People didn’t really wage wars against each other to spread religion until a Jewish cult decided that they needed to spread their monotheistic religion.
Printable View
People didn’t really wage wars against each other to spread religion until a Jewish cult decided that they needed to spread their monotheistic religion.
That's not true. You're just defining religion in a way that allows you to say that. All wars are waged about beliefs (particularly the belief that "they" should acknowledge my right to rule them).Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Wage wars? I read a lot, I mean a LOT of history! Humans have not needed ANY one reason, one excuse, to wage war on each other.
For instance...on Afghanistan. Just finished reading the accounts of the British there in the 1870's. One British general lamented that they, the Brits, were just wasting time, sacrificing lives in Afghanistan because this place has always been, and will always be, at war, whether with each other or against foreigners. That was in 1879. That was 139 years ago....he was right. Nothing has changed.
The Battle of Maiwand was a tragedy for the Brits. The Afghan ruler, at the time, was friendly to Britain and to the West in general. He wanted to put down a rebellion so he led an army of 65,000 troops north to meet and defeat a rebel army of 25,000 massing along a river, threatening Kabul. The British command decided to send a small legion, 2,800 men, as support of the emperor. They were two days behind the Afghan army on the road. Near the village of Maiwand the small British column met some "refugees," Afghan Army soldiers fleeing for their lives and warning the Brits they had better run too. Seems the massive Afghan Army, under the emperor, had mutinied and joined the rebel army. Only a few thousand had stood with the emperor and they had been slaughtered. Now the rebel army numbered over 80,000 and it was marching toward Kabul. This small group of British soldiers knew their duty and stood their ground.
In a four-hour battle the vastly outnumbered Brits made a heroic stand. One regiment, the 66th Infantry (Foot), went into the fight with 650 officers and men....not a single one survived. The regiment had a mascot, a dog named "Bobbie." Later a British cavalry unit arrived at Maiwand. They found the dog, slashed by a sword, badly hurt but still alive. Bobbie was the only member of the regiment to survive the battle. Another British regiment had 969 men at the start of the battle....only 177 survived. The Afghans lost over 4,000 men in the battle.
The rebel Afghan army never reached Kabul. Political in-fighting and tribal disputes caused it to break up. The British rallied and was able to defeat the scattered segments of the rebel army, one after the other. Didn't matter as the war went on, as did the tribal disputes among the Afghans.
William Wallace
Alexander the Great
Napoleon
Hitler
Also just read a book on the fall of Constantinople in 1453. "The Red Apple" is what the Muslim Turks, the Ottoman Empire, called it. In April, 1453, the Turks arrived at the city with an army of 250,000, under the Sultan Mehmet. Only 8,000 soldiers were there to defend Constantinople, under Emperor Constanstine XI. It would take more than 2 months but eventually the attackers breached the walls and captured the city. Mehmet had ordered all the defenders slaughtered, but over 3,000 defenders fought their way to the harbor where they boarded ships and escaped. The Ottoman Navy could have stopped them, but they more interested in going ashore to join in the plundering of the city.
The Turks lost 72,000 men killed in the two-month long battle. Would say it was a high price to pay, but the Sultan Mehmet and his ilk didn't care about the average soldier in their army. They were just expendable saps.
Yes, but the Jesus Christ myth was the thing that kicked off the phenomenon of wars to spread religion.
Cherry pickingQuote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Yeah, but it goes to my point about monotheistic regligion doing harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
Poorly selected evidence doesn't support anything. There are a bunch of dead Nubians that think you're point is patently wrong!Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Even if you could prove that the crusades were the first act of their kind (which you I don't think you can), you'd still have to go much further to show that it was their "christianness" or even "montheism" that led to what transpired. This is a particularly tough task given the actual teachings of Christ which are totally counter to the crusades. Once that is considered you see that the crusades are no different than any other conflict. Folks like Sam Harris love to fly them as proof of the harm of monotheism, but that's a non-nuanced and incomplete assertion. IMO.
And another one bites the dust!
He's on quite a roll.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Is your supported theory that the person never existed at all or that the person existed many centures before the stories are first told or that the person existed but was not as described?Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
Just interested.