Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Dating & The Shroud of Turin
BlackTyranny writes "The Shroud of Turin, carbon dated in 1978 by a team of scientists, may be far older than originally thought. Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, part of the original team, used samples given to him in 2003 from the Cardinal of Turin's scientific advisor. Roger's contends that the carbon dating might be faulty because "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth." I think the shroud 'Patch' may be made of the big foot suit. ;)
"Made in Taiwan,
80% Cotton,
20% Polyester,
Dry Clean Only."
The coolest voice ever.
Yeah, most of my dating is faulty also. Oh, carbon, you say. Nevermind.
It's pretty generally accepted already by all those without blind faith that the piece of fabric known as the Turin Shroud is not what Jesus was wrapped in. Further experimentation with and investigation of it seems to me an extraordinary waste of money.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
...that God made the entire universe universe, impregnated some woman on a the third planet from a very insignificant star and then let the resulting offspring get killed. I'd come to the conclusion this story wasn't true but now the Turin shroud dating is in question I have to revise my view of the entire universe again. Really, can't these archaeologists get their act together. The indecision is killing me.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Who decided to patch the shroud along the way?
The carbon dating was done in 1988, not in 1978. The article is wrong.
First:
...
A chemist who worked on testing of the Shroud of Turin says new analysis of the fiber indicates the cloth that some say was the burial linen of Jesus could be up to 3,000 years old.
Then:
The Shroud of Turin, the 14-foot linen revered by some as the burial cloth of Jesus, may have been woven around the time of his death.
Give or take a thousand years, eh?
... Raymond N. Rogers has been a long time believer of the authenticity of the shroud. A Google on his name will show a long involvement. It is doubtful he will ever have findings that will be contrary to his own beliefs. This does not mean he is wrong nor a fraud. It would just be more believable if the findings were from an unbiased third party.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
...and there really isn't any proof on it having been the one that some guy 2000 years ago was in.
relics were a big business, and still are.
there were literally tons of wood that was supposedly from the cross that jesus was supposedly nailed to.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
As an agnostic and a humanist, I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs. That goes for everyone, including CmdrTaco and the person offended by CmdrTaco. Though I admist that CmdrTaco's comment is a statement of opinion and not chastisment (but it could very well be interpretted as that), whilst the anoynmous coward's above statement is a blatant attack. so, to the autor of "Dumbest. Editor. Evar.", thus spake Zarathustra: "STFU".
Jesus titty-fucking-christ, ususally I'm the one that get's accused of being humorless..
thats some pretty strong belief you have going on there
"all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
All you have to do is look at the face image on the shroud. It is a completely orthogonal image. If the shroud was wrapped in any way around a person's face, there is no way that the image could have been generated.
Hey kids, you can try this at home. Just wet your face and lightly wrap a paper towel around it for a second and then see if you recognize yourself in the image.
People should not fear what they do not understand; people should fear because they do not understand.
Is that the item is from about the right time period or not. In truth if you could show that it is about 2000 years old it doesn't prove much. Lots of people died back then and where wrapped in a cloth. And the Romans used crusafiction as a standard form of capital punishment. So at best you can show that it was the death shroud of someone who died 2000 years ago via a more or less standard way of executing someone.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
Um, aren't you chastising Cmdr Taco's belief that he has a right to chastise Christian's beliefs?
I'm all for being nice to people, but I think you're logic is a little self-defeating.
I'm not a scientist, but surely there are more interesting things going in the world than this?
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.
"But there was virtually no vanillin left in the shroud, leading the chemist to calculate it could be far older than the radiocarbon testing indicated".
This is a chemical analysis along the lines of the fact that all the vanillin has disappeared, assuming it was there to start with, and that it disappears at a predictable rate (without knowing the temperature and other conditions it was stored in).
The carbon dating on the other hand measures the ratios of isotopes of carbon. The ratio of isotopes of carbon in all living matter is known, and it produces other isotopes at a predictable rate dependent only on time after death or harvest of the matter (cotton, bone, etc). This is a nuclear process that is independent of temperature, humidity, chemical environment, etc.
My money is on the physicists.
the british museum's dating was patheticly incompetent, failing to account for the role of accumulating bioplastic coating on the fibers, the preservation of the shroud in oil during the late renaissance, and now, as has been demonstrated by use of other dating methods, the selection of repair materials for the dating. the only reason it was ever accepted was that it's results were pleasing to the rejectionist viewpoint.
vanillin decay products demonstrate that the shroud is composed of materials of two distinct periods, one consistent with it's documented provenance (to the 13th century), and one consistent with its physical characteristics (1000 BC to 700AD).
given that it is the only proposed physical artifact of a pivotal event in human history, with profound import, compentent pursuit of an accurate and factual account of its characteristics is a very worthwhile endeavour, and entirely undeserving of the deceitful mockery of the poster.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Summary completely misses the point of the article that the new analysis was carried out on vanillin content of the fibres rather than carbon isotopes.
right to insult is the most precious one.
especially the right to insult someone who has beliefs that are not based on anything real and beliefs which can't really do any more good than not having them(you don't need to believe in god as a person and in bible literatally to be a good, honest, caring person - in fact, you can believe in them and read them literally and be everything a good person should not be.. most of jesus's part in it is focused on saying "hey it doesn't matter that much, just be good guys and it'll be ok" rather than telling everyone to fight in the name of god).
nobody can ever prove anything about this cloth so it's merely a curiosity of medieval beliefs... they were worth a lot of money in the right hands too.
there's nothing DUMB about joking about a piece of cloth that shouldn't really be worth anything to you if you believed it to be real.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
For those (like myself) who are secular, I wish to point out the single greatest problem in the religious view of the Shroud. The clerics simply assume that the shroud belongs to Jesus (assuming that he existed at all) and then direct their scientists to prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus. This type of reasoning is "Assume the conclusion to be true. Then prove the conclusion." I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
Christians hate unmarried mothers and adultery and women who have children with men who aren't their husbands otherwise
Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone, but rather hate the sin. We're all sinners in this world. Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less. I'm sorry if your view of Christianity has been skewed by those who don't hold to true beliefs.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
I think it is the people who look after the Shroud ( some Church or other ) who decide whether or not people can take samples from the shroud and I think it's also their call which pieces of the shroud are taken.
I think they are very reluctant to cut bits off the shroud so it's unlikley they will allow any other bits which may be original and not patched on later to be carbon dated.
I think a fair summary of what has happened so far it this
- Scientists allowed to take sample for carbon dating and shroud owners specify which bits are taken and how much.
- Scientists date pieces of shroud they have been given and prove those bit's of shroud are no where near as old as people expect they might be
- Church says "Well, those bit's were just patches added later. Looking at the rest of the shroud the type of fabric used is definitely a lot older"
- Church says "No, you can't have any more samples for dating."
As an agnostic and a humanist, I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs.
Incorrect. This is covered by the first amendment. In the case of religious beliefs, the government has no right to interfere, but everyone else has a fundamental right to the freedom to make fun of the crap other people believe in.
Is how the image was produced in the first place. As best as I know, it's unique to (at least) medievil tech. Does anyone out there have a good scientific explaination for it? Perhaps it could be a History Channel show, "God Tech".
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Leviticus 19:19
King James Bible: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed. Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.
Good News Bible: Obey my orders. Do not crossbreed your cattle. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothing made from two kinds of fiber.
And we should care why?
Now, now. Slashdot has a long, proud and profitable history of Catholic-baiting. A "Shroud of Turin versus Science" story on an otherwise slow Sunday morning is a -- you should pardon the expression -- God-send. Taco can hardly be blamed.
I forgive him.
Lets just say for the sake of argument that the shroud is the cloth that jesus was wrapped in when he was buried. What exactly does that prove, anyway?
Maybe if intact DNA could be found on the cloth, they could clone it, and get the resulting guy to reason with christians.
Scientific method:
1. Characterization
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
5. Conclusion (an objective conclusion based on #4)
Dr. Raymond Rogers's Method
1. Conclusion (It was Jesus's burial shroud)
2. Characterization (What's that?)
3. Hypothesis (Huh?)
4. Prediction (We all know it was Jesus's)
5. Experiment (Hmmm, let's pick a method that will ballpark the age better. 100,000 BC to 2005 CE GOOD! Hey, it's all good.)
As an atheist I believe that religion is based on no factual basis whatsoever and exists purely as a fantasy in which religious people choose to believe.
I don't see why I shouldn't evangalize my beliefs and try and save as many people as I can from these dangerous religious delusions.
Yes. It's amazing how we begin to doubt tested scientific methods of study (ie carbon dating) because someone believes their religious beliefs are riding on it.
Faith and science are two totally different and incompatible methods of acquiring knowledge. Disproving faith with science isn't going to change minds it's just going to make a whole bunch of people even less likely to have faith in the scientific method.
What if Digg added local news and a Slashdot inspired comment karma system? ---
http://houndwire.com
Um, aren't you chastising Cmdr Taco's belief that he has a right to chastise Christian's beliefs?
Uh, no. Taco is allowed to believe he has the right to chastise Christians' beliefs, he's just not allowed to actually do it.
Of course, mainly it's just gauche. It's like a Jewish friend of mine who went out of her way to help a person who was having a spot of trouble at work. The person told my friend that it was "awfully Christian of her." Of course, my friend knew what she meant was something like "Your actions are in accord with ideals that I was taught by Christianity, and which are held by other religions such as Judaism." But it's rather like a segregationist telling W.E.B. DuBois that it was "awfully white of him."
The downside of the death of the idea of propiety is that it has stripped our culture of language and tools to describe situations like this. There is a great gaping whole on the continuum that starts at "OK" and runs through "morally wrong", "should be illegal" ending up at "downright evil". Between "OK" and "morally wrong", there is a whole range of qualities, including: gauche, impolite, rude, and offensive.
Mocking somebody's beliefs, depending on the context, falls somewhere in this range.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone"
Apart from arabs, right?
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.
It was folded up, and one corner caught fire or got charred (moltern lead from the roof?). That explains the triangular and diamond patches that have been sewn on at a later time.
Anybody else read that as the "Shroud of Turing"?
I dunno. I thought it was pretty funny how you stuck that apostrophe in gets.
in 2002, but if you're a fan of the Dresden Files, you know what really happened. =D http://www.jim-butcher.com/books/dresden/5/ and if you havn't read any of the series but are a fan of occult/mysteries I highly recommend it.
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
With all of the forensic science they should be able to pull DNA from the shroud. This could help in determining whether this is a fake by comparing across ethnic lines and looking for genes consistant with people from his region.
Indeed. It's sad when people criticize things without proof or (in this case) reason.
Oh yeah, and teh new sig!!1
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
The scientific evidence is "overwhelmingly" true and we should not deny the "scientific" evidence. When the scientific evidence shows the carbon dating was potentially done on a patch of the shroud of turin, it's because it was made from the "bigfoot" suit (happy face).
But then it just goes to show you that there's more to religious beliefs than religion...
Resurrection: Myth or Reality by John Shelby Spong
Spong actually believes that the most important elements of Christianity is the ethics described by Jesus (regardless of whether he actually existed) but is not the mythology. Many Christians find such an approach to be reprehensible.
Whether or not this is the shroud that wrapped jesus in the tomb, there's still a sufficiently large body of historical evidence that a man called jesus was alive at the time. Validating or invalidating the claim that this is the cloth he was wrapped in has little or no impact upon proving or disproving the existence of jesus.
especially the right to insult someone who has beliefs that are not based on anything real
Let me insult you now, because you clearly mistake "beliefs" with "knowledge". By definition, beliefs do not need to be based on anything real. If you want to base something on "anything real" - you need to have a certain belief, namely believe that there is actually something which is both real and accessible to your senses. It's a common belief, but still a belief - you might as well be a classic "brain in a jar" and see only simulacra. This belief is NOT based on anything real, because you base your perception of reality on this belief, so if you'd try to do it otherwise, you'd have a typical fool's circle.
there's nothing DUMB about joking about a piece of cloth that shouldn't really be worth anything to you if you believed it to be real.
Well, if you take the assumption that the Shroud is a medieval counterfeit (and this is also my belief, if you ask) - you'd have to assume that someone in Middle Ages was tortured to death and his dead body was somehow proto-photographed on the linen, which might be possible technically even then. Anatomical details are just too accurate for the Shroud to be merely a paintwork coming from the artist's imagination (medieval painters in the era of Giotto di Bondone simply did not know how to paint human body accurately, this knowledge was rediscovered in late Renaissance). So watching the Shroud, you watch a recording of someone's pain and death. If you find someone's torment and agony funny, I'd say that you are dumb indeed (that's for the insult).
Damn, and I usually double check all my post's to, be sure gramma. Is correct. I must, be using the "sydlecix". setting's.
is it so out of the realm of belief that a religious radical who wanted to bring down the current jewish priests because he felt they had lost the path of goodness actually existed and his followers, after his death, pumped his image up and passed along his philosophy of life?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...that God made the entire universe universe, impregnated some woman on a the third planet from a very insignificant star
Please explain what makes you so sure that this is a "very insignificant star". Maybe it isn't? Maybe it is a significant planet orbiting a significant star, after all?
How else can you explain his change in appearance from something like this to this? He's clearly had the Michael Jackson nose job, cheek lifts, and a complete cranial restructuring, among other things...
like many Mythologies, there is always some basis in real events... much of the old testament for instance has archeological evidence for a lot of the major events.... but Jews were always much better at chronicling what happened to them than the Christians were.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."
Nope.
Scientific inquiry is "this is what we think. Test it and see if we're wrong or not."
If every inquiry had to start from scratch, we wouldn't be anywhere.
Oh, and re: Jesus -- there is at least one piece of non-christian evidence that the man did in fact exist. You can argue that is life was exaggerated, but arguing that the man didn't live at all is about as effective as arguing about the existance of any non-Emperor at the same time.
An article about the Shroud of Turin is in the Science/Space section of USA Today. Even with carbon dating a Shroud believer wants to cast doubt upon, it belongs in the religion section, or something to that effect. USA today is McNewspaper. It is not fit for the bottom of a birdcage.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Informative.
Also, I'd like to say that the fire could have altered the carbon-14 test. To add more wood to the fire, I'd remind the readers that science is fallible (soon new facts disprove earlier theories). But extremist atheist used that to say: "Ah, see! Science proves that Jesus didn't exist" or something.
Nobody in their right mind can doubt the existence of Jesus. The Roman Empire records are very clear about not only his existance but also regarding his interactions with the government (well, getting crucified). The question of wether he was a man like me or the son of some deity is another matter which did not concern the Empire.
"If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
So, all that he's saying is that the claim that the shroud was the cloth that wrapped Jesus is non-falsifiable, thus making any discussion of the matter scientifically and historically moot.
It's likely that fundamentalist Xtians will jump all over this story, but remember: it is *their* responsibility to prove, and not atheists'/agnostics' responsibility to disprove.
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
If the man in the scroud only had 23 chromosomes...
FRA: STFU GTFO
Yet another reason why the Christian God wouldn't deserve our love even if he did exist.
Why is anything anything?
Well, I am secular as well, and I think your view of scientific inquiry is a little skewed. How is this different from the standard method of forming a hypothesis and subjecting it to experiment? Further, it is not infrequent that hypothesis is defended in the face of early experimental challenge -- why should this be any different?
So yes, the religious view of the shroud is ahead of any experimental facts that would support that position. It may be even farther from the facts than usual because the hypothesis is based on mythological evidence. But Troy and the North American Viking settlements were based on mythological evidence, and "let's go prove it" produced interesting results in those cases. I don't see why anything being done here is any different except to Christians and christophobes.
Kill, Tux, kill!
So me, as a computer scientist who has studied the pros and cons of Christianity as much as I can, and have come to the conclusion that God is real, is deluded?
Have you ever actually read and studied the gospels? If you havent, how can you possibly say your opinion is right when you havent even studied the evidence?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/VHAELST6.PDF
First, let me say that I am a Christian, and I hold my faith to be a guiding and supporting influence in my life. As to the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, I personaly have doubts about its authenticity, but I refuse to pass final judgment on the matter as I doubt we will ever have all the facts. In the final analysis however no proof, scientific or other wise will matter.
"For those who do not believe no proof is sufficient. For those who do believe no proof is necessary." -- Unknown source
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
Walter McCrone (http://www.mcri.org/index.html) is one of the pioneers in developing microscopy as a tool of chemical analysis. One of his companies, McCrone Associates (http://www.mccrone.com/), is a recognized leader in microanalysis. I've been a customer in the past and they're superb.
McCrone and his team did the analysis of the shroud in 1979 and 1980 (http://www.mcri.org/Shroud.html). I think sometimes McCrone's strong opinions get in the way of his scientific communications, but his group did some very solid work back then to characterize the fabric and the 'image.'
For some more accurate perspective on the carbon 14 dating fiasco check out Carbon 14 Dating of the Shroud.
It isn't a strictly scientific view, but I think we can safely assume that someone named Jesus did live and die in Judea 2000 years ago. While we don't have any physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence is pretty good. The earliest Christian writings we have are from Paul of Tarsus, penned around A.D. 50. And while Paul never actually met Jesus, his writings, as well as that of the Gospel of Mark (circ. A.D. 70), were still recent enough after the crucifixion (circ. A.D. 30 or so) for there to still be people alive who had either known Jesus or been around when he died. His assault on the temple moneychangers, trial and execution was pretty heady stuff, kind of like O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson. If People Magazine had been around in ancient Judea, we'd probably have some good pictures as well as an exclusive interview with Peter on why he denied his lord three times. :)
That said, like you, I am not a Christian, largely because Christianity makes no sense and has nothing to do with Jesus. Christians these days go apoplectic over forcing the Ten Commandments into public spaces and institutionalizing bigotry, yet seem to care little for the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. They're the first to justify violence for whatever end despite Jesus exhorting them to "turn the other cheek" and promising "the meek shall inherit the Earth."
You've provided links to religious nut-case web sites, a non-peer-reviewed article by someone named "Anita Moon" with no apparent credentials, and an uncredited essay hosted on the site of an English Instructor from Spokane Community College. That uncredited essay actually cites, as one of its sources an "article" on www.christiananswers.net! Yeah, that's real, unbiased, peer-reviewed science, isn't it?
If it upsets you when science effectively disproves the 2000 year old fables, fairy tales, and myths that you need as a psychological crutch, then stay away from web sites which are pro-science.
You are mostly correct on that.
But, since the original has now been altered, there will never be any more tests run by 3rd parties to confirm or discredit the results of the original test.
Which moves this out of the realm of science and into the realm of religion.
The reason for doubting the original test is religion. Religion is what limited access to the shroud. And now the shroud has been compromised.
At this point, any "tests" done to "disprove" the original tests are pure religion. And the reason for that is that they don't want their sacred artifact to be shown to be faked.
Far better an unproved artifact than a validated fake.
"Christianity makes no sense and has nothing to do with Jesus".
I imagine you were just going with some nice hyperbole here, because surely even as a non-Christian you can recognize that as a belief system it has *everything* to do with Jesus Christ.
Also, who is apoplectic? The ACLU, spending millions of dollars raising an issue over the Ten Commandments being in courthouses as they have been for decades/centuries, or Christians/Jews/whoever being content to leave them as they have pretty much always been.
Ever consider that maybe this belief is based less on fact than some of those who apprehend or believe spiritual or religious truths?
--pyro_dude
Most Christians hold that Jesus is God. Arabs certainly don't believe that.
I'd would be interested to see a reference on this....
...and IN SOVIET RUSSIA, beowulf clusters imagine 1, 2, 3 profit!!!! jokes made out of YOU!!!
is much closer to the truth in this matter...
Jesus commanded us to love everyone even those who hate us. Called us to turn the other cheek when we're assaulted. Just because not all of us are very good at doing that doesn't make Christs teachings any less valid.
I posted above as anonymous coward about this, so I don't mean to be redundant, but this is a great article by a great organization:
http://www.csicop.org/articles/shroud/index2.html
Currently hooked on AMP
- Scientists1 "Hi can we have some of that there shroud?" - Church "yes take whichever part you want" - Scientists1 *tests* - Scientists1 "uhuh you seem to have a modern day fake" - Church "oh well we never claimed it was real" - Scientists2 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can we try" - Church "yes certainly, take whichever part you want" - Scientists2 *tests* - Scientists2 "oh it may be genuine" - Church "thats quite interesting, thanks" - Scientists1 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can WE try again" - Church "yes certainly, take whichever part you want" - Scientists1 *tests* - Scientists1 "differnt result but same conclusion, we seem to have a modern day fake" - Church "thats quite interesting, thanks" - Scientists2 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can we try again" - Church "yes certainly, take whichever part you want" - Scientists2 *tests* - Scientists2 "oh it may be genuine" - Church "thats quite interesting, thanks" - Scientists1 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can WE try again; again" - Church "yes certainly, take whichever part you want" - Scientists1 *tests* - Scientists1 "differnt result but same conclusion, we seem to have a modern day fake" - Scientists2 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can we try again; again" - Church "yes certainly, take whichever part you want" - Scientists2 *tests* - Scientists2 "oh it may be genuine" - Church "thats quite interesting, thanks" - Scientists1 "excuse me, these scientific methods are a bit sketchy, can we try once more" - Church "LOOK! PLEASE GO AWAY UNTIL YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOME CONCLUSION METHOD OF TESTING AND STOP TAKING SAMPLES OF THE SHROUD, YOU ARE PROBABLY FLOGGING THEM ON EBAY!"
"all through my house i set up traps, it seems like the rats have a map, so now i feed the rats crack" - Donald D
Yes you have deluded yourself into believing in a fantasy which provides some meaning to your life by promising that there is possibly more to life than the one you live here on Earth.
It's irrelevant what is written in the Gospels since the one certain thing which can be said about them is that they were written by people suffering the same delusions as you are. In fact though having been brought up as a Catholic and having attended Catholic schools, taken the sacrament of confirmation and been fully involved ni the Church I have studied the Gospels and that is largely why I believe what I do.
If you can provide any evidence at all of life after death or the existence of god which is not simply based on faith then I will be happy to examine it and possibly change my mind.
How the fuck is this flamebait?
I agree with you. It's ok to point out when someone is incorrect in almost every other situation, although in some it may be impolite. When it comes to religion, you have to withold your opinion or the entire world of (U.S.) christians will descend upon you with the whole "evoultion is just a theory" & "atheism is a religion too" bullshit.
CmdrTaco went to Hope College, which is an excellent Christian based institution. He also attended Christian school all the way through high school.
./ crowd that have similar thoughts on the matter.
What you really missed was CmdrTaco flaunting his contempt for not only the college, but his parents beliefs and one of their strongest reasons for paying to send their son to very excellent schools. That means he can realate to about much of the
In this context, I would also have to consider Taco's comments to be a blantant attack.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
pretty much what that article states is that the shroud of turin is no different than a grilled cheese or an oyster with the face of Jesus on it.
Speaking as a Christian, the Gospels are hardly evidence. They're the statement of a case. The archaeology surrounding what happened in them (there's a lot of it, not just the Shroud) is the evidence.
That said, I like the Gospels, Acts, and Revelations. It's the Episitles thta I have a massive problem with. There's too much dogma that is too far removed from Jesus' teachings.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.
:-) In both cases, the woman is following a primal need to reproduce and found a mate based on ability to provide and stability. It's actuallyl a story right out of a Harlequin romance, if you ask me.
:-)
Well, maybe not really.
Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less.
Aha, finally a Christian comes up with a testable theory! Let's see. Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers?
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
Currently hooked on AMP
My opinion is that there is no god or creator of the universe as in a intelligent being, although i do not deny the possibility that somewhere in the universe intelligence exists way higher than the average humans. Despite on my beliefs that there is no such thing as god, i think that religiousness served a purpose, in the timeframe between first human settlements 6-10 thousand years ago and the 19th century. It caused a lot of war and bloodshed but still it united people to form a community, the first laws were religion based (mostly). I think, that since the beginning of the 20th century, the era of science started, or should have started. Now, religiousness lost most of it's purpose, but to show us the most important ethical and moralist (never mind grammer) values. It's time to step on a higher level for humanity, which is the level of science. I believe in christian VALUES but not christianity as a RELIGION. This is the most important thing, to see the distinction. Religion is something to step through while keeping the positive elements from it. I believe everyone has the right to believe in whatever he/she wishes to, but i also feel like pointing out that it's utter bullshit and we should step through the religious thinking while keeping some of it's values. To be honest, anyone who read Isaac Asimov, when he wrote the Fundation, he was writing about the same progress as i described. Religion served a purpose for a while but it became obsolete (as a tool for the society's progress). I think CmndrTaco's comment is quite acceptable, because when you consider the other viewpoint: would you consider seriously in the 21th century that the Child of GOD came down to earth then went through a lot of miracles and left his imprint on a holy sheet? Sure, you've got a right to believe in that, but most people still consider for example the Amish religious zealots based on the same thing. For the rest of us (some people for sure in case someone would pick on this sentence), it's perfectly okay to mock some of the more hilarious pieces of religious beliefs like the one in the article.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
...has a margin of error of like 2000 years, it only gets you in the ballpark of the 10 thousands mark (up to about 80 thousand years, then it stops working altogether).
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet.
While I think the whole shroud thing is just religious propaganda, I do think we should objectively look at the inherent error in some scientific methods.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
The National Geographic channel last night aired an hour-long investigation into the mystery of the shroud of turin. NG was made the argument that Leonardo Da Vinci created the shroud. Anyone who's interested should check it out.
NG claimed that Da Vinci had family ties to the church that housed the shroud, thus creating a link between how the shroud could have been obtained by the church.
NG made other intereresting links and arguments.
I found it particuarly amusing that the image on the shroud is extremely similar to Da Vinci's own self portrait. It seems well within Leonardo's personality to pull such a prank that has lasted for centuries.
As for the actual age of the shroud, as long as it was *before* Leonardo's time, he could have obtained the material. If his goal was to trick the people of his time with the shroud he probably would have sought an older-looking one anyway.
From nationalgeographic.com: Behind the Mysteries Week: "Da Vinci and the Mystery of the Shroud" at 8P et/pt Jesus's image, believers say, was burned into the Shroud of Turin by the intense heat of resurrection. But is it genuine? Or was it created by someone with extraordinary skills, like the great Leonardo Da Vinci?
This is a useful quick read: The Skeptical Spectacle, No Bull Facts About the Shroud of Turin.
Most Christians hold that Jesus is God. Arabs certainly don't believe that.
That's a pretty sweeping statement about a massive ethnic grouping. Possibly you mean to say "Moslems".
I posted Raymond Rogers's paper on Shroud of Turin on my blog, "Kitchen Sink Gazette", at: http://sundroid.blogspot.com/, if anyone is interested.
Sun and Fun
so.... they were mostly poor... they were not the educated priest class and the rich who were responsible for the record keeping.
try exercising that lump above your head a little.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
No, it's a position based on known facts and evidence of how the world and the universe work.
Depsite the fact that there are dozens of religions which believe in various kinds of gods and deities not one of them have proved the existence or provided any evidence at all for the existence of the god or deity which they believe in.
As soon as one does provide some credible evidence I will be willing to re-appraise my position.
Until then I will continue to believe that religion exists because every one alive has wondered at some point "why am I here ?" and "what happens when I die ?" and it's easier to believe that nice things which you have some control over happen and that we are here thanks to a creator we can understand and talk to through prayer. That is easier to believe than us being here through a fantastically complicated series of interactions which we will probably never understand and have no control over and when we die that's it.
The most obvious example is former Alabama supreme court justice Roy Moore. He installed a monument of the Ten Commandments in the Alabama supreme court building, then refused to remove it even at the cost of his job. Also, several cities around the nation have Ten Commandments monuments on city property, legacies from an era when no one cared much about the separation between church and state. Now many of them are trying to get them removed so they won't have to put up anti-homosexual monuments from Kansas preacher Fred Phelps and his band of followers. Unfortunately, Christian groups are suing to keep the monuments, some so they can get their monuments to hate, others because they think the Ten Commandments are necessary for a fair and just government. And as for Christianity having nothing to do with Jesus, I say that because although they do point to him as the focus of their faith, there are few Christian groups out there who follow the teachings of Jesus. Those who do are generally thought of as fringe groups, dedicated to pacifism, poverty and self-sacrifice. Christianity as a mainstream religion is based not on the Gospels, but on the writings of Paul of Tarsus. All the violence, bigotry, misogyny and intolerance so prevalent in Christianity over its entire history is a direct result of Paul. Jesus was a pacifist, willing to die for what he believed. How many Christians today are pacifists, and how many are willing to sacrifice their lives for the ideals of Jesus?
"The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood"
"It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus,"
So am I to believe then, that noone else here has seen jurassic park?
Other people have already taken care of that for you, some of them centuries ago.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
There are computer models that account for the warping that would have been done by the sheet laying over the face. The result is a more realistic image.
People who disagree with you are not automatically evil, greedy, or stupid.
If the mighty shroud required a patch, does that mean Bill Gates is god? Heaven help us all!!!!
Um, "Arab" is an ethnicity, not a religion. The majority of Arabs are Muslims, of course, but there are also Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs (yes, really!), Zoroastrian Arabs, Hindu Arabs, and, one assumes, atheist Arabs, although those who live surrounded by the aforementioned groups probably tend to keep pretty quiet about it.
And you know, while it's almost certainly true that most Arabs are Muslims, I'm not sure that the reverse is true. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country; there's also Bangladesh, Pakistan, and large portions of India. That's a hell of a lot of people, almost none of them speaking Arabic as a native tongue.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
> Whoever this shroud was on, they weren't wrapped like a mummy. They were placed on top of the lower part, and the upper part was wrapped over their head and draped on top of them like a sheet.
Which means when you take it off and lay it flat you should see the sides of the head as well as the front. The front and back images should differ greatly in width, since the front of the cloth would drape over the figure, but the back would lie flat.
Get a friend, a sheet, a marker, and try it.
You might also pause to wonder why the facial features are rendered with light and dark to show its 3D structure.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I am pretty sure I am in my right mind (well, as right as it ever gets,) and I am not convinced that Christ existed. I am sure that there are some records of someone, but I am also inclined to believe that Jesus was prototyped after Socrates (as the entire Christian religion,) and I am not convinced at all that JC was a real person.
You can't handle the truth.
First, the British Museum did no dating. They simply coordinated the results from three labs in the US, UK and Switzerland.
Second, this 'bioplastic coating' was simply a hypothesis from Stephen Mattingly of the University of Texas. STURPS Joan L. Rogers took authentic Shroud fibers, which she laboriously extracted from the STURP sampling tapes by washing them free of adhesive with xylene (not a solvent for any "bioplastic polymers"), to Metuchen, NJ, for laser-microprobe Raman analysis. The analysis is extremely sensitive, but nothing was observed that would indicate a "bioplastic polymer."
Third, even at the time, scientists in the dating lab in the UK were skeptical: P.H South, while examining threads from the sample on behalf of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory found indications of cotton. To him it seemed like material intrusion. In an article entitled "Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud," published in Textile Horizons in 1988, South write of his discovery of "a fine dark yellow strand [of cotton] possibly of Egyptian origin, and quite old . . . it may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply bound in when the linen fabric was woven."
I well remember that, at the time, no one (except the odd spin doctor) thought these results conclusive and asked for more material. This was denied.
Did he inhale?
It's a bit more confusing than that, really. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and a handful of other religions from the area (the Samaritans--they're still around, the Karaites, and the Mandaeans) all worship the same God (the Christians refer to him as God the Father, the Jews as Yahweh, the Muslims as Allah, not sure about the rest). Christianity in particular makes the monotheistic model a little more complicated with the concept of the Trinity. Basically, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all one and the same. They coexist simultaneously, and are each individual entities, yet they are all the same being. It's hard to come up with a decent analogy, but it's much like fingers on a hand. Each part of the Trinity is a finger, and God refers to the whole hand. It's crude, but it's the best analogy I can think of at this time.
Haec merda tauri est. Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
Crime can be a moral imperitive, against a corrupt or evil system of law a christian is required to stand up and say no. consider the jusuit city-states in south america, founded to stop the people of latin america being enslaved, or the christians imprisioned during the american civil rights movement, or the christians who acted to try and help Jews/blacks/etc escape the Nazi holocaust
Insofar as you can not know the heart of a man, you can not know what they truely believe. There are, and remain, those who say that they believe, and yet do not.
Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Matthew 7:15-20
Since the test of belief is the fruit (action), then your proposed test is invalid, even controlling for the demands of civil disobedience placed on those who would act ethically.
Your point is well made, and I agree is probably more to the point here.
I would also like to point out here that I do find it odd that whatever position people take on the subject, either that of religious belief or of scientific scepticism, both feel the need to debate and evangelize the point. (and yes there are scientific evangelists as well as religious) If your faith doesn't require proof, then there is no cause, basis, or need for debate about it. If a scientist is honest about his experiments and the information retrieved from them then he should be confident in his conclusions, and shouldn't feel the need to dabate them with those who don't accept them as fact. I don't uderstand why people simply can,t say to one another, "Thank you for your information and opinion, however I respectfully disagree." And then go thier separate ways.
"I'm making perfect sense, you're just not keeping up."
Starsky and Hutch are real ! Archeologists have found a city by the name of "San Francisco" which seems to have a police force, and Ford has actually produced a "Gran Torino" model for several years in the timeframe of the alleged avents !
Google passes Turing test : see my journal
"I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs."
Why not? Beliefs are open to criticism and question. Even ridicule. Free speech. If a person's belief system is so fragile that a note of disbelief will shatter their composure, then they should examine what it is that they believe in so weakly.
I do not believe in dropping a force field around religions and cults so they don't encounter nasty criticism. They are a part of society, and have to participate just like everyone else. If they don't want to hear, they can do what the Scientologists do and put nanny filters on their web browsers, security guards around their get-togethers, and barbed wire on top of the walls around their lesser-known compounds. So much easier than having fresh eyes look at you. Keeps the kids from developing a personality that questions the Divitity of Reverend Moon or the meaningfulness of a lie detector used for "spiritual" purposes at US$250/hour.
Chastise away, Commander Taco! Thus spake me.
/me ducks
Stick Men
He could be referring to the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who, in his works, refers to (and gives a short account of the life of) a Jesus "called the Christ". Whether this really is a proof of Christ's existence is, of course, arguable.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
$0.02,
ptd
I'm an animal lover -- they're delicious!
The reason for doubting the original test is religion.
"Reason" (in the sense of motivation) and "Justification" (in the sense of showing that a line of investigation is scientifically worthy) are two different things.
If the only motivations that are admissable are those with sound scientific basis, then the advancement of science would probably be impaired. People are always trying to prove things which they want to believe on the basis of hunches or aesthetic considerations; if they can justify why an avenue of investigation is interesting, why not let them purue it? Why should religious motivations be any different than an aesthetic one?
Einstein said "God does not play dice." This is an extra-scientific statement, which no doubt he did not expect others to take very seriously in a scientific sense, but may have been very important to him.
But, since the original has now been altered, there will never be any more tests run by 3rd parties to confirm or discredit the results of the original test.
I will not contest this, because I don't know the specific alterations you speak of nor would I know enough about the methods of archaeology to know how affected they would be by these alterations. Presumably, if further tests could be scientifically justified, it would be because there are questions at hand that can be answered by applying the techniques of archaeology to the artifact in question.
Let me be clear, I think it is historically most probable that the shroud was manufactured for the roaring medieval relic trade. But I have no problem with people trying to apply the techniques of archaeology to the shroud.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Well, it's a semantic win for theists when you call yourself and "a-theist", a person who, as they define it, "doesn't believe in God".
:)
Do you call yourself an a-Hinduist or a non-believer in the Norse gods? You don't have to, because people don't believe in such, for the most part, in the U.S. and don't feel compelled to define themselves by naming themselves non-believers in the Hindu, Norse, etc. pantheons.
The term "atheist" has been semantically hijacked to mean "unbeliever in the christian god" To apply it to yourself puts a rhetorical bullet in your head before the argument even starts.
"Agnostic" is better, one, because it doesn't have the semantic disadvantage, and secondly because it more accurately defines who you are: a person who declares that he hasn't any special knowledge (a-gnostic) and can't possibly have any answers. It's a "who-knows?" category which better suits a reasonable person. It also implies nobody else has the answers either.
My one peeve about the word is that it's mispronounced! It should be: AAY-NOSTIK, not AG-NOSTIK. We pronounce gnostic NOSTIK, not G'NOSTIK. Sheesh.
Shroud stuff
My web domain.
It's fake... stop using it as a crutch.
What reason would we then have to start another war?
Wow. You don't get laid much do you? Yeah, there's a lot of dumbass Jesus-freaks out there. But most of them aren't Christian. They're "Christian" with the quotes. Being a Christian has nothing to do with despising gays, other religions, people of color, etc. It has nothing to do with giving all your money to the church. It has nothing to do with pasting lame-ass bumperstickers on your SUV. It certainly has nothing to do with being Republican. Or Democrat for that matter.
It's all about your personal relationship with God. It's about being down with the G-O-D and being cool with people who aren't. I myself am always willing to talk to people about it, but will never condemn someone for not having the same beliefs. The people you're talking about have misinterpreted the Bible somehow and think that if they don't convert everybody soon, then the world is going to explode.
And the thing these "Christians" aren't realizing is, the harder they push, the more resistant people become. If they'd just loosen up a bit and become more accepting, I think they'd get better results and people would be more interested. And maybe you wouldn't be such an asshole.
It sure is if you didn't consent, yes. Mary was the victim here.
If you're going to follow scripture regarding the impregnation, you would also need to accept the fact that Mary CONSENTED.
In fact, that consentment is the main basis of the worship Mary gets in the Catholic religion. She had a choice, and took the hardest road. "I am the Lord's slave, thy will be done".
Sorry, but, yes. (No big deal, we're all deluded about something...) The idea of "God" as presented in mainstream Christian teaching - an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, being that is separate from and creator of the rest of the Universe, big Daddy in the Sky, King of it All - is not logically defensible.
(There are, though, other concepts of the divine that are more resilient...And your credentials as a computer scientist certainly have nothing to do with it!)
See, that's the root of the problem. The gospels - while containing some interesting wisdom teachings from poor ol' Jeshua ben Joseph - aren't any sort of evidence for the supernatural. Any more than the Koran, the Dhamapada, the Vedas, the collected Greek myths, or the front page of the Weekly World News...
The gospels are only "evidence" if you beleive them to the the "word of god" or "divinely insprired" - which is circular reasoning at its best.
But, most of Jeshua's advice was still pretty good, even if he was just a regular guy at the end of it all.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I don't know why I bother, but I'll argue anyway.
" Most Christians hold that Jesus is God"
No, ALL Christians hold that Jesus is the Son Of God and that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the Divine Trinity, three entities, but one God.
That's fundamentally the definition of Christian. Christian is a way of describing someone who believes that.
Arab refers to people born on or who live on the Arabian Peninsula. Since the boundaries of where the Arabian Peninsula begins are really up to cartographers, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Jesus was probably Arab.
Of course, what you meant in your statement was that "[Muslims] certainly don't believe that"
Ironically, that would also be wrong. The Koran SPECIFICLY mentions Jesus as the Son of God. It differs on weather or not Christ was in fact crucified and raised from the dead. The Koran says that after Judas betrayed Christ, God made Judas to look like Jesus and the Romans crucified Judas, not Jesus. Poetic justice as it were.
The Koran doesn't really deal with what happened to Jesus after that. Years later another great prophet... the last great prophet in the view of the Muslims... comes along. Muhammad brings the word of God to the people of Ishmael and so founds the religion of Islam.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Then what term do you use for those who flatly declare that there is no god?
Since you gave us a lesson in pronouncing greek, "theos" is the Greek word for god. I certainly don't agree that this has been "hijacked" to mean "the Christian God".
- The very people who maintain the Shroud as a holy artifact
- Who by definition believe in its authenticity
- Who have every reason to want it to be proven authentic
- Who control access to it, and
- Who only permitted research on it after a long and difficult negotiation with the scientists involved,
didn't allow anyone to have the proper things to test?Isn't it easier just to believe that the claims of authenticity are false, and that people are clinging to it because of what they want to be true?
Rogers looks like someone who will believe regardless of the evidence, and is thus someone whose "scientific" results are not trustworthy. The McPaper article quotes Rogers saying " the blood spots on it are real blood", when the actual material of the "blood stains" has been proven to be red ochre. Am I also being asked to believe that Jesus bled red ochre?
Refusing to accept the reality that the "artifact" is a 14th-century creation says nothing about the dating process, and everything about your prejudices. It's not what its keepers think it is. Get over it.Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Nature, of course, was the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal that carried the story of the 1988 carbon 14 dating.
This article addresses most of the comments that have been posted in this thread.
Dan
The Shroud was damaged by a fire. The container it was in was composed partially of silver. The container melted, dropping molten silver through the linen, and creating circular patterns on the Shroud, since it was folded at the time.
The presence of residue of the silver was confirmed by the 1978 team when they examined the shroud. The patches are clearly visible and were not tested by that team. Aside from the patches, the Shroud is whole.
This article and the posters are pretty uniformly uninformed about the science involved here, and the conditions. Seems like a huge waste.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
a blatant "attack"? L. Ron Hubbard, is that you?
Did Taco hit you with a pipe? Shoot you? Kick you in the balls? No? Then he didn't "attack" you.
And copying music isn't "stealing", someone didn't "steal" your girfriend, and you couldn't "murder" a lunch if you were very hungry.
(NOTE TO EVERYONE: Semantics are key. If the opponent shreds the meaning of a term key to the discussion, by say, mapping false identifier "attack" to the real term "criticism", he has cut your feet out from under you and you cannot make your argument -- and the audience won't notice the trick, either. Deny the remapping. Do not let the argument progress; stop your opponent and point out the nasty little trick. Scream. Be rude. Stop them, or they own you)
I don't mean to intrude into your dialog, but you've both missed the point that the Ten Commandments are from the book of Exodus which is Old Testament. That means they pre-date Jesus by a long time. The commandments are recognized by religons other than Christianity.
The gospels were written minimum 20 years after Jesus died. There are specific people mentioned in the gospels, especially Luke's. People who disbelieved could have checked with those people whether the incidents mentioned actually took place. The earliest copied of the gospels we have are far too early for any mythology to be put into them (it takes minimum of 4 generations for any mythology to even start to be woven into a story). Therefore the gospels are true, and Jesus did perform miracles, forgive sins, die on the cross and resurrect as described. You make your own conclusions.
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
So, what are the "known facts and evidence" you used to answer the question above? In other words, "why are you here?"
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
What's your first link ? His passeport photo from the Vatican archives ?
The popular representation of a character who would have been of middle-eastern descent as a european are all completely ridiculous anyway.
Your first link would at least be vaguely plausible for a local of the region.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
The most glaring error in the fabrication of this thing isn't the age, whatever that is, it's that the image of Christ doesn't even begin to indicate the facial proportions of a normal human being. On human faces, the eyes are approximately in the middle of the head; we get the impression that they're higher than that, but that's only because we put so much emphasis on the eyes and mouth, and not so much on the forehead. But, really, the eyes are almost exactly in the middle of the head.
The face depicted on the Shroud simply isn't that of a real person. The eyes are about 2/3rds of the way up, like it's a cartoon, or something drawn/painted by someone who wasn't very conversant with real human anatomy.
Here's a brief, but good depiction of what I'm talking about.
Doesn't matter how old this rag is, it's not a real person pictured on it.
Being content to leave something as it's pretty much always been is not the best solution in this case.
Most people accept that murder is wrong, genocide is wrong, discrimination against women is wrong, racism and homophobia is wrong. The world changes.
The ten commandments have no place in law and civil order. Laws must be created by living people, not dead religious leaders. I and many other consider the ten commandments and any aspects of religion to be highly offensive. To be fair to all, the government must not endorse or be controlled by religous interests.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Rogers' vanillin analysis, even if accurate, could have been confounded by such factors and may be useless. I don't see you claiming that Rogers is sloppy, so I will bet that you are a True Believer and will not accept any evidence which does not confirm your desire for authenticity. Or you're a troll.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Well, logically, you can't really make such a statement. You don't know there is no god. Atheist is the term, of course, and you can use it, but its hard to argue that there is no god. You can argue that religions are a sham, etc, but it's hard to argue that something does not exist. Prove the negative. As Heinlein said, soon enough you will know, so why worry about it.
:) This belief is welded to the American culture, so much so that it is a semantic given that an interviewer will ask an atheist "Why don't you believe in God?". The question presupposes the validity of the interviewer's belief in the christian god, and defines you as the outsider. Remember, non-monotheists add up to about two percent of the American population. You are outnumbered 50 to 1. They control the horizontal, they control the vertical...
And if you don't believe the term has been hijacked, get ye to rural Georgia, stand on the corner with a sign and declare yourself an atheist. They will hide the children's eyes and come after you with fists and guns, and not because they are disputing the technical meaning of the word "atheist" - they know what it means to them, and your hide will pay for it if you don't run fast enough.
***
AG-ostic just has an ugly sound to it. And since it fudges the sound of "gnostic", I think the term loses its obvious meaning when spoken.
Read John Case.. it's in there.
Pan
I said no... but I missed and it came out yes.
That is like the Monty Python Witch test.
By that standard then the only way someone is a "true" Christian is if they don't commit any action against the christian ideal. Not a very good standard if you ask me. Most faiths accept the basic tennent that man is a flawed being and therefor more or less incapable of being perfect. Thus by such a standard nobody is a true christian lest the live the life of Christ.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
You big fat freakin' liar. Bat Boy is REAL!
You don't get it do you ?
My point is that in the absence of a scientific explanation I am not content to just make one up based on how I would like things to be.
I don't know and neither does anyone else.
Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless
Actually in many orthodox theologies it does make you sinless. But by no merit of Christian, but through proxy by Christ.
Also it doesn't mean that the Chrisitan will not sin , but (s)he should realise the terrible price that Jesus paid for that sin. Theologically, Chrisitans should be the most humble about their righteousness because it is not their own merit, it is Christ's.
As Paul said All that [his self earned righteousness] I consider garbage. Unfortuanately there are many Christians that do not realize this.
[rational IRE]/ shroud-pos.jpg hunk of shit couldn't have been "painted" at any point in the last 5000 years you are pretty delusional.
All I can say is wow. If you believe that this: http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/adurfee/calculus
[/rational IRE]
grape - the GNU free, open source rape
For some crazy reason, this works a lot better at getting people to think seriously about faith than "you don't believe the exact same thing I do, and I am right, so you're burning in Hell for all eternity". On the other hand, I suspect militant atheism just encourages the fundamentalist types, by giving them proof that agnostics and athiests really do hate Baby Jesus.
This article is relevant to science, skeptics, believers and
Data Point:
This new finding on vanillin content and revised carbon dating which offers an older age REFUTES a previous refutation. IF the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus, then it should have a carbon date older than 1300. The evidence of 1988 invalidated the prospect of authenticity. This new evidence at least allows the prospect of authenticity. It would be not unlike someone disproving Michelson-Morely and allowing the prospect of Aether.
But faith need not be blind. If the date truly was c. 1300, then my 'faith' that the Shroud is authentic cannot punch through that. I have to disavow it. But now, I can again be allowed to believe. The Science has freed my faith. That is a good thing for all of us, believers and skeptics alike.
Questions:
IF the Shroud were truly the burial cloth of a resurrected man/deity
If an inanimate humanoid were to be re-animated, what physical manifestations would it leave in the environs, esp. in a cloth immediately proximate to the corpse?
"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred." If the two theories are "miracle vs. forgery", this new data makes the forgery 'less equal' than it was. A 14th Century artist may have had the 'technology' to forge this item, but if the date is now well before that, the likely hood of forgery drops. Will it ever drop to below 'miracle'? I don't know, but the older the Shroud is allowed to be by testing, the less simple becomes the forgery explanation. Eventually, and it may already be there, it will drop to where "an unknown scientific phenomenon manifested during post-death time frame of an actual deceased person matching the record of the account of Jesus crucifixion" becomes the simpler explanation." Maybe then, the miracle becomes the simplest explanation.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Is not the converse true also? Starglider29a's Corollary: "Any true magic can be replicated by sufficiently advanced technology." If it WERE a miracle, would it not also resemble highly-advanced technology? If we were to imagine how we in this day and age could replicate the Shroud observed characteristics, wouldn't we be simulating a miracle? Could we? Sure we could. What hypothetical miracle could Federation Technology not replicate? You know the episode I'm thinking of...
If the Shroud can never prove a miracle, as it appears to record, then WHY is it here? If science cannot prove a forgery, then WHY is it here? Two reasons, I suspect:
If I say "E=mc^2", you picture Einstein, right? If I say, "Love your enemies..." you picture a guy with a long hair, robe, a beard. Show any kid in America the painting done based on the Shroud. Ask who it is. They will prolly say "Jesus". If you are on AIM or Yahoo, it's easier to chat with someone you can't see if you have either an avatar, or a profile to attach yo
No, no, it's not "Shroud of Turin versus Science" - religion and science finally came together. Scientists finally proved that Jesus was a finite state machine that left behind a shroud on which it was writing images! And according to carbon dating, the finite machine involved was non-deterministic, so they can't tell when it reached the final state.
I for one welcome our turing overlords!
Hahahah... you, sir, are a legend...
From the link in your sig, are YOU rapture ready?
Ah, "Cut Me Own Throat" Dibbler would be proud. Truly, you have taken mercantilism to a new level.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
No, I don't "get it." That's why I asked.
The basic nature of humans is to create questions to ask, and then to seek answers. To reject some questions outright as having no answers is to go against one of the most basic drives we have.
According to the book I base my beliefs on, and which you apparently reject, one of the answers to "why are we here" is "to help each other when the other is poor, cold, hungry, tired, etc."
I understand you will reject this answer, because it was not derived via the scientific method, but that doesn't mean "no one knows" the answer.
Also, I expect you will immediately produce "counter-examples" of Christians not following the above principle. But just because not everyone accepts the answer above, doesn't make it a non-existent or useless answer.
Feel free to insult me, now.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
I agree with you about the difficulty of proving a negative, but that's never bothered militant atheists.
Heinliein was a good writer (I'm reading "The Rolling Stones" to my daughter at night), but he was a lousy theologian. The bumper sticker, "Jesus is coming, and boy is He pissed", while crude, does contain an element of truth.
And, um, I live in Georgia. I have neighbors, co-workers, and friends who are atheists. So be careful how you stereotype.
Props, however, for the Outer Limits reference. That would be worth some mod points, if I had any. But I would note that Christianity hasn't done a good job of using the media to get their message across; we do fair with radio, pathetic with television, but seem to be finding the power of the internet. It has long been a pet peeve of mine that if you asked the average person on the street what Christianity was all about they might say something about the anger that is expressed toward various types of misdeeds (and usually not about things like injustice, or poverty, & etc). I doubt that rarely would someone say, "oh, they are those people who believe that Jesus rose from the dead."
Language never makes sense, so I stopped worrying about it. After all, in English, "ghoti" is pronounced "fish".
Eh I think there is a bit more argument regarding the Holy Trinity than you make out. The Nicene Creed holds to that but that does not necesarrily apply to the denominations which resulted in the Reformation and since.
Many protestants ( don't think you can say all or even most ) have a great deal of difficulty with the concept of the trinity. And in fact you will get a great deal of there is no such thing. In other words Jesus was their Lord Savior. Don't even get started with someone of this ilk about the holy spirit.... you will be discussing it for a long long LOOOOOOONNNNGGgg time
I haven't really dug enough to understand if this is a limitation of the congregation that is not shared by the clergy/pastors/preacher whatever they are labled but from a sheer numbers game I would say there are many christians that do in fact argue that Jesus was God. Not sure I would go so far as to say most, perhaps most protetants in the bible belt, but even then I doubt it.
I have always marveld at the lack of understanding of the founding of Islam among most Christians. It is a failure both of understanding Religion and History that absolutely boggles the mind.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
______________________________________
The Sunday Times [28 November 2004]
Andrew Sullivan: Where the Bible bashers are sinful and the liberals pure
. . .
Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways they were the two states competing in the last election. One is the home of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes and social permissiveness.
The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for John Kerry over George W Bush 62% to 37%; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61% to 38%.
Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.
A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Every one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate is roughly 50% higher than the national average.
Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt and many do not have the maturity to know what they are getting into. There is some correlation, too, between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging behind a highly educated state such as Massachusetts.
The irony still holds, however. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that socially troubled communities cling to absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.
Doesn't being born again help to bring down divorce rates? Jesus was clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not; 29% of Baptists have been divorced, compared with 21% of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23% of married born agains have been divorced twice or more.
Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teen births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas the proportion of people unmarried is 32.4%; in Massachusetts it is 26.8%. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts has a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.
Take abortion. America is one of the few western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It is a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it with a country such as Holland, perhaps the epitome of social liberalism. Which country has the highest rate of abortion? It is not even close. America has a rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?
. . .
More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-13782 27,00.html
Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers? :-)
If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.
The problem is that many Christians (including myself) would not accept serious criminals as Christians, unless they've reformed. It's all too easy to self-justify any crime in the name of your "religion". And how would you classify prisoners who realized their wrongs and decided to ask Christ for forgiveness?
I believe, too, that true Muslims would commit less crime than nonreligious people. But depending on how you define "Muslim", you've got some glaring counterexamples.
And you also have equated "sin" with "crime". There's enough subtle differences to make this entire thing more invalid than testing the Shroud of Turin (which, incidentally, I believe is pointless: your belief in God should be based on the Bible, not on some piece of cloth whose authenticity nobody can prove).
The unfortunate problem with Christianity for left-brained, logical types is that it's completely non-testable either way.
The public education system strikes again. The first amendment was designed to prevent the restriction of criticism of government. The idea that it preserves rudeness, mockery, and shouting fire in a crowded theater is simply wrong.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
I don't know if I'd say that belief in the Trinity is "christian." It's certainly Catholic, but the belief in the Trinity is the reason that most Protestant religions exist. They didn't like it and they split, like the Lutherans did over the question of whether the eucharist is really the body of Christ or if it's just a symbol thereof.
Don't forget indulgences and the general corruption of the Catholic Church.
The protestant splintering happend for any number of reason and continuing schisims ( forks ? ) continue to this day over minutiae. But I do think it is safe to say the curruption of the Catholic Church was the initial catalyst that led to Martin Luther.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Arab refers to people born on or who live on the Arabian Peninsula. Since the boundaries of where the Arabian Peninsula begins are really up to cartographers, it's not too much of a stretch to say that Jesus was probably Arab.
ROTFL! That is one of the stupidest things I've seen posted on slashdot in quite a while! Ignorant sir, I salute you!
Yes, yes. Karma burning.
If the Shroud is a forgery, it is the result of copious research, skill, and probably experimentation to get the "technology sufficiently advanced" as to appear to be "magic". THEN REPLICATE THE EXPERIMENT! We have far more advanced technology than some monk in the 14th century. Let's see the Geek community do the science and repeat the experiment whose result was the Shroud of Turin. Be sure to produce at least these characteristics:
And finally, (yes... FINALLY)
Based on the Geek Community rising to the challenge and succeeding in replicating the "Shroud Experiment", I expect to see ThinkGeek offering a "Do-Your-Own-Shroud" kits by 2007. "Amaze your friends. You too can appear to have been crucified." I'm picturing a REALLY big laser printer (that actually prints on cloth using lasers), a FireWire full-body scanner that can double as a tanning bed, and your choice of 3 shroud cloths: Latte, Mocha and French Vanillin.
What are the odds of that happening? It would take a miracle.
The simplest argument I've ever heard against the shroud being real (i.e. an actual burial cloth) is the image of Jesus supposedly imprinted on it. The face/body have roughly the same dimensions as a normal human face, except for some blurring. However, this is NOT what you would expect on a piece of cloth wrapped around someone! If the "imprint" came from an actual body then when the shroud was removed the image, in particular the face, should be severely stretched horizontally. It should definitely NOT look like a photograph or a painting. This is because the cloth has to wrap around the face and actually cover the whole thing.
Take a soda bottle and a piece of paper. Cover the front half of the bottle (i.e. a 180-degree slice cylindrically). This represents the face. Mark the edges with pencil. Now hold up the paper and compare the "wrapped" length of the image (between the pencil marks) with the "visible" image (how wide the bottle looks when viewed straight-on). Photographs, paintings, and the image on the shroud have the "straight-on" dimensions. Regardless of how old the cloth is, the image is way too narrow. It's fake.
You still don't get it.
I am not arguing at all about the relative moral merits of religion, yes people wanting to help each other out is a good thing etc etc.
What I am saying is that I will not believe anything simply because that belief happens to answer a particular question.
Yes humans like to pose questions, it may be that all the questions we can ask ourselves will eventually be answered ( or maybe not - we don't know ) but unless the answers can be backed up with empirical evidence which can be tested and verified they are not really answers, just guesses.
You are free to base your beliefs on what you like provided you realise they are just beliefs and do not actually answer a lot of the questions they might claim to.
Do you feel threatened by my beliefs and opinions?
Why do you feel that you have to silence me?
Why is my contribution to this discussion not worthy of consideration?
Stick Men
Okay, CmdTaco, I really don't think this topic is nerdworthy. It is however flameworthy. In fact, I would give it a flamebait score. I know that if I would have submitted such a story, it would have been rejected before I clicked submit. Anyway, about the shroud.... Who cares? I really don't care if it was Jesus's or not. There is enough evidence out there that says that there was a man named Jesus and that he performed miracles. In addition to that, there are enough prophsies in the old testament (written a very long time before Jesus) that point out that if this whole God was true then Jesus is the Mesiah. Read the book of Isaiah sometime. Isaiah 7 says that as a sign Mesiah would be born of a virgin. Isaiah 53 details how he will die and for what reason. These aren't like the horroscopes in the National Enquirer, these are very specific prophsies that did come to pass. But like most logical thinkers, we can pass this all off as a coincidence just like we pass off all miracles we see every day. ("I survived the car wreak! What a coincidence. Praise be to luck and chance that I may have it!") So who cares if this thing is real or fake. I don't. I know the following: 1: I'm a screw up 2: There's nothing I can do to change that 3: Screw ups don't go to Heaven on their own 4: It's a good thing I have a Savior to pay the price for me.
If you're an atheist then all rules are arbitrary. Pot, kettle, black.
Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers? :-) If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view.
Theory: women commit less crime than men. If found to be true, all men must be forced to undergo sex-change operations.
I think the shroud 'Patch' may be made of the big foot suit
lol "hay everyone pay attention to me everything that's too much for me to comprehend is bigfoot and the Matrix has us all! I'm gonna go have a beer."
I am NOT a number! I am a - oh wait, I'm number 761710. Look! 761710!
So me, as a computer scientist who has studied the pros and cons of Christianity as much as I can, and have come to the conclusion that God is real, is deluded?
I'm not sure what being a computer scientist has to do with it. I'm a computer scientist who has studied the pros and cons of Christianity as much as I can and I came to the conclusion that there is no evidence of any god and that the Christian image of god is false. And as far as I can remember, computer science never came into it.
Have you ever actually read and studied the gospels?
Yes. And found them unconvincing. Have you studied the Koran? If you haven't, how do you justify ruling out Islam? Have you studied the vedas? If not, how do you rule out Hinduism? In my experience, most of the Christians who challenge people to read the bible have never read other holy texts.
the Jews as Yahweh
In the Torah, God is identified as "YHVH," the Hebrew characters pronounced "yud-hey-vahv-hey."
"Yahweh" is a Christian mangling of it, I can't remember the full origin ATM. "Jehovah" is as well.
Sorry, it's a pet peeve I picked up from hanging around with Jews.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
The Koran SPECIFICLY mentions Jesus as the Son of God
I am a Muslim and I can assure you that your statement is completely wrong. There is no-where in the Koran that says Jesus is the son of God. In contrast, check this English translation of the verse (Al-Ikhlas/112) from the Koran:
http://isgkc.org/EnglishQuran/sura112.htm
* SAY: God is Unique!
* God is the Source [for everything];
* He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered,
* and there is nothing comparable to Him!
What point are you trying to make?
Stick Men
The gospels were compiled over time from several sources. The inconsistant writing style, the inconsistancies in content, it screams compilaton of myth. Think about it though, if there was a person starting a religious and political movement that was enough of a threat to the romans that they executed him, wouldn't there be a record somewhere from the roman bureaucracy? But no, no historian recorded his existance. No prison records survive, nothing. Besides scripture no evidence suggests that a man named Jesus ever lived.
And even if he did, and the authors of the gospels were first hand witnesses, does it mean that everything in the bible is true? No! Even today people with messiah complexes can gather followers who will swear up and down that their cult leader has performed miracles. Just because jesus was more well adjusted (and they probably sanitized the record) than David Koresh, doesn't make him god.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We're all sinners in this world. Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less. I'm sorry if your view of Christianity has been skewed by those who don't hold to true beliefs.
Christians are not under the law and as such don't sin. Now, our flesh is sinful (just as everone's was/is except the Lord's), but since we're born of God, our flesh should not be directing our behavior, and anyone born of God does not sin. We're also righteous by faith and not by works of the law.
Well, see, he made Adam out of mud, and Eve out of one of Adam's ribs. Then when he wanted to make a son for himself the next time, instead of getting out his modelling clay again (mud) he got poor old Mary up the duff. Can you imagine the stigma attached to that at the time? Poor Mary. Cruel, wicked, vindictive god.
Stick Men
How are the Gospels evidence? For evidence of god, we need to look at relaity. God is subtle and I have had experiences that would lead me to believe in god. I'm a Buddhist though so the gospels isn't evidence, just text. That's why I prefer BUddhism, everything is based on experience not some text. Buddhism does have texts but hey some could be wrong though.
http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/extracts.htm#nt
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
I stand corrected. Numerous referances to Jesus as Messiah are there, but none that I can now find where he is refered to as the Son of God.
My appologies.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
The point is that you're coming down on the "feed the poor" side of the perpetual "build cathedrals vs. feed the poor" debate. The Catholic Church has obviously done both through the millenia, but not without a lot of deliberate focus on the cathedral building amidst the din of the feeders of the poor. The Shroud of Turn, even if a fake, is a source of inspiration for meditative prayer.
When the scientists' experiments don't come back with the "proof" the religious people would like, then "flaws" are found with what samples were taken, under what conditions, etc.
That's because the goal isn't finding out how old the shroud is (that would be science).
The goal is proving that it could be 2000 years old.Read up on the history of the shroud and you'll see the problems and agendas.
Then you'll understand why this is junk science.
It's been some time since Catholic high school, but my recollection is that the Gospel of Mark is considered the oldest, and it was written around 80AD at the earliest. The later gospels were finished up to around 130AD.
Perhaps they believed that Jesus' glorious return was imminent; there's a cryptic phrase somewhere in Acts that suggests that he will return before all of those present have died.
I don't know where your minimum number of generations to develop a mythology comes from (hell, writers come up with them now in a matter of months); but 80 - 100 years seems like plenty of time for the oral tradition to get shaped and bent into whatever form was useful to the early church.
That firsthand witnesses could have been consulted seems like an awfully weak basis to leap to the conclusion that everything mentioned is true, in my opinion. But make your own conclusions, as you say.
In this context, I would also have to consider Taco's comments to be a blantant attack.
Blatant attack, sure. But a well justified one. If you spent, what 10 years? 15 years? having your reason, rationality, and sanity being attacked. Being in effect brainwashed, you'd be pretty prone to attack too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Make install
Attack successful.
Why don't you try Mormonism? One of the lines their missionaries use is "pray to know that these things are true". They will relate how they prayed and received some kind of experience (some has described it as a 'burning feeling in the heart') that convinces them that Mormonism is true.
Yet Mormonism and Buddhism cannot both be true. So did (at least) one of you have a faulty experience?
I do wonder what it is that makes you think that his position is a delusion, but yours is not - from a probabilistic standpoint, it's just as likely.
;-)
Many people have tried to prove or disprove God, through logical and empirical means. None are convincing to me: because, by the very definition, God isn't part of this world. If he's omnipotent, omniscient and atemporal, he's beyond the range of all our means of insight.
Hence, there cannot be a definitive, knowledge-based, pro OR contra position. Well, at least that's what I believe.
Don't whistle while you're pissing.
How is a scientific theory a cult? It's not belief, it's based on evidence. I never could understand why some freaks get science and religion confused. Is it ignorance or fundamentalist thought?
Rather ironically, you seem to be rejecting the basis of the Scientific Method, in that under the SM, an investigator makes observations presumably "wondering why", then formulates a hypothesis and attempts to test it. Some hypotheses are more readily tested than others, of course, but in general, the process leads to a Theory. The whole process is theoretically (!) open to scrutiny by other interested scienticians and in due course, results are reported. The irony comes in when the second level of individuals are involved, those who have participated neither in the research nor in the challenge: many of us accept pretty much without question concepts like a GUT, string theory, blazars and I suppose, the dark side of the moon. We do so without the empirical evidence you seem to require, placing reliance on the reports of others. This is logically indistinguishable from the act of faith you decry. This faith takes the form of beliefs "which actually answer questions they claim to", as an example, the one about conservation of angular momentum explaining planetary orbits. I think you are being a bit dogmatic in rejecting any and all forms of belief unless it is acknowledged to be false: that stance requires that all belief be insane, even as you state it in exactly the same terms of faith as those you protest. Atheists are no less guided by faith than the spiritual folk they deride, it's just that their faith is selective: some forms of faith are acceptable, others are not. At least the spiritual stance is more open, and hence more honest.
The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
Like-wise trying to prove faith using pseudo-scientific crap. If your faith is strong you don't need proof. If it's not then no amount of 'scientific' proof is going to replace it. There is room in our society for both faith and proof, religion and science. I just get so annoyed when people with little faith try to bolster this faith with science in order for me to see the "truth". I don't believe! Three of the major religions in this world periodically kill each other but they believe in the same god. It's just the prophets that are different.
You can argue based on logical contradiction and occams razor. Doesn't disprove it, but REALLY makes it look improbable. I mean, I don't go around saying I'm unicorn agnostic because I can't prove there aren't unicorns. Do you?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Had to get that out. I live in KY.
The letters of Paul date from ~20-30AD.
Do you know how much opposition the early Christians faced from the Jews and Romans? After the ressurection, the Jews didnt say 'the tomb is still occupied, see?', they said 'They've stolen the body!'. Therefore Jesus' body was gone. It wasnt stolen, as that would be completely pointless (jesus' disciples were completely mortified that Jesus was dead), and if they stole it why would they be willing to die for what they knew was a lie?
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Considering that Christianity tends to include a support network and a structured framework, I'd be a little leary of questioning if Christians committed less crime than non-Christians.
Many Christians don't even drink, or consider drinking to drunkeness a sin, another factor in criminal behavior.
There are only two factors that I could see pushing the Christian crime rate up: Prison ministries, and hate speech and other crimes against gays and abortion-right activists. Other than a few nutcases, Christians tend to be strongly outspoken against homosexuality and abortions, but not to the point of committing crimes. The prison ministries may be a huge factor though.
The other problem is how to define Christian? There are many self-described "Christians" out there that I don't consider Christian due to their lapse of practicing Christianity. They are as much Christian as they are Germans or Swedes or English: It may have been the belief/country of their ancestors, but they no longer practice the customers. Its like "Wiccans" who convert to their faith after watching "The Craft", yet have very little grasp of the Wiccan theology.
Unfortunately, googling is turning up no useful statistics, such as the percentage of criminals at the time of their crime who regularly participated in religious acts (praying, church participation, etc) vs the population on average. :(
If you don't understand religion, don't write it off as some strange cult. Without considering the supernatural, religion has some rather big benefits, which may be one of the reasons why atheistic cultures are relatively rare in history. Religion can help bind a culture together, and provide rules in order to increase the chances of survival. Look at the Islamic rules on bodily hygiene: Most of them make a lot of sense. Its similar to the US dietary guidelines: While parts of it are probably mistaken, following them should improve your chances of survival. The difference is that the US dietary guidelines are based on science, while strict religious laws are based upon which tribes and religions or subsects of religion survived.
Even today, in the age of science, those who regularily participate in religious customs (solitarily or in groups) tend to be healthier than those who don't. Stress is unhealthy: forgiving others and believing that God is in charge reduces a lot of stress. I had a religious family member be diagnosed with cancer several years ago. In addition to the support network her church gave her, she had a lot less stress because she believed that whatever happened was God's will. She had biopsies and went to radiation therapy and drug therapy[1], and has been cancer free for several years. While we can credit modern science with killing the cancer, her lower levels of stress probably played a factor in recovery.
[1] Yes, God helps those who helps themselves. Religion has already answered the question of "If I have faith in God, why should I do anything at all?" centuries ago. You aren't being witty by bringing it up: You are showing your ignorance of Christian theology.
"Nobody in their right mind can doubt the existence of Jesus."
Lots of people in their right minds do it.
"The Roman Empire records are very clear about not only his existance but also regarding his interactions with the government (well, getting crucified)."
I call shenanigans. Produce these records.
Your test of belief is invalid as well. There are plenty of people who behave ethically, but have no belief in Jesus or other higher powers.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Um, no. You are confusing the Arabian Penninsula with the Middle East. When it comes to subregions of the Middle East, Israel is part of the Levant. Iraq is part of Mesopotamia. The Levant and Mesopotamia make up the bulk of what is considered the Fertile Cresent. The Arabian Penninsula is a large geographic subregion of the Middle East that includes Asian lands south of Mesopotamia, the Levant, and the Syrian Dessert. The Arabian Pennensula is itself a subdivided geographic region, the most important subdivision being the Hijaz.
I think you're defining "faith" a little too loosely. Faith is belief without reason, or devotion to a cause or plan. With science, in particular, demand for emperical proof is directly opposed to faith. Your example about not questioning concepts but relying on the word of others is a strawman. When we "believe" scientific theory, we aren't believing in a de facto truth. A scientific theory is merely an explanation of fact. For example, the laws of planetary motion is a theory that explains the facts surrounding the orbits and motions of planets. So, we accept scientific theory as long as the theory explains the facts, the facts are the reason we belief the theory, so it *can't* be faith by definition. There is emperical evidence that support the theory.
And I take exception to your assertion that atheists are "no less guided by faith". This is ignorance of what an atheist is. Simply, an atheist is one who merely LACKS a god-belief. There is nothing more or less to it. So, in other words you can't generalize atheist as holding some beliefs because atheism is the LACK of one particular belief. How can that be faith?
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"
Why does one have to assume that someone was 'tortured to death' ? It may simply be someone who died a peaceful death and was made up to look like JC after being on the cross.
Forensic examination proves that the person whose body is visible on the Shroud died by crucifixion (for example, his shoulder and elbow joints joints are disclocated accordingly), that is, by very slow and painful suffocation. Also his body exhibits traces of flogging by typical Roman flagrum. It is absolutely impossible for Medieval artist to "guess" how to paint it realistically without a real model (actually, it would be a hard task even for contemporary one).
- The image is like an X-ray projection as opposed to just a surface image. I.e., a hypothesis that satisfies this is if the Shroud fell straight through the body of Jesus. (This is why Mel Gibson portrayed it that way in his movie.)
- The discolorations of the fibers that form the image penetrate the fibers only to a shallow amount. Moreover, the fibers are penetrated both on the top and the bottom, with the middles of the fibers untouched. This "second image" on the back-side (to which researchers have had limited access to until recently) that was reported last spring (see New image found on back of Shroud of Turin: Reported around the world except U.S.) corroborates the hypothesis above. To explain this, various scientists have suggested a "corona discharge" or "thermo-nuclear reaction", which is why Mel Gibson added that visual element to his movie.
- The 1988 carbon dating has been debunked for a long time; this is not news.
- Various Popes personally believe it to be authentic, but could never speak infallibly on the issue as Popes cannot speak infallibly about particulars, only the universals of faith and morals.
Besides my blog article linked above, a good overview of post-1988 Shroud developments is Fr. Saunder's four-part series in the Arlington (Virginia) Catholic Herald: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.Well, calling other people's religious believes "fantasy" and "dangerous delusions", without giving any evidence for either statement, is rather hard to take as anything but deliberate insult.
Unfortunately, the parent poster didn't point out any incorrectness in the believes he insulted; he just insulted them.
Pointing something incorrect requires at least some proof; just saying "you're deluded" is not sufficient.
The Theory of Evolution is, as the name implies, theory.
Evolution, as in "species change over time", is a process which has been observed (the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in hospitals, for example).
It is.
Theism means a believe in a fundamentally higher power, usually called God.
Atheism means a believe that no fundamentally higher power (God) exists.
Notice the word "believe". Atheists believe that there is no God. Atheisms is no different than any other religion, and as usual, it's supporters like to think themselves as rational and their religion the only logical one. However, as of yet, no one has managed to proof that atheist beliefs are correct.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Minimum 20 years, maximum what? 100? Your 20 is by far the lowest figure I've ever heard.
Anyway, I can imagine J. Random Roman saying "Think I'll start walking to Jerusalem, it's only 1,400 miles, see if any of these guys are still alive (if they existed in the first place) and can answer a few questions, maybe straighten out some of the contradictions in these `gospel' stories from this `Christos' cult. 'Cause I know they just love talking to random people from the city-state that's occupying their land and oppressing their people." Riiiight.
And what if someone did make the trip? I can find guys today who'll tell me about how they saw Elvis last week at the 7-11. Don't mean it happened.
Not at all. It's clear that mythological elements were deliberately injected into the Christianity and the gospels right from the start. Jeshua's biographers stole liberally from Mithraism - from story elements like twelve followers, death and resurrection, a last supper, the "light of the world" image, to ritual elements like the timing of Christmas, the use of miters as sign of bishop's office, the title of "Father" for priests, and so on.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Nothing I have said leads me to believe I am rejecting the scientific method.
You are right in saying that I myself have not carried out my own independant experiments to verify the predictions of the theory of gravity or the theory of relativity and I am relying on the scientists who are telling me they are able to do this are telling the truth.
This is entirely different from the kind of faith required by religion.
Science starts from the point of view of knowing nothing and then thinking of reasons why things may happen. These thoughts are then tested experimentally to see if we can actually see what our new theory predicts. If a theory does predict successfully things which do happen then it's accepted as being a reliable theory but is still subject to changes if a different or new theory predicts our observations more accurately.
Religious faith doesn't require any proof, the act of belief is all that is necessary and what you believe doesn't necessarily have to have any basis in sciences picture of how things work.
Aethists are guided by what can be proved by science - their views can change and their beliefs are not set in stone.
Religion tends to be guided by their religious teachings which are often not up for discussion and their views are set in stone.
I am aware that their are a wide spectrum of religious beliefs from people who are willing to entertain a seperation between their religious conviction and their scientific learning to people who are not so my previous paragraph is necessarily a bit of a generalisation.
Personally I think it's the aethist who has a more open stance and is honest enough to admit the things that it can't explain and change it's mind with new evidence.
For example if the existence of a god was proven then I as an aethist would believe in god but their doesn't appear to be any mechanism inherent in religion whereby it can evolve to reject the idea of a god.
Proof that the vanillin test is more trustworthy than radiocarbon would be good too.
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
And, explain Saul's conversion. He was one of the most fervant people against Christians, yet on the road to Damascus he suddenly became a Christian (technically in Damascus itself). Explain please.
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Well yes I agree with that, if their is a god it would be impossible to prove it one way or another or have any idea of what form that god would take and that is why I think the poster is deluded because religion has provided some fairly definitive answers to a lot of these kind of questions based on no verifiable evidence whatsoever.
The delusion comes from the specific beliefs which have built up around the idea of a god, i.e. he sends his children down to Earth etc etc.
Luke 14:25
Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: 26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.
It seems clear that religion is about Love for God and hate for everyone else. And it seems to be working great.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You are, of course, free to believe whatever you want. However, based on the evidence you've given for your believes (non at all), I have little choice but consider them utterly unproved fantasy in which you choose to believe.
After all, if you had any evidence, surely you'd included it in your message, since your stated goal is to convince as many people as you can to abandon their religious beliefs in favour of yours, and evidence tends to be more convincing than stating that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is delusional.
Taken logically, atheism leads to a logical chain of "there's no power higher than me, therefore I'm the highest moral authority, therefore I can define morality in whatever way happens to suit me at any given moment, therefore I can do whatever I wish without any regard to the consequences to others", which seems a pretty dangerous conclusion to me.
Undoubtedly some atheist will answer to state that he doesn't need the threat of eternal punishment to behave morally. However, such people are deluding themselves - atheism removes the source of universal moral, and therefore universal moral itself, and therefore, in atheistic believe system, it is impossible to behave morally right or morally wrong, since there is no moral right or moral wrong - who would have the authority to define them ? Morals and atheism are conflicting concepts.
Please note that I'm not saying that all, or even most, atheists are immoral, just that atheism invalidates the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, which in turn invalidates almost all moral systems. The only one's it doesn't invalidate are the ones that don't have the concepts of right and wrong, and such systems boild down to "I can do anything that doesn't have bad consequences to me", which, while technically a moral system, propably wouldn't be considered as such by many.
Or, to put it simpler: "Without God everything is allowed".
I'd say that atheism is far more dangerous than almost any theistic religion.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
and
"As soon as one does provide some credible evidence I will be willing to re-appraise my position."
This is a serious, non-rhetorical question: What would you deem credible evidence?
How would you define 'credible evidence'?
"Science eventually has answers for everything"
How did we get here? How did billions of atoms unite to create millions of cells, which united to create organs, tissues, and eventually human beings which have life, memory, and the ability to create life of our own?
The same atoms which make up my existance also make up the existance of a rock. How come We aren't all rocks?
--Forest C. Adcock--
Not really. You can derive a decent ethical system from egoism.
A sensible person who is primarily interested in his own pleasure will logically want other people to act in a way which is in his interest. But just saying "everyone be nice to me" ain't gonna work unless you threaten people with violence, but if you go down that road, there's not much to prevent other people from applying counterviolence. However, if you tell people "everyone be nice to everyone else," you have a much more effective moral system, because everyone benefits from the idea.
From "be nice to everyone else," you can derive further moral rules. It's still a little abitrary, but it's less arbitrary, because you're not just taking your moral rules from some external authority, but instead are using morality as a method for everyone to have more fun, which is somewhat quantifiable.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
**Well, if you take the assumption that the Shroud is a medieval counterfeit (and this is also my belief, if you ask) - you'd have to assume that someone in Middle Ages was tortured to death and his dead body was somehow proto-photographed on the linen, which might be possible technically even then. Anatomical details are just too accurate for the Shroud to be merely a paintwork coming from the artist's imagination (medieval painters in the era of Giotto di Bondone simply did not know how to paint human body accurately, this knowledge was rediscovered in late Renaissance). So watching the Shroud, you watch a recording of someone's pain and death. If you find someone's torment and agony funny, I'd say that you are dumb indeed (that's for the insult).**
there was PLENTY of people tortured to death both in medieval times and in circa 2000 years ago. and in any time between. hell, public executions were the favorite past time of humanity for a really long time.
my theory about what it is, is that it may very well be 2000 years old, and shroud from a real person, but was discoverd from somewhere and used by somebody to gain earthly fame and wealth - and that being the main reason for it's existence. there's lots and lots of other such example relics.
none of the relic stuff really makes sense except as merchandise and false images of god, ironically. the point is that if you really believed in jesus you shouldn't care shit about the shroud, it's just a shroud and can't prove anything on it's own to anyone. the shroud and other relics(and 'miracles') are just exploited by people to so that they can show to other people how truly they believe.. pathetic, but so was taxing people for the right to get into heaven.
and loughing over a dead person.. well, it's less worse than laughing at someone who's still alive.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Uh, the execution of Jeshua hadn't happened yet in 20 CE...he was born around 4 BCE, executed at age 33 if I remember by C.C.D. classes right, so around 29 CE. I doubt Saul/Paul got his start the very next year.
And the Epistles are not the Gospels.
According to the account given by the early Christians, yes. And we should believe that account because...?
The Romans and the Pharisees probably though the grisly public execution of the troublemaking leader of this little cult was sufficient. It was years before the early Christians were again of concern to anyone. They didn't have DNA evidence back then; a decade after the execution, the Romans could have produced the bones and believers would have just said "not him!". What would have been the point?
Let's assume there was a body (some hold that the execution was faked and Jeshua was spirited away to live out his days in relative peace and quiet, a nice thought if highly speculative), and that it was stolen. Was that a pointless act? If it was, we wouldn't be talking about this two millennia later.
Jeshua wasn't just a religious teacher. He wasn't some random guy born in a barn who rose to popularity solely on his merits - he was heir to the royal line ("Son of David") of a conquered nation, a nation looking for a leader ("Messiah") to toss off the Roman oppressors. (His choice to go into religion instead of politics pissed off a lot of people.)
Having the body disappear (if it really did) would be a smack to the Romans, their Jewish collaborators, and the corrupt Pharisees. Multiple smackdown!
Why would they be willing to die for a lie? Not all would know it was a lie - it would only take one guy to steal the body. And some would certainly be willing to die for the political ends. People have died for all sorts of ideas over the centuries, but being willing to die for an idea is no gauge of the correctness of that idea.
If we follow Occam's Razor, it certainly requires fewer assumptions to say that the body was there but the story faked, or the body was stolen, or even that the execution was faked, than that Jeshua was resurrected.
And you know what? Even if some weird freaky thing happened and a dead guy got up and walked around for a while 2,000 years ago, that proves nothing at all about the truth of Christian dogma - about the existance or nature of god(s), about the divinity of the walking dead guy, about original "sin" of the forgiveness thereof, about an afterlife, any of it.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
the point is that there were at a time so many of such splinters going around, one splinter isn't that big nor are even ten such splinters...
medieval church made money in more nastier ways too though than selling fake splinters.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
...but they're rock-solid now, aren't they?
That doesn't make them any less arbitrary, does it? Why is it the way it is?
Why in the world can't you wear clothing made from two kinds of fabric or plant two different kinds of seeds in the same field? Why?
Do you really want an answer? I'll be happy to give you one.
Uh... science already has answers for all of those.
What century are you in, man?
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
Comment removed based on user account deletion
According to the book I base my beliefs on, and which you apparently reject, one of the answers to "why are we here" is "to help each other when the other is poor, cold, hungry, tired, etc."
The book I base my beliefs on says the same thing, except it also aays that there is no God or God(s)and that all power to change anything is within every person (its called the Dharmapada, BTW). That book also says not to take anything on "faith" but to question authority and test what you have been told to arrive at the truth. You book does not have a monopoly on knowledge, you know.
None of the idea of "helping each other when we are cold" requires us to do that for fear of punishment from a bearded white man that lives in the sky. Rather, cooperationa and altruism are, according to Game Theory and evolution, the best strategy for long term survival (see the book The Evolution of Cooperation). So, technically, that answer WAS arrived at by the scientific method.
It doesn't matter why we are here, we just are...lets get on with it.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I do wonder what it is that makes you think that his position is a delusion, but yours is not - from a probabilistic standpoint, it's just as likely.
Even if the probability of a super-intelligent all-powerful being which created the universe is 50%, that most certainly does not mean that Christianity, just one of countless possible forms of theism, and which claims an awful lot more than just "there exists a God", is just as likely to be true.
Not really. You can derive a decent ethical system from egoism.
That assumes that you have an a-priori notion of decent. If you think about it, you'll end up with a hall-of-mirrors effect that cannot be broken except by personal preference. And that happens to be arbitrary.
However, if you tell people "everyone be nice to everyone else," you have a much more effective moral system, because everyone benefits from the idea.
More hidden assumptions about what is better than something else. Do you think the Borg, or the aliens in Independence Day, would agree with your morality? It's an interesting thought experiment.
but instead are using morality as a method for everyone to have more fun
And why should "more fun" be the determiner of what is moral?
And yet Jesus manages to fulfil over 300 old testament prophesies that were fixes several centuries before Jesus was born. The probability of someone fulfilling 48 of these prophesies is 10^157. And before you start on 'the christians altered it to fit!', these people died for their beliefs. Why would the origional disciples, who would have been the ones to start the rumors, die for something they knew was a lie? Who would have any reason to change Jesus' story to fit with all these prophesies? How would they have changed it several hundred years after his death, as there were hundreds of copies of the gospels by then.
The darkness that fell over the earth at Jesus' crucifixion is mentioned in a book written by the Roman historian Thallus and a greek chronologist called Phlegon
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I saw a great documentery on National Geographic Channel. I think that Leonardo did it and it could be the world first photograph. http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/110_shroud.sh tml
Is that why it entitles freedom of religion too? It doesn't have anything to do specifically with the government, you tool. It's not unconstitutional to be "rude" or "mock" anyone, so shove it up your ass, you big jerk.
My Greatest Heist - Muisc partly inspired by the unbeatable Qwantz
I am simply saying that I not willing to believe in things which cannot reasonably be proved by science.
That is not a religious belief and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science.
"...just that atheism invalidates the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, which in turn invalidates almost all moral systems"
No it doesn't, it's humans that have decided what's right and what's wrong - not god. Society is what determines moral rights and wrongs based on the net benefit of any particular moral understanding for the society as a whole, that is why moral values are not immutable and change over time and in different societies.
Without society everything is allowed but the existence of a society does not depend on god.
The fact that it was discovered in Central Europe by a noble family and then sold - at great profit - to a monastary casts great doubt on it, in my opinion. All the relics associted with the death of Jesus, including the rags that were used to wipe his wounds, his cross and those of the people crucified with him, the robe taken from him were all destroyed in an invasion by an Arab king (Pre-Islamic, howver, aroudn 150 AD, if I remember history class right), except a piece of the cross, which was held for ransom and later burned whent he ransom was not forthcomming. If his burian shroud was kept, it was most likely among the relics destroyed then. Anyway, the image is burned into the cloth (the two burn marks on it are separate, it was partially destroyed in a fire not long after its discovery). The leading belief among the clergy of the time it was discovered was that it was created by placing hot metal plates onto the cloth.
sorry, typo, 20-30 years after he died. That would be 53-63AD
If the tomb was still occupied no one would have believed the early christians and it wouldn't have spread. People like Saul would have told everyone around Jerusalem that Jesus was still dead. How was Saul, one of the most fervant hunters of christians, be convinced to become a Christian then?
How would they have rolled the stone away? It was a big stone, you need lots of people to roll it in place, let alone roll it back out again. Explain how Jesus appeared to lots of people after his death
Jesus was the 'son' of a carpenter. They dont have any status at all. Bethlehem is an insignificant town in Nazareth. Jesus didn't toss of the roman oppressors, although people wanted that. If he wanted power, he would have gone against the Romans. But he didnt.
Dead people dont get up on their own you know, its not that regular an occurance...
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
One is the home of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes and social permissiveness.
The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional and gun-toting.
--- snip ---
The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Anyone else notice that these are better characterized as predominantly Catholic states? Perhaps these stats aren't so surprising given that divorce is recognized as OK by Protestants and is doctrinally proscribed in Catholicism.
Methinks that that the author of referenced article (and the parent's poster) didn't consider all the available data.
I quote my original message.
Please note that I'm not saying that all, or even most, atheists are immoral, just that atheism invalidates the concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, which in turn invalidates almost all moral systems.
As you can see, I never claimed that all, or even most, atheists are immoral. I did claim, and still do, that moral atheists aren't being very logical - they follow their sense of right and wrong, while believing in a believe system that invalidates the concepts of right and wrong.
An atheist who follows his sense of right and wrong is following a sense that perceives something that, according to his believes, doesn't exist. This, in turn, means that he either doesn't really understand what he believes in, or is too weak or lazy to overcome his own instincs.
So no, atheism doesn't eliminate all sense of right and wrong, but it does say that such a sense is perceiving something that doesn't exist, and is therefore a self-delusion.
Since I've never stated my religious believes, you have no way of knowing what, if any, religion I follow. Neither do you know my actual behaviour or the reasons behind it.
You, on the other hand, did state your believe by stating that you're an atheist. You also made a personal attack against me with the quoted paragraph. Why ? I've only pointed out the logical consequences of atheism; don't blame me if you don't like them.
I couldn't possibly know, since I don't know you, and even if I did, I couldn't know your heart.
However, I must point out that judging someone based on nothing but guesses, as your previous paragraph did, doesn't seem particularly moral to me.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
How can I respectfully disagree with something that I think is idiotic? For example, I've got no respect for Creationism. It's wrong, painfully so, and letting something like that slide only encourages it.
I was calling religious beliefs fantasy because there is no evidence to suggest that they aren't, people who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality are delusional.
I don't believe that is an insult ( it wasn't meant as one ), you obviously disagree with me and with what I said but that's your perogative.
As to evidence, like I said there is so far no evidence whatsoever to back up any of the central beliefs of any religion which means that at this time those beliefs carry the same scientific weight as anything which anyone cares to make up ( e.g. fantasy ).
I would say I probably misrepresented myself as an Aethist since I don't have any belief that god doesn't exist, just that there is no evidence to support the view that their is a god.
Like I said I'm not trying to insult anyone.
Imagine a beowulf cluster of those Messiahs!
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Since the carbon dating science is unreliable, I'm guessing religious people are going to try to make it a proof that the bible is telling the truth. There is no funnier proof that the world is not as old as the bible people would like to protray it. Enjoy!
***
Fundamentalist Christianity - fascinating. These people actually believe that the the world is 12,000 years old. Swear to God. Based on what? I asked them.
"Well we looked at all the people in the Bible and we added 'em up all the way back to Adam and Eve, their ages: 12,000 years."
Well how fucking scientific, okay. I didn't know that you'd gone to so much trouble. That's good. You believe the world's 12,000 years old?
"That's right."
Okay, I got one word to ask you, a one word question, ready?
"Uh-huh."
Dinosaurs.
You know the world is 12,000 years old and dinosaurs existed, they existed in that time, you'd think it would have been mentioned in the fucking Bible at some point.
"And lo Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth. But the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus... with a splinter in his paw. And O the disciples did run a shriekin': 'What a big fucking lizard, Lord!' But Jesus was unafraid and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus's paw and the big lizard became his friend.
"And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a loch for O so many years inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat fucking families and their fat dollar bills.
"And oh Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you Lord, thank you Lord. Thank you Lord."
The Church gives us not a system, but a key; not a plan of God's City, but the means of entering it. Perhaps someone will lose his way because he has no plan. But all that he will see, he will see without a mediator, he will see it directly, it will be real for him; while he who has studied only the plan risks remaining outside and not really finding anything.
-Fr Georges Florovsky
You are a world within a world: look within yourself, and see there the whole creation. Do not look at exterior things but turn all your attention to that which lies within. Gather together your whole mind within the intellectual treasure-house of your soul, and make ready for the Lord a shrine free from images.
-St Nilus of Aneyra
Anyone who tries to describe the ineffable Light in language is truly a liar -- not because he hates the truth, but because of the inadequacy of his description.
-St. Gregory of Nyssa
Speech is the organ of this present world. Silence is a mystery of the world to come.
-St Isaac the Syrian
One cannot grasp the infinite with the finite. To grasp is to constrict -- we do not close our eyes to see. The veil cannot be parted, despite the machinations of the intellect. For too long has the West sabotaged her own spiritual endeavors through searching for a God manufactured as another piece of the furniture of the universe. Religion perceives the depth of all reality, transcending our senses and penetrating deeply into our flesh, bones, and organs to the fine gray dust within. You must empty your cup before filling it. You must seek silence in order to hear.
was supposedly nailed to.
Can't we just debate whether Jesus was God or not (or maybe "was inspired by God")? Or can we just debate whether he was actually resurrected or just his teachings were resurrected and carried on by his followers? Do we have to doubt whether or not he actually existed and was actually killed at all?
My other first post is car post.
You're asking me to explain elements of the story. What I'm trying to point out to you is that there's no evidence at all that the story took place as told.
How do you know how big the stone was? How do you know Jeshua appeared to people after his death? You've only got the book to tell you, but why believe it? There are plenty of other books full of plenty of other stories just as (or more) interesting and incredible, which other people believe just as much as you believe yours. People have even been willing to kill and die for their beliefs in these other books.
Why don't you explain how Krishna appeared to Arjuna if Hinduism isn't the one true religion? Or how could Ancestor Lu have mastered spiritual alchemy if Taoism wasn't correct? Saul's conversion was no more exceptional that that of Ashoka the Great, so does that mean Buddhism is the one correct path? (The Buddha wouldn't say so!) And how is it that all this chaos is here if not for the work of Godess herself, Eris Discordia (kallisti!)
Do you see the problem here yet?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
You mean like sticking those splinters into people in places where they didn't already come equipped with conveniently splinter shaped holes?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
As an atheist, I could easily claim that religious rules are arbitrary because they are based on the whim of a nonexistent being, rather than reality. But obviously, religious people would disagree because they believe in God. Neither this argument, nor the analogous one which you made, is relevant.
English is easier said than done.
You stated that you are an atheist. Atheism means a believe that God doesn't exist. This believe cannot be proved by science - or can you describe any experiment which could disprove the existence of God ?
It is a belief about God (namely, that there is no God) which can not be proved. Sounds like a religious belief to me.
Such as ?
Yes, that was my point. Without God everyone is free to decide his own morals, and change them as he pleases.
Morality that can be changed on a whim is equal to no morality at all - it doesn't affect behaviour in any perceivable way.
What reason does anyone has to accept society as a higher moral authority than himself ? And if he does, isn't he simply making the society his god ?
Furthermore, society doesn't determine moral right and wrong. It determines laws, which people follow out of fear of punishment. These laws don't neccessarily have anything to do with morals predominant within the society.
Actual morals are quite similar in different societies: Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, don't sleep with other people's wifes, crimes should be punished and punishments should fit the crimes.
There are exceptions to these rules, but they usually have little to do with morals and much to do with unequal distribution of power within society - might makes right (or at least legal), today as much as in times past.
With society but without God everything is allowed as long as you aren't caught, so societies in which the majority of people are atheists either become police states or collapse into anarchy. Former and current communist states are good examples of this - there's no reason, besides the fear of being caught, to not take bribes (or slack off or steal from work), so both corruption and secret police grow like weeds. Of course there's other reasons than atheism for this, but atheism is still a factor.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
First to makes things clear: I am a Christian, and personally have many doubts about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I'm really nervous when many extreme Christians, or fanatics for that matter will try to use the Shroud of Turin as proof for anything. We Christians absolutely DON'T need this artifact to be of any proof of our faith. If it turns out to be consistant with the time-frame that my personal savior was killed on the cross, then that that's great, hopefully there would be more believers, but if it isn't...so what? It is just an artifact. This message board has placed too many emphasis on the relation between the Shroud of Turin and Christianity as a religious whole. I really hope everyone, nonbelievers and believers can sever this relationship.
We would like to thank Professor Frushkup for taking a few minutes out of his 7.0 day worshihp services to speak with 28th Century News.
Would you like to know more? Click Here
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The best evidence that it is a medieval fake is that it that the fabric is in a "herringbone-twill weave". This weave was common in Europe in the middle ages, but unknown in Roman Palestine.
The fact that it was discovered in Central Europe by a noble family and then sold - at great profit - to a monastary casts great doubt on it, in my opinion.
As far as I know, the Shroud never was in Central Europe. What we know for sure is that in late XIV century it was in posession of French noble family de Charnay and they indeed donated it to a church in Lirey, France. There's no hard evidence on what happened to the Shroud prior to that - maybe de Charnay's had forged it or maybe one of them manged to capture it in the Middle East during the crusades. Prior to about 1350, any guess is as good as any other guess.
Anyway, the image is burned into the cloth (the two burn marks on it are separate, it was partially destroyed in a fire not long after its discovery). The leading belief among the clergy of the time it was discovered was that it was created by placing hot metal plates onto the cloth.
Probably, yeah. But just think how technically could you achieve this level of realism when creating a metal template in XIV century. First you'd have to take a real tormented dead body and then somehow transfer the image on sheer metal plate. With some help of a skilled alchemist you could try to use some sort of camera obscura to achieve this with 1350's technology, but it would be really a hassle. Paradoxically, it would be counterproductive from a forger's point of view. To amaze pilgrim crowds in 1350, you should simply paint the image and presto, the holy relic is all yours. The funny thing about the Shroud is that it seems to be designed specifically to amaze people in our times - modern forensic pathologists can't find any flaw in the anatomical details, modern scientists can't find any pigment, modern photography displays hidden details, invisible to naked eye. Why did the forger work so hard to amaze people 6 centuries later - instead of his contemporary folks, that's a real mystery.
>Considering that Christianity tends to include a support
.209% of their prison population were atheists, as opposed to over 75% of the population, which were Christian. Atheists represent far more than .209% of the U.S. population, which means they're significantly under-represented in our Federal prison system. I'd say that these figures demonstrate a correlation between religious belief and criminal behavior.
>network and a structured framework, I'd be a little leery
>of questioning if Christians committed less crime than
>non-Christians.
Hmmm. Christianity includes a "support network" and a "structured framework". Why would you assume members of this organization would commit less crime than non-members. Your description of Christianity sounds a lot like the Mafia.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons in the U.S. in 1997 indicated that only
Or, maybe religious people are just dumber on average than atheists and are more likely to be convicted of any crimes they commit.
We know nothing about the aliens in ID4 except that they shoot green shit, have antigrav, and run MacOS.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Islam is the only religion that still allows men to marry 9-year-old girls just as the Prophet Mohammad did.
So Mohammad was a paedophile? Sick!
Most of the cons I've met self-identify as Christians. Part of this is that a lot of them ruined their lives with drugs, specifically meth in almost every case (some of them got busted for the drugs, some of them got busted committing crimes that they would never have gotten into if not for their meth habit, one way or another) and by that I really mean, the establishment ruined their lives because gosh darn it, we're at WAR with those drug thingys! So really, you're going to find that just about all of your criminals are Christians, except when they're Catholics. I hear a lot of ex-methheads say that Jesus is what keeps them off the crap, so if that's what works for them, more power to them. Few people get hopped up on Jesus and go ruin people's lives. But anyway, when getting busted for drugs gets you in trouble you usually end up in a Mission, and they generally make you stay at least seven days or you get banned for a month. You spend half to three quarters of your day in church being preached at. I imagine the desire not to go back to prison gains them a lot of converts... but again, better God than that fucking meth, that stuff ruins people completely.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
There is no evidence to suggest that they are fantasy - or at least you haven't shown any. If you have no evidence for or against a statement (in this case, "religious beliefs are fantasy"), then it is logically incorrect to claim that statement as true.
Since you claimed a belief ("religious beliefs are fantasy") as truth without supporting evidence, you are, by your own logic, delusional.
Whether I agree or disagree with what you said has nothing to do with whether it was insulting or not.
Not that I care, one way or another; I was simply answering snowfalls question.
However, what you didn't say is that this also applies to atheism.
Furthermore, calling someone "delusional" for their beliefs does imply that there is evidence against those believes, as opposed to there just being no evidence for them.
You said:
As an atheist I believe that religion is based on no factual basis whatsoever and exists purely as a fantasy in which religious people choose to believe.
I don't see why I shouldn't evangalize my beliefs and try and save as many people as I can from these dangerous religious delusions.
Granted, you never explicitly stated that God doesn't exist; but declaring the belief in God a dangerous delusion, a pure fantasy with no factual basis whatsoever, certainly gives that impression. This is further reinforced by your statement that you are trying to convince others to abandon their religious belief that God exists - you aren't trying to convince atheists to abandon their belief, just theists. If you actually had no beliefs about the existence or nonexistence of God, both viewpoints should be equal to you - both unproven. That you pick one to go against does imply that you don't consider them equal, and your choice of targets makes it seem that you do, indeed, have a belief that God doesn't exist.
You did; but, ironically, that person turned out to be yourself :).
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
What difference would proof make?
The shroud would become a certified attribute of authoritativeness. A 'strong' relic to strengthen religion.
Like an autograph. That doesn't make anyone change their minds. Well, not many.
When I used to say that I was agnostic, they'd say something like "A-ha! You admit you're not sure!"
As if it was even an issue to me. Nowadays I simply say "I'm not religious."
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
The Reformation wasn't to do with the Trinity; it was to do with the church having drifting form its scriptural roots. Reformed churches emphasise the authority of the Bible. And Protestant doctrine is very much that God is Trinitarian. In fact the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit are central tenets of faith. Anyone who says Jesus wasn't God is denying the claims of the Bible, including those of Jesus and therefore cannot be a Christian, regardless of whether they call themselves one or not.
Mormons and Jehovahs witnesses don't believe in the Trinity, which is precisely why Protestant denominations testify that they are not Christian. The doctrine of the Trinity is of paramount importance to Christianity as without it, Christ could not be our saviour. That idea that Protestants deny the Trinity is absurd. In fact, I can find the Trinity affirmed in the first article of the Anglican 39 Articles of Religion, in the third point of the second chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith (formulated by divines of many Protestant denominations and used by Presbyterians, among other), and the second section of the Baptist Faith and Message.
The issue is that it's dumb to criticise them for their beliefs; if the meme makes them successful it will propagate, otherwise it will die out, so obviously it has something to offer believers. Just criticize them for their actions, and what it implies about what they REALLY believe :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Do you simply dream up this stuff? http://www.shroudstory.com for better information.
Thus my saying he looked "something like" the first link, NOT that he looked exactly like the first link............
If I pay for an item with a $100 bill, and am accused of passing a counterfeit, all I have to do is pass the test of counterfeits. Is the paper the correct paper? Swipe it with that special marker. Does it lack the micro-chameleon ink? Hmmm... No. Does it lack the microthread text? No. If it passes the test of counterfeit, it is assumed to be genuine, and I am acquitted.
Is the Shroud a counterfeit? Was the cloth made in the 1300's. No. Does it use a pigment that was available in the 1300's? No. Are the threads of a weave used in 1300? No. It FAILS the test of counterfeit.
IS IT GENUINE? A shroud from first century with a dead deity's image? No test for that, but the test of counterfeit or forgery... we can do that. As I said... don't test the shroud, repeat the experiment of the genius who faked it.
All of the flaws you cite also weigh against forgery. Why didn't the forger paint the top of the head? Why did he paint the fingers elongated. Why didn't he smear the blood? Many scholars think that the Holy Mandylion of Edessa was the Shroud "folded in quarters". It was around in 525 and prolly in 57 AD.
To be honest.. I don't trust any history of these icons becuase of the issues at stake. But a simple replication attempt of forging the shroud? THAT would be worth reading!
Some of these religious cultists (like catholics) apparently believe that religious icons have power and can be used to accomplish things that the majority of humans would consider supernatural.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"There is no evidence to suggest that they are fantasy."
You believe something which at some point someone has simply made up ( as opposed to having discovered through scientfic enquiry ). You believe this without the need for any facts or evidence to support the belief. It is overwhelmingly likely that a belief in something which has just been made up or invented is not true and therefore a fantasy.
Obviously my comments apply just as much to anyone who has a firm belief that there is no god, I don't think that will be many people.
The difference between aethists and people who belive in religion is that aethists have not erected vast religious edifices around their central belief in a god ( or belief in no-god ).
Whilst the jury is out on the final existance of something we would recognise as a god I will go out on a limb and say that there is a good chance that most organised religions are barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Is there really any reason they couldn't have flayed a corpse, though? I mean, not that there was any shortage of people they could just torture to death... I have a hard time believing that they couldn't make a convincing fake by the standards of their time, and by the time it was our time, it was too late to tell precisely what happened. And also, artists have been doing amazing things for a long time, some people can just visualize things a certain way that most of us cannot. Different people are apparently better at visualizing different kinds of things than others, which is probably why a rubik's cube leaves me drooling on myself but I just got to level 22 on tetris deluxe last night with one hand. (the other? holding a cigarette.)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Because, by definition, any Christian is a sinner and does not become perfect until after they are dead. Therefore they still do things wrong like hate people. Hating other religions however would be perfectly right as they are offensive to God, constituting a lie about him and dangerous to people, as they mislead them about how to be saved.
Most Christians I know are teachers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, mathematicians and engineers, in both Oxford and Northern Ireland. No problems with science. That includes a number of 6-day creationsists. They have no problem with science at all. There's nothing about Christianity that demands or encoruaged a hatred of science. In fact, it encourages an examination of the physical world as it says it is ordered and by looking at God's creation, we can give him glorify for it.
Oh and it's history, not science, that provides the evidence for the Bible. You'd turn to a historian, not a physicist to find out what Julius Caesar did, wouldn't you?
Before, during and after my university education, I was quite aware that I myself was evil and godless prior to God intervening and that I should love everyone else in the same situation. The best way to do that is to show theme the way out, so that they can be saved.
Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone, but rather hate the sin.
Funny, I thought you Christians aren't supposed to hate anything, since yours claims to be a religion of love and everything. Besides, come on - Christianity means nothing without the sin, it is its very foundation.
You gotta love it.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Saying that an atheist's rules are arbitrary because anything not of God is arbitrary is merely begging the question.
Except that I didn't say that, now did I? I might want to argue that even God is arbitrary (in the sense that I don't know what would, of necessity, determine His nature).
If you're an atheist, you might indeed believe that rules are arbitrary. But you might not.
If not, then I can't help you if you wish to be inconsistent with your worldview.
I agree, but see almost no Christians who believe this.
I see lots of Christians who believe this, but few who practice this. It's unfortunate that Christians as a whole don't provide a better example of themselves to others. On the flip side, Jesus said that we'll be hated because the world hated Him first. (He was a rather outspoken man on the issues of the day Himself.) With the world so anti-Semetic and anti-Christian, I see his prophetic vision coming to fruition in my lifetime.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
Or, maybe religious people are just dumber on average than atheists and are more likely to be convicted of any crimes they commit.
Or maybe people describe themselves as "Christian" by default - you know, like of a particular descent rather than a belief system.
When millions disappear from earth, it's not aliens, it's the rapture.
As I pointed out earlier I should have said agnostic rather than aethist.
I said: "and I would have been successful if you did make a choice about whether to abandon your belief in religion based on the evidence made available to us by science."
You replied: "Such as ?"
The point is there is no evidence. Why decide to believe in religious dogma , why not fairies, chocolate cream wagon wheels controlling our destiny ?
I am perfectly happy to make society my god provided you are willing to accept that god can be anything i want it to be.
Society does determine moral values, the moral values of the Christian Church are different today to 400 years ago because society has changed and the churchs morals have changed more or less in line with the morals of society.
Society can enforce it's moral values on individuals because society creates it's morals from a consenus opionion of what's right and whats wrong. People who think differently to society in these manners will be dealt with by their society.
Your last paragraph is arrant nonsense.
"more fun" isn't the important part. Everyone is.
Really? Tell that to the people who murder children in the womb, or the anti-semites, or the people who think Arabs should be exterminated. Not everyone agrees with your everyone. Who are you to tell them that they are wrong?
We know nothing about the aliens in ID4 except that they shoot green shit, have antigrav, and run MacOS.
Actually, they run Windows. But the point is that we can do a "thought experiment" to determine the properties of systems. This is an interesting experiment to do in light of your statements about a basis for morality -- a basis which they do not share. Now what? Are you going to sit down and try to persuade them to your point of view? You could get them to agree on the properties of gravity. I'd like to see how you would get them to agree with your moral decisions -- especially since, to them, you aren't an everyone.
You are either theist -- meaning, you hold a belief in a god or gods -- or you are atheist -- meaning you are without, or do not hold, a belief in a god or gods.
There is in no way a third position you can call "agnostic." Either you hold a belief in a god or gods, or you don't. There is no middle ground.
If as you say "you don't think anyone has the answers, that makes you an agnostic" that does not magically lift you from the yes/no domain of the theist/atheist concept.
Either you hold some shred of belief and as a consequence you are by definition theist, or you don't, and you are by definition atheist. A declaration about who might -- or might not -- have answers is a position that embodies at least part of an explaination of why one might land on one side or the other of the above binary domain. Not a new domain in and of itself that obviates the first, or a state that makes the domain trinary instead of binary.
If you ask someone if they are theist or atheist, and they respond with "agnostic", then what you have discovered is that they don't understand the question. You can reasonably extrapolate that further digging you may undertake may well return other nonsense answers until/unless some successful teaching can be accomplished. Then you just have to look at the situation and decide if it is worth your time.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In my experience, most of the Christians who challenge people to read the bible have never read other holy texts.
Absolutely... My experiences with Christians mirrors yours; furthermore I'd say (as an assumption based on observation) that many Christians haven't even read their own holy texts, but instead parrot what their pastor said the week before. I dunno, perhaps I'm just being pessimistic.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Nothing in the Bible saying that.
The Bible says we should love God and love our neighbours. We should love good and hate evil, to quote Amos 5:14. The Bible speaks of a just and righteous God who hates unrighteousness, injustice, evil, sin, etc. and calls us to be likeminded. That kind of hate is an expression of love.
Actually, the foundation of Christianity lies in the nature of God, who is sinless, rather than in the nature of man, who is sinful.
Well, yes, and that's a good comeback for any of the dodgier religious stories.
The Flood and how the kangaroos all ended up in Australia and without inbreeding problems, Carbon Dating, Dinosaurs, how light for stars millions of lightyears away from us has reached us...
God, because s/he is God, can do anything. He can rig the story, mess with the Graphics Engine, cheat any way he likes.
If God wants a shroud that looks like that, then he does what he damn well wants to.
Sometimes, it does come down to war, like it did in the stupid movie we're talking about. (I did enjoy it, but it was pretty dumb. It had about the same level of believability as Mars Attacks.) Even then, you don't find out who's right, only who's left. That's just nature, though, and it's going to happen. The focus should be on learning to coexist. We go through a process that causes us to do that over time, with wars toning down the elements that would upset the basket. Again, though, the winner isn't necessarily morally right or wrong, just successful. Then, they get to define morality, and we move on. To me, whatever makes the most people happy the most often while hurting the fewest people is what is most moral. It should be said that while accidents happen, no one should have to die so that I can have a new pair of Nikes; there are limiting factors. The ultimate moral test is the golden rule, and any belief which does not pass it is inherently wrong. How can you condone treating anyone any way that you would not see yourself treated? But, blah blah blah, as you say it's all subjective. I'm mostly talking about ways of thinking that are useful for civilization, and that might not be your goal.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Bhagavad Gita has no prophesy in it that has actually come true, nothing to root it to history. The Bible has. The same for Taoism. Again, if the gospel accounts hadn't been true to what had really happened, they would have bene very quickly rubbished and dismissed by the Jews and Romans, and everyone would have ignored them as a nice fiction, yet they are still around 2000 years later. And again, it would have been almost impossible to change every single copy of the gospels in the world 100 years after Jesus died if someone had wanted to change it.
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
Your problem here is with Christians (or at least people who call themselves Christians), not with Christianity.
The gospels and Paul are in agreement. In fact, Paul's greatest writing, the letter to the church in Rome, is the greatest exposition (explanation) of the gospel.
Paul who turned from violently persecuting Christians to instead enduring all things for Christ's sake? Paul who said that all men and women were equal before God? Equally values, equally loved, equally able to be saved? The same Paul who lambasted Adam over the Fall, instructed husbands to sacrificially loving towards their wives, and reminded Timothy that salvation came through Christ, born of a woman, rather than a man? The same Paul who said that we should love our enemies and do what we can to encourage them to repent, rather than seeking revenge? The same Paul who said that we should be law-abiding citizens?
Jesus was no pacifist. Just look at the wars in the OT. Or at his reaction to the money-lenders. Or his prophesied return in Revelation. He's a pretty scary guy. And as for dying for what he believed in... well dying was the purpose he came to earth, so you're right on that one. Thing is, Paul did that too.
The Bible says nothing about having to be a pacifist, but does day that Christians should be willing to lay down their lives for thier borthers or for the sake of the gospel i.e. for the message that all men are fallen from glory and need to ask God for forgiveness and turn from a life of wrong-doing and self-centredness to a life that is God-centred.
But just because people are bad at that doesn't mean that Christianity suddenly becomes invalid. It doesn't change history. Jesus still taught the same tihngs, died on the cross and was raised from the dead. Whether I follow him well or badly does not and cannot change that. Surely you should be more interested in the history that the response of the world? Especially when the teachings themselves say that the world is going to suck in terms of its reponse.
the nature of man, who is sinful.
Any rational being should run away from this sort of masochistic pseudo-philosophy. The idea that I commited a so called sin by simply being born is beyond preposterous, and a complete waste of my time and intelligence. Christianity can go on and on about love and forgiveness and all the other nice things it likes to talk about while happily killing those who oppose it - as long as it postulate an a priori 'sin', it is nothing but another type of voodoo masquerading as 'truth'.
Quoth Nabokov in Pale Fire: "No free man needs a god".
Emphasis on 'free'.
P.S. Besides, over-reliance on a single source of information, supposedly containing all the truth and wisdom one needs, is not only silly but also bad management of resources. An informational mono-culture is A Very Bad Thing (tm).
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Is there really any reason they couldn't have flayed a corpse, though?
It's quite easy for a skilled forensic pathologist to distinguish bruises and weals caused by flogging a dead corpse - and flogging a living, bleeding human being. No forensic expert so far questioned anything about the realism of wounds, weals, bruises, haemorrages, joints dislocations etc. on this body.
And also, artists have been doing amazing things for a long time, some people can just visualize things a certain way that most of us cannot. The greates painter of that era was Giotto di Bondone. Just check how he pictured human body. Painters of late Middle Ages/early Renaissance had a very naive understanding of human body proportions or perspective.
Even then, you don't find out who's right, only who's left.
...as you say it's all subjective
Then what defines who is right?
To me, whatever makes the most people happy the most often while hurting the fewest people is what is most moral
The point of the thought experiment is that what you think doesn't carry any weight.
The ultimate moral test is the golden rule, and any belief which does not pass it is inherently wrong.
Is that because the Christian God, who is Love, really exists; or because you just happen to prefer this?
So we're back to square one. Please make up your mind and try to be consistent.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yeah I know what your saying. And I am not claiming that the tenants of the Reformation included disbelife in the Trinity. I am saying that in the multitude of schisims since then there has been a turn away from it among some. I have repeatedly encountered this growing up in the bible belt. It is entirely possible a great deal of this is due to ignorance on the part of the congregation and it is not a feeling that extends into the clergy.
I was raised episcople and one of the most common questions I get asked by people of protestant raising is to explain the concept of the trinity. not explain a difference of opinion about the interpretation of the trinity. But to explain it period.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Well, I have read both the new and the old testament. As well as the Koran and a few other of humanity's creative efforts.
"The gospels" are not evidence of anything but that a bunch of writings were collected from time periods that may extend back to about the 100's or 200's by our current dating system.
The gospels are a book. And like any book, what they contain is not, in and of itself, of sufficient weight to be taken as evidence of anything.
Tom Clancy writes Hunt for Red October. Warships, US political policy, Soviet warships, naval ranks, 20th-century weapons, the CIA and KGB and tons more are described in this book. They are all reasonable and true references to things that really exist, they accurately imply things that really happened to make those things exist, and so on. But the book is a known work of fiction with entirely ficticious points to make about entirely ficticious people and entirely ficticious situations. The "facts" are in there so the book reads more easily. The same reason that the "facts" are in any work of fiction.
You said:
The gospels aren't evidence.
Most people -- myself included -- would welcome actual evidence. That is, Jesus floating down out of the sky, pointing a finger at you and saying "I know you are underfeeding your cat... your punishment will be six months of starvation", which pronouncement is immediately followed by the supernatural stripping of all your body fat so you can start starving now.
This, presumably, after he takes care of the starving folks in Africa and elsewhere by giving them the body fat he took from you. Temporal order being no particular impediment to an omnipotent diety, right?
Lacking evidence of similar undeniable merit, not to mention reproducability (should be no problem, right? Your god is supposed to be omnipotent, omnipresent and infallible as well as ineffable), you'll have to forgive the real scientists around here while we pooh-pooh your supposed "evidence."
The evidence in no way supports your conclusion. So yes -- you're deluded.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This is a popular fiction with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As someone else mentioned, most relics of the True Cross are smaller than a splinter. The total volume of all known True Cross relics is about .004 cu. m out of an estimated volume for the entire Cross of .174 cu. m. See both Wikipedia and The Catholic Encyclopedia.
And the brethren went away edified.
Okay, take 12 guys who follow Elvis around for a while, don't want him to die, are scared of the police and run off and desert him when he's arrested. He's very publicly killed and the 12 guys are so terrified they'll be next that they don't turn up for the execution or the funeral. Or venture into the city at all really. A few days later, they're all running round the place, fearlessly proclaiming that Elvis has risen from the dead and go on to die for proclaiming this, still testifying to its veracity, with the authorities unable to produce a body or any other evidence that they're lying.
That's a much closer analogue to what happened with the disciples and lends what they say a lot more credibility.
If you read the gospel of Mark, it's clear that the 12 followers symbolise the new Israel and are based the 12 tribes of Israel
Which appears in the Bible when Abraham goes to sacrifice his son, believing he will be resurrected. It may appear before that even, but I can't think of any occurrences off the top of my head. The resurrection was certainly a part of Judaism, as was the idea of sacrifice and the necessity of it to cleanse from sin.
A reference to the passover in exodus actually.
Appears in the Bible from Genesis 1 onward.
Err, that was decided on by the Romans well after the gospels were written.
Nothing about these in the Bible.
No, most Protestant groups believe in the Trinity. They seperated from Rome over other issues. Belief in the Trinity is nearly universal among those who call themselves "Christian".
And the brethren went away edified.
The greatest Christian value is the glory of God.
The greatest Christian commandment is to love God.
The greatest Christian message is God's offer of salvation that can reconcile us to God following our turning away from him.
Without God, there are no Christian values because there is no Christianity and every value is tied to God.
Good Lord, you're ignorant. The Koran decries the idea that God could ever have a son, and views it as an abominable teaching. It's the main difference between Islam and Christianity.
Islam teaches that Jesus was the Christ and a prophet, born of a virgin, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. There's some doubt as to his Resurrection, and the notion that he might have been the Son of God is denied in extremely strong language.
And the brethren went away edified.
Please educate yourself before spouting off. You see a great deal of ignorant commentary on /. about a great many subjects, but few of them elicit as much ignorant commentary as religion.
And the brethren went away edified.
A lot of people who would call themselves Christian (and some who genuinely are) don't know much about the Trinity, or understand the doctrine very well. That's very different though from Protestant doctrine denying it, or not focussing on it. You can't be a Christian unless you accept the divinity of Jesus Christ, so every Christian at least partly understand the Trinity.
idiot.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
No, that's not the theory. C.S. Lewis stated it clearly. It's not that Christians believe ourselves to be better than other people, it's that we believe we're better than we would be if we weren't Christian. Christ said, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentence."
And the brethren went away edified.
This is because the entry is not only wrong, it demonstrates blatent presumption instead of research into etymology. An incompetant dictionary entry (or several) does not, hopefully, suffice to change a word's meaning. If it does, it is nothing to be proud of -- it's just the ebonics of the dictionary writer infesting (degrading, actually) our culture.
At present, these words still hold on to their original meanings, which are crystal clear. If you understand the word, you're either theist, or atheist. No way around it. Sorry. :)
If you insist on using the word incorrectly, then all I need to ask is "do you believe, in any way or to any degree, that there is a god or gods?" Then I'll know where in the solution set you land. You can explain why, of course, but it won't change the binary nature of the domain no matter what you do.
You say:
There is. It is "atheist." Without a belief in a god or gods. The reason you didn't know this is because your command of English has failed you. Websters has failed you as well. Just be more careful in the future. Don't you know that you can't trust "the man"? :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Why? Incidentally, it's revelation from God, not man-made philosophy.
Do you love God with all of your being? Do you worship him above all else? Is your entire live summarised by glorifying him and enjoying him? If not, then you're not giving God what he deserves and therefore sinning, by the Bible definition of it.
I've never seen a belief go round killing people. I also recall that Jesus told people to love their neighbours. People's sinfulness and ineptitude in following this doesn't change the fact that this was his teaching.
If Jesus Christ rose from the dead and proved himself to be God and valided the Bible as being true, then we must accept that we are sinners in need of forgiveness. If he didn't, then the Bible is irrelevant. You're attacking the wrong thing. If it's revelation form God, you can't argue with him. If it's not, then what it says doesn't matter. So look at whether it is revelation from him.
Nice sound bite, but what makes it in any way true? Besides, there are non free men. Can you do anything you want? Can you forgive your own sins?
Why, if that source is an omniscient, infinite God? Surely he would be the very best source, rendering others unnecessary?
I'm curious, what did I say that you consider to be idiotic? Would you care to point out the flaws in my reasoning? And which Christian value are you displaying your agreement with in that comment?
Actually, they could get that sort of realism from metal plates. They were used for burning images into wood quite commonly, and with beautiful results. Cloth is a bit trickier, since it'll burn faster than solid wood and you have to be careful not to actually light it on fire, but it should work if you have plenty of water on hand. You can do the same thing with a cheese sandwitch if you're up for a fun challenge (I have a nice little piece I made in high school shop class that you can put in a frying pan and get a pretty cool Decepticon logo on one. Not entirely safe to eat, since it's cut from cheap black iron, but I imagine steel or titanium can give the same result without the metal poisoning. I'm not saying anybody would sell something like this on ebay, but you never know)
Oh, there won't be?
Bam! Looks like I was right.
Your argument is only valid if further testing can and will be done.
I would buy it if I only hadn't spent $28,000 on a grilled cheese sandwich bearing an image of the Virgin Mary... Would you give me a kilogram of your wood for one Jesus Tortilla or two Mother Teresa Buns?
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
I've actually watched several shows on the Shroud both on the History channel and the Discovery and Science channels, and all three sources (two of which are run by the same parent company) both claim that carbon dating is going to be inaccurate no matter what because of layers of caked on pollen and other microscopic life from over the centuries. All other evidence aside, I'd like to see an accurate dating of the Shroud (I'm a science buff and ardent Catholic-converted-to-Pagan) just to see the Pope choke as he tries to explain this "mystery".
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
If you derive your morals for yourself, what makes them real, or any more valid than the next person's morals? In fact, without an objective standard to measure against, how can anything be moral or amoral?
Incidentally, the guy I was responding to said that he liked Christian values.
there is no sin w/o a sinner. to hate the sin is to hate the sinner. to not hate the sinner one must not hate the sin.
we can go further: there is no hate w/o love. to espouse love is to espouse hate. to not espouse hate one must not espouse love.
but where does that leave us? is there a place beyond love and hate?
I'm a big fan of the shroud. I would very much like it to be authentic, even though I ascribe no special "power" to it. I rather like the prospect of knowing a little about what Jesus looked like.
Just because I believe in God does not mean I don't want to know history, biology, geology, etc.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
A person who is theist agnostic would say "I believe this is so, but I don't actually know -- I lack sufficient facts and/or evidence to make a case for either existance or non-existance."
A committed theist would say "yes, I know this because (whatever ''fact'' set that floats their boat... the world is too complex to be the product of nature rather than "design", He saved my kid brother, my toast had the Virgin Mary on it, I played Black Sabbath backwards at 78 speed when I was on acid, whatever.)"
An atheist agnostic would say: "I don't believe this is so, but I don't know -- I lack sufficient facts and/or evidence to make a case for either existance or non-existance."
A comitted atheist (sometimes called a "hard or hardened atheist") would say "no, because (whatever ''fact'' set floats their boat... the world is too chaotic to be the product of "design" rather than nature, My kid brother drowned, my toast only had butter on it, I played Black Sabbath backwards at 78 speed when I was on acid, whatever.)"
Someone who is operating under the mistaken assumption that an agnostic is magically neither a theist or an athest would simply say "I don't know" in an attempt to sidestep the issue of belief -- which is precisely what "theist" refers to -- belief, not "knowledge." Typical reasons for this are that socially, a lack of belief is frowned upon by the majority, or that the question was not understood by the listener for whatever reason (usually a poor education or poor absorption of education, IMHO, but perhaps that's just my cynical take on your average/median citizen of IQ 100 or less.)
If you're truly trying to talk about knowledge -- as distinct from belief, which does not have to involve knowledge (facts) at all -- then theism and atheism aren't even on the table for discussion. Which leaves god or gods out of the discussion. In that case, the specific question you're asking here is utter nonsense based on the proposed audience if the objective is a definitive and all-inclusive set of answers.
To illustrate the absurdity of how you posed the question: If you ask, "Does god exist", a dictionary writer will respond "Yes. Under G." A dyslexic might answer, "No, I have a cat." The problem is, as always, domain; the domain of interest is that of belief, and that domain is that which the words theist and atheist exist to delineate. The question "Do you believe in a god or gods" is the question "Are you theist, or atheist?" You weren't asking about knowledge, and so the answer of the self-declared agnostic does not pertain.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The message of the beast!
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Isn't the whole point of Christianity salvation by faith alone? If you could prove God by evidence, you could NOT adopt Christianity.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Yes, I guess I should have added a smilie :)
I was actually wondering where you pulled that image from...
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Boo.
--pyro_dude
Really depends on your point of view. Believing in the divinity of christ is one thing, Believing in the Father Son and holy ghost a bit different. Like I said this probably far more about ingorance among the flock than among the sheperds. This is not something you will find among the prime Protestant Roots ( Lutheran etc ) But among the schismatic nightmare in American Christan Denominations resulting of the process brought about by Luther's action.
It is a pretty fundamental sticking point where alot of people can't get past the fundamental difference in terms. To someone of this ilk of which I am speaking the concept of any seperation of God and Christ is unthinkable. Blaspheme, your going to hell kinda unthinkable. It is not something which often results in enlightend discourse. They also are invariably weak on the concept of judge not lest ye be judged as well.
I would also argue that you can very much indeed question the divinity of christ ( to a degree.. hang with me here ) and still be a christian. That was something essentially laid out as a tenant of the faith at the convention in Nicene and resulted in the Nicene Creed. The tenents which all could agree to at that time. That is not to say the question of the nature of the divinity of Christ was not and is not hotly debated. All the creed laid out as basic tentant of the faith was that Jesus was of one subtance with the father and made incarnate by the holy spirit of the virgin mary. Thus the divine nature of Christ is still up for debate. Of Divine origins is not the same as divine in life. Jesus was made man. And that is where the difficulties emerge. If he was divine, a god, THE god, then what was the sacrifice of his life? If he was not divine then why was his life so much more meaningful than that of any other man?
Anyway the creed itself disentangles itself from that entire mess by not saying a damn thing about his life on earth. He was born of the virgin mary and then crucified under P.P. for our sins. The Creed makes no statement about what the christian faith presumes about Jesus in his life as Man. It does not because it could not. A very elegant solution to the schisims facing the early church. The creed was accepted by most. Those that did not became heretics and were hounded and eventually the target of Crusades. For those that accepted it the Creed became a basic unifying foundation of Christian faith binding the Early Church together even amidst its disagreements. It is the same ties that to this day still binds most of Christanity despite the shattering of the Catholic Church.
From what I can tell in my encounters with folks in many protestant denominations in the South is that they ignore the Trinity in favor of it being an immaterial distinction. IE If all three are the same then they are the same they are not three. To make the dinstinction imporant to them essentially makes you Catholic and many are raised thinking Cathloics are not Christians. Trust me... I couldn't make this up. Again we are not talking about the brightest bulbs in the chandaliere here.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Here we go then, wielding that book as if it were a metaphorical weapon to slay all ideas that contradict it.
Why run away from it? Because it's masochistic self-delusion and it prevents me from doing better things with my time - such as spending time with wife and my child and my friends, or reading a good book. Preferably fiction - not fiction disguised as holy writ.
it's revelation from God, not man-made philosophy
Is it now. You are absolutely, positively sure it is the revealed word of your god (who, incidentally, favours only those who worship him and damns all the others - a more fiendish idea of a deity, I have never heard), and not the translation of another translation of yet another translation of some scrolls on which a race surrounded by enemies tried to record its identity and traditions? Then again, of course you are sure, because you have decided to surrender your reasoning abilities (judging by the way you write you are fully capable of rational thought) and pray instead of think. To each his own, but still - I call that a waste.
Do you love God with all of your being? Do you worship him above all else? Is your entire live summarised by glorifying him and enjoying him? If not, then you're not giving God what he deserves and therefore sinning, by the Bible definition of it.
Er...no, no, and no. If that makes me a sinner, then tough tit for me. Any god who demands worship and respect, rather than earn them, is a fallacy I would never choose to indulge in, if only because it offends my intellectual abilities and makes a mockery of my IQ.
I've never seen a belief go round killing people. I also recall that Jesus told people to love their neighbours. People's sinfulness and ineptitude in following this doesn't change the fact that this was his teaching.
OK, I'll bite. By that reasoning, fascism, national-socialism, and communism were not inherently evil, they were but simple ideologies people abused and twisted, right? Think about it for a second: any ideology that claims its superiority over all the others contains the seeds for violence. As long as your - or anybody else's - religion lays claim to the absolute, revealed truth, it takes the first step on the road to violence. Two examples for you: the Crusaders sacking both Constantinople and Jerusalem (their horses waded through blood up to their chests, it is said), and the Spanish baptising South American babies before slitting their throats.
THINK about the things religion DOES. Simply blaming people for its effects is not a solution, it is but refusing to admit the reality of what it does.
Nice sound bite, but what makes it in any way true?
Not a sound bite, silly, a fragment of a quote from one of the most beautiful books in the English language. It goes
"My God died young. Theolatry I found
Degrading, and its premises, unsound.
No free man needs a God [...]"
You should give it a try, great read.
Besides, there are non free men.
You lost me there.
Can you do anything you want?
As long as it's not illegal, yes. What is your point again?
Can you forgive your own sins?
Ah, an easy one at last. Yes I can. Mostly because I haven't sinned, really, but if I did, I'm sure I could find it in my heart to forgive me. Isn't forgiveness the big thing?
Why, if that source is an omniscient, infinite God? Surely he would be the very best source, rendering others unnecessary?
You are committing the sin of pride. You should never assume that that which you believe in is the absolute and only truth, it's just bad style and horrendously bad logic. Besides, omniscience and omnipotence might be very nifty ideas to toy around with, but they do tend to contradict each other. Really, they do. Think about it.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
The shroud isn't authentic. It's physically impossible for a 3d object to have made the entire image. The face, back and front all have slightly different dimensions, meaning they were created at three seperate times. I don't necessarily believe it, but an intersting theory that explains this is that the shroud is actually a primitive photograph. Camera obscuras and light sensitive chemicals were known at the time of the shrouds creation in medieval times. It is conceivable, however unlikely, that someone could have put all the pieces together to create the shroud through photographic techniques.
This theoretical photographer could then have used his camera obscura to creat the front and back seperately. A thrid image would be needed for the face since lenses at the time did not have the focal range needed to show enough detail at the range needed to show the entire body. The photographer couldn't simply leave the face blurry, because that's where everyone looks.
No. According to the dictionary, an atheist is not one who lacks a belief about gods, but rather:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. (Dictionary.com)
"Lacks a belief" is perhaps ambiguous in what it means, but I think it is reasonable to say that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. As fyngyrz points out, dictionaries have a tendancy to use words like "deny" which implies they have been written by someone who believes God exists, and so therefore atheists are just "denying" this. Obviously from the point of view of an atheist, this just doesn't make sense.
As for people who don't have any sort of a belief regarding gods (meaning they never thought about the subject or they just don't care)... I don't know if there's a word for that.
Personally I would still say they are atheists, though I agree that this is different to the sort of person who has given the subject lots of thought, and still doesn't have any belief in any Gods.
How could you have credible evidence of a God that cannot be reached except by faith alone?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
"Also, the dictionaries disagree with you regarding pronunciation:"
Oh, of course, no question. NO one says AYY-nostik. But that's because of sloppiness. Such is life; I'm not going to try to correct the world. But it's such a self-evident concept if it's pronounced correctly AND people know what a "gnostic" is -- a double near-impossibility in the U.S.
It seems to me the scientician, no less than the religious, relies heavily on the reports of others, to the point of excercising the same faith they deride. You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well. Because these observations aren't necessarily subject to verification in a laboratory in no way implies that the fit between observation and explanation is any less effective. The clash between the scientician and the spiritist comes when they try to conflate the two world views: each explains but in different terms and from different assumptions. Finally, I think you will find that an atheist, at least originally, was by definition one who believes there is NO god. Atheism has since been watered down to encompass strong and weak forms; the weak atheism is hard to separate from agnosticism, which explicitly doesn't know. Strong atheists not only lack the belief in a deity, but also actively believe there is no deity. Given that, even in the scientific world-view, it is to all intents and purposes impossible to prove a negative, the assertion "There is no deity" requires as much faith as "There is a deity" and of exactly the same kind.
The future is here. It's just not evenly distributed yet. -- William Gibson
Based on what? Your wishful thinking?
Applying Occam's razor, it can be more plausibly asserted that the laws were nothing but a convenient pretext for the priests to oppress the people through superstition. Most of the rules show little but symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder. They establish simplistic (and often demonstrably false) taxonomies and dichotomies and then attempt to enforce them whether they have a basis in fact or not. The underlying rule is often nothing more than "a place for everything and everything in its place." Those parts of nature that didn't fit into the arbitrary pigeonholes are assumed to be the work of Satan and therefore anathematized.
There is no reason to assume that, just because a primitive people believed in a load of tribal superstitions, that it follows that those beliefs had any survival value. If that were true, the same could be said for any other superstition that anyone once believed. That's flagrant nonsense unless you believe the Jews are somehow unique among all mankind. And if you really want to get Darwinian about it, consider that the Jews were unable to compete with the equally superstitious but more pragmatic Romans. So much for survival value.
To assert that all that idiocy was "for our own good" really presupposes the unvoiced explanation "it has to be that way because God said so." But in fact those laws were the works of profoundly ignorant and possibly ambitious, malevolent men.
Specifically, (1) Kosher laws have a ritual definition of cleanliness that has nothing to do with real sanitation. And it was lack of food that prevented obesity through most of history. Obesity just wasn't a problem back then. Unless you have hard evidence about disease rates among ancient Jews compared to other peoples in the same reason, you're talking out your ass.
(2) Clothing and houseware laws were ritually based and, again, unless you have some deep insights into the economies of the time, you cannot truthfully assert that they provided anything but a burden to the people who were subject to them.
(3) What is "the purity of the group"? Inbreeding? Sounds vaguely fascist to me. (4) The only point I'll grant you is that tribal mutilation and initiation rituals and taboos do contribute to group cohesion.
Directly contradicting your earlier assertion of survival value. And what "cultural confusion" are you referring to? I like cultural mixing and diversity. What's the alternative? "Racial purity"? The history of the previous century gives a number of reasons that you don't really want to go down that road. Well, yeah. Except maybe for the Arabs (who were preliterate but already a distinct culture), the Romans (all Europeans who speak Romance languages are their direct cultural descendants). Greeks. Germans. Armenians. Persians. Han Chinese. Celts. Many cultures in India, both north and south. To name a few billion.
Get your teeth into a small slice: the cake of liberty
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Do you believe that the invention of the paragraph served a purpose?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
To modern ears, this whole notion of purity seems offensive, but in the case of the Hebrews it was really a matter of cultural survival as a subjugated race. If they were to continue as a viable nation-in-captivity and/or religion, they had to find ways to be distinctively different and cut down on intermarriage and mingling with the gentiles. It is more like the sort of cultural distinctiveness taken on by all sorts of oppressed groups (think Africa Americans or contemporary homosexuals) than racism or classism.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Personally, as a student of New Testament, I doubt its authentic: Jews of that period didn't wrap corpses in single pieces of cloth, but strips. (Like Mummies.) But I do wish the Catholics would go ahead and let scientists have another go at it to settle the debate regarding the 1988 dating.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
I'm surprised there are so many religious people here on Slashdot...
...
How sad that we sit here in front of our computers -- and at least in my case: dozens of other miracles of modern technology. We have access at our fingertips to photographs from other moons and planets, great works of science and mathematics, etc. -- and we're still apparently obsessed with these poorly written, contradictory, illogical, primitive belief-systems.
And before you mod this as "flame-bait", I'll say this: discussing religion as if it *isn't* 'primitive' is an affront to *my* belief system -- a system which is open and accepting of all that is provable, and questions baseless tenets that are spread by fear, force and ignorance. So this isn't intended as flamebait -- Why must I sit back and be polite when my beliefs are being insulted? Its not that I just don't agree with you -- its that your beliefs are an affront to mine. So this discussion of religion (from any and all perspectives other than history and social relevance) is flamebait to me.
That's all.. carry on... resume "discussion"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Thanks for the correction. I live in KY so I have to be around a lot of anti-science folks and it grates my nerves at times.
Lest there be any misunderstanding: I'm not Catholic, and have never venerated a relic of any sort, whether Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or even a SETI moonrock!
1. "The clerics simply assume that the shroud belongs to Jesus (assuming that he existed at all) and then direct their scientists to prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus."
While there may well be a case where this occurred, the Catholic church does not now, nor has it ever in the past, recognized or authenticated the Shroud as an official relic. It's been the subject of some intense disputes with in the RC church, to the point that Pope Clement VII ordered that in the case of all future exhibitions, a priest present should "declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ." In fact, the theory that Shroud was only a painting -- whether forgery or 'representation' -- was advanced WITHIN the Catholic church over 600 years ago!
As an apparent result of these and other dispures, the Shroud seems to have been treated more as an embarrassment, than a relic the church wished to display or advertise.
See the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) article for details: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm
2. "It is doubtful he (Rogers) will ever have findings that will be contrary to his own beliefs."
Raymond Rogers, who authored the study, published in "Thermochimica Acta", that has generated all the hubbabaloo does NOT now claim that he, or anyone else has proved that the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Christ. To the contrary, he's been quoted as saying that "It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus".
http://tinyurl.com/68jfl (www.smh.com.au)
ABSTRACT OF THE ROGERS ARTICLE:
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.
Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow-brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
"Thermochimica Acta", Volume 425, Issues 1-2
http://tinyurl.com/4vy6r (www.sciencedirect.com)
3.Results of comprehensive STURP study of the Shroud, the consortium of scientists who physically examined the Shroud in 1978, was NOT sponsored or encouraged by the Catholic church, did NOT include many Catholics, and did NOT conclude that the Shroud of Turin was the Shroud of Christ. Raymond Rogers, who was a member of that team, was quoted at that time, when asked that question at a public press conference, as saying, "We do not have test for Jesus Christ. So, we can't hypothesize or test for that question."
"Report on the Shroud of Turin", Heller, 1983
used copies from Amazon - http://tinyurl.com/46fln
4. "So at best you can show that it was the death shroud of someone who died 2000 years ago via a mo
>>You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.>Finally, I think you will find that an atheist, at least originally, was by definition one who believes there is NO god.
How would we know that? Where was it "orginally" defined? But I can tell you that as far back as the Atheistic Greek Atomist School of Philosophy did not deny the possible existence of gods but did deny their permanence and immortality. (The HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion)
In comprehensive dictionaries I find both the weak and strong definitions of atheism. Regardless, it has been defined as the lack of theism for all intents and purposes by more comprehensive definitions and by thinkers with wider views.
Nonetheless, the assertion that atheist have just as much faith as theist is a very tired argument and demonstrates a narrow few of what an atheist is. It's a poor attempt to shift the burden of proof and to justify an irrational belief (faith).
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"
>>You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well. faith.
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"
//You accept a scientific theory because it explains observation; surely religious faith explains observations as well.//
Then it's not faith. Faith is beliefs like "Jesus was the son of God who died for our sins". This isn't an observation, it's a belief in a contention without proof or reason --> faith.
"the devil finds work for idle circuits"
Mod parent overrated, as post is misinformative. As others have stated already, all the letters of Paul are from a pretty-darned-early disciple, and then there's the Gospel of Matthew, and...
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
the anti-Christian crowd just won't seem to accept this fact Why didn't you mention non-Christians?
Many of these folks would have love to discredit the shroud The Shroud makes no more of a statement than my Buddha statue.
Just my two cents Ssshh. IRS maybe on here.
"Jesus would have used Linux" See, proof that Windows is the Devil's Work.
Hey, just make it up as you go along, nobody minds really.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
Out of curiosity why do you post annoynomous ?
The Nicene argument would be that made was of no matter. He was of the same eternal substance as the father the almighty. Thus he was not inferior. But anyway. Mostly pointless deabte to me. And it is sad how many people have died over that argument especially considering it was in the name of Christianity.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
What does the OT have to do with Jesus? By definition, it was before his time. Just as Revelation was after his time, and has no necessary connection with his beliefs.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
No, you never said that you based it on God. But if you say that an atheist can't help but have arbitrary rules, as opposed to a theist, I really can't imagine what else could possibly be implied.
English is easier said than done.
To me, whatever makes the most people happy the most often while hurting the fewest people is what is most moral
Mahhhannn!!! There is so much wrong with that arugment! This is your view of what is "moral". It differs from many peoples view of moral. It differs from Adolf Hilter's view of what was moral. It differs from Mother Teresa's view of what was moral. Who's morals are actually right? Hitler's? Yours? Mother Teresa's? Or is there some ultimate standard of morals?
How can something be "most moral", unless you have a standard in which to compare against? How can someones own morals be more moral than someone elses, unless there is a more perfect definition of morals to compare against?
In this case, looking in the same 1913 Websters at "theism", they say:
"The belief or acknowledgement of the existence of a god, as opposed to atheism, pantheism, or polytheism." For them to say that the "opposition" is belief in something else (even if that something is a negative proposition), rather than a lack of belief, exceeds my etymological, semantic and linguistic credulity thresholds. Not only have they hashed the definition of atheism, they contradicted themselves when trying to define theism. As they have it, atheism is in the same camp with polytheism. Duh. If the twerp who wrote this had been working for me (I own a literary agency, among other things) they'd be working in the mailroom before they knew what hit them. With someone watching over their shoulder so as to make sure that mail didn't go to Nigeria instead of Niagara Falls.
Anyway... I'm not sure there is an ultimate authority for anything. It seems to me that we work with metaphor refinement at all times, trying to hew as close to reality as we can manage. We're often somewhat "off", we discover some additional info that helps us out, and then we do some adjusting of our attitudes, metaphors, what have you. That's certainly the case for science (in fact, a better layman's description of the confluence of idea, repeatability and falsification in science as "metaphor refinement" might be difficult to come up with.)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The individual image on the shroud not only shows wounds and body traces compatable with crucifiction, but also with a stabbing to the side and a crowning with thorns. Crucifictions may have been done all the time (a debatable point) but the additional wounds appear to be compatable with only one known victim.
With a textile sample, there is a pretty easy chemical way to separate cellulose (which was made by the original plant) from anything else (fungi, bacteria) that could have been growing on the sample later. Then you do carbon dating on the purified sample.
Cabon dating for a sample about 2000y old can be precise enough to place the origin within a century. So it is not just like vanillin baloney: A half-slice is not the same thing as no bread at all.
I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't think so, but let's see.
There is no problem here. A theist is someone with a belief in a god or gods. The position you postulate represents someone who holds no such belief. That is the very definition of an atheist: Someone without a belief in a god or gods. Doesn't matter why they arrived there, the point is, they are there.
An atheist "anything" holds no belief in god. Without isn't a term that admits of degree. It means you don't have any. If I am without oranges, I don't have three of them instead of a bushell, for instance. If I say I am without funds, I am telling you I am broke - I don't even have money to buy penny candy. And coming back around, if I say I am without belief (and you may assume with a very high degree of confidence that I am) I don't have any belief that there is a god or gods. Your "committed agnostic" can't have less belief than I do, because I don't have any.
What your agnostic is saying is, emphatically, they hold no belief in god. There are all manner of atheist positions, just as there are all manner of theist positions, but none of them is any more atheist or theist than the next, as far as I am concerned. They can be more or less logical, more or less accurate, more or less annoying, and more or less about a zillion other things. When I talked about atheist agnostics and theist agnostics, I was attempting to make the point that knowledge -- theory, evidence, facts -- isn't involved in the issue of theist/atheist, because we're talking about belief, not knowledge.
Belief is an utterly trivial state of mind; people believe in elves, pyramid healing, phrenology, astrology, luck charms, angels, gods, UFOs, telepathy, life on other planets, the evil eye, voodoo, crystalomancy, big bang, creationism, hollow earth, homeopathy... I could go on, it seems, forever. They enter into active states of belief with solid facts, shreds of facts, complete lack of facts, and everywhere on the continuum those points define. Belief, as far as I am concerned, is the very poster child for retarded intellectual processes. I prefer to avoid it and talk about confidence, which is something that fits the world I see a whole lot better than belief. I try very hard not to ride the belief train at all. Which, of course, makes me a dyed in the wool atheist. :)
Theism and atheism just define if you hold belief in a god or gods.
The question is, "Does the glass contain water?" Not - "How much water is in the glass?" The determination of a theist or atheist position is a conversation starter to me, not the whole shooting match.
Not at all. I assume that everybody either has a belief in a god or gods, or they don't. Which is true. And which is not at all the same as "beliving there is no god", which is what you said. That is an atheist position that some people take, but it is not the atheist position that all athei
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
In most atheist circles, this is called the "hard atheist position." That is where someone is willing to state "There is no god" and then either make an effort to back the position up, or claim that they can do so. It is a very, very tough argument to make well, as is any argument that purports to define a circumstance where there is little or no data to work from.
Some years back, a very, very old -- literally prehistoric -- type of fish called a "Coelacanth" was pulled up off the coast of Africa. If you had asked a paleontologist any day prior to that one if there were any of these still swimming around, they would have almost to a person told you no, with no small degree of certitude. The very idea seemed absurd. To everyone. If you asked why, they'd (quite reasonably) tell you that the odds against such a fish surviving were awesomely against; very few species do such things; we've never, ever seen one in all our years of sea-faring, fishing, and so on. In other words -- just plain no.
Yet, one day, there one was. Ugly as sin and probably twice as interesting as sin to most paleontologists, at least for a while. I've never run into a paleontologist on slashdot, so I have a fair degree of confidence that they do have an interest in real-life sex. Ahem. Anyway...
That's a good example of why arguing for "knowledge" from indirect information, other experience, and even the current state of general scientific knowledge isn't always such a great idea.
There may be a god or gods. We have no experience here; just as we had never seen a Coleacanth, but then, one day, we did -- so it might go with god, or gods. This is why I tend to view the hard atheist argument as potentially weak, no matter what other experience they draw upon.
On the other hand (and this is a powerful counter argument) we've never seen a live T. Rex, either, nor are we very likely to. :)
That's where I retreat to my confidence approach to life. I have high confidence I'll never see a live T. Rex on Earth, barring genetic engineering, that is. But if I do -- it was only confidence, after all. It won't screw up my worldview at all, it'll just please the heck out of me because it'll make the world that much more interesting.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I hate to break it to you, but it's really easy to go back an insert prophesy into older texts when you translate and compile them. Or just do what old prophecies say - if prophecy says the next Emperor of the United States will show up wearing a red, white, and blue feather boa, and I want to be Emperor, my costume choice is real easy.
Or if you can't manage to follow or retroactively create or edit prophecy, or find one vague enough to interpret the way you want, you can simply lie about what happened.
And yes, other relgions claim all sort of fulfilled prophecies. The Baha'i claim their leader is the fulfillment of prophecies from every major world religion. Muslims will tell you all about the prophecies that Muhammad fulfilled.
Sorry, but the Christos cult gets no extra points over others - including the tabloid psychics - on "evidence from prophecy".
Uh, they were, you know. Most contempory Jews dismissed the miracle stories about Jesus, or at least the big one about him being resurrected, and Romans went around killing Jeshua's disciples as you may recall - not the way you treat people you think might have buddies with the all-mighty.
So what? Buddhism and Taoism are older. Atheism too. Heck, so's astrology. Persistance of an idea is no proof of accuracy.
Actually it might have been pretty easy. I would be suprised if there were more than a few dozen written copies by 130 CE, literacy being rare.
But really, they had decades before things were written down at all to agree on a good story. (And they didn't, completely - the gospels contain numerous contradictions.)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Not so much. Try it this way:
Twelve guys run around with a suspected insurgent leader. They're pretty brave guys to hang around him in the first place - some are even starting to get pissed off that the leader is talking more peace and love and less about "sell your cloak and buy a sword" - but they don't have any sort of deathwish.
So the bosses, as they usually do, get tired of this long-haired trouble maker. They take him and his buddies by surprise; one of his buddies starts to fight, and Jeshua tells him not to. (Maybe he knows its inevitable and doesn't want anyone else to get hurt.)
If you don't fight, and you're not resigned to dying, you've got one option - run. So Jeshua's homeboys do. They're separated, hiding, on the run.
Things end very badly for Jeshua. Are his buddies scared? In shock? You bet. Until they can regroup. It's amazing what getting back with comrades can do.
Now, something interesting happens. Jeshua's buddies are highly stressed, probably hungry and sleep-deprived. Some types of stress increase suggestibility enormously - it's a tatic used by destructive cults today. I'm picturing these guys working themselves into a total groupthink hysteria, and convincing themselves that Jeshua can't really be dead.
Or, maybe deciding that their best option is to spread a story that he's not really dead, maybe they can use that to get the people together against the Roman occupiers.
So they either fool themselves or decide on a deliberate propaganda campaign. Maybe some combination of the two, a propaganda campaign that they come to believe themselves in the end.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Please, enlighten me as to how historical facts in the bible, presuming they are such, in any way provide surety that the general story of the bible itself is not a work of fiction. Surely you understand that when a work of fiction is written, including information about a real context is much, much easier than making one up out of whole cloth. The more you include, the easier the writing goes. You seem to be arguing that because there are historical facts in the bible, that the bible itself is historical fact, through and through. Is that the case you are trying to make? If so, back it up, if you can. Otherwise your whole approach is massively flawed.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
i think "God Tech" would probably play on the Nature Channel.
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
"AFAIK it was assembled decades or centuries (parts earlier, parts later) after the date where Jesus lived according to the church/bible."
True, but the most of the books of the New Testament are still attributed to the disciples; they just wrote them decades after the fact. The only real dispute over who wrote what concerns Revelations. Purists say it was written by the disciple John, while some historians say that this is impossible, and that it was written by a a Greek (also named John) at a later date.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Certitude Cer"ti*tude, n. LL. certitudo, fr. L. certus: cf.
F. certitude. See Certain.
Freedom from doubt; assurance; certainty. --J. H. Newman.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
"It's pretty generally accepted already by all those without blind faith that the piece of fabric known as the Turin Shroud is not what Jesus was wrapped in."
Oh? That's news to the rest of the world, as NO dating, other than the original carbon dating in the 80's has ever been done on the shroud. So now we find out that testing may have been flawed. That's PLENTY of reason for further investigation, wouldn't you think?
Since, as I said, there's been no other testing, how can you possibly say for certain that's its a fake?
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Or maybe as a prisoner, it would be best to call yourself a "Christian" then an "Atheist" when it comes to trial by jury and parole.
If you commited a crime, you would get far more sympathy from the public if you stated yourself as being Christian. If you regard/state yourself as an atheist, you might be looked apon as a heartless bastard and thus would not be in your favor to reclaim freedom.
Life is not for the lazy.
The same atoms which make up my existance also make up the existance of a rock. How come We aren't all rocks?
Bad luck, man, REALLY bad luck...
Paul
Or maybe as a prisoner, it would be best to call yourself a "Christian" then an "Atheist" when it comes to trial by jury and parole.
Except that these individuals weren't being asked their religion at parole hearings or in front of a jury.
When the original king james version translators did their thing, they took care to note which parts were literal translations of the greek, and which parts were put in by them to make it proper english. They did this with itallics Anything in itallics is a word inserted by the translators. Also, for the new testament, there in no punctuation of any sort in the original greek. All letters are capitalized, and not as much as spaces between the words, Like this: THENEWTESTAMENTWASWRITTENWITHCAPSLOCKONANDABUSTESS PACEBAR
So let's look at the verse again. Notice how your interpretation of the verse depends on that first 'is' being there. Also notice how it is in itallics. Take it out and reread the verse. Now it only says that those parts of scripture that are given by inspiration of god are profitable, etc. It allows for some scripture to not be given by god, and says nothing about the profitablity etc. of those scriptures.
There are many passages in the Bible that have greatly changed meanings when you move a comma around, or put in those itallic words etc. Other than looking at context or other passages, we no longer have the abillity to determine the correct meaning of these passages. Please try to understand the book that you are using, failure to do so will (as possibly in this example) lead to incorrect assumptions.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
Of course, it is quite possible that in Massachusetts many more people have sexual relationships without being married, so in the end it may turn out that are actually more people staying with their initial partner in Texas then there are in Massachusetts. Here in the Netherlands there has been a time when it was not done to get married. You simply lived together. The law even came up with special rules for people who did not want to marry out of rebellion against the concept to marriage being a life long bond. Nowadays many people live together several years before they get married. So divorce rates being lower does not say a damn thing about the number of people that break up after having sexual relationship with someone else.
Some of the prophesies involved the place of birth, the method of death, specific details of his life that would have been impossible to emulate by anyone other than the real Messiah.
People would have noticed if someone had gone around and changed all their gospels, and if someone had changed it there would be some remenants of the 'old' Christianity and so two Christian religions. What about the distance seperating the copies? They were spread all over the eastern Med. It wasnt that easy to travel back then you know
95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
And why?
FRA: STFU GTFO
>>Why does one have to assume that someone was 'tortured to death' ?
Well how would four drops of what looks like blood get on the cloth? Only tortured people have small drops of blood right?
Also, with cloth over the face, you wouldn't get a picture. Try this yourself. Rub something on your face and put cloth on your face and try to make something that looks even vaguely face like. It's a fake. And a bad one at that.
The first confirmed sighting of the shroud is low and behold the same date that it carbon dated to. Well, as I live and breath...
It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
Which is to say you don't actually carry out any yourself. I'm not saying you're not knowlegeable about science; you probably are. But how did you come by that knowledge? Did you perform the experiments yourself? Apart from some small amount of experimentation in lab courses while in school probably not, and those were to give you experience in lab work and not to actually expand the bounds of knowledge. You know what you know about science because you read about it in a book or magazine, not from your direct experience.
You might reply that at least your sources are credible, that the data in them has been peer-reviewed and verified, and that you don't need to perform the experiments yourself. You trust your sources and that's sufficient. And to be fair, it's not reasonable to expect any scientific layman to conduct an experiment himself. Who can, with his own resources, operate a particle accelerator, explore the bottom of the ocean, take and analyze core samples from an Antarctic glacier, conduct observations with the HST?
What you don't realize is that Christianity doesn't rely on the Bible or any other ancient source alone for verification. (And I should mention here that I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian, which claims to be the original Church founded by Christ and which has a spirituality distinct from that of the West. Ame-Tsuchi in the comment just above yours quotes from some Eastern fathers so he's at least familiar with Orthodoxy even though, to judge from his website, he's a Zen Buddhist.) Our faith is a living, breathing faith; and experiential faith. When a person is in the Holy Spirit he knows it, in no uncertain terms.
Have I ever experienced this? No, not personally, at least not in any but the most attenuated fashion. But there are many who have, and who have written and spoken about it. I trust my sources. Just as a scientist has equipment and methods that aren't accessible (or even necessarily comprehensible) to a scientific layman, a saint in God has spiritual senses and methods inaccessible, or even necessarily comprehensible, to a poor sinner like me. Like a scientific laymen learning about the results of scientific investigation, I trust my sources. They may not be peer-reviewed in the same way as a scientific paper, but they all tend to agree with and confirm each other and become widely accepted in the Church, such acceptance being regarded as a touchstone.
Science, of course, often produces tangible results other than papers: our technology is based on it and none of it would work if the underlying theories were faulty. Christianity isn't all that different. Faith produces tangible results. I might go to a church and venerate an icon I can see with my own eyes is gushing myrrh; I can go to a particular shrine and see fires spontaneously breaking out all over the place; I can see a miraculous healing taking place as I watch. (All but the second one were first-hand; for the second very famous example I have a number of second-hand accounts mainly because I've never made the trip myself.) Holy men are lifted up off the floor as they pray, light splashes around an altar when the offering is made, an elder and his flock walk on air to cross a ravine and escape certain death, a lizard speaks with a human voice and confesses belief in God -- these I have all from written or third-hand source I have no more reason to distrust than I have "National Geographic" or "Discover". (An
And the brethren went away edified.
I'm not a criminal prosecutor, but isn't the state of your religious convictions part of your legal record along with age, sex, hight...etc?
Life is not for the lazy.
As for people being tortured to death, that still happens, as does slavery and real maritime piracy.
OK, I'll bite. I can't find it online although I'm sure it must be around somewhere. Find an Alpha course and attend. This stuff is covered in Week 1. Don't fear a hard sell - I've led a course and the leadership training is very clear that if people want to walk away, that's fine, and that it's primarily a course and about getting to know people, with evangelism listed under "if it happens that's great but that's not why we're here." The book will be on sale but if this really puts you off you'll be able to find someone who will lend or give you a (probably second hand) copy.
Most Alpha courses come with free nosh so at the very least you'll get a reasonable meal and a good argument out of it. If you want, it can go further, but if you don't, that's fine.
After Week 1 you'll have the references you need. Don't expect the documents themselves to be produced - there's no point, anyone totally anti would argue the documents have been tampered with anyway - but you'll have all you need to look them up and read them for yourself.
So now it's my turn to call shenanigans. Produce your reasoning why you believe those records are false.
Jesus is God, being the second person of the trinity, therefore he is eternal and was present in the OT, in Revelation and today. Indeed, we are told that Christ created and sustains the world (see Colossians 1), so he's been at work since Genesis. And almost anywhere you see God talked about, it's referring to the trinity. LORD is the personal name YHWH used by the whole trinity. And Jesus himself told his disciples on the road to Emmaus that the whole OT was about him. Read Luke 24.
I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.
Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.
Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:
The Shroud of Turin images are not painted
The bloodstains are real blood
Why radiation did not cause images
Why scorching did not cause images
Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid
The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process
The meaning of variegated bands
Cellulose decomposition and image formation
Superficiality of the images on the Shroud
Double superficiality and what it means
Body decomposition rates
Why fibers are not involved in image formation
Other dating methods useful for the Shroud
The 1532 fire and image properties
The 2002 restoration consequences
Optical and physical properties of flax
Image properties and the scientific method
Unconfirmed bioplastic polymer coating
Why a bioplastic did not affect carbon 14 tests
DanName anyone person who is unbiased.
Not hugely. If you already accept that the one God can be two persons, adding a third isn't a huge leap. Much smaller than the leap from one to two persons.
Schisms aren't Luther's fault. They are the fault of human nature, our inability to get on well when we disagree. There are some issues which necessitate different denominations (such as church government - episcopal, presbyterian or congregational), but the continued fragmenting of some groups is certainly not encouraged or required by the Reformation. Most Christians are within one of the larger blocks anyway.
That's a big generalisation to make. There are good reasons to say that Christ's divinity is essential for salvation. Only God can forgive sins, therefore if you ask a man to forgive them, they cannot be forgiven. Only God could have lived a perfect life and therefore been a perfect substitutionary sacrifice for us, so trusting in a man's sacrifice to take away your sin and alleviate God's anger achieves nothing.
It's plainly stated in the bible that he is God. If someone claims he is not, then they either do not understand the Bible or are calling it a lie.
The Bible leaves no room for debate. The debate then becomes trusting the authority of the Bible. If you do not trust the Bible, how can you trust the message of the gospel?
'I believe [...] in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father'
That seems to be a fairly conclusive statement of the divinity of Christ. Besides, the Bible is the ultimate authority, not a manmade creed.
Read John 1. He is clearly God. The very fact that he was not created, but was instead the creator, shows that he must be God. The Hebrew word used for creation is 'bara' which signifies that only god could have done the creating. If Jesus is the creator as John 1 and Colossians 1 are fairly clear on, then he must be God. Yes, he was incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth, but you cannot shrink the infinite into the finite w
I remembered the guy's name this morning (Rasputin), and armed with that, google erected this page which shows the organ in question. Definitely not for those who are prone to an inferiority complex. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It was probably foolish to carbon 14 date the Shroud of Turin in the first place, back in 1988. But it was done. And many skeptics cheered; understandably. Science, some said, had scored a victory.
But those tests were flawed. We know that now. That is not about religion. That is about science.
I love science. I believe in science and I marvel at our 13 billion old universe, evolution and geology and so many things that science can teach us. I just happen to be a Christian which is a matter of faith, not science.
I'm fascinated by the Shroud because it is something important to millions of Christians and because it sheds light on the historical Jesus (if it is real) and it may help explain why Christianity flourished in our world.
This is about science. It is only about religion if you make it about that. Notice I said Jesus and not Christ. That is something science cannot address.
You should not be offended. You should speak out about what you believe but don't be offended by good science.
Dan
I stop by that passage in Leviticus on how to do slavery up right in the eyes of the Lord.
Are you kidding ? The slavery laws were way advanced for the age. An age when slavery was as common economical practice as being an employer today.
The ancient israelites insistence on freeing slaves every 50 years ensured that whole FAMILIES will not have to stay in slavery, and lack of freedom was so frowned on that a slave choosing to REMAIN a slave would be branded in shame. Again, this is the old world - compare this to the neighbours, even to the later, relatively tolerant, Romans, where slavery was practially the only game in town.
Working for necessity's mother.
My father-in-law, Dr. Alan Adler, was on the STRP team and did the original blood work on the Shroud.
Before he died, his two favorite statements about the Shroud were, "It's BLOOD! B-L-U-D!" and "There is no test for Christness."
Of course. If it is the revelation of God then nothing can contradict it. If it is not the revelation of God, then it is a lie. If I do not believe in it, then it is not worth arguing from, but if I do believe in it, then I must debate from it.
That would be true if the Bible was a lie. But if it is the revelation of God, then you must agree that it would be foolishness in the extreme to do anything but embrace it?
I am sure, yes. The Bible is not built up upon successive translations. I have a compilation of the most reliable Greek manuscripts beside me. The English translations I use are based direct from the most reliable Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. We know how the languages work pretty well, so translations are 99.9% reliable. The bits we're not sure about make no difference to a major doctrine. Even if I only had the New Testament, which is of more historical reliability (in terms of the documents we have being what was originally written) then any other document from that era, I would have enough to know saving faith that is entirely consistent with the Old Testament scriptures.
He doesn't favour those who worship him. No-one can earn his favour. Out of love, he shows mercy to some and saves them, enabling them to worship him. There is nothing special about any Christian, no merit of their own that they can claim to be responsible for their salvation. The claim of the Bible is that God is infinitely glorious and infinitely deserving of worship. Both because of who he is and what he has done (creation, salvation, etc.). Ih he is, then it is the worst crime imaginable to not worship him. As an utterly righteous and just God, he is compelled to punish such a crime with Hell. Christianity hinges on this. If he is not worth it, then the Bible is a lie. Though, from a pragmatic point of view, if God is the one who can judge, then to call him immoral is ultimately futile as his morality is the one that will ultimately be enforced. It is his justice that will dominate.
What if he deserves it inherently? And surely the act of creation, of creating us with the purpose of worshipping him and the act of saving us all deserve worship? Are you so proud as to say that none of that matters?
Actually, I'm saying that the teachings of a belief and the actions of those claiming to follow
I don't believe there is a god, just as I don't believe that sony will not start selling the PSP for $10, or some other equally mundane fact. Think of it as a variable, as in $PSP_price = 450; $deity = NULL;
And I believe that you will never agree with me anyway, and amazingly, I get annoyed. Oh well
Seriously, I don't go around thinking "I'm an atheist, I'm an atheist. I must remember to actively not pray today." Religion just isn't an aspect of my life. Many christians seem to find it difficult to accept that people choose to spend their time differently than them. As in your need to claim atheism is a religion (why do you care?).
Notice the words "don't believe". It's just a different wording.
Atheists believe that there is no God. Atheisms[sic] is no different than any other religion, and as usual, it's supporters like to think themselves as rational and their religion[sic] the only logical one. However, as of yet, no one has managed to proof[sic] that atheist beliefs are correct.
Well, we are rational, and correct, but I won't try to convince you. You can keep your delusions, if you like. Do you need proof for every other obvious thing in life?
Do you have special knowledge from the Holy Spirit about this subject? I suggest you get your facts straight before you start making such wide accusations. I've done in depth studies on the subject and there is no such thing stated in the bible. Most bible scholars will tell you the same thing. The Trinity doctrine found intact in the bible is a figment of your imagination. As for individual scriptures that seem to imply it, I suggest you look at them a little more closely and in context.
ok I haven't read all the entries, and Im new to slashdot so let's see if I can cover the multitudinous topics that I have seen so far. Regardless of science and it's precision or fallability, Identifying objects in history inevitably fall to the most reasonable explanation with a few scientific pieces of evidence to support it. in our current way of looking at things, the explanation with more scientific evidence wins. Although regarding the shroud, I haven't seen my favorite explanation that it was a gag perpetrated by Leonardo da Vinci, either to hide the real shroud, or some less devotional reason. incidently, da Vinci was supposedly gay, and a scientist, I don't know whether he wore clothes of two fibers or not. See how this all ties in? My point is, as an arguement gets more intense ( provided it stays on topic) evidence and concepts fall like tetris pieces right into place, provided there is a base of current societal viewpoint, the opinions of the arguers not only guide the pieces but support the ones that seem most reasonable. There are hot buttons which can trump the prevailing arguments that titilate further arguement, and there are rules to whatever belief system the arguer has that close off other viewpoints, science is really wrought with these traps, but they come a little clearer when someone is a zealot. in regards to gays in the bible, the story of sodom and gamorrah is the one I find most used as 'evidence' that 'god hates gays' but read it again, the 'sin' of that story is inhospitality. in my own opinion the concept of sinning is more of an honor thing than getting into the right afterlife club, and sin and its 'fruit' change as you get more complicated. ok Ive gone way off i think, ill just close with this, natural fibers rule! there more comfortable and they breathe! yeaaaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!!
Which subject? The doctrine of the Trinity? Or the necessity of believing Christ's divinity for salvation?
Any my job is to study and teach the Bible. I have been (and continue to be) trained by some of the best bible teachers in the UK and have widely read other people.
Who are 'most Bbible scholars'? I doubt you can speak for them. Even so, it is the points made, not the weight of a name that matters. You cannot make appeals to nameless (or named) authorities to try and make a point. Make an argument and let it stand on its own merit.
The Bible never uses the word 'Trinity,' but then I never claimed that it did. It does however make numerous references to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and affirms all three as being God, while also saying that there is one God. Are you questioning the divinity of Christ or of the Holy Spirit? Or perhaps the Father?
Perhaps you're right, and egoism absed morality is still a bit flawed. I can accept that, because I came to that theory theory was formulated late at night when I was 17. (Although smarter people than I have independently thought it up.) But even if that's the case...
How is god-based morality any better?
In that case, you have a morality which is based entirely around the decrees of some external entity which we are not even entirely sure what he wants. If morality is defined as simply "acting in such a way as to follow the will of God," then morality seems amazingly shallow.
Why should we act moral if all moral means is obeying God? Especially because certain Christian belief systems states that everyone is too sinful for God's tastes, and that you can only get rewarded by God if you can have your sins "wiped away."
Egoism based morality might not be perfect, but at least it's based in something tangible.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Very few Jews take that stuff seriously.
It's a testament to the Jewish people that they have a sense of allegory.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
All illness was considered a sign of disfavor from god. Ergo, Bleeding every 30 days was a sure sign of moral impurity.
This is ALL mysticism. And what amazes me is that Pat Robertson is trying to revive this way of thinking.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Umm, no. Check Arian Heresy for historical precedent. They were an early Christian Sect that did NOT believe Jesus was divine, just divinely inspired.
I would not go so far as to say that ALL modern Christian Sects hold with Jesus' divinity (there are too many to know all the details of each), though it is certainly true that that particular Roman Catholic doctrine is nearly universal among Protestants as well.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
As I said, such details could simply have been lies. Making stuff up is a well-established religious tradition; it's quite probable that Matthew made up the whole Herod-killing-the-babies thing, since it's found nowhere else.
Even then, these "prophecies" have to be distorted to claim they fit the story.
If Jeshua wanted to give evidence via prophecy that he was divine, all he had to do was write a few good solid predictions for years to come.
Heck, he could at least have given us a definative autobiography, instead of leaving it to a dozen contradictory biographers. (He was a rabbi, so I'm presuming he was literate in Hebrew.) Certainly if you believed you were to most important person to ever walk to face of the earth, you could write a few things down for the rest of us?
Sorry. No evidence from prophecy. Heck, the case is better for Nostradamus having magical powers.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The jury isn't given a list of all the specifics of an accused. They are only given what's presented as evidence. Any attorney, whether they are any good or not, will object if their client is asked what their religion is (unless it's being used in an affirmative defense as justification). It's also a question you can't ask potential jurors.
I pretty much agree with you, but I think Plato influenced the Christian mythology mugh more than Socrates. He was the Greek philosopher who started all this nonsence about belief in an immaterial, ideal, other world that is core to the Christian cults.
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
I heard once that the passage about "not lying with another man _as_a_woman_" was really only talking about being "as a woman" with another man, or in other words, being the penetratee. This implies that it's OK to be "as a man" (the penetratOR) with another man, just as long as you are not letting down the team by being "the bitch"
It's like walking the extra mile, etc. You are to never publicly be percieved as anyone's slave, etc. If you have to do civil service, make it look like you want to, and if you're doing it by doing more than is required. If you have to do it with another guy, just make sure you're the "man" when it gets down to deciding who's doing what.
It's my firm belief that the Sabbath was an ancient labor law enacted to ensure that people got at LEAST one day off.
Of course, you can take this to ridiculous extremes. And if society is providing labor law that ensures people get TWO days of instead of one, I think it's probably just fine to work on Saturday (or Sunday if you don't know what Sabbath means).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Few christians really realize that the REAL trinity is the one between Hebrewism, Paganism, and God-Man worship (Dionysiun cult).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Feed lots are stacked high with cow shit. The animals bed in it.
The problem with feces is NOT in the raising. The problem is in the butchering. The world is largely composed of rotting organic waste. Don't sweat it.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The "risen from the dead" story is nothing new. From a literary standpoint, it appears as if the story was just cooked up to make Christianity acceptable to the Dionysiun sun cult.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
"So now it's my turn to call shenanigans. Produce your reasoning why you believe those records are false."
u s_ Christ
Whoah, nelly! I just said "produce them", not "and they are all also fakes, just in case you do". I can't assume records are false I don't even know about! I'm expecting that if you've seen evidence of Jesus, it's something I haven't seen.
The information I have come across on the history of Jesus has all been in line with the Wikipedia "Historicity of Jesus". This is essentially that several documents make note of Christians and the general idea that they believe in a Christ; a very small number, such as Josephus, appear to have been forged, still leaving no non-Biblical record of a historical Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jes
I am open to the idea that there was a historical Jesus and that we might have documentation of such, but I do wonder why evidence of such is so hard to come across (are these Alpha courses magical?) just on the internet for a lax non-scholar. You'd think this is a big thing.
I most often find myself around skeptics, so one thing I can do is report on what they do. You'd think skeptics would be trying to discredit records of Jesus, but instead--like I'm doing--it's mostly just a lot of "You don't have any documents or records at all, do you?"
Ho, hum.
My suggestion is you should NOT try to prove the Bible. Religion is faith. Proof only undermines the point.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Flavious Josephus is the only verfiable witness historian of the period between the crucifixion and the destruction of Jeruesalem. Josephus says NOTHING about Jesus.
That does not mean Jesus is not real. It does however mean that the best source of history of the period doesn't support ANY history of Jesus.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Well, the point here is that our constitution BANNING slavery is in contradiction to gods laws on slavery. VERY FEW people actually choose to believe EVERYTHING the bible says. They just pick and choose what they want to believe in and find the passages that back them up.
If you're FOR fundamentalism, you must be FOR SLAVERY as well.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
... turn the other cheek.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
P.S. I really should note--and make very clear--that I'm not trying to make an argument from ignorance and I don't doubt everything Biblical--John the Baptist is the first thing to comes to mind and many people, places and events appear to have been real--but the pattern of Biblical historicity (in my opinion) seems to be that it's the mundane that are supported by evidence, not the spectacular.
[i]One of the advantages Christians have in theological debates is that they acknowledge that the Bible is an imperfect transcription of God's will.[/i]
Really ????
Because I got the idea that the fundies wanted us to take this stuff literally. That is, only the passages they choose.
Allegory is for Catholics!!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Therefore the Devil is good because he is acting according to god's wishes. Satan was MEANT to rebel. And therefore man was INTENDED to fall under the influence of evil.
Therefore, if you're bad you're good. And if you're good you're good.
See, I can play the broken logic game as well. Just remember that Thomas Aquinas was the all time undisputed master!!!!
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The CHURCH frowns upon divorce. You'll find that individual adherence varies GREATLY!!!
I would personally speculate that the attitudes and perceptions of baptists, catholics, mormons
In the Bible Belt, it's "abstinence only" education or non at all. Therefore, people are ignorant about sexuality. Therefore, girls get pregnant more often.
In the Bible Belt where "family planning" is considered the devil's work, you're going to have more people going into relationships without realistic expectations of the institution.
There is NOTHING new about teenage promiscuity or teen pregnancy. Society has simply started to ACKNOWLEDGE it rather than resolving the issue with "shotgun marriages" or sending the girl off to "boarding school".
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Yeah, sorry, that was a bit premature. I thought of checking the Wiki against the Alpha course week 1, but from memory most of it already seems to be there, and I'm under no illusions that I'm the first to have thought of this.
I doubt the evidence is hard to come by, and the Alpha course is far from magical; I just didn't spend more than a few minutes on Google and alphacourse.org. None of the Alpha material appears to be online as far as I can tell - not labelled as such, anyway. I'm sure lots of the original source material must be up there somewhere.
Personally, no I don't have a single document that proves the existence of Jesus or who I believe he is, except for the Bible of course. But my faith isn't based on historical records, it's based on day to day experience of an ongoing relationship with God, which is really what Christianity is all about - not that God is some far-off deity largely disinterested in humans except for a sadistic pleasure in punishment, but that he is close by and desiring a friendship with his creation. That's partially why I suggested an Alpha course - you'll meet God through his people, but you won't meet him through Google. And you won't even meet him through ancient documents, even if those documents were totally accepted as 100% true by everyone, which they never will be.
pre-christian Greek and Roman philosophers came to similar conclusions
You will find it was based on early Judaism, i.e. the Torah.
Jesus' command "Love the Lord your God... and your neighbour as yourself" was a summation of the Hebrew's Law in the Torah (the first 5 books of the "Old Testament" as we call it) which is about 3400 (IIRC) years old.
The Torah was written long before the Greek or Roman civilizations existed. Little wonder why other more recent civilizations have similar values or stories even (eg. the flood). There's nothing new under the sun.
[1] See "begging the question."
[2] Begging the question - see "circular argument".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
GRANDPARENT POST:
Your opinions are your own. You're putting yourself in God's position when you make such broad statements about what is and isn't required for a person to be a Christian. Did Phillip make sure the Eunuch beleived Christ was GOD before he baptized him? If you think so, that's purely supposition on your part.
There are numerous churches around the world that are monarchianists, binitarians, and not trinitarians. While I don't agree, I would NEVER EVER call them unchristian because they don't have the same beleifs as me. Me personally? I'm closer to an arianist, although I wouldn't say I agree with him on all points.
If you want to discuss specific verses you think lead to a doctrine of the trinity, I'd be more than happy to rebut them.
Hmm an intelligent religious argument on Slashdot.... wonders will never cease.
When I reffer to Catholic in my earlier post I was reffering to Roman Catholic Church. Which by and large was the Christian faith until Luther other than the Eastern Orthodox split.
I do not Blame Luther personaly for schsims. But his movement was certainly the catalyst that led to the shattering of the Roman Catholic church. Not that I think this was a bad thing mind you.
The Trinity is not biblical. It is Church Doctrine. In the Gospels Jesus never says he is the Trinity. He never even directly says he is the Son of God. There are some passages generally interpreted to mean that but there is no clean clear statment where he says "I AM GOD". The concept of the trinity is not something Jesus taught. I would like to see you quote where in the Gospels that tid bit lies as you seem to be indicating it is there.
As for quesitoning the authority of the Bible period I would say there is plenty of room to make legitimate questions regarding that as the bible as we know it was not established until some 200 years after the Death of Christ. Parts of accepted scripture by some were decided to be left out. Non mainline thoughts were declared heresies. And about the only schisim that was large enough to survive outside of the umbrella of the Roman Catholic Church was the Eastern Orthodox. The rest were persecuted to extinction including the burning of any literature created which went against the doctrine of the Cathloic Church.
Not to mention that whole issue of the formation of the bible aside you also have the well known inacuracies of translation... combined with the difficulties of evolving languages over time. There is most certainly room to question the bible inso much as you can question the involvement and imperfections of man in its upkeep and formation.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
I'm sorry for your family's loss during the Holocaust.
Thank you for your efforts to set the other poster straight on the seriousness of his accusation. That said, he is a troll who regularly posts lies like the one to which you replied. Unfortunately, he thinks that anonymity grants him a license to say things on here that he would never dare say to people's faces. If you get anything back from him at all, I expect that it will be nothing more than childish insults, lies, and false accusations. I'm sure not holding my breath for an apology.
"What does the OT have to do with Jesus? By definition, it was before his time."
He didn't seem to think so. John 8:58 quotes him as follows "...before Abraham was I AM". The listeners were pretty sure of what he was referring to here, since they all started looking around for nice, throwing-sized rocks right about then.
The commandments are recognized by religons other than Christianity.
Certainly. I didn't mean to imply that the commandments were the exclusive province of Christianity.
WRT someone elses comments about "when people weren't concerned about separation of church and state", I guess that pretty much refers to the whole existence of the U.S. then? Lest we forget, our very first POTUS was sworn in on a Bible.
It was (almost) a rhetorical question on my part - I was pretty sure that your answer would be along those lines. No argument of that sort is going to convince somebody who doesn't agree with you already. Sorry, I'm sticking with physics and history on this one - only sources from Jesus' lifetime or (perhaps) later can tell us anything about whether he was a pacifist or not, and sources written by him are vastly preferable to any others (and unfortunately, non-existent).
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
The implication isn't hard to derive. If all moral rules are arbitrary (that is, based on personal preference -- and I think this is true for us as well as God), then the implication for the atheist is that "might makes right". The implication for the theist depends on the "properties" of God. If God is eternal and sovereign, then such a theist would note that might enforces right. And there is a world of difference between the two. Most people don't hold that might makes right. So either atheists are inconsistent (which, in this case, might be a good thing), or that there is a an interesting incongruity between this particular worldview and our nature.
Perhaps you're right, and egoism absed morality is still a bit flawed.
Since egoism is antithetical to love, I would argue that such a basis for morality is extremely flawed.
How is god-based morality any better?
An excellent question. This requires in-depth discussion, for which this isn't the best forum. Unfortunately.
In that case, you have a morality which is based entirely around the decrees of some external entity which we are not even entirely sure what he wants.
This presumes that God is not able, or does not desire, to communicate His decrees to us. And that presupposes that we have some a priori knowledge of what God is like. So we either take the Deist assumption (which is just atheism in religious trappings), or we assume that God is able to communicate with us. Then we start listening.
Why should we act moral if all moral means is obeying God?
Why should we act morally at all? One answer would be "because it's the right thing to do."
and that you can only get rewarded by God if you can have your sins "wiped away."
In Christianity, the wiping away of sins is accompanied by an inner change from above.
Egoism based morality might not be perfect, but at least it's based in something tangible.
Love is tangible, too.
Given the fact that one of the world's largest religions says that he was not killed, I'd say doubting is unavoidable.
Which one is that? I thought that the Christians say that he was killed, but rose from the dead and all the other religions have no comment or don't care.
My other first post is car post.
Interesting. I was unaware that there was so much controversy over the factuality of whether Jesus existed at all. I'm sorry you got so worked up over my comment. Obviously this is something you feel strongly about.
My other first post is car post.
Interesting. That would make the whole "dying and rising from the dead" trick easier. Don't die, hide out, then just show up later.
My other first post is car post.
And etymology aside, Christian Arabs do use "Allah" for the Christian God. If you mean to say that Muslims and Christians don't worship the same God I'll agree with you, but to imply "Allah" means exclusively the Muslim god is also ignorant.
And the brethren went away edified.
Serves me right, starting a conversation on the internet with someone who knows the whole truth. Sigh. Look, it is impossible to have a rational conversation if you insist on bringing up dogma. It's not a conversation, it's a sermon - or worse, a Monty Python sketch.
Where do I start? The moment I tell you that the Old Testament is a series of stories meant to help keep the Jewish tribes together in the face of oppression from all sides (which is why they all contain nothing more than teachings designed to build a sense of nation) - is the moment you call me a blasphemer, and the moment I tell you that the New Testament is full of inconsistencies you choose to ignore because dogma blinds you - is the moment the conversation ends because dogma prevents you from having any sort of conversation that doesn't involve some mystical mumbo-jumbo.
One doesn't need to call the Bible a lie - one only needs to look at it and realise it is but a BOOK. The fact that you choose to believe in its truth doesn't make it any truer than any other book of ancient myths - why, pray tell, would you believe that someone was born from the womb of a virgin then raised the dead, but not believe that a woman was born by parthenogenesis from her father's forehead? They are equally preposterous propositions, and nothing but myths - even though there are books written on them, and at one point quite a few people believed the latter over the former. The fact that you believe one over the other is not a sign of wisdom, it is at best a matter of personal choice, or more accurately a matter of environment, education and peers.
I hate to do this quote business again, because whenever someone starts quoting it means they have run out of intelligent things to say, but I am too tired today so here's one from Mark Twain: "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion -- several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbour as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven".
No emphasis on any of the words, just a simple series of sentences you might actually want to consider.
Besides - man (and I do mean that, MAN, as in homo sapiens, the only animal capable of rational thought), if you want to believe that you need to pray and ask for forgiveness for imagined transgressions or actual misdeeds, and then have some sort of wise Creator actually care, then by all means go ahead, knock yourself out. As long as it makes you happy and you don't hurt anyone in doing so, it's all good. But do allow us poor sceptics to treat the Bible, all the prophets and the signs, and all religions for that matter, with bemused indifference and not a little sarcasm. We have our own truths, which we hold very dear, just as you do yours - the difference being, we are really fond of reason and logic, which means we can be persuaded we were wrong if the proper arguments are proposed and demonstrated. Otherwise it all looks like voodoo trickery for the weak-willed, and a pitiful waste of grey matter.
P.S. The 'no free man needs a god' bit is from Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov. And it needs no proof whatsoever, since it is merely an opinion. That of a free man who found theolatry degrading and decided he didn't need a god. A choice like any other, except perhaps based on, dare we say it, reason?
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Yes, which is exactly my point. You'll end up with a circular argument. In trying to "prove" that Christians aren't criminals, you'll have claims that criminals can't be Christians.
On the other hand, you certainly can't accept everyone who bills themselves "Christian" as thus, can you?
Yes. It's not really all that different from how the ancient Hebrews ended up using "El" as their word for God even though it's also the proper name for a different Semitic deity. (I can't remember which one now. Something's telling me it's Phoenecian, but that's probably mistaken.) "Allah" is in origin the name of one of the many gods worshiped by the pagan Arabs, and Mohammed took it for the name of his one god when he wrote the Koran.
The Christian population of the Middle East was, of course, not Arab to begin with, but that was prior to the 8th Century. They've had over a thousand years since to become acculturated, and they lost their original Syriac and Aramiac languages a very long time ago.
And the brethren went away edified.
The great irony of your boast that it is the sceptics who possess and wield logic is that in response ot every claim of yours, I have presented reasons why your claims are wrong. You fail to address the points I make, refuse to engage in discussion and refuse to employ this 'reason' that you hold so dear.
The reason I believe in Jesus Christ as opposed to any other deity is that the Bible describes historical events which we can examine. My faith is founded on a belief in the historicity of the resurrection, based on the evidence we have from the time in the form of the gospels, other writings and the recorded actions of the disciples following his resurrection. The massive shift in their actions following it and the inability of anyone to prove their preaching wrong by producing a body seems to make it quite clear that the resurrection happened.
If you could disprove the resurrection, you could disprove Christianity. But many people who set out to do that were converted in the process.
If someone doesn't believe that Jesus is God and refuses to trust the authority of the Bible, then I guess there are more important discussions to be having.
Physics? As a Physicist, I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant here.
How about the sources based on eye-witness accounts of him driving out the money changed from the temple and proclaiming that the OT was about him, that he was God and therefore acting in the OT and that judgement would later come?
As an agnostic and a humanist, I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs. That goes for everyone,
Oh goody. I hope that applies equally to the poeple who go around professing that I and people like me shall be made to endure eternal torture for not worshipping their imaginary friend, and that this is fair and well-deserved. I've said some bad things about various believers through the years, but nothing even coming close that stuff.
sudo ergo sum
It seems that swearing on an artifact has less to do with a common belief in the principles represented by the artifiact than the idea that an individual will be less likely to be insincere after he has publicly linked his actions with his purported belief system.
So, the fact that founding members of an organization swore to their duties on a given artifact does not in any way link the organization to the principles represented by the artifact. The choice of artifact is completely dependent upon the beliefs of the person in question.
It's quite easy for a skilled forensic pathologist to distinguish bruises and weals caused by flogging a dead corpse
True, but I'd be impressed if one could extract the same data from a monochrome photograph with low dynamic range on cloth.
Evidently there is also evidence in the image that indicates the face was imaged seperately (it is offset and more sharpely focused. It is purported that lenses at the time did not have sufficent focal length to capture the entire body with the level of detail necessary for the face, so the face was done in a second exposure). I haven't the necessary expertise to evaluate these claims, but they appear to be the explaination that best fits the look of the shroud.
With some help of a skilled alchemist you could try to use some sort of camera obscura to achieve this with 1350's technology, but it would be really a hassle.
Actually the chemistry necessary is pretty simple, another comment provided this link where the experiment is actally done and the photograph of the results provided. They exposed a silver nitrate soaked linen cloth using a camera obscura and then fixed the image with a weak ammonia solution.
Paradoxically, it would be counterproductive from a forger's point of view.
Not necessarily. At the time fake shrouds were not uncommon (at least 40 form the period are known today). Producing a very convincing fake would have been necessary to convince more skeptical people. Also, its not inconceivable that a skilled craftsman hired to make such an artifact would enjoy the challenge of producing something to the best of his ability.
Dude. You have not presented reasons, you've only thrown dogma around. Which is fine, but hardly scientific. Then again, I don't think science will interest you very much, as long as you claim that the inability of anyone to prove their preaching wrong by producing a body seems to make it quite clear that the resurrection happened. You want me to engage in a discussion of that caliber? You can't be serious. What kind of ridiculous thing is that to say? A body disappears; some people claim it rose to the heavens; no one can produce the body; therefore it must be true that he rose to the skies in a blaze of glory. Could we please get real here for a second? If this is logic then Aristotle is spinning in his grave, and Hegel feels like a stiff drink. Come ON now.
Say I have a cabbage. I just know that it is the son of god. Only it doesn't speak. But that is a sign of wisdom, therefore I must worship it. Then I put the cabbage in a cupboard. The next day, it is gone. Anyone with half a brain can think of about fifteen different ways that cabbage disappeared, but to the devout followers of the cabbage, it is clear it changed into a flying horse and rose to heaven to meet the lord creator. We must therefore each and all of us worship the cabbage.
You would NOT like this story if someone claimed it to be true. You would call them a fraud and a charlatan, and lock them up - even though they had written proof that some people saw them speak to the cabbage, which seemed to understand what was being said, and even filmed (FILMED, mind you) the cabbage somehow sliding across a table, apparently of its own will - surely a miracle if there ever was one. You would lock them all up in an asylum before they could say three hail Brussel sprouts - because their story is preposterous, defies logic, and is a sham.
It takes very little talent and ingenuity to manufacture a miracle, because there are too many gullible people out there. Surely you must disapprove of psychics and new-age quackery and healing energy and all that clap-trap - quite why you would choose to believe something equally laughable is a mystery.
Engaging in a civilised argument is a fine mental exercise and a grand way to spend time, but dogma is another matter - the very fact that yours is a belief that requires a leap of faith is enough to make me reach for my mental remote control and switch to the 'Hey, look, Darwin was right! Ain't evolution grand? Let's have a look at the Galapagos islands now shall we?' channel.
You have to admit though, we have strayed WAY far from the original post. Although I'm sure you believe the shroud of Turin is an actual relic bearing the image of your saviour, I really have to ask - do you?
Because if you do, I'm sure we can make a deal and I'll find you some wood from the cross, and if we try hard enough maybe even the holy grail.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
Which is an interesting fact, but in general most people only encounter/ed "splinters of the true cross" thru those gentlepeoples most well known as "snake oil salesmen" of which we seem to currently have a large surplus of - which is normal,apparently, in today's culture. :)
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
The timeline of how the Pentateuch was assembled will depend on who you ask. Historical-Critical method scholars place the achievement of its final form in the 5th Century BC where the Jerusalem priesthood put together a number of independent textual sources or traditions: the "J", or "Yahwist" from Judah, the "E", or "Elohist" from Ephraim, the "P" or "Priestly" source reflecting Temple traditions, and the "D" or "Deuteronomist." The E source is characterized in particular by the use of "Elohim" for God instead of the YHVH of J, and is considered the origin of, for example, the primary creation story in Gen 1:1-2:3.
For what it's worth.
And the brethren went away edified.
However, for it's internal offical purposes the Church of Rome keeps very careful records, and absolutely will not certify a relic as authentic without the correct paperwork. When it comes to the Cross, there's a specific cross unearthed by St. Helena in Jerusalem that at the time was taken as the True Cross. How believable you find that will depend on how believable you find the story of it's discovery, but the point is that any relic of the True Cross is a fragment of the cross she found which has a very well-documented history. It was kept intact in Jerusalem from its finding in the 4th Century until it was captured by the Persians in the 8th; on its recapture it was parted out and Rome got a big piece. When they took a fragment off of it, the paperwork followed. I'm not sure how much of it they have left. (There was a fairly brisk trade in real relics too. St. Peter's didn't build itself, after all!)
This kind of thing was never a problem in the Christian East outside Rome's sphere of control, where relics were (and are) either given away or not given out at all.
And the brethren went away edified.
That's a far cry from attributing them to Moses as most Christians do. Are you a Christian or were you studying these topics for some other reason?
Both methods utilize the same assumptions:
--The substance tested was there at one point(i.e. vanillin --It dissappears at constant rate --Sample is representative
If any of these assumptions is false, then the analysis is flawed. The use of vanillin dating was done after the carbon dating only after certain assumptions were thought to be in error, namely that of representative sampling. If the fiber samples were not sampled correctly, and thus are not representative, then it is accurate to state that the carbon dating is also not representative of the piece. Perhaps the scientists messed up and took fibers from the backing of the piece (sewn on to protect it centuries ago) instead of the actual shroud.
Vanillin dating, with the problems it possesses, is not exact by any means. Thus I'm not stating its correct either. Environment and detection limits(of vanillin) play a role and therefore this detection is also flawed. However, the fact that a middle age forgery should have a considerable amount of vanillin, far higher than the detection limit (37% of original) should be noted.
However, lets look at this hypothetically. This 'is' a burial shroud, that was used for what, 3 days.
And then what? We don't know.
What about the image on it? By what process is the image on the cloth? Dye? Burning? Something Else?
What about the blood spots? Can we do a DNA test on Jesus?
All of these questions remain. It all boils down, at least for now, what you believe
Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
Mormons aren't allowed to drink Coke either; nothing with caffeine.
In wartime... truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies. (Churchill)
I notice I committed one error: Gen 1:1-2:3 is generally attributed to the P source, not the E source. A better example would be the story of Isaac's binding in Gen 22.
And the brethren went away edified.
I've explained my beliefs and given reasons for them. Rather than address those reasons and answer my questions, you've labelled it all 'dogma' as if that suddenly invalidates everything.
We're not discussing science. The scientific method is not appropriate for debate, discussions of theology or historical investigations.
Actually I have a degree in Physics from the University of Oxford :^) Most of the Christians I knew there were scientists, engineers and mathematicians. Quite a few medics and lawyers too.
IIRC, I said more than just that.
Jesus dies, his disciples scatter, afraid. They're not expecting him to rise again and are too afraid to show their faces in case they get killed too. A few days later, they start proclaiming that he has risen and show no fear of death. A mass hallucination with all 10 disciples seeing the same thing is highly unlikely. Thomas doubted that it had happned, but he was convinced when he saw. 500 more people saw the same thing.
The Jewish authorities got a little concerned about this and started persecuting and killing the early church, trying to stamp it out. This would have been fairly easy if they'd been able to produce Jesus' body... but they didn't.
The disciples couldn't have stolen the body because:
they were too afraid
they would have had to roll away a large stone from in front of the grave, which was under the guard of the Romans
they died testifying that Jesus had risen
Jesus spoke, fulfilled prophesies and performed miracles.
Except the cabbage wasn't under heavy guard. Over 500 people did not see the risen cabbage. Your cabbage cult was not deemed dangerous and faced with opposition from authorities who could have produced the body if it had existed.
Basically, your analogy bears very little resemblance to the gospel history.
The disciples didn't expect a miracle and were incapable of recovering Jesus' body. They also died testifying to the truth of the resurrection, knowing whether they had perpetrated a fraud or not. Why would simple, scared fishermen die for what they would have known to be a lie?
I do disapprove of it. The difference with Christianity is
I don't believe it's an actual relic and wouldn't care if it was.
/. is more of a geeky board than a forum for debates on gnosis, doxa and catharsis. :)
Finally, some sense. THANK YOU.
So called 'relic's have no power and are unnecessary for faith in Christ.
I couldn't agree more. (Wait - did I just say that?)
All the evidence I need is in the Bible.
To each his own, I say. Seeing how there is no way we can convince each other (surely a sign of either knowledge of the absolute truth, or pig-headedness, which applies to both equally) I say we stop here, since
It was nice chatting with you though. Even though I think you're absolutely bonkers
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
There are so many assumptions you've clearly never thought to question here. If you think the Bible has some sort of "authority", then good for you. Why do you expect me to believe it does as well?
Physics? As a Physicist, I'm not entirely sure how it's relevant here.
As an ex-physicist, it's simple - causality. The OT was written before Jesus was even born, therefore nothing Jesus did or said can have influenced it. (Absent time travel etc.) Equally and equivalently, nothing in the OT can provide any information about Jesus.
How about the sources based on eye-witness accounts
As a historian, I have to point out there are very large devils in the details you are glossing over here.
of him driving out the money changed from the temple and proclaiming that the OT was about him, that he was God and therefore acting in the OT and that judgement would later come?
Yes, you are right, that is some evidence for non-pacifist views. Driving out the money-changers was an aggressive act, surely. But that's only one incident - he wouldn't be the first person in history to apply their philosophy inconsistently. And claiming that he was the god of the OT is not explicitly the same as being non-pacifistic. We don't have any evidence, that I'm aware of, for Jesus' attitude to all the raping, pillaging, baby-killing, etc that the OT testament god condones. You can argue that he implicitly takes responsibility for those acts, and you might be right to do so, but you have to balance that with all the blessed are the meek, turning the other cheek, do unto others stuff which is not in the least warlike.
Anyway, I'm not really beholden to the theory that he was a pacifist - I do think the evidence points that way, but you've made some interesting points. My main concern was the unscientific and unhistorical evidence you posited.
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
So, every president in our 200+ year history has shared the belief system of the Bible?
That's a pretty interesting coincidence, don't you think?
Such as? You're in danger of making an assumption yourself.
It's only good if I'm right. And if I'm right, then it would be good for everyone else to trust in that authority. I believe in the authority because of the self-consistency, the relevancy, the the self-evident truthfulness and the historical reliability of the Bible.
If he was a man, that would be true, but the claim of the Bible is that he is God, who incarnated himself as a man in the NT. Take the book of Ezekiel for example. Ezekiel has visions of one 'like a son of man' which would be the pre-incarnation Jesus. Jesus is said in Colossians 1 and John 1 to have been responsible for creation.
It is if we see God being non-pacifistic in the OT. After all, God says that he doesn't change, therefore he would be no different in the NT.
Actually there's a lot of stuff in the OT (such as rape) that the Israelites carry out, but God doesn't condone. He doe, however, send the Israelites off to war. Given that Jesus is God, he condones that.
If A=B and A approves of C then B approves of C.
There is a difference between personal response to grievances and the response of the state. While we are asked to forgive sin and not seek vengeance on people, the state still has a responsibility towards doing justice and punishing criminals. Jesus says to turn the toher hcheek, but at the same time, we are told that state authorities do not carry the sword (symbolising authority to punish crime) without reason.
I enjoyed the discussion as well and I hope you will read and think about what I said. Investigate the evidence and see for yourself if I'm bonkers, or if what I've said is based on good foundations. You wouldn't be the first to investigate the evidence with a view to disproving Christianity, only to be converted. I may not be able to convince you, but I'm thoroughly convinced that God can. It's just a question of whether or not he will.
He's tried and gloriously failed for thirty years now. Still, I hear he's a persistent sort of chap, who knows what might happen?
Peace.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
It is never an issue of God failing because he never tries to do it. If he wants someone to be saved, they will be. If he doesn't, they won't. He isn't desperately trying to make friends with the whole world. No-one deserves to be saved and the Bible makes it clear that relatively few will be. It is his merciful love and power that results in even a few being saved and his righteous judgement that results in the rest being condemned. In both cases, God's plans succeed, so I have no concerns about him. By concern is for whether people are destined for salvation or condemnation. Both glorify God, but one is mroe preferable for the people concerned than the other.
Quite right - I assume that anyone who had ever approached Christianity with a critical, inquiring attitude - even if they ultimately concluded it was right - would have some tolerance for others who doubt it, rather than spout religious zealotry at them.
It's only good if I'm right. And if I'm right, then it would be good for everyone else to trust in that authority.
Fine, but how about demonstrating that authority rather than simply asserting it. If you are a physicist, then you ought to know the value of evidence.
I believe in the authority because of the self-consistency, the relevancy, the the self-evident truthfulness and the historical reliability of the Bible.
You've got to be joking. There are about a zillion places where the Bible contradicts itself. Whole chunks of the Bible are completely irrelevant to modern life (try Leviticus 15:19-30 on menstruation, for example, or all the advice on what to do about errant oxen at the end of Exodus 21). And if you think the Bible has been proven to be historically accurate - well, lucky you're not an historian then. Two of every species being preserved from a worldwide flood in Noah's ark? 600,000 Israelites wandering around the Sinai for 40 years? All the accounts of the kings and so forth are riddled with political and religous bias, just as one might expect from a historical document. It's just another historical source, no more authoritative than any other. In fact, less so.
Oh yes, nearly forgot: self-evident truthfulness! ROTFL. No, it's not self-evident. Really.
Given that Jesus is God, he condones that.
This is precisely what I was on about in my original post. If you want to convince a non-Christian of the truth of your argument that Jesus wasn't a pacifist, then you cannot assume "Jesus is God" as an initial premise - because I don't accept that as a premise. You'll need to argue it a different way. Is this really so difficult to understand?
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
I've seen those lists plenty of times. The lists are very badly put together as the authors have taken no time to use a more modern translation (they misinterpret some of the words from the KJV because language has changed in the last few centuries), do not bother to interpret passages in context, get the chronology wrong and always assume contradiction when there is a much more obvious explanation. E.g. if A was at a party last night and spoke to B, C and D, he might tell E the next day that he spoke to B at the party. F might report that A spoke to C and D. Both A and F are telling the truth, but may have reasons for only reporting certain details. The same thing happens all through the gospels.
All relevant in that they teach us things about God, us and our relationship with him.
The evidence I have seen suggests historical accuracy and there have been a great number of historians who agree. Historians, lawyers and reporters who have examined the evidence to prove Christianity wrong have been converted by it.
I don't have a problem with those events.
They are only biased in the sense that they report from the point of view of how faithful to God the people are.
The New Testament manuscripts date from much closer to the time they were authored, were authored closer to the events described and occur in much greater numbers than any other historical document from the period.
If you don't accept Jesus as God, then you're suddenly talking about a completely different person tot he Jesus of the Bible. If you don't accept Jesus as God, then there's little point in trying to convince you that he wasn't a pacifist and indeed, that argument pales into insignificance next to the consequences of not believing Jesus is God.
Why is it important to millions of Christians? Probably a stupid question, but I'd like to know. How would it explain why Christianity flourished? I'm fascinated by the Shroud because it is something important to millions of Christians and because it sheds light on the historical Jesus (if it is real) and it may help explain why Christianity flourished in our world.
You're right, many of the contradictions can be explained this way. But not all. OK, so did God create man before or after he created the animals?
All relevant in that they teach us things about God, us and our relationship with him.
This is completely circular. You say one of the reasons you believe in God is the relevancy of the Bible, but when I point out sections that are completely irrelevant to modern life, you say they are relevent because they teach us about God. So in fact you could only have been impressed by the "relevancy" of the Bible if you assumed it was true in the first place.
The evidence I have seen suggests historical accuracy and there have been a great number of historians who agree.
No, there haven't, at least not in modern times. I'm a historian (well, a history grad-student-to-be), remember, so give me references. Here's one for you: Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1992). The author is a Christian but doesn't let that blind him to seeing the Bible as a historical document like any other. It depends on what you mean by "historical accuracy", I guess. I'm not saying that the history in the Bible is wholly made up, but it's also clearly far from wholly true.
Historians, lawyers and reporters who have examined the evidence to prove Christianity wrong have been converted by it.
Oh, that old chestnut. Plenty of people have examined the evidence to prove Christianity right and found it completely lacking. So what? How about we set aside what other people think and look at the evidence for ourselves?
I don't have a problem with those events.
Then I respectfully submit that you go back and reread the Bible's account of them in the light of logic, science and history. Because there is no evidence outside of the Bible to suggest that these events happened (or are even possible), and plenty of evidence to suggest that they did not. Chapter 4 of Ian Plimer, Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism (Milsons Point: Random House Australia, 1994) brilliantly exposes the absurdities of Noah's Ark. It doesn't even begin to make logical sense - forget about all the science and history it contradicts. And there weren't even 600,000 people in all of Egypt at the time of Exodus, as far as we can tell - let alone were wandering around in the Sinai desert for 40 years, leaving no archeaological evidence behind. But ancient writers routined exaggerated or overestimated the sizes of armies and so forth, so historians are not too troubled by the 600,000 figure. You ought to be, though, if you think the Bible is inerrant.
They are only biased in the sense that they report from the point of view of how faithful to God the people are.
No, I said they were politically biased, and that is so, whatever else they may be. For example, Kings is probably based on court records, king lists, and the like, which served a political purpose. The power and wealth of Solomon is exagerated beyond all historical plausibility. And so on. It all suggests human authorship.
The New Testament manuscripts date from much closer to the time they were authored, were authored closer to the events described and occur in much greater numbers than any other historical document from the period.
This is plainly not true, unless (for example) you think that Julius Caesar didn't write an account of the Gallic wars. He was not only an eye
The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.