Jesus

[Jeeves]

Precisely, but Judaism it is prejudicial nevertheless, as are all mono theistic relgions, by definition. Jesus preached against the religion of that day. That's why he died.

If you keep saying so.

Nationalism is usually mildly prejudicial,

mildly.... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/04/30/moscow-may-day/8526297/
https://july4thparade.com/

but it does allow for trade and sharing of information

trade... https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/...ng-tariffs-on-china-doesnt-seem-to-be-working
https://www.france24.com/en/20190823-javad-zarif-iran-france-emmanuel-macron-usa-trade-embargo
and information
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2.../www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/16/israel
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jul/28/india.randeepramesh

Religious zealotry does not allow "apostasy" or "infidelity", on penalty of death,

whereas nationalism is permissive ...?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...zi-spies-mi5-second-world-war-german-executed
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-2/mswv2_16.htm

as 3000 years of religious wars do testify.

They don't, because most of them were not about religion. You can dress a turkey as president and it doesn't turn into a statesman, any more than wearing a priest's cassock makes one a Christian.

Even today the prevailing sentiment of Muslims is the utter destruction of Israel and all Jews.

Muslims were never mad at Jews for the first 1300 years of Islam. In fact, the Islamic empires were far more tolerant of both Jews and Christians than the Christian empires were of any other other religionists. However, the natives of Palestine and surrounding areas were fair ticked off to have their territory given away by the Allies, and the establishment of a heavily subsidized military power plunked down in their midst. Plus, the brand new Jewish state has behaved very badly toward its unwilling neighbours. That tuth, by the way, is now considered a heresy in the USA.
Islam was originally invented to unite the Arabs against European rule. This revival is yet another effort to muster a resistance to foreign domination.

That is not enlightened thinking

No shit! But neither is it religious thinking.

I'm sorry, but Lewis Black is, at best, superficially entertaining.

 

[spidergoat]

Jesus preached against the religion of that day. That's why he died.

He preached against the Temple of his day, not the religion. Big difference.

 

[Write4U]

If you keep saying so.

Yes, all religious wars and individual sacrifice were in the name of the religions represented. That's why it is called religious history and not secular history.

 

[Write4U]

He preached against the Temple of his day, not the religion. Big difference.

Temple, God, Oracle, Witch-docter, what difference does it make? The entire scheme rests on abstract, unprovable beliefs. Yet the exclusivity of the belief system demanded complete obedience and conformance to religious ritual.
It still does.

 

[Write4U]

hey don't, because most of them were not about religion. You can dress a turkey as president and it doesn't turn into a statesman, any more than wearing a priest's cassock makes one a Christian.

10 of the biggest religious wars ever fought
By Addictive Lists | January 15, 2018
Religion is one of the most sensitive issues and, although every religion encourages the idea of peace and tolerance, almost no one remains in peace or tolerates anything when it comes to their religion. History is full of religious wars and some of them have continued for years and killed many. Here is the list of 10 of the biggest wars that were fought over religious conflicts and differences.

10. SECOND WAR OF KAPPEL
9. LEBANESE CIVIL WAR
8. THE CRUSADES
7. SECOND SUDANESE CIVIL WAR
6. FIRST SUDANESE CIVIL WAR
5. GERMAN PEASANTS’ WAR
4. NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR
3. FRENCH WARS OF RELIGION
2. THIRTY YEARS’ WAR
1. EIGHTY YEARS’ WAR

https://addictivelists.com/10-biggest-religious-wars-ever-fought/

And of course the latest war of 911 which started 18 years ago and is still ongoing.

And a host of smaller wars.
The War of Attrition (1968-1970)
The six day war between Israel and Egypt.
The Yom Kippur war

And a host of other smaller wars, most not identified as religious wars, but no doubt that religion played a part, just as it did in the history of the Spanish princess.

In fact King Henry VIII was such a strong adherent that he was bequeathed the title “Defender of the Faith” by the pope for his efforts in protecting Catholicism against the Protestants. However, all these changed upon the pope’s denial of Henry’s request for a divorce.

Through enactment of the Act of Supremacy formulated by Henry VIII and his parliament, England broke away from the Roman Catholic Church.

The Church of England became an independent entity from the Roman Church and the king of England was appointed as leader of the church. As such, the Pope had no influence over any religious matters in England and this paved way for transformation to Protestantism.

https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/how-did-king-henry-viii-change-religion-england-90175

A common property of religious wars is the brutality with which these wars were fought. The enemy were considered agents of the devil and extreme cruelty was used to extract confessions.

Prejudicial Roots
The real Spanish Inquisition came late to European history. The classic inquisition that existed in various parts of Europe in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries had little impact on the Spanish peninsula. The Inquisition was nonexistent in Spain or Portugal at that time. It was only after the mid-fifteenth century that the Spanish Inquisition developed. And its primary target was not so-called “heretics.” The ugly truth of the Spanish Inquisition is that it was aimed primarily at descendants of Jewish converts who were accused of secretly practicing their old faith. And the motivating factor may have been greed, jealously, and racial pogroms, rather than preservation of the unity of faith.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/secrets-of-the-spanish-inquisition-revealed

Exclusivity = non-inclusion

 

[Jeeves]

Temple, God, Oracle, Witch-docter, what difference does it make?

All the difference in the world. He was a reformer of the existing [exclusively Hebrew] religion of his people, which had been corrupted by greed and political pandering. That's not heresy; that's being a pain in the administration's ass.

You can slap a name on something without turning into that thing. Simply calling a war religious doesn't make its underlying cause religious. The Christian [not Muslim] persecution of Jews and witches was primarily a money-grab (the church confiscated their property) of pagans and heretics was primarily a consolidation of power through terror; of Catholics by Protestants and vice versa was plain politics: who gets the throne, the army, the law-making apparatus, the taxes and tithes.

I do not dispute that these events took place; only the reasons why they took place.

 

[Write4U]

I do not dispute that these events took place; only the reasons why they took place

Why are they called Religious Wars if they were not religiously motivated?

There are many secular wars also, but they are not called Religious Wars because they were not religious wars.

 

[Jeeves]

Why are they called Religious Wars if they were not religiously motivated?

Because the movers and shakers an local war-makers needed and excuse to mobilize large numbers of peons, mindlessly rushing all in the same direction, getting killed in large piles and not complaining. Religion makes a perfect cover - for anything: it's impervious to logic.

There are many secular wars also, but they are not called Religious Wars because they were not religious wars.

Some are called ideological wars. Some are called wars on terror. Some are called wars of liberation. Some are called wars to end wars.
Whatever they're called, they're all really about the same thing: Who controls the land, resources and population.

 

[Write4U]

Because the movers and shakers an local war-makers needed and excuse to mobilize large numbers of peons, mindlessly rushing all in the same direction, getting killed in large piles and not complaining. Religion makes a perfect cover - for anything: it's impervious to logic.

Some are called ideological wars. Some are called wars on terror. Some are called wars of liberation. Some are called wars to end wars.
Whatever they're called, they're all really about the same thing: Who controls the land, resources and population.

I agree,
Secular wars are usually for control of land and resources. Religious (ideological) wars are for control of people.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If a war is for assets etc but called a religious war, because the mob is motivated by religion, that does not let religion off the hook...it would seem to show a somewhat evil side in that the mob can be conned to assist a leader if they perceive they act upon religious grounds. Not a religious war?¿? Sure. Anything to minimise the deverstating effects of religion upon humanity and tolerate the hypocracy of crippling superstition.
I can't see how the role of religion can be downplayed by pointing out the underlying reason for a a war was merely a land grab or gold plundering exercise when the troops are yelling for god etc. How is such not a religious war.
Alex

 

[spidergoat]

Temple, God, Oracle, Witch-docter, what difference does it make?

The devil is in the details.

The entire scheme rests on abstract, unprovable beliefs.

Different schemes, different beliefs. We should be as accurate as possible. There may have been no Jesus as portrayed in popular culture, but Jews are still blamed for his death. Which would be wrong if we know the Romans controlled the entire religious and political system.

 

[Jeeves]

If a war is for assets etc but called a religious war, because the mob is motivated by religion, that does not let religion off the hook...it would seem to show a somewhat evil side in that the mob can be conned to assist a leader if they perceive they act upon religious grounds. Not a religious war?¿? Sure. Anything to minimise the deverstating effects of religion upon humanity and tolerate the hypocracy of crippling superstition.
I can't see how the role of religion can be downplayed by pointing out the underlying reason for a a war was merely a land grab or gold plundering exercise when the troops are yelling for god etc. How is such not a religious war.
Alex

Okay. I didn't say religion isn't bad. It rots people's brains. But I draw a distinction between personal belief, which encompasses a huge range spooks and fancies, mostly benign, and religious institutions, which are, without exception, agencies of mass-control.
This whole subject has gotten way out of hand and off topic.

My original contention was that Jesus - if he was real - may very well have believed his own philosophy ---
but that was not the reason he was killed - if he was killed, his execution was motivated by political expediency.

I also stand by the assertion that, while religious affiliation is a useful tool in war-mongering, the underlying motivation of the instigators is never - or almost never, to allow for a mad zealot every millennium or so - a matter of supernatural belief, but some worldly and tangible objective, for which religion is used as an emotional front. If you choose to take every atrocity committed in the name of a religion at face value and call them all "religious" atrocities, fine, that's your prerogative - but I call that face a mask.

The distinction is important, because if you avail yourself of that convenience (categorizing half the world's ills as 'religious'), you can pretend that those genocides, wars, tortures, imprisonments and persecutions would never have taken place, if not for belief in a god.
Wrong.
Men don't commit acts that the gods they invent demand: men invent gods who demand the acts they want to commit.

 

[Write4U]

The devil is in the details.

Different schemes, different beliefs. We should be as accurate as possible. There may have been no Jesus as portrayed in popular culture, but Jews are still blamed for his death. Which would be wrong if we know the Romans controlled the entire religious and political system.

Justified as the Romans allowing the Jews an act of self-rule. Sometimes very convenient.
Mere permission; "I wash my hands from this", absolves from guilt, no? (sarcasm)

 

[Write4U]

If you choose to take every atrocity committed in the name of a religion at face value and call them all "religious" atrocities, fine, that's your prerogative - but I call that face a mask.

It depends on who makes the claim, no? All acts of war have motive. It's really not that hard to distinguish the motive between the acts and the declared motive.
{Committing murder while yelling "Allah is great" is commiting an religious act of war against the greater secular (apostate) society.} This is the very reason for "martyrdom" in the name of a religion (god), it is a religious sacrifice.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

If you choose to take every atrocity committed in the name of a religion at face value and call them all "religious" atrocities, fine, that's your prerogative -

I so choose.

My original contention was that Jesus - if he was real - may very well have believed his own philosophy ---
but that was not the reason he was killed - if he was killed, his execution was motivated by political expediency.

Yes things have gone off the rails.
My view there is sufficient evidence to consider that JC is a myth but his creators presented an interesting and perhaps useful philosophy. I suppose interpreting the motivations in a made up story is going to fit a predetermined belief of the "facts" traceable to the first time you heard the story. I do believe the story was created to meet a political outcome and so on that basis I could accept the narrative may well reflect a political slant. I believe these "stories" carry a hidden meaning so perhaps if we knew that hidden meaning...anyways I understand your point.
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

While off the rails...consider a Nobleman called upon by the Pope to go crusading..He thinks..mmm I can look righteous, make political headway and add to my fortune...so he joins the holy war.
Separation of religion from politics is convenient of course..consider how the church distanced itself from the holocaust blaming the politics...but we could ask where the hate grew before it became political and if we answered that question honestly could we really blame the politics.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Jeeves said:
My original contention was that Jesus - if he was real - may very well have believed his own philosophy ---
but that was not the reason he was killed - if he was killed, his execution was motivated by political expediency.

No, Pontius Pilate was motivated by political expediency. The Pharesees were acting from religious expediency, by demanding his death.

Pontius Pilate allowed them choice, to set free a self-proclaimed saviour or a stone cold convicted criminal. The "clergy" choose the latter. Only then did the Romans apply local law, in spite of declaring no crime was committed.

If Romans had not been there Jesus would still have been murdered by the clergy.
His crime was heresy.

 

[spidergoat]

Justified as the Romans allowing the Jews an act of self-rule. Sometimes very convenient.
Mere permission; "I wash my hands from this", absolves from guilt, no? (sarcasm)

Yes. And which Jews were delegated to rule? Hand-picked and bribed lackeys of Rome. I reference Reza Aslan's book on the subject: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[Jeeves]

{Committing murder while yelling "Allah is great" is commiting an religious act of war against the greater secular (apostate) society.} This is the very reason for "martyrdom" in the name of a religion (god), it is a religious sacrifice.

There are two very distinct motives in that single act. The martyr himself - like every boy who ever yelled "Geronimo!" or "For king and country!" or "Old Glory!' or "Remember the Alamo!" when rushing to his unnecessary death - is motivated by emotion and deeply held belief. The leader who goaded him into enlisting and pointed him at a strategically chosen target is motivated by something far more rational and practical.
Look at the context - not just of the moment of impact, but the global history surrounding that boy's life up to the point of impact.

If Romans had not been there Jesus would still have been murdered by the clergy.
His crime was heresy.

Ostensible crime. If the Romans had not been there, neither would have Pilate or the Pharisees: they would have had a Hebrew king and autonomous government, and prophets preaching division of state and church wouldn't even be possible, let alone popular. The Roman occupation set up the situation wherein that particular execution, by that particular method, could take place.
Look to the context.

Remember, too when the events of the Jesus story supposedly took place and when Christianity as an organized cult started to gain traction. There is a gap of 200 years. There is an accretion of mythological material and political circumstance from eight or nine different territories, societies, cultures, traditions - all under the heavy shadow of a Roman empire in constant political flux. By the time it develops into modern Catholicism, it's a completely different entity, with a different philosophy, structure, hierarchy and function from the place and time of its origins.

 

[Jeeves]

While off the rails...consider a Nobleman called upon by the Pope to go crusading..

Pope Urban II saw the kings or Europe slipping out from under the vatican's control. He needed to get them on side. This was a calculated ploy to retain/regain political power.

He thinks..mmm I can look righteous, make political headway and add to my fortune...so he joins the holy war.

More often, he sends his second pr third son - the troublemaker. A few centuries later, that son would be packed off to the new World to fight Indians.

Separation of religion from politics is convenient of course.

For whom? I've never actually seen it done, except in the USSR - where the church went underground until the politics collapsed, and then resurged with a vengeance.

.consider how the church distanced itself from the holocaust blaming the politics.

The vatican (as well as US interests) bankrolled Hitler, because he was going to get rid of the communist threat. They didn't count on his rabid antisemitism - that was colleteral damage.
Of course, it had come in handy for some previous European administrations: when they were too heavily in debt to the Jewish bankers, they could always call a pogrom and seize the refugees' assets.

..but we could ask where the hate grew before it became political and if we answered that question honestly could we really blame the politics.Alex

Of course we can. All kinds of xenophobic hatreds grow because they benefit an elite, who then feed their people's suspicion and paranoia. Worse comes to worst, stage a 9/11 style event and whip the crowds into a frenzy. Every village boss keeps a Frankenstein's monster in his basement, to trot out from time to time: keep those pitchforks sharp!