Good essay,not Fallacy,Please read. I beg you for an answer.

[Dread]

Ill leave the fallacy behind from now on Sorry if I offended. To maintain a discussion, control and respect for others views no matter how much you disagree must be observed. Direct harmful statements create only anger, no understanding is bred out of this. I have been foolish in my writings, making hateful comments, but this is a Religious forum not a apology forum, so I will carry on with what I have to say now.

My below example has nothing to do with religion, but I am attempting to clarify my stance further in the essay.

To justify or prove something, you need some form of concrete proof. Scott Peterson was convicted with no physical evidence, he was convicted with completley word of mouth, and behavioral evidence, all collected through speech and records of his actions. What he did at what time, how he did it. No actual physical evidence provided such as a murder weapon, or a fingerprint. Nothing. But it was plain as day that he should be convicted. How? He did too many foolish things to be able to maintain a innocent stance. Which is why he was found guilty, he proved himself guilty with his actions. He crossed the line. Proof was provided, even though it wasnt actual physical proof. But it was still considered proof.

Hmm, I can easily be attacked here… but oh well The jurors believed he was guilty, but how do they know and so on, isnt that faith to? Well it is in a way, but it is faith built up on undenyable truth, not faith built with general statements and ideologies. Actual rational, logical truth. As the proof piled up, the percentage possibility that he was innocent grew drastically smaller. Even though there is still a possibility, it is highly improbable. Now…carrying on.

Now, as far as religion goes, proof is based completely on faith, not proof. You attempt to provide physical, and non-physical proof, but none of it actually observable. None of it actually experienced. None of it backed up with records, other than the one you worship. There arent multiple sources of non-physical proof like their is with the peterson case. In a way, there cant be. And there is only one source of supposed proof. Some a manipulated version, but whos to say that they arent all manipulated, even the original? The only so called “proof” provided, is a book or books. All of which have no other supporting proofs other than what faith leads you to believe is proof. You convince yourself that it is proof, but how is it? How do you know it happened? How do you know without some source of proof outside of a single scripture that is the sole supporter of your beliefs? Some other record of these occurances happening other than the bible or whatever single object you hold as your proof . Peterson was fishing, ok…, well he was fishing the same day Laci was murdered. Near the same place she was dropped, bought a fishing licence 2 days prior, didnt even fish obviously. Told two different stories about where he was. Was arrested with dyed hair and 15000 dollars in San Diego. I could go on and on with pieces of proof but stating every detail of the Peterson case(as you are probably thinking right now) it isnt really needed nor relevant. Just using as an example. Where is your actual proof. Other than quotes from a single ancient document?

You can point out any part of religion, and I can justify it without using a divine being. Show utility outside of worship in god. Especially utility for a government implementing it as the official doctrine of the state, as it was pointed out to me that the Romans did after they discovered that christianity was such an effective control. They could tell believers to do whatever they wanted to do. Such as “convert” or basically take over and steal resources from other countries and spread its empire through the use of religion. While the people thought they were spreading the will of god, they were spreading an empire. While the soldiers all believed that this was the sure way to heaven. That they were “Gods” army. Well, they were in a way gods army, the Cesear speaking through the pope was this god. One example of possible utility. Not necessrily true, just a possibility that arose through observation. Tieing observations of humanities behavior, and our desire for power. The obvious power religion holds over the believer. Control with power, gain with power, create fear with power. There is also a desire to maintain your power as well. Your wealth, your status. Your country. Early leaders realized the power of religion, and utilized it to gain and maintain their power.

It started as the social glue of society, now it is the bane. It has outlived its justifiable usefulness. With the new knowledge comes the need for change. Time to move on to a better system, a better way to view things. It is time to change, just as we have evolved government, we need to evolve the government’s Religion. It is no longer needed to keep our society together, there is so much variation, that it does nothing but cause conflict within societies rather than hold them together. It has outlived its purpose.

I am in no way claiming there is no god, I am just saying that religion has nothing to do with it.

[Uccisore]

attempt to provide physical, and non-physical proof, but none of it actually observable. None of it actually experienced. None of it backed up with records, other than the one you worship.

Doesn’t this fly in the face of what religious people actually claim, though? Many many people claim to have had religious experiences, whether it be some alleged miraculous event, or a ‘vision’ or just the very widespread sensation of ‘communicating with God’ through prayer. In order to claim that nothing about religion is obervable or experienced, you need to address these claims somehow.

There arent multiple sources of non-physical proof like their is with the peterson case. In a way, there cant be.

In the case of Christianity, that's exactly what the Gospels are-  accounts of witness testimony of alleged events. I have a feeling that you're assuming to preach before a secular crowd-  YOu're expecting your audience will just take it on principal that the Bible is invalid and claims of spiritual experience are all bunk. I would submit that accounting for these things somehow should be the bulk of your work.

Some a manipulated version, but whos to say that they arent all manipulated, even the original?

Are you comfortable with the results of this line, though? All the information we have about the world from 200 years ago on back basically comes to us in the form of written record. What if it’s ALL been manipulated? Are you proposing a skepticism towards all history in general? If so, you should say so. If not, you should explain why books about religion are suspect, and some other written record from 2,000 years ago can be safely trusted.

How do you know without some source of proof outside of a single scripture that is the sole supporter of your beliefs?

The Bible isn’t a sole source of proof, it’s a compilation of evidence. Just because we purchase it all between the same two book covers, doesn’t mean the evidence is lacking or sparse. For example, if the entire prosecution’s case against Scott Peterson was published as a single book, would that mean that his conviction hung on 'a single piece of evidence"?

 As to your points about the power of religion, I would submit this- if there wasn't something in each of us that spoke to religion being real, if there wasn't this frequent occurence of 'spiritual experience', religion wouldn't have the power you observe.  I'm not so cynical as to think that everybody in the ancient world were moronic enough to accept a religion JUST because some guy told them to. There must have been something in them that caused it to ring true.

[Dread]

@Uccisore

attempt to provide physical, and non-physical proof, but none of it actually observable. None of it actually experienced. None of it backed up with records, other than the one you worship.

Doesn’t this fly in the face of what religious people actually claim, though? Many many people claim to have had religious experiences, whether it be some alleged miraculous event, or a ‘vision’ or just the very widespread sensation of ‘communicating with God’ through prayer. In order to claim that nothing about religion is obervable or experienced, you need to address these claims somehow.

There arent multiple sources of non-physical proof like their is with the peterson case. In a way, there cant be.

In the case of Christianity, that's exactly what the Gospels are-  accounts of witness testimony of alleged events. I have a feeling that you're assuming to preach before a secular crowd-  YOu're expecting your audience will just take it on principal that the Bible is invalid and claims of spiritual experience are all bunk. I would submit that accounting for these things somehow should be the bulk of your work.

Some a manipulated version, but whos to say that they arent all manipulated, even the original?

Are you comfortable with the results of this line, though? All the information we have about the world from 200 years ago on back basically comes to us in the form of written record. What if it’s ALL been manipulated? Are you proposing a skepticism towards all history in general? If so, you should say so. If not, you should explain why books about religion are suspect, and some other written record from 2,000 years ago can be safely trusted.

How do you know without some source of proof outside of a single scripture that is the sole supporter of your beliefs?

The Bible isn’t a sole source of proof, it’s a compilation of evidence. Just because we purchase it all between the same two book covers, doesn’t mean the evidence is lacking or sparse. For example, if the entire prosecution’s case against Scott Peterson was published as a single book, would that mean that his conviction hung on 'a single piece of evidence"?

 As to your points about the power of religion, I would submit this- if there wasn't something in each of us that spoke to religion being real, if there wasn't this frequent occurence of 'spiritual experience', religion wouldn't have the power you observe.  I'm not so cynical as to think that everybody in the ancient world were moronic enough to accept a religion JUST because some guy told them to. There must have been something in them that caused it to ring true.

As it seems, I am being too general. It is hard to try and get my point across with simple writings such as this. I am just trying to throw it out in the open. I make mistakes, maybe I should take these a lot more seriously, but it seems as though I have gotten my point across. Very good breakdown of my comments though. I will have to think of another way to explain with less holes. Thanks for your reply.

What I was saying is that their was a lot of evidence dealing with the Peterson case that was a recent occurance. The evidence was built up with actual statements by many witnesses. Actual records of his actions. I find it hard to believe that many of the sources of evidence could have been manipulated, as any religious work clearly could have, and has, been. But if in fact some was, their was tons of other proof piled up, that you couldnt question the outcome. You can question the possiblity of what regligious scripture claims. And yes, who is to say our history is entirely correct. How can you be so sure it is? Whos to say it wasnt exagerated, “corrected” through the eyes of the writer? Look at our actions in the past, how can you be so sure they werent ignorant? People as a group have done some horrible hanus things, how do explain that they all got the same idea and followed the same hate? By being told to. By being convinced through clever manipulation and control by their leaders. Without knowledge or understanding , how do you answer these questions. When you were a child, did you follow the lead of your parents? Did you not build an understanding around your surroundings? How can you say that they couldn’t have been easily manipulated? If you cannot know it to be correct? How can they be so sure, when their is more contradicting observation then their is pro religious evidence?

I just want proof, proof that religion is right, or can even be right in the first place. How does one choose a Religion? Do you research each one and choose the best? How do you know which is right? Go with which one everyone around says is right? I dont get it. To many questionable observations, not enough proof.

[Future_Man]

Many many people claim to have had religious experiences, whether it be some alleged miraculous event, or a ‘vision’ or just the very widespread sensation of ‘communicating with God’ through prayer.

if god wanted us all to believe, no wait excuse me, if god REQUIRED that we all believe his special book, wouldnt he provide all of us with the same amount of evidence supporting it? why should some people who probably already believe ni god anyway get a vision and some not? if im going to be damned to hell for not eating crackers, shouldnt i have been told to eat them just as believably as holy mother of flowers from mexico was?

YOu’re expecting your audience will just take it on principal that the Bible is invalid and claims of spiritual experience are all bunk

where is the tiniest ittiest bittiest speck of evidence supporting those things that we would call bunk? the logic i employ completely supports their bunkness, and eyewitness accounts can be misleading more often than logic. i believe the absolute absence of a logical support for religion is significant, since i can describe many ways that god appears to be stupid, and i dont think religous types would say that he is. they wont be able to say why he isnt, just that i and my logic are wrong and i should ‘have some faith’

All the information we have about the world from 200 years ago on back basically comes to us in the form of written record. What if it’s ALL been manipulated?

if we look at some kind of record of non-religion based history, such as what happened at the battle of whatever, nobody is going to make any money if that evidence is changed around to support a certain belief.

if you change around the bible so that people are forced to go to mass every sunday and you should only be a member of the catholic church since only their priests can magically interact with jesus to forgive your sins, well then you can make some money and you can control the population more than you could otherwise.

thats the singe main reason why the church is hard to swallow. they expect you to believe without evidence. they expect you to believe the most important thing in the world in a way that is entirely different from the way you believe everything else. and if you do so, those same people happen to benefit in many different ways that would be difficult otherwise.

[Uccisore]

if god wanted us all to believe, no wait excuse me, if god REQUIRED that we all believe his special book, wouldnt he provide all of us with the same amount of evidence supporting it?

One thing you need to reflect on, is that statements like "Oh yeah, well why didn't God do it [i]this way [/i]instead of [i]that way[/i]?" aren't arguments, they are mere curiousities.  I don't know, Future Man, why did God do it this way instead of that way? You can use these curiousities to support some other conclusion, but I haven't seen you do that yet. 

where is the tiniest ittiest bittiest speck of evidence supporting those things that we would call bunk?

The fact that throughout history, perhaps billions of people have had experiences they attribute to God counts as evidence itself, is what I’m saying. You can make the argument that ‘oh, well, those people are all crazy’ if you want, but unless you are already firmly committed to an atheistic stance, that’s an arbitrary distinction.

if we look at some kind of record of non-religion based history, such as what happened at the battle of whatever, nobody is going to make any money if that evidence is changed around to support a certain belief.

I disagree. Perhaps nobody now stands to profit from the recorded history of centuries past, but certainly when those facts were first recorded, there was a huge political, financial, and credibility stake in how some events were reported.

if you change around the bible so that people are forced to go to mass every sunday and you should only be a member of the catholic church since only their priests can magically interact with jesus to forgive your sins, well then you can make some money and you can control the population more than you could otherwise.

  Sure, and where's your evidence that this actually happened? Considering millions of people (Protestants) read the Bible, and don't see it as supporting the above views at all, it would seem that the imaginary authorities you conjure up that could change the Bible without getting caught, didn't do a very good job. 

they expect you to believe without evidence.

No, they don’t. At least, not the Churches I’ve been to. They invite you to experience God for yourself, in the context of Christianity. Most people who accept this invitation find the results very real. Again, the Bible still counts as evidence, despite your stories.

[Future_Man]

statements like “Oh yeah, well why didn’t God do it this way instead of that way?” aren’t arguments, they are mere curiousities.

look if god required that we all believe that his son died and resurrected, and that we need to eat his corpse in the form of crackers, instead of merely believing that we had to treat our neighbor like ourself, thats crazy by itself. but besides the intrinsic craziness, if god appeared to some people, who i have never seen, and showed them that this thing is truly real, then those people have an unfair advantage in the race to believe. either god loves them more, hes just a stupid jerk, or thats not the way it is. right?

since i have never seen any reason to believe the Traditions, it will remain unbelievable to me, and i will be damned to hell for not believing. people in a town in mexico saw the holy mother of flowers and therefore believe. they will not burn in hell. is that fair? this is how christians explain things.

if that is god, then screw him because i am smarter than him and i could most likely create a universe better than him.

unless you are already firmly committed to an atheistic stance, that’s an arbitrary distinction.

no im totally not atheistic. im a quaker, anti-organization. perhaps those people who hallucinate really were sent a special hallucination from god. fine. was an island man in charge of an isolated island society sent an image of jesus christ so that he could spread the Good News and open the gates of Heaven to his flock a thousand or so years before missionaries from rome came? i dont think so.

how come native americans arent mormons? i mean crap jesus actually came over and talked to them. did they crucify him too? or was he just a hologram? how come nobody was a mormon until the white man came who had already seen jesus elsewhere?

if people have ‘visions’ supporting all kinds of different religious organizations, what makes you think the visions supporting one organization are more valid than others? perhaps the content of the vision is influenced by the local religious flavor? do you think the visions said aynthing about slitting goat throats or eating crackers? i doubt it.

Sure, and where’s your evidence that this actually happened? [the church manipulating people for their own benefit]

a long time ago the world was a bleak crappy place. the dark ages. i dont know where church tradition is written down, but i know that it was used to force people to go to church weekly and forced them to go to only catholic priests because only they had special god powers.

the christians would say that some guy slitting goat throats absolutely can not forgive your sins. what evidence do they have? nothing. words on paper kept in the gigantic building that houses the people who enforce the paper and make money because of it.

how is it not embarassingly obvious that the church is rich because it manipulates? i am embarassed for all humans. i cant believe in this day and age its not painfully clear to all christians that money and time are being misappropriated.

Considering millions of people (Protestants) read the Bible, and don’t see it as supporting the above views at all, it would seem that the imaginary authorities you conjure up that could change the Bible without getting caught, didn’t do a very good job.

whatever shady business happened, the fact remins that there is a building you MUST go to every week. you MUST participate in numerous initiation rites so that you are a member forever. you MUST only go to one kind of special god power man.

you cant just treat your neighbor like yourself, you MUST be a member of this organization. you used to be FORCED to give them money. they would tax you right into poverty. luckily for humanity they have taken the first baby step away from that crap and they are merely obliged to donate. it is unfortunate that people still dont care that their donation bought a golden stupid chalice.

They invite you to experience God for yourself, in the context of Christianity. Most people who accept this invitation find the results very real.

i guess im just a shallow, emotionless machine. i remember back in the day i actually believed it all. well i cant say i fully did, i was in elementary school. i do know that it didnt make me feel the slightest bit better about anything when i ate crackers for the first time. i was actually very dissapointed. i was looking forward to anything. instead, it was a regular cracker.

at that point i realized that people who cling on to these rituals are desperate, superstitous, emotionally dependent sheep. exactly what they call themselves. as long as they treat their neighbor like themself and dont missappropriate tons of cash, they are harmless. unfortunately, the church has used their dependence on superstition to put a dent in my economy and distract many from their real mission: helping other people in need, not the god power man who lives in the humongous superfluous building.

Again, the Bible still counts as evidence, despite your stories.

yeah it says treat your neighbor like yourself. where exactly is the description of any of the other bullshit that christianity spews (not gay hatred, im talking crackers and mandatory church membership)?and where is the empirical evidence that suggests its possibility? because the golden rule is empirically verifiable. unlike everything else. why some and not all? doesnt god think its all vitally important? no he doesnt.

there is only one important thing that god could expect all people to believe. there is only one important thing that helps peoples daily lives (besides the beneficial effects of succumbing to your need for superstition)
the golden rule.

[Uccisore]

look if god required that we all believe that his son died and resurrected, and that we need to eat his corpse in the form of crackers, instead of merely believing that we had to treat our neighbor like ourself, thats crazy by itself.

Your personal opinions deserve no response.

either god loves them more, hes just a stupid jerk, or thats not the way it is. right?

Or, God takes into account a person’s personal experiences when deciding their fate. What’s so hard to believe about that?

this is how christians explain things.

Well, if you already know how Christians explain everything, why don’t you argue with yourself? You surely don’t need a place like this- it’s only full of stupid educated people telling you you’re wrong about everything.

how come native americans arent mormons? i mean crap jesus actually came over and talked to them. did they crucify him too? or was he just a hologram? how come nobody was a mormon until the white man came who had already seen jesus elsewhere?

You’d have to ask a believing Mormon that. I haven’t seen any around here, so why are you even bringing mormonism up?

i dont know where church tradition is written down, but i know that it was used to force people to go to church weekly and forced them to go to only catholic priests because only they had special god powers.

Completely dodging the question. Where’s your evidence that the Bible was tampered with to support these actions? Especially considering that in the dark Ages, the average peasent didn’t own a Bible, and couldn’t read it even if he got his hands on one, why would the Church even bother?

whatever shady business happened, the fact remins that there is a building you MUST go to every week.

Really? Which building is that? Jesus says that God is present whereever two or three people gather in prayer.

i guess im just a shallow, emotionless machine.

You do seem shallow, but hardly emotionless. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

where exactly is the description of any of the other bullshit that christianity spews (not gay hatred, im talking crackers and mandatory church membership)?

 I don't believe in 'mandatory church membership', and I don't know that the Bible talks about it at all. The Last Supper is the source of the communion ritual, and it's in the Gospels. 

because the golden rule is empirically verifiable.

No, like any ethical mandate, it is most certainly not empirically verifiable.

[Future_Man]

Quote:
because the golden rule is empirically verifiable.

No, like any ethical mandate, it is most certainly not empirically verifiable.

if i dont believe that my neighbor feels pain just like i do and i should refrain from hurting him because of this, theni either dont believe all humans are equal, or i believe that other humans are an illusion.

what other option is there? how do you decide that its ok to hurt your neighbor more than it helps you to do so? barring overly complex examples, how is the gold rule not completely evident?

Your personal opinions [regarding the complete uselessness of rituals that have no empirical benefit in this unvierse] deserve no response.

isnt it merely your personal opinion, and the personal opinion of others that leads you to eat crackers? i mean its not empirical evidence, you dont feel good after eating them do you? do you feel holy? or do you blindly believe that god puts another tally mark in your cracker column every sunday? or do you blidnly believe because people will think you are a heathen if you dont? why exactly do people believe in crackers?

crackers are very different from the golden rule. crackers do not help society unless you blindly believe they do “something else” on another level that we are unable to observe. seriously, did the gospels description of the last supper, which i have heard a million times in my mandatory mass experience, did the gospel REALLY say that weekly cracker consumption is a neccesary part of christianity, or perhaps do you think it meant that all humans should ‘eat dinner at the same table’ and treat all other humans like family. which of those things is a better message, which is empirically verifiably beneficial

Quote:
either god loves them more, hes just a stupid jerk, or thats not the way it is. right?

Or, God takes into account a person’s personal experiences when deciding their fate. What’s so hard to believe about that?

yes exactly, he takes their personal experience into account. eating crackers is not an experience, it is a blind, purpose-free adherence to a ritual that accomplishes nothing as far as ‘personal experience’ is concerned. christians who eat crackers are absolutely not at all more moral than others merely by their cracker consumption.

so why, exactly, do you eat crackers?

Well, if you already know how Christians explain everything, why don’t you argue with yourself? You surely don’t need a place like this- it’s only full of stupid educated people telling you you’re wrong about everything.

did you stop to think perhaps you are the one who is wrong, and i am the one who actually understands the benefits and downfalls of christianity. i mean really, where is your education, shouldnt i have been embarassed and proven wrong by now? shouldnt i be the one whos all by myself?

You’d have to ask a believing Mormon [why they believe in crazy mormonism]

yes youre right. those people ascribe to a crazy organized religion that makes no sense. nobody understands them except them and their blind faith. do you see any parallels here?

Where’s your evidence that the Bible was tampered with to support these actions?

look they didnt have video cameras in the corner of every monastery and they didnt have conspiracy theorists hand writing their newsletters. it was the freaking dark ages. all evidence that people even lived at all exists only in writing that was maintained by rich people, not peasants. all rich people benefited from the existence of the church and would not keep records of the ubermegasupersecret meetings that determined these things.

all i have is circumstantial evidence, not the least of which is, as you point out, the fact that absolutely nobody who was being taken advantage of at the time was actually able to read the thing. virtually no peasant was able to understand the mass that they ‘participated’ in until vatican freaking 2. the most important ritual in the whole religion wasnt even done in a language you could understand. i mean what the hell is that! GOD LOVES LATIN??? WTF!@!!!

Jesus says that God is present wherever two or three people gather in prayer.

jesus says a lot of things that christians dont give a crap about.

look uccisore, am i crazy or is this thread about organized religion and its worthless stupidity?

@Dread

I am in no way claiming there is no god, I am just saying that religion has nothing to do with it.

tell me what good Jesus Christ Inc. does for humanity besides the golden rule, which totally did not have to originate with him and most likely did not.

[Poiesis]

@Future Man

tell me what good Jesus Christ Inc. does for humanity besides the golden rule, which totally did not have to originate with him and most likely did not.

It might interest you, that Confucius came up with a version of the golden rule before Christ did.

[Future_Man]

it sure does interest me. i figured it was too simple to require god to send his magical son.

so let me rephrase then, what good has Jesus Christ Inc. EVER DONE besides ripping off somebody else and using that as a front for their conspiracies

[tmminionman2]

Both of you guys need to read a little bit of the Dune series. In fact, read all of it. Besides being quality fiction, it is a very insightful study of how religions (among other things) are tools to control masses of people.

[Uccisore]

if i dont believe that my neighbor feels pain just like i do and i should refrain from hurting him because of this, theni either dont believe all humans are equal, or i believe that other humans are an illusion.

Or that other people's pain is an illusion, or that there is some 'greater good' for which some people must suffer to achieve, or that pain is not inherently evil in the first place, or so on and so forth.  A lot of different angles a person can take. The point is, ethical ideals aren't empirically verifiable, so for you to take the Golden Rule as an absolute, stripped of any context or origin to back it up, is futile. 

how is the gold rule not completely evident?

'evident' is different than empirically verfiable- you've lowered the bar quite a bit.  For the Golden Rule to be 'evident', all that's required is that many people pay lip-service to it, which they clearly do. 

isnt it merely your personal opinion, and the personal opinion of others that leads you to eat crackers? i mean its not empirical evidence, you dont feel good after eating them do you?

 Of course I feel good after taking communion. It's a ritual that signifies my relationship with God, and Jesus' covenenant with me. What's not to feel good about?

why exactly do people believe in crackers?

I'm not sure what there is to believe in. What do you mean by this? Jesus had a ritual mean with his disciples, many current Christians re-enact this meal to show their devotion.  What is it that you're trying to deconstruct here? Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation? I'm not a Catholic, so I really wouldn't know what to say...

million times in my mandatory mass experience,

Just so you know, nothing said on a philosohy forum is going to soothe your resentment for being forced to go to church all those years instead of staying home playing video games. So make sure, when you post, that you’re making rational legitimate arguments, instead of just venting your rage. There’s so many OTHER places on the internet you can do that.

eating crackers is not an experience, it is a blind, purpose-free adherence to a ritual that accomplishes nothing as far as ‘personal experience’ is concerned.

 Or, it's a sign of humility and loyalty to God, which reminds the participant of Jesus' sacrifice and renews their commitment to living a godly life.  If it was a blind, purpose-free ritual for [i]you [/i], then that's unfortunate. 

did you stop to think perhaps you are the one who is wrong, and i am the one who actually understands the benefits and downfalls of christianity.

 No, Mr."I can say for sure that no teacher has every had an effect on me", that thought hadn't occured to me.  Nobody is going to take you any more seriously than you take yourself. Look over your posting history here, and give me one reason why I or anyone else should take you as "The One in the Know".  Perhaps, if you didn't see yourself that way, you could have learned something by now. 

i mean really, where is your education, shouldnt i have been embarassed and proven wrong by now?

You have been proven wrong on numerous occaisions, and you should be embarrassed. As far as being alone, how many people here reply to anything you say, other than me? My desire to have you learn something is rapidly being overcome by my desire to no longer inflict you on the rest of the forums by encouraging replies, I must admit.

look they didnt have video cameras in the corner of every monastery and they didnt have conspiracy theorists hand writing their newsletters. it was the freaking dark ages.

So, this is your hip, sarcastic way of saying “I’m making it all up because I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Cool, dude.

GOD LOVES LATIN??? WTF!@!!!

You are what I seek to avoid in coming here. Grow up, Good bye.

[Future_Man]

damn… i guess i should stop being so entertaining and start sounding more like a boring philosophy book. i thought the message was the same but i guess not.

i dont think you or anybody has a decent argument against the golden rule. please make sure you continue to respond to:

Or that other people’s pain is an illusion

well if you know that your pain is real and you think other peoples pain is fake, then you obviously dont consider them equal to you.

or that there is some ‘greater good’ for which some people must suffer to achieve

there your argument. i would weakly argue back that it is theoretically possible to calculate that stalin was wrong, but quaratining a city or killing osama really ARE following the golden rule with the amendment stating that sometimes the best way to treat neighbors like they want is to treat a smaller number of them the way they dont. surely if we dont kill osama, people will likely suffer. surely their suffering will be greater than the suffering caused by me kiling osama. you already know this, im saying it doesnt violate the golden rule. how does it.

its a matter of making sure your specualtion on that matter is accurate, and your distribution of good and bad deeds is unbalanced in favor of good.

or that pain is not inherently evil in the first place

if youre a sadist, then you dont share societal norms. if you asked jesus about this, im sure he would tell you that these people are rare, instances of them isolated from society and ignorant of the fact that they are an unusal sadist are prohibitively rare, and when you meet one of those crazy guys, you should not only educate him as to the feelings of normal people, but also forgive him for not knowing better and hurting you.

i wouldnt tell you to allow sadists to run around and torture, but i would tell you to forgive them and that those people are prohibitively rare. (sadist and a hermit from birth?)

so i maintain gold rule is empirical. wheres the so on and so forth.or am i wrong so far.

Of course I feel good after taking communion. It’s a ritual that signifies my relationship with God, and Jesus’ covenenant with me. What’s not to feel good about?

well the thing thats not good to feel about is the fact that pretty much all organized religions have the same amount of proof backing up their holiness. i mean surely if you blindly believe in jesus then its not hard to blindly believe in muhomed? how is that any different? why do you believe in jesus not muhomed? id tell you its because you live in america, not because there is evidence that points to islams fakeness and jesus’ reality.

so basically you can blindly believe whatever old books you want, and the ‘effect’ will be the same. that is, you will feel like you belong to a group that is connected to god. you can get that without crackers or jesus. so why believe in him? i could see that if his crackers offered UNIQUE benefits, then christianity would in fact be a unique religion. what makes it unique? small discrepencies in the laws?

what i meant to illustrate by saying ive been to church a million times is that ive been there, ive heard it, ive been forced to analyze it, and it is nothing. there is nothing of any value in that building. unless of course you believe that the things of value are entirely different than all other things of value in that we cannot observe the value of those things that are in a church. i say “if you cant observe the value, and the ones telling you its valuable are making money, they are lying” you say “if they tell me that invisible clothes are all the rage then of course theyre right, why would they lie. nobody lies. if i join their group, then i feel like im a member of their group”

sorry i cant do the boring philosophy book, i have to entertain myself. but do you see my point? theres no actual evidence. so the evidence must lie in the visible good of the practices. it has to be one or the other. if christianity provided believable evidence of its origins, then i can imagine believing that rituals have invisible benefits.

but no, they say that you must believe blindly, requiring evidence to believe is a sin. therefore i feel they should back that up with something that is actually believable, such as empirically verifiable and unique membership benefits.

they want you to believe that not only will you never the truth about the churchs origins, but also that you will never know the truth about whether or not the church provides a uniquely beneficial service. and then they ask for your money. thats not shady?

Or, it’s a sign of humility and loyalty to God, which reminds the participant of Jesus’ sacrifice and renews their commitment to living a godly life

to you, what seems to be a more valuable ‘ritual’ for displaying your respect for jesus and HIS TEACHINGS: following the golden rule, or reproducing something you read in the holy book.

i mean what else did jesus do that you can re-enact to show him how much you care? riding a donkey somewhere? being born in a manger? are those things NOT the same as The Holy Eucharist? surely by your definition they are, unless your definition depends on an unexplained supernatural phenomena only understood by those who went to school to be closer connected to god than you ever will be.

You have been proven wrong on numerous occaisions

i dont remember reading what it is exactly that organized religion adds to the golden rule that makes the world a better place. besides unifying the gullible masses.

So, this is your hip, sarcastic way of saying “I’m making it all up because I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Cool, dude.

its my way of saying neither do you. do you remember what the quote was in reference to? is there a reason why we should trust the credibility of all the people who were in charge of administering the bible? cause i have my reasons for the opposite and i dont remember hearing any others. i remember being told indirectly that other such evidence must exist, but thats not the same. wheres the evidence that the bible is real. none. you know it.

GOD LOVES LATIN??? WTF!@!!!

please explain to me why god chose to perform the holiest of rituals in a language that nobody understands. my theory is that the people in charge of administering the ritual were lying. whats yours. and if your response is “i dont care about the catholic church” what makes you think yours is different.

[Future_Man]

damn… i guess i should stop being so entertaining and start sounding more like a boring philosophy book. i thought the message was the same but i guess not.

i dont think you or anybody has a decent argument against the golden rule. please make sure you continue to respond to:

Or that other people’s pain is an illusion

well if you know that your pain is real and you think other peoples pain is fake, then you obviously dont consider them equal to you.

or that there is some ‘greater good’ for which some people must suffer to achieve

there your argument. i would weakly argue back that it is theoretically possible to calculate that stalin was wrong, but quaratining a city or killing osama really ARE following the golden rule with the amendment stating that sometimes the best way to treat neighbors like they want is to treat a smaller number of them the way they dont. surely if we dont kill osama, people will likely suffer. surely their suffering will be greater than the suffering caused by me kiling osama. you already know this, im saying it doesnt violate the golden rule. how does it.

its a matter of making sure your specualtion on that matter is accurate, and your distribution of good and bad deeds is unbalanced in favor of good.

or that pain is not inherently evil in the first place

if youre a sadist, then you dont share societal norms. if you asked jesus about this, im sure he would tell you that these people are rare, instances of them isolated from society and ignorant of the fact that they are an unusal sadist are prohibitively rare, and when you meet one of those crazy guys, you should not only educate him as to the feelings of normal people, but also forgive him for not knowing better and hurting you.

i wouldnt tell you to allow sadists to run around and torture, but i would tell you to forgive them and that those people are prohibitively rare. (sadist and a hermit from birth?)

so i maintain gold rule is empirical. wheres the so on and so forth.or am i wrong so far.

Of course I feel good after taking communion. It’s a ritual that signifies my relationship with God, and Jesus’ covenenant with me. What’s not to feel good about?

well the thing thats not good to feel about is the fact that pretty much all organized religions have the same amount of proof backing up their holiness. i mean surely if you blindly believe in jesus then its not hard to blindly believe in muhomed? how is that any different? why do you believe in jesus not muhomed? id tell you its because you live in america, not because there is evidence that points to islams fakeness and jesus’ reality.

so basically you can blindly believe whatever old books you want, and the ‘effect’ will be the same. that is, you will feel like you belong to a group that is connected to god. you can get that without crackers or jesus. so why believe in him? i could see that if his crackers offered UNIQUE benefits, then christianity would in fact be a unique religion. what makes it unique? small discrepencies in the laws?

what i meant to illustrate by saying ive been to church a million times is that ive been there, ive heard it, ive been forced to analyze it, and it is nothing. there is nothing of any value in that building. unless of course you believe that the things of value are entirely different than all other things of value in that we cannot observe the value of those things that are in a church. i say “if you cant observe the value, and the ones telling you its valuable are making money, they are lying” you say “if they tell me that invisible clothes are all the rage then of course theyre right, why would they lie. nobody lies. if i join their group, then i feel like im a member of their group”

sorry i cant do the boring philosophy book, i have to entertain myself. but do you see my point? theres no actual evidence. so the evidence must lie in the visible good of the practices. it has to be one or the other. if christianity provided believable evidence of its origins, then i can imagine believing that rituals have invisible benefits.

but no, they say that you must believe blindly, requiring evidence to believe is a sin. therefore i feel they should back that up with something that is actually believable, such as empirically verifiable and unique membership benefits.

they want you to believe that not only will you never the truth about the churchs origins, but also that you will never know the truth about whether or not the church provides a uniquely beneficial service. and then they ask for your money. thats not shady?

Or, it’s a sign of humility and loyalty to God, which reminds the participant of Jesus’ sacrifice and renews their commitment to living a godly life

to you, what seems to be a more valuable ‘ritual’ for displaying your respect for jesus and HIS TEACHINGS: following the golden rule, or reproducing something you read in the holy book.

i mean what else did jesus do that you can re-enact to show him how much you care? riding a donkey somewhere? being born in a manger? are those things NOT the same as The Holy Eucharist? surely by your definition they are, unless your definition depends on an unexplained supernatural phenomena only understood by those who went to school to be closer connected to god than you ever will be.

You have been proven wrong on numerous occaisions

i dont remember reading what it is exactly that organized religion adds to the golden rule that makes the world a better place. besides unifying the gullible masses.

So, this is your hip, sarcastic way of saying “I’m making it all up because I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Cool, dude.

its my way of saying neither do you. do you remember what the quote was in reference to? is there a reason why we should trust the credibility of all the people who were in charge of administering the bible? cause i have my reasons for the opposite and i dont remember hearing any others. i remember being told indirectly that other such evidence must exist, but thats not the same. wheres the evidence that the bible is real. none. you know it.

GOD LOVES LATIN??? WTF!@!!!

please explain to me why god chose to perform the holiest of rituals in a language that nobody understands. my theory is that the people in charge of administering the ritual were lying. whats yours. and if your response is “i dont care about the catholic church” what makes you think yours is different.

[Future_Man]

damn… i guess i should stop being so entertaining and start sounding more like a boring philosophy book. i thought the message was the same but i guess not.

i dont think you or anybody has a decent argument against the golden rule. please make sure you continue to respond to:

Or that other people’s pain is an illusion

well if you know that your pain is real and you think other peoples pain is fake, then you obviously dont consider them equal to you.

or that there is some ‘greater good’ for which some people must suffer to achieve

there your argument. i would weakly argue back that it is theoretically possible to calculate that stalin was wrong, but quaratining a city or killing osama really ARE following the golden rule with the amendment stating that sometimes the best way to treat neighbors like they want is to treat a smaller number of them the way they dont. surely if we dont kill osama, people will likely suffer. surely their suffering will be greater than the suffering caused by me kiling osama. you already know this, im saying it doesnt violate the golden rule. how does it.

its a matter of making sure your specualtion on that matter is accurate, and your distribution of good and bad deeds is unbalanced in favor of good.

or that pain is not inherently evil in the first place

if youre a sadist, then you dont share societal norms. if you asked jesus about this, im sure he would tell you that these people are rare, instances of them isolated from society and ignorant of the fact that they are an unusal sadist are prohibitively rare, and when you meet one of those crazy guys, you should not only educate him as to the feelings of normal people, but also forgive him for not knowing better and hurting you.

i wouldnt tell you to allow sadists to run around and torture, but i would tell you to forgive them and that those people are prohibitively rare. (sadist and a hermit from birth?)

so i maintain gold rule is empirical. wheres the so on and so forth.or am i wrong so far.

Of course I feel good after taking communion. It’s a ritual that signifies my relationship with God, and Jesus’ covenenant with me. What’s not to feel good about?

well the thing thats not good to feel about is the fact that pretty much all organized religions have the same amount of proof backing up their holiness. i mean surely if you blindly believe in jesus then its not hard to blindly believe in muhomed? how is that any different? why do you believe in jesus not muhomed? id tell you its because you live in america, not because there is evidence that points to islams fakeness and jesus’ reality.

so basically you can blindly believe whatever old books you want, and the ‘effect’ will be the same. that is, you will feel like you belong to a group that is connected to god. you can get that without crackers or jesus. so why believe in him? i could see that if his crackers offered UNIQUE benefits, then christianity would in fact be a unique religion. what makes it unique? small discrepencies in the laws?

what i meant to illustrate by saying ive been to church a million times is that ive been there, ive heard it, ive been forced to analyze it, and it is nothing. there is nothing of any value in that building. unless of course you believe that the things of value are entirely different than all other things of value in that we cannot observe the value of those things that are in a church. i say “if you cant observe the value, and the ones telling you its valuable are making money, they are lying” you say “if they tell me that invisible clothes are all the rage then of course theyre right, why would they lie. nobody lies. if i join their group, then i feel like im a member of their group”

sorry i cant do the boring philosophy book, i have to entertain myself. but do you see my point? theres no actual evidence. so the evidence must lie in the visible good of the practices. it has to be one or the other. if christianity provided believable evidence of its origins, then i can imagine believing that rituals have invisible benefits.

but no, they say that you must believe blindly, requiring evidence to believe is a sin. therefore i feel they should back that up with something that is actually believable, such as empirically verifiable and unique membership benefits.

they want you to believe that not only will you never the truth about the churchs origins, but also that you will never know the truth about whether or not the church provides a uniquely beneficial service. and then they ask for your money. thats not shady?

Or, it’s a sign of humility and loyalty to God, which reminds the participant of Jesus’ sacrifice and renews their commitment to living a godly life

to you, what seems to be a more valuable ‘ritual’ for displaying your respect for jesus and HIS TEACHINGS: following the golden rule, or reproducing something you read in the holy book.

i mean what else did jesus do that you can re-enact to show him how much you care? riding a donkey somewhere? being born in a manger? are those things NOT the same as The Holy Eucharist? surely by your definition they are, unless your definition depends on an unexplained supernatural phenomena only understood by those who went to school to be closer connected to god than you ever will be.

You have been proven wrong on numerous occaisions

i dont remember reading what it is exactly that organized religion adds to the golden rule that makes the world a better place. besides unifying the gullible masses.

So, this is your hip, sarcastic way of saying “I’m making it all up because I don’t know what I’m talking about”. Cool, dude.

its my way of saying neither do you. do you remember what the quote was in reference to? is there a reason why we should trust the credibility of all the people who were in charge of administering the bible? cause i have my reasons for the opposite and i dont remember hearing any others. i remember being told indirectly that other such evidence must exist, but thats not the same. wheres the evidence that the bible is real. none. you know it.

GOD LOVES LATIN??? WTF!@!!!

please explain to me why god chose to perform the holiest of rituals in a language that nobody understands. my theory is that the people in charge of administering the ritual were lying. whats yours. and if your response is “i dont care about the catholic church” what makes you think yours is different.

[Uccisore]

damn… i guess i should stop being so entertaining and start sounding more like a boring philosophy book.

I'll give you another shot. Just keep in mind, what you consider 'being so entertaining' comes off as being thoughtlessly insulting to the core beliefs of the very people you seem to want to reply to you.  I have no problem with honest criticism that stems from a desire to get to the facts, however. 

i dont think you or anybody has a decent argument against the golden rule.

I'm not going to tear apart the Golden Rule; As a Christian, I'm obviously a big fan of it myself! My point is this, you can [i]say[/i] that the 'Golden Rule' is obvious, or self-evident all you want, and that might get you far, as long as you aren't talking to philosophers.  But the fact is, there are competing ethical views, and also amoralists, who claim that ethics are all just illusion in the first place.  The Golden Rule is just another ethical view that some people like and some people don't, [i]unless it has some grounding[/i]. If you take away the fact that it was Jesus, alleging to be God Himself, who gave this commandment, then it loses that grounding. 
What's more, there are people on both sides of the abortion issue, the gay rights issue, the death penalty issue, the assisted-suicide issue, and many other issues who would all say that they are following the Golden Rule, so apparently it's not enough. 

well the thing thats not good to feel about is the fact that pretty much all organized religions have the same amount of proof backing up their holiness.

  Well first, I don't think that's true.  We'd be mainly getting into history and not philosophy to argue about this, but let me simply say that I find a lot more evidence for the truth of Judaism or Christianity or even Islam than I do for Scientology or Hindu or Wicca.  Secondly, you still haven't said why taking communion is a [i]bad thing[/i].

id tell you its because you live in america, not because there is evidence that points to islams fakeness and jesus’ reality.

It's true, that if I lived in Iran I'd probably be a Muslim.  But if I lived in the 10th century, I'd probably think the world was flat. Does that mean that it is, or that we can't really know if it is or not? I would hope not.  Besides, doesn't the same thing apply to your skepticism? If you had lived in some other place or time, you'd probably be a die-hard religious fanatic. Does that mean everything you have to say about religion is crap?

No. Facts are facts, fiction is fiction, and we have the ability to evaluate them. My upbringing and the place of my birth decided what sorts of ideas I brought to the table when I first started thinking critically about these things- they don’t dictate what I must always believe.
You seem to have a problem with the value of ritual. Firstly, they don’t have magical powers, as far as I can see. A ritual, like communion, exists as something you do to show your fealty to God. If you think of God as a Person, then it makes sense to do something like that on the understanding that God would appreciate it. Does God appreciate whatever prayers and rituals that Jews or Muslims or Mormons do? You’d have to ask God. Whether He does or doesn’t, does not devalue my experience with God. I choose the rituals I do (Christian rituals) because Christianity seems more likely to be true, based on it’s history.

theres no actual evidence. so the evidence must lie in the visible good of the practices.

Which is tied up in what you think about God in the first place. If, for example, I was a deist who believed that God didn’t care or even know what humanity was up to, then I wouldn’t see the ritual as having a lot of value. If I believed that God was a Person craving a relationship with humanity, then I might see it a little differently.

but no, they say that you must believe blindly, requiring evidence to believe is a sin.

“Critically Examine everything, hold on to the good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21)

So who is it that teaches requiring evidence is a sin? I’ve never heard anyone teach this.

they want you to believe that not only will you never the truth about the churchs origins, but also that you will never know the truth about whether or not the church provides a uniquely beneficial service.

   I would submit that your ignorance about the church's orgins or past is your fault, and not the Church's.  How much more could you know about the history of the Church if you actually went ought and [i]learned[/i], instead of just assuming it's all bad news and drawing your conclusions from those assumptions?

to you, what seems to be a more valuable ‘ritual’ for displaying your respect for jesus and HIS TEACHINGS: following the golden rule, or reproducing something you read in the holy book.

So, what if a person did both?

riding a donkey somewhere? being born in a manger? are those things NOT the same as The Holy Eucharist?

These are things that happened to occur in Jesus’ life. If you wanted to ride around Bethlehem in a donkey as an honest effort to show your respect and love for Jesus, I don’t think the Church or God would have a problem with that. What seperates the Eucharist from this is that it’s a ritual that Jesus actually instructed his disciples to perform.

is there a reason why we should trust the credibility of all the people who were in charge of administering the bible?

Sure- we have very very old manuscripts of portions of the Bible (that is, like 1st-2nd century fragments, and I think like 5th century full text. Other folks here would know better than I), and we use those manuscripts many times when printing Bibles today. You can look right in the beginning pages of any Bible and see what it was translated or transliterated from. Even if some guy in the 15th century changed the Bible so that he could get rich, it doesn't matter because we don't use his screwed up translation for our Bibles anyway.  If you really really were worked up about this, you could go out and learn Aramaic, Latin, Greek and Hebrew, look on the net or visit the right libraries, and read them for yourself.  Your ignorance (and mine) make convenient empty spots where we can insert our pet theories. 

wheres the evidence that the bible is real. none. you know it.

We have as much reason if not more to believe what the Gospels say, as we do any historical record that old, unless you have some special reason not to trust the people who wrote it, or you automatically anything miraculous as nessicarily false.

and if your response is “i dont care about the catholic church” what makes you think yours is different.

Well, I’m not Catholic, so I can’t explain some of the things they do. And I think my denomination is different, because we don’t do our sermons or anything else in Latin- the very thing you asked about.
[/quote]

[Future_Man]

“Please, eat crackers in my name. like a fun little thing you can do every week to remind you of the golden rule. just line up, you know. gold would be nice”

[Future_Man]

You seem to have a problem with the value of ritual. Firstly, they don’t have magical powers, as far as I can see. A ritual, like communion, exists as something you do to show your fealty to God. If you think of God as a Person, then it makes sense to do something like that on the understanding that God would appreciate it.

yes i loathe rituals. the thing that comes with rituals and beautiful buildings is a request for donations. they are a marketing campaign. what is a similar thing that you can do to show your fealty to god? help a bum? which do you think god would prefer?

how bout instead of a multimillion dollar building paid for with tithes, mass is held in the basement of The Friend’s Center in Philadelphia, the Quaker Vatican of north america. you can fold and pack thousands upon thousands of bags of donated clothing while listening to an hour of pure, unadulterated advise and discussion. i think the the quakers should have meetings while folding too, but im kind of crazy.

the point is, what is the point of the million dollar church and the weekly unleavened bait? is it to show how much you care about god and his beautiful creation? is it a marketing campaign?

would god prefer that we build a multimillion dollar clubhouse or spend millions actually helping someone. spend an hour reciting something weve all heard thousands of times, or talk and DISCUSS things that will actually help people.

what a silly addiction to emotion rituals are.

I find a lot more evidence for the truth of Judaism or Christianity or even Islam than I do for Scientology

well the stories about miracles specifically are what im concerned with. if you believe jesus was a regular old prophet and the inventor of marketing and that unleavened bread will not result in god slipping you a miracle or two, then good. maybe you should reconsider how you spend your time and especially money.

What seperates the Eucharist from this is that it’s a ritual that Jesus actually instructed his disciples to perform.

wheres a good place for an objective analysis of that

as for the golden rule, i like to get as many of those zany amoralists as possible to post some example of why we should be evil. its like a logic problem with a mission.

[Uccisore]

yes i loathe rituals. the thing that comes with rituals and beautiful buildings is a request for donations. they are a marketing campaign. what is a similar thing that you can do to show your fealty to god? help a bum? which do you think god would prefer?

Doesn't this seem like a huge generalization to you, though? What I mean is, aren't there plenty of people performing religious rituals for honest reasons, not to scam money? Aren't there plenty of Christian organizations that are asking for donations, that actually use the money to help people, instead of making themselves rich? It seems to me that yuo have a very idealized negative view of what Christianity is, and it's breaking down when you apply that ideal to real people doing real things. For example, for all the corruption you talk about- which I admit exists- isn't it just as true that there are thousands, if not millions, of Christians living in poverty in third-world scum holes, feeding the poor and treating the sick?  It may be that you have personally experienced the one and not the other, but your personal experience alone doesn't make an argument. 

well the stories about miracles specifically are what im concerned with.

What specifically seems wrong with the accounts of the miracles, other than the mere fact that they are miracles? What I mean is, if your point is essentially that miracles are impossible, and no reports of them should be believed, that’s a philosophical question. If you think there’s somethign wrong with these particular miracle stories, that’s a historical question.

wheres a good place for an objective analysis of that

Well, start by reading the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels. Once you’ve read those, find whatever additional commentary on them you wish. The best resource I know of is blueletterbible.com

[Uccisore]

yes i loathe rituals. the thing that comes with rituals and beautiful buildings is a request for donations. they are a marketing campaign. what is a similar thing that you can do to show your fealty to god? help a bum? which do you think god would prefer?

Doesn't this seem like a huge generalization to you, though? What I mean is, aren't there plenty of people performing religious rituals for honest reasons, not to scam money? Aren't there plenty of Christian organizations that are asking for donations, that actually use the money to help people, instead of making themselves rich? It seems to me that yuo have a very idealized negative view of what Christianity is, and it's breaking down when you apply that ideal to real people doing real things. For example, for all the corruption you talk about- which I admit exists- isn't it just as true that there are thousands, if not millions, of Christians living in poverty in third-world scum holes, feeding the poor and treating the sick?  It may be that you have personally experienced the one and not the other, but your personal experience alone doesn't make an argument. 

well the stories about miracles specifically are what im concerned with.

What specifically seems wrong with the accounts of the miracles, other than the mere fact that they are miracles? What I mean is, if your point is essentially that miracles are impossible, and no reports of them should be believed, that’s a philosophical question. If you think there’s somethign wrong with these particular miracle stories, that’s a historical question.

wheres a good place for an objective analysis of that

Well, start by reading the Last Supper accounts in the Gospels. Once you’ve read those, find whatever additional commentary on them you wish. The best resource I know of is blueletterbible.com