Corrupted and disputed - fictionalized components mixed with biased observation and editing as with other writings of discussion in this thread.

I don't understand the question - are you referring to their majority (but not all) agreement upon an acceptable corporate mission statement to present to their franchisees or the exile of those who disagreed with the majority or their handbook of standing operating procedures (Canon) or the agreement upon when to standardize their Easter celebrations or the decision related to the Meletian schism?

Since your question infers a belief the Council got nothing wrong - do you agree with Canon 3 of the Council's SOP?

Canon 3: All members of the clergy are forbidden to dwell with any woman, except a mother, sister, or aunt.

Richard

*

OK, here's the question. You stated that you doubted the reliability of the New Testament. The Council of Nicea compiled the New Testament. Tell us what they got wrong; i.e. what was wrong with their methodology, what facts did they rely upon that have since been proven incorrect, etc.

As to Josephus' writing: SOME people dispute that the entire portion regarding Christ was correct. Most maintain that at least some portion therein was correct. However, most if not all historians maintain that Josephus' discussion of James, Jesus' brother, was accurate. As Josephus was a Jewish, and not a Christian, historian, his only "bias" as you called it, should have been to include neither of these "Christians" within his historical account, or to at least have been derogatory to both. Do you agree or disagree?

Are there any other portions of Josephus' writings that you dispute? Does the fact that he was a historian that was Jewish make his Antiquities more or less accurate?

BTW, my earlier questions implied nothing. They were one-sentence questions intended to delve deeper into your blanket dismissals of the veracity of the world's three largest religions. Specifically, the intentions therein were to discern whether your dismissals were based upon logic and fact, versus the invective contained within your writings. Simply: you opined, not I. Back it up.

How so?
 

I'm not sure how this argument holds water? What constitutes a lie is a matter of fact not faith. There seems to be a fair amount of historical evidence a man named Jesus lived, whether or not he was divine is a matter of faith.

Historical perspective matters too since the apostles or zealots (not meant to be offensive but likely how the Pagan Romans viewed them) were members of an uprising in conquered lands that threatened the status quo. As the movement gained traction, the Romans took the common steps to stifle it including culling the leadership, until such time as the Roman emperor Constantine realized he could use Christianity to enhance his political ends. By amazing coincidence a burning cross appeared in the heavens to inspire his troops at the Milvian Bridge shortly before a decisive battle.

There are also issues of cultural values, in the prosperous West, we rank value of life very high, obviously not the case globally, there are parts of the third world where a murder can be bought for considerably less than the price of a toaster. People die for all sorts of reasons, some of them seemingly stupid to us, all the time.

Culture aside, history has shown people will die for what they value. Soldiers for example choose to die for things they value highly. Our troops at Corregidor knew the score, they weren't fools. The Japanese Kamikazes or defenders of Iwo Jima, chose death in a lost cause. These people were not inherently stupid no one believed that the war could be won at this point regardless of the propaganda. I'm sure some of the veterans on this site could go into their reasons better than I.

Perhaps, People typically don't die for things they don't value makes more sense?

3 largest religions?
 

Perhaps my Google Fu is weak, but while prominent historically particularly in the West is it possible there are anywhere near as many Jews as Hindus or Buddhists?

Buddhism doesn't seem to get near the bad press Islam does, yet the Tamil Tigers are terrorists and Buddhists, which may coincide with Richard's point about violence from ideologies espousing peace. Instead of debating the veracity of any one particular faith over another, should we be looking at the nature of men?

*

Apparently, the Tamil Tigers are predominantly Hindu.

Link to a story on the Tamil Tigers from the BBC:

Analysis: Tamil-Muslim divide

I wonder if this is a question that can even be answered definitively. The fact that historians invest so much time trying to understand the motivation of soldiers who fought during a number conflicts suggests that the question defies uncomplicated answers.

IMO, answering the question basically requires one to know a person's state of mind during those moments when one faces certain death. How would one know that a person is balancing thoughts of "This is a cause for which I'd die" with thoughts of "Maybe I'll come out of this alive.":confused:

And then there are the complicated questions about truth, faith, knowledge, free will, and choice.

Mohammad believed he was a prophet.
Davy Crockett believed he was quite the adventurer.
Jesus believed he was The Son of God.

With all of them, we are left with three options regarding their self-assessment:
1 - The given person was a liar.
2 - The given person was a lunatic.
3 - The given person was exactly who they said they were.

It's interesting to see what people's responses are when posed with this trichotomy.

Typically, they will dispute the record of self-assessment rather than answer the question.

*

I agree with you that today Islam is more threatening than Christianity to the non-believer. But I also believe Christians tend to downplay historical rationalization for violence which was based on their scripture.

That is a historically inaccurate statement.

N/A - see above.

Disagree - it is not such an either/or-neither/nor issue and there is much written which challenges that line of reasoning.

There are many of Josephus' writings which have been subject to dispute and the taint of his personal beliefs in his writings are as suspect as any other historian's (e.g., Herodotus, Hecataeus, etc).

My 'blanket' opinion - the result of personal study, experience, observation, and reason - have led me to most appreciate the logic behind the idea of 'the laws of nature and nature's god' vice the historical record of the actions taken by those major religious groups contrary to their theological underpinnings.

However - YMMV - and so it goes...;)

Richard's jaded $.02 :munchin

Who does Christianity threaten today?

How many people were killed last year in the name of Jesus?

Can you contrast that with Islam, where dozens are regularly killed by their Muslim brothers after an alleged slight?

We can rehash past wrongs by everyone, for exploitation, genocide, slavery, conversions, the Inquisition, etc.

I don't really care about that, unless it threatens my family, or my country. You believe whatever you want, worship whoever or whatever you desire. Your right to follow your religious creed (or none) ends where mine start. You make me and my fellow Americans the objects of your hatred and violence, then you can face the consequences.

As a soldier, I think I can see where the real threat lies.

TR

Everyone has an opinion...
 

http://www.alternet.org/story/47679/

The Rise of Christian Fascism and Its Threat to American Democracy
--"Chris Hedges is the former Middle East bureau chief for The New York Times and the author of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning."

He compares Christian right wingers to the Nazis and their church in social agenda.

There are many perspectives about religion; I agree with the assessment that no perspective is entitled to instigate attacks on our nation from within or without.

FWIW, As far as I'm concerned, I was born on this side, and I like it here.

It would appear to be quite popular these days to make sport of Christians and their beliefs.

TR