable celestial real estate, by using their (now) eminent domain rights of military intervention in our sector of the Milky Way galaxy. These regional domain ET powers were forced to take this covert approach at territorial expansion because there are Free Galaxy powers which reside elsewhere in our Milky Way galaxy, who currently stand in the way of overt military conquest on a stellar level. I personally know this because I lived at Wright Patterson Air Force base from 1951 to 1953, while my grandfather (Colonel Charles Faulkner Carter) was second in command there, and he was personally involved in the background investigation into the Roswell Incident of 1947. These same ETs overflew Washington DC for several weeks in 1952, in order to demand the return of the Roswell crash remains. They chose the middle of the Korean War as the most opportune time to do this, since we had our hands full with the Soviets, the Red Chinese and the North Koreans. The real "Gospel" or "Good News" is that mankind potentially has countless millions (even billions) of years of growth, development and expansion ahead of them, so long as they don't fall for these ET designed and installed terminal religious "End Time" belief systems. Please listen before it is too late for you, mankind! - Rick Carter

Don't worry about it. The energy barrier I raised to keep out the thetans after preventing the birth of Xenu will keep them out.

Once again, my sincere gratitude to Mel Gibson for helping to prove this point in a timely fashion. In case many of you don't know this, Mel actually used a robot to film a number of scenes of Christ on the cross during his filming of "The Passion of the Christ". Although these ETs were able to do far better with the help of advanced android technology, Mel's use of robots in that film still does quite a bit to help me get my point across. - RC

That's some screen play. We should make an animated movie about it.

Call it 'Finding JC'.

Herb:

I've already completed the script for Jesus: The Second Coming.

The story plays like this:

In a non-descript alley, a hippy-looking fellow wanders out of the shadows, nearly trips over a bum, who stops slurring, stands up and starts following this fellow. As they emerge onto the street, both the hippy and bum are arrested by local police for vagarency.

At the police station, the cops have begun questioning the hippy, but they're not liking his responses, especially when asked his name, and he replies: "Jesus, the Christ, son of God".

Shortly after, he's transferred from a holding cell to a mental hospital, where he continues to assert that he is, in fact, the real Jesus. Eventually, word gets back to the pentagon, where our hapless hero is sedated, blindfolded, transported, and hidden away from the world as the government attempts to weaponize him.

Blood samples are drawn, genetic experiments conducted, all manner of tests, from routine to worse than torturous are administered.

In the end, he dies again at human hands, mouthing the words "Not worth saving".

you are about as smart as piss

Right you are, Chuckie. God bless you.

Right, Chucky Cheese. I'll bet HE talks to you, but only when you take off your tinfoil hat.

All my religious idols are made with full authorization of God and come with a Certificate of Authenticity. You just need a better holy idol vendor.

Yo're right. The problem is that they take it DEADLY seriously.

So... you're saying... we should rename it "Hitlercare"?