I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I have been a questioning Christian since I was sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on the other forums. I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:
The website, and webmaster, makes perfect SENSE...and there is no room left for ambiguity. Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end.
Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone...we need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. This website has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.
P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.
I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I have been a questioning Christian since I was sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on the other forums. I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:
The website, and webmaster, makes perfect SENSE...and there is no room left for ambiguity. Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end.
Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone...we need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. This website has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.
P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
It would mean that the entire Bible is false, CS Lewis said it best He is liar lunatic or Lord! He could not make the claims he did and be a good teacher.
The Bible is not only historically true; all archeologies discovered have proven the Bibles accuracy. Both people and places. No other book or writing of antiquity is even close to it… None!
The Bible gives us a definitive answer to how life began and how it will end. No other book is as complete as it is!
The Bible is consistent with out error from beginning OT to end NT. All with one purpose to bring man back to God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
The Bible is the book that gives you the only sure way to salvation, with out a doubt.
The Bible is the only book that tells us about the only religion that you don’t have to work your way to heaven.
We don't have to guess or hope or be in fear.
We rely on the power of the shed blood and His work on the Cross.
The is really no need to answer this question because Jesus rose from the dead, taken his entire body. For those that believe He never exsisted, there are historical roman records along with Jewish records of the cruxifiction and the real life Jesus of Nazareth. He was who He said He was.
Religion was ditorsioned long time ago by men. Jesus could be a just science fiction figure that never existed or maybe he was just a man with a vsision and strong words to manipulate the people, a discovery like that will show that he was just a man and not the son of god
THE WORST WAY OF CALLING NAME TO THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR:
When Christians say that Jesus(A.S) was His only BEGOTTEN and not MADE like Adam (A.S) or like all other creatures or creations?
What are you insinuating??? That God Almighty him self came down to perform the lowest form of animal act like any dog, donkey or monkey,i.e., sexual reproduction?
And on top of it Jesus(A.S) was His begotten son not ligitimate!!!!!!!!!!1
THAT IS THE WORST KIND OF ABUSE AND NAMING DIRECTED TOWARDS THE GOD ALMIGHTY!!
Well down you so called CHRISTIAN believers??
You are getting your rewards in this world and will definitely get infinitely here after!!!!!!
Christians, Jews, Atheists and Non Believers of the WORLD, and who ever are visiting these blogs:
Below link and all its attached links will
GIVE YOU THE ANSWSERS OF ALL
the mysteries, confusions, disbelieves, doubts and misconceptions about GOD AND TELL YOU ABOUT THE TRUTH WITH EVIDENCE USING THE TECHNIQUE OF
A man is trying a very unusual way to propose to his girlfriend. He wants people to forward an email to as many people as possible and he hopes that it will eventually get to his girlfriend. Details here: http://www.proposal-to-mary.com
Here is what he wants people to send by email:
You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary – it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-)
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!
For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember.
And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don't know - hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous…
From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her.
I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail).
Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary.
And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary's answer! I can't tell you, how nervous I am… Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world?
Please cross your fingers for me! And please - help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary.
And here is my proposal:
Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart.
My angel,
Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span.
The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still - of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride
No second with you was ever wasted
You are the sweetest I have ever tasted
We have spent so many years - why not a life?
Mary, will you marry me - and become my wife?
Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal…
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
And now, we return to today's "Lovely Talmud" episode. Enjoy!
A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave. Shabbath 86a-86b.
Besides the Talmud being a book promoting hate towards non-Jews, it also promotes violence and self torment on the Jews as well;
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Insults Against Mary the Jew, Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a who*e: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Mary the hairdresser," had s*x with many men.
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.
---------------------------------
De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
---------------------------------
Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823
The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
-------------------------------------
Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870
"The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force."
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
--------------------------------------------
Lane-Poole in 'Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad'
He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...
-------------------------------
Annie Besant in 'The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,' Madras, 1932.
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
-----------------------------------------
W.C. Taylor in 'The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects'
So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally.
Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)
"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."
Dr. Gustav Weil in 'History of the Islamic Peoples'
Muhammad was a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. His house, his dress, his food - they were characterized by a rare simplicity. So unpretentious was he that he would receive from his companions no special mark of reverence, nor would he accept any service from his slave which he could do for himself. He was accessible to all and at all times. He visited the sick and was full of sympathy for all. Unlimited was his benevolence and generosity as also was his anxious care for the welfare of the community.
Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.
"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.
"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.
"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen: all these and finally, his flight his incessant preaching, his wars against odds, his faith in his success and his superhuman security in misfortune, his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.
Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud
"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..."
"Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII
The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People":
O My GOD!!!
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Pain is a signal from our body that something is not right. It can be due to a physical injury, some kind of disease, or emotional upset.
Carisoprodol (Soma) is gentle pain relief treatment for back pain, headaches, fibromyalgia, migraines, neck pain, sciatica and other diseases.
Carisoprodol (Soma) is clinically proven methods to relieve pain.
For more information wisit our site: http://soma.rxparty.com/
i think jesus existed as a man... so if they found his remains they would be human. makes sense doesn't it? but..you would have to know his d.n.a., and thats the kicker..find some relatives and youll find out if you found jesus. so in other words..jesus could have been anybody. ya think?
i think jesus existed as a man... so if they found his remains they would be human. makes sense doesn't it? but..you would have to know his d.n.a., and thats the kicker..find some relatives and youll find out if you found jesus. so in other words..jesus could have been anybody. ya think?
The Qur'anic Account of Jesus' Ascent to God's Presence Examining the words used in the narratives relating how the Prophets died and the verses dealing with Jesus' ascent to God's presence reveals an important fact: Jesus did not die like the other prophets did, nor was he murdered by the unbelievers.
Rather, our Lord took him up to His presence.
In the case of Jesus, the Qur'an clearly states that he was not killed in any of those ways, for: "They did not kill him [wa ma qataloohu] and did not crucify him [wa ma salaboohu].
" God reveals that people were shown a look-alike and that Jesus was raised up to His presence, as follows: When God said: "Jesus, I will take you back [mutawaffeeka] and raise you up [wa raafi`uka] to Me and purify you of those who are unbelievers. And I will place the people who follow you above those who are unbelievers until the Day of Rising..." (Surah Al 'Imran, 3: 55)
The following are the ways in which the words referring to death in the Qur'an and the word tawaffa in Surah Al `Imran are used: (1) Tawaffa: To Cause To Die, To Take in One's Sleep, or To Take Back The word tawaffa used in Surah Al `Imran 3 and translated as "taking back" here and "causing to die" in some Qur'an translations, has various connotations.
The Qur'an describes his being taken back to God in the words that Jesus will say on the Day of Judgment: [Jesus said], "I said to them nothing but what You ordered me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' I was a witness against them as long as I remained among them, but when You took me back to You [tawaffa], You were the One watching over them. You are the Witness of all things." (Surat al-Ma'ida, 5:117)
there are three meanings to the term wafat which is from the same root as tawaffa:the wafat of death, the wafat of sleep, and last, the wafat of being raised up to God, as in the case of Jesus.
Like the other prophets, Jesus (pbuh) called upon his people to worship God, the One and Only, and to avoid all forms of denial, polytheism, and evil. Those who rejected him oppressed him ad his followers. However, their plot to kill him failed, even though they thought that they had succeeded, because God raised Jesus (pbuh) to His presence. As the Qur’an reveals and the hadith corroborate, Jesus (pbuh) will return to Earth.
Those who claim that he was killed or is dead are seriously mistaken. This is one of the author’s main focuses. While revealing this truth, the author recalls other very important tidings, such as the fact that the signs of Jesus’ (pbuh) second coming are becoming ever more apparent. If God wills, this event is close at hand, and the world will witness momentous events when it occurs.
GOD'S PROMISE: PROPHET JESUS (Pbuh) WILL RETURNThe lives of God's chosen Messengers contain many messages and lessons for all people, especially when we study their encounters, their troubles, and their great struggles. The Qur'an cites Jesus as an example for people to follow, because of how he conducted his life and his struggle, and because of his great virtue.
Jesus' birth, life, and ascension to God's presence are all miracles that the Qur'an reveals in some detail. Although God reveals the narratives of many Prophets, Jesus, whom God supported with superior wisdom, among them that he spoke even in the cradle, and that he was the vehicle for countless miracles while he was in this world. That his status is different also can be deduced from the fact that he was raised to God's presence and that the Qur'an indicates strongly his second coming.
The Qur'an reveals that the unbelievers devised a plot to take Jesus' life. According to some sources, a group of bigoted Jewish scribes and priests bribed Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples, to betray him, after which they would arrest Jesus and hand him over to the Romans. According to the same sources, the priests did not have the power to sentence someone to death and so had to make another plan to agitate the Roman regime.
Thus, they portrayed Jesus as being hostile to the Roman leadership, for the Romans were highly sensitive and ruthless when confronted with dissidents. But these priests failed, for the
Qur'an relates: They [unbelievers] planned and God planned. But God is the best of planners. (Surah Al 'Imran, 3:54)
As the verses reveal, they plotted and moved to kill Jesus. However, their plot failed and they ended up killing a look-alike.
During this event, God raised Jesus up to His presence: And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Messenger of God."
They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. God raised him to Himself. God is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat An-Nisa', 4:157-158)
Many people believe in the widespread assumption that the Romans crucified Jesus. The Roman soldiers and Jewish priests who arrested Jesus are said to have killed him on the cross. Although some historical Christian sects such as Docetism have denied this, today, the world of Christianity completely believes it, as well as that he was resurrected three days later and, after several brief meetings with his disciples and others, ascended into the heavens.
They are the leaders behind the leaders in the capitalistic and communistic worlds of the West and north.
It is the so-called Jew (synagogue of Satan?), who is behind most wars,..like...
WWI (ottoman empire destroyed so Israel could be, and the Belfour act instituted (which is totally illegal and inhumane).
WWII, Zionists fund Hitler, start war to destroy many semite germans, they sacrifice "lesser" brothers of darker skins, and institute the phony Holocaust of which no more then 200,000 Jews died (poland natives suffered far worse).
this gave the so-called jew the moral highground, after lying and propogating lies on the world called the "Jewish Holocaust" ITS A FRAUD.
NOW the so-called jews are up to it again. THey got AMerica into the Iraqi war, there tyring to get us into a war with Iran now.
If it wasn't for the zionist Jweish banker, life on earth would be alot better.
You don't have to worry about what we would say if Jesus Christ's remains were found. The ossuary, like the tomb, was empty. The analysis of mitochondrial DNA remnants from scrapings out of the empty ossuary was inconclusive of anything. The name of “Mary” were not quite right and had to be twisted into place, and was very common in First and Second centuries.
That silly program of James Cameron on the Discovery Channel about the "Tomb of Jesus" was so cheesy it was laughable. The statistics sited were bunk. No amount of bad dramatic music can make up for the lack of plausible evidence. There was a lot hand waving about the “Ossuary of James” having come from this tomb because it was of similar size. But the missing ossuary from this tomb was reported by the only competent archaeologist ever to handle it to be devoid of inscriptions at the time it was discovered in the. If that one is the “Ossuary of James” then the “James” inscriptions are the product of a Twentieth Century forger. If so, who knows what other mischief was wrought on the tomb and the other ossuaries? If it is not from this tomb, one of the key supports of the speculation is nullified.
Two people who should know, Amos Kloner, who originally excavated the tomb, and Joe Zias, former curator of archeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority are both very negative on this. Kloner told the Jerusalem Post that the documentary is "nonsense." Zias described it in an e-mail to The Washington Post as a "hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."
The specific question is: If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity? The key point of the question hinges on the term "definitively", which creates a misnomer within historical research.
It is historically impossible for the remains of Jesus to be "definitively" found. This is due to the simple fact that there is no comparative DNA with which one can make reliable decisions. The existence of such variables is what would "definitively" prove the historical reality of Jesus' remains. However, the non-existence of such variables definitively rules out the possibility of anyone ever finding the remains of Jesus--or anyone from the ancient world, for that matter.
Therefore, I have no fear about such evidence ever disproving my theological beliefs about Jesus.
TO MARC HALO; PER YOUR POSTING OF APRIL 6, I DONT KNOW HOW I MISSED IT BEFORE JUST NOW. YOUR HATRED BURNS IN YOUR WORDS. YOU CRY LIKE A DISRESPECTFUL, UNGREATFUL, SPOILED, BRAT WHO HATES EVERTHING AND EVERYBODY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING AND RULE EVERYBODY. I RECOGNIZE YOUR CHARACTER AND JEALOUSY AGAINST THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOR. I HAVE GOD'S WORD THAT SUCH REBELLION HAS BEEN A MISERY TO HEAVEN AND EARTH, EVER SINCE satan, THROUGH his ARROGANCE AND VANITY, DECIDED THAT THINGS WOULD BE BETTER, IF he WERE god, AND THINGS WERE DONE his WAY. TO KILL, STEAL, AND DESTROY IS satan's WAY. TO LOVE AND BE LOVED IS GOD'S WAY. I SEE YOU marc halo.
Thank God I don't have to worry about such a thing. Thank God, Christ has indeed risen from the dead and all that is left is an empty tomb.
I don't even take into consideration this "if" question.
While all religions could exist with if-s and can-s, Christianity is built upon the Birth, Death and Resurrection of Christ. There can be no if-s and no question marks in between. There is only certainty in the story of Christ. Praise be to God the Father for sending us His Son Jesus Christ, whom He revealed to us through His Spirit.
Interesting proposal. In the cloudy the haze of religion that question does still haunt me. Who was this guy? If jesus' tomb was discovered today, it would not change my thoughts on his magical powers. However, if this discovery led to other evidence, I would be inclined to wonder.
Interesting proposal. In the cloudy the haze of religion that question does still haunt me. Who was this guy? If jesus' tomb was discovered today, it would not change my thoughts on his magical powers. However, if this discovery led to other evidence, I would be inclined to wonder.
so many people ,so hateful toward christianity that it's sad and humorous at the same time.I've been a christian for years and it's amazing how many people become angry the very second that they find out that i'm a christian..wanting to argue and all..the bible explains there will be a day when most will hate me for his namesake even though i haven't done anything against them. anyway,my life is tanfastic.i love it.that's the way god planned it.i have no argument with people who only want to belittle my faith or me because of my faith.speaking to people like is like throwing pearls to the swine only to be trampled on.so to you people who only speak of christianity in order to trample on it,even christ compared you to swine who only care enough about his words enough to trample on them.So take your miserable lives and argue with other hate mongers.i'm happy and content. i don't have any use for trouble makers like you. so there..neener neeener neeener!! hehehehe...think that's not a christian attitude? you're wrong.jesus didn't instruct christians to be nice -itty nice to the point of accepting humiliation.non christians however just love to hold it against a christian if he/she becomes defensive in an equally aggresive manor. to those monkey buttoxes,i say, go defrock a camel or something ...athiests seem to get so emotionally beside themselves when someone even insinuates that there's a creator. oh well...this is why i don't hang with non-believers,just like athiests probably shouldn't hang with believers. athiests leave christians alone and they'll leave u alone. anyway..havva nice day! and don't forget to pray
The resurrection was not some kind of conjuring trick with bones. It did not take place within the limitations of space and time. It is ultimately Mystery and must be so approached. The New Testament goes to great lengths to show that the risen JESUS was truly ALIVE but in a totally different way. Through the resurrection a whole new energy for transformation and the power of the unfolding love of God was unleashed upon the world in an extraordinary manner.
If they found the remains of Jesus of Nazareth in some remote cave or tomb - it would matter little to me. From that first Easter forward, Jesus has been with us in an entirely new way - a transcendant, mystical presence pervading the whole of reality.
The resurrection was not some kind of conjuring trick with bones. It did not take place within the limitations of space and time. It is ultimately Mystery and must be so approached. The New Testament goes to great lengths to show that the risen JESUS was truly ALIVE but in a totally different way. Through the resurrection a whole new energy for transformation and the power of the unfolding love of God was unleashed upon the world in an extraordinary manner.
If they found the remains of Jesus of Nazareth in some remote cave or tomb - it would matter little to me. From that first Easter forward, Jesus has been with us in an entirely new way - a transcendant, mystical presence pervading the whole of reality.
To China Man:
You have asked a reasonable, good question. Please understand that many, many Americans wish for peaceful, diplomatic solutions to worldwide problems of hate, mistrust, injustice, and prejudice. Decisions made by leaders of the United States definitely do not reflect the decision that would be made by each American if he were in the shoes of those leaders. Thank you for expressing a sincere interest in reaching peaceful rather than conflict-based resolutions to these complex problems.
I understood what China man said. I just can't believe he wanted to degrade America. Japan. Remember pearl harbor? Sure The U.S. dropped the bomb that ended the war, but the U.S. also was instrumental in rebuilding Japan and bringing that country to the status that it enjoys today.
Jesus is in heaven that is ageed by all. It means he died or taken bodily to heaven or just disappeared or he never existed but a fiction whatever he is in heaven. Why need to discuss this issue on Earth about somebody in the heaven, we have enough problem on Earth to talk about.
Lets talk about the recent mass killing by Americans in Iraq over 600,000 based on lie and over 2 million during World war 2 in Japan by nuke bomb of innocents. This is a peaceful world except America we are far better place to live. They blame all to Muslims but they killed only 3000 in NY, who is bigger evil, do some math and talk about world problems today not Jesus in heaven or his bons, it is not going to cure human problems of injustice, ignorance, prejudice, hate. Ameen.
I think the way one answers this question demonstrates what they think of Jesus. If one believes He is the risen Lord, His remains would eliminate that possiblility. If one thinks that He was a good teacher and nothing more, the question is pointless.
They didn't have artificial insemination back then. Not like Mary could go to a doctor and say, give me something nobody else has. The Bible isn't the Truth. It is literature. It's not a history book.
To Maya;
So you can't believe that a virgin can be impregnated. Ever hear of artificial insemination?
In Genesis where it is translated that GOD created Eve from Adam's rib. Should have been translated that God created Eve from Adam's "curve". This curve refers to the Helix curve. The helix curve is that part of the human DNA strand that contains all the genetic material that determines the feminine gender.
GOD is the creator of science.
The whole story about Jesus is so stupid, full of conrtadictions and some really redicilous things (like the immaculate conception)that no person in their right mind would ever believe it if they hadn't been brainwashed into believing it when they were children. I am happy that I was brought up as an atheist. Every religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is meant to make people dependent, easily manipulated and last but not least to enrich the clergy. To say nothing of the ignorance and hypocrisy typical of the church, its preachings and practice.I can't help pitying anyone who is a "true believer".
The whole story about Jesus is so stupid, full of conrtadictions and some really redicilous things (like the immaculate conception)that no person in their right mind would ever believe it if they hadn't been brainwashed into believing it when they were children. I am happy that I was brought up as an atheist. Every religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is meant to make people dependent, easily manipulated and last but not least to enrich the clergy. To say nothing of the ignorance and hypocrisy typical of the church, its preachings and practice.I can't help pitying anyone who is a "true believer".
Come on now - how would anyone possibly know if it was Christ's remains to begin with? It's a silly question but just say Christ's remains were positively identified, I say "So What?" Resurrection should be by the spirit anyway not bodily. I know that is not biblical, but folks we really have to think for ourselves some times. Even if Christ rose from the dead as an apparition somehow and then followers DID hide his boy, he would still have arose. I'm not a theologian as you can easily tell, but there is such a thing as believing biblical truth without believing the bible literally.
Thank you for your excellent posting. If possible, could you share your views on the trinitarian God, and how this might be prefigured in Hinduism (Vishnu, Shiva...).
this is from the 'tomb of jesus' post on the guest panelists site-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"According to a new Discovery Channel documentary and a companion book, a tomb unearthed in the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980 contains the bones of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Judah, son of Jesus."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i was thinking someone would have brought up this topic,but it seems to have concentrated on the 'resurrection' aspect.
as nothing is proven, this is all conjecture-the question itself is positing a purely conjectural premise.
so the second part of the question seems to be, how would it affect your belief system if it was discovered that Jesus(ata) had a wife and child?
some of his disciples were married men- he encouraged his followers to imitate is way(which was celibacy) which is why we have nuns and priests, would it dramatically change your perception of his mission to discover he lived as a householder and family man?
Katie; To find the very first passover Read EXODUS;12 verses 1-14. Also riddle me this, IF the church allowed pagan rituals to be practiced, in the church, by the converts, who converted who? Is it not written that GOD turned HIS face from Israel, because Israel turned from GOD and followed the rituals of false gods.
jesus was mostly a "human" who made himself a martyr to promote his beliefs, but he was also a good talker who could hustle free food and lodging by just telling listeners what they wanted to here. bible authors have taken ordinary events and put the ol' religious spin on them. religion sells good because people don't like reality; where "everyone and everything" has a beginning, a time of existance, and an ending. our distaste for that is why over time we have dreamed and conjured up all the different beliefs we have today.
man is still ignorant and child-like from centuries of church/religious constraint of free thinking, despite the information age of recent years, and is still engaged with management by disaster. think about it, ever since humans came on the scene, we have had absolutely no regard for our planet or all the other life forms we share this planet with, and religion gets most of the blame for setting humans up above everything else.
we are small, insignificant short-timers in the big scheme of things. we require a very narrow temperature, pressure, atmosphere, radiation, and gravity band, where little change in any of them will kill us.
humanity's end will come from our continued tech advances without the balance of broad range knowledge and understanding of our natural world. differences in our beliefs also push individuals into teaching aggression and hate, and starting wars. we should be teaching sharing, caring and respect for all, but the underlying biproduct of religion has been promotion of self-centeredness and self-righteousness by the placement of humans on a pedestal.
we entered our final phase with the development of the atomic bomb. with proliferation, we edge ever closer to the day when someone will push the first button, and it is being aided by religion and people who choose not to see.
in honor of our christian friends, i have laways loved this poem-
Saint Francis's Prayer for Peace!
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
Where there is hatred, let me sow love:
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not
So much seek to be consoled
As to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born
to eternal life.
A belated Happy Easter to all from breathtakingly beautiful Sydney in Australia! Jesus Christ is risen, Alleluia! Personally of course I think it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Easter in our hearts everyday, so for me today is just as much Easter as it was on Easter Sunday, so it is not belated Easter wishes after all. :-)
As to the question: “If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?”
First of all, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:
1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?
2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!
3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)
4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.
5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.
Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, is risen! Alleluia!
Chip argues: " That ship sailed two thousand years ago, and all it left behind was some contradictory hearsay evidence. That's surprising when you consider that it was not only supposed to be the most important event in all of history but was arranged by the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Why then only let a few people see it, and then let most of them get killed? It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless those people invented the story in the first place."
Except for your last sentence your point is excelllent and I have thought about it before myself. Then I thought: God is also a master publicist. Had he left concrete irrefutable evidence, surely no one would have believed, being as we are. In the way He has done it...one must search, ponder, discern, eventually surrender or not surrender... and He decides the when the who and the how.
In the meantime, he has left not a few a people wondering.
As per most contemporary NT scholars, the "miracles" of raising Lazarus (John 11:41-44) and the shift changing of water (John 2: 1-11) are both embellishments to create the aura of deity around Jesus. Note that both stories only appear in John's gospel.
"John P. Meier
Meier discusses this epidose at some length [Marginal Jew II,934-50], before concluding:
In sum, when one adds these historical difficulties to the massive amount of Johannine literary and theological traits permeating the whole story, it is difficult to identify any "historical kernel" or "core event" that might have a claim to go back to the historical Jesus. Put another way: if we subtract from the eleven verses of the first Cana miracle every element that is likely to have come from the creative mind of John or his Johannine "school" and every element that raises historical problems, the entire pericope vanishes before our eyes. Many critics would assign the origin of the story to the Johannine "school" or "circle" lying behind the Gospel. I prefer the view that the story is a creation of the Evangelist himself, using a number of traditional themes. (p. 949)"
Kate wrote:
"According to 1 Corinthians 15:35 (in a nutshell, go read it at Bible.com for your own reference), the resurrection body is not at all a perishable, physical body. It is a spiritual, eternal body. This leaves little doubt that the bones of Christ, his battered flesh, and his physical organs never actually re-animated. But instead, his spirit rose and walked the Earth. And just as He turned water to wine and resurrected Lazarus, Jesus, as a devine being, manifested His physical appearance so that people would be able to see exactly what had happened to Him in the Resurrection, and more importantly, what He did for all mankind."
So when Jesus allowed Thomas to put his fingers in his wounds, he was deceiving Thomas?
There were times in my life I could not walk and I'm doing fine now. I know the air did not heal me. So stop playing your question games on Christianity. God is all that and then some. You on the other hand, need to back off. Who failed you, God noever failed me.
Only someone who never experieinced the life-changing power of God could ask such a stupid question. You liberal newsmen should stick to what you do best: berating Christians and making it look like we have our faith in some fantasy. That's when you're a fish in water. Cynicism is you life blood.
the originator.
every body came on this planet earth and it was in existing already,no body was there when the originator created it ,no body was there to claim any share or right or patent or authority or ownership or knoweldge,none at all.
every body droping from his mother womb bare back bare head bare feet,no teeth,slopy mouth,running nose,canot even stand on the feet,yet when he grow up a little,he ask does god exist,what is the proof?
the logical starting point of observation should be how magnificent this creation and how great the creator .
next logical and ethical starting point is what i,m doing here and what is next .
the originator who created this magnificent universe is not dump nor blind nor deaf he speaks,he hears,he sees ,his word is part of him,he is great and his word is great,he is beuatiful and his word is beuatiful.
those who do not know their creator are realy missing it.
to those who love jesus ,let them not forget his originator who is worthy of all whorship.
Firstly, I must negate an earlier statement confusing Passover with the Resurrection we celebrate as Easter. Passover existed before the Resurrection, and was widely celebrated as a cleansing and sacrificial holiday that marked being rewarded for adherence to instruction from and faithfulness to God. Easter (bunnies, eggs, etc...) does have many pagan roots, however the early Christian church, possibly in order to gain converts, allowed newly Christian former-pagans to continue their rituals. Why - maybe in hopes the message of the Gospel would eventually turn them.
Now, more on-topic and to the point of the question posed: If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
According to 1 Corinthians 15:35 (in a nutshell, go read it at Bible.com for your own reference), the resurrection body is not at all a perishable, physical body. It is a spiritual, eternal body. This leaves little doubt that the bones of Christ, his battered flesh, and his physical organs never actually re-animated. But instead, his spirit rose and walked the Earth. And just as He turned water to wine and resurrected Lazarus, Jesus, as a devine being, manifested His physical appearance so that people would be able to see exactly what had happened to Him in the Resurrection, and more importantly, what He did for all mankind.
Furthermore, the inability to materialistcally disprove His existance over the course of scientific development and historical development, although it may not prove His existance, does call into question the ability to prove that any remains found were ever actually Jesus Christ. How can science say He didn't exist and then go on to say - "but here are His bones"? Perhaps that is why there is this discovery at all. To negate all previous scientific "fact" about Jesus Christ. To finally bring the proof pudding for the truth of the Bible.
Every scientific 'discovery' has its reason in the Bible and the uncovering of the physical body of Christ would not negate Christianity according to its rule book, the Bible, in Corinthians, but would in fact further inforce the validity of the Bible.
between the innings they argued about jesus, and christian friends chided him for not believing in resurrection,the insisted that jesus was 1 of god's chosen messengers but human like us .
Viejita del oeste wrote:
"As a Christian I must admit that our beliefs are based in mythology just like any of the canons we reject. That's really the point of the answers that bother you. Rather than observing a set of facts, faith is a process of accepting a set of stories. By the way, Christians don't all confuse science and faith."
Yes, that is the point of the answers that bothers me. Accepting stories as facts is not a reliable way to arrive at the truth. This has been proven numerous times when science has proved the church wrong. Faith has a very poor track record as a means of distinguishing fact from fiction.
I'm glad not all Christians confuse science and faith. Please tell that to the Christians promoting ID. It's a deceptive and underhanded way to subvert science education.
Whether this new site discovered is the actual burial place of Jesus or not matters little. His genuine burial site is in the area somewhere and may never be found. For the resurrection theory to be accepted the tomb had to be found empty.It was and the church had its life after death eternal myth enshrined as gospel. The Tomb was empty, but dig up any tomb or grave today and you will find the bones of the deceased where the body was placed. The religion explains this because it's only the soul that makes the crossing to the life after death. So Jesus went first class. The congregations left behind travel by soul express. No Doctor or Medical examiner has ever been able to detect or dissect this vital soul.For me it's buried and in time become fertilizer.
Realist
As a Christian I must admit that our beliefs are based in mythology just like any of the canons we reject. That's really the point of the answers that bother you. Rather than observing a set of facts, faith is a process of accepting a set of stories. By the way, Christians don't all confuse science and faith.
Recently I heard a comment repeated, the original was supposed to be from a Catholic priest: "I must believe in Hell because it is official church dogma, but I don't believe there is anyone there."
I'm beginning to lose interest in this whole enterprise. There have been some interesting and thought-provoking comments, and I have come to terms with the shallow analysis of many of the official columnists because there are always a few gems. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any moderating going on at all. Several of the posters seem to be in the habit of writing one lengthy commentary on each question and then just copying and pasting it on every thread. Those who seek a real debate or even conversation are drowned out by all the one trick ponies who assume their faith (including atheism) is the only option and seem to think that if they repeat the same arguments enough times we will all see the light they are looking at instead of the whatever is shining into our own windows.
Offensive? A little. Boring? You bet!
..And that's not even going into embarrassment of the Mary Magdalene porn post.
Don't people find it rather odd that many responses to the question have been something like: "I don't care about any physical evidence either way; I still believe in the resurrection because it means something to me."?
I find it incredible that people can just blatanty state that they don't care what actual evidence there is. They just prefer to go on believing in myths written in old books without any regard for whether they actually correspond to any kind of reality or not.
Another common theme on this forum is something like: "I believe in Christianity because it makes sense to me".
I was raised as a Christian, but I stopped being a Christian because it just makes no sense to me at all. Why does God have to sacrifice his son to himself to convince himself to forgive us for not living up to standards that he set knowing full-well we would not be able to live up to them anyway? That's psychotic! I can't think of any other way to describe it. I can't understand how people can twist their minds so much that it can actually seem sensible.
What makes it worse is that this God who supposedly loves all of us equally, created a wonderful place called "hell" for most of us to go to when we die. It gets worse than that. The critera for avoiding hell does not depend on how useful our lives have been or how much we have helped others or even how good our intentions were. It's based on whether or not we believe a myth for which there is virtually no evidence whatsoever. How does that make any kind of sense? How is that a sensible basis for morality?
To anonymous, I am familiar with the work you referenced, and disagree with the premise. Reimarus attempted to correlate those specific historical events with, what was then, "modern" economic calculations. Historically, it has been "accepted as fact" that Joshua and His Disciples took a vow of poverty, therefore, would not have been inclined toward financial gain, for what it's worth.
Anonyomous writes "Has the resurrection been determined as impossible, a priori, by a world view that has yet to explain anything about what is fundamental?"
Not being able to definitively disprove something doesn't add any points in favor of it being true, and using the fact that we don't know everything as a justification for just deciding to believe something without evidence isn't a particularly good idea. You could fill in the blanks with absolutely anything that meets the same standard of evidence. That would require you to consider the pagan, Greek, Norse, and all the other ancient myths as equally likely to be true. My guess is that instead you consider just about all of them to be most likely untrue. On what basis do you make an exception for the resurrection?
"What then would be acceptable as 'proof' of the resurrection?"
There's little chance of any acceptable proof ever materializing. That ship sailed two thousand years ago, and all it left behind was some contradictory hearsay evidence. That's surprising when you consider that it was not only supposed to be the most important event in all of history but was arranged by the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Why then only let a few people see it, and then let most of them get killed? It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless those people invented the story in the first place.
If god really wanted everyone to know and believe wouldn't he have come up with a more effective marketing plan? Instead he crucifies his son in front of a tiny group of people who represent only the most incredibly minuscule percentage of the people alive in the world at the time. Did god not want anyone else to know first hand or were the bible authors blissfully unaware that the world was actually a very big place? God could have used his powers to inform everyone on the planet at the same time with explicit information and instructions. That would make sense unless perhaps the bible authors imagined this great task for themselves as a form of self-aggrandizement?
You can argue that god gave us all freewill and doesn't control us, but doesn't he control everything else? He'd already set a precedent of communicating important things through shrubbery and no doubt at that time every concentration of humans on earth had trees or bushes nearby. Would he really have chosen to have his son nailed to a cross over some other infinitely more efficient and less bloody method of getting the message across, or were perhaps the originators of the story trying to justify the horrible death of their leader without it messing up the aforementioned self-aggrandizement?
Everything about the story, how it unfolded, how it spread, and the scant evidence left behind, speaks of purely human origins among a group of revolutionaries who fancied themselves chosen by their god to overturn the prevailing politics of their day, and nothing else, except perhaps an incredibly capricious god who's the very model of inefficiency.
daniel- it was never my intention to defend islam-
i was simply responding to your misunderstanding
of what you thought was islams rejection of science. you were confusing catholicisms treatment of scientists in the middle ages and i was pointing out that islam has a different respect for science.
as you see islam is very science friendly.
thats all. that was the only point. like i said, maybe youll like it, maybe you wont.
i just made a small effort on your behalf-
its okay if you dont like it. i made no claims that arent true. it not a competition, all of mankind benefits from science.
Bluedog, you say, “Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity. For me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.”
You make it sound so high minded and logical, but another way of looking at it is that it’s a case for taking out an insurance policy for heaven -- assuming that Jesus wouldn’t see through it, or wouldn’t care that people are simply weighing the options: “ Let’s see, eternal life or eternal hellfire, hmmm. All I have to do is say I believe? Ok, sure, I believe!”
Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity.
You noted: "Therefore, as Christ was exceptional in life, He was also exceptional in death, and his existence "in parallel" was able to be observed by his Disciples."
Hmmm, his disciples took for the hills when he was arrested.
Here is one observation:
Money and the Church go back to the beginning according to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
Finding the remains of Jesus would have no effect at all upon Christianity, for, the Risen Jesus was the essence of that part of the man that was of God. Consider that the idea of parallel universes is a misnomer, for, the concept of Universe dictates that there exists only one. Consider, however, that there exists parellel planes of existence within the Universe, and, that we exist within both the tangible, secular, Universe as well as a parallel plane which is totally dominated by God. A human being is the conjunction of these planes of existence, meaning, there exists something of God within all humans. Evil is a secular invention, consistant with the thought processes of our minds, and does not exixst within the spiritual plane of existence, which we know if we have reasoned the Twenty-third Psalm to it's ultimate conclusion. Therefore, as Christ was exceptional in life, He was also exceptional in death, and his existence "in parallel" was able to be observed by his Disciples. If His human remains have been found, then, they should be considered to be Holy, and treated accordingly, but, have no effect of anyone's acquescense to God.
As noted by Aquinas, Heaven is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bones there or bodies to include the theological glorified body. So where are the bones? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus very possibly would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
Actually Professor Crossan spends little time analyzing the question about glorified bodies since the physical Ascension, according to his analyses and those of many Catholic universitiy theologians, did not take place nor did the apparitions. See his book, The Historical Jesus.
In his book, In Search of Paul p. 343, Crossan did address 1 Cor 15: 44-45, "When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. "
As noted by Professor Crossan, even with no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.
Some interesting thoughts here for sure; they seem to be all over the board explaining Christ’s life and death. This is where it is interesting to me to look at the harmony of not only the Gospels, but of the entire Bible. Yes, the discovery of Jesus, the Son of God, would absolutely annihilate the Christian faith, for it is his resurrection in triumph over sin and death that is the entire story of the Bible. As described throughout Biblical history, sin was atoned through the sacrifice of perfect lambs before God. The sacrifice of the “Perfect Lamb” once and for all atoned for sin. His resurrection is the triumph over that death from sin. If it did not occur, then the Bible is a book about nothing.
Thank God it did occur, and I can say without hesitation, that the true body of the risen Christ will never be found, because it is not here on earth. If I sound sure, it is because of the peace I have in my heart, that the more I read and study, the more convinced I am. But, let’s consider for a moment that many of you are right; what is there after we die, nothing? We just go to sleep and rot? Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity.
Robert R,
The Muslim fast is not a real fast but a feast. It's merely a displaced diet. When I was growing up, we used to get up at 5.00 am and feast like crazy before the sun comes up. Then 'fast' until sunset, and then gorge ourselves again. Many Muslim actually put on weight during Ramadan, believe it or not.
It's the no liquid intake that's the hardest but there are ways around it. In the old days before air conditioners I imagine it would be the hardest but today if you keep cool you won't feel so thirsty.
Christians have no need to harbor the fear that the remains of their Savior will be discovered and thus negate the cornerstone of their religious delusions. The remains of Jesus will never be found... but not for the reason that Christians think. Jesus is not 'risen'... he was not 'resurrected'. It is most likely he never even existed at all... even as a simple carpenter. He was (and still is) a myth, just like the objects of the other "Salvation Cults' of the day, such as Mithras, Osiris, Attis, and Adonis.
Early Christians, such as Paul, had no inkling of the idea that Jesus ever existed as an actual human person who lived in the recent past. In all of the genuine (not forged) writings of Paul, there are only two references to events that can even be interpreted as having taken place on the human plane of existence, absent the mental contamination that comes from having read the Gospels, and interpreting them in that light. Paul omits essentially ALL (two exceptions) of the details of the supposed 'life' of Jesus that are 'revealed' in the Gospels. Pretty odd, huh?
It is most likely that as early Christian missionaries came into contact with pagans, "spreading the word", that they gradually became aware that the people they were addressing were interpreting their message as a story about an actual person... not someone who figuratively and metaphorically existed (and had existed) only in imaginary spiritual realms. So, they figured... why fight it? These boneheads are swallowing this fable hook-line-and-sinker, in a way that we never anticipated. We need to build off this unexpected success by developing some real, heavy-duty marketing materials.
Thus... the Gospels.
Mark was the 'first-draft', written near the end of the 1st century. Fair outline, but sketchy on details.
Matthew and Luke, probably written shortly after the beginning of the 2nd century, were competing 'second-drafts', written using Mark as a template, expanding on the Mark outline and creating scenarios in which to incorporate 'sayings of Jesus', which were actually a Judaized version of snippets of 'wisdom' from the Greek 'cynic' school of philosophy, written down in the supposed 'Q-document' (look up 'Synoptic Gospels'). They were both tried out 'in the field', to see which one was received better. Unfortunately, both drafts escaped 'into the wild'. (You can't un-ring a bell.)
John... who the heck knows where John came from. Probably some mid-2nd century intellectual who just thought that he could do a much better job spinning a yarn, than the authors of the amateurish tripe that was presently in circulation.
The existence of FOUR Gospels (rather than just one) is consequence of the fact that there was no mechanism in place for recalling and suppressing earlier versions of their marketing materials. So, over the centuries, Christian apologists have made a career out of trying to explain-away the glaring discrepancies.
Oh... by the way... the details of the supposed 'life' of Jesus, as described in the Bible, add up to no more than 3-weeks coverage (not counting the 40-days in the wilderness).
So... nobody is ever going to find Jesus' body... just like nobody is going to find the bodies of Mithras, Osiris, Attis or Adonis. The reason is very simple... they just never existed.
To Victoria from Daniel. Victoria, I have reading over the sites you gave me. I was particularly taken by the one which locates so many Western accomplishments with Islam that properly speaking we should declare the scientific revolution to have occurred in the Islamic world. But if so many Islamic scholars did usher in so many scientific accomplishments this raises many grave questions. First is why for all the accomplishments did the West take to science and rapidly surpass the Islamic world. The second is why for all science in the West has the West been lying about the origins of so much science. Third, if the site you offer is true we can declare that not only was the scientific revolution evident in the Islamic world, it was rapidly aborted--and in fact the scientific revolution has not really been born in the West either because the West has no real history of the scientific revolution to speak of--certainly does not recognize to what extent the Islamic world brought forth the sciences. According to the site you gave me virtually all Copernicus, Kepler, Harvey, Galileo and Boyle were already discovered by Islamic scholars (or enough to shift the scientific revolution to the Islamic world). That credits Islam but raises why Islam has declined scientifically compared to the West. It raises the question of whether the religion of Islam had something to do with it. Furthermore--and once again--we have to ask if even in the West the scientific revolution has definitively been established. What does it mean if the West has not been crediting Islamic scholars? Answer: it cannot even be scientific about the grounds of science, therefore...
Essentially what you have done Victoria is not defend Islam with regard to science but call it into question all the more--and call into question the security of science in the Western world all the more. Over the whole in general what we seem to have is abysmal ignorance concerning so many scientific accomplishments before our very eyes and therefore we can speak of no real respect for science yet in the world.
Daniel to Victoria. If what you posted (those links you gave) are true--especially the cyberistan site--then it can be said there is no science in the West at all because the West has not at all been honest about the origins of scientific accomplishment. How do you reconcile the scientific accomplishments of the West with a dishonesty most unscientific about origins? A Christian hatred of Islam? This is most interesting. What we have here is an argument about the history of science. I am reading a book right now by one Floris Cohen on the history of science and so far through the book little of the scientific revolution had to do with the Islamic world. I have to finish the book though. But simply proceeding from what you have given, a big question presents itself: If so much of science was invented in the Islamic world--in fact so much according to one of the sites you gave that we should speak of the scientific revolution occurring there--then what happened, why is the West so much more scientifically advanced and why has the Islamic world declined scientifically? If the Islamic world invented so much science and now finds itself where it is that is of major importance to the Western world (and of course the Islamic). It means something of the scientific revolution took hold in the Islamic world but that it did not hold (like it was born to a degree in Greece and China and India but did not take hold). It makes us ask if for all science in the West whether there will be a decline. But to answer these questions we really need an in depth study of the relationship of science in the Islamic world to the West--essentially exact determinates of science in all previous civilizations and current ones as well.
The facts about Mohammed negate any discussion of the science and religion of Islam i.e.
Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
Daniel to Victoria. Perhaps I can give no greater proof Victoria that I am not denigrating Islam than to say that when Mo writes (the Mo who posted a few posts back and often posts) I listen. In fact someone such as Mo makes me really wonder if I should turn completely from science etc. to religion. In short Mo makes me wonder, he gives me something to think about. Mo has a gift and he obviously thinks it comes from God. And that he thinks so and that it is so evident makes me wonder if...In short the problem with religion these days in respect to science (among other problems) is that the wonder has gone out of it and is being supplanted by science. Instead of religion bombing people or haranguing or persecuting, etc. it should take the example of Mo and inspire, make people wonder. I want to read the book of Mo and not listen to nonsense and have people trying force me into this or that. I want to read the book of Mo at home quietly and try to reconcile someone like Mo with the most scientific minds and somehow find God or science or whatever out of that...This is something of my meeting of science with religion....
Daniel to Victoria. Preposterous response Victoria and totally expected. Perhaps you can give me an honest appraisal of Islam with respect to science but I sincerely doubt you are capable of such a thing. Denigrating your religion? I wish Islam were in good stead with science--it would take a lot of worry off my mind. Typical you and Muslims in general turning everything into an attack on your religion. And then you say "no good deed goes unpunished" trying to frighten me along the lines of the Koran's suras (God watches over everything! God sees all you do!). Preposterous. Totally preposterous. If you are a moderate Muslim Victoria there will no doubt be increasing clashes between not only the Islamic world and the West but the Islamic world and Russia and the Far East. I have nothing more to say to you. There is nothing to be said. Except perhaps that I would not be possible in the Islamic world--nor any number of other Western or Far Eastern men and women for that matter. But everything is a denigration of Islam in your words....Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what is not a denigration of Islam.
the scientific delusion.
the s delusion was not only epademic to 21 century but was way back since the time of noah,
the realistic evidence that noah was presenting to mankind back then is just look around you and see for your self that this world has maker.the scientific mentality of the disbelivers of noah was deluded and washed away by the mass deluge.
jesus son of marry came to mankind saying the same message of noah , he was scientific miracle himself(by the leave of his creator and master),his chaste virgin mother conceived and carryied and delivered him with no father.he spoke while in the cradle and said i,am a servant and messenger of ALLAH so worship him alone.yet the scentific mentality delusional worked its way ,the logic and drama of the delusion,here we go we have the son of god right here in front of our eyes we can see him, talk to him, tape measure him ,digitalize and micrprocessrize his brain and body ,traceing his DNA to the father .too much drama .the scientific delusion of the son of god period (whether they found his remnant or not )and the scientific delusion of the evolution are no more no less than the the scientific delusion of man period in his scientific attempt and approach in traceing and proveing god.
to come out of the scientific coma ,people need to wake up drink some hi cafenated coffe say bismilah take scientific tour in the sun shine of the environement, while on tour carry the book of science on one shoulder and the book of the creator lord on the other shoulder.
daniel- as i responded because you misunderstood islams relation to science- and thought that saying science has a monopoly on facts (which is an excellent and positive statement)
and religion has a monopoly on truth (which is another excellent observation which in no way conflicts with or takes anything away from science)
it is hardly seemly for you to repay my responsiveness with a long denigration of my religion.
my grandmother used to say,'no good deed goes unpunished'
Daniel to Victoria. Sorry Victoria, I disagree with your understanding of the relationship between Islam and science. Regardless of what advances Islamic peoples made on the Greeks--and Islamic peoples are generally considered to have preserved a portion of the classical world and to have been "next in line"--they really contributed little and are not at all considered to have made a scientific revolution such as occured in the Western world (Copernicus, Renaissance humanists, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Gilbert, etc.). In fact the works of the latter people never took hold in the Islamic world--the scientific revolution had no effect and still has no effect worth speaking of. Quite simply for all your belief in some sort of compatibility of Islam with science, it was not the Islamic world that truly became scientific--it was the Western world. What I find even more disturbing about the Islamic world is that Islam was the dividing line between the Western world and China. You would think that of all places it would be Islam to benefit from the advances of both China and the West (printing and gunpowder which existed in China, etc.). But no, All the advances from China passed into the Western world and were utilized while Islam simply remained Islam. Gradually of course Western innovations have made their way back into China but Islam still remains Islam. And I foresee China and the West continuing to advance and Islam still remaining Islam--except of course Islam trying to acquire weapons in the name of Islam. Islam is a real puzzle in fact. India offered much in the way of mathematics etc. China offered much. The classical world offered much. But Islam had its high point back in the 12th century. And here we are today with China, India and the West modernizing but Islam is still Islam....
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
__________________
Answer: Then Christianity itself would be a dead man's religion. As Paul himself noted in his letter to the Corinthians, if Jesus is still dead, and we're (believers in Christ) still in our sin, then "we are all of men the most miserable" (1 Cor 15:19). Without a real, physical resurrection from the dead, Christianity is worthless. It would make Jesus about as relevant as any other moral scholar who has lived and died over the ages. He did not come primarily to teach and to be an example, he came first and foremost to die and to rise as our substitute, our atoning sacrifice on the cross.
I would be interested to know Mr. Meachem's answer to his own poll question actually...
daniel- i understand your perspective- but i also understand that you are making a major assumption in this case which isnt true-
you are assuming that islam is like catholicism in its attitude towards science.
nothing could be further from the truth, the first university in the world, some of the first sciences were developed by muslims-
for instance - while the catholic church was persecuting scientists- such a thing never happened in islam -
Center for Islam and Science (CIS) is dedicated to the promotion of research and diffusion of knowledge on all aspects of Islam and science. CIS encourages a creative exploration of the Islamic worldview of science, fusion of contemporary scholarship with the traditional sources of Islamic thought and a renewed link with the intellectual tradition of Islam. CIS supports activities aimed at enhancing our religious and scientific understanding of nature and the human condition.
The Center does not construe "Islam" and "science" as two separate entities that need to be somehow related through an external process; rather, the Center recognizes an underlying unity in all domains of knowledge. This is based on the Qur'anic concept of Tawhid, Unicity of God, the most fundamental principle of Islamic epistemology.
Islam has always encouraged scientific observation of phenomena- the first hospital was created by a muslim- one of the greatest physicians and a pioneer in dissection and observation and empirical study was Abn-Sina(known i the west as Avicenna) algebra, logarithms, optics, astronomy-mathematics- sociology was created and developed by muslims.
There is no such idea as a contradiction between the Qur'an and science- this idea has never ever existed in Islam- everything in the qur'an is open to scientific speculation and it is encouraged-
The Qur'an calls upon Muslims to look around them and study the physical world, so that they might appreciate the majesty of Allah's creation. "Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the benefit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth -- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:164)
And the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told Muslims to "seek knowledge, even if it be in China." (Meaning 'seek knowledge wherever it may be found.')
Throughout Islamic history, that is exactly what Muslims have done. Particularly in the 7th-13th centuries C.E., the Islamic world was in the midst of its "Golden Age," paving the way for the growth of modern sciences. Rather than stifling science, the religion of Islam encouraged its study. Scientific inquiry was widespread, and some of the greatest scholars and scientists of the world made wondrous discoveries and inventions. Muslims led the world in the study of medicine, astronomy, mathematics, geography, chemistry, botany, and physics. They transmitted their studies to the West, where their work was built upon and further disseminated
the remains of jesus will not be identified unless the lord feels we should know and i believe it boils down to faith.there is very little proof but the bible,because otherwise you wouldn't need to have faith.and god gave us all freewill to believe what we choose.but jesus is real.
Daniel to Victoria. The simple point I was trying to make is this Victoria: We have scientists willing to suspend judgement on existence--willing to take it as a mystery--and just work carefully trying to determine how things operate, etc. and no matter how brilliant they are we have religious people saying "that was a nice discovery, but it is only theory and not the truth of things, which the Bible or Koran (take your pick) has already revealed and is available to all". So in essence we can have someone like Leonardo or Einstein talking to a religious person and even if the religious person has no understanding of what is being said the religious person can slyly observe "that is nice, but I know the truth of things". Essentially the religious person is anti any further discovery of truth--is a person incapable of being educated and is in fact against any addition to education beyond religion. It is the worst sort of anti-intellectuality imaginable. It matters little, for example, Victoria, how much a person approaching you is superior in intelligence. You Victoria believe in the Koran and therefore you are in possession of the truth which no possible addition of brilliance in the world can supplant. The most mind-boggling genius could be talking to you and will just sniff and start talking about the truth of the Koran. Essentially the Koran and Bible amount (with respect to science) to a strange way for the believer to be more intelligent than anyone else--no matter how dumb the believer really is on intelligence tests, etc. I am totally against that. I do not believe the truth already exists and it is in the Bible or Koran. I do not believe in a world in which there is a religious mob believing itself to be more in possession of the truth than scientists such as Darwin or Einstein. I think it completely dishonest and sly to say something like "scientists just have facts and theories but religion has the truth". Essentially Victoria people like you are incapable of being educated. In fact you have the truth of the Koran so there is no real reason to know more. Certainly knowing more is not more truthful than the Koran. Therefore conversation with people like you is impossible because it just revolves around your beliefs and nothing more. Speculation amounts to nothing. I reject that. I do not know the truth and I always try to learn more. I will keep searching for the truth. And the last truth I will ever accept is a truth which can be easily grasped by a mob--no matter if the mob is religious or nationalistic or whatever (choose your mob). That should be relatively clear although I doubt you will understand a word. You already know the truth. It makes little difference what I said.
There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.
1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations (if you take the literal word of the NT i.e. talking the ugly wingie thingie call Satan), has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress Gentiles and various Christian sects.
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of/belief in "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "
Isn't it curious how humans are so chained to history, fabrication, our brain's need to wield metaphysical power, rooted in the past, to strengthen our specific tribes. This person, no, demigod, no, son of a god, no son of the only god that has ever existed, he died, no, he rose after death, reaminated? perhaps, yuck, it's all so silly.
I hope we grow up one day from all this. If we don't, perhaps the best we can do is sacrifice ourselves to understanding beyond mere religion.
I don't believe Jesus died to save mankind, I believe he lived to save mankind. It is his life, not his death, that has meaning for me. I believe that redemption comes from within; Jesus' message of love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance is the point.
To begin: I do not believe the body of Jesus will be found. Even if it is found, does not mean that at some point after the crucifixion, His body was not again animated. I believe most definitely the death and return to life of Jesus was a real event. Because where our body has natural responses to provide physical survival, these followers of Jesus didn't fear persecution. The movement seemed to have a supernatural component. Was not impeded by physical power. Could not be annihilated. For people not be deterred by the risk of becoming lion food; and instead, release a constantly strengthening energy---would have had to be inspired by something really dramatic. A real WOW! This was an era where conscious formation was primarily dependent on the physical senses;--on physical images. I believe the WOW that initiated the activity was the actual witnessing of the death, and return to life of Jesus!
The physical body of Jesus to me is almost irrelevant. I just see His physical existence as a necessity to get our attention! The impact Jesus had on the world is emotional. When I was a child, Jesus looked down at me from a crucifix in almost every home. It gave me a sense of how very wrong it is to hurt someone,--to be cruel! That within us is a better way;--an ability to forgive,--to love and trust. Jesus is not a means to intellectual comprehension of the principles governing the physical world. The message of Jesus can't be communicated in the usual manner of physical instruction. Perhaps it is transmitted on a higher frequency. The word is unspoken, requires meditation; and becomes only a personal realization. Jesus effects personal character maturation.
It is my belief Jesus moved western civilization away from oppressive behavior, and released personal talents that moved us toward truth and comfort, and most of all toward our true identiy as children of God!
I believe we have lost our way, took a wrong turn on our road to 'heaven on earth',---that perhaps we were blinded by technology, but need to quickly regain our vision before we are entirely swallowed up by the world of 'buying and selling'!
I believe this identity supported by academia of evolutionary hierarchy is an illusion. That in fact we are conscious beings; descendents of a mind and existence beyond the physical world, so awesome that to us, because of a mind limited to primarily physical formation,--it becomes indescribable!
Chip, you say, “Maybe people find the idea that you can preserve everything good about Christianity without requiring anything supernatural very threatening?” Maybe, but I really would like to see the study of what people think “secular humanism” is, because I suspect a lot a people don’t really know and just assume it’s something negative.
I know growing up, I thought pagans were bad, in some vague sort of way. It never occurred to me that the ancient Greek and roman civilizations were pagan or that there was such a thing as pagan literature. I assumed pagans were primitive and evil Christian, but I didn’t know any details about them at all. I doubt I learned anything at all about “paganism” in school, even in the context of ancient history. But we sure heard about those non-Christian pagans in Sunday School.
Hey it might be a good question for “On Faith.” What is secular humanism? How does secular humanism relate to religion. What should the role of secular humanism be in society? I’ll think on it.
Garyd wrote:
"Mr. Mark by your definition then this particular hypothetical is little more than as you call it a scold."
"What I wrote was to me a fact as sure as 2+2=4 is to you."
Hmmm...that begs a question: do you NOT believe it to be a fact that 2+2=4? Methinks that you're engaging in a bit of relativist hyperbole.
We can assume that everyone agrees that 2+2=4. By stating that your belief that *god will return some day in the clouds to give it to the atheists* is as much a fact to you as your arithmetic example is a fact to me, Mr Mark, you're engaging in a false equation. That is to say, everyone who believes that 2+2=4 is going to fill in the blank that YOU ALSO believe in the arithmetic of 2+2=4. That means that you now have two truths on your side of the ledger (arithmetic + god in the clouds), while I have only one truth (arithmetic) and one non-truth (disbelief in a god in the clouds) on my side.
2 truths > 1truth, ergo Garyd wins the argument, correct?
GaryD, "Likely has to do with the fact that secualr humanist tend to treat Chrsitians with such overt contempt that some are being after all only human inclined to respond in kind."
Perhaps, but I believe that in turn is caused by people defining themselves by their beliefs instead of by their own independent sense of self, which renders them somewhat incapable of examining their own beliefs in an objective way. Note that I'm speaking only about some people, not all, and perhaps not even most.
Christianity is a thing. If you find that hearing a thing criticized causes you to feel personally attacked, might not the fault lie with believing that you and the thing are one and the same?
I think allowing one individual idea or set of ideas to become so central to your sense of self that having it criticized makes you feel personally threatened or attacked indicates a rather unhealthy dependence and lack of autonomy - two things that Christianity seems to go out of its way to foster. It turns Christianity into a kind of giant immune system that treats all dissenting opinions as invading pathogens.
E Favorite, "I have heard "secular humanist" said with such a snarl that any one listening would have to think it was something very bad."
Maybe people find the idea that you can preserve everything good about Christianity without requiring anything supernatural very threatening? It's what makes me think that religion is largely a selfish endeavor because if you present all the same basic moral lessons but remove the promise of life after death it suddenly becomes a very bad thing. Does that show the importance of the prize over the lesson? That's how I interpret it. In some ways I think that's Christianity's real genius. It compels people to surrender their sense of self out of selfishness, which I find insidiously clever.
Likely has to do with the fact that secualr humanist tend to treat Chrsitians with such overt contempt that some are being after all only human inclined to respond in kind.
Chip, you say, "I must confess to being baffled by the hostility that so many Christians display towards any mention of humanism."
It may be due to a lack of understanding about what humanism is. Perhaps people think it's anti-religion, or paganism, or selfishness or human worship, or something - I don't know.
I have heard "secular humanist" said with such a snarl that any one listening would have to think it was something very bad.
daniel- well yes, thats what i quoted-
who said science claimed a monopoly on truth?
how did you get anti-science out of that?
theres no overlapping competition daniel- they both deal with non-conflicting ideals in their endeavors.
and there was also certainly no negative judgment either.
you interpret someone saying a monopoly on facts is a bad thing to say?
Mr. Mark by your definition then this particular hypothetical is little more than as you call it a scold.
What I wrote was to me a fact as sure as 2+2=4 is to you. Sorry it iritated you.
But as I have said before on this site the Job of the Christian is akin to that of a watchmen. We are to warn all that danger is at hand. We cannot rescue you from it that job only God acting through the Holy Spirit can do.
TO Mary;
Easter is not the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Passover is the correct term. Easter is a pagan celebration of the godess of fertility(ishtar) and was celebrated at the same time as passover. Easter was celebrated by the rolling of eggs(fertility)and being "quick like a bunny"(sexual orgy).
Unfortunately these rituals were tolerated by
the priesthood, because we all know that the larger the crowd, the fatter the purse. Check it out.
Searcher, you're right. My view is pretty literal. How else should I evaluate the Bible than by what it actually says? That it requires taking much of the bible allegorically and ignoring parts completely in order to view god as anything other than capricious and cruel is, to me, reason to discard all of the supernatural elements outright. It's a story with some good moral lessons to teach and nothing more. I'd no more base my life around bible inspired worship than I'd base in on worship inspired by any other book, but there are certainly some ideas worth taking away from it. Namely, the humanist message of Jesus.
As to why I think humanist morality is less divisive - That's because its central tenets are common to myriad religions and philosophies, but are unencumbered by superstition and ritual. The only belief they require is that being a good person is a pretty good idea. I must confess to being baffled by the hostility that so many Christians display towards any mention of humanism. Much of it, after all, is a subset of their own beliefs, straight from the messiah's mouth. I can only conclude that the hostility stems not from things like the golden rule but from the rejection of the supernatural, which leads me to believe that what many Christians want more than a peaceable neighbor is an enabler.
TO DANIEL;
In your responce, you made mention of the science of the internet.
IN the book of Revelations, chapter 11, verses 7-11 state that two witness will be slain, and that their bodies will lie in the street for three and a half days and that the whole world will see their dead bodies, during that time period. 40 years ago this was unbelieveable.
Today, anything in the world could be viewed in that time frame through the internet. God has told us all things according to their time. Learn the parable of the fig tree and apply it to time.
"The problem with hypothetical questions is that they are founded upon in this case events that have no yet happened and are at best from a worldly perspective unlikely to happen."
I'm glad that you qualified your response by saying, "in this case," because we all know the importance of posing hypothetical questions when it comes to science and other intellectual endeavors. Sure, the vast majority of hypothesis fall by the wayside, but occasionally, a hypothesis subjected to the scientific method will develop into a proven theory that revolutionizes human thought and experience, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection.
I'm sure there are religious hypotheses to be asked that could lead to real investigation, investigation that could further our knowledge set in one way or the other. However, what you offered wasn't a hypothesis - it was a scold that carried with it the spectre of eternal damnation, coupled with a Xianists schoolyard taunt ("narny, narny...you'll get yours when my god comes back!"). Such scolds are, sadly, typical of what passes for Xian-penned discourse on this blog.
Finding the bones of Jesus is, at least, an actual hypothesis, not a scold or a dogma. Like all hypothesis, it must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and scientific investigation. I doubt if there's anyone who would give said hypothesis a snowball's chance of being proven to be true, but let's leave that to the scientific and archaeological investigators, not the opinion mongers.
And considering how many times the actual body of the one true Jesus Chraist has actually been found (0) in fact it will be discovered on the last day humans will be in ignorance of the one true and living God when he appears as God himself in the air to give over to justice those who were not rescued and mercy to those that were, I'll not be overly concerned about said body being found by men.
And considering how many times the actual Body of the one true Christ Jesus has been found (0) despite the claims of various fauds I'm not going to get real worried about that either. Hence the phrase if the bull frog had wings.
The problem with hypothetical questions is that they are founded upon in this case events that have no yet happened and are at best from a worldly perspective unlikely to happen. From my perspective - that of a Christian - The Body of Christ will be found at the exact same moment God who is was and willbe Jesus appears in the heavens to announce the fnal judgement of all mankind is at hand. At that time there will be only to classes of hmanity those for whom justice will take its course and those whom God, through his death on the cross and ressurection rescued from that justice that He might demostrate his great love and eternal unimaginable mercy.
Daniel to Victoria. Science has a monopoly on facts but not truth Victoria? Science does not claim to know the truth Victoria. Science presents theories about existence all the while conceding existence is a mystery and demanding constant effort on the part of man. It is precisely religions such as Islam and Christianity which claim to know the truth--and are utterly incapable of accepting anything which conflicts with their understanding of the truth. I suggest you act on the truth of the Koran Victoria and stop posting on this site. In fact all religious people of the monotheistic sort should stop posting on this site--at least Muslims and Christians. This very internet and computer could not have been invented without brave men striking out on their own and discovering more than facts--discovering the truth about electricity, machines, etc. Truth which no religion ever presented before. It really is the height of hypocrisy for religions to constantly get in the way of science but then turn around and make use of every scientific advancement to further...religion. How amusing! Maybe one day religion will finally succeed against science by precisely using all scientific advancement to make scientists impossible--and no doubt we will hear it was the will of God. Perhaps the will of God, but the end of facts and the further advance of truth truncated into religion. Which of course makes us ask if religion was ever understood in the first place....
deb- well, because sam harris conceded several points to mr aslan-
1) sam created some false dichotomies and hence illogically using that to reject the whole which he was forced to examine and conclude that mr aslans assertion was correct-
mr aslans assertion was- that by comparing the best ideals of science to the worst examples of religion-
is like blaming socialism for nazism nationalism for fascism etc---
2)ASLAN_to harris- as an atheist he was using a literalist and fundamentalist interpertation of the Qur'an-
this was conceded
3) that mr harris was presenting relgious generalities based on anecotal evidence
also conceded
4)mr harris- called islam a severely deranged death cult- and the claimed mr aslans elastic view of islam gives shelter to religious literal dogmatists-
which doesnt even make sense-
an elastic view of islam is the ANTIDOTE and correcting of the literalist dogmatist, and leaves the exposed! not sheltered
besides, it was a very uncivil remark and beneath the spirit of the dialogue-
at that point the moderator stepped in- Jonathan Kirsch- and stopped mr harris-
then mr aslan stated that while science has a monopoly on fact, it does not have a monopoly on truth-
he also commented on the easiness of criticizing any given, and what is needed is the crafting of creative solutions.
possibly sam harris was smirking as you indicated, but that is hardly evidence of gracious behavior or intelligence- or proof that some one is right!
if that were the case george bush would be considered a genius
as i said- i thought the debate was civil-
you see things with VERY different eyes than i do-
deb- well, because sam harris conceded several points to mr aslan-
1) sam created some false dichotomies and hence illogically using that to reject the whole which he was forced to examine and conclude that mr aslans assertion was correct-
mr aslans assertion was- that by comparing the best ideals of science to the worst examples of religion-
is like blaming socialism for nazism nationalism for fascism etc---
2)ASLAN_to harris- as an atheist he was using a literalist and fundamentalist interpertation of the Qur'an-
this was conceded
3) that mr harris was presenting relgious generalities based on anecotal evidence
also conceded
4)mr harris- called islam a severely deranged death cult- and the claimed mr aslans elastic view of islam gives shelter to religious literal dogmatists-
which doesnt even make sense-
an elastic view of islam is the ANTIDOTE and correcting of the literalist dogmatist, and leaves the exposed! not sheltered
besides, it was a very uncivil remark and beneath the spirit of the dialogue-
at that point the moderator stepped in- Jonathan Kirsch- and stopped mr harris-
then mr aslan stated that while science has a monopoly on fact, it does not have a monopoly on truth-
he also commented on the easiness of criticizing any given, and what is needed is the crafting of creative solutions.
possibly sam harris was smirking as you indicated, but that is hardly evidence of nobility or intelligence-
as i said- i thought the debate was civil-
you see things with VERY different eyes than i do-
"One may as well ask what the impact on atheism would be if God suddenly appear in the sky tomorrow and said yes I do exist and you are in big trouble you atheist dogs you"
Considering how many times god has appeared in the sky in the past 2000 years to put the atheists in their place, I won't lose any sleep worrying about what he won't do tomorrow, next week or next year. He can't because he doesn't exist.
monotheism vs idolism,mediatorism,and graveworshipism.
noah remained among mankind for 950 years admonishing man kind to worship the creator lord not the creation,yet few belived in him,the majority insisted upon worshiping wadd,suah,yaouq,yaghouth and nasr,(pious men who they died a while ago )satan gave people of that era the delusion that these men are holy and they shall remain holy so why not clay and wax their images so they becom manifest instead of symbolism for worship,on the top and holy soil of their holy grave site,they also announced that the atmospher and bazar around the site is also holy .later on the mass deluge washed the planet earth,noah and his followers only saved .
too many centuryies later ,jesus son of marry came to man kind telling them the same ancient messeage of noah,worship the creator not the creation ,yet people of his era extolled him to the hierarchy of son of god and the holy infallable trinity.another mass delusion that misled and illueded mankind for years and still.
mummyfication,incarnation,mediatorization,mamalization ,name it,all are none but forms of idolism and delusionism .
people who still digging in the relics are from the school of the holy the ,the court of the crowned infallable on the holy site of rome.
i believe in science and aljebra ,any equation has two sides ,the one will equal the second ,and the second will equel the first .. so i believe strongly that no one can proofe that these bones are jessus bones .. this is my beliefe in science and this is my beliefe in jessuse .iam not christian but i believe that their are not remnants of jessus on the earth
One may as well ask what the impact on atheism would be if God suddenly appear in the sky tomorrow and said yes I do exist and you are in big trouble you atheist dogs you.
Of course in either case it would change everything.
Mary – Where on Earth did you get that Apostles beheaded crucified upside-down story! Don’t worry – it never happened. It sounds like a Christian martyr story or something the nuns said to keep kids in line.
Even Google isn’t sure – here’s what I found on a quick search of “beheaded crucified”
Search #1
Stephen-stoned, James-beheaded, Philip-crucified, Matthew-sword, Mark-dragged through the streets and burned, James the Less-beaten and stoned, Matthias- stoned and beheaded, Andrew-crucified, Peter- scourged and crucified upside down, Paul-beheaded, Thaddeus-crucified, Bartholomew-beaten to death, Thomas-speared, Simon the Zealot-crucified, John- sentenced to be boiled in oil but later died a natural death.
Search #2
Simon Peter - crucified
Andrew the First-called brother of Peter; crucified
James (son of Zebedee) also called "the Great"; beheaded
John the Theologian brother of James; reposed in a miraculous manner
Philip - crucified
Bartholomew - (also called Nathaniel; crucified, flayed and beheaded
Thomas - pierced with five spears
Matthew - also called Levi, brother of James; burned alive
James (son of Alphaeus) - crucified
Jude - also called Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddeus, brother of James the brother of God; crucified
Simon the Zealot - also called "the Canaanite"; crucified
Matthias - replaced Judas Iscariot; stoned and beheaded
Mary - Where on Earth did you get that story about the beheaded, upside-down crucified apostles? Not Sunday school, I hope (though I wouldn't be surprised)
Don't worry about it - it sounds like legend of Christian martyrs or something the nuns would say to keep kids in line.
Even Google isn’t sure – here’s what I found on a quick search of “beheaded crucified”
Search #1
Stephen-stoned, James-beheaded, Philip-crucified, Matthew-sword, Mark-dragged through the streets and burned, James the Less-beaten and stoned, Matthias- stoned and beheaded, Andrew-crucified, Peter- scourged and crucified upside down, Paul-beheaded, Thaddeus-crucified, Bartholomew-beaten to death, Thomas-speared, Simon the Zealot-crucified, John- sentenced to be boiled in oil but later died a natural death.
Search #2
·Simon Peter - (June 29 and January 16) crucified
·Andrew the First-called - (November 30) brother of Peter; crucified
·James (son of Zebedee) - (April 30) also called "the Great"; beheaded
·John the Theologian - (September 26 and May 8) brother of James; reposed in a miraculous manner
·Philip - (November 14) crucified
·Bartholomew - (June 11 and August 25) also called Nathaniel; crucified, flayed and beheaded ·Thomas - (October 6) pierced with five spears
·Matthew - (November 16) also called Levi, brother of James; burned alive
·James (son of Alphaeus) - (October 9) crucified
·Jude - (June 19) also called Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddeus, brother of James the brother of God; crucified
·Simon the Zealot - (May 10) also called "the Canaanite"; crucified
·Matthias - (August 9) replaced Judas Iscariot; stoned and beheaded
The only thing one needs to know when it comes to sceintific proof and Xians is this:
if science confirms the Bible in even the slightest way imaginable, they trust the science and trumpet the science with a din that could bring down Jericho yet again.
If science disproves the Bible - and overwhelmingly so - then such science is regarded as being on the same level as the cheapest slight of hand trick imaginable.
“..attacking the messenger..”? Now who’s thin skinned? Really I was just trying to engage in a thoughtful but also light-hearted manner. Like LT, I rarely want to get drawn into these scrums. But I when I see the argument against God and religion as nothing more than an attack on what’s wrong with religion, I can’t help but think how weak that is. Anyone can pick out the faults of anything and argue that it’s bad because of those faults. But how does it stand up when you look at both sides? I my judgment, it’s far from being definitively bad as some seem to want to make it out.
As for singling out “religionists” as being divisive, I hardly think religion has cornered the market divisiveness. Have you looked at your government lately, any other government for that matter, or the local PTA or homeowners association, or these postings? In all human endeavors wherever there is difference of opinion, there is some “divisiveness.” People who believe in something are going to stick up for their beliefs, be they Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, whatever. It would seem it’s OK to stick up for one’s humanist beliefs and argue them, but if people who follow a religion do so, then they are being divisive. If all religion did was focus on being divisive, then how do they gather so much energy and money towards helping so many people?
And I must say, it still does strike me as condescending when you and many others imply that people who are part of a religion have been duped or somehow tricked by the evil clergy. I would guess that there are some sheep are sucked in by the good and choose to ignore the bad, and follow blindly. But I also think that just as many, or more, looked at the good AND the bad and decided that maybe the good outweighs the bad. And they all do not blindly “obediently submit.” My judgment is that people takes what works for them and leave the rest. How can any religion or any other group keep that from happening? And they can accept the paradox that good and evil can exist in the same organization. Same with government. It does some really good things and some really bad things. Are we all going to leave when it does something bad? Or the same argument for one’s marriage – there’s good and bad, but I don’t run off when there’s bad. There are humans who are thoughtful creatures who can accept the paradoxes and use their gray matter to figure out what works for them
As for your point about justice with JT, I think you are focusing on the extreme. The view you quote is a very literal, evangelical interpretation that I judge most Christians do not ascribe to. Same thing with the Heaven’s Gates boys – the argument is easy when you point out the extremes, but is more difficult in the middle.
"To those who may doubt, 11 of Jesus' apostles were beheaded and hung upside down because they knew and preached that Jesus was the Messiah. Would you have your head cut off for a fake?"
39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide by ingesting phenobarbital mixed with vodka and tying plastic bags around their heads, believing that their souls would then be picked up by a spaceship hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. People do some pretty irrational things. I don't think you can use someone's willingness to die for a cause as a yardstick for determining the merits of their belief. Oh, and here's the kicker - that wasn't the end of the cult. It resurfaced last year with new followers calling themselves "The New Generation." I think they must be using your same logic.
Easter is about Jesus's resurrection and there is NO grave and NO bones (or DNA) will ever be found for Jesus of Nazareth. (Jesus is the Christ; His last name was NOT Christ). I believe without a doubt in my mind that there is life after death. My body and mind might be buried, but my soul will always live. I 100% believe that Jesus is the Son of God. To those who may doubt, 11 of Jesus' apostles were beheaded and hung upside down because they knew and preached that Jesus was the Messiah. Would you have your head cut off for a fake?
To athesists I will love to pose the question, "if you parents or grandparents told you a story about something that happened to them before you were born, would you believe them?" If you don't, then you are calling your family liars. If you do believe them, then you have faith.
Faith is about believing without witnessing or seeing. It is not easy but with prayer, it is possible. With GOd, NOTHING is impossible.
If Jesus's remains have been found, my faith would not be shaken. AWhen people say their faith rests upon physical levitation, I can't relate. My regard for Jesus does not depend on whether He physically survived death and ascended into heaven. In fact, the two-bucket thinking on this subject--He did, He didn't--is the problem. Maybe I'm not alone in rejecting a physical test of faith. What is obvious to me is that Jesus survived his physical death, and it has no bearing on finding his bones. He lives through his parables and healings, His miracles, His prophesies and other acts. The recent movie--Intro Great Silence--shows how Christian monks for centuries have studied this man/God's instruction. In other words, Jesus's bones live.... Why should my faith evaporate if His remains are covered? A pretty meager faith indeed. And I believe the disciples saw him after his death--and find no consistency with the possibility that His bones were discovered.
being a believer of Jesus Christ, it is a question to me that is honestly not a question to think about. i believe it will never be proven that Jesus is dead and buried somewhere. it is completely faith based, that Jesus rose, and is going to return. people will persitantly attempt to disprove the ressurection of Jesus Christ. it will be only in the end either before the throne of God- or into nothingness, we all will know the truth. tragic choice to turn away from Gods plan of salvation- His son Jesus Christ
Thanks, LT :) I'm glad you took the post in the spirit it was intended.
I have some serious issues with the Christian god's notion of justice. I think it ends up having the opposite effect of what was intended. If I can be the worst person in the world but be absolved merely by accepting Jesus, how does that compel me to be a good person? If I'm already a sinner the moment I'm born, then why not just continue to be one? The afterlife is presented as some kind of "do over." On the other hand, if I think this life is all their is, and no one can absolve me of my crimes, and there are no "do overs," isn't that a more compelling argument to try and lead a good life and to fully appreciate it while it lasts?
If the most heinous criminal in the world can gain access to heaven just by accepting Jesus and asking for forgiveness, and the kindest, most altruistic, most loving person in the world would be denied entrance because they didn't believe, and felt they had nothing to apologize for, is that actually justice? I don't think it is. I just can't wrap my head around that.
But Happy Easter all the same, and thank you for your good spirited reply despite my tendency towards the acerbic. It's much appreciated!
"i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-"
NO it was the opposite. Mr. Reza appeared as a loud howler. More hee-haw and no substance from Reza. But, Reza Aslan can as usual whine a lot. He acted very well. He started accussing and almost cursing Sam Harris, who as you note was most polite and reserved. I saw the quirk on Sam's face as he listened patiently to Reza's most ludicrous remarks. Reza opined that as a non-Muslim and atheist Mr. Harris was always suspicious of islam and thus he was unobjective. That's a strawman strategy.
I am wondxering how Reza can be viewed as having wiped Sam Harris out ? Or maybe Victoria you are a Muslim and hence showing a natural bias towards Reza Aslan who is also a Muslim.
It may or may not be over the top, but it is definitely a mischaracterization. The analogy has as its underlying premise that person being asked to love, etc., is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Chip: Do you believe in justice? I.e., should people have to bear the consequences for serious wrongdoings? If you do, then it's possible to recast God's offer of salvation in a different light. Just as a judge is legally required to enforce punishments for crimes committed, so God is obligated to punish us for our sins which is eternal separation from Him. ("Torture chamber" is too shallow a description.) On the other hand, He has paid the penalty for our sins through Christ Jesus. So God as described in the Bible is a loving and just God.
Clearly, accepting this understanding of God requires and acceptance of one's sinfulness, which I will not discuss right now. I will say only that, given one's sinfulness, it is at least not "glaringly obvious" that Christianity is flawed in the sense you propose.
Happy Easter!
P.S.: I rarely respond to other postings, but Chip's was quite informative. Having seen mostly critiques against the historical truth of Christianity, I was intrigued to find this moral critique and found it challenging. Thank you, Chip.
Like many other posters, I reject the underlying premise that Jesus' remains could be *definitively* found. Accepting the premise arguendo, I will answer first by saying what I would not do.
First, I would certainly not switch from my current understanding of Christ to the ones advocated by the Bible scholars who do not believe in a bodily resurrection. Even if the "historical Jesus" said did not say anything about resurrection and did say the moral teachings ascribed to Him, I could not be sure that His moral teachings are correct. How could I be sure that it is blessed to be poor or meek? Is it always worth the risk to turn the other cheek? A non-resurrectionist understanding of Christ simply offers no hope that the rest of what Jesus said is true enough for me to live by.
For similar reasons, I would not adopt a secular humanist viewpoint, at least not wholesale. I might benefit or feel good about following various ethics, but I would have to stop at the point where I thought the cost became too high. As far as I can tell, doesn't offer much beyond soundbites that enormously difficult to apply in practice and perhaps mind candy in the form of philosophical writings.
Overall, I would be reduced to following "LTism": Try to do what's good, but, in the end, protect myself and maybe even try to get something out of life. If Christ be not risen, could anyone really blame me for not following someone else's moral standard to prevent myself from being seriously hurt or dying? What alternative hope could anyone offer in such a dilemma?
OK, SEARCHER, maybe I should have left out the words hocus pocus and poppycock, but I stand by the rest of my statement. I, too, have searched in my lifetime, but none of the "religions" were able to withstand scrutiny and indepth analyses. That does not mean I don't believe in God. I do not call myself an atheist because I do believe in a supreme being. But it is definitely not the one described in the bible, the koran, or any other "holy" scripture. There is not one shred of evidence that any of the people who dictated or wrote those messages were sons/dauthers of God, phrophets inspired by God, or apostles to God.
The bones don't matter. Christianity, like all religions, is just a crutch. An increasingly dangerous crutch, used as a weapon against other crutch-bearers and those few who try to walk this path without one.
Humanity needs to grow out of this infantile stage of clinging to mystical, hysterical, irrational dogma to "explain" whatever reason and science have not yet gotten around to.
In fact, I wish the Post would have the dignity and the common sense to leave the matter of faith to the hucksters and their suckers. There's really no place for it in a modern newspaper.
Searcher, I was raised Christian so I assure you I have no trouble seeing both sides of the issue. I don't dispute that millions of people have done wonderfully charitable things in the name of religion, however, not a single one of those things in any way depended on religion. Love, altruism, charity - they all exist on their own, among various people of all nationalities, creeds, tribes, beliefs, races, and so on. Yet rather than focus on what's universally beneficial, religionists choose to focus on those divisive things instead. The supernatural rather than the natural. That's why I refer to it as a bait and switch, and an obfuscation of those things that are truly important (and beneficial).
You choose to attack the messengers rather than the message so your criticisms are just a tad hypocritical, don't you think? Are you too thin skinned to allow your ideas to be challenged vigorously and held up to scrutiny?
I don't find calling the Christian god a thug to in any way be over the top, and most certainly not ridiculously so. The bible itself declares that deeds won't get you into heaven. Only obedient submission will. I think the characterization fits quite well. If any of us acted in the same manner as this god (who is supposed to be the source of love and morality) towards our children, social services would come and take them away.
Challenging such things is not condescending. Embracing them is. Treating people as if they're so fragile that they can't tolerate having their beliefs challenged is. If I walk on eggshells around you then I'm being condescending. No beliefs or ideas are sacred. That's only a disingenuous shield against criticism.
Your question hits at the foundation of Christian faith, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. It is the foundation and corner stone of faith in the great redeemer. For those that believe in Jesus Christ you won't find them believing in finding his bones, they know he rose from the grave. For those of us who wouuld believe in the finding of his bones if you study Christ's teachings you will learn of compassion and the meaning of love. Ghandi said he was but practicing the social teachings of Jesus Christ, so we would find the spiritual source of faith in divine life can be found through many means,the teachings of Budda, Loa Tsu, Mohammed, the prophets of Istreal, and the Bhaddivita Gita. We are loved by life, as Thomas Jefferson put it for us 'we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' So freedom of choice and freedom of religion is part of the cornerstone of our American faith. Happy Easter everybody, as the book of John put it 'God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son.'
Chip, Gaby, William Demuth, Sam Harris, and et. al. -
You make some good points, but you do it in such a superior, condescending, "your so stupid for what you think" way, that your viewpoint is extremely unpalatable. Is your "humanism" that humans should disparage each other and look at each other contemptuously? Can’t say that’s the way I'm want to live. I'm looking for more.
Also, it is interesting how you all cast religion in the worst possible way as to make your points. Chip, your "thug, enforcer" analogy is so over the top it is humorous, and it definitely belies your complete lack of understanding of those you choose to trash. Anyone could do the same to the atheist humanists and make them look like a salivating morons too. Your points are really just criticism - it's certainly not an argument, because an argument would require you look at both sides, which I judge you have trouble doing.
The atheist humanists seem to want to ignore any and all the GOOD that millions, perhaps billions of people do everyday in the name of religion. I know this data is only antidotal, but I have actually known a few of them. And then there's the billions spent on social services by the evil religious, most of it done without the use of clubs or guns. Oops, didn’t mean to contradict your “argument,” …I mean criticism…whatever it is.
You know, I'm trying to sort this all out, but I have to tell you that you atheist humanists that you come across as angry, judgmental, and pretty bad at looking at all sides of an argument. If I had to pick someone to have a beer with and talk about it, I think for right now I would have to pick the "deluded." As much as you might try to paint a different picture of them, they seem a little kinder and little more open to me.
P.S. I saw this on a bumper sticker and you have reminded me of it.
“Jesus loves you....but everyone else thinks you're an a***ole.”
Have a nice day :-)
No it would not. I would still be an Atheist. I don't believe in religion and the dogma that goes with it. I don't believe in a all knowing god figure in the sky. I don't believe there was a son of god. I do not believe anyone died for my sins. I don't believe in sin. So.. it wouldn't matter. I believe in being decent and treating others as I would like to be treated and I expect the same from others. I believe that people should just think -- think about being humans and treating each other in a manner that they would want to be treated and not rely upon some mythical figure so much for all that they do and feel. Why is that so hard for so many christians?
It wouldn't change my view one bit (if Christ's apparent remains were found).
Neither would it change many other's personal views, whichever side of the fence they sit on (or even in the middle ~ ~ how sexual).
This is why Christ (& His Father JHVH, too, if He infact agrees with Jesus His Beloved La-dee-da-dee-da-da Son, on this particular issue..) has *A LOT* to answer for, to the extent that I think they (both) deserve to be crucified (Jesus a second time LOL)... for the very FACT that He/They created beings to have such differing opinions and thoughts or views on anyhting while having us all dwell on the same planet with all our different starsigns etc.
God, if Creator, is the true cause of all misery, difference, and unhappiness. There's a whole huge Universe, but He selfishly chooses to watch us all suffer & die stuck on this small planet without intervening, & if he had have put us all on different planets well enough away from each other, temptation may have gotten the better of us to start wars anyway with the neighbours, but at least it would have been more difficult.. He's always been a terribly lazy provider (much like most Christian Fathers, anyhow).. if He gave us all enough of what we liked in the first place, we wouldnt really BOTHER going off to a neighbouring planet to start a war.
So really, He has nothing. He;'s guiltier than hell, He knows He's done super wrong. He should die ten zillion deaths on a cross.
POSTSCRIPT: i just noticed the trademark Benson & Hedges "anyhow" snuck it's way into my vocabulary. so sue me, it's like the only advertising you're allowed to get these days anyway!
If the bones of Jesus were definitively found (a rather silly hypothetical since such a thing is completely impossible), it would in no way change my view of Christianity - that it is a deeply flawed moral system that in its purest form is about compelling obedience through fear and very little else.
Jesus was a great humanist teacher when you divorce his teachings from the resurrection and other supernatural bits, and worthy of much praise, but the rest of the story? Hardly. Whenever I hear the phrase "God is love," it makes me cringe. The thing that ultimately counts for getting past the torture chamber is simply obedience and bended knees, not how you treat your fellow man (though the encouragement to do it well anyway is appreciated). Despite Jesus's valiant turn as the good cop, the rest of the Christian construct dilutes and obfuscates what was good about jesus's message, and ultimately negates it.
If anyone went up to someone and declared "love me and I will reward you. Deny me and I'll make what happened to Jesus look like all he got was a mud pack and foot massage," they'd likely get arrested, and they'd certainly be seen as a very unpleasant, very unloving, very creepy sort of fellow, soon to be served with a restraining order. Even if he went up to the other person, said the wisest most perfectly loving thing ever uttered, but then pointed over his shoulder at some enforcer (dad), thwacking a nightstick into his palm menacingly, it wouldn't change the basic equation - bend in worship or suffer the consequences. How do people twist their ethics into such a pretzel that this isn't glaringly obvious to everyone?
I'm quite certain love doesn't involve threats of violence, demands for obedience, ritual cannibalism, or lava. God is not love. God is a bully and Jesus was his pitchman. "Please don't kill me" is not love. "I submit myself completely to you" is not love. "I have been told (but provided no actual proof) that you have unlimited power to crush me, therefor I will bend and kiss your foot, lest it flatten me, because I am afraid," is not love! People rising from the dead is not love. Eating flesh and drinking blood is not love (unless you're Anne Rice).
The only part of the story of Jesus that IS love, are those things that are the central tenets of Humanism - Love your neighbors. Turn the other cheek. Have humility. Take care of the less fortunate. Do unto others. Those stand on their own as timeless and classic good ideas. THAT is love. Zombies, vengeful beings from another dimension, cannibalism, submission or torture - that's a recipe for a B movie of questionable taste or a John Norman novel. Is it so hard to tell the difference? Really?
Maybe if they found the bones of Jesus, Christians would finally live up to their humanist potential instead of wallowing in ritual and superstition. What was good about Jesus was his humanity, not his divinity. Ultimately, though, the story of the NT is a bait and switch.
Once when I was a young lad of about 12 I tricked a kid who had a silver dollar into giving it to me, in exchange for a stone, which I swore was an incredibly valuable coin from a far away place, and some day he'd be able to trade it for unimaginable wealth, better than anything else, ever. He can be forgiven for falling for the bait and switch because he was only five. What's everyone else's excuse? What I did was clearly unethical and wrong, but at least I didn't threaten him in any way. I grew out of that kind of behavior. What's God's excuse, besides the size of his stick?
That Christians celebrate the death and resurrection and the divinity of Jesus instead of the life of Jesus and his humanity is a tragedy. It seems to me that if you think cheating death is the most important thing then you've completely missed the point. We don't need miracles or magic tricks or supernatural beings with anger management issues. We don't need an afterlife. We don't need tribes. We just need to be decent to one another in the brief time each of us has to exist in the only life we KNOW we've been given. All the other superstitious BS just gets in the way and corrupts the whole thing. It takes the Humanist message of Jesus and perverts it into something purely selfish.
People are far more interested in what their imaginary God can do for them (or to them) than they are about what they can do for their fellow man (and I don't mean playing good cop for an omnipotent thug. That is NOT "good news"). Adults should be smart enough to figure that out on their own. It's a complete mystery to me that so few actually do.
All the bones would do for me is prove that Christianity like all other organized religions are a bunch of hocus pocus manufactured and written by humans for humans to enforce certain behaviors and control the masses. The religions then were and are perpetuated by "clerics" who saw the propensity of gullible humans who crave leadership in almost everything they do to further their own agendas. Religions thrive on obstructing original thought and everything the man/woman in the pulpit says must be right because he/she is a learned scholar. What poppycock!
The question as stated is trivial and silly. Why not ask the question this way: If Christ's remains were found and were absolutely, positively for certain proved to be his, how would that change God's opinion of you? Like choosing a list of books to read, we should deal with the more important questions first, as there may not be time later.
It is like asking a Morman, "What if the de-materialized gold plates Joseph Smith found buried in New York State, never existed?"
The entire foundation of the belief system is built upon, for the Christian, the defeat of "the sting of death"; and for the Morman, a belief that what no longer exists, once did, in gold, no less.
i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-
now as for george carlin- ive seen i think every live performance on video and god is one of his favorite topics- ill listen to any monologue or debate by george for sure-
i especially like the one where he says maybe god created the world because he wanted plastic-
or that maybe the earth will get tired of us messing her up and one day will shake us off like a bad case of fleas- as they say- many a truth is said in jest---
i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-
now as for george carlin- ive seen i think every live performance on video and god is one of his favorite topics- ill listen to any monologue or debate by george for sure-
I am happy to see that Newsweek has the courage to publish articles honestly debating atheism versus religion. However, “The God Debate” of April 9, 2007, is a half baked discussion that does not merit the title. Sam Harris did not have his wits with him and Jon Meacham checked his investigative skills at the door. They both allowed numerous opportunities for serious debate to pass without comment. I am disappointed in this article.
While I have the latest books from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on my shelves, neither is an astute or enthusiastic debater. Has anyone considered asking George Carlin to engage a debate on religion? That would indeed prove interesting.
In the article Rick Warren tells us that God listens to him and speaks back. Mr. Warren, how does God speak to you? How does he get his words, thoughts, or feelings into your mind? If you hear God, you must be able to tell us how you hear God. And how do you know that it really is God speaking to you?
While we are at it, why does God not simply speak to all of mankind and end all this murdering in his name? A claimed but unproven revelation to one or a few is totally without merit. (Yes, I do refer to your bible.) Having all knowledge and power, it would be a trivial deed to speak to us all. Does it ever occur to you that a loving God would not allow his children to suffer such unmitigated pain?
As you yourself noted, the various religions of the world are so different as to be irreconcilable. Until God speaks up and does something about this, then he has given us no credible evidence of his presence.
I've always admired the fasting of Muslims at Ramadan, especially since I know that I couldn't go all day without any food (I have enough trouble with keeping up my limited fasting during Lent).
In a way, I guess fasting also serves to remind us that it is hard to be "good", so we need to ask for help from the Almighty.
As for your comment regarding the media, I heartily agree. Complex questions are not modern journalism's forte. But is that because the journalists are foolish or because they are catering to a foolish public?
To Tonio --
Your post reminds me of a funny tradition that grew up during the Middle Ages. For purposes of fasting, some medieval monastic cookbooks identified as "fish" any creature that spent most of its life in water. Hence you get Lenten recipes for duck, goose, swan, and even beaver... :)
"Let's take God out of our schools" "Let's take God out of our government" " Let's take God out of CHRISTMAS" "HEY, WE FOUND THE BONES OF JESUS" ALL THIS FROM THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS antichrist, during the generation of the fig tree. The Generation of the fig tree is given in the Bible as" that generation of people, who will witness the fall of antichrist AND THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOR.
In 1948 Israel was re-established as a nation, and the fig tree was planted. Read Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John to know JESUS. AMEN
Suppose that archeologists DO find a tomb that says "Jesus" in Aramaic somewhere near Jerusalem, Bethany, or wherever. How are you going to prove it's the real deal? Yeshua/Joshua was a common name back then. You can carbon-date the skeleton to within the time of 30 AD (give or take a few years). But, where would the conclusive proof be? A third strand of DNA? Even then, one could argue that the Ascension was His soul only, not His actual body.
robert b- on te last question i described a bit about how muslims fast for ramadan-
our fast lasts for a full month non-stop- from sunup to sundown we refrain from all drink and food and sex.
the purpose of it is to develop self control (which it really does) and to inculcate compassion for those who are without(which it is also successful in doing)
Robert B., your suggestion for a topic is a good one. When I was a teenager, I never understood why our family (ostensibly Lutheran) did not eat meat from land animals on Good Friday. Dinner on that day was usually tuna casserole, which I hated with a passion. I assumed that if one gave up meat for a religious purpose, one would give up all meat. Instead, we did our part to keep Mrs. Paul's and StarKist in business each year. Now that I'm older, I understand the general principle behind the self-denial of fasting. Still, I question the value of fasting when it's a command instead of a decision, because the former feels like a pointless rule.
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found my beliefs in Catholicism would end! The gospel would be proven false. Catholics like myself would turn away because as Catholics we continuously search for the truth and nothing but the truth. It would be a sad day but I would move on... But that day hasn't come yet and I doubt it ever will!
I think they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with this question. Whatever happened to the nice general questions that all people of faith could answer and discuss?
For example, on Ash Wednesday, I submitted a question on the various approaches to fasting, hoping to learn more about how other religions view this. Unfortunately, my question seems to have been rejected, apparently because it would actually draw people into meaningful dialogue rather than have them electronically scream at one another...
wiliam you seem to be under the impression that if all religions disappeared tomorrow, man would suddenly stop killing others-
or that humans would suddenly stop having the tendency to use any ism with great zeal to justify their own baser inclinations- like greed for power, money- subjugating other humans-
are you suggesting that with the disappearance of religion, all of mans lower instincts to steal, or kill or lie would also evaporate?
Finding the bones of Jesus would be wonderful. My belief would remain a Christian. When Jesus died and was resurrected, he did not need his bones. One's belief requires no proof or evidence because it is just one's humble belief.
"If these bones exist, it would prove one and one thing only. Jesus was an ordinary human being who lived, breathed and died like any one of us, not that he is a super human or for that matter of fact "Son of God". But having said that, the point to be noted is that, he proved that any ordinary person can live an extra ordinary life if your willing to put the effort into it."
Using Biblical verses as proof of the existence of Christ is equivalent to using quotes from Marvel comic books as proof of the existence of “Thor, The Mighty God of Thunder”
Please people, try and get a grip. You have been fed fertilizer for so long you’re blind to simple realities.
We live, we die, we rot, and we are forgotten.
Deal with it, because no matter how much fantasy you inject into your life, it is an inescapable reality.
When you collectively start espousing this nonsense, you drag us closer and closer to the edge, and when we finally arrive at it, there will be no saviors for us.
You and your type are destroying this world, and I for one have had enough of this.
If these bones exist, it would prove one and one thing only. Jesus was an ordinary human being who lived, breathed and died like any one of us, not that he is a super human or for that matter of fact "Son of God". But having said that, the point to be noted is that, he proved that any ordinary person can live an extra ordinary life if your willing to put the effort into it.
And from Paul Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works, 1994, Kregal Publications Grand Rapids, MI 49501.
"The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages (Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200) . He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatment portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans."
Christ's remains shall probably never be found because Christ probably never actually existed. He is an illusion, a byproduct of propaganda and illiteracy. Christianity is just the collective desperation of people unwilling to accept their own mortality.
It is time for us to call ALL these “religions” by their true name, superstitions.
Hopefully Christ, Yahweh, Allah, and all the others of their ilk will be relegated to the cultural trash bin from which we select name of our sports cars and cartoon characters as have their predecessors. The only question is whether we shall slaughter each other in the name of our gods before we mature enough to put them aside. Regrettably, I am not confident.
If the remains were found, many would doubt they were his remains, regardless of what tests were done to prove it conclusively. God could come out of the sky to every man, woman, and child, and announce that they were, in fact, Jesus` remains, and still some would believe they were not. Those who believe that Jesus never existed will dispute it, as well as those who believe he rose bodily and could not have left remains. Rational Christians will have to rethink the situation in light of the new evidence, as we often do.
However, they will never be found, because Jesus left no remains to find. He is risen indeed!
What has had a greater impact on Western civillization: belief in miracles and supernatural feats of Jesus, or the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus?
Yes, it could be that the stories of miracles and the supernatural powers of Jesus has advanced the popularity, the grand credence of the moral and ethical agenda in Jesus' teachings.
But what is the heart of Christianity? Without the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, and just focusing on obedience to religious leaders and what they tell us is moral -- and tossing aside the personal development of our own ethical reasoning ability, what is Christianity?
What is truly important about Christianity?
Another aspect to the question of Resurrection is this:
Some people may really need to be assured that there is life after death. Virgin birth and Resurrection are major lynchpins of the supernatural context of Christianity.
Without the supernatural, comfort about one's personal death, and the death of loved ones, could make life feel cold and heartless. In this sense, why deprive this comfort upon a mourning son or daughter who chooses to deal with death in this way? Feelings, tradition, and consideration for others is an important issue -- as long as it does no harm nor any injustice.
After coming home after staying with my maternal grandmother in the hospital, I collapsed on my bed and cried. Some moments later, I "felt" that my grandmother was with me, and she told me that everything was alright, and it was alright for her pass on from this life. A few hours later I recieved a phone call notifying me that my grandmother passed away a while ago. So while I do not deny the supernatural, I cannot make unfounded claims about aspects of life, consciousness, or reality that aren't yet proven by science. For me, some issues don't have to be black or white -- "maybe's" are abundant parts of life.
And as a corollary, there may be a fear within some, that without Heaven or Hell after death, societal suasion for moral conduct in life would weaken. In other words, for some people, societal moral behavior would weaken without that "ultimate" reward or punishment, and the unerring final judgement at the end of life.
Again, it could be conjectured that there is a broad spectrum of good and beastly motivations in men, and for some:
-- religion, and the prospect of reward or punishment of what comes after this life, is the last thing that one would feel that keep them in check.
After all, psychological theories of moral development posit that along the path towards internalized notions of right and wrong, punishment and reward has at least trained, if not remains for some, the primary motive for "proper" behavior.
But with or without Resurrection, the crucial issue cannot be avoided and put off, societally and individually, humanity has to develop and advance its understanding and practice of ethics and morality. It is not about telling the masses what to think and believe. It is about developing those ethical and moral reasoning "muscles" in the brain. It is not only a question of meaning, it is a question of survival and how the future will become.
To me, the issue is not Jesus divinity. Certainly I view much of that story as superstition from an age of ignorance, upon which a power structure has been built whose history has often been tyranny and murder and falsehood, and even genocide. It's all about power, it's all about money, it's all about control by (a) religion(s) that terrorizes with statements like burning in hell (probably the worst way to die) if you don't do as they say, but promises salvation and that death is not death if you toe the line. In any other situation, trying to sell that sort of insurance product would get you shut down in a second, for you need to prove the policy pays off, not just "believe" it will.
Now, the other issue is what did Jesus intend to do for the world during his lifetime. He offered a vision of peace, love, and compassion for our fellow human beings, something sorely lacking then and now. Many churches, especially the conservative ones, are churches of fear. They have totally turned away from Jesus messages to a form of religious terrorism, and learned so well over the ages the art of brainwashing, little different then the mechanisms used in Islam. These particular churches destroy the meaning of Jesus life, and his messages to humanity. As they say, you have the fox guarding the hen house, he's awfully fat, and he doesn't care about much except protecting his turf.
We should all lead our lives as if this is the only life we will have, and try to help others not as fortunate as ourselves, for its their only life also. If you believe in a loving God, that's fine, I'm sure you will be rewardedif there is an afterlife. If you believe that we are just products of nature, your reward will be in your own satisfaction. We do have the opportunity to keep on living beyond our lifetime in a sense, by sharing our genes with an opposite sex partner so we project our makeup into the future. Unfortunately evolution or whatever hasn't provided a way to maintain our awareness beyond our lifetimes. I was perfectly content before my birth, I believe I'll be perfectly content after my death. Perhaps the price of living is simply dying, and ultimately you have no choice, for you are who you are, aware of your own existence. So, there is much to learn from Jesus life, and others in the past, the real question is are we practicing what he preached?
Since Christ's body was supposed to have risen literally, my view of Christianity would change from a religion that believes in unproven silliness to a religion that believes in silliness proved wrong.
Though if the finding turned evangelicals away from showmanship and started trying to get their followers to pay more attention to the teachings of Jesus, I'd have a little more respect for them.
The discovery of Christ's physical remains would profoundly change my world view.It would mean the end of the Christian religion in my eyes.A new type of Christianity would have to replace the current religion.Christ would become another man, a great guru,prophet or saint such as have occasionally appeared throughout man's history.
The discovery of Christ's remains would destroy the central transcendant meaning and purpose of Christianity.
Marco Polo: I don't need a compound I just have a job to do I did not ask to be me but I have said yes. God is a searcher of hearts and minds not a searcher of religious affiliations. So many people know God's name which is "I Am Who Am" but don't know anything about Him. A lot of people also know the bible from cover to cover but still don't know anything about God or they wouldn't be spewing out so much hatred in His Name. We are all God's children and His Plan is for all of humanity ultimately to be in His Kingdom. God is a Trinity and He is not a male or a female even though I use that pronoun. God Incarnate was a male, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews but God asked permission of a Lady to become a human being. The Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose them, this does not mean that they are better or anything just that God has reasons for what He does. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person.
Finding the remains of Jesus would not really change any of my beliefs about Christianity. First off there is no way that the bones could be proven beyound a doubt to be the bones of Jesus. There would be nothing to compare the remains to.
But even if they could, what would that prove? That Jesus did exist. Thats all. Nothing more. I would still believe that Jesus had been a good man teaching about love of fellow man. People could still believe that Jesus was resurrected as the bible claims he was if they chose too. Atheists could still chose not to believe. Everyone could continue as now in their beliefs, and their debates.
Mary Magdalene plays a prominent role in the resurrection, having first found Christ arisen (though not exactly, since the tomb was actually empty). According to some readings of the gospels, she was a prostitute who had her demons cast out by Jesus and became his closest companion. Some scholars suggest she was his lover, as in Luke 8:2, mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance". There are even writings attributed to a gospel of Mary. One of the latest of those writings found recounts a different resurrection story. It follows here.
The Mary, who bound most closely to Jesus, attended him on the cross as she had in life, soothing and uplifting him, taking him away from his agony. Following his death and entombment, she went to him to anoint him with spices, to purify his body of the stench of putrification; at least that is what she told the other disciples. When she arrived, she found the tomb essentially empty of him, though the body was there in the burying cloth, lifeless and stinking. However, his precious essence was no longer prominent, but was flaccid and limp, while the rest of the body was rigid in rigor. She looked on in utter despair. Her dream of one last union with The Son appeared beyond her grasp. But grasp it she did, and then wailing in grief, she began stroking it insistently in her sorrow, mourning for his return. Her wails subsided. For a long time she sat there sobbing, slowly fondling him, rubbing sweet smelling ointment into his essence, trying desperately to bring him back to life. Finally she bent to kiss it in tender affection and fond remembrance, gently placing it in her mouth as she had often done after his strenuous exertion, while his breathing slowed. Those were her happiest moments and they were forever gone, for he breathed no more. Her inconsolable grief returned, and with it a sense of urgency in which she frantically stroked and sucked, willing him back, back to his former glory, restoring him to rigorous vigor. Suddenly, he was newly risen. Overcome with joy, she happily hopped on, then slowly lowered herself onto him with a shudder of pleasure, again in union with her lord, now fully resurrected.
I assume if you had Jesus' bones, you would compare the DNA to the DNA of Mary and Joseph to prove maternity and paternity? And that would really put the nails in Jesus' coffin?
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
What a strange question--even disturbing--as if the results of this question will determine whether the Vatican decides to perpetrate a hoax "and discover the remains" and all of Christendom will rejoice.
Personally it makes no difference to me if the remains of Christ are found or not--unless we decide to clone Jesus from the remains. Then I would be interested in seeing what he looks like.
Perhaps the clone of Jesus will even reveal him to be quite a compelling individual and solve the problem of who he really was...But no doubt instead of proceeding in a scientific fashion and solve a mystery which has led to so much persecution as well as blessedness, we will not be allowed to proceed scientifically and in fact we will be expected to just worship all the more...with all the positives and negatives which come with that...
A silly question really. All this religion is getting tiresome. For the life of me I find it difficult to understand why people will not just admit life is a mystery and that we really know nothing, and that we should just be more or less respectful of one another and be patient and just slowly discover and create down through the centuries in humble respect of the mystery...But no, this scientific outlook--and it is scientific par excellence--is considered arrogant.
We are supposed to listen to "humble" rationalizations by Christians such as the famous one about not gambling with life, that if one believes and there is no Christ after death one loses nothing, but if there is a Christ one is saved or burns in hell if not believing...For the life of me I find it difficult to understand why Christ would condemn me to hell for not believing...I might understand if I were a moral monster (a monster of immorality) but for simply being an ordinary man not believing? Or does one actually have to say "I believe" and one's morals are not the paramount issue? But what about children incapable of making an intelligent decision? and when exactly--at what age--is it determined that one is capable of making the choice? It seems to me preposterous in general to be told I am gambling with my life by not believing, that I will burn in hell. Is it not enough to admit life is a mystery and to strive to live more or less in respect of other human beings? In fact is that not more honest than presuming one knows all about the mystery, that behind it is God and he expects such and such?
I plead total ignorance. All of it confuses me. Digging up Christ clears little for me. It might clear something up if he is cloned, but even if he is a remarkable man (the clone), still it would not make much difference on my religious views per se. It might explain a bit about Christianity, but I doubt it would negate the human tendency to just jump to conclusions about existence and impose on reality all sorts of beliefs. We would still be before the mystery and all too many would just come up with new schemes for explaining existence to themselves. In fact a clone of Christ would probably make no difference at all to Christianity. But the remains themselves (without being cloned) would no doubt be seized upon with great belief (the supreme relic).
So I suppose the Vatican should just pull a body out of the ground for us...
All this could make a nice science fiction story whether the Vatican pulls a hoax or not: if a hoax, we could have "Christ" secretly cloned and he turns out to be Jerry Seinfeld or something. Or we could have Christ really found and he turns out to be...Jerry Seinfeld.
But maybe the Vatican can improve the hoax and build a little stairway to heaven in "Christ's" tomb or something or maybe if Christ is really found there will be proof of ascension. I have no idea...Sorry for irreverance. I know these issues mean so much to people, but where I stand today is in complete ignorance. I just write and improvise with concepts (my background in general) and out of my native ability knowing all the while that all of it is provisional and that in fact I will never really get at anything. I try my best to be nonfictional--scientific--but like all science all is theory and actually quite akin to art (creation rather than discovery precisely because for all discovery the discovery is never total).
I hope I have not offended anyone, and to Christ and God himself--I know nothing.
I have to reiterate some of the postings already written: Even if you got any DNA from the bones, who would you compare them to?
There are no "If's" about it. They are not Jesus'. PERIOD.
I am a Hindu. I believe, like many Hindu saints, that Jesus Christ was Divinie Spirit embodied in human flesh.
Such Divine incarnations of the Omnipotent Supreme All Being appear on earth from time to time to correct the path of error and set the course. Historically, these extraordinary individuals have capability of performing miracles (like raising Lazarus from the dead, healing lepers and walking on water). Such individuals, can also see deep into the future.
According to the Hindu perceptions such individuals, who are fully aware of their Divine nature and capabilities, still take on ordinary mortal obligations, without any attachment to the fruits of the (desired or undesired) results due to engagement in such actions. Their sole objective is to set course for the good of mankind with no ulterior motives/ personal ambitions and are free from any forms of greed. They complete their time cycle and then abandon their mortal body only to perhaps come back at an appropriate time. These extraordinary individuals are called "avatars" in the Hindu spiritual system. Christ, as viewed by many Hindu saints and seers, was an "avatar". He shall return at an appropriate time.
Such views, I understand, are completely foreign to the western version of Christ's Divinity.
So, my views about Jesus Christ are exactly as above and I don't think it changes in any way if Simcha Jacobovici has made a film that states Christ's bones were found and he was married with kids. So, what ?
"Communion wafers are made of Jesus!" - Charlton Heston
If the remains of Jesus were found, it wouldn't impact my beliefs. I believe he existed (either as a person, or several different people whose life events over time combined into one story) but not as a divine entity. How would we know any remains were his anyway? It's like when the Shroud of Turin was found...it was automatically thought to be the shroud Jesus was buried in. And now this "lost tomb of Jesus" nonsense...
Concerning PT's comment. It just so happened that on Jan 29, 2000 that the Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that Jesus really is present in the Catholic Eucharist, I happened to be at a Mass at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md. Some people might pretend, some might believe but I happen to know and maybe part of the reason that I needed to know is that I am the New Testament Moses. God happens to be Pure Love not the egomaniacal piece of garbage that so many people that call themselves christians think and try to teach others. So many people have twisted the Bible and the Gospel, which means "Good News" not almost Good News.
The Christian faith has nothing to fear from any new knowledge. The faith that Jesus came to earth as God's son, however that happened, to bring the Kingdom of God as a way to model to us how we should live together will never change whatever else is decided about his life. He could have left a physical body.. a wife.. a child... or none of those things.
Thanks, PT. The joke you mentioned reminds me of an episode of Star Trek:The Next Generation, "Rightful Heir." The story attempts to address the idea that I've been talking about.
Tonio has the right idea. The basic teachings of peace, love and compassion that you find in the Bible and other religious texts are spoiled by trying to wrap them up in supernatural story lines.
On a lighter note, I read a great idea in another forum about what to do with the bones of Jesus. In light of the recent news stories about the insertion of human genes into rice crops to help combat diarrhoea in third world countries, simply extract the DNA of Jesus and embed some in communion wafers. This ensures you will really be receiving the body of Christ, and not just pretending.
The premise of the specific question, "if the remains of Jesus had been definitively found," is impossible. Assume we find some remains. How would we know they were of Jesus? What test would you use?
The broader question asks for Christian reactions to proof of a fact that is contrary to Christian belief. I think we know the answer to that question. Christian will deny the proof, because it is contrary to Christian belief. See the battle over evolution as one of many examples.
Christianity would not disappear if Jesus' bones were found since Christianity is a way of life, a life built on the cornerstones of the Beatitudes and the Twelve Commandments. True Christianity is not dependent on floating bodies, ghosts, apparitions and "talking pretty wingy thingies".
The physical resurrection of Jesus has been reveiwed by many contemporary NT scholars. Most conclude that the physical resurrection did not occur. There are just too many conflicting stories about the event itself and lack of proper attestation from other scriptural sources.
Even common sense says the physical resurrection did not occur. The basis?? Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies exist there. Therefore the body of Jesus (and Mary) even in a glory state cannot be there. It sure would be very strange, all those billions of souls plus the spirit/soul of God with a few alien beings wandering about with nothing to see, do or eat.
The body of Jesus decomposed or disappeared just as all human bodies disappear. See Professor Crossan's conclusions as noted in his books, Who is Jesus? and The Historical Jesus. Also see the information posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb017.html
This lack of physical resurrection is also being taught in large Catholic university theology classes e.g. Catholic U.
Easter is already becoming secularized so there should be little economic impact on "Christian" nations. Those that still believe in the physical resurrection have significant economic dependence on it e.g. popes, bishops, ministers evangelists and authors such as Professor NT Wright so they will continue the tradition to protect their jobs.
The tradition of Jesus embellishments served Christianity well in the time of uneducated "pew peasants". Paul for example added to these embellishments especially the "prophecy" of the second coming to fund the movement in the lands of the Gentiles. To say the least, he was quite successful. Now, however, the "pew peasants" have been educated and we want realism restored to our beliefs.
inding Remains of Jesus Would *Disprove* Christianity
Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead
*with his body*
i.e. he was resurrected.
If, somehow, the premise of this crazy question were possible to achieve
(yes, how would we know the remains were of Jesus? Would he have a tattoo on his bones? Do we have a DNA sample in a police dpt somewhere)
It would *disprove* the Base belief of Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected as we will be.
I would hope such a discovery would show that religions need not have any claims about the supernatural. Perhaps it would lead Christianity away from the concept of "salvation" and toward a view of Jesus as a mortal teacher. His insights into the human condition could be evaluated on their own merits. The question of "why we are here" doesn't have to depend on any supernatural notions.
If the Resurrection were to be definitively disproved it would evacuate the New Testament and the creeds of their claims on our attention. A Catholic, I once knew a priest who said "If they ever find the bones of Christ, this collar's coming off and I'm out of here." I'm not a priest, but I agree with him. Such a discovery would totally undermine catholic Christianity, though some variant of gnosticism might remain credible.
Video
Twitter
RSS Feed
I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I have been a questioning Christian since I was sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on the other forums. I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:
http://bible-truths.com/
The website, and webmaster, makes perfect SENSE...and there is no room left for ambiguity. Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end.
Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone...we need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. This website has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.
P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.
In Christ's love,
Brynn
June 24, 2008 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I'm new here, but I think it fair to say that I have been a questioning Christian since I was sixteen. Not that I questioned the eternal purpose, BUT over the past forty-some years, I have posed most of the questions I've read here and on the other forums. I've always felt that I was unworthy of Jesus' sacrifice, and felt that I could never live up to the standards needed to attain heaven. I knew there was MORE that I was unable to grasp...and prayed for clarity to all the questions I had no answers for. I was almost ready to give up, when I discovered the following website:
http://bible-truths.com/
The website, and webmaster, makes perfect SENSE...and there is no room left for ambiguity. Now I have a more meaningful relationship with God...for I know His purpose for my life, for my family's life, and for all mankind. Some may not agree, but to me--it was a blessing to finally realize that God's plan is "alive and well"...and it doesn't matter what WE think or do...HE is in charge and His purpose WILL be achieved in the end.
Agreeing to disagree isn't the answer for anyone...we need something (with evidence) to hold on to in these last days. This website has made me LOVE our God SO much more -- and honor Him for His perfect plan for mankind.
P.S. There is scriptural backing for EVERY topic listed on this site, if you take time to read.
In Christ's love,
Brynn
June 24, 2008 9:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
It would mean that the entire Bible is false, CS Lewis said it best He is liar lunatic or Lord! He could not make the claims he did and be a good teacher.
The Bible is not only historically true; all archeologies discovered have proven the Bibles accuracy. Both people and places. No other book or writing of antiquity is even close to it… None!
The Bible gives us a definitive answer to how life began and how it will end. No other book is as complete as it is!
The Bible is consistent with out error from beginning OT to end NT. All with one purpose to bring man back to God through the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
The Bible is the book that gives you the only sure way to salvation, with out a doubt.
The Bible is the only book that tells us about the only religion that you don’t have to work your way to heaven.
We don't have to guess or hope or be in fear.
We rely on the power of the shed blood and His work on the Cross.
June 22, 2008 11:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I would love to have mine at the top of this list. It is called Klok and can be found on my blog at finding a medical transcription job
June 17, 2008 8:23 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I would love to have mine at the top of this list. It is called Klok and can be found on my blog at finding a medical transcription job
June 17, 2008 8:22 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I would love to have mine at the top of this list. It is called Klok and can be found on my blog at finding a medical transcription job
June 17, 2008 8:20 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I would love to have mine at the top of this list. It is called Klok and can be found on my blog at finding a medical transcription job
June 17, 2008 8:19 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I would love to have mine at the top of this list. It is called Klok and can be found on my blog at finding a medical transcription job
June 17, 2008 8:18 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The is really no need to answer this question because Jesus rose from the dead, taken his entire body. For those that believe He never exsisted, there are historical roman records along with Jewish records of the cruxifiction and the real life Jesus of Nazareth. He was who He said He was.
April 19, 2008 4:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Religion was ditorsioned long time ago by men. Jesus could be a just science fiction figure that never existed or maybe he was just a man with a vsision and strong words to manipulate the people, a discovery like that will show that he was just a man and not the son of god
March 19, 2008 12:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Hi,
Amazon has a nice offer which ends Monday, Jan. 28, 2008 - you can get 5 HD-DVDs for free
if you buy a Toshiba DVD player.
More about this on Bargain Hunter http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com
January 26, 2008 4:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
THE WORST WAY OF CALLING NAME TO THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR:
When Christians say that Jesus(A.S) was His only BEGOTTEN and not MADE like Adam (A.S) or like all other creatures or creations?
What are you insinuating??? That God Almighty him self came down to perform the lowest form of animal act like any dog, donkey or monkey,i.e., sexual reproduction?
And on top of it Jesus(A.S) was His begotten son not ligitimate!!!!!!!!!!1
THAT IS THE WORST KIND OF ABUSE AND NAMING DIRECTED TOWARDS THE GOD ALMIGHTY!!
Well down you so called CHRISTIAN believers??
You are getting your rewards in this world and will definitely get infinitely here after!!!!!!
December 16, 2007 3:21 AM | Report Offensive Comment
TO ALL THE
Christians, Jews, Atheists and Non Believers of the WORLD, and who ever are visiting these blogs:
Below link and all its attached links will
GIVE YOU THE ANSWSERS OF ALL
the mysteries, confusions, disbelieves, doubts and misconceptions about GOD AND TELL YOU ABOUT THE TRUTH WITH EVIDENCE USING THE TECHNIQUE OF
- RATIONAL APPORACH
- SCIENTIFIC APPROACH
- LOGICAL APPROOACH
- FALSIFICATION TEST (FOR WESTRENERES)
http://www.jamaat.net/deedat.htm
IF YOU FOUND THE TRUTH, PASS IT ON AND THESE LINKS TO AS MANY YOU CAN!!!!
PEACE & ASLAM-U-ALAKUM!
December 15, 2007 9:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
You can find a reply to your post here Discount Pharmacy
December 13, 2007 1:02 AM | Report Offensive Comment
sale@mp3.com
December 13, 2007 12:24 AM | Report Offensive Comment
sale@mp3.com
December 12, 2007 10:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Hi,
ever wondered how to get better Amazon deals or how to get that 30-day refund from Amazon?
We discovered a gret service which tracks prices for you and alerts youl.
Check out our latest review at:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/12/apnoticom-review.html
December 6, 2007 12:14 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Hi,
I just found the blog:
http://bargains-hunter.blogspot.com/2007/11/amazon-price-drop-more-than-44-and-i.html
There is an amazing how-to for changing the amazon price.
November 15, 2007 8:58 AM | Report Offensive Comment
A man is trying a very unusual way to propose to his girlfriend. He wants people to forward an email to as many people as possible and he hopes that it will eventually get to his girlfriend. Details here: http://www.proposal-to-mary.com
Here is what he wants people to send by email:
You could help me a lot to spread my proposal to Mary – it is important that it is distributed as widely as possible so that it eventually reaches Mary. If you would like to support my proposal to Mary, please send the following text by email to a lot of people :-)
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
WHEN YOU RECEIVE THIS, PLEASE HELP TO DISTRIBUTE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE!
For a long time I have tried to find a special way to propose marriage to my girlfriend Mary, whom I know for five years now. I wanted it very special, romantic and memorable, something our grandchildren would still remember.
And here is my idea: I will send out the proposal to Mary to 50 complete strangers, people I don't know - hoping, that they will forward my proposal to as many people as possible, which in turn forward it etc. And some day, I hope, it will reach Mary, after it has travelled a very long way. I know, it will take a long time and I am quite nervous…
From the poem MY Mary will know immediately that the proposal is for her.
I have created a homepage ( http://www.proposal-to-mary.com ) where you can find the current status of my quest. You can use the homepage to check if the proposal has already reached Mary (in that case it is not necessary anymore to forward the mail).
Once the proposal has reached Mary, I will put a note on these pages. Also I will publish there how many people have read the proposal so that everybody can see how far it has spread and that it is getting closer to Mary.
And of course you will find there what I am waiting for most: Mary's answer! I can't tell you, how nervous I am… Will she accept my proposal? Will she like the unusual way how she got it, through the hands of thousands of messengers all over the world?
Please cross your fingers for me! And please - help me by sending the mail to as many people as possible, to help it spread, so that it eventually reaches Mary.
And here is my proposal:
Mary, please forgive me, as you know English is not my native language. And I am not a poet. But I mean it from my heart.
My angel,
Five years ago, I will always remember the day When fate made us meet, blissful Alaskan moments in May Earth spun around us and a journey began Love, warmth, happiness, enough the years to span.
The longer it lasts the more grows our bond And with 80 still - of you I will be fond Whatever happens, I will stay at your side Through good and bad, together let us stride
No second with you was ever wasted
You are the sweetest I have ever tasted
We have spent so many years - why not a life?
Mary, will you marry me - and become my wife?
Mary, if you have received that and have recognized me, then give me a sign so that I can continue with the romantic part of my proposal…
------------- SNIP (email text end) ---------------
November 12, 2007 10:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Great site!6c6bed86f8456343fdec426ee8588b9b
November 1, 2007 7:01 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Dear Humans,
Can you show me the word Judaism in the OT?
Can you show me the word Christianity in the OT/NT?
Why follow a religion whose name is absent from its own holly text?!
There is only one true religion: Islam.
Just follow the Holly Bible and it will show you the way.
Go back to the original text (bypassing the Evangelists!)
Here is my proof:
See Verse 16 in Ch 5 of Song of Songs at this location
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt3005.htm
Look at the Hebrew text. You will see the Name Mohammad (מַחֲמַדִּים) there! Just remove the "i" (י) and "m" (ם) used for making a noun plural.
Follow Mohammad (in Hebrew מַחֲמַד )
For more, http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/the-Jewish-Bible/Muhammad-in-Songs.htm
October 8, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
And now, we return to today's "Lovely Talmud" episode. Enjoy!
A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day: Thank you God for not making me a Gentile, a woman or a slave. Shabbath 86a-86b.
Besides the Talmud being a book promoting hate towards non-Jews, it also promotes violence and self torment on the Jews as well;
Erubin 21b. Whosoever disobeys the rabbis deserves death and will be punished by being boiled in hot excrement in hell.
Insults Against Mary the Jew, Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a who*e: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Mary the hairdresser," had s*x with many men.
October 8, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thomas Carlyle in 'Heroes and Hero Worship and the Heroic in History,' 1840
"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
"A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world’s Maker had ordered so."
October 8, 2007 12:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.
---------------------------------
De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
---------------------------------
Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823
The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
-------------------------------------
Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in ‘History of the Saracen Empire,’ London, 1870
"The greatest success of Mohammad’s life was effected by sheer moral force."
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
--------------------------------------------
Lane-Poole in 'Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad'
He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...
-------------------------------
Annie Besant in 'The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,' Madras, 1932.
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
-----------------------------------------
W.C. Taylor in 'The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects'
So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally.
October 8, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Why-Believe-in-Allah/What-non-Muslims-sayabout-Muhammad.htm
Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)
"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."
Dr. Gustav Weil in 'History of the Islamic Peoples'
Muhammad was a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. His house, his dress, his food - they were characterized by a rare simplicity. So unpretentious was he that he would receive from his companions no special mark of reverence, nor would he accept any service from his slave which he could do for himself. He was accessible to all and at all times. He visited the sick and was full of sympathy for all. Unlimited was his benevolence and generosity as also was his anxious care for the welfare of the community.
Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.
"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.
"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.
"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen: all these and finally, his flight his incessant preaching, his wars against odds, his faith in his success and his superhuman security in misfortune, his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.
October 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I Am speechless!!!!
Jewish Racism towards Non-Jews as expressed in the Talmud
"The modern Jew is the product of the Talmud..."
"Babylonian Talmud", published by the Boston Talmud Society, p. XII
The Jews refer to the remainder of Earths inhabitants, the non-Jewish peoples, as "Gentiles", "Goyim". Let's see what the Jewish Talmud teaches the Jews concerning the non-Jewish majority, i.e. those who are not part of Jahve's "Chosen People":
O My GOD!!!
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b
"The Akum (non-Jew) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the the dog more than the non-Jew."
Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30
"Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an animal. Therfore he will be served by animals in human form."
Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855
"A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal."
Coschen hamischpat 405
"The souls of non-Jews come from impure sprits and are called pigs."
Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b
"Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human."
Schene luchoth haberith, p. 250 b
"If you eat with a Gentile, it is the same as eating with a dog."
Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b
"If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant or maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell the Jew: "God will replace 'your loss', just as if one of his oxen or asses had died"."
Jore dea 377, 1
"Sexual intercourse between Gentiles is like intercourse between animals."
Talmud Sanhedrin 74b
"It is permitted to take the body and the life of a Gentile."
Sepher ikkarim III c 25
"It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah. The Christians belong to the denying ones of the Torah."
Coschen hamischpat 425 Hagah 425. 5
"A heretic Gentile you may kill outright with your own hands."
Talmud, Abodah Zara, 4b
"Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God."
Talmud: Bammidber raba c 21 & Jalkut 772
October 8, 2007 11:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Jewish children send 'love' messages
to Lebanese children
Pictures!!!
look at the real terrorists!
http://www.radioislam.org/jewish-photos/index.htm
October 8, 2007 11:50 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Women. Judaism, and Islam
http://www.jews-for-allah.org/women-Judaism-and-Islam/
October 8, 2007 11:44 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Listen to this mp3
http://media.snunit.k12.il/kodeshm/mp3/t3005.mp3
recording of a Jewish recital
of their scripture. Seek to time 02:14
Recognize the Name MOHAMMAD?
For more, http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/
October 8, 2007 11:39 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Listen to this mp3
http://media.snunit.k12.il/kodeshm/mp3/t3005.mp3
recording of a Jewish recital
of their scripture. Seek to time 02:14
Recognize the Name MOHAMMAD?
For more, http://www.jews-for-allah.org/Muhammad-and-Judaism/
October 8, 2007 11:35 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Hi, there!..6625700ebc45af85bdb0def2120b3e4d
October 7, 2007 12:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Pain is a signal from our body that something is not right. It can be due to a physical injury, some kind of disease, or emotional upset.
Carisoprodol (Soma) is gentle pain relief treatment for back pain, headaches, fibromyalgia, migraines, neck pain, sciatica and other diseases.
Carisoprodol (Soma) is clinically proven methods to relieve pain.
For more information wisit our site:
http://soma.rxparty.com/
September 28, 2007 7:13 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am here to say hello and you have a great site! notem6715
September 24, 2007 4:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Hello and congratulations! notem6715
September 23, 2007 9:08 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i think jesus existed as a man... so if they found his remains they would be human. makes sense doesn't it? but..you would have to know his d.n.a., and thats the kicker..find some relatives and youll find out if you found jesus. so in other words..jesus could have been anybody. ya think?
September 1, 2007 2:14 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i think jesus existed as a man... so if they found his remains they would be human. makes sense doesn't it? but..you would have to know his d.n.a., and thats the kicker..find some relatives and youll find out if you found jesus. so in other words..jesus could have been anybody. ya think?
September 1, 2007 2:13 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The Qur'anic Account of Jesus' Ascent to God's Presence Examining the words used in the narratives relating how the Prophets died and the verses dealing with Jesus' ascent to God's presence reveals an important fact: Jesus did not die like the other prophets did, nor was he murdered by the unbelievers.
Rather, our Lord took him up to His presence.
In the case of Jesus, the Qur'an clearly states that he was not killed in any of those ways, for: "They did not kill him [wa ma qataloohu] and did not crucify him [wa ma salaboohu].
" God reveals that people were shown a look-alike and that Jesus was raised up to His presence, as follows: When God said: "Jesus, I will take you back [mutawaffeeka] and raise you up [wa raafi`uka] to Me and purify you of those who are unbelievers. And I will place the people who follow you above those who are unbelievers until the Day of Rising..." (Surah Al 'Imran, 3: 55)
The following are the ways in which the words referring to death in the Qur'an and the word tawaffa in Surah Al `Imran are used: (1) Tawaffa: To Cause To Die, To Take in One's Sleep, or To Take Back The word tawaffa used in Surah Al `Imran 3 and translated as "taking back" here and "causing to die" in some Qur'an translations, has various connotations.
The Qur'an describes his being taken back to God in the words that Jesus will say on the Day of Judgment: [Jesus said], "I said to them nothing but what You ordered me to say: 'Worship God, my Lord and your Lord.' I was a witness against them as long as I remained among them, but when You took me back to You [tawaffa], You were the One watching over them. You are the Witness of all things." (Surat al-Ma'ida, 5:117)
there are three meanings to the term wafat which is from the same root as tawaffa:the wafat of death, the wafat of sleep, and last, the wafat of being raised up to God, as in the case of Jesus.
August 31, 2007 12:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Like the other prophets, Jesus (pbuh) called upon his people to worship God, the One and Only, and to avoid all forms of denial, polytheism, and evil. Those who rejected him oppressed him ad his followers. However, their plot to kill him failed, even though they thought that they had succeeded, because God raised Jesus (pbuh) to His presence. As the Qur’an reveals and the hadith corroborate, Jesus (pbuh) will return to Earth.
Those who claim that he was killed or is dead are seriously mistaken. This is one of the author’s main focuses. While revealing this truth, the author recalls other very important tidings, such as the fact that the signs of Jesus’ (pbuh) second coming are becoming ever more apparent. If God wills, this event is close at hand, and the world will witness momentous events when it occurs.
GOD'S PROMISE: PROPHET JESUS (Pbuh) WILL RETURNThe lives of God's chosen Messengers contain many messages and lessons for all people, especially when we study their encounters, their troubles, and their great struggles. The Qur'an cites Jesus as an example for people to follow, because of how he conducted his life and his struggle, and because of his great virtue.
Jesus' birth, life, and ascension to God's presence are all miracles that the Qur'an reveals in some detail. Although God reveals the narratives of many Prophets, Jesus, whom God supported with superior wisdom, among them that he spoke even in the cradle, and that he was the vehicle for countless miracles while he was in this world. That his status is different also can be deduced from the fact that he was raised to God's presence and that the Qur'an indicates strongly his second coming.
The Qur'an reveals that the unbelievers devised a plot to take Jesus' life. According to some sources, a group of bigoted Jewish scribes and priests bribed Judas Iscariot, one of the disciples, to betray him, after which they would arrest Jesus and hand him over to the Romans. According to the same sources, the priests did not have the power to sentence someone to death and so had to make another plan to agitate the Roman regime.
Thus, they portrayed Jesus as being hostile to the Roman leadership, for the Romans were highly sensitive and ruthless when confronted with dissidents. But these priests failed, for the
Qur'an relates: They [unbelievers] planned and God planned. But God is the best of planners. (Surah Al 'Imran, 3:54)
As the verses reveal, they plotted and moved to kill Jesus. However, their plot failed and they ended up killing a look-alike.
During this event, God raised Jesus up to His presence: And [on account of] their saying: "We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Messenger of God."
They did not kill him and they did not crucify him, but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. God raised him to Himself. God is Almighty, All-Wise. (Surat An-Nisa', 4:157-158)
Many people believe in the widespread assumption that the Romans crucified Jesus. The Roman soldiers and Jewish priests who arrested Jesus are said to have killed him on the cross. Although some historical Christian sects such as Docetism have denied this, today, the world of Christianity completely believes it, as well as that he was resurrected three days later and, after several brief meetings with his disciples and others, ascended into the heavens.
August 31, 2007 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws/
August 30, 2007 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws/
August 27, 2007 11:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
China Man,
The real problem is zionists.
They pull the strings.
They are the leaders behind the leaders in the capitalistic and communistic worlds of the West and north.
It is the so-called Jew (synagogue of Satan?), who is behind most wars,..like...
WWI (ottoman empire destroyed so Israel could be, and the Belfour act instituted (which is totally illegal and inhumane).
WWII, Zionists fund Hitler, start war to destroy many semite germans, they sacrifice "lesser" brothers of darker skins, and institute the phony Holocaust of which no more then 200,000 Jews died (poland natives suffered far worse).
this gave the so-called jew the moral highground, after lying and propogating lies on the world called the "Jewish Holocaust" ITS A FRAUD.
NOW the so-called jews are up to it again. THey got AMerica into the Iraqi war, there tyring to get us into a war with Iran now.
If it wasn't for the zionist Jweish banker, life on earth would be alot better.
June 12, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
You don't have to worry about what we would say if Jesus Christ's remains were found. The ossuary, like the tomb, was empty. The analysis of mitochondrial DNA remnants from scrapings out of the empty ossuary was inconclusive of anything. The name of “Mary” were not quite right and had to be twisted into place, and was very common in First and Second centuries.
That silly program of James Cameron on the Discovery Channel about the "Tomb of Jesus" was so cheesy it was laughable. The statistics sited were bunk. No amount of bad dramatic music can make up for the lack of plausible evidence. There was a lot hand waving about the “Ossuary of James” having come from this tomb because it was of similar size. But the missing ossuary from this tomb was reported by the only competent archaeologist ever to handle it to be devoid of inscriptions at the time it was discovered in the. If that one is the “Ossuary of James” then the “James” inscriptions are the product of a Twentieth Century forger. If so, who knows what other mischief was wrought on the tomb and the other ossuaries? If it is not from this tomb, one of the key supports of the speculation is nullified.
Two people who should know, Amos Kloner, who originally excavated the tomb, and Joe Zias, former curator of archeology at the Israeli Antiquities Authority are both very negative on this. Kloner told the Jerusalem Post that the documentary is "nonsense." Zias described it in an e-mail to The Washington Post as a "hyped up film which is intellectually and scientifically dishonest."
June 11, 2007 9:34 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The specific question is: If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity? The key point of the question hinges on the term "definitively", which creates a misnomer within historical research.
It is historically impossible for the remains of Jesus to be "definitively" found. This is due to the simple fact that there is no comparative DNA with which one can make reliable decisions. The existence of such variables is what would "definitively" prove the historical reality of Jesus' remains. However, the non-existence of such variables definitively rules out the possibility of anyone ever finding the remains of Jesus--or anyone from the ancient world, for that matter.
Therefore, I have no fear about such evidence ever disproving my theological beliefs about Jesus.
June 11, 2007 3:29 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TO MARC HALO; PER YOUR POSTING OF APRIL 6, I DONT KNOW HOW I MISSED IT BEFORE JUST NOW. YOUR HATRED BURNS IN YOUR WORDS. YOU CRY LIKE A DISRESPECTFUL, UNGREATFUL, SPOILED, BRAT WHO HATES EVERTHING AND EVERYBODY BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING AND RULE EVERYBODY. I RECOGNIZE YOUR CHARACTER AND JEALOUSY AGAINST THE FATHER AND JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOR. I HAVE GOD'S WORD THAT SUCH REBELLION HAS BEEN A MISERY TO HEAVEN AND EARTH, EVER SINCE satan, THROUGH his ARROGANCE AND VANITY, DECIDED THAT THINGS WOULD BE BETTER, IF he WERE god, AND THINGS WERE DONE his WAY. TO KILL, STEAL, AND DESTROY IS satan's WAY. TO LOVE AND BE LOVED IS GOD'S WAY. I SEE YOU marc halo.
May 1, 2007 11:11 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Thank God I don't have to worry about such a thing. Thank God, Christ has indeed risen from the dead and all that is left is an empty tomb.
I don't even take into consideration this "if" question.
While all religions could exist with if-s and can-s, Christianity is built upon the Birth, Death and Resurrection of Christ. There can be no if-s and no question marks in between. There is only certainty in the story of Christ. Praise be to God the Father for sending us His Son Jesus Christ, whom He revealed to us through His Spirit.
April 30, 2007 12:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Interesting proposal. In the cloudy the haze of religion that question does still haunt me. Who was this guy? If jesus' tomb was discovered today, it would not change my thoughts on his magical powers. However, if this discovery led to other evidence, I would be inclined to wonder.
April 15, 2007 11:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Interesting proposal. In the cloudy the haze of religion that question does still haunt me. Who was this guy? If jesus' tomb was discovered today, it would not change my thoughts on his magical powers. However, if this discovery led to other evidence, I would be inclined to wonder.
April 15, 2007 11:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
since this is about the tomb of jesus- the special on this issue will be aired on PBS at *:00pm EST on wednesday april 18th
April 14, 2007 12:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Come on DJTEEL fess up. You're really an atheist trying to make christians look like morons aren't you?
April 13, 2007 9:33 AM | Report Offensive Comment
so many people ,so hateful toward christianity that it's sad and humorous at the same time.I've been a christian for years and it's amazing how many people become angry the very second that they find out that i'm a christian..wanting to argue and all..the bible explains there will be a day when most will hate me for his namesake even though i haven't done anything against them. anyway,my life is tanfastic.i love it.that's the way god planned it.i have no argument with people who only want to belittle my faith or me because of my faith.speaking to people like is like throwing pearls to the swine only to be trampled on.so to you people who only speak of christianity in order to trample on it,even christ compared you to swine who only care enough about his words enough to trample on them.So take your miserable lives and argue with other hate mongers.i'm happy and content. i don't have any use for trouble makers like you. so there..neener neeener neeener!! hehehehe...think that's not a christian attitude? you're wrong.jesus didn't instruct christians to be nice -itty nice to the point of accepting humiliation.non christians however just love to hold it against a christian if he/she becomes defensive in an equally aggresive manor. to those monkey buttoxes,i say, go defrock a camel or something ...athiests seem to get so emotionally beside themselves when someone even insinuates that there's a creator. oh well...this is why i don't hang with non-believers,just like athiests probably shouldn't hang with believers. athiests leave christians alone and they'll leave u alone. anyway..havva nice day! and don't forget to pray
April 13, 2007 5:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The resurrection was not some kind of conjuring trick with bones. It did not take place within the limitations of space and time. It is ultimately Mystery and must be so approached. The New Testament goes to great lengths to show that the risen JESUS was truly ALIVE but in a totally different way. Through the resurrection a whole new energy for transformation and the power of the unfolding love of God was unleashed upon the world in an extraordinary manner.
If they found the remains of Jesus of Nazareth in some remote cave or tomb - it would matter little to me. From that first Easter forward, Jesus has been with us in an entirely new way - a transcendant, mystical presence pervading the whole of reality.
April 12, 2007 6:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The resurrection was not some kind of conjuring trick with bones. It did not take place within the limitations of space and time. It is ultimately Mystery and must be so approached. The New Testament goes to great lengths to show that the risen JESUS was truly ALIVE but in a totally different way. Through the resurrection a whole new energy for transformation and the power of the unfolding love of God was unleashed upon the world in an extraordinary manner.
If they found the remains of Jesus of Nazareth in some remote cave or tomb - it would matter little to me. From that first Easter forward, Jesus has been with us in an entirely new way - a transcendant, mystical presence pervading the whole of reality.
April 12, 2007 6:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To China Man:
You have asked a reasonable, good question. Please understand that many, many Americans wish for peaceful, diplomatic solutions to worldwide problems of hate, mistrust, injustice, and prejudice. Decisions made by leaders of the United States definitely do not reflect the decision that would be made by each American if he were in the shoes of those leaders. Thank you for expressing a sincere interest in reaching peaceful rather than conflict-based resolutions to these complex problems.
April 12, 2007 3:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I understood what China man said. I just can't believe he wanted to degrade America. Japan. Remember pearl harbor? Sure The U.S. dropped the bomb that ended the war, but the U.S. also was instrumental in rebuilding Japan and bringing that country to the status that it enjoys today.
April 12, 2007 6:37 AM | Report Offensive Comment
eric, you didnt understand china man's post?
i thought it was lucid enough.
April 11, 2007 9:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Dear. China man.
What?
April 11, 2007 4:12 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Jesus is in heaven that is ageed by all. It means he died or taken bodily to heaven or just disappeared or he never existed but a fiction whatever he is in heaven. Why need to discuss this issue on Earth about somebody in the heaven, we have enough problem on Earth to talk about.
Lets talk about the recent mass killing by Americans in Iraq over 600,000 based on lie and over 2 million during World war 2 in Japan by nuke bomb of innocents. This is a peaceful world except America we are far better place to live. They blame all to Muslims but they killed only 3000 in NY, who is bigger evil, do some math and talk about world problems today not Jesus in heaven or his bons, it is not going to cure human problems of injustice, ignorance, prejudice, hate. Ameen.
April 11, 2007 3:08 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Russel D.
Show us one human experience that has not been addressed in the BIBLE. Past, present or future.
April 11, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Russel D.
Show us one human experience that has not been addressed in the BIBLE.
April 11, 2007 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think the way one answers this question demonstrates what they think of Jesus. If one believes He is the risen Lord, His remains would eliminate that possiblility. If one thinks that He was a good teacher and nothing more, the question is pointless.
April 11, 2007 10:25 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Maya;
My point is that God's science is forever ahead of man's science. What man is discovering now has been from the beginning.(Genesis)
April 11, 2007 10:12 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Eric:
They didn't have artificial insemination back then. Not like Mary could go to a doctor and say, give me something nobody else has. The Bible isn't the Truth. It is literature. It's not a history book.
April 11, 2007 9:51 AM | Report Offensive Comment
To Maya;
So you can't believe that a virgin can be impregnated. Ever hear of artificial insemination?
In Genesis where it is translated that GOD created Eve from Adam's rib. Should have been translated that God created Eve from Adam's "curve". This curve refers to the Helix curve. The helix curve is that part of the human DNA strand that contains all the genetic material that determines the feminine gender.
GOD is the creator of science.
April 11, 2007 8:57 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The whole story about Jesus is so stupid, full of conrtadictions and some really redicilous things (like the immaculate conception)that no person in their right mind would ever believe it if they hadn't been brainwashed into believing it when they were children. I am happy that I was brought up as an atheist. Every religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is meant to make people dependent, easily manipulated and last but not least to enrich the clergy. To say nothing of the ignorance and hypocrisy typical of the church, its preachings and practice.I can't help pitying anyone who is a "true believer".
April 11, 2007 6:34 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The whole story about Jesus is so stupid, full of conrtadictions and some really redicilous things (like the immaculate conception)that no person in their right mind would ever believe it if they hadn't been brainwashed into believing it when they were children. I am happy that I was brought up as an atheist. Every religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Buddhism is meant to make people dependent, easily manipulated and last but not least to enrich the clergy. To say nothing of the ignorance and hypocrisy typical of the church, its preachings and practice.I can't help pitying anyone who is a "true believer".
April 11, 2007 6:16 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Come on now - how would anyone possibly know if it was Christ's remains to begin with? It's a silly question but just say Christ's remains were positively identified, I say "So What?" Resurrection should be by the spirit anyway not bodily. I know that is not biblical, but folks we really have to think for ourselves some times. Even if Christ rose from the dead as an apparition somehow and then followers DID hide his boy, he would still have arose. I'm not a theologian as you can easily tell, but there is such a thing as believing biblical truth without believing the bible literally.
April 10, 2007 10:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Soja John Thaikattil,
Thank you for your excellent posting. If possible, could you share your views on the trinitarian God, and how this might be prefigured in Hinduism (Vishnu, Shiva...).
Thank you again for your post.
April 10, 2007 2:28 PM | Report Offensive Comment
this is from the 'tomb of jesus' post on the guest panelists site-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"According to a new Discovery Channel documentary and a companion book, a tomb unearthed in the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem in 1980 contains the bones of Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Judah, son of Jesus."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i was thinking someone would have brought up this topic,but it seems to have concentrated on the 'resurrection' aspect.
as nothing is proven, this is all conjecture-the question itself is positing a purely conjectural premise.
so the second part of the question seems to be, how would it affect your belief system if it was discovered that Jesus(ata) had a wife and child?
some of his disciples were married men- he encouraged his followers to imitate is way(which was celibacy) which is why we have nuns and priests, would it dramatically change your perception of his mission to discover he lived as a householder and family man?
April 10, 2007 1:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Victoria,
Please refrain from copying and pasting the prayer of St. Francis. Your Koran mocks his prayer with the "koranic" militant and anti-female agenda.
April 10, 2007 10:57 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Katie; To find the very first passover Read EXODUS;12 verses 1-14. Also riddle me this, IF the church allowed pagan rituals to be practiced, in the church, by the converts, who converted who? Is it not written that GOD turned HIS face from Israel, because Israel turned from GOD and followed the rituals of false gods.
April 10, 2007 10:13 AM | Report Offensive Comment
This just dawned on me! When JESUS died on the cross, It's not about what HIS bones did, but rather what HIS blood did!!!
April 10, 2007 9:32 AM | Report Offensive Comment
jesus was mostly a "human" who made himself a martyr to promote his beliefs, but he was also a good talker who could hustle free food and lodging by just telling listeners what they wanted to here. bible authors have taken ordinary events and put the ol' religious spin on them. religion sells good because people don't like reality; where "everyone and everything" has a beginning, a time of existance, and an ending. our distaste for that is why over time we have dreamed and conjured up all the different beliefs we have today.
man is still ignorant and child-like from centuries of church/religious constraint of free thinking, despite the information age of recent years, and is still engaged with management by disaster. think about it, ever since humans came on the scene, we have had absolutely no regard for our planet or all the other life forms we share this planet with, and religion gets most of the blame for setting humans up above everything else.
we are small, insignificant short-timers in the big scheme of things. we require a very narrow temperature, pressure, atmosphere, radiation, and gravity band, where little change in any of them will kill us.
humanity's end will come from our continued tech advances without the balance of broad range knowledge and understanding of our natural world. differences in our beliefs also push individuals into teaching aggression and hate, and starting wars. we should be teaching sharing, caring and respect for all, but the underlying biproduct of religion has been promotion of self-centeredness and self-righteousness by the placement of humans on a pedestal.
we entered our final phase with the development of the atomic bomb. with proliferation, we edge ever closer to the day when someone will push the first button, and it is being aided by religion and people who choose not to see.
April 10, 2007 8:34 AM | Report Offensive Comment
in honor of our christian friends, i have laways loved this poem-
Saint Francis's Prayer for Peace!
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace:
Where there is hatred, let me sow love:
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
Where there is sadness, joy.
O Divine Master, grant that I may not
So much seek to be consoled
As to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
And it is in dying that we are born
to eternal life.
Saint Francis
April 10, 2007 3:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
A belated Happy Easter to all from breathtakingly beautiful Sydney in Australia! Jesus Christ is risen, Alleluia! Personally of course I think it is appropriate for Christians to celebrate Easter in our hearts everyday, so for me today is just as much Easter as it was on Easter Sunday, so it is not belated Easter wishes after all. :-)
As to the question: “If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?”
First of all, I would like to cross the bridge only after I have reached it, so for me the question is premature at this stage. For the following reasons I have no reason to consider that the possibility of finding the remains of Jesus exist:
1. One cannot simultaneously claim that Jesus Christ was an exemplary moral teacher (for all non-Christians are willing to admit at least that much about Jesus) who walked his talk and at the same time imply that He was a liar when He claimed to be the Messiah, and His many references to the Jewish prophesies which His life fulfilled, and the prediction of his death and Resurrection. Why did Jesus have to lie about who He was? He was after all aware of His coming fate, namely death on the cross, for His claim of being Messiah. He had only a band of simple men as His followers. If He was an ordinary man there was no way for Him to have known that in centuries to come Christianity would help shape a powerful civilisation. Jesus lived among the poor and outcastes of his society like a poor man. In other words, Jesus stood to gain nothing in a materialistic worldly sense at all. Jesus did not offer His disciples carnal pleasures and worldly wealth for following Him. He offered them just the opposite. Jesus wanted His disciples to take up the cross and follow Him, be prepared to be persecuted and die if need be, and to concentrate on gathering and storing up spiritual wealth, rather than amass worldly wealth and measure their success in terms of access to unlimited carnal pleasures. Considering all that, why did Jesus have to lie - to seek cheap popularity among the poor social outcastes He chose to associate with? Weren’t His miracles proof enough that He was no ordinary man? How could He as an ordinary human being have predicted His mode of death and Resurrection? Why would He invite death by crucifixion by claiming to be the Messiah?
2. The crucifixion of Jesus was a highly controversial issue in His time. It must be remembered that Pontius Pilate was hard pressed to find a loophole in Roman law to justify meting out the worst possible punishment to an innocent man. Even the worst of men try to build at least a false case before they do something they know to be wrong. And yet Pilate did no more than wash his hands off the guilt, making it a point to emphasise that he was merely giving in to the wishes of the Jewish people themselves (who claimed that Jesus was guilty of blasphemy according to their Scripture, which demanded the ultimate punishment which they could not mete out themselves), thus covering his back and appeasing his guilt in one stroke, for there was nothing to make a false case about. Considering the seriousness of the claim of Jesus and the consequences He had to face as a result of it, the credibility of the religious Jewish and secular Roman authorities were at stake. Therefore, it stands to reason that they would have done everything in their power to discredit the claims of Jesus and His followers. We know from the Bible that the Roman authorities took extra care to guard the tomb of Jesus to prevent any theft of the corpse. In other words, in the best interests of both the Jewish and Roman authorities they would have gladly produced the bodily remains of Jesus, especially after the disciples began to circulate reports that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead. The logical question is: Why didn’t they produce the evidence of the bodily remains of Jesus? The simple logical answer is: They couldn’t!
3. During the days of His ministry before crucifixion, Jesus performed many miracles, including raising Lazarus from the dead. A Hindu sage and yogi would have no difficulty in believing that Jesus could have performed miracles, because miracles are wrought by those who have acquired the powers of Siddhi. (Jesus was after all accused by the Jews of performing miracles with the power of the Devil, which proves that miracles in themselves need not have a divine origin and need not create good fruits.) But raising a man from the dead is a unique power that is beyond the power of a human being even with psychic powers, and hence the miracle of raising Lazarus from the dead is what marks the power of Jesus different from all those who have acquired psychic powers through spiritual practice. Jesus was what He claimed to be, the Son of God, one with the Father, through whom all things were made. (Refer John’s Gospel)
4. The disciples of Jesus were no less doubting of His claim of Resurrection than many tend to be today. The Bible narrates the fears and doubts of His disciples and how it took some appearances and convincing on the part of Jesus to prove that He was indeed raised from the dead. The classic example is that of Apostle Thomas. He is known as Doubting Thomas, but I refer to him as Thomas, the Scientific Apostle. Thomas said, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe it.” (John 20:25) And like a true scientist Thomas was willing to believe, once he was shown the proof (unlike many who say they will not believe no matter what anyone says and they refer to their attitude as that of a scientific rational mind). Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to Him, “My Lord and my GOD.” (John 20:27,28) The Bible account describes Jesus as having had a physical dimension which could eat and drink with His disciples, but His risen body was spiritual at the same time because He could walk through closed doors and disappear suddenly, and at times appeared in a form that wasn’t immediately recognisable.
5. It is important to recall that three wise men from the East came to worship Jesus when He was born. It was the confirmation of a universal awareness that God was going to reveal Himself in a unique way. The Bhagavad Gita which was completed around that time had already developed the theme of a personal God. The Jewish Prophets after all had prophesied the coming of the Messiah for centuries. Tradition has it that Apostle Thomas, (the Scientific Apostle in my definition), came to Kerala, India in 52 AD to evangelise to the small Jewish community that lived there at the time, and ended up converting many high caste Hindus, including rigid, ultra-orthodox Nambudiri Brahmins (like my ancestors), who practised the oldest Vedic religion. Without a powerfully convincing message it was highly unlikely that Apostle Thomas could have persuaded a Nambudiri Brahmin to accept Christianity and give up the privileges of belonging to an exclusive and powerful Hindu community, considering immediate ex-communication was the rule, with loss of means to earn a living in ways open only to the Hindu Nambudiri Brahmin: e.g. By practising Ayurveda taught only as a family profession, offering priestly services which brought very high income, being advisors to rulers or being priestly lords themselves, or serving the Nambudiri community in various ways. I have been asked on what grounds I believe that Apostle Thomas came to Kerala in 52 AD and converted among others, my Hindu ancestors when there is no historical proof of it. In India many traditions are orally transmitted without being recorded historically. Hence I have every reason to believe that a whole state does not invent a tradition and pass it on faithfully for centuries without a trace of truth to it, considering the birthplace of Jesus was far away and the account of His life and death and role as Messiah could not have been invented in Kerala. I await proof that traditions cannot exist based on historical facts and such traditions have no validity if the events do not find a mention in history textbooks stemming from that period, especially since history writing was not a part of Indian culture at the time.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14678a.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Malabar_Church
Until such time that the mortal remains of Jesus Christ is unearthed/found and it is proved to me beyond a shadow of doubt, with DNA verification, that it is indeed the bodily remains of Jesus, I will continue to believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and base my Christian faith on it. I see no reason whatsoever to raise the question now, as to whether it would affect my faith in Jesus Christ.
Jesus Christ, my Lord and my God, is risen! Alleluia!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
April 10, 2007 2:46 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip argues: " That ship sailed two thousand years ago, and all it left behind was some contradictory hearsay evidence. That's surprising when you consider that it was not only supposed to be the most important event in all of history but was arranged by the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Why then only let a few people see it, and then let most of them get killed? It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless those people invented the story in the first place."
Except for your last sentence your point is excelllent and I have thought about it before myself. Then I thought: God is also a master publicist. Had he left concrete irrefutable evidence, surely no one would have believed, being as we are. In the way He has done it...one must search, ponder, discern, eventually surrender or not surrender... and He decides the when the who and the how.
In the meantime, he has left not a few a people wondering.
He-She is God.
April 10, 2007 12:42 AM | Report Offensive Comment
As per most contemporary NT scholars, the "miracles" of raising Lazarus (John 11:41-44) and the shift changing of water (John 2: 1-11) are both embellishments to create the aura of deity around Jesus. Note that both stories only appear in John's gospel.
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb130.html and http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb349.html
An excerpt:
"John P. Meier
Meier discusses this epidose at some length [Marginal Jew II,934-50], before concluding:
In sum, when one adds these historical difficulties to the massive amount of Johannine literary and theological traits permeating the whole story, it is difficult to identify any "historical kernel" or "core event" that might have a claim to go back to the historical Jesus. Put another way: if we subtract from the eleven verses of the first Cana miracle every element that is likely to have come from the creative mind of John or his Johannine "school" and every element that raises historical problems, the entire pericope vanishes before our eyes. Many critics would assign the origin of the story to the Johannine "school" or "circle" lying behind the Gospel. I prefer the view that the story is a creation of the Evangelist himself, using a number of traditional themes. (p. 949)"
April 9, 2007 11:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Kate wrote:
"According to 1 Corinthians 15:35 (in a nutshell, go read it at Bible.com for your own reference), the resurrection body is not at all a perishable, physical body. It is a spiritual, eternal body. This leaves little doubt that the bones of Christ, his battered flesh, and his physical organs never actually re-animated. But instead, his spirit rose and walked the Earth. And just as He turned water to wine and resurrected Lazarus, Jesus, as a devine being, manifested His physical appearance so that people would be able to see exactly what had happened to Him in the Resurrection, and more importantly, what He did for all mankind."
So when Jesus allowed Thomas to put his fingers in his wounds, he was deceiving Thomas?
April 9, 2007 6:29 PM | Report Offensive Comment
There were times in my life I could not walk and I'm doing fine now. I know the air did not heal me. So stop playing your question games on Christianity. God is all that and then some. You on the other hand, need to back off. Who failed you, God noever failed me.
Peace
April 9, 2007 4:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Only someone who never experieinced the life-changing power of God could ask such a stupid question. You liberal newsmen should stick to what you do best: berating Christians and making it look like we have our faith in some fantasy. That's when you're a fish in water. Cynicism is you life blood.
April 9, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Katie, if that's the case, why was such a big deal made about the tomb being found empty?
April 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comment
the originator.
every body came on this planet earth and it was in existing already,no body was there when the originator created it ,no body was there to claim any share or right or patent or authority or ownership or knoweldge,none at all.
every body droping from his mother womb bare back bare head bare feet,no teeth,slopy mouth,running nose,canot even stand on the feet,yet when he grow up a little,he ask does god exist,what is the proof?
the logical starting point of observation should be how magnificent this creation and how great the creator .
next logical and ethical starting point is what i,m doing here and what is next .
the originator who created this magnificent universe is not dump nor blind nor deaf he speaks,he hears,he sees ,his word is part of him,he is great and his word is great,he is beuatiful and his word is beuatiful.
those who do not know their creator are realy missing it.
to those who love jesus ,let them not forget his originator who is worthy of all whorship.
April 9, 2007 12:20 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Firstly, I must negate an earlier statement confusing Passover with the Resurrection we celebrate as Easter. Passover existed before the Resurrection, and was widely celebrated as a cleansing and sacrificial holiday that marked being rewarded for adherence to instruction from and faithfulness to God. Easter (bunnies, eggs, etc...) does have many pagan roots, however the early Christian church, possibly in order to gain converts, allowed newly Christian former-pagans to continue their rituals. Why - maybe in hopes the message of the Gospel would eventually turn them.
Now, more on-topic and to the point of the question posed: If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
According to 1 Corinthians 15:35 (in a nutshell, go read it at Bible.com for your own reference), the resurrection body is not at all a perishable, physical body. It is a spiritual, eternal body. This leaves little doubt that the bones of Christ, his battered flesh, and his physical organs never actually re-animated. But instead, his spirit rose and walked the Earth. And just as He turned water to wine and resurrected Lazarus, Jesus, as a devine being, manifested His physical appearance so that people would be able to see exactly what had happened to Him in the Resurrection, and more importantly, what He did for all mankind.
Furthermore, the inability to materialistcally disprove His existance over the course of scientific development and historical development, although it may not prove His existance, does call into question the ability to prove that any remains found were ever actually Jesus Christ. How can science say He didn't exist and then go on to say - "but here are His bones"? Perhaps that is why there is this discovery at all. To negate all previous scientific "fact" about Jesus Christ. To finally bring the proof pudding for the truth of the Bible.
Every scientific 'discovery' has its reason in the Bible and the uncovering of the physical body of Christ would not negate Christianity according to its rule book, the Bible, in Corinthians, but would in fact further inforce the validity of the Bible.
Always a believer!
April 9, 2007 11:23 AM | Report Offensive Comment
between the innings they argued about jesus, and christian friends chided him for not believing in resurrection,the insisted that jesus was 1 of god's chosen messengers but human like us .
April 9, 2007 8:26 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Viejita del oeste wrote:
"As a Christian I must admit that our beliefs are based in mythology just like any of the canons we reject. That's really the point of the answers that bother you. Rather than observing a set of facts, faith is a process of accepting a set of stories. By the way, Christians don't all confuse science and faith."
Yes, that is the point of the answers that bothers me. Accepting stories as facts is not a reliable way to arrive at the truth. This has been proven numerous times when science has proved the church wrong. Faith has a very poor track record as a means of distinguishing fact from fiction.
I'm glad not all Christians confuse science and faith. Please tell that to the Christians promoting ID. It's a deceptive and underhanded way to subvert science education.
Regards,
Realist
April 9, 2007 6:02 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Whether this new site discovered is the actual burial place of Jesus or not matters little. His genuine burial site is in the area somewhere and may never be found. For the resurrection theory to be accepted the tomb had to be found empty.It was and the church had its life after death eternal myth enshrined as gospel. The Tomb was empty, but dig up any tomb or grave today and you will find the bones of the deceased where the body was placed. The religion explains this because it's only the soul that makes the crossing to the life after death. So Jesus went first class. The congregations left behind travel by soul express. No Doctor or Medical examiner has ever been able to detect or dissect this vital soul.For me it's buried and in time become fertilizer.
April 9, 2007 2:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Realist
As a Christian I must admit that our beliefs are based in mythology just like any of the canons we reject. That's really the point of the answers that bother you. Rather than observing a set of facts, faith is a process of accepting a set of stories. By the way, Christians don't all confuse science and faith.
Recently I heard a comment repeated, the original was supposed to be from a Catholic priest: "I must believe in Hell because it is official church dogma, but I don't believe there is anyone there."
April 9, 2007 12:29 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I'm beginning to lose interest in this whole enterprise. There have been some interesting and thought-provoking comments, and I have come to terms with the shallow analysis of many of the official columnists because there are always a few gems. On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be any moderating going on at all. Several of the posters seem to be in the habit of writing one lengthy commentary on each question and then just copying and pasting it on every thread. Those who seek a real debate or even conversation are drowned out by all the one trick ponies who assume their faith (including atheism) is the only option and seem to think that if they repeat the same arguments enough times we will all see the light they are looking at instead of the whatever is shining into our own windows.
Offensive? A little. Boring? You bet!
..And that's not even going into embarrassment of the Mary Magdalene porn post.
April 9, 2007 12:20 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Don't people find it rather odd that many responses to the question have been something like: "I don't care about any physical evidence either way; I still believe in the resurrection because it means something to me."?
I find it incredible that people can just blatanty state that they don't care what actual evidence there is. They just prefer to go on believing in myths written in old books without any regard for whether they actually correspond to any kind of reality or not.
Another common theme on this forum is something like: "I believe in Christianity because it makes sense to me".
I was raised as a Christian, but I stopped being a Christian because it just makes no sense to me at all. Why does God have to sacrifice his son to himself to convince himself to forgive us for not living up to standards that he set knowing full-well we would not be able to live up to them anyway? That's psychotic! I can't think of any other way to describe it. I can't understand how people can twist their minds so much that it can actually seem sensible.
What makes it worse is that this God who supposedly loves all of us equally, created a wonderful place called "hell" for most of us to go to when we die. It gets worse than that. The critera for avoiding hell does not depend on how useful our lives have been or how much we have helped others or even how good our intentions were. It's based on whether or not we believe a myth for which there is virtually no evidence whatsoever. How does that make any kind of sense? How is that a sensible basis for morality?
April 8, 2007 11:45 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To anonymous, I am familiar with the work you referenced, and disagree with the premise. Reimarus attempted to correlate those specific historical events with, what was then, "modern" economic calculations. Historically, it has been "accepted as fact" that Joshua and His Disciples took a vow of poverty, therefore, would not have been inclined toward financial gain, for what it's worth.
April 8, 2007 11:41 PM | Report Offensive Comment
This question would most certainly not even enter into our heads, had the remains of Jesus been found.
April 8, 2007 11:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Anonyomous writes "Has the resurrection been determined as impossible, a priori, by a world view that has yet to explain anything about what is fundamental?"
Not being able to definitively disprove something doesn't add any points in favor of it being true, and using the fact that we don't know everything as a justification for just deciding to believe something without evidence isn't a particularly good idea. You could fill in the blanks with absolutely anything that meets the same standard of evidence. That would require you to consider the pagan, Greek, Norse, and all the other ancient myths as equally likely to be true. My guess is that instead you consider just about all of them to be most likely untrue. On what basis do you make an exception for the resurrection?
"What then would be acceptable as 'proof' of the resurrection?"
There's little chance of any acceptable proof ever materializing. That ship sailed two thousand years ago, and all it left behind was some contradictory hearsay evidence. That's surprising when you consider that it was not only supposed to be the most important event in all of history but was arranged by the omnipotent ruler of the universe. Why then only let a few people see it, and then let most of them get killed? It really doesn't make a lot of sense unless those people invented the story in the first place.
If god really wanted everyone to know and believe wouldn't he have come up with a more effective marketing plan? Instead he crucifies his son in front of a tiny group of people who represent only the most incredibly minuscule percentage of the people alive in the world at the time. Did god not want anyone else to know first hand or were the bible authors blissfully unaware that the world was actually a very big place? God could have used his powers to inform everyone on the planet at the same time with explicit information and instructions. That would make sense unless perhaps the bible authors imagined this great task for themselves as a form of self-aggrandizement?
You can argue that god gave us all freewill and doesn't control us, but doesn't he control everything else? He'd already set a precedent of communicating important things through shrubbery and no doubt at that time every concentration of humans on earth had trees or bushes nearby. Would he really have chosen to have his son nailed to a cross over some other infinitely more efficient and less bloody method of getting the message across, or were perhaps the originators of the story trying to justify the horrible death of their leader without it messing up the aforementioned self-aggrandizement?
Everything about the story, how it unfolded, how it spread, and the scant evidence left behind, speaks of purely human origins among a group of revolutionaries who fancied themselves chosen by their god to overturn the prevailing politics of their day, and nothing else, except perhaps an incredibly capricious god who's the very model of inefficiency.
April 8, 2007 4:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- it was never my intention to defend islam-
i was simply responding to your misunderstanding
of what you thought was islams rejection of science. you were confusing catholicisms treatment of scientists in the middle ages and i was pointing out that islam has a different respect for science.
as you see islam is very science friendly.
thats all. that was the only point. like i said, maybe youll like it, maybe you wont.
i just made a small effort on your behalf-
its okay if you dont like it. i made no claims that arent true. it not a competition, all of mankind benefits from science.
April 8, 2007 3:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Has the resurrection been determined as impossible, a priori, by a world view that has yet to explain anything about what is fundamental?
What then would be acceptable as 'proof' of the resurrection?
April 8, 2007 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- it was never my intention to defend islam-
i was simply responding to your misunderstanding
of what you thought was islams rejection of science.
as you see islam is very science friendly.
thats all. that was the only point. like i said, maybe youll like it, maybe you wont.
i just made a small effort on your behalf-
its okay if you dont like it. i made no claims that arent true. it not a competition, all of mankind benefits from science.
April 8, 2007 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- it was never my intention to defend islam-
i was simply responding to your misunderstanding
of what you thought was islams rejection of science.
as you see islam is very science friendly.
thats all. that was the only point. like i said, maybe youll like it, maybe you wont.
i just made a small effort on your behalf-
its okay if you dont like it.
April 8, 2007 3:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Bluedog, you say, “Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity. For me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.”
You make it sound so high minded and logical, but another way of looking at it is that it’s a case for taking out an insurance policy for heaven -- assuming that Jesus wouldn’t see through it, or wouldn’t care that people are simply weighing the options: “ Let’s see, eternal life or eternal hellfire, hmmm. All I have to do is say I believe? Ok, sure, I believe!”
I just don’t think Jesus would fall for it.
April 8, 2007 2:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity.
For me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.
April 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Micheal C,
You noted: "Therefore, as Christ was exceptional in life, He was also exceptional in death, and his existence "in parallel" was able to be observed by his Disciples."
Hmmm, his disciples took for the hills when he was arrested.
Here is one observation:
Money and the Church go back to the beginning according to Reimarus as referenced in R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue, http://www.amazon.com/.
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
April 8, 2007 12:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Finding the remains of Jesus would have no effect at all upon Christianity, for, the Risen Jesus was the essence of that part of the man that was of God. Consider that the idea of parallel universes is a misnomer, for, the concept of Universe dictates that there exists only one. Consider, however, that there exists parellel planes of existence within the Universe, and, that we exist within both the tangible, secular, Universe as well as a parallel plane which is totally dominated by God. A human being is the conjunction of these planes of existence, meaning, there exists something of God within all humans. Evil is a secular invention, consistant with the thought processes of our minds, and does not exixst within the spiritual plane of existence, which we know if we have reasoned the Twenty-third Psalm to it's ultimate conclusion. Therefore, as Christ was exceptional in life, He was also exceptional in death, and his existence "in parallel" was able to be observed by his Disciples. If His human remains have been found, then, they should be considered to be Holy, and treated accordingly, but, have no effect of anyone's acquescense to God.
April 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Report Offensive Comment
As noted by Aquinas, Heaven is a spirit state i.e. there can be no bones there or bodies to include the theological glorified body. So where are the bones? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus very possibly would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
Actually Professor Crossan spends little time analyzing the question about glorified bodies since the physical Ascension, according to his analyses and those of many Catholic universitiy theologians, did not take place nor did the apparitions. See his book, The Historical Jesus.
In his book, In Search of Paul p. 343, Crossan did address 1 Cor 15: 44-45, "When buried it is the physical body, when it is raised it will be the spiritual body. There is of course the physical body so there has to be a spiritual body. "
As noted by Professor Crossan, even with no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.
April 8, 2007 9:58 AM | Report Offensive Comment
For an excellent review of when the NT documents were written and who wrote them, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/ Crossan1.rtf
April 8, 2007 9:52 AM | Report Offensive Comment
For an excellent review of when the NT documents were written and who wrote them, see http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/ Crossan1.rtf
April 8, 2007 9:47 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Some interesting thoughts here for sure; they seem to be all over the board explaining Christ’s life and death. This is where it is interesting to me to look at the harmony of not only the Gospels, but of the entire Bible. Yes, the discovery of Jesus, the Son of God, would absolutely annihilate the Christian faith, for it is his resurrection in triumph over sin and death that is the entire story of the Bible. As described throughout Biblical history, sin was atoned through the sacrifice of perfect lambs before God. The sacrifice of the “Perfect Lamb” once and for all atoned for sin. His resurrection is the triumph over that death from sin. If it did not occur, then the Bible is a book about nothing.
Thank God it did occur, and I can say without hesitation, that the true body of the risen Christ will never be found, because it is not here on earth. If I sound sure, it is because of the peace I have in my heart, that the more I read and study, the more convinced I am. But, let’s consider for a moment that many of you are right; what is there after we die, nothing? We just go to sleep and rot? Let’s consider for just a moment that I am right and there is an eternity of peace and love with God through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Would you want to be there? If that much is true, there is the necessary inference that the Bible is the Word of God and those not believing in Christ and his atonement for sin would suffer in separation from God for eternity.
For me and my house, we shall serve the Lord.
April 8, 2007 8:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Robert R,
The Muslim fast is not a real fast but a feast. It's merely a displaced diet. When I was growing up, we used to get up at 5.00 am and feast like crazy before the sun comes up. Then 'fast' until sunset, and then gorge ourselves again. Many Muslim actually put on weight during Ramadan, believe it or not.
It's the no liquid intake that's the hardest but there are ways around it. In the old days before air conditioners I imagine it would be the hardest but today if you keep cool you won't feel so thirsty.
April 8, 2007 7:29 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Christians have no need to harbor the fear that the remains of their Savior will be discovered and thus negate the cornerstone of their religious delusions. The remains of Jesus will never be found... but not for the reason that Christians think. Jesus is not 'risen'... he was not 'resurrected'. It is most likely he never even existed at all... even as a simple carpenter. He was (and still is) a myth, just like the objects of the other "Salvation Cults' of the day, such as Mithras, Osiris, Attis, and Adonis.
Early Christians, such as Paul, had no inkling of the idea that Jesus ever existed as an actual human person who lived in the recent past. In all of the genuine (not forged) writings of Paul, there are only two references to events that can even be interpreted as having taken place on the human plane of existence, absent the mental contamination that comes from having read the Gospels, and interpreting them in that light. Paul omits essentially ALL (two exceptions) of the details of the supposed 'life' of Jesus that are 'revealed' in the Gospels. Pretty odd, huh?
It is most likely that as early Christian missionaries came into contact with pagans, "spreading the word", that they gradually became aware that the people they were addressing were interpreting their message as a story about an actual person... not someone who figuratively and metaphorically existed (and had existed) only in imaginary spiritual realms. So, they figured... why fight it? These boneheads are swallowing this fable hook-line-and-sinker, in a way that we never anticipated. We need to build off this unexpected success by developing some real, heavy-duty marketing materials.
Thus... the Gospels.
Mark was the 'first-draft', written near the end of the 1st century. Fair outline, but sketchy on details.
Matthew and Luke, probably written shortly after the beginning of the 2nd century, were competing 'second-drafts', written using Mark as a template, expanding on the Mark outline and creating scenarios in which to incorporate 'sayings of Jesus', which were actually a Judaized version of snippets of 'wisdom' from the Greek 'cynic' school of philosophy, written down in the supposed 'Q-document' (look up 'Synoptic Gospels'). They were both tried out 'in the field', to see which one was received better. Unfortunately, both drafts escaped 'into the wild'. (You can't un-ring a bell.)
John... who the heck knows where John came from. Probably some mid-2nd century intellectual who just thought that he could do a much better job spinning a yarn, than the authors of the amateurish tripe that was presently in circulation.
The existence of FOUR Gospels (rather than just one) is consequence of the fact that there was no mechanism in place for recalling and suppressing earlier versions of their marketing materials. So, over the centuries, Christian apologists have made a career out of trying to explain-away the glaring discrepancies.
Oh... by the way... the details of the supposed 'life' of Jesus, as described in the Bible, add up to no more than 3-weeks coverage (not counting the 40-days in the wilderness).
So... nobody is ever going to find Jesus' body... just like nobody is going to find the bodies of Mithras, Osiris, Attis or Adonis. The reason is very simple... they just never existed.
None of them.
Happy Easter.
April 8, 2007 6:15 AM | Report Offensive Comment
To Victoria from Daniel. Victoria, I have reading over the sites you gave me. I was particularly taken by the one which locates so many Western accomplishments with Islam that properly speaking we should declare the scientific revolution to have occurred in the Islamic world. But if so many Islamic scholars did usher in so many scientific accomplishments this raises many grave questions. First is why for all the accomplishments did the West take to science and rapidly surpass the Islamic world. The second is why for all science in the West has the West been lying about the origins of so much science. Third, if the site you offer is true we can declare that not only was the scientific revolution evident in the Islamic world, it was rapidly aborted--and in fact the scientific revolution has not really been born in the West either because the West has no real history of the scientific revolution to speak of--certainly does not recognize to what extent the Islamic world brought forth the sciences. According to the site you gave me virtually all Copernicus, Kepler, Harvey, Galileo and Boyle were already discovered by Islamic scholars (or enough to shift the scientific revolution to the Islamic world). That credits Islam but raises why Islam has declined scientifically compared to the West. It raises the question of whether the religion of Islam had something to do with it. Furthermore--and once again--we have to ask if even in the West the scientific revolution has definitively been established. What does it mean if the West has not been crediting Islamic scholars? Answer: it cannot even be scientific about the grounds of science, therefore...
Essentially what you have done Victoria is not defend Islam with regard to science but call it into question all the more--and call into question the security of science in the Western world all the more. Over the whole in general what we seem to have is abysmal ignorance concerning so many scientific accomplishments before our very eyes and therefore we can speak of no real respect for science yet in the world.
April 8, 2007 5:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. If what you posted (those links you gave) are true--especially the cyberistan site--then it can be said there is no science in the West at all because the West has not at all been honest about the origins of scientific accomplishment. How do you reconcile the scientific accomplishments of the West with a dishonesty most unscientific about origins? A Christian hatred of Islam? This is most interesting. What we have here is an argument about the history of science. I am reading a book right now by one Floris Cohen on the history of science and so far through the book little of the scientific revolution had to do with the Islamic world. I have to finish the book though. But simply proceeding from what you have given, a big question presents itself: If so much of science was invented in the Islamic world--in fact so much according to one of the sites you gave that we should speak of the scientific revolution occurring there--then what happened, why is the West so much more scientifically advanced and why has the Islamic world declined scientifically? If the Islamic world invented so much science and now finds itself where it is that is of major importance to the Western world (and of course the Islamic). It means something of the scientific revolution took hold in the Islamic world but that it did not hold (like it was born to a degree in Greece and China and India but did not take hold). It makes us ask if for all science in the West whether there will be a decline. But to answer these questions we really need an in depth study of the relationship of science in the Islamic world to the West--essentially exact determinates of science in all previous civilizations and current ones as well.
April 8, 2007 4:20 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i just saw this last post- i am energized by mo also- maybe youll like this site- maybe you will- maybe you wont-
you have it the nail on the head- there is no contradiction between science and god- science is just rediscovering all of the wonders of our world-
http://www.harunyahya.com/
i hope you like this site daniel-
theres lots of interactive and interesting things
peace
April 8, 2007 3:17 AM | Report Offensive Comment
The facts about Mohammed negate any discussion of the science and religion of Islam i.e.
Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
April 8, 2007 3:05 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i sincerely dont want you to be anxious about islam daniel-
here is a site of scientific contributions of islam
to mankind-
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/sciencehistory.htm
here is a site of all non-muslim scientists and their articles about science in islam
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/nonmuslim.htm
i think if i put any more links it wont be posted
April 8, 2007 2:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. Perhaps I can give no greater proof Victoria that I am not denigrating Islam than to say that when Mo writes (the Mo who posted a few posts back and often posts) I listen. In fact someone such as Mo makes me really wonder if I should turn completely from science etc. to religion. In short Mo makes me wonder, he gives me something to think about. Mo has a gift and he obviously thinks it comes from God. And that he thinks so and that it is so evident makes me wonder if...In short the problem with religion these days in respect to science (among other problems) is that the wonder has gone out of it and is being supplanted by science. Instead of religion bombing people or haranguing or persecuting, etc. it should take the example of Mo and inspire, make people wonder. I want to read the book of Mo and not listen to nonsense and have people trying force me into this or that. I want to read the book of Mo at home quietly and try to reconcile someone like Mo with the most scientific minds and somehow find God or science or whatever out of that...This is something of my meeting of science with religion....
April 8, 2007 2:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. Preposterous response Victoria and totally expected. Perhaps you can give me an honest appraisal of Islam with respect to science but I sincerely doubt you are capable of such a thing. Denigrating your religion? I wish Islam were in good stead with science--it would take a lot of worry off my mind. Typical you and Muslims in general turning everything into an attack on your religion. And then you say "no good deed goes unpunished" trying to frighten me along the lines of the Koran's suras (God watches over everything! God sees all you do!). Preposterous. Totally preposterous. If you are a moderate Muslim Victoria there will no doubt be increasing clashes between not only the Islamic world and the West but the Islamic world and Russia and the Far East. I have nothing more to say to you. There is nothing to be said. Except perhaps that I would not be possible in the Islamic world--nor any number of other Western or Far Eastern men and women for that matter. But everything is a denigration of Islam in your words....Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what is not a denigration of Islam.
April 8, 2007 1:58 AM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- and again- while i chose to ignore your statement-
I think it completely dishonest and sly to say something like "scientists just have facts and theories but religion has the truth".
first of all- it was a quote- i didnt say it-
secondly- you shouldnt accuse someone of slyness or dishonesty because you dont agree
thirdly- you misrepresented the quote
science has a monopoly on facts-
not- just have- which implies a value and a judgement that dont exist
AND- religion has a monopoly on truth
not BUT- which implies a disagreemtn or another value judgement
"Essentially Victoria people like you are incapable of being educated."
while i chose to ignore the impoliteness of that statement and respond with kindness anyway-
you continued with more undeserved impoliteness.
really daniel you are attacking the wrong person
now im afraid you have injected me with suspicion when it comes to answering you, and i dislike to be suspicious for bad
there is a story posted elsewhere- ill repost it-
a panelist posted this-
"And one of my favorite stories about Jesus is told by Sufi Muslims:
When Jesus was in the marketplace in Jerusalem, a crowd gathered and started to insult him.
In return, Jesus blessed them.
“How can you bless people who insult you?” the disciples asked Jesus.
“I give only what I carry in my purse.”
May we all fill our purses with mercy.
peace daniel
April 8, 2007 1:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
the scientific delusion.
the s delusion was not only epademic to 21 century but was way back since the time of noah,
the realistic evidence that noah was presenting to mankind back then is just look around you and see for your self that this world has maker.the scientific mentality of the disbelivers of noah was deluded and washed away by the mass deluge.
jesus son of marry came to mankind saying the same message of noah , he was scientific miracle himself(by the leave of his creator and master),his chaste virgin mother conceived and carryied and delivered him with no father.he spoke while in the cradle and said i,am a servant and messenger of ALLAH so worship him alone.yet the scentific mentality delusional worked its way ,the logic and drama of the delusion,here we go we have the son of god right here in front of our eyes we can see him, talk to him, tape measure him ,digitalize and micrprocessrize his brain and body ,traceing his DNA to the father .too much drama .the scientific delusion of the son of god period (whether they found his remnant or not )and the scientific delusion of the evolution are no more no less than the the scientific delusion of man period in his scientific attempt and approach in traceing and proveing god.
to come out of the scientific coma ,people need to wake up drink some hi cafenated coffe say bismilah take scientific tour in the sun shine of the environement, while on tour carry the book of science on one shoulder and the book of the creator lord on the other shoulder.
April 8, 2007 1:46 AM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- as i responded because you misunderstood islams relation to science- and thought that saying science has a monopoly on facts (which is an excellent and positive statement)
and religion has a monopoly on truth (which is another excellent observation which in no way conflicts with or takes anything away from science)
it is hardly seemly for you to repay my responsiveness with a long denigration of my religion.
my grandmother used to say,'no good deed goes unpunished'
April 8, 2007 1:39 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. Sorry Victoria, I disagree with your understanding of the relationship between Islam and science. Regardless of what advances Islamic peoples made on the Greeks--and Islamic peoples are generally considered to have preserved a portion of the classical world and to have been "next in line"--they really contributed little and are not at all considered to have made a scientific revolution such as occured in the Western world (Copernicus, Renaissance humanists, Galileo, Harvey, Boyle, Kepler, Newton, Gilbert, etc.). In fact the works of the latter people never took hold in the Islamic world--the scientific revolution had no effect and still has no effect worth speaking of. Quite simply for all your belief in some sort of compatibility of Islam with science, it was not the Islamic world that truly became scientific--it was the Western world. What I find even more disturbing about the Islamic world is that Islam was the dividing line between the Western world and China. You would think that of all places it would be Islam to benefit from the advances of both China and the West (printing and gunpowder which existed in China, etc.). But no, All the advances from China passed into the Western world and were utilized while Islam simply remained Islam. Gradually of course Western innovations have made their way back into China but Islam still remains Islam. And I foresee China and the West continuing to advance and Islam still remaining Islam--except of course Islam trying to acquire weapons in the name of Islam. Islam is a real puzzle in fact. India offered much in the way of mathematics etc. China offered much. The classical world offered much. But Islam had its high point back in the 12th century. And here we are today with China, India and the West modernizing but Islam is still Islam....
April 8, 2007 12:43 AM | Report Offensive Comment
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
__________________
Answer: Then Christianity itself would be a dead man's religion. As Paul himself noted in his letter to the Corinthians, if Jesus is still dead, and we're (believers in Christ) still in our sin, then "we are all of men the most miserable" (1 Cor 15:19). Without a real, physical resurrection from the dead, Christianity is worthless. It would make Jesus about as relevant as any other moral scholar who has lived and died over the ages. He did not come primarily to teach and to be an example, he came first and foremost to die and to rise as our substitute, our atoning sacrifice on the cross.
I would be interested to know Mr. Meachem's answer to his own poll question actually...
April 8, 2007 12:24 AM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- i understand your perspective- but i also understand that you are making a major assumption in this case which isnt true-
you are assuming that islam is like catholicism in its attitude towards science.
nothing could be further from the truth, the first university in the world, some of the first sciences were developed by muslims-
for instance - while the catholic church was persecuting scientists- such a thing never happened in islam -
Center for Islam and Science (CIS) is dedicated to the promotion of research and diffusion of knowledge on all aspects of Islam and science. CIS encourages a creative exploration of the Islamic worldview of science, fusion of contemporary scholarship with the traditional sources of Islamic thought and a renewed link with the intellectual tradition of Islam. CIS supports activities aimed at enhancing our religious and scientific understanding of nature and the human condition.
The Center does not construe "Islam" and "science" as two separate entities that need to be somehow related through an external process; rather, the Center recognizes an underlying unity in all domains of knowledge. This is based on the Qur'anic concept of Tawhid, Unicity of God, the most fundamental principle of Islamic epistemology.
Islam has always encouraged scientific observation of phenomena- the first hospital was created by a muslim- one of the greatest physicians and a pioneer in dissection and observation and empirical study was Abn-Sina(known i the west as Avicenna) algebra, logarithms, optics, astronomy-mathematics- sociology was created and developed by muslims.
There is no such idea as a contradiction between the Qur'an and science- this idea has never ever existed in Islam- everything in the qur'an is open to scientific speculation and it is encouraged-
here is an excerpt from http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa050600a.htm
The Qur'an calls upon Muslims to look around them and study the physical world, so that they might appreciate the majesty of Allah's creation. "Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the benefit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth -- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise." (Surah Al-Baqarah 2:164)
And the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) told Muslims to "seek knowledge, even if it be in China." (Meaning 'seek knowledge wherever it may be found.')
Throughout Islamic history, that is exactly what Muslims have done. Particularly in the 7th-13th centuries C.E., the Islamic world was in the midst of its "Golden Age," paving the way for the growth of modern sciences. Rather than stifling science, the religion of Islam encouraged its study. Scientific inquiry was widespread, and some of the greatest scholars and scientists of the world made wondrous discoveries and inventions. Muslims led the world in the study of medicine, astronomy, mathematics, geography, chemistry, botany, and physics. They transmitted their studies to the West, where their work was built upon and further disseminated
i encourage you to goodle islam and science
April 7, 2007 11:55 PM | Report Offensive Comment
the remains of jesus will not be identified unless the lord feels we should know and i believe it boils down to faith.there is very little proof but the bible,because otherwise you wouldn't need to have faith.and god gave us all freewill to believe what we choose.but jesus is real.
April 7, 2007 11:02 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. The simple point I was trying to make is this Victoria: We have scientists willing to suspend judgement on existence--willing to take it as a mystery--and just work carefully trying to determine how things operate, etc. and no matter how brilliant they are we have religious people saying "that was a nice discovery, but it is only theory and not the truth of things, which the Bible or Koran (take your pick) has already revealed and is available to all". So in essence we can have someone like Leonardo or Einstein talking to a religious person and even if the religious person has no understanding of what is being said the religious person can slyly observe "that is nice, but I know the truth of things". Essentially the religious person is anti any further discovery of truth--is a person incapable of being educated and is in fact against any addition to education beyond religion. It is the worst sort of anti-intellectuality imaginable. It matters little, for example, Victoria, how much a person approaching you is superior in intelligence. You Victoria believe in the Koran and therefore you are in possession of the truth which no possible addition of brilliance in the world can supplant. The most mind-boggling genius could be talking to you and will just sniff and start talking about the truth of the Koran. Essentially the Koran and Bible amount (with respect to science) to a strange way for the believer to be more intelligent than anyone else--no matter how dumb the believer really is on intelligence tests, etc. I am totally against that. I do not believe the truth already exists and it is in the Bible or Koran. I do not believe in a world in which there is a religious mob believing itself to be more in possession of the truth than scientists such as Darwin or Einstein. I think it completely dishonest and sly to say something like "scientists just have facts and theories but religion has the truth". Essentially Victoria people like you are incapable of being educated. In fact you have the truth of the Koran so there is no real reason to know more. Certainly knowing more is not more truthful than the Koran. Therefore conversation with people like you is impossible because it just revolves around your beliefs and nothing more. Speculation amounts to nothing. I reject that. I do not know the truth and I always try to learn more. I will keep searching for the truth. And the last truth I will ever accept is a truth which can be easily grasped by a mob--no matter if the mob is religious or nationalistic or whatever (choose your mob). That should be relatively clear although I doubt you will understand a word. You already know the truth. It makes little difference what I said.
April 7, 2007 10:58 PM | Report Offensive Comment
As noted on other comment pages:
There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.
1. Abraham founder of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men.
2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations (if you take the literal word of the NT i.e. talking the ugly wingie thingie call Satan), has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of his sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress Gentiles and various Christian sects.
3. Mohammed, an illiterate, possibly hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "pretty wingy thingies" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.
4. Luther, Calvin, Smith et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the hallucinations of/belief in "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).
5. Hinduism - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."
6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."
"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"
"Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life (Alexandra David-Neel, Buddhism: fts Doctrines and fts Methods, New York: St. Martids Press, 1977, p. 15). "
April 7, 2007 10:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Isn't it curious how humans are so chained to history, fabrication, our brain's need to wield metaphysical power, rooted in the past, to strengthen our specific tribes. This person, no, demigod, no, son of a god, no son of the only god that has ever existed, he died, no, he rose after death, reaminated? perhaps, yuck, it's all so silly.
I hope we grow up one day from all this. If we don't, perhaps the best we can do is sacrifice ourselves to understanding beyond mere religion.
April 7, 2007 9:46 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I don't believe Jesus died to save mankind, I believe he lived to save mankind. It is his life, not his death, that has meaning for me. I believe that redemption comes from within; Jesus' message of love, compassion, forgiveness and tolerance is the point.
April 7, 2007 8:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To begin: I do not believe the body of Jesus will be found. Even if it is found, does not mean that at some point after the crucifixion, His body was not again animated. I believe most definitely the death and return to life of Jesus was a real event. Because where our body has natural responses to provide physical survival, these followers of Jesus didn't fear persecution. The movement seemed to have a supernatural component. Was not impeded by physical power. Could not be annihilated. For people not be deterred by the risk of becoming lion food; and instead, release a constantly strengthening energy---would have had to be inspired by something really dramatic. A real WOW! This was an era where conscious formation was primarily dependent on the physical senses;--on physical images. I believe the WOW that initiated the activity was the actual witnessing of the death, and return to life of Jesus!
The physical body of Jesus to me is almost irrelevant. I just see His physical existence as a necessity to get our attention! The impact Jesus had on the world is emotional. When I was a child, Jesus looked down at me from a crucifix in almost every home. It gave me a sense of how very wrong it is to hurt someone,--to be cruel! That within us is a better way;--an ability to forgive,--to love and trust. Jesus is not a means to intellectual comprehension of the principles governing the physical world. The message of Jesus can't be communicated in the usual manner of physical instruction. Perhaps it is transmitted on a higher frequency. The word is unspoken, requires meditation; and becomes only a personal realization. Jesus effects personal character maturation.
It is my belief Jesus moved western civilization away from oppressive behavior, and released personal talents that moved us toward truth and comfort, and most of all toward our true identiy as children of God!
I believe we have lost our way, took a wrong turn on our road to 'heaven on earth',---that perhaps we were blinded by technology, but need to quickly regain our vision before we are entirely swallowed up by the world of 'buying and selling'!
I believe this identity supported by academia of evolutionary hierarchy is an illusion. That in fact we are conscious beings; descendents of a mind and existence beyond the physical world, so awesome that to us, because of a mind limited to primarily physical formation,--it becomes indescribable!
April 7, 2007 7:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Oops - delete "Christian" after "primitive and evil"
April 7, 2007 4:56 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip, you say, “Maybe people find the idea that you can preserve everything good about Christianity without requiring anything supernatural very threatening?” Maybe, but I really would like to see the study of what people think “secular humanism” is, because I suspect a lot a people don’t really know and just assume it’s something negative.
I know growing up, I thought pagans were bad, in some vague sort of way. It never occurred to me that the ancient Greek and roman civilizations were pagan or that there was such a thing as pagan literature. I assumed pagans were primitive and evil Christian, but I didn’t know any details about them at all. I doubt I learned anything at all about “paganism” in school, even in the context of ancient history. But we sure heard about those non-Christian pagans in Sunday School.
Hey it might be a good question for “On Faith.” What is secular humanism? How does secular humanism relate to religion. What should the role of secular humanism be in society? I’ll think on it.
April 7, 2007 4:26 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Dear Garyd:
Sorry, I forgot this thought in my last post:
A better comparison from your end would have been this:
"What I wrote was to me a fact as sure as believing that Muhammed rode to heaven on a winged horse is a fact to a Muslim."
That's all for now. :)
April 7, 2007 3:47 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Garyd wrote:
"Mr. Mark by your definition then this particular hypothetical is little more than as you call it a scold."
"What I wrote was to me a fact as sure as 2+2=4 is to you."
Hmmm...that begs a question: do you NOT believe it to be a fact that 2+2=4? Methinks that you're engaging in a bit of relativist hyperbole.
We can assume that everyone agrees that 2+2=4. By stating that your belief that *god will return some day in the clouds to give it to the atheists* is as much a fact to you as your arithmetic example is a fact to me, Mr Mark, you're engaging in a false equation. That is to say, everyone who believes that 2+2=4 is going to fill in the blank that YOU ALSO believe in the arithmetic of 2+2=4. That means that you now have two truths on your side of the ledger (arithmetic + god in the clouds), while I have only one truth (arithmetic) and one non-truth (disbelief in a god in the clouds) on my side.
2 truths > 1truth, ergo Garyd wins the argument, correct?
An old gambit, well played, Garyd. :)
April 7, 2007 3:40 PM | Report Offensive Comment
GaryD, "Likely has to do with the fact that secualr humanist tend to treat Chrsitians with such overt contempt that some are being after all only human inclined to respond in kind."
Perhaps, but I believe that in turn is caused by people defining themselves by their beliefs instead of by their own independent sense of self, which renders them somewhat incapable of examining their own beliefs in an objective way. Note that I'm speaking only about some people, not all, and perhaps not even most.
Christianity is a thing. If you find that hearing a thing criticized causes you to feel personally attacked, might not the fault lie with believing that you and the thing are one and the same?
I think allowing one individual idea or set of ideas to become so central to your sense of self that having it criticized makes you feel personally threatened or attacked indicates a rather unhealthy dependence and lack of autonomy - two things that Christianity seems to go out of its way to foster. It turns Christianity into a kind of giant immune system that treats all dissenting opinions as invading pathogens.
E Favorite, "I have heard "secular humanist" said with such a snarl that any one listening would have to think it was something very bad."
Maybe people find the idea that you can preserve everything good about Christianity without requiring anything supernatural very threatening? It's what makes me think that religion is largely a selfish endeavor because if you present all the same basic moral lessons but remove the promise of life after death it suddenly becomes a very bad thing. Does that show the importance of the prize over the lesson? That's how I interpret it. In some ways I think that's Christianity's real genius. It compels people to surrender their sense of self out of selfishness, which I find insidiously clever.
April 7, 2007 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To E. favorite
Likely has to do with the fact that secualr humanist tend to treat Chrsitians with such overt contempt that some are being after all only human inclined to respond in kind.
April 7, 2007 1:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip, you say, "I must confess to being baffled by the hostility that so many Christians display towards any mention of humanism."
It may be due to a lack of understanding about what humanism is. Perhaps people think it's anti-religion, or paganism, or selfishness or human worship, or something - I don't know.
I have heard "secular humanist" said with such a snarl that any one listening would have to think it was something very bad.
April 7, 2007 1:37 PM | Report Offensive Comment
daniel- well yes, thats what i quoted-
who said science claimed a monopoly on truth?
how did you get anti-science out of that?
theres no overlapping competition daniel- they both deal with non-conflicting ideals in their endeavors.
and there was also certainly no negative judgment either.
you interpret someone saying a monopoly on facts is a bad thing to say?
April 7, 2007 1:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark by your definition then this particular hypothetical is little more than as you call it a scold.
What I wrote was to me a fact as sure as 2+2=4 is to you. Sorry it iritated you.
But as I have said before on this site the Job of the Christian is akin to that of a watchmen. We are to warn all that danger is at hand. We cannot rescue you from it that job only God acting through the Holy Spirit can do.
April 7, 2007 12:25 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TO Mary;
Easter is not the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. Passover is the correct term. Easter is a pagan celebration of the godess of fertility(ishtar) and was celebrated at the same time as passover. Easter was celebrated by the rolling of eggs(fertility)and being "quick like a bunny"(sexual orgy).
Unfortunately these rituals were tolerated by
the priesthood, because we all know that the larger the crowd, the fatter the purse. Check it out.
April 7, 2007 12:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Searcher, you're right. My view is pretty literal. How else should I evaluate the Bible than by what it actually says? That it requires taking much of the bible allegorically and ignoring parts completely in order to view god as anything other than capricious and cruel is, to me, reason to discard all of the supernatural elements outright. It's a story with some good moral lessons to teach and nothing more. I'd no more base my life around bible inspired worship than I'd base in on worship inspired by any other book, but there are certainly some ideas worth taking away from it. Namely, the humanist message of Jesus.
As to why I think humanist morality is less divisive - That's because its central tenets are common to myriad religions and philosophies, but are unencumbered by superstition and ritual. The only belief they require is that being a good person is a pretty good idea. I must confess to being baffled by the hostility that so many Christians display towards any mention of humanism. Much of it, after all, is a subset of their own beliefs, straight from the messiah's mouth. I can only conclude that the hostility stems not from things like the golden rule but from the rejection of the supernatural, which leads me to believe that what many Christians want more than a peaceable neighbor is an enabler.
April 7, 2007 12:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
TO DANIEL;
In your responce, you made mention of the science of the internet.
IN the book of Revelations, chapter 11, verses 7-11 state that two witness will be slain, and that their bodies will lie in the street for three and a half days and that the whole world will see their dead bodies, during that time period. 40 years ago this was unbelieveable.
Today, anything in the world could be viewed in that time frame through the internet. God has told us all things according to their time. Learn the parable of the fig tree and apply it to time.
April 7, 2007 11:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Garyd wrote:
"The problem with hypothetical questions is that they are founded upon in this case events that have no yet happened and are at best from a worldly perspective unlikely to happen."
I'm glad that you qualified your response by saying, "in this case," because we all know the importance of posing hypothetical questions when it comes to science and other intellectual endeavors. Sure, the vast majority of hypothesis fall by the wayside, but occasionally, a hypothesis subjected to the scientific method will develop into a proven theory that revolutionizes human thought and experience, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection.
I'm sure there are religious hypotheses to be asked that could lead to real investigation, investigation that could further our knowledge set in one way or the other. However, what you offered wasn't a hypothesis - it was a scold that carried with it the spectre of eternal damnation, coupled with a Xianists schoolyard taunt ("narny, narny...you'll get yours when my god comes back!"). Such scolds are, sadly, typical of what passes for Xian-penned discourse on this blog.
Finding the bones of Jesus is, at least, an actual hypothesis, not a scold or a dogma. Like all hypothesis, it must be subjected to rigorous scrutiny and scientific investigation. I doubt if there's anyone who would give said hypothesis a snowball's chance of being proven to be true, but let's leave that to the scientific and archaeological investigators, not the opinion mongers.
April 7, 2007 11:38 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Oops.
April 7, 2007 9:31 AM | Report Offensive Comment
To Mr. Mark:
And considering how many times the actual body of the one true Jesus Chraist has actually been found (0) in fact it will be discovered on the last day humans will be in ignorance of the one true and living God when he appears as God himself in the air to give over to justice those who were not rescued and mercy to those that were, I'll not be overly concerned about said body being found by men.
April 7, 2007 9:30 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Mark:
And considering how many times the actual Body of the one true Christ Jesus has been found (0) despite the claims of various fauds I'm not going to get real worried about that either. Hence the phrase if the bull frog had wings.
The problem with hypothetical questions is that they are founded upon in this case events that have no yet happened and are at best from a worldly perspective unlikely to happen. From my perspective - that of a Christian - The Body of Christ will be found at the exact same moment God who is was and willbe Jesus appears in the heavens to announce the fnal judgement of all mankind is at hand. At that time there will be only to classes of hmanity those for whom justice will take its course and those whom God, through his death on the cross and ressurection rescued from that justice that He might demostrate his great love and eternal unimaginable mercy.
April 7, 2007 9:14 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Daniel to Victoria. Science has a monopoly on facts but not truth Victoria? Science does not claim to know the truth Victoria. Science presents theories about existence all the while conceding existence is a mystery and demanding constant effort on the part of man. It is precisely religions such as Islam and Christianity which claim to know the truth--and are utterly incapable of accepting anything which conflicts with their understanding of the truth. I suggest you act on the truth of the Koran Victoria and stop posting on this site. In fact all religious people of the monotheistic sort should stop posting on this site--at least Muslims and Christians. This very internet and computer could not have been invented without brave men striking out on their own and discovering more than facts--discovering the truth about electricity, machines, etc. Truth which no religion ever presented before. It really is the height of hypocrisy for religions to constantly get in the way of science but then turn around and make use of every scientific advancement to further...religion. How amusing! Maybe one day religion will finally succeed against science by precisely using all scientific advancement to make scientists impossible--and no doubt we will hear it was the will of God. Perhaps the will of God, but the end of facts and the further advance of truth truncated into religion. Which of course makes us ask if religion was ever understood in the first place....
April 7, 2007 5:14 AM | Report Offensive Comment
deb- well, because sam harris conceded several points to mr aslan-
1) sam created some false dichotomies and hence illogically using that to reject the whole which he was forced to examine and conclude that mr aslans assertion was correct-
mr aslans assertion was- that by comparing the best ideals of science to the worst examples of religion-
is like blaming socialism for nazism nationalism for fascism etc---
2)ASLAN_to harris- as an atheist he was using a literalist and fundamentalist interpertation of the Qur'an-
this was conceded
3) that mr harris was presenting relgious generalities based on anecotal evidence
also conceded
4)mr harris- called islam a severely deranged death cult- and the claimed mr aslans elastic view of islam gives shelter to religious literal dogmatists-
which doesnt even make sense-
an elastic view of islam is the ANTIDOTE and correcting of the literalist dogmatist, and leaves the exposed! not sheltered
besides, it was a very uncivil remark and beneath the spirit of the dialogue-
at that point the moderator stepped in- Jonathan Kirsch- and stopped mr harris-
then mr aslan stated that while science has a monopoly on fact, it does not have a monopoly on truth-
he also commented on the easiness of criticizing any given, and what is needed is the crafting of creative solutions.
possibly sam harris was smirking as you indicated, but that is hardly evidence of gracious behavior or intelligence- or proof that some one is right!
if that were the case george bush would be considered a genius
as i said- i thought the debate was civil-
you see things with VERY different eyes than i do-
luckily, i take notes for everything all the time
April 7, 2007 3:10 AM | Report Offensive Comment
deb- well, because sam harris conceded several points to mr aslan-
1) sam created some false dichotomies and hence illogically using that to reject the whole which he was forced to examine and conclude that mr aslans assertion was correct-
mr aslans assertion was- that by comparing the best ideals of science to the worst examples of religion-
is like blaming socialism for nazism nationalism for fascism etc---
2)ASLAN_to harris- as an atheist he was using a literalist and fundamentalist interpertation of the Qur'an-
this was conceded
3) that mr harris was presenting relgious generalities based on anecotal evidence
also conceded
4)mr harris- called islam a severely deranged death cult- and the claimed mr aslans elastic view of islam gives shelter to religious literal dogmatists-
which doesnt even make sense-
an elastic view of islam is the ANTIDOTE and correcting of the literalist dogmatist, and leaves the exposed! not sheltered
besides, it was a very uncivil remark and beneath the spirit of the dialogue-
at that point the moderator stepped in- Jonathan Kirsch- and stopped mr harris-
then mr aslan stated that while science has a monopoly on fact, it does not have a monopoly on truth-
he also commented on the easiness of criticizing any given, and what is needed is the crafting of creative solutions.
possibly sam harris was smirking as you indicated, but that is hardly evidence of nobility or intelligence-
as i said- i thought the debate was civil-
you see things with VERY different eyes than i do-
luckily, i take notes for everything all the time
April 7, 2007 3:09 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Garyd wrote:
"One may as well ask what the impact on atheism would be if God suddenly appear in the sky tomorrow and said yes I do exist and you are in big trouble you atheist dogs you"
Considering how many times god has appeared in the sky in the past 2000 years to put the atheists in their place, I won't lose any sleep worrying about what he won't do tomorrow, next week or next year. He can't because he doesn't exist.
April 7, 2007 2:02 AM | Report Offensive Comment
monotheism vs idolism,mediatorism,and graveworshipism.
noah remained among mankind for 950 years admonishing man kind to worship the creator lord not the creation,yet few belived in him,the majority insisted upon worshiping wadd,suah,yaouq,yaghouth and nasr,(pious men who they died a while ago )satan gave people of that era the delusion that these men are holy and they shall remain holy so why not clay and wax their images so they becom manifest instead of symbolism for worship,on the top and holy soil of their holy grave site,they also announced that the atmospher and bazar around the site is also holy .later on the mass deluge washed the planet earth,noah and his followers only saved .
too many centuryies later ,jesus son of marry came to man kind telling them the same ancient messeage of noah,worship the creator not the creation ,yet people of his era extolled him to the hierarchy of son of god and the holy infallable trinity.another mass delusion that misled and illueded mankind for years and still.
mummyfication,incarnation,mediatorization,mamalization ,name it,all are none but forms of idolism and delusionism .
people who still digging in the relics are from the school of the holy the ,the court of the crowned infallable on the holy site of rome.
please study monotheism and shirkism.
April 7, 2007 1:39 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i believe in science and aljebra ,any equation has two sides ,the one will equal the second ,and the second will equel the first .. so i believe strongly that no one can proofe that these bones are jessus bones .. this is my beliefe in science and this is my beliefe in jessuse .iam not christian but i believe that their are not remnants of jessus on the earth
April 7, 2007 1:10 AM | Report Offensive Comment
If the bullfrog had wings etc etc etc.
One may as well ask what the impact on atheism would be if God suddenly appear in the sky tomorrow and said yes I do exist and you are in big trouble you atheist dogs you.
Of course in either case it would change everything.
April 6, 2007 11:48 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip – you sure do have a way with words!
Mary – Where on Earth did you get that Apostles beheaded crucified upside-down story! Don’t worry – it never happened. It sounds like a Christian martyr story or something the nuns said to keep kids in line.
Even Google isn’t sure – here’s what I found on a quick search of “beheaded crucified”
Search #1
Stephen-stoned, James-beheaded, Philip-crucified, Matthew-sword, Mark-dragged through the streets and burned, James the Less-beaten and stoned, Matthias- stoned and beheaded, Andrew-crucified, Peter- scourged and crucified upside down, Paul-beheaded, Thaddeus-crucified, Bartholomew-beaten to death, Thomas-speared, Simon the Zealot-crucified, John- sentenced to be boiled in oil but later died a natural death.
Search #2
Simon Peter - crucified
Andrew the First-called brother of Peter; crucified
James (son of Zebedee) also called "the Great"; beheaded
John the Theologian brother of James; reposed in a miraculous manner
Philip - crucified
Bartholomew - (also called Nathaniel; crucified, flayed and beheaded
Thomas - pierced with five spears
Matthew - also called Levi, brother of James; burned alive
James (son of Alphaeus) - crucified
Jude - also called Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddeus, brother of James the brother of God; crucified
Simon the Zealot - also called "the Canaanite"; crucified
Matthias - replaced Judas Iscariot; stoned and beheaded
April 6, 2007 11:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I see now that this forum is really noting more than kicking the ant pile to watch them scurry from their home.
Here's a better question - what's the point on Jon Mechem and Sally Quinn "sponsoring" this forum. I never see them express any opinion.
What do you guys stand for!!!
Oh - it's the money!!! Always the money...
April 6, 2007 11:14 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip – you sure do have a way with words!
Mary - Where on Earth did you get that story about the beheaded, upside-down crucified apostles? Not Sunday school, I hope (though I wouldn't be surprised)
Don't worry about it - it sounds like legend of Christian martyrs or something the nuns would say to keep kids in line.
Even Google isn’t sure – here’s what I found on a quick search of “beheaded crucified”
Search #1
Stephen-stoned, James-beheaded, Philip-crucified, Matthew-sword, Mark-dragged through the streets and burned, James the Less-beaten and stoned, Matthias- stoned and beheaded, Andrew-crucified, Peter- scourged and crucified upside down, Paul-beheaded, Thaddeus-crucified, Bartholomew-beaten to death, Thomas-speared, Simon the Zealot-crucified, John- sentenced to be boiled in oil but later died a natural death.
Search #2
·Simon Peter - (June 29 and January 16) crucified
·Andrew the First-called - (November 30) brother of Peter; crucified
·James (son of Zebedee) - (April 30) also called "the Great"; beheaded
·John the Theologian - (September 26 and May 8) brother of James; reposed in a miraculous manner
·Philip - (November 14) crucified
·Bartholomew - (June 11 and August 25) also called Nathaniel; crucified, flayed and beheaded ·Thomas - (October 6) pierced with five spears
·Matthew - (November 16) also called Levi, brother of James; burned alive
·James (son of Alphaeus) - (October 9) crucified
·Jude - (June 19) also called Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddeus, brother of James the brother of God; crucified
·Simon the Zealot - (May 10) also called "the Canaanite"; crucified
·Matthias - (August 9) replaced Judas Iscariot; stoned and beheaded
April 6, 2007 11:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The only thing one needs to know when it comes to sceintific proof and Xians is this:
if science confirms the Bible in even the slightest way imaginable, they trust the science and trumpet the science with a din that could bring down Jericho yet again.
If science disproves the Bible - and overwhelmingly so - then such science is regarded as being on the same level as the cheapest slight of hand trick imaginable.
Or am I wrong in saying this?
April 6, 2007 10:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip –
“..attacking the messenger..”? Now who’s thin skinned? Really I was just trying to engage in a thoughtful but also light-hearted manner. Like LT, I rarely want to get drawn into these scrums. But I when I see the argument against God and religion as nothing more than an attack on what’s wrong with religion, I can’t help but think how weak that is. Anyone can pick out the faults of anything and argue that it’s bad because of those faults. But how does it stand up when you look at both sides? I my judgment, it’s far from being definitively bad as some seem to want to make it out.
As for singling out “religionists” as being divisive, I hardly think religion has cornered the market divisiveness. Have you looked at your government lately, any other government for that matter, or the local PTA or homeowners association, or these postings? In all human endeavors wherever there is difference of opinion, there is some “divisiveness.” People who believe in something are going to stick up for their beliefs, be they Christians, Muslims, Democrats, Republicans, whatever. It would seem it’s OK to stick up for one’s humanist beliefs and argue them, but if people who follow a religion do so, then they are being divisive. If all religion did was focus on being divisive, then how do they gather so much energy and money towards helping so many people?
And I must say, it still does strike me as condescending when you and many others imply that people who are part of a religion have been duped or somehow tricked by the evil clergy. I would guess that there are some sheep are sucked in by the good and choose to ignore the bad, and follow blindly. But I also think that just as many, or more, looked at the good AND the bad and decided that maybe the good outweighs the bad. And they all do not blindly “obediently submit.” My judgment is that people takes what works for them and leave the rest. How can any religion or any other group keep that from happening? And they can accept the paradox that good and evil can exist in the same organization. Same with government. It does some really good things and some really bad things. Are we all going to leave when it does something bad? Or the same argument for one’s marriage – there’s good and bad, but I don’t run off when there’s bad. There are humans who are thoughtful creatures who can accept the paradoxes and use their gray matter to figure out what works for them
As for your point about justice with JT, I think you are focusing on the extreme. The view you quote is a very literal, evangelical interpretation that I judge most Christians do not ascribe to. Same thing with the Heaven’s Gates boys – the argument is easy when you point out the extremes, but is more difficult in the middle.
April 6, 2007 10:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"To those who may doubt, 11 of Jesus' apostles were beheaded and hung upside down because they knew and preached that Jesus was the Messiah. Would you have your head cut off for a fake?"
39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide by ingesting phenobarbital mixed with vodka and tying plastic bags around their heads, believing that their souls would then be picked up by a spaceship hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. People do some pretty irrational things. I don't think you can use someone's willingness to die for a cause as a yardstick for determining the merits of their belief. Oh, and here's the kicker - that wasn't the end of the cult. It resurfaced last year with new followers calling themselves "The New Generation." I think they must be using your same logic.
April 6, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Easter is about Jesus's resurrection and there is NO grave and NO bones (or DNA) will ever be found for Jesus of Nazareth. (Jesus is the Christ; His last name was NOT Christ). I believe without a doubt in my mind that there is life after death. My body and mind might be buried, but my soul will always live. I 100% believe that Jesus is the Son of God. To those who may doubt, 11 of Jesus' apostles were beheaded and hung upside down because they knew and preached that Jesus was the Messiah. Would you have your head cut off for a fake?
To athesists I will love to pose the question, "if you parents or grandparents told you a story about something that happened to them before you were born, would you believe them?" If you don't, then you are calling your family liars. If you do believe them, then you have faith.
Faith is about believing without witnessing or seeing. It is not easy but with prayer, it is possible. With GOd, NOTHING is impossible.
Mary
April 6, 2007 9:32 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If Jesus's remains have been found, my faith would not be shaken. AWhen people say their faith rests upon physical levitation, I can't relate. My regard for Jesus does not depend on whether He physically survived death and ascended into heaven. In fact, the two-bucket thinking on this subject--He did, He didn't--is the problem. Maybe I'm not alone in rejecting a physical test of faith. What is obvious to me is that Jesus survived his physical death, and it has no bearing on finding his bones. He lives through his parables and healings, His miracles, His prophesies and other acts. The recent movie--Intro Great Silence--shows how Christian monks for centuries have studied this man/God's instruction. In other words, Jesus's bones live.... Why should my faith evaporate if His remains are covered? A pretty meager faith indeed. And I believe the disciples saw him after his death--and find no consistency with the possibility that His bones were discovered.
April 6, 2007 7:51 PM | Report Offensive Comment
being a believer of Jesus Christ, it is a question to me that is honestly not a question to think about. i believe it will never be proven that Jesus is dead and buried somewhere. it is completely faith based, that Jesus rose, and is going to return. people will persitantly attempt to disprove the ressurection of Jesus Christ. it will be only in the end either before the throne of God- or into nothingness, we all will know the truth. tragic choice to turn away from Gods plan of salvation- His son Jesus Christ
April 6, 2007 7:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, LT :) I'm glad you took the post in the spirit it was intended.
I have some serious issues with the Christian god's notion of justice. I think it ends up having the opposite effect of what was intended. If I can be the worst person in the world but be absolved merely by accepting Jesus, how does that compel me to be a good person? If I'm already a sinner the moment I'm born, then why not just continue to be one? The afterlife is presented as some kind of "do over." On the other hand, if I think this life is all their is, and no one can absolve me of my crimes, and there are no "do overs," isn't that a more compelling argument to try and lead a good life and to fully appreciate it while it lasts?
If the most heinous criminal in the world can gain access to heaven just by accepting Jesus and asking for forgiveness, and the kindest, most altruistic, most loving person in the world would be denied entrance because they didn't believe, and felt they had nothing to apologize for, is that actually justice? I don't think it is. I just can't wrap my head around that.
But Happy Easter all the same, and thank you for your good spirited reply despite my tendency towards the acerbic. It's much appreciated!
April 6, 2007 6:59 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Victoria wrote:
"i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-"
NO it was the opposite. Mr. Reza appeared as a loud howler. More hee-haw and no substance from Reza. But, Reza Aslan can as usual whine a lot. He acted very well. He started accussing and almost cursing Sam Harris, who as you note was most polite and reserved. I saw the quirk on Sam's face as he listened patiently to Reza's most ludicrous remarks. Reza opined that as a non-Muslim and atheist Mr. Harris was always suspicious of islam and thus he was unobjective. That's a strawman strategy.
I am wondxering how Reza can be viewed as having wiped Sam Harris out ? Or maybe Victoria you are a Muslim and hence showing a natural bias towards Reza Aslan who is also a Muslim.
April 6, 2007 6:33 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Re: Chip's "thug/enforcer" analogy
It may or may not be over the top, but it is definitely a mischaracterization. The analogy has as its underlying premise that person being asked to love, etc., is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Chip: Do you believe in justice? I.e., should people have to bear the consequences for serious wrongdoings? If you do, then it's possible to recast God's offer of salvation in a different light. Just as a judge is legally required to enforce punishments for crimes committed, so God is obligated to punish us for our sins which is eternal separation from Him. ("Torture chamber" is too shallow a description.) On the other hand, He has paid the penalty for our sins through Christ Jesus. So God as described in the Bible is a loving and just God.
Clearly, accepting this understanding of God requires and acceptance of one's sinfulness, which I will not discuss right now. I will say only that, given one's sinfulness, it is at least not "glaringly obvious" that Christianity is flawed in the sense you propose.
Happy Easter!
P.S.: I rarely respond to other postings, but Chip's was quite informative. Having seen mostly critiques against the historical truth of Christianity, I was intrigued to find this moral critique and found it challenging. Thank you, Chip.
April 6, 2007 6:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Like many other posters, I reject the underlying premise that Jesus' remains could be *definitively* found. Accepting the premise arguendo, I will answer first by saying what I would not do.
First, I would certainly not switch from my current understanding of Christ to the ones advocated by the Bible scholars who do not believe in a bodily resurrection. Even if the "historical Jesus" said did not say anything about resurrection and did say the moral teachings ascribed to Him, I could not be sure that His moral teachings are correct. How could I be sure that it is blessed to be poor or meek? Is it always worth the risk to turn the other cheek? A non-resurrectionist understanding of Christ simply offers no hope that the rest of what Jesus said is true enough for me to live by.
For similar reasons, I would not adopt a secular humanist viewpoint, at least not wholesale. I might benefit or feel good about following various ethics, but I would have to stop at the point where I thought the cost became too high. As far as I can tell, doesn't offer much beyond soundbites that enormously difficult to apply in practice and perhaps mind candy in the form of philosophical writings.
Overall, I would be reduced to following "LTism": Try to do what's good, but, in the end, protect myself and maybe even try to get something out of life. If Christ be not risen, could anyone really blame me for not following someone else's moral standard to prevent myself from being seriously hurt or dying? What alternative hope could anyone offer in such a dilemma?
April 6, 2007 5:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
OK, SEARCHER, maybe I should have left out the words hocus pocus and poppycock, but I stand by the rest of my statement. I, too, have searched in my lifetime, but none of the "religions" were able to withstand scrutiny and indepth analyses. That does not mean I don't believe in God. I do not call myself an atheist because I do believe in a supreme being. But it is definitely not the one described in the bible, the koran, or any other "holy" scripture. There is not one shred of evidence that any of the people who dictated or wrote those messages were sons/dauthers of God, phrophets inspired by God, or apostles to God.
That said, I hope you have a Happy Easter.
April 6, 2007 5:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The bones don't matter. Christianity, like all religions, is just a crutch. An increasingly dangerous crutch, used as a weapon against other crutch-bearers and those few who try to walk this path without one.
Humanity needs to grow out of this infantile stage of clinging to mystical, hysterical, irrational dogma to "explain" whatever reason and science have not yet gotten around to.
In fact, I wish the Post would have the dignity and the common sense to leave the matter of faith to the hucksters and their suckers. There's really no place for it in a modern newspaper.
April 6, 2007 5:03 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Searcher, I was raised Christian so I assure you I have no trouble seeing both sides of the issue. I don't dispute that millions of people have done wonderfully charitable things in the name of religion, however, not a single one of those things in any way depended on religion. Love, altruism, charity - they all exist on their own, among various people of all nationalities, creeds, tribes, beliefs, races, and so on. Yet rather than focus on what's universally beneficial, religionists choose to focus on those divisive things instead. The supernatural rather than the natural. That's why I refer to it as a bait and switch, and an obfuscation of those things that are truly important (and beneficial).
You choose to attack the messengers rather than the message so your criticisms are just a tad hypocritical, don't you think? Are you too thin skinned to allow your ideas to be challenged vigorously and held up to scrutiny?
I don't find calling the Christian god a thug to in any way be over the top, and most certainly not ridiculously so. The bible itself declares that deeds won't get you into heaven. Only obedient submission will. I think the characterization fits quite well. If any of us acted in the same manner as this god (who is supposed to be the source of love and morality) towards our children, social services would come and take them away.
Challenging such things is not condescending. Embracing them is. Treating people as if they're so fragile that they can't tolerate having their beliefs challenged is. If I walk on eggshells around you then I'm being condescending. No beliefs or ideas are sacred. That's only a disingenuous shield against criticism.
April 6, 2007 4:59 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Your question hits at the foundation of Christian faith, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting. It is the foundation and corner stone of faith in the great redeemer. For those that believe in Jesus Christ you won't find them believing in finding his bones, they know he rose from the grave. For those of us who wouuld believe in the finding of his bones if you study Christ's teachings you will learn of compassion and the meaning of love. Ghandi said he was but practicing the social teachings of Jesus Christ, so we would find the spiritual source of faith in divine life can be found through many means,the teachings of Budda, Loa Tsu, Mohammed, the prophets of Istreal, and the Bhaddivita Gita. We are loved by life, as Thomas Jefferson put it for us 'we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' So freedom of choice and freedom of religion is part of the cornerstone of our American faith. Happy Easter everybody, as the book of John put it 'God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son.'
April 6, 2007 4:52 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Chip, Gaby, William Demuth, Sam Harris, and et. al. -
You make some good points, but you do it in such a superior, condescending, "your so stupid for what you think" way, that your viewpoint is extremely unpalatable. Is your "humanism" that humans should disparage each other and look at each other contemptuously? Can’t say that’s the way I'm want to live. I'm looking for more.
Also, it is interesting how you all cast religion in the worst possible way as to make your points. Chip, your "thug, enforcer" analogy is so over the top it is humorous, and it definitely belies your complete lack of understanding of those you choose to trash. Anyone could do the same to the atheist humanists and make them look like a salivating morons too. Your points are really just criticism - it's certainly not an argument, because an argument would require you look at both sides, which I judge you have trouble doing.
The atheist humanists seem to want to ignore any and all the GOOD that millions, perhaps billions of people do everyday in the name of religion. I know this data is only antidotal, but I have actually known a few of them. And then there's the billions spent on social services by the evil religious, most of it done without the use of clubs or guns. Oops, didn’t mean to contradict your “argument,” …I mean criticism…whatever it is.
You know, I'm trying to sort this all out, but I have to tell you that you atheist humanists that you come across as angry, judgmental, and pretty bad at looking at all sides of an argument. If I had to pick someone to have a beer with and talk about it, I think for right now I would have to pick the "deluded." As much as you might try to paint a different picture of them, they seem a little kinder and little more open to me.
P.S. I saw this on a bumper sticker and you have reminded me of it.
“Jesus loves you....but everyone else thinks you're an a***ole.”
Have a nice day :-)
April 6, 2007 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comment
No it would not. I would still be an Atheist. I don't believe in religion and the dogma that goes with it. I don't believe in a all knowing god figure in the sky. I don't believe there was a son of god. I do not believe anyone died for my sins. I don't believe in sin. So.. it wouldn't matter. I believe in being decent and treating others as I would like to be treated and I expect the same from others. I believe that people should just think -- think about being humans and treating each other in a manner that they would want to be treated and not rely upon some mythical figure so much for all that they do and feel. Why is that so hard for so many christians?
April 6, 2007 4:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
It wouldn't change my view one bit (if Christ's apparent remains were found).
Neither would it change many other's personal views, whichever side of the fence they sit on (or even in the middle ~ ~ how sexual).
This is why Christ (& His Father JHVH, too, if He infact agrees with Jesus His Beloved La-dee-da-dee-da-da Son, on this particular issue..) has *A LOT* to answer for, to the extent that I think they (both) deserve to be crucified (Jesus a second time LOL)... for the very FACT that He/They created beings to have such differing opinions and thoughts or views on anyhting while having us all dwell on the same planet with all our different starsigns etc.
God, if Creator, is the true cause of all misery, difference, and unhappiness. There's a whole huge Universe, but He selfishly chooses to watch us all suffer & die stuck on this small planet without intervening, & if he had have put us all on different planets well enough away from each other, temptation may have gotten the better of us to start wars anyway with the neighbours, but at least it would have been more difficult.. He's always been a terribly lazy provider (much like most Christian Fathers, anyhow).. if He gave us all enough of what we liked in the first place, we wouldnt really BOTHER going off to a neighbouring planet to start a war.
So really, He has nothing. He;'s guiltier than hell, He knows He's done super wrong. He should die ten zillion deaths on a cross.
POSTSCRIPT: i just noticed the trademark Benson & Hedges "anyhow" snuck it's way into my vocabulary. so sue me, it's like the only advertising you're allowed to get these days anyway!
Halo.
April 6, 2007 3:44 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If the bones of Jesus were definitively found (a rather silly hypothetical since such a thing is completely impossible), it would in no way change my view of Christianity - that it is a deeply flawed moral system that in its purest form is about compelling obedience through fear and very little else.
Jesus was a great humanist teacher when you divorce his teachings from the resurrection and other supernatural bits, and worthy of much praise, but the rest of the story? Hardly. Whenever I hear the phrase "God is love," it makes me cringe. The thing that ultimately counts for getting past the torture chamber is simply obedience and bended knees, not how you treat your fellow man (though the encouragement to do it well anyway is appreciated). Despite Jesus's valiant turn as the good cop, the rest of the Christian construct dilutes and obfuscates what was good about jesus's message, and ultimately negates it.
If anyone went up to someone and declared "love me and I will reward you. Deny me and I'll make what happened to Jesus look like all he got was a mud pack and foot massage," they'd likely get arrested, and they'd certainly be seen as a very unpleasant, very unloving, very creepy sort of fellow, soon to be served with a restraining order. Even if he went up to the other person, said the wisest most perfectly loving thing ever uttered, but then pointed over his shoulder at some enforcer (dad), thwacking a nightstick into his palm menacingly, it wouldn't change the basic equation - bend in worship or suffer the consequences. How do people twist their ethics into such a pretzel that this isn't glaringly obvious to everyone?
I'm quite certain love doesn't involve threats of violence, demands for obedience, ritual cannibalism, or lava. God is not love. God is a bully and Jesus was his pitchman. "Please don't kill me" is not love. "I submit myself completely to you" is not love. "I have been told (but provided no actual proof) that you have unlimited power to crush me, therefor I will bend and kiss your foot, lest it flatten me, because I am afraid," is not love! People rising from the dead is not love. Eating flesh and drinking blood is not love (unless you're Anne Rice).
The only part of the story of Jesus that IS love, are those things that are the central tenets of Humanism - Love your neighbors. Turn the other cheek. Have humility. Take care of the less fortunate. Do unto others. Those stand on their own as timeless and classic good ideas. THAT is love. Zombies, vengeful beings from another dimension, cannibalism, submission or torture - that's a recipe for a B movie of questionable taste or a John Norman novel. Is it so hard to tell the difference? Really?
Maybe if they found the bones of Jesus, Christians would finally live up to their humanist potential instead of wallowing in ritual and superstition. What was good about Jesus was his humanity, not his divinity. Ultimately, though, the story of the NT is a bait and switch.
Once when I was a young lad of about 12 I tricked a kid who had a silver dollar into giving it to me, in exchange for a stone, which I swore was an incredibly valuable coin from a far away place, and some day he'd be able to trade it for unimaginable wealth, better than anything else, ever. He can be forgiven for falling for the bait and switch because he was only five. What's everyone else's excuse? What I did was clearly unethical and wrong, but at least I didn't threaten him in any way. I grew out of that kind of behavior. What's God's excuse, besides the size of his stick?
That Christians celebrate the death and resurrection and the divinity of Jesus instead of the life of Jesus and his humanity is a tragedy. It seems to me that if you think cheating death is the most important thing then you've completely missed the point. We don't need miracles or magic tricks or supernatural beings with anger management issues. We don't need an afterlife. We don't need tribes. We just need to be decent to one another in the brief time each of us has to exist in the only life we KNOW we've been given. All the other superstitious BS just gets in the way and corrupts the whole thing. It takes the Humanist message of Jesus and perverts it into something purely selfish.
People are far more interested in what their imaginary God can do for them (or to them) than they are about what they can do for their fellow man (and I don't mean playing good cop for an omnipotent thug. That is NOT "good news"). Adults should be smart enough to figure that out on their own. It's a complete mystery to me that so few actually do.
April 6, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
All the bones would do for me is prove that Christianity like all other organized religions are a bunch of hocus pocus manufactured and written by humans for humans to enforce certain behaviors and control the masses. The religions then were and are perpetuated by "clerics" who saw the propensity of gullible humans who crave leadership in almost everything they do to further their own agendas. Religions thrive on obstructing original thought and everything the man/woman in the pulpit says must be right because he/she is a learned scholar. What poppycock!
April 6, 2007 2:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The question as stated is trivial and silly. Why not ask the question this way: If Christ's remains were found and were absolutely, positively for certain proved to be his, how would that change God's opinion of you? Like choosing a list of books to read, we should deal with the more important questions first, as there may not be time later.
April 6, 2007 12:00 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The premise to the question nullifies the belief.
It is like asking a Morman, "What if the de-materialized gold plates Joseph Smith found buried in New York State, never existed?"
The entire foundation of the belief system is built upon, for the Christian, the defeat of "the sting of death"; and for the Morman, a belief that what no longer exists, once did, in gold, no less.
April 6, 2007 9:05 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-
now as for george carlin- ive seen i think every live performance on video and god is one of his favorite topics- ill listen to any monologue or debate by george for sure-
i especially like the one where he says maybe god created the world because he wanted plastic-
or that maybe the earth will get tired of us messing her up and one day will shake us off like a bad case of fleas- as they say- many a truth is said in jest---
April 6, 2007 1:30 AM | Report Offensive Comment
i saw sam harris and reza aslan debate on cspan a few weeks ago (at 4 in the morning) and mr aslan wiped mr harris out- but he was a civil debator and i appreciate good manners-
now as for george carlin- ive seen i think every live performance on video and god is one of his favorite topics- ill listen to any monologue or debate by george for sure-
April 6, 2007 1:28 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I am happy to see that Newsweek has the courage to publish articles honestly debating atheism versus religion. However, “The God Debate” of April 9, 2007, is a half baked discussion that does not merit the title. Sam Harris did not have his wits with him and Jon Meacham checked his investigative skills at the door. They both allowed numerous opportunities for serious debate to pass without comment. I am disappointed in this article.
While I have the latest books from Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on my shelves, neither is an astute or enthusiastic debater. Has anyone considered asking George Carlin to engage a debate on religion? That would indeed prove interesting.
In the article Rick Warren tells us that God listens to him and speaks back. Mr. Warren, how does God speak to you? How does he get his words, thoughts, or feelings into your mind? If you hear God, you must be able to tell us how you hear God. And how do you know that it really is God speaking to you?
While we are at it, why does God not simply speak to all of mankind and end all this murdering in his name? A claimed but unproven revelation to one or a few is totally without merit. (Yes, I do refer to your bible.) Having all knowledge and power, it would be a trivial deed to speak to us all. Does it ever occur to you that a loving God would not allow his children to suffer such unmitigated pain?
As you yourself noted, the various religions of the world are so different as to be irreconcilable. Until God speaks up and does something about this, then he has given us no credible evidence of his presence.
Mr. Warren, we await your reply.
April 5, 2007 8:54 PM | Report Offensive Comment
To Victoria --
I've always admired the fasting of Muslims at Ramadan, especially since I know that I couldn't go all day without any food (I have enough trouble with keeping up my limited fasting during Lent).
In a way, I guess fasting also serves to remind us that it is hard to be "good", so we need to ask for help from the Almighty.
As for your comment regarding the media, I heartily agree. Complex questions are not modern journalism's forte. But is that because the journalists are foolish or because they are catering to a foolish public?
To Tonio --
Your post reminds me of a funny tradition that grew up during the Middle Ages. For purposes of fasting, some medieval monastic cookbooks identified as "fish" any creature that spent most of its life in water. Hence you get Lenten recipes for duck, goose, swan, and even beaver... :)
April 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"Let's take God out of our schools" "Let's take God out of our government" " Let's take God out of CHRISTMAS" "HEY, WE FOUND THE BONES OF JESUS" ALL THIS FROM THE ORGANIZATION THAT IS antichrist, during the generation of the fig tree. The Generation of the fig tree is given in the Bible as" that generation of people, who will witness the fall of antichrist AND THE RETURN OF JESUS CHRIST THE SAVIOR.
In 1948 Israel was re-established as a nation, and the fig tree was planted. Read Matthew,Mark, Luke, and John to know JESUS. AMEN
April 5, 2007 4:39 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Suppose that archeologists DO find a tomb that says "Jesus" in Aramaic somewhere near Jerusalem, Bethany, or wherever. How are you going to prove it's the real deal? Yeshua/Joshua was a common name back then. You can carbon-date the skeleton to within the time of 30 AD (give or take a few years). But, where would the conclusive proof be? A third strand of DNA? Even then, one could argue that the Ascension was His soul only, not His actual body.
April 5, 2007 4:15 PM | Report Offensive Comment
robert b- on te last question i described a bit about how muslims fast for ramadan-
our fast lasts for a full month non-stop- from sunup to sundown we refrain from all drink and food and sex.
the purpose of it is to develop self control (which it really does) and to inculcate compassion for those who are without(which it is also successful in doing)
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2007/03/religion_in_the_media/comments.html#comments
it was posted on april 2nd at 11:47 am
if you are interested
i would rather see a more compelling question lke the one you suggested-
it seems the blog owners like to post somewhat sensational questions without much depth
maybe its their journalistic training
April 5, 2007 4:05 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Robert B., your suggestion for a topic is a good one. When I was a teenager, I never understood why our family (ostensibly Lutheran) did not eat meat from land animals on Good Friday. Dinner on that day was usually tuna casserole, which I hated with a passion. I assumed that if one gave up meat for a religious purpose, one would give up all meat. Instead, we did our part to keep Mrs. Paul's and StarKist in business each year. Now that I'm older, I understand the general principle behind the self-denial of fasting. Still, I question the value of fasting when it's a command instead of a decision, because the former feels like a pointless rule.
April 5, 2007 3:42 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found my beliefs in Catholicism would end! The gospel would be proven false. Catholics like myself would turn away because as Catholics we continuously search for the truth and nothing but the truth. It would be a sad day but I would move on... But that day hasn't come yet and I doubt it ever will!
April 5, 2007 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I think they're scraping the bottom of the barrel with this question. Whatever happened to the nice general questions that all people of faith could answer and discuss?
For example, on Ash Wednesday, I submitted a question on the various approaches to fasting, hoping to learn more about how other religions view this. Unfortunately, my question seems to have been rejected, apparently because it would actually draw people into meaningful dialogue rather than have them electronically scream at one another...
April 5, 2007 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
wiliam you seem to be under the impression that if all religions disappeared tomorrow, man would suddenly stop killing others-
or that humans would suddenly stop having the tendency to use any ism with great zeal to justify their own baser inclinations- like greed for power, money- subjugating other humans-
are you suggesting that with the disappearance of religion, all of mans lower instincts to steal, or kill or lie would also evaporate?
April 5, 2007 1:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Finding the bones of Jesus would be wonderful. My belief would remain a Christian. When Jesus died and was resurrected, he did not need his bones. One's belief requires no proof or evidence because it is just one's humble belief.
April 5, 2007 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Pradeep,
"If these bones exist, it would prove one and one thing only. Jesus was an ordinary human being who lived, breathed and died like any one of us, not that he is a super human or for that matter of fact "Son of God". But having said that, the point to be noted is that, he proved that any ordinary person can live an extra ordinary life if your willing to put the effort into it."
Well said, and great point.
April 5, 2007 11:10 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Enough of these absurdities.
Using Biblical verses as proof of the existence of Christ is equivalent to using quotes from Marvel comic books as proof of the existence of “Thor, The Mighty God of Thunder”
Please people, try and get a grip. You have been fed fertilizer for so long you’re blind to simple realities.
We live, we die, we rot, and we are forgotten.
Deal with it, because no matter how much fantasy you inject into your life, it is an inescapable reality.
When you collectively start espousing this nonsense, you drag us closer and closer to the edge, and when we finally arrive at it, there will be no saviors for us.
You and your type are destroying this world, and I for one have had enough of this.
April 5, 2007 10:49 AM | Report Offensive Comment
If these bones exist, it would prove one and one thing only. Jesus was an ordinary human being who lived, breathed and died like any one of us, not that he is a super human or for that matter of fact "Son of God". But having said that, the point to be noted is that, he proved that any ordinary person can live an extra ordinary life if your willing to put the effort into it.
April 5, 2007 10:28 AM | Report Offensive Comment
As I noted on another comment page:
Professor Crossan's list of attestations about the crucifixion of Jesus:
5+. Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2. Conclusion- the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth was historical.
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb005.html
To see Josephus' publications along with a large number of commentaries about said publications, see http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html
And from Paul Maier, Josephus: The Essential Works, 1994, Kregal Publications Grand Rapids, MI 49501.
"The weight of evidence, then, strongly suggests that Josephus mentioned Jesus in both passages (Antiquities 18:63 and 20:200) . He did so in a manner totally congruent with the New Testatment portrait of Jesus, and his description, from the vantage point of a non-Christian, seems remarkably fair, particularly in view of his known proclivity of roasting false messiahs as the sorts who misled the people and brought on the Romans."
April 5, 2007 9:42 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Christ's remains shall probably never be found because Christ probably never actually existed. He is an illusion, a byproduct of propaganda and illiteracy. Christianity is just the collective desperation of people unwilling to accept their own mortality.
It is time for us to call ALL these “religions” by their true name, superstitions.
Hopefully Christ, Yahweh, Allah, and all the others of their ilk will be relegated to the cultural trash bin from which we select name of our sports cars and cartoon characters as have their predecessors. The only question is whether we shall slaughter each other in the name of our gods before we mature enough to put them aside. Regrettably, I am not confident.
April 5, 2007 8:16 AM | Report Offensive Comment
If the remains were found, many would doubt they were his remains, regardless of what tests were done to prove it conclusively. God could come out of the sky to every man, woman, and child, and announce that they were, in fact, Jesus` remains, and still some would believe they were not. Those who believe that Jesus never existed will dispute it, as well as those who believe he rose bodily and could not have left remains. Rational Christians will have to rethink the situation in light of the new evidence, as we often do.
However, they will never be found, because Jesus left no remains to find. He is risen indeed!
April 5, 2007 3:56 AM | Report Offensive Comment
it would not change my perception of jesus- who to me has always been a dearly beloved and revered prophet of god-
but im afraid many christians would take it hard-
but i would certainly take no pleasure at all in their difficulties.
peace
April 5, 2007 3:13 AM | Report Offensive Comment
What has had a greater impact on Western civillization: belief in miracles and supernatural feats of Jesus, or the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus?
Yes, it could be that the stories of miracles and the supernatural powers of Jesus has advanced the popularity, the grand credence of the moral and ethical agenda in Jesus' teachings.
But what is the heart of Christianity? Without the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, and just focusing on obedience to religious leaders and what they tell us is moral -- and tossing aside the personal development of our own ethical reasoning ability, what is Christianity?
What is truly important about Christianity?
Another aspect to the question of Resurrection is this:
Some people may really need to be assured that there is life after death. Virgin birth and Resurrection are major lynchpins of the supernatural context of Christianity.
Without the supernatural, comfort about one's personal death, and the death of loved ones, could make life feel cold and heartless. In this sense, why deprive this comfort upon a mourning son or daughter who chooses to deal with death in this way? Feelings, tradition, and consideration for others is an important issue -- as long as it does no harm nor any injustice.
After coming home after staying with my maternal grandmother in the hospital, I collapsed on my bed and cried. Some moments later, I "felt" that my grandmother was with me, and she told me that everything was alright, and it was alright for her pass on from this life. A few hours later I recieved a phone call notifying me that my grandmother passed away a while ago. So while I do not deny the supernatural, I cannot make unfounded claims about aspects of life, consciousness, or reality that aren't yet proven by science. For me, some issues don't have to be black or white -- "maybe's" are abundant parts of life.
And as a corollary, there may be a fear within some, that without Heaven or Hell after death, societal suasion for moral conduct in life would weaken. In other words, for some people, societal moral behavior would weaken without that "ultimate" reward or punishment, and the unerring final judgement at the end of life.
Again, it could be conjectured that there is a broad spectrum of good and beastly motivations in men, and for some:
-- religion, and the prospect of reward or punishment of what comes after this life, is the last thing that one would feel that keep them in check.
After all, psychological theories of moral development posit that along the path towards internalized notions of right and wrong, punishment and reward has at least trained, if not remains for some, the primary motive for "proper" behavior.
But with or without Resurrection, the crucial issue cannot be avoided and put off, societally and individually, humanity has to develop and advance its understanding and practice of ethics and morality. It is not about telling the masses what to think and believe. It is about developing those ethical and moral reasoning "muscles" in the brain. It is not only a question of meaning, it is a question of survival and how the future will become.
--jsp akha Volt Rare
April 5, 2007 1:40 AM | Report Offensive Comment
To me, the issue is not Jesus divinity. Certainly I view much of that story as superstition from an age of ignorance, upon which a power structure has been built whose history has often been tyranny and murder and falsehood, and even genocide. It's all about power, it's all about money, it's all about control by (a) religion(s) that terrorizes with statements like burning in hell (probably the worst way to die) if you don't do as they say, but promises salvation and that death is not death if you toe the line. In any other situation, trying to sell that sort of insurance product would get you shut down in a second, for you need to prove the policy pays off, not just "believe" it will.
Now, the other issue is what did Jesus intend to do for the world during his lifetime. He offered a vision of peace, love, and compassion for our fellow human beings, something sorely lacking then and now. Many churches, especially the conservative ones, are churches of fear. They have totally turned away from Jesus messages to a form of religious terrorism, and learned so well over the ages the art of brainwashing, little different then the mechanisms used in Islam. These particular churches destroy the meaning of Jesus life, and his messages to humanity. As they say, you have the fox guarding the hen house, he's awfully fat, and he doesn't care about much except protecting his turf.
We should all lead our lives as if this is the only life we will have, and try to help others not as fortunate as ourselves, for its their only life also. If you believe in a loving God, that's fine, I'm sure you will be rewardedif there is an afterlife. If you believe that we are just products of nature, your reward will be in your own satisfaction. We do have the opportunity to keep on living beyond our lifetime in a sense, by sharing our genes with an opposite sex partner so we project our makeup into the future. Unfortunately evolution or whatever hasn't provided a way to maintain our awareness beyond our lifetimes. I was perfectly content before my birth, I believe I'll be perfectly content after my death. Perhaps the price of living is simply dying, and ultimately you have no choice, for you are who you are, aware of your own existence. So, there is much to learn from Jesus life, and others in the past, the real question is are we practicing what he preached?
April 5, 2007 1:17 AM | Report Offensive Comment
Since Christ's body was supposed to have risen literally, my view of Christianity would change from a religion that believes in unproven silliness to a religion that believes in silliness proved wrong.
Though if the finding turned evangelicals away from showmanship and started trying to get their followers to pay more attention to the teachings of Jesus, I'd have a little more respect for them.
April 4, 2007 11:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The discovery of Christ's physical remains would profoundly change my world view.It would mean the end of the Christian religion in my eyes.A new type of Christianity would have to replace the current religion.Christ would become another man, a great guru,prophet or saint such as have occasionally appeared throughout man's history.
The discovery of Christ's remains would destroy the central transcendant meaning and purpose of Christianity.
April 4, 2007 7:29 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Marco Polo: I don't need a compound I just have a job to do I did not ask to be me but I have said yes. God is a searcher of hearts and minds not a searcher of religious affiliations. So many people know God's name which is "I Am Who Am" but don't know anything about Him. A lot of people also know the bible from cover to cover but still don't know anything about God or they wouldn't be spewing out so much hatred in His Name. We are all God's children and His Plan is for all of humanity ultimately to be in His Kingdom. God is a Trinity and He is not a male or a female even though I use that pronoun. God Incarnate was a male, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews but God asked permission of a Lady to become a human being. The Jews are the Chosen People for the simple reason that God chose them, this does not mean that they are better or anything just that God has reasons for what He does. Judaism is not a religion but a covenential relationship between God and a people and Christianity is not a religion either but a covenential relationship between God and a person.
April 4, 2007 7:28 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Finding the remains of Jesus would not really change any of my beliefs about Christianity. First off there is no way that the bones could be proven beyound a doubt to be the bones of Jesus. There would be nothing to compare the remains to.
But even if they could, what would that prove? That Jesus did exist. Thats all. Nothing more. I would still believe that Jesus had been a good man teaching about love of fellow man. People could still believe that Jesus was resurrected as the bible claims he was if they chose too. Atheists could still chose not to believe. Everyone could continue as now in their beliefs, and their debates.
April 4, 2007 7:07 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Can These Bones Rise?
Mary Magdalene plays a prominent role in the resurrection, having first found Christ arisen (though not exactly, since the tomb was actually empty). According to some readings of the gospels, she was a prostitute who had her demons cast out by Jesus and became his closest companion. Some scholars suggest she was his lover, as in Luke 8:2, mentioned as one of the women who "ministered to Him [Jesus] of their substance". There are even writings attributed to a gospel of Mary. One of the latest of those writings found recounts a different resurrection story. It follows here.
The Mary, who bound most closely to Jesus, attended him on the cross as she had in life, soothing and uplifting him, taking him away from his agony. Following his death and entombment, she went to him to anoint him with spices, to purify his body of the stench of putrification; at least that is what she told the other disciples. When she arrived, she found the tomb essentially empty of him, though the body was there in the burying cloth, lifeless and stinking. However, his precious essence was no longer prominent, but was flaccid and limp, while the rest of the body was rigid in rigor. She looked on in utter despair. Her dream of one last union with The Son appeared beyond her grasp. But grasp it she did, and then wailing in grief, she began stroking it insistently in her sorrow, mourning for his return. Her wails subsided. For a long time she sat there sobbing, slowly fondling him, rubbing sweet smelling ointment into his essence, trying desperately to bring him back to life. Finally she bent to kiss it in tender affection and fond remembrance, gently placing it in her mouth as she had often done after his strenuous exertion, while his breathing slowed. Those were her happiest moments and they were forever gone, for he breathed no more. Her inconsolable grief returned, and with it a sense of urgency in which she frantically stroked and sucked, willing him back, back to his former glory, restoring him to rigorous vigor. Suddenly, he was newly risen. Overcome with joy, she happily hopped on, then slowly lowered herself onto him with a shudder of pleasure, again in union with her lord, now fully resurrected.
Posted April 4, 2007 6:17 PM
April 4, 2007 6:30 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I assume if you had Jesus' bones, you would compare the DNA to the DNA of Mary and Joseph to prove maternity and paternity? And that would really put the nails in Jesus' coffin?
April 4, 2007 6:23 PM | Report Offensive Comment
If the remains of Jesus had been definitively found, how would that change your view of Christianity?
What a strange question--even disturbing--as if the results of this question will determine whether the Vatican decides to perpetrate a hoax "and discover the remains" and all of Christendom will rejoice.
Personally it makes no difference to me if the remains of Christ are found or not--unless we decide to clone Jesus from the remains. Then I would be interested in seeing what he looks like.
Perhaps the clone of Jesus will even reveal him to be quite a compelling individual and solve the problem of who he really was...But no doubt instead of proceeding in a scientific fashion and solve a mystery which has led to so much persecution as well as blessedness, we will not be allowed to proceed scientifically and in fact we will be expected to just worship all the more...with all the positives and negatives which come with that...
A silly question really. All this religion is getting tiresome. For the life of me I find it difficult to understand why people will not just admit life is a mystery and that we really know nothing, and that we should just be more or less respectful of one another and be patient and just slowly discover and create down through the centuries in humble respect of the mystery...But no, this scientific outlook--and it is scientific par excellence--is considered arrogant.
We are supposed to listen to "humble" rationalizations by Christians such as the famous one about not gambling with life, that if one believes and there is no Christ after death one loses nothing, but if there is a Christ one is saved or burns in hell if not believing...For the life of me I find it difficult to understand why Christ would condemn me to hell for not believing...I might understand if I were a moral monster (a monster of immorality) but for simply being an ordinary man not believing? Or does one actually have to say "I believe" and one's morals are not the paramount issue? But what about children incapable of making an intelligent decision? and when exactly--at what age--is it determined that one is capable of making the choice? It seems to me preposterous in general to be told I am gambling with my life by not believing, that I will burn in hell. Is it not enough to admit life is a mystery and to strive to live more or less in respect of other human beings? In fact is that not more honest than presuming one knows all about the mystery, that behind it is God and he expects such and such?
I plead total ignorance. All of it confuses me. Digging up Christ clears little for me. It might clear something up if he is cloned, but even if he is a remarkable man (the clone), still it would not make much difference on my religious views per se. It might explain a bit about Christianity, but I doubt it would negate the human tendency to just jump to conclusions about existence and impose on reality all sorts of beliefs. We would still be before the mystery and all too many would just come up with new schemes for explaining existence to themselves. In fact a clone of Christ would probably make no difference at all to Christianity. But the remains themselves (without being cloned) would no doubt be seized upon with great belief (the supreme relic).
So I suppose the Vatican should just pull a body out of the ground for us...
All this could make a nice science fiction story whether the Vatican pulls a hoax or not: if a hoax, we could have "Christ" secretly cloned and he turns out to be Jerry Seinfeld or something. Or we could have Christ really found and he turns out to be...Jerry Seinfeld.
But maybe the Vatican can improve the hoax and build a little stairway to heaven in "Christ's" tomb or something or maybe if Christ is really found there will be proof of ascension. I have no idea...Sorry for irreverance. I know these issues mean so much to people, but where I stand today is in complete ignorance. I just write and improvise with concepts (my background in general) and out of my native ability knowing all the while that all of it is provisional and that in fact I will never really get at anything. I try my best to be nonfictional--scientific--but like all science all is theory and actually quite akin to art (creation rather than discovery precisely because for all discovery the discovery is never total).
I hope I have not offended anyone, and to Christ and God himself--I know nothing.
April 4, 2007 5:22 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I have to reiterate some of the postings already written: Even if you got any DNA from the bones, who would you compare them to?
There are no "If's" about it. They are not Jesus'. PERIOD.
April 4, 2007 4:00 PM | Report Offensive Comment
I am a Hindu. I believe, like many Hindu saints, that Jesus Christ was Divinie Spirit embodied in human flesh.
Such Divine incarnations of the Omnipotent Supreme All Being appear on earth from time to time to correct the path of error and set the course. Historically, these extraordinary individuals have capability of performing miracles (like raising Lazarus from the dead, healing lepers and walking on water). Such individuals, can also see deep into the future.
According to the Hindu perceptions such individuals, who are fully aware of their Divine nature and capabilities, still take on ordinary mortal obligations, without any attachment to the fruits of the (desired or undesired) results due to engagement in such actions. Their sole objective is to set course for the good of mankind with no ulterior motives/ personal ambitions and are free from any forms of greed. They complete their time cycle and then abandon their mortal body only to perhaps come back at an appropriate time. These extraordinary individuals are called "avatars" in the Hindu spiritual system. Christ, as viewed by many Hindu saints and seers, was an "avatar". He shall return at an appropriate time.
Such views, I understand, are completely foreign to the western version of Christ's Divinity.
So, my views about Jesus Christ are exactly as above and I don't think it changes in any way if Simcha Jacobovici has made a film that states Christ's bones were found and he was married with kids. So, what ?
April 4, 2007 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comment
"Communion wafers are made of Jesus!" - Charlton Heston
If the remains of Jesus were found, it wouldn't impact my beliefs. I believe he existed (either as a person, or several different people whose life events over time combined into one story) but not as a divine entity. How would we know any remains were his anyway? It's like when the Shroud of Turin was found...it was automatically thought to be the shroud Jesus was buried in. And now this "lost tomb of Jesus" nonsense...
April 4, 2007 3:31 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thomas:
Uh.....you got a compound already? Or should I wait for CNN to cover your story?
April 4, 2007 3:24 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Concerning PT's comment. It just so happened that on Jan 29, 2000 that the Holy Spirit came into my body and revealed to me that Jesus really is present in the Catholic Eucharist, I happened to be at a Mass at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, Md. Some people might pretend, some might believe but I happen to know and maybe part of the reason that I needed to know is that I am the New Testament Moses. God happens to be Pure Love not the egomaniacal piece of garbage that so many people that call themselves christians think and try to teach others. So many people have twisted the Bible and the Gospel, which means "Good News" not almost Good News.
April 4, 2007 3:11 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The movie Soylent Green comes to mind when you say that PT. Or was it a book>? Man my memory really is bad today!
April 4, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The Christian faith has nothing to fear from any new knowledge. The faith that Jesus came to earth as God's son, however that happened, to bring the Kingdom of God as a way to model to us how we should live together will never change whatever else is decided about his life. He could have left a physical body.. a wife.. a child... or none of those things.
April 4, 2007 3:01 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Thanks, PT. The joke you mentioned reminds me of an episode of Star Trek:The Next Generation, "Rightful Heir." The story attempts to address the idea that I've been talking about.
April 4, 2007 2:27 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Tonio has the right idea. The basic teachings of peace, love and compassion that you find in the Bible and other religious texts are spoiled by trying to wrap them up in supernatural story lines.
On a lighter note, I read a great idea in another forum about what to do with the bones of Jesus. In light of the recent news stories about the insertion of human genes into rice crops to help combat diarrhoea in third world countries, simply extract the DNA of Jesus and embed some in communion wafers. This ensures you will really be receiving the body of Christ, and not just pretending.
April 4, 2007 2:04 PM | Report Offensive Comment
The premise of the specific question, "if the remains of Jesus had been definitively found," is impossible. Assume we find some remains. How would we know they were of Jesus? What test would you use?
The broader question asks for Christian reactions to proof of a fact that is contrary to Christian belief. I think we know the answer to that question. Christian will deny the proof, because it is contrary to Christian belief. See the battle over evolution as one of many examples.
April 4, 2007 12:17 PM | Report Offensive Comment
Christianity would not disappear if Jesus' bones were found since Christianity is a way of life, a life built on the cornerstones of the Beatitudes and the Twelve Commandments. True Christianity is not dependent on floating bodies, ghosts, apparitions and "talking pretty wingy thingies".
The physical resurrection of Jesus has been reveiwed by many contemporary NT scholars. Most conclude that the physical resurrection did not occur. There are just too many conflicting stories about the event itself and lack of proper attestation from other scriptural sources.
Even common sense says the physical resurrection did not occur. The basis?? Heaven is a spirit state as per Aquinas. No bodies exist there. Therefore the body of Jesus (and Mary) even in a glory state cannot be there. It sure would be very strange, all those billions of souls plus the spirit/soul of God with a few alien beings wandering about with nothing to see, do or eat.
The body of Jesus decomposed or disappeared just as all human bodies disappear. See Professor Crossan's conclusions as noted in his books, Who is Jesus? and The Historical Jesus. Also see the information posted at http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb017.html
This lack of physical resurrection is also being taught in large Catholic university theology classes e.g. Catholic U.
Easter is already becoming secularized so there should be little economic impact on "Christian" nations. Those that still believe in the physical resurrection have significant economic dependence on it e.g. popes, bishops, ministers evangelists and authors such as Professor NT Wright so they will continue the tradition to protect their jobs.
The tradition of Jesus embellishments served Christianity well in the time of uneducated "pew peasants". Paul for example added to these embellishments especially the "prophecy" of the second coming to fund the movement in the lands of the Gentiles. To say the least, he was quite successful. Now, however, the "pew peasants" have been educated and we want realism restored to our beliefs.
April 4, 2007 12:16 PM | Report Offensive Comment
inding Remains of Jesus Would *Disprove* Christianity
Christians believe that Jesus rose from the dead
*with his body*
i.e. he was resurrected.
If, somehow, the premise of this crazy question were possible to achieve
(yes, how would we know the remains were of Jesus? Would he have a tattoo on his bones? Do we have a DNA sample in a police dpt somewhere)
It would *disprove* the Base belief of Christianity, that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected as we will be.
Posted April 4, 2007 10:33 AM
April 4, 2007 10:35 AM | Report Offensive Comment
I would hope such a discovery would show that religions need not have any claims about the supernatural. Perhaps it would lead Christianity away from the concept of "salvation" and toward a view of Jesus as a mortal teacher. His insights into the human condition could be evaluated on their own merits. The question of "why we are here" doesn't have to depend on any supernatural notions.
April 4, 2007 10:35 AM | Report Offensive Comment
If the Resurrection were to be definitively disproved it would evacuate the New Testament and the creeds of their claims on our attention. A Catholic, I once knew a priest who said "If they ever find the bones of Christ, this collar's coming off and I'm out of here." I'm not a priest, but I agree with him. Such a discovery would totally undermine catholic Christianity, though some variant of gnosticism might remain credible.
April 4, 2007 10:18 AM | Report Offensive Comment