Baidarka

Moses, Jesus and Muhammad

Of these 3 only Muhammad can be certified as a historical person.

Moses and Jesus may be pure literary inventions.

But if we take the Bible at its word then Moses was a blood thirsty tyrant who consolidated power over his people by the use of excessive violence and led them into wars of extermination which included rape, plunder, pillage and the brutal murders of women and children.

If we believe that Jesus was a miracle worker, as it says in the NT, then he was obviously a con man, preying on weak and gullible minds. He staged cheap magic tricks, fake healings, exorcisms, miracles, and resurrections.

Muhammad used his revelations for worldly gain. He raised an Army, plundered and pillaged his way to power. He used his theology very effectively to gain military control over the Middle East. A Jewish heroine poisoned him as revenge for her family and her people, that this man of blood slaughtered.

We could say that if Moses and Muhammad were delusional that their delusions served their murderous political ambitions very well and that if Jesus had survived long enough to see his movement rise to power then he too would have made political use of his fake ecstatic visions.

I don't know what percentage of religions were started by sick, delusionals and what percentage were started by ruthless con men, but I suspect that most holy posers have always been the lowest form of human scum.

premjan

This is the real crux of the question. I think the prophets of the past were mostly sincere in one way or another. Maybe in some cases, their goal was political that does not invalidate their message. I don't subscribe to this theory that it is possible to fool all the people almost all of the time. The ideas survived for good concrete reasons: either they were emotionally compelling, timely, sensible or whatever. Lasting a long time and convincing a lot of people is definitely one test of a good idea (not the only one). I don't think Allah or Bhagwan has made any rules that you should not use your head to understand his messages, and take them with the requisite grain of salt, in that the message is unlikely to be undistorted or useful out of context or that it is possible to follow it in a 10th century way for all time. There is a mystical and ideological (in a good way) core to these messages. We should strive to comprehend them and call ourselves whatever it is that we would like to call ourselves: if that be Christian or Muslim or Jew or Hindu or Sikh, why not indeed?

muslim8881

Thank you premjan, I find I am inclined to agree with you.

muslim8881

Does anyone know of a book or web reference that gives a good rational explanation of these men?

Baidarka

"Does anyone know of a book or web reference that gives a good rational explanation of these men?"
I'm sure that there are many scholarly works explaining the psychology of this sort of derangement but I think that The Works of David Koresh and other Branch Davidians could be very instructive to anyone trying to understand the bare faced misleader ship that holy pretensions can lead to.
http://www.fountain.btinternet.co.uk...ngs/index.html

We have here a nasty little man of limited education using God and the bible to take advantage of his followers. He stole their wives , raped their children and led them to their deaths. He was Moses, Jesus, Muhammad all in one. It is today as it always was. The holy men of the past were as repulsive as the pretentious holy ones are today.

0

Good recognition. I've been studying mythology and folk lore for over seven years now. In the past couple of years I've been digging more into the religious aspect. Prior to that I was interested in the superstitions and dark creatures because I write vampire fiction.

Tangie

premjan

And secular leaders are no better (worse if anything).

Baidarka

"And secular leaders are no better (worse if anything)."

How much worse could you get?

Do you mean qualitatively or quantitatively?

Baidarka

Is the Jesus following Dubya who recieves orders directly from the almighty a secular leader?
Or is he like the others on this list "the prophets of the past" who "were mostly sincere in one way or another" ?

muslim8881

Pol Pot comes to mind!

It seems to me that the problem is not belief in a religion/God, but the belief that you need to impose your beliefs on others that is the real source of the problem.

That is why I am always wary of both religious and non-religious people who have excessive zeal to 'enlighten' others.