.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Referring to the atrocities and terrible injustices which I indicated had been committed by religious people against other religious people, you observed :

« They were committed by people who called themselves "religious", but were they indeed? »
.

The people, authorities and institutions to whom and to which I was referring in my post (page 14 of this thread) – those who had committed the “atrocities and terrible injustices” – were the following :

• The people who wanted Jesus eliminated – local Jewish leaders and Roman political leaders (?)

• Saul of Tarsus (Saint Paul) who participated in stoning to death (Saint) Etienne

• Nero, the Emperor, who ordered (Saint) Peter to be crucified upside down and (Saint) Paul to be beheaded

• The Catholic Church who tried and condemned the Dominican friar, Giordano Bruno, and Joan of Arc (who acted on religious visions) to be burned at the stake

If all these people, authorities and institutions were to be judged in a reputable, democratic court of law, I think the court would consider it reasonable to presume that the accused were, indeed, religious.

If, however, they were to be judged by a hypothetic deity, we have no way of knowing whether they would be found “religious” or not.

However, as you kindly informed me on a previous thread here on OLO that you are God and I am God and we all are God (statement of faith that I perfectly respect), as God, I, personally, declare that all the accused are “religious”.

What about you, Yuyutsu ?

I also extend this invitation to any eavesdroppers on this thread to feel free to make a personal Godly pronouncement of “religiosity” or “non-religiosity” regarding the accused, if he or she (or whatever) would care to join in on our divine deliberations.

.

Dear Banjo,

Yes, what we truly are is God, but so long as our minds are impure, so will the words we utter (or type), being processed through our impure minds (mine included), remain short of truly reflecting the word of God.

Another way to look at it is regarding your claim, "as God, I, personally, declare that...": yet God is not a person, it is only your impure mind which makes you ignorantly think that you are a person, a limited being that falls way short of God's unlimited infinitude, love, freedom, joy and unrestricted knowledge.

As for the people you mentioned, they were violent and cruel, they abused others and they did not love their fellows as themselves - their attitude and behaviour took them away from God, not towards God, hence they were irreligious, either misguided, impostors or a combination of both, this regardless of what an ignorant secular court of law might say.

Banjo P,

<<There is no consensus among scholars as to why Jesus was crucified.>>

Please name the scholars on different sides of the reason for Jesus' crucifixion.

<<Scholars have offered various explanations based on the particular political and religious context at the time.>>

Generic answers like this demonstrate a resistance to dealing with the data.

<<They all have merit from a historical point of view, but there is no way of determining with certainty, today, exactly why Jesus was crucified >>

You demonstrate that you don't know how to engage in historical research. NO historical research can come up with a certain answer because the crucified Jesus is not with us. However, we can know the truth of the historical situation, beyond reasonable doubt.

Aristotle's dictum was that the benefit of the doubt is given to the document itself and not arrogated by the critic to himself (Art of Poetry, 1460b-1461b). Therefore, 'one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies' (J W Montgomery, History and Christianity 1965:29).

We also need to remember that historical science reaches conclusions beyond reasonable doubt. It does not guarantee 100% certainty because the presence of the incident is not in contemporary society, whether that be Emperor Nero's actions, Martin Luther and the Reformation, or the terrorism of 9/11.

Eminent theologian, the late Dr Carl F H Henry, stated: 'As history the New Testament saving events are subject to the same research as other historical events.... It is certainly true that there is more to the case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ than historical fact....

But when it comes to the question of a historical resurrection from the dead and the matter of the empty tomb, this can be answered on in terms of historical research and testimony. And I quite grant that one cannot get to absolute certainty in terms of historical method.... But the very heart of the apostolic preaching falls out if you lose the historical ingredient' (in Montgomery 1965:105).

(continued)

(continuation)

Prof Montgomery added: 'It is fairer to compare the resurrection to other events of classical times, because it's in the same general time area and therefore the amount of data is perhaps more comparable.

I majored in classics in college, and to my amazement I never heard any questioning of the events of the classical period as to their per se historicity despite the fact that these are based on much less data than the resurrection of Christ. For example, the existence of Plato depends upon manuscript evidence dated over a thousand years later' (Montgomery 1965:106).

So, why was Jesus crucified? You will never get consensus among scholars when they write from different presuppositional views.

The Scriptures give the reasons why he was crucified and resurrected: Matthew 27:22-25 states that Jewish leaders demanded his crucifixion, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A22-25&version=NLT.

Physically, he was put to death by the Romans (Matthew 27:27-37), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+27%3A27-37&version=NLT

No matter how much theologians and exegetes disagree, the fact remains that each sinful human being, including you and me, killed him because of our sins, 'For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ' (2 Corinthians 5:21).

This is why Jesus came to earth to die, 'But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners' (Romans 5:8).

Don't bother going to contradictory theologians. I recommend that you go straight to Scripture for God's reasons for why he was crucified and resurrected.

Why Is Religion So Divisive?
Because religious people are very judgemental as a consequence of their own beliefs

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

Thank you for your Godly pronouncement :

« As for the people you mentioned, they were violent and cruel, they abused others and they did not love their fellows as themselves - their attitude and behaviour took them away from God, not towards God, hence they were irreligious, either misguided, impostors or a combination of both … »
.

As you, a fervent Hindu, Yuyutsu, condemn for “irreligiosity” the actors of those “atrocities and terrible injustices”, all of which [except the stoning to death of (Saint) Etienne by the Jewish religious zealot, (Saint) Paul] were committed some 2,000 years ago, in the name and under the authority of two major religious institutions (Judaism and Catholicism) and a major political institution (the government of Rome), I wonder what Vishnu would have to say about that :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EENh1hxkD6E

.

Dear 0zSpen,

.

Many thanks for your long, informative post.

I think the penultimate line of your post sums-up nicely the difference of our approach, not only to the subject in hand, but to life in general – our “Weltanschauung” (world view) :

« Don't bother going to contradictory theologians. I recommend that you go straight to Scripture for God's reasons… »

What more can I say ?

All else would be to no avail.

Except, of course :

« I wish you well, OzSpen. Have a great day ! »

.