For anyone interested in the ancient Jewish morality code re adultery. An interesing read.
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 5&letter=A
JewishEncyclopedia.com - ADULTERY
Fornication
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view. ... 4&letter=F
JewishEncyclopedia.com - FORNICATION
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I cannot accept that the denial of the haulocaust"is evidence to the contrary". That is an assumption that cannot be substantiated.
Do you really mean this Ted or have we got our wires crossed? We have the eyewitness accounts of the Allied troops that liberated these camps, the eyewitness accounts of the survivors and the transcripts of the trial of those involved in running the camps, you can even walk around those camps today. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming.
You are correct that evidence is weighted and not counted. However, it seems to me that millions of folks over the centuries have had experiences that they attribute to their faith.
Which, if true, Ted means that no particular faith can be considered more valid than any other. Would you accept that UFO’s regularly visit Earth and subject individuals to anal probing? Many people do believe this, and have produced sworn testimonies and subjected themselves to lie detector tests to back up their belief. Is it reasonable to accept the claim that UFO’s exist and are visiting us, just on the basis that some people truly believe they exist?
This says nothing about the documented miracles at Lourds etc.
There have been 66 cases that the Vatican considered to be authentic miracles at Lourdes Ted. Today, nearly five million visit Lourdes each year, back in the 1930’s it was estimated that one million a year were coming to Lourdes by train alone. It’s reasonable to assume over a hundred million have visited over the last 150 years.
It’s been estimated that spontaneous remission from chronic or life threatening illness such as cancer occurs at a ratio of 1:100,000. Lourdes is batting below average.
It would be easy for you to make me take miracle cures at places such as Lourdes seriously Ted. Just show me one that would be considered medically impossible and has never been documented before, such as the re-growth of a missing limb.
You mentioned subjective. In light of quantum theory and my own readings of some of the philosophers and scientists like Arthur Peacock and Paul Davies I have come to the conclusion that pure subjectivity is highly elusive.
Quantum Theory may make reality subjective and uncertain on a sub-atomic level Ted, but quantum events do not materially affect the level we experience our lives. Hit your hand with a hammer and those subjective quantum states the hammer exists in at the Planck level will still produce a very real and very objective sensation of pain.
No matter what you observe or see or the gathering of statistics they are still filtered through the human brain and cannot avoid subjectivity. Four doctors and a sick child=4different diagnoses.
Different meaning of the word ‘subjective’ Ted. A diagnosis is a opinion based on objective evidence and previous professional experience, not a mystical inner feeling.
I would go even further to suggest that this is true of all the faiths and that all the great faiths of the world are based on some form of truth not just Christianity.
Some form of truth Ted? Are multi-limbed gods and animal headed gods an objective truth because they existed, or true merely because some believed in them?
I think your reference to Constantine is not all that well founded. The church had spread quite a bit by his time.
The writings that today make of the canon of scriptures were are written well before constantine came on the scene.
No one is arguing that the canonical scriptures were not in existence before Constantine. The question is how widespread was belief in those scriptures?
Pliny, a man who had the ear of the emperor and was extremely knowledgeable in the affairs of the empire knew little or nothing about Christianity. To the extent that he had to interrogate Christians to discover what their beliefs and practices were.
Raymond Davis in ‘The Book of Pontiffs’ states that Christians did not have a chapel in Rome until about 220 CE, and that they were so poor they could not afford silver vessels for altar use until about 230 CE.
How could such a poor insignificant sect rise to become the largest religion in the Roman Empire by the end of the 4th century? Joseph McCabe commenting on the influence of Constantine on the early church:
"Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists."
As far as the quote I gave you goes I think it shows quite well that something was going on in Nazareth. It seems good enough for Reed and Crossan although I am aware that that does not necessarily make it the truth.
Is there any reason it wouldn’t be good enough for them Ted? They are both Christians! Their opinions are based on hope, not evidence; they invent the existence of buildings from a 1st century Nazareth that neither they nor the official archaeological records can substantiate.
On the other hand Paul was talking about Nazareth as soon as 10 years after Jesus death.
Where Ted? I can’t find any mention of Nazareth in any of the Epistles
Personally I like many of the worlds religious scholars have no problem with the historical Jesus as the world does not seem to have a problem with the historical Buddha.
Do they deny they have a problem with a historical Jesus because they are religious, or because they are scholars?
You yourself have doubted the non-biblical evidence, and believe the bible contains very little history. So, if we strip these two sources away from Jesus, what is left?
As I said in an earlier post, the standards of evidence applied to prove the historicity of Jesus would not be acceptable to any other historical figure.
Such as it is. I have no illusions that I convinced you of anything but we are exchanging ideas and that in itself is good.
Yes.
Do you really mean this Ted or have we got our wires crossed? We have the eyewitness accounts of the Allied troops that liberated these camps, the eyewitness accounts of the survivors and the transcripts of the trial of those involved in running the camps, you can even walk around those camps today. The evidence for the Holocaust is overwhelming.
You are correct that evidence is weighted and not counted. However, it seems to me that millions of folks over the centuries have had experiences that they attribute to their faith.
Which, if true, Ted means that no particular faith can be considered more valid than any other. Would you accept that UFO’s regularly visit Earth and subject individuals to anal probing? Many people do believe this, and have produced sworn testimonies and subjected themselves to lie detector tests to back up their belief. Is it reasonable to accept the claim that UFO’s exist and are visiting us, just on the basis that some people truly believe they exist?
This says nothing about the documented miracles at Lourds etc.
There have been 66 cases that the Vatican considered to be authentic miracles at Lourdes Ted. Today, nearly five million visit Lourdes each year, back in the 1930’s it was estimated that one million a year were coming to Lourdes by train alone. It’s reasonable to assume over a hundred million have visited over the last 150 years.
It’s been estimated that spontaneous remission from chronic or life threatening illness such as cancer occurs at a ratio of 1:100,000. Lourdes is batting below average.
It would be easy for you to make me take miracle cures at places such as Lourdes seriously Ted. Just show me one that would be considered medically impossible and has never been documented before, such as the re-growth of a missing limb.
You mentioned subjective. In light of quantum theory and my own readings of some of the philosophers and scientists like Arthur Peacock and Paul Davies I have come to the conclusion that pure subjectivity is highly elusive.
Quantum Theory may make reality subjective and uncertain on a sub-atomic level Ted, but quantum events do not materially affect the level we experience our lives. Hit your hand with a hammer and those subjective quantum states the hammer exists in at the Planck level will still produce a very real and very objective sensation of pain.
No matter what you observe or see or the gathering of statistics they are still filtered through the human brain and cannot avoid subjectivity. Four doctors and a sick child=4different diagnoses.
Different meaning of the word ‘subjective’ Ted. A diagnosis is a opinion based on objective evidence and previous professional experience, not a mystical inner feeling.
I would go even further to suggest that this is true of all the faiths and that all the great faiths of the world are based on some form of truth not just Christianity.
Some form of truth Ted? Are multi-limbed gods and animal headed gods an objective truth because they existed, or true merely because some believed in them?
I think your reference to Constantine is not all that well founded. The church had spread quite a bit by his time.
The writings that today make of the canon of scriptures were are written well before constantine came on the scene.
No one is arguing that the canonical scriptures were not in existence before Constantine. The question is how widespread was belief in those scriptures?
Pliny, a man who had the ear of the emperor and was extremely knowledgeable in the affairs of the empire knew little or nothing about Christianity. To the extent that he had to interrogate Christians to discover what their beliefs and practices were.
Raymond Davis in ‘The Book of Pontiffs’ states that Christians did not have a chapel in Rome until about 220 CE, and that they were so poor they could not afford silver vessels for altar use until about 230 CE.
How could such a poor insignificant sect rise to become the largest religion in the Roman Empire by the end of the 4th century? Joseph McCabe commenting on the influence of Constantine on the early church:
"Even ordinary citizens were rewarded with a baptismal robe and a piece of gold. Villages were raised to the rank of cities if all their inhabitants exchanged Jupiter for Christ. In ten years imperial gold had done more than the blood of all the martyrs, the miracles of all the saints, and the arguments of all the apologists."
As far as the quote I gave you goes I think it shows quite well that something was going on in Nazareth. It seems good enough for Reed and Crossan although I am aware that that does not necessarily make it the truth.
Is there any reason it wouldn’t be good enough for them Ted? They are both Christians! Their opinions are based on hope, not evidence; they invent the existence of buildings from a 1st century Nazareth that neither they nor the official archaeological records can substantiate.
On the other hand Paul was talking about Nazareth as soon as 10 years after Jesus death.
Where Ted? I can’t find any mention of Nazareth in any of the Epistles
Personally I like many of the worlds religious scholars have no problem with the historical Jesus as the world does not seem to have a problem with the historical Buddha.
Do they deny they have a problem with a historical Jesus because they are religious, or because they are scholars?
You yourself have doubted the non-biblical evidence, and believe the bible contains very little history. So, if we strip these two sources away from Jesus, what is left?
As I said in an earlier post, the standards of evidence applied to prove the historicity of Jesus would not be acceptable to any other historical figure.
Such as it is. I have no illusions that I convinced you of anything but we are exchanging ideas and that in itself is good.
Yes.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. You are apparently well coached by the RCC.
2. Having said that I also notice that you continually refuse to comment on clear posts and statements.
3. Anyway not all is well in the RCC and it is becoming public. Ted, I am not attempting to draw out a discussion that we agree is going nowhere, but I would like to make a few final points:
1. The only time I was 'coached' in my Catholic school is when I was on the basketball team! As I told you, at least twice I think (if so, this will make the third time, which hopefully will be charmed), in all of my years of parochial education, I was never taught anything that I later found to be unfactual or misleading. That pretty much says it all.
2. Well, repeat specifically the 'clear' statements you're referring to and I'll give equally clear and specific comments. That you will agree with them I cannot guarantee. I can't comment on various esoteric theories of Church history and doctrine from books to which I have no access.
3. Why not be specific? If you are referring to the abuse scandal, that has been public for quite a while in BOTH the RC and CE, as well as other denoms. Nor, as I said previously, is there any reason to assume that the problem does not exist in those denoms in which it has so far NOT become public.
Finally, your statements with regard to the spread of AIDS are, frankly, downright asinine. Go back and read them again. Where is the logic here, Ted? You are not a stupid person, why make stupid non-sequiturs? You seem to be implying that Catholic teaching draws some sort of distinction between committing promiscuous or adulterous acts with a condom and without one. That is really quite outrageous. Sin is sin, and its consequences are not always entirely spiritual. If a married couple is faithful to each other, they have very little risk of contracting AIDS and passing it on to their children. What method of family planning, IF ANY, they use is completely irrelevant. The issue here is not contraception but filthy and dangerous behavior. Both the various social service agencies, which make no moral judgments, and the Church, which MUST make such judgments, are doing their part in addressing the AIDS crisis. Using that crisis as a pretense for attacking the Church is really rather shameful.
2. Having said that I also notice that you continually refuse to comment on clear posts and statements.
3. Anyway not all is well in the RCC and it is becoming public. Ted, I am not attempting to draw out a discussion that we agree is going nowhere, but I would like to make a few final points:
1. The only time I was 'coached' in my Catholic school is when I was on the basketball team! As I told you, at least twice I think (if so, this will make the third time, which hopefully will be charmed), in all of my years of parochial education, I was never taught anything that I later found to be unfactual or misleading. That pretty much says it all.
2. Well, repeat specifically the 'clear' statements you're referring to and I'll give equally clear and specific comments. That you will agree with them I cannot guarantee. I can't comment on various esoteric theories of Church history and doctrine from books to which I have no access.
3. Why not be specific? If you are referring to the abuse scandal, that has been public for quite a while in BOTH the RC and CE, as well as other denoms. Nor, as I said previously, is there any reason to assume that the problem does not exist in those denoms in which it has so far NOT become public.
Finally, your statements with regard to the spread of AIDS are, frankly, downright asinine. Go back and read them again. Where is the logic here, Ted? You are not a stupid person, why make stupid non-sequiturs? You seem to be implying that Catholic teaching draws some sort of distinction between committing promiscuous or adulterous acts with a condom and without one. That is really quite outrageous. Sin is sin, and its consequences are not always entirely spiritual. If a married couple is faithful to each other, they have very little risk of contracting AIDS and passing it on to their children. What method of family planning, IF ANY, they use is completely irrelevant. The issue here is not contraception but filthy and dangerous behavior. Both the various social service agencies, which make no moral judgments, and the Church, which MUST make such judgments, are doing their part in addressing the AIDS crisis. Using that crisis as a pretense for attacking the Church is really rather shameful.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
Re your point on the haulocaust perhaps I misinterpreted what I read.
Re the validity of other faiths-that is part of my belief. I will address your comment on multi-limmed gods Any language that we use to describe the Divine is by its very nature purely metaphorical. It can be no other way. Our human languages are not designed to describe or define the infinite or the Divine.
I have read of some of the cures at Lourds. I do not have the books. However
that being said there were some that medical personel including doctors admitted were in fact miracles. They saw no other answer for the situation. There are of course al kinds of stories of miracle cures but since that has not been of particular interest to me I have not bothered to colledt or save them. I am well acquainted with a couple olf situations where the doctors have openly admitted that the individuals in question should not have survived. There comment in those cases was they were miracles Now since I cannot document them you only have my word.
Personally I feel a direction in my life that is beyond myselfas well as having experienced the reality of my particular faith.
I will state it again. I do not believe in pure objectivity. You speak of quantum theory as generally being in the micro-realm. Yet Quantum theorists are saying that our whole concept of reality is now in question. This involves the whole of cosmos seen and unseen. "Consequently all beliefs about objects that are to any extent probable ust be logically derived from beliefs about experience: P499-500 "Theories of Knowledge" Paper by A. M. Quinton. ""Empirical truth cannot be known except, finally, through presentations of sense". Ibid pg 411 C. I. Lewis "I can, therefore, not find any argument, either , which seem to me conclusive against the accepted view: the view taht all the sense-data I see, inncluding every portion of my sense-given space are private sense-data of my own, which exist only while I dire3ctly apprehend them,, and no part of which can be directly apprehended by any one of you." Ibid p 400 G. E. Moore. It would seem that even the philosophers are inclined to agree with me in doubting the existence of pure objectivity.
As far as objective observation goes most of it is bases on machinery that is man made and therefore subject to the human brain even in design and construction. The very instruments used in observing and measuring are human constructs subject to the human brain in their construction.
How wide spread were the scriptures? Considering that the origins of the scriptures was an obscure ignorant peasant from a little known and obscure hamlet it is no wonder that by 220 or even 230BCE that this particular cult had not spread this far. On the other hand it would seem to me fairly impressive that this particular cult spread as fast as it did.
Prior to Constantine there were thousands of scriptural documents, over a wide area, in existence. There were well spread throughout the middle east. "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D Ehrman. That in itself poses its own set of problems and certainly did for the counsels that put the canon of scripture together.
I do not know much of Reed but my knowledge of and understanding of Crossan is that he will call a spade a spade. I will learn more of Crossan this summer after I have spent a week with him. As a scholar he is known as one of the world's top. He does have his own integrity to maintain. If he did not believe or had seriours concerns about the existence of Nazareth he would not hesitate to say so.
Your are correct about Paul. It was Luke who mentioned Nazareth several times in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles along with mentions in both Matt. and Mark and John.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Re your point on the haulocaust perhaps I misinterpreted what I read.
Re the validity of other faiths-that is part of my belief. I will address your comment on multi-limmed gods Any language that we use to describe the Divine is by its very nature purely metaphorical. It can be no other way. Our human languages are not designed to describe or define the infinite or the Divine.
I have read of some of the cures at Lourds. I do not have the books. However
that being said there were some that medical personel including doctors admitted were in fact miracles. They saw no other answer for the situation. There are of course al kinds of stories of miracle cures but since that has not been of particular interest to me I have not bothered to colledt or save them. I am well acquainted with a couple olf situations where the doctors have openly admitted that the individuals in question should not have survived. There comment in those cases was they were miracles Now since I cannot document them you only have my word.
Personally I feel a direction in my life that is beyond myselfas well as having experienced the reality of my particular faith.
I will state it again. I do not believe in pure objectivity. You speak of quantum theory as generally being in the micro-realm. Yet Quantum theorists are saying that our whole concept of reality is now in question. This involves the whole of cosmos seen and unseen. "Consequently all beliefs about objects that are to any extent probable ust be logically derived from beliefs about experience: P499-500 "Theories of Knowledge" Paper by A. M. Quinton. ""Empirical truth cannot be known except, finally, through presentations of sense". Ibid pg 411 C. I. Lewis "I can, therefore, not find any argument, either , which seem to me conclusive against the accepted view: the view taht all the sense-data I see, inncluding every portion of my sense-given space are private sense-data of my own, which exist only while I dire3ctly apprehend them,, and no part of which can be directly apprehended by any one of you." Ibid p 400 G. E. Moore. It would seem that even the philosophers are inclined to agree with me in doubting the existence of pure objectivity.
As far as objective observation goes most of it is bases on machinery that is man made and therefore subject to the human brain even in design and construction. The very instruments used in observing and measuring are human constructs subject to the human brain in their construction.
How wide spread were the scriptures? Considering that the origins of the scriptures was an obscure ignorant peasant from a little known and obscure hamlet it is no wonder that by 220 or even 230BCE that this particular cult had not spread this far. On the other hand it would seem to me fairly impressive that this particular cult spread as fast as it did.
Prior to Constantine there were thousands of scriptural documents, over a wide area, in existence. There were well spread throughout the middle east. "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D Ehrman. That in itself poses its own set of problems and certainly did for the counsels that put the canon of scripture together.
I do not know much of Reed but my knowledge of and understanding of Crossan is that he will call a spade a spade. I will learn more of Crossan this summer after I have spent a week with him. As a scholar he is known as one of the world's top. He does have his own integrity to maintain. If he did not believe or had seriours concerns about the existence of Nazareth he would not hesitate to say so.
Your are correct about Paul. It was Luke who mentioned Nazareth several times in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles along with mentions in both Matt. and Mark and John.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
If a child is born with AIDS and such birth the result of a lack of a condom whether or not the parents are committing is sin does not take away from the fact that this child will eventually die a horrible death. This innocent child regadless of his parents is condemned to death because of the Churches stand. The church could have prevented this death. In the meantime let God judge the parents and not the church. After all judging is God's role alone.
As for books to which you have no access: There are libraries in most places and one can usually even obtain and inter-library loan. The excuse is feeble.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If a child is born with AIDS and such birth the result of a lack of a condom whether or not the parents are committing is sin does not take away from the fact that this child will eventually die a horrible death. This innocent child regadless of his parents is condemned to death because of the Churches stand. The church could have prevented this death. In the meantime let God judge the parents and not the church. After all judging is God's role alone.
As for books to which you have no access: There are libraries in most places and one can usually even obtain and inter-library loan. The excuse is feeble.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: If a child is born with AIDS and such birth the result of a lack of a condom whether or not the parents are committing is sin does not take away from the fact that this child will eventually die a horrible death. This innocent child regadless of his parents is condemned to death because of the Churches stand. The church could have prevented this death. In the meantime let God judge the parents and not the church. After all judging is God's role alone.I don't know how many other posters are following this thread, but does anyone else follow Ted's logic here? He has lost me completely.
Ted, let me paraphrase what I THINK you MIGHT be saying. If I'm misinterpretting you, please clarify your position.
A child is conceived as a result of a union between two Catholics, married or not, who we assume are aware that the Church's official teaching is that:
1. Sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral and...
2. ...family planning should be by natural rather than artificial means.
Now, one or both of these sexual partners has acquired AIDS owing to adulterous or promiscuous sex, obviously disregarding completely his/her Church's teaching (1).
However, at the time that this child was conceived, the AIDS-infected partner(s), who had previously engaged in the sinful, not to mention physically filthy conduct, now all of a sudden insist that the Church's guidelines for family planning (2) be observed, thus imparting the disease to the child.
Is that your scenario, Ted? Do you seriously think that's logical?
As I said, there are social service agencies who are not in the business of making moral judgments who try to prevent the spread of AIDS through various means including the distribution of barrier devices.
The Church by its very nature cannot take such a morality-neutral position. Its teachings on sexual morality attempt to prevent the spread of the disease (and others) at a much earlier stage, and these teachings are hardly unique to Catholicism. Are you telling me that your own Church encourages promiscuity and adultery as long as condoms are used? Hard to believe.
Ted, let me paraphrase what I THINK you MIGHT be saying. If I'm misinterpretting you, please clarify your position.
A child is conceived as a result of a union between two Catholics, married or not, who we assume are aware that the Church's official teaching is that:
1. Sexual acts outside of marriage are immoral and...
2. ...family planning should be by natural rather than artificial means.
Now, one or both of these sexual partners has acquired AIDS owing to adulterous or promiscuous sex, obviously disregarding completely his/her Church's teaching (1).
However, at the time that this child was conceived, the AIDS-infected partner(s), who had previously engaged in the sinful, not to mention physically filthy conduct, now all of a sudden insist that the Church's guidelines for family planning (2) be observed, thus imparting the disease to the child.
Is that your scenario, Ted? Do you seriously think that's logical?
As I said, there are social service agencies who are not in the business of making moral judgments who try to prevent the spread of AIDS through various means including the distribution of barrier devices.
The Church by its very nature cannot take such a morality-neutral position. Its teachings on sexual morality attempt to prevent the spread of the disease (and others) at a much earlier stage, and these teachings are hardly unique to Catholicism. Are you telling me that your own Church encourages promiscuity and adultery as long as condoms are used? Hard to believe.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: I don't know how many other posters are following this thread, but does anyone else follow Ted's logic here? He has lost me completely.
Going back over everything he's said about this, his point appears to be as follows: The Catholic Church is responsible for the distribution of condoms in Africa. That would solve everything. Though the Catholic Church would remain a vile, pernicious institution despite this for a number of reasons, none of which one need think twice about because non-Catholics and Catholic malcontents cannot err in any way when writing about the Catholic Church, making any actual discussion and evaluation of any accusations against the Catholic Church unnecessary whereas any attempt by the Church itself to clarify or vindicate its own position is so obviously biased simply by virtue of its origin that it can't possibly be taken seriously.*
*This attempt by Blackjack to interpret and summarize Ted's position does not reflect Blackjack's own opinions on this matter in any way.
Going back over everything he's said about this, his point appears to be as follows: The Catholic Church is responsible for the distribution of condoms in Africa. That would solve everything. Though the Catholic Church would remain a vile, pernicious institution despite this for a number of reasons, none of which one need think twice about because non-Catholics and Catholic malcontents cannot err in any way when writing about the Catholic Church, making any actual discussion and evaluation of any accusations against the Catholic Church unnecessary whereas any attempt by the Church itself to clarify or vindicate its own position is so obviously biased simply by virtue of its origin that it can't possibly be taken seriously.*
*This attempt by Blackjack to interpret and summarize Ted's position does not reflect Blackjack's own opinions on this matter in any way.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
I have never asked the church to accept immoral behaviour. That is pure nonsense. What the church appears to be saying is their sexual activity is so abhorent "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death." The idea that educating people concerning contraception is to accept immorality is pure nonsense.
The problem is that under Acquinas and others the RCC and other churches have made a bigger issue out of sex then should ever have been made. The church however, has every right to be wrong. The trouble is it does so in the name of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I have never asked the church to accept immoral behaviour. That is pure nonsense. What the church appears to be saying is their sexual activity is so abhorent "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death." The idea that educating people concerning contraception is to accept immorality is pure nonsense.
The problem is that under Acquinas and others the RCC and other churches have made a bigger issue out of sex then should ever have been made. The church however, has every right to be wrong. The trouble is it does so in the name of God.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Any language that we use to describe the Divine is by its very nature purely metaphorical. It can be no other way. Our human languages are not designed to describe or define the infinite or the Divine.
Metaphor is used to get around the limits of human understanding. If this is the case, we must assume god wanted to limit our understanding. Therefore, trying to find the truth about any god through the writings of organised religion may not only futile, but also against his wishes.
I have read of some of the cures at Lourds. I do not have the books. However that being said there were some that medical personel including doctors admitted were in fact miracles.
Ted, all these doctors are practicing Christians, each and every one handpicked by the church, and all defer to a bishop with no medical qualifications when deciding what is, or is not, a medical miracle.
“The current attitude of doctors is very respectful of the Magisterium of the Church. As Christians, they know that a miracle is a spiritual sign.â€
Jacques Perrier
Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes
17 March 2003
I am well acquainted with a couple olf situations where the doctors have openly admitted that the individuals in question should not have survived. There comment in those cases was they were miracles Now since I cannot document them you only have my word.
All over the world, doctors produce reports of a patient surviving in cases where they should have died. These ‘miracles’ happen to people of every faith and people of no faith. An atheist is just as likely to have a miracle cure eating his breakfast as a devout believer is due to intervention by a supernatural entity during a pilgrimage to some holy site.
I will state it again. I do not believe in pure objectivity.
Nor do I Ted, nor have I said it. I believe emotions, dreams, ‘inner feelings’ or ‘spiritual truths’ are all personal subjective phenomena, and as such I do not believe they are a rational way defining what we believe to be truth. Which is what we were discussing before we got onto the general meaning of ‘reality’.
You speak of quantum theory as generally being in the micro-realm. Yet Quantum theorists are saying that our whole concept of reality is now in question. This involves the whole of cosmos seen and unseen.
I doubt if you will find one reputable scientist who will state that quantum uncertainty materially affects the way we live our lives. Quantum uncertainty is the problem of simultaneously measuring exactly both the position and velocity of an individual particle at the sub atomic level. It is irrelevant on the macro-scale when you eat a banana whether any particular electron around any particular atom in that banana cannot be accurately measured.
It would seem that even the philosophers are inclined to agree with me in doubting the existence of pure objectivity.
Philosophers may argue about the meaning of reality, that’s their job - that’s what they do. They have in the past argued on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But it seems that some of them, with more enthusiasm than knowledge, have grabbed the term “uncertainty†in quantum mechanics and unjustifiably projected it into the everyday world where we live our lives.
As far as objective observation goes most of it is bases on machinery that is man made and therefore subject to the human brain even in design and construction. The very instruments used in observing and measuring are human constructs subject to the human brain in their construction.
And yet rationalism is coherent with objectivism. The observations we get from measurements are based on the objective concept that prior experience will give us consistent results in similar situations.
If some philosophers and believers really want to push the idea that quantum uncertainty affects our everyday perception of what is real, then everyone will have to give up everything we hold to be true, and this includes religious points of view. After all, the biochemical/bioelectric impulses that allow believers to perceive what they believe to be divine truth also have a quantum origin.
How wide spread were the scriptures? Considering that the origins of the scriptures was an obscure ignorant peasant from a little known and obscure hamlet it is no wonder that by 220 or even 230BCE that this particular cult had not spread this far. On the other hand it would seem to me fairly impressive that this particular cult spread as fast as it did.
Anymore impressive than the geographical spread of the ancient cults of Osiris or Mithra when the means to disseminate knowledge were even more restricted than in the 1st century?
And it is not as impressive as the rise of Mormonism, Scientology and the Raelians in periods of history where scepticism was widespread and socially acceptable, unlike the fertile grounds of ancient credulity and superstition that today’s major religions sprang from.
Prior to Constantine there were thousands of scriptural documents, over a wide area, in existence. There were well spread throughout the middle east. "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D Ehrman. That in itself poses its own set of problems and certainly did for the counsels that put the canon of scripture together
The number of manuscripts cannot give us an idea as to the numbers of Christians prior to Constantine’s largesse. One document per 10 Christians? 100? There is no such known ratio. We’ll never know how many there were, but as out of all extant manuscripts only a fraction of one percent are from the first three hundred years of Christianity, why should it be assumed there were “many thousands�
I do not know much of Reed but my knowledge of and understanding of Crossan is that he will call a spade a spade. I will learn more of Crossan this summer after I have spent a week with him. As a scholar he is known as one of the world's top. He does have his own integrity to maintain. If he did not believe or had seriours concerns about the existence of Nazareth he would not hesitate to say so.
When you meet him Ted you can ask him a few questions.
What archaeological evidence did he use to estimate the size and number of inhabitants of Nazareth, and why wasn’t this evidence produced in his book?
Why were no domestic finds made that would suggest habitation?
Why were the finds that were made all indicate the caves were used for storage?
How could an insignificant agricultural settlement unknown to any contemporary source nevertheless have the socio/economic infrastructure to maintain a synagogue and priestly class?
Why, in the middle of fourth century, did the dowager Empress Helena on her pilgrimage to Nazareth find no settlement and absolutely nothing to indicate first century habitation?
Your are correct about Paul. It was Luke who mentioned Nazareth several times in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles along with mentions in both Matt. and Mark and John.
Should I take the bible as evidence for the existence of Nazareth Ted? If you, as a believer, state the bible has little historical value, why should a non-believer think otherwise?
Metaphor is used to get around the limits of human understanding. If this is the case, we must assume god wanted to limit our understanding. Therefore, trying to find the truth about any god through the writings of organised religion may not only futile, but also against his wishes.
I have read of some of the cures at Lourds. I do not have the books. However that being said there were some that medical personel including doctors admitted were in fact miracles.
Ted, all these doctors are practicing Christians, each and every one handpicked by the church, and all defer to a bishop with no medical qualifications when deciding what is, or is not, a medical miracle.
“The current attitude of doctors is very respectful of the Magisterium of the Church. As Christians, they know that a miracle is a spiritual sign.â€
Jacques Perrier
Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes
17 March 2003
I am well acquainted with a couple olf situations where the doctors have openly admitted that the individuals in question should not have survived. There comment in those cases was they were miracles Now since I cannot document them you only have my word.
All over the world, doctors produce reports of a patient surviving in cases where they should have died. These ‘miracles’ happen to people of every faith and people of no faith. An atheist is just as likely to have a miracle cure eating his breakfast as a devout believer is due to intervention by a supernatural entity during a pilgrimage to some holy site.
I will state it again. I do not believe in pure objectivity.
Nor do I Ted, nor have I said it. I believe emotions, dreams, ‘inner feelings’ or ‘spiritual truths’ are all personal subjective phenomena, and as such I do not believe they are a rational way defining what we believe to be truth. Which is what we were discussing before we got onto the general meaning of ‘reality’.
You speak of quantum theory as generally being in the micro-realm. Yet Quantum theorists are saying that our whole concept of reality is now in question. This involves the whole of cosmos seen and unseen.
I doubt if you will find one reputable scientist who will state that quantum uncertainty materially affects the way we live our lives. Quantum uncertainty is the problem of simultaneously measuring exactly both the position and velocity of an individual particle at the sub atomic level. It is irrelevant on the macro-scale when you eat a banana whether any particular electron around any particular atom in that banana cannot be accurately measured.
It would seem that even the philosophers are inclined to agree with me in doubting the existence of pure objectivity.
Philosophers may argue about the meaning of reality, that’s their job - that’s what they do. They have in the past argued on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But it seems that some of them, with more enthusiasm than knowledge, have grabbed the term “uncertainty†in quantum mechanics and unjustifiably projected it into the everyday world where we live our lives.
As far as objective observation goes most of it is bases on machinery that is man made and therefore subject to the human brain even in design and construction. The very instruments used in observing and measuring are human constructs subject to the human brain in their construction.
And yet rationalism is coherent with objectivism. The observations we get from measurements are based on the objective concept that prior experience will give us consistent results in similar situations.
If some philosophers and believers really want to push the idea that quantum uncertainty affects our everyday perception of what is real, then everyone will have to give up everything we hold to be true, and this includes religious points of view. After all, the biochemical/bioelectric impulses that allow believers to perceive what they believe to be divine truth also have a quantum origin.
How wide spread were the scriptures? Considering that the origins of the scriptures was an obscure ignorant peasant from a little known and obscure hamlet it is no wonder that by 220 or even 230BCE that this particular cult had not spread this far. On the other hand it would seem to me fairly impressive that this particular cult spread as fast as it did.
Anymore impressive than the geographical spread of the ancient cults of Osiris or Mithra when the means to disseminate knowledge were even more restricted than in the 1st century?
And it is not as impressive as the rise of Mormonism, Scientology and the Raelians in periods of history where scepticism was widespread and socially acceptable, unlike the fertile grounds of ancient credulity and superstition that today’s major religions sprang from.
Prior to Constantine there were thousands of scriptural documents, over a wide area, in existence. There were well spread throughout the middle east. "Misquoting Jesus" Bart D Ehrman. That in itself poses its own set of problems and certainly did for the counsels that put the canon of scripture together
The number of manuscripts cannot give us an idea as to the numbers of Christians prior to Constantine’s largesse. One document per 10 Christians? 100? There is no such known ratio. We’ll never know how many there were, but as out of all extant manuscripts only a fraction of one percent are from the first three hundred years of Christianity, why should it be assumed there were “many thousands�
I do not know much of Reed but my knowledge of and understanding of Crossan is that he will call a spade a spade. I will learn more of Crossan this summer after I have spent a week with him. As a scholar he is known as one of the world's top. He does have his own integrity to maintain. If he did not believe or had seriours concerns about the existence of Nazareth he would not hesitate to say so.
When you meet him Ted you can ask him a few questions.
What archaeological evidence did he use to estimate the size and number of inhabitants of Nazareth, and why wasn’t this evidence produced in his book?
Why were no domestic finds made that would suggest habitation?
Why were the finds that were made all indicate the caves were used for storage?
How could an insignificant agricultural settlement unknown to any contemporary source nevertheless have the socio/economic infrastructure to maintain a synagogue and priestly class?
Why, in the middle of fourth century, did the dowager Empress Helena on her pilgrimage to Nazareth find no settlement and absolutely nothing to indicate first century habitation?
Your are correct about Paul. It was Luke who mentioned Nazareth several times in both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles along with mentions in both Matt. and Mark and John.
Should I take the bible as evidence for the existence of Nazareth Ted? If you, as a believer, state the bible has little historical value, why should a non-believer think otherwise?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: 1. I have never asked the church to accept immoral behaviour. That is pure nonsense.
2. What the church appears to be saying is their sexual activity is so abhorent "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death."
3. The idea that educating people concerning contraception is to accept immorality is pure nonsense.
4. The problem is that under Acquinas and others the RCC and other churches have made a bigger issue out of sex then should ever have been made. The church however, has every right to be wrong. The trouble is it does so in the name of God.Well, at least we have narrowed the discussion to one topic, which as I said previously, gives you less wiggle room.
1. Good! Glad we agree on that.
2. So your position is: "Remain chaste outside of marriage and remain faithful to your spouse within marriage" = "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death." Not very logical, Ted.
3. Well, I don't know if it's 'pure nonsense' but it seems to me and probably the vast majority of Catholics that our Church's position on family planning is unrealistically narrow. Nonetheless, natural family planning, about which they DO educate people, is used with complete success by millions of Catholic couples. You forsake logic by implying that the Church should be urging people to do things it regards as immoral or improper. That would be as silly as telling people, "Don't commit armed robberies, but if you do, be sure to post a lookout so you won't get caught."
4. Well, while certainly no expert on Aquinas, I don't believe that their position on matters of human sexuality is completely Thomist. It seems to me rather to go back to the teachings of Christ Himself, though I would not extend that to family planning, about which He said nothing as far as I know.
2. What the church appears to be saying is their sexual activity is so abhorent "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death."
3. The idea that educating people concerning contraception is to accept immorality is pure nonsense.
4. The problem is that under Acquinas and others the RCC and other churches have made a bigger issue out of sex then should ever have been made. The church however, has every right to be wrong. The trouble is it does so in the name of God.Well, at least we have narrowed the discussion to one topic, which as I said previously, gives you less wiggle room.
1. Good! Glad we agree on that.
2. So your position is: "Remain chaste outside of marriage and remain faithful to your spouse within marriage" = "To hell with the children. Let them die a horrible death." Not very logical, Ted.
3. Well, I don't know if it's 'pure nonsense' but it seems to me and probably the vast majority of Catholics that our Church's position on family planning is unrealistically narrow. Nonetheless, natural family planning, about which they DO educate people, is used with complete success by millions of Catholic couples. You forsake logic by implying that the Church should be urging people to do things it regards as immoral or improper. That would be as silly as telling people, "Don't commit armed robberies, but if you do, be sure to post a lookout so you won't get caught."
4. Well, while certainly no expert on Aquinas, I don't believe that their position on matters of human sexuality is completely Thomist. It seems to me rather to go back to the teachings of Christ Himself, though I would not extend that to family planning, about which He said nothing as far as I know.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Blackjack wrote: This attempt by Blackjack to interpret and summarize Ted's position does not reflect Blackjack's own opinions on this matter in any way.Understood, BJ. That's pretty much the way I read it too. If we are mischaracterizing him, I hope he'll clarify his position.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: 3. Well, I don't know if it's 'pure nonsense' but it seems to me and probably the vast majority of Catholic that their position on family planning is unrealistically narrow. Nonetheless, natural family planning, about which they DO educate people, is used with complete success by millions of Catholic couples. You forsake logic by implying that the Church should be urging people to do things it regards as immoral or improper. That would be as silly as telling people, "Don't commit armed robberies, but if you do, be sure to post a lookout so you won't get caught."I wonder whether I could try to shift this logjam?
Use of condoms is prohibited to obedient Roman Catholics because their use is potentially contraceptive.
Condoms have two main functions - contraception, and the reduction of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs, which in this thread has been reasonably reduced to HIV/AIDS).
To the outsider, there is a feeling that the Roman Catholic policymakers' ban on prophylactic condom use is holding the threat of catching STDs over the heads of populations within their control in an attempt to bully them out of having promiscuous sex. Given the tested and demonstrable ability of condoms to reduce STD transmission to negligible proportions, this is regrettable, "natural family planning" having no effect on transmission (even within a married partnership where only one partner has become infected).
In practice, the Roman Catholic position has had a far less deleterious effect on third world health than the "outright ban on the use of any U. S. aid funds by either countries or international health organizations for the promotion of birth control or abortion" since 1984.
Your "post a lookout" analogy relates to the issue of contraception. Ted's argument relates to health issues. I think you're both fighting to defend territory rather than to find common ground.
Use of condoms is prohibited to obedient Roman Catholics because their use is potentially contraceptive.
Condoms have two main functions - contraception, and the reduction of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs, which in this thread has been reasonably reduced to HIV/AIDS).
To the outsider, there is a feeling that the Roman Catholic policymakers' ban on prophylactic condom use is holding the threat of catching STDs over the heads of populations within their control in an attempt to bully them out of having promiscuous sex. Given the tested and demonstrable ability of condoms to reduce STD transmission to negligible proportions, this is regrettable, "natural family planning" having no effect on transmission (even within a married partnership where only one partner has become infected).
In practice, the Roman Catholic position has had a far less deleterious effect on third world health than the "outright ban on the use of any U. S. aid funds by either countries or international health organizations for the promotion of birth control or abortion" since 1984.
Your "post a lookout" analogy relates to the issue of contraception. Ted's argument relates to health issues. I think you're both fighting to defend territory rather than to find common ground.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
spot wrote: I wonder whether I could try to shift this logjam?
Use of condoms is prohibited to obedient Roman Catholics because their use is potentially contraceptive.
Condoms have two main functions - contraception, and the reduction of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs, which in this thread has been reasonably reduced to HIV/AIDS).
To the outsider, there is a feeling that the Roman Catholic policymakers' ban on prophylactic condom use is holding the threat of catching STDs over the heads of populations within their control in an attempt to bully them out of having promiscuous sex. Given the tested and demonstrable ability of condoms to reduce STD transmission to negligible proportions, this is regrettable, "natural family planning" having no effect on transmission (even within a married partnership where only one partner has become infected).
In practice, the Roman Catholic position has had a far less deleterious effect on third world health than the "outright ban on the use of any U. S. aid funds by either countries or international health organizations for the promotion of birth control or abortion" since 1984.
Your "post a lookout" analogy relates to the issue of contraception. Ted's argument relates to health issues. I think you're both fighting to defend territory rather than to find common ground.Very well stated, spot. I would make only two comments.
First, as a lifelong Catholic, and one who has remained loyal in spite of misgivings about some of my Church's teachings on social issues, notably those involving human sexuality, I can say that I have never felt 'bullied' by my Church, nor is the advocacy of basic sexual morality exclusive to either Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general. You seem, however, to drift here very close to Ted's illogic by suggesting that Catholics will completely disregard their Church's teachings on promiscuity and adultery, then do a 180 degree flip, as it were, and steadfastly observe them with regard to contraception. It just doesn't seem likely.
Secondly, I seriously doubt that the US's position on foreign aid is significantly influenced by the Catholic Chruch. It seems to have more to do with abortion, opposition to which is far wider, with the fear of some contraceptive methods being actually abortative.
One final thought, and this is my own personal opinion, with which I know many will disagree. Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex, PERIOD. It's too dangerous for the partner AND for any child so conceived, even with a mechanical barrier (which could fail). I have had two marriages in which sexual expression was an extremely important part. If either of those partners had contracted AIDS through adultery, that would have been the end of the marriage. If he had somehow contracted it otherwise, I would have continued to love and support him without sex, just as if one of us had developed some other sexual dysfunction. Sex is important and holy in marriage, but it should be put in logical perspective. Chastity has always been as much about hygiene as morality.
By the way, as a Welsh-American, I always enjoy hearing from other
Welsh(wo)men online. Cymru am byth!
Use of condoms is prohibited to obedient Roman Catholics because their use is potentially contraceptive.
Condoms have two main functions - contraception, and the reduction of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs, which in this thread has been reasonably reduced to HIV/AIDS).
To the outsider, there is a feeling that the Roman Catholic policymakers' ban on prophylactic condom use is holding the threat of catching STDs over the heads of populations within their control in an attempt to bully them out of having promiscuous sex. Given the tested and demonstrable ability of condoms to reduce STD transmission to negligible proportions, this is regrettable, "natural family planning" having no effect on transmission (even within a married partnership where only one partner has become infected).
In practice, the Roman Catholic position has had a far less deleterious effect on third world health than the "outright ban on the use of any U. S. aid funds by either countries or international health organizations for the promotion of birth control or abortion" since 1984.
Your "post a lookout" analogy relates to the issue of contraception. Ted's argument relates to health issues. I think you're both fighting to defend territory rather than to find common ground.Very well stated, spot. I would make only two comments.
First, as a lifelong Catholic, and one who has remained loyal in spite of misgivings about some of my Church's teachings on social issues, notably those involving human sexuality, I can say that I have never felt 'bullied' by my Church, nor is the advocacy of basic sexual morality exclusive to either Catholicism in particular or Christianity in general. You seem, however, to drift here very close to Ted's illogic by suggesting that Catholics will completely disregard their Church's teachings on promiscuity and adultery, then do a 180 degree flip, as it were, and steadfastly observe them with regard to contraception. It just doesn't seem likely.
Secondly, I seriously doubt that the US's position on foreign aid is significantly influenced by the Catholic Chruch. It seems to have more to do with abortion, opposition to which is far wider, with the fear of some contraceptive methods being actually abortative.
One final thought, and this is my own personal opinion, with which I know many will disagree. Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex, PERIOD. It's too dangerous for the partner AND for any child so conceived, even with a mechanical barrier (which could fail). I have had two marriages in which sexual expression was an extremely important part. If either of those partners had contracted AIDS through adultery, that would have been the end of the marriage. If he had somehow contracted it otherwise, I would have continued to love and support him without sex, just as if one of us had developed some other sexual dysfunction. Sex is important and holy in marriage, but it should be put in logical perspective. Chastity has always been as much about hygiene as morality.
By the way, as a Welsh-American, I always enjoy hearing from other
Welsh(wo)men online. Cymru am byth!
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: Secondly, I seriously doubt that the US's position on foreign aid is significantly influenced by the Catholic Chruch.I quoted from Time Magazine, from an article which started "In response to concerns of the Vatican, the Reagan Administration agreed to alter its foreign-aid program to comply with the church's teachings on birth control" - http://www.time.com/time/archive/previe ... 54,00.html - if we're playing citations of respectable sources. The strain that the US policy has had on third world contraception and HIV prevention programs has been immense.
Your paragraph on "Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex" - I'll assume you mean carrying HIV rather than having explicit symptomatic AIDS. The majority of HIV infection worldwide is undiagnosed, it is merely a projected count based on statistical samples. The most that the majority of those who are infected can say is "I had unprotected sex with someone else".
Your paragraph on "Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex" - I'll assume you mean carrying HIV rather than having explicit symptomatic AIDS. The majority of HIV infection worldwide is undiagnosed, it is merely a projected count based on statistical samples. The most that the majority of those who are infected can say is "I had unprotected sex with someone else".
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
spot wrote: 1. I quoted from Time Magazine, from an article which started "In response to concerns of the Vatican, the Reagan Administration agreed to alter its foreign-aid program to comply with the church's teachings on birth control" - http://www.time.com/time/archive/previe ... 54,00.html - if we're playing citations of respectable sources. The strain that the US policy has had on third world contraception and HIV prevention programs has been immense.
2. Your paragraph on "Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex" - I'll assume you mean carrying HIV rather than having explicit symptomatic AIDS. The majority of HIV infection worldwide is undiagnosed, it is merely a projected count based on statistical samples. The most that the majority of those who are infected can say is "I had unprotected sex with someone else".1. Well, I'm a regular reader of TIME but I missed that issue. By the way, TIME is hardly accepted universally as a reliable source, most right-wingers refering to it as 'SLIME'. I can't say they were wrong, but I still kinda doubt it. As a general rule it's the Protestant fundamentalists who try to influence American policy in such areas.
2. Excellent point. But if they didn't know they had it, and they were in the habit of using natural family planning and found that method satisfactory, there would be no reason for them to start using condoms. Right? Or am I missing something? I can't imagine a husband telling his wife, 'Honey, you're the love of my life, and I know that NFP has always worked great for us, but let's start using condoms just in case I decide to go screw some bimbo with AIDS.' Once again, it doesn't seem logical.
2. Your paragraph on "Anyone who has AIDS has no business having sex" - I'll assume you mean carrying HIV rather than having explicit symptomatic AIDS. The majority of HIV infection worldwide is undiagnosed, it is merely a projected count based on statistical samples. The most that the majority of those who are infected can say is "I had unprotected sex with someone else".1. Well, I'm a regular reader of TIME but I missed that issue. By the way, TIME is hardly accepted universally as a reliable source, most right-wingers refering to it as 'SLIME'. I can't say they were wrong, but I still kinda doubt it. As a general rule it's the Protestant fundamentalists who try to influence American policy in such areas.
2. Excellent point. But if they didn't know they had it, and they were in the habit of using natural family planning and found that method satisfactory, there would be no reason for them to start using condoms. Right? Or am I missing something? I can't imagine a husband telling his wife, 'Honey, you're the love of my life, and I know that NFP has always worked great for us, but let's start using condoms just in case I decide to go screw some bimbo with AIDS.' Once again, it doesn't seem logical.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: Or am I missing something? I can't imagine a husband telling his wife, 'Honey, you're the love of my life, and I know that NFP has always worked great for us, but let's start using condoms just in case I decide to go screw some bimbo with AIDS.' Once again, it doesn't seem logical.Putting myself in the position of the hypothetical husband, I think I'd use the proscribed condom, were one available to me, with the bimbo. Quite logical, really. The lack of the option is what's killed so many people in those parts of the world where condom availability has been limited - along with, of course, their carnal nature.
I'm slowly coming to the opinion that right-wing sourcing acceptability is based solely on either "hey, I like that" or "goddam commie rag". I was brought up to regard respectable sourcing from a less partisan perspective.
I'm slowly coming to the opinion that right-wing sourcing acceptability is based solely on either "hey, I like that" or "goddam commie rag". I was brought up to regard respectable sourcing from a less partisan perspective.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The 1992 Time article and the current stance on birth control/abortion/AIDS from the White House haschanged over the last decade.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
bigdaddy wrote: The 1992 Time article and the current stance on birth control/abortion/AIDS from the White House haschanged over the last decade.Perhaps you could tell us in what way it has changed. With something more authoritative than a Time article to back up your observations, for those who find Time partisan.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
The latest Presidential discussion on World AIDS Day....................
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 51201.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 51201.html
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
bigdaddy wrote: The latest Presidential discussion on World AIDS Day....I think what I gather from that is USAID now distributes condoms during AIDS-related public events, as well as to prostitutes, peer educators, and patients with sexually transmitted infections, and that a USAID-supported condom marketing program distributes condoms through pharmacies and non-traditional sales outlets. The ban on funding health charities which distribute condoms without charge is still in place, though. A "USAID-supported condom marketing program" doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
All the remainder of the US initiatives mentioned involve drug treatments for HIV positive patients.
You don't feel that policy makers are being dragged screaming into these compromise positions?
All the remainder of the US initiatives mentioned involve drug treatments for HIV positive patients.
You don't feel that policy makers are being dragged screaming into these compromise positions?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
spot wrote: Putting myself in the position of the hypothetical husband, I think I'd use the proscribed condom, were one available to me, with the bimbo. Obviously, but here again you are missing the point. The condom as an object is not 'proscribed'. Preventing conception during otherwise sanctified sex (i.e. within marriage) by artificial means, which would include condoms and many other means, is the issue.
From the Church's perspective, having sex with the bimbo is a grave sin, so whether a condom is used is moot. Could a case be made that, even tho' he has decided to sin, he should use a condom to prevent both unwanted conception and the spread of disease? Possibly. From a public health standpoint, certainly!
But the Church cannot say, 'Here is how you should sin.' That would be ludicrous.
From the Church's perspective, having sex with the bimbo is a grave sin, so whether a condom is used is moot. Could a case be made that, even tho' he has decided to sin, he should use a condom to prevent both unwanted conception and the spread of disease? Possibly. From a public health standpoint, certainly!
But the Church cannot say, 'Here is how you should sin.' That would be ludicrous.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Why is the girl only considered a "bimbo", in the case of sex outside of marriage?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
bigdaddy wrote: Why is the girl only considered a "bimbo", in the case of sex outside of marriage?Presumably because she's a professional and he's just a lowlife adulterer. But it was just a f'rinstance. Use any terms of reference you like.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Since this is a thread on the credibility of the Bible, the Bible would say they were both wrong.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
bigdaddy wrote: Since this is a thread on the credibility of the Bible, the Bible would say they were both wrong.Absolutely, but I think you are still missing the point.
First of all, you are correct that the thread has gone off on a tangent, but that is rather common here.
My point was that a married couple who are leading their lives and conducting their marital affairs according to Christian norms of sexual behavior have no need to worry about AIDS. What method of family planning, if any, they use is a separate issue.
If, however, one or both of the partners are committing adultery they have gone outside those norms whether they attempt to protect themselves from infection or not.
The Church can advise its members regarding the norms, but once outside them, sin is sin, the sinner is 'on his/her own', so to speak.
First of all, you are correct that the thread has gone off on a tangent, but that is rather common here.
My point was that a married couple who are leading their lives and conducting their marital affairs according to Christian norms of sexual behavior have no need to worry about AIDS. What method of family planning, if any, they use is a separate issue.
If, however, one or both of the partners are committing adultery they have gone outside those norms whether they attempt to protect themselves from infection or not.
The Church can advise its members regarding the norms, but once outside them, sin is sin, the sinner is 'on his/her own', so to speak.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: My point was that a married couple who are leading their lives and conducting their marital affairs according to Christian norms have no need to worry about AIDS. What method of family planning, if any, they use is beside the point.You know, I hate to quibble, but around 5,000 haemophilics in the UK have been HIV positive at some stage, and a lot of those were married. I choose that category of infective route deliberately, as there's very few Christian denominations which abhor blood (or, in this case, Factor 8) transfusion. The infection was, in Roman Catholic terms, innocent. The Roman Catholic advice on prophylactic condom use in such marriages was no different to that for anyone else. The lack of compassion in toeing the party line is distressing.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
spot wrote: 1. The infection was, in Roman Catholic terms, innocent.
2. The Roman Catholic advice on prophylactic condom use in such marriages was no different to that for anyone else.
3. The lack of compassion in toeing the party line is distressing.1. No argument there. With regard to the numbers, I will take your word for it.
2. To make that statement authoritatively, you would have to have been present when each of these couples conferred with their spiritual advisor. In any case, though, the Church would hardly advise these unfortunate couples to conceive children who would be infected. Nor would condom use be 100% effective here. In such cases, abstinence from sexual relations would be the prudent course. As I said earlier, if I were personally involved in such a situation, that would be my choice, regardless of my religion.
3. In 65 years as a Catholic, I have never discerned a 'party line' within the Church with regard to its membership. There may be politics involved in matters like papal succession, the appointment of bishops, etc., but that is not what either of us is talking about here.
2. The Roman Catholic advice on prophylactic condom use in such marriages was no different to that for anyone else.
3. The lack of compassion in toeing the party line is distressing.1. No argument there. With regard to the numbers, I will take your word for it.
2. To make that statement authoritatively, you would have to have been present when each of these couples conferred with their spiritual advisor. In any case, though, the Church would hardly advise these unfortunate couples to conceive children who would be infected. Nor would condom use be 100% effective here. In such cases, abstinence from sexual relations would be the prudent course. As I said earlier, if I were personally involved in such a situation, that would be my choice, regardless of my religion.
3. In 65 years as a Catholic, I have never discerned a 'party line' within the Church with regard to its membership. There may be politics involved in matters like papal succession, the appointment of bishops, etc., but that is not what either of us is talking about here.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen wrote: To make that statement authoritatively, you would have to have been present when each of these couples conferred with their spiritual advisor. In any case, though, the Church would hardly advise these unfortunate couples to conceive children who would be infected.Had I been unsure, I would not have mentioned it. At the height of the crisis over haemophilic infection I was working with an HIV/AIDS charity and the debate was well-informed by representatives of the very annoyed external pressure group set up by haemophiliacs themselves. The advice from within the Roman Catholic priesthood to at least some of those personally affected was that, firstly, cross-infection to the mother was by no means certain, and secondly that consequent births were likely to be non-infected given appropriate surgical intervention. I wasn't impressed by that risk-laden attitude at the time, and I'm still not after all these years.
If you're suggesting that Roman Catholic ministers are free to employ their conscience as they see fit, in dealing with their laity, then I fear our experience differs. From what I've seen, a "party line" undoubtedly exists on this as on many issues, transmitted vertically. Dissent is both rare and heavily suppressed. I don't speak of the laity itself, merely of the priesthood.
If you're suggesting that Roman Catholic ministers are free to employ their conscience as they see fit, in dealing with their laity, then I fear our experience differs. From what I've seen, a "party line" undoubtedly exists on this as on many issues, transmitted vertically. Dissent is both rare and heavily suppressed. I don't speak of the laity itself, merely of the priesthood.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
spot wrote: 1. Had I been unsure, I would not have mentioned it. At the height of the crisis over haemophilic infection I was working with an HIV/AIDS charity and the debate was well-informed by representatives of the very annoyed external pressure group set up by haemophiliacs themselves. The advice from within the Roman Catholic priesthood to at least some of those personally affected was that, firstly, cross-infection to the mother was by no means certain, and secondly that consequent births were likely to be non-infected given appropriate surgical intervention. I wasn't impressed by that risk-laden attitude at the time, and I'm still not after all these years.
2. If you're suggesting that Roman Catholic ministers are free to employ their conscience as they see fit, in dealing with their laity, then I fear our experience differs. From what I've seen, a "party line" undoubtedly exists on this as on many issues, transmitted vertically. Dissent is both rare and heavily suppressed. I don't speak of the laity itself, merely of the priesthood.1. I am not questioning your personal experience, only suggesting that the 'advice' to which you refer is a paraphrase and I would want to hear or read the exact words to know exactly what was said.
2. I would put it a bit differently. My own experience (NOT firsthand since I am not only widowed but WAY beyond child-bearing age) has been that the Church's opposition to family planning by 'barrier' methods has been de-emphasizied in recent years. They haven't changed their rather narrow view that this somehow interferes with God's will, they've just stopped talking about it so much, allowing couples to more or less follow their own consciences, within limits (the ban on abortion being one of the limits), which many Catholic couples have been doing all along anyway. To put it more bluntly, they seem to understand that they are losing the battle. But this does not address the problem of AIDS directly, and in any case, my objection was to your use of the term 'party line', which implies some sort of politics, with rival factions, etc., and I have never observed that within the Church except in the areas I mentioned previously.
2. If you're suggesting that Roman Catholic ministers are free to employ their conscience as they see fit, in dealing with their laity, then I fear our experience differs. From what I've seen, a "party line" undoubtedly exists on this as on many issues, transmitted vertically. Dissent is both rare and heavily suppressed. I don't speak of the laity itself, merely of the priesthood.1. I am not questioning your personal experience, only suggesting that the 'advice' to which you refer is a paraphrase and I would want to hear or read the exact words to know exactly what was said.
2. I would put it a bit differently. My own experience (NOT firsthand since I am not only widowed but WAY beyond child-bearing age) has been that the Church's opposition to family planning by 'barrier' methods has been de-emphasizied in recent years. They haven't changed their rather narrow view that this somehow interferes with God's will, they've just stopped talking about it so much, allowing couples to more or less follow their own consciences, within limits (the ban on abortion being one of the limits), which many Catholic couples have been doing all along anyway. To put it more bluntly, they seem to understand that they are losing the battle. But this does not address the problem of AIDS directly, and in any case, my objection was to your use of the term 'party line', which implies some sort of politics, with rival factions, etc., and I have never observed that within the Church except in the areas I mentioned previously.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
You are making an assumption about the use of metaphor and God that is simply that, an assumption and one that not everyone would hold to.
Your comment re the doctors is another assumption. We all have our biases, of course. However not all professionals let their bias interfere with what they see as the truth. If we decide that we cannot accept what someone says because they are biased then I guess we can't accept what anyone says. It is certainly a slap at the honesty and integrity of some fairly highly trained and respected people whether they be doctors or historians or archaeologists. I don't find the idea that since they don't agree with me they are biases as very convincing. In fact it is not convincing at all.
Let us now take a look at quantum theory.
"But this book is not just about the meaning of quantum mechanics. It is also about its successes, both in explaining so many phenomena, and in its many past, present, and future applications in our every day lives. I will thus take yuou on a journey through philosphy, subatomic physics, and theories of higher dimensions to today's high tech world of lasers and microchips and tomorrow's remarkable world of quantum magic." P 10 "Quantum; A Guide for the Perplexed". Jim Al-Khalili.
"I must make it clear from the outset that it is not the theory of quantum mechanics that is weird or illogical. On the contrary, it is a beautifully accurate and logical mathematical construction that describes Nature superbly well. In fact, without quantum mechanics we would not be able to understand the basics of modern chemistry, or electronics, or material science. Without quantum mechanics we would not have invented the silicone chip or the laser; there would be no television sets, computers, microwaves, CD snf DVD players,mobile phones, and so much more that we take for granted in our technologicalage.
Quantum mechanics accurately predicts and explains the behaviour of the very building blocks of matter-not just the atoms but the particles that make up the atoms-with incredible accuracy. It has led us to a very precise and almost complete understanding of how subatomic particles interact with each other and connect up to for the world we see around us, and of which we are of course a part." Ibid p 77-8.
"Our problem now is that we consider the primary reality to be that which has insued from our reductionistic exploits. And this is beginning to prove deeply dissatisfying to the human spirit. Intuitively we know there is so much more to undersand and experience."P 29 "Quantum Theology, Diarmuid O'Murchu.
It would appear to me that our modern world has been greatly influenced by quantum discoveries including the questioning of reality itself.
I would absolutely agree that we must give up a lot of what we held as truth and that includes religious truth.
As far as Osiris and Mithra are concerned the Christian faith has spread much farther and lasted much longer. So has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others.
As for the thousands of manuscripts being an assumption; it is not. It is a fact.
"The Dead Sea caves and elsewhere in the Judaean desert. . .have nw produced fragments,... of nearly 800 manuscripts". p126 "The Birth of Christianity" by J D Crossan.
Moving on to the nest page"But even in the 200s the Christian ratio of scroll to codex was one to 13." Ibid p127.
That makes the number of manuscripts about 10 400 when considering only those mentioned above and in the 200s. How many by 371 CE? Thus I think my statement of thousands was not out of line and probably in my own mind an understatement.
The list of questions that you would have me ask Dr. Crossan are pretty well answered in his book "The Birth of Christianity"
Why should a non-believer think otherwise. I think a good check with a few scholars will bring forth what is considered historical and what is considered metaphor or misdrash. That should sort it out for the non-believer.
BTW I used Google to look up Nazareth and found plenty of sites. Some talk of the potsherds found in the layers tested to be the era of Jesus. One talked of a village being their 2000 years before and one talked of a farm like village or a village farm. Obviously there is some discrepency here. Nazareth was clearly known within a fewdecades of Jesus birth. According to the statistical formula used by archaeologists to estimate the population a village of 1-2 hectares would contain 150 to 200 people. At that size it would indeed be an unknown village on the wider scale.
Shalom
Ted:-6
You are making an assumption about the use of metaphor and God that is simply that, an assumption and one that not everyone would hold to.
Your comment re the doctors is another assumption. We all have our biases, of course. However not all professionals let their bias interfere with what they see as the truth. If we decide that we cannot accept what someone says because they are biased then I guess we can't accept what anyone says. It is certainly a slap at the honesty and integrity of some fairly highly trained and respected people whether they be doctors or historians or archaeologists. I don't find the idea that since they don't agree with me they are biases as very convincing. In fact it is not convincing at all.
Let us now take a look at quantum theory.
"But this book is not just about the meaning of quantum mechanics. It is also about its successes, both in explaining so many phenomena, and in its many past, present, and future applications in our every day lives. I will thus take yuou on a journey through philosphy, subatomic physics, and theories of higher dimensions to today's high tech world of lasers and microchips and tomorrow's remarkable world of quantum magic." P 10 "Quantum; A Guide for the Perplexed". Jim Al-Khalili.
"I must make it clear from the outset that it is not the theory of quantum mechanics that is weird or illogical. On the contrary, it is a beautifully accurate and logical mathematical construction that describes Nature superbly well. In fact, without quantum mechanics we would not be able to understand the basics of modern chemistry, or electronics, or material science. Without quantum mechanics we would not have invented the silicone chip or the laser; there would be no television sets, computers, microwaves, CD snf DVD players,mobile phones, and so much more that we take for granted in our technologicalage.
Quantum mechanics accurately predicts and explains the behaviour of the very building blocks of matter-not just the atoms but the particles that make up the atoms-with incredible accuracy. It has led us to a very precise and almost complete understanding of how subatomic particles interact with each other and connect up to for the world we see around us, and of which we are of course a part." Ibid p 77-8.
"Our problem now is that we consider the primary reality to be that which has insued from our reductionistic exploits. And this is beginning to prove deeply dissatisfying to the human spirit. Intuitively we know there is so much more to undersand and experience."P 29 "Quantum Theology, Diarmuid O'Murchu.
It would appear to me that our modern world has been greatly influenced by quantum discoveries including the questioning of reality itself.
I would absolutely agree that we must give up a lot of what we held as truth and that includes religious truth.
As far as Osiris and Mithra are concerned the Christian faith has spread much farther and lasted much longer. So has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others.
As for the thousands of manuscripts being an assumption; it is not. It is a fact.
"The Dead Sea caves and elsewhere in the Judaean desert. . .have nw produced fragments,... of nearly 800 manuscripts". p126 "The Birth of Christianity" by J D Crossan.
Moving on to the nest page"But even in the 200s the Christian ratio of scroll to codex was one to 13." Ibid p127.
That makes the number of manuscripts about 10 400 when considering only those mentioned above and in the 200s. How many by 371 CE? Thus I think my statement of thousands was not out of line and probably in my own mind an understatement.
The list of questions that you would have me ask Dr. Crossan are pretty well answered in his book "The Birth of Christianity"
Why should a non-believer think otherwise. I think a good check with a few scholars will bring forth what is considered historical and what is considered metaphor or misdrash. That should sort it out for the non-believer.
BTW I used Google to look up Nazareth and found plenty of sites. Some talk of the potsherds found in the layers tested to be the era of Jesus. One talked of a village being their 2000 years before and one talked of a farm like village or a village farm. Obviously there is some discrepency here. Nazareth was clearly known within a fewdecades of Jesus birth. According to the statistical formula used by archaeologists to estimate the population a village of 1-2 hectares would contain 150 to 200 people. At that size it would indeed be an unknown village on the wider scale.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
I am going to be away for the rest of the week. I am attending a series of lectures sponsored by the Vancouver School of Theology on "What Christianity is Not" to be given by Dr. J. D. Hall. #1 it is not a culture-religion: #2 It is not a religion of the Book. #3 It is not a system of morality.
Sounds very intriging.
Also there was an excellent inteview on Vision TV last night with Bishop John Spong. Well done. It is nice to see, for me at least, that I am reading on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Sounds very intriging.
Also there was an excellent inteview on Vision TV last night with Bishop John Spong. Well done. It is nice to see, for me at least, that I am reading on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Ted wrote: I am going to be away for the rest of the week. I am attending a series of lectures sponsored by the Vancouver School of Theology on "What Christianity is Not" to be given by Dr. J. D. Hall. #1 it is not a culture-religion: #2 It is not a religion of the Book. #3 It is not a system of morality.
Sounds very intriging.
Also there was an excellent inteview on Vision TV last night with Bishop John Spong. Well done. It is nice to see, for me at least, that I am reading on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6Ted, have a great trip and a great time. If you are driving, please be careful.
Sounds very intriging.
Also there was an excellent inteview on Vision TV last night with Bishop John Spong. Well done. It is nice to see, for me at least, that I am reading on the same page.
Shalom
Ted:-6Ted, have a great trip and a great time. If you are driving, please be careful.
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
You are making an assumption about the use of metaphor and God that is simply that, an assumption and one that not everyone would hold to.
And is this assumption any more unreasonable than assuming that truth can be found by the liberal interpretation of the bible Ted? Or the assumption that the bible is inerrant?
Your comment re the doctors is another assumption.
No, it is not an assumption Ted. The Bureau des Constatations Médicales is a church organisation who defer to the church on what constitutes a medical miracle, the bishop of Lourdes is quite clear on who has the final say on what constitutes a miracle.
It would be easy to allay the concerns of sceptics regarding any bias on the part of the Bureau. All the church would have to do is release the reports on those cases they have decided are miraculous into the public domain to be studied by independent medical bodies.
Let us now take a look at quantum theory.
Notice the difference between the comments of Al-Khalili and O'Murchu? Not once does Professor Al-Khalili mention words such as ‘spirit’ or reflect on what we know ‘intuitively’. On the contrary, he uses words such as ‘logic’ and ‘mathematical’, that’s because Al-Khalili is a physicist and O'Murchu is not. O'Murchu is a christian priest with no background or qualifications in Quantum physics.
As far as Osiris and Mithra are concerned the Christian faith has spread much farther and lasted much longer. So has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others.
This does not address the original question of why the spread of Christianity was any more impressive than that of earlier religions such as Mithraism which spread from Persia through Europe to the British Isles without the benefit of being the one officially state sponsored religion.
As for the thousands of manuscripts being an assumption; it is not. It is a fact.
"The Dead Sea caves and elsewhere in the Judaean desert. . .have nw produced fragments,... of nearly 800 manuscripts". p126 "The Birth of Christianity" by J D Crossan.
Ted, show me one manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls that mentions Christianity or Jesus.
Moving on to the nest page"But even in the 200s the Christian ratio of scroll to codex was one to 13." Ibid p127.
That makes the number of manuscripts about 10 400 when considering only those mentioned above and in the 200s. How many by 371 CE? Thus I think my statement of thousands was not out of line and probably in my own mind an understatement.
And where is Crossan getting his figures from? ‘The Text Of The New Testament’ on p 29. p 96-102 and p. 107, list every extant work from the 1st century to the beginning of the 4th century. The total is 43 papyri and 5 uncials.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Crossan’s numbers are correct. They would give us around 135,000 Christians out of a population derived from Roman censuses of the time of approx. 65,000,000. That’s about 2% of the total.
Can you produce a rational reason how such a numerically insignificant religion can become dominant in the Roman empire without the conversion of Constantine?
Why should a non-believer think otherwise. I think a good check with a few scholars will bring forth what is considered historical and what is considered metaphor or misdrash. That should sort it out for the non-believer.
As far as I’ve found Ted, there’s nothing historically non-trivial to support the biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What do you think is historical?
BTW I used Google to look up Nazareth and found plenty of sites. Some talk of the potsherds found in the layers tested to be the era of Jesus. One talked of a village being their 2000 years before and one talked of a farm like village or a village farm. Obviously there is some discrepency here.
And on these plenty of sites, did you find any that quote evidence from either of the two archaeological digs that state the finds were domestic potsherds from a village farm or a farm like village, rather than storage jars? If such evidence was available, why has Dr. Pfann never produced anything other a wine press as evidence for domestic habitation? Moreover, a wine press he refuses to date other than saying it is from the “early to late Roman periodâ€. A time span of around 350 years!
Nazareth was clearly known within a fewdecades of Jesus birth. According to the statistical formula used by archaeologists to estimate the population a village of 1-2 hectares would contain 150 to 200 people. At that size it would indeed be an unknown village on the wider scale.
Clearly known by whom Ted?
Statistical formulae require data. As both archaeological digs have never produced any domestic finds to back up the claim that they have found any sign of habitation, and neither have produced domestic building material from the 1st century to support their estimate of the size of Nazareth , and have gone as far as to declare (without corroborating evidence) that the lack of finds to indicate habitation was due to the 1st century Nazareth being destroyed by unnamed ‘invaders’, then there is nothing they can use as data to estimate the size of Nazareth. Additionally, if they do believe there is enough data to use statistical analysis on this site, why has it not been presented for peer review?
And is this assumption any more unreasonable than assuming that truth can be found by the liberal interpretation of the bible Ted? Or the assumption that the bible is inerrant?
Your comment re the doctors is another assumption.
No, it is not an assumption Ted. The Bureau des Constatations Médicales is a church organisation who defer to the church on what constitutes a medical miracle, the bishop of Lourdes is quite clear on who has the final say on what constitutes a miracle.
It would be easy to allay the concerns of sceptics regarding any bias on the part of the Bureau. All the church would have to do is release the reports on those cases they have decided are miraculous into the public domain to be studied by independent medical bodies.
Let us now take a look at quantum theory.
Notice the difference between the comments of Al-Khalili and O'Murchu? Not once does Professor Al-Khalili mention words such as ‘spirit’ or reflect on what we know ‘intuitively’. On the contrary, he uses words such as ‘logic’ and ‘mathematical’, that’s because Al-Khalili is a physicist and O'Murchu is not. O'Murchu is a christian priest with no background or qualifications in Quantum physics.
As far as Osiris and Mithra are concerned the Christian faith has spread much farther and lasted much longer. So has Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and a few others.
This does not address the original question of why the spread of Christianity was any more impressive than that of earlier religions such as Mithraism which spread from Persia through Europe to the British Isles without the benefit of being the one officially state sponsored religion.
As for the thousands of manuscripts being an assumption; it is not. It is a fact.
"The Dead Sea caves and elsewhere in the Judaean desert. . .have nw produced fragments,... of nearly 800 manuscripts". p126 "The Birth of Christianity" by J D Crossan.
Ted, show me one manuscript from the Dead Sea Scrolls that mentions Christianity or Jesus.
Moving on to the nest page"But even in the 200s the Christian ratio of scroll to codex was one to 13." Ibid p127.
That makes the number of manuscripts about 10 400 when considering only those mentioned above and in the 200s. How many by 371 CE? Thus I think my statement of thousands was not out of line and probably in my own mind an understatement.
And where is Crossan getting his figures from? ‘The Text Of The New Testament’ on p 29. p 96-102 and p. 107, list every extant work from the 1st century to the beginning of the 4th century. The total is 43 papyri and 5 uncials.
But let’s assume for the sake of argument that Crossan’s numbers are correct. They would give us around 135,000 Christians out of a population derived from Roman censuses of the time of approx. 65,000,000. That’s about 2% of the total.
Can you produce a rational reason how such a numerically insignificant religion can become dominant in the Roman empire without the conversion of Constantine?
Why should a non-believer think otherwise. I think a good check with a few scholars will bring forth what is considered historical and what is considered metaphor or misdrash. That should sort it out for the non-believer.
As far as I’ve found Ted, there’s nothing historically non-trivial to support the biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What do you think is historical?
BTW I used Google to look up Nazareth and found plenty of sites. Some talk of the potsherds found in the layers tested to be the era of Jesus. One talked of a village being their 2000 years before and one talked of a farm like village or a village farm. Obviously there is some discrepency here.
And on these plenty of sites, did you find any that quote evidence from either of the two archaeological digs that state the finds were domestic potsherds from a village farm or a farm like village, rather than storage jars? If such evidence was available, why has Dr. Pfann never produced anything other a wine press as evidence for domestic habitation? Moreover, a wine press he refuses to date other than saying it is from the “early to late Roman periodâ€. A time span of around 350 years!
Nazareth was clearly known within a fewdecades of Jesus birth. According to the statistical formula used by archaeologists to estimate the population a village of 1-2 hectares would contain 150 to 200 people. At that size it would indeed be an unknown village on the wider scale.
Clearly known by whom Ted?
Statistical formulae require data. As both archaeological digs have never produced any domestic finds to back up the claim that they have found any sign of habitation, and neither have produced domestic building material from the 1st century to support their estimate of the size of Nazareth , and have gone as far as to declare (without corroborating evidence) that the lack of finds to indicate habitation was due to the 1st century Nazareth being destroyed by unnamed ‘invaders’, then there is nothing they can use as data to estimate the size of Nazareth. Additionally, if they do believe there is enough data to use statistical analysis on this site, why has it not been presented for peer review?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Memebias:-6
You are still making an assumption that is not supported by many of the scholars. Fortunately the conclusions that theologians come to are based on far more then a liberal interpretation of the Bible. We have in most cases over or close to 2000 years of study and scholarship. In that respect you are not arguing with me but with that history and the experiences of millions of people. As for biblical inerrancy, it cannot be supported by history, archaeology or science.
Your comment on the doctors is still an assumption. While I specifically mentioned Lourds there are of course many others around the world making similar claims. Unfortunately science does not have all the answers and in fact makes no effort whatsoever to consider alternative answers and does not consider the experiences that people have had throughout the thousands of years. In fact science has become another religion dealing with natural processes. That to is an opinion that you are entitiled to.
As far as quantum theory is concerned I have made my point. It involves more then just itens at the atomic level but in fact effects all of redality up to and including the human being. I also note that O'Murchu is a social psychologist. Anyway once again you are entitled to your opinion.
On the spread of Christendom I could give you a theological answer as I could give for Islam and others. However, I doubt that would satisfy you. I am also sure that Constantine had considerable influence in the spread of Christianity but he is not alone.
I'm not sure what we are discussing here. The number of manuscripts which is far greater then I indicated or the problem of Nazareth. I think you are well aware as I am that one can find scientists on all sides of an issue. JWhat it ultimately comes down to is whom is one going to believe. Obviously something was going on at Nazareth. There is more then a wine press. Now I am not there and have never been so I have chosen to accept what men like Crossan and Reed and others have said based on their integrity, intelligence, credibility etc. If we try to reinvent the wheel in each era we would never have reached the level we are at now.
I could add to that the names of theologians and scholars whom I know personally but that would not satisfy you. I am satisfied that something was happening at Natareth and the archaeological evidence seens to satisfy a number scholars. In fact ultimately it is of little consequence to the Christian faith in any case.
I have no problem whatsoever with the contention that succeeding construction at Nazareth destroyed much of what is underneith. That is not unknown in the field of archaeology.
As far as peer review, I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. I am also aware that peer review, though inportant and necessary does not always get at the truth.
As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned Marcus Borg I believe put it well in his book "The Heart of Christianity" that there is as much proof for the historical Jesus as there is for other great men in the past that we continue to accept. He also noted that there is hardly a Biblical or Jesus Scholar anywhere in the world that doubts the historicity of Jesus. Once again you might say they are biased but then so is everyone. I personally am satisfied with what I have seen and read and experienced. Now I realize that my experiences and those of millions don't count but frankly that is a problem of the scientific method and logic. Neither are perfect being human creations.
To sum up I accept the historicity of Jesus as well as the existence of some small settlement at Nazareth. I also accept that miracles can and do happen and that I have been witness to some of them. I am satisfied with my position.
Shalom
Ted
You are still making an assumption that is not supported by many of the scholars. Fortunately the conclusions that theologians come to are based on far more then a liberal interpretation of the Bible. We have in most cases over or close to 2000 years of study and scholarship. In that respect you are not arguing with me but with that history and the experiences of millions of people. As for biblical inerrancy, it cannot be supported by history, archaeology or science.
Your comment on the doctors is still an assumption. While I specifically mentioned Lourds there are of course many others around the world making similar claims. Unfortunately science does not have all the answers and in fact makes no effort whatsoever to consider alternative answers and does not consider the experiences that people have had throughout the thousands of years. In fact science has become another religion dealing with natural processes. That to is an opinion that you are entitiled to.
As far as quantum theory is concerned I have made my point. It involves more then just itens at the atomic level but in fact effects all of redality up to and including the human being. I also note that O'Murchu is a social psychologist. Anyway once again you are entitled to your opinion.
On the spread of Christendom I could give you a theological answer as I could give for Islam and others. However, I doubt that would satisfy you. I am also sure that Constantine had considerable influence in the spread of Christianity but he is not alone.
I'm not sure what we are discussing here. The number of manuscripts which is far greater then I indicated or the problem of Nazareth. I think you are well aware as I am that one can find scientists on all sides of an issue. JWhat it ultimately comes down to is whom is one going to believe. Obviously something was going on at Nazareth. There is more then a wine press. Now I am not there and have never been so I have chosen to accept what men like Crossan and Reed and others have said based on their integrity, intelligence, credibility etc. If we try to reinvent the wheel in each era we would never have reached the level we are at now.
I could add to that the names of theologians and scholars whom I know personally but that would not satisfy you. I am satisfied that something was happening at Natareth and the archaeological evidence seens to satisfy a number scholars. In fact ultimately it is of little consequence to the Christian faith in any case.
I have no problem whatsoever with the contention that succeeding construction at Nazareth destroyed much of what is underneith. That is not unknown in the field of archaeology.
As far as peer review, I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. I am also aware that peer review, though inportant and necessary does not always get at the truth.
As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned Marcus Borg I believe put it well in his book "The Heart of Christianity" that there is as much proof for the historical Jesus as there is for other great men in the past that we continue to accept. He also noted that there is hardly a Biblical or Jesus Scholar anywhere in the world that doubts the historicity of Jesus. Once again you might say they are biased but then so is everyone. I personally am satisfied with what I have seen and read and experienced. Now I realize that my experiences and those of millions don't count but frankly that is a problem of the scientific method and logic. Neither are perfect being human creations.
To sum up I accept the historicity of Jesus as well as the existence of some small settlement at Nazareth. I also accept that miracles can and do happen and that I have been witness to some of them. I am satisfied with my position.
Shalom
Ted
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
Bronwen:-6
Thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
You are still making an assumption that is not supported by many of the scholars.
It doesn’t have to be backed up by scholars Ted, it’s just a common sense assumption. If theists believe there are things we cannot comprehend, we can only assume this is the way their god wanted it to be. Wasn’t humanity’s Fall due to the acquisition of knowledge forbidden by god?
Your comment on the doctors is still an assumption.
An assumption based on the words of the chairman of the Lourdes medical committee and church bishops. Who am I to contradict them?
"…the International Medical Committee, even while abstaining from furnishing absolute medical proof of the cure, explicitly wished that the Church formulate its own judgmentâ€
Claude Dagens, Bishop of Angoulme.
While I specifically mentioned Lourds there are of course many others around the world making similar claims.
Yes Ted, a lot of claims from all around the world, ( I live only a couple of miles from such a site) and every religion claims these ‘miracles’ are the product of their particular god – and let’s not forget these claims were around long before Christianity.
But as each and every one of these claims for divine intervention is unfalsifiable, and as these miracle cures follow no discernable pattern, with reports of cures from all sections of society, even from non-believers, we have to look for a naturalistic explanation before accepting a supernatural one.
Unfortunately science does not have all the answers and in fact makes no effort whatsoever to consider alternative answers and does not consider the experiences that people have had throughout the thousands of years.
I’ve never heard scientists claim they have all the answers Ted. Science merely claims that its methodology is the most effective way to get useful models of the way the universe works. Science is about approximations, not dogmas, which is why the basic tenets of scientific understanding of the world are called ‘theories’ not ‘truths’.
If you want the unequivocal ‘truth’, that’s religions domain, you’ll get answers, but that’s not to say the answers are right.
As to science not considering alternatives, have you anything specific in mind?
In fact science has become another religion dealing with natural processes. That to is an opinion that you are entitiled to.
I’ve no problem with theists labelling science as a religion Ted. But only if we use such words as ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in a non-religious context.
I believe that science is the best way to explain the world around us. I have faith that processes based on scientific explanations will follow certain rules, and we can manipulate these processes to produce the technology we have today. And everyday you also display the same faith in science and the consequences of the naturalistic findings of science as I do.
On the spread of Christendom I could give you a theological answer as I could give for Islam and others. However, I doubt that would satisfy you.
Nope!:)
I am also sure that Constantine had considerable influence in the spread of Christianity but he is not alone.
And this is what I’m trying to find out. What other influences where there? And what evidence do we have for these additional influences?
What it ultimately comes down to is whom is one going to believe. Obviously something was going on at Nazareth. There is more then a wine press.
Hellenistic and Hasmonaean periods (332-37 BC)
-- No finds.
Roman I (Herodian, 37 BC- 70 AD)
The remains from this period possibly include 6-10 oil lamps.
Bagatti, Bellarmino, 1969, ‘Excavations in Nazareth’
Now I am not there and have never been so I have chosen to accept what men like Crossan and Reed and others have said based on their integrity, intelligence, credibility etc.
You will accept the word of Crossan and Reed who have no formal archaeological training, over the word of the professional archaeologists such as Bagatti who actually took part in these digs? These Franciscan archaeologists may have tried to rationalize the lack of finds, but their professional integrity has never led them to make a definite public claim that the finds that were made verify habitation.
If we try to reinvent the wheel in each era we would never have reached the level we are at now.
The reason we are at the level we are now is because we do keep reinventing of the metaphorical wheel, by questioning those things we hold to be the ‘truth’. If we never tried to reinvent the wheel Ted, we would still be hiding under tables during thunderstorms speculating on why the gods are angry.
We’ve experienced what happens when the status quo was unquestioned, and it was believed that unexplained phenomena were ‘miracles’ and “there are things mere mortals are not meant to know†– it was called the Dark Ages.
In fact ultimately it is of little consequence to the Christian faith in any case.
I would have thought confirmation that one of the few unique parts of the life of Jesus was based on historical fact would have been of the greatest importance.
And on a more personal level, wouldn’t it be nice for a believer if he or she could point to the remains of 1st century Nazareth and say to non-believers - “See, there are the streets Jesus walked through, and there is the synagogue where he debated as a child.â€
I have no problem whatsoever with the contention that succeeding construction at Nazareth destroyed much of what is underneith. That is not unknown in the field of archaeology.
But what is unknown in archaeology is baseless speculation on such destruction. The assumption that a particular archaeological level has been destroyed is usually based on evidence, such as a particular trench producing artefacts from a certain era disappearing under an existing building. We have nothing to suggest this is the case for Nazareth.
As far as peer review, I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. I am also aware that peer review, though inportant and necessary does not always get at the truth.
Whether peer review does not always get to the truth is irrelevant if evidence is not produced. Why not give peer review a shot at establishing the truth? If the evidence exists.
As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned Marcus Borg I believe put it well in his book "The Heart of Christianity" that there is as much proof for the historical Jesus as there is for other great men in the past that we continue to accept. He also noted that there is hardly a Biblical or Jesus Scholar anywhere in the world that doubts the historicity of Jesus.
Can you produce any “great person†with the same stature as Jesus in the past two thousand years whose existence has been accepted as historical fact based on sparse and ambiguous decades old hearsay evidence?
It doesn’t have to be backed up by scholars Ted, it’s just a common sense assumption. If theists believe there are things we cannot comprehend, we can only assume this is the way their god wanted it to be. Wasn’t humanity’s Fall due to the acquisition of knowledge forbidden by god?
Your comment on the doctors is still an assumption.
An assumption based on the words of the chairman of the Lourdes medical committee and church bishops. Who am I to contradict them?
"…the International Medical Committee, even while abstaining from furnishing absolute medical proof of the cure, explicitly wished that the Church formulate its own judgmentâ€
Claude Dagens, Bishop of Angoulme.
While I specifically mentioned Lourds there are of course many others around the world making similar claims.
Yes Ted, a lot of claims from all around the world, ( I live only a couple of miles from such a site) and every religion claims these ‘miracles’ are the product of their particular god – and let’s not forget these claims were around long before Christianity.
But as each and every one of these claims for divine intervention is unfalsifiable, and as these miracle cures follow no discernable pattern, with reports of cures from all sections of society, even from non-believers, we have to look for a naturalistic explanation before accepting a supernatural one.
Unfortunately science does not have all the answers and in fact makes no effort whatsoever to consider alternative answers and does not consider the experiences that people have had throughout the thousands of years.
I’ve never heard scientists claim they have all the answers Ted. Science merely claims that its methodology is the most effective way to get useful models of the way the universe works. Science is about approximations, not dogmas, which is why the basic tenets of scientific understanding of the world are called ‘theories’ not ‘truths’.
If you want the unequivocal ‘truth’, that’s religions domain, you’ll get answers, but that’s not to say the answers are right.
As to science not considering alternatives, have you anything specific in mind?
In fact science has become another religion dealing with natural processes. That to is an opinion that you are entitiled to.
I’ve no problem with theists labelling science as a religion Ted. But only if we use such words as ‘belief’ and ‘faith’ in a non-religious context.
I believe that science is the best way to explain the world around us. I have faith that processes based on scientific explanations will follow certain rules, and we can manipulate these processes to produce the technology we have today. And everyday you also display the same faith in science and the consequences of the naturalistic findings of science as I do.
On the spread of Christendom I could give you a theological answer as I could give for Islam and others. However, I doubt that would satisfy you.
Nope!:)
I am also sure that Constantine had considerable influence in the spread of Christianity but he is not alone.
And this is what I’m trying to find out. What other influences where there? And what evidence do we have for these additional influences?
What it ultimately comes down to is whom is one going to believe. Obviously something was going on at Nazareth. There is more then a wine press.
Hellenistic and Hasmonaean periods (332-37 BC)
-- No finds.
Roman I (Herodian, 37 BC- 70 AD)
The remains from this period possibly include 6-10 oil lamps.
Bagatti, Bellarmino, 1969, ‘Excavations in Nazareth’
Now I am not there and have never been so I have chosen to accept what men like Crossan and Reed and others have said based on their integrity, intelligence, credibility etc.
You will accept the word of Crossan and Reed who have no formal archaeological training, over the word of the professional archaeologists such as Bagatti who actually took part in these digs? These Franciscan archaeologists may have tried to rationalize the lack of finds, but their professional integrity has never led them to make a definite public claim that the finds that were made verify habitation.
If we try to reinvent the wheel in each era we would never have reached the level we are at now.
The reason we are at the level we are now is because we do keep reinventing of the metaphorical wheel, by questioning those things we hold to be the ‘truth’. If we never tried to reinvent the wheel Ted, we would still be hiding under tables during thunderstorms speculating on why the gods are angry.
We’ve experienced what happens when the status quo was unquestioned, and it was believed that unexplained phenomena were ‘miracles’ and “there are things mere mortals are not meant to know†– it was called the Dark Ages.
In fact ultimately it is of little consequence to the Christian faith in any case.
I would have thought confirmation that one of the few unique parts of the life of Jesus was based on historical fact would have been of the greatest importance.
And on a more personal level, wouldn’t it be nice for a believer if he or she could point to the remains of 1st century Nazareth and say to non-believers - “See, there are the streets Jesus walked through, and there is the synagogue where he debated as a child.â€
I have no problem whatsoever with the contention that succeeding construction at Nazareth destroyed much of what is underneith. That is not unknown in the field of archaeology.
But what is unknown in archaeology is baseless speculation on such destruction. The assumption that a particular archaeological level has been destroyed is usually based on evidence, such as a particular trench producing artefacts from a certain era disappearing under an existing building. We have nothing to suggest this is the case for Nazareth.
As far as peer review, I have no idea whether it was or wasn't. I am also aware that peer review, though inportant and necessary does not always get at the truth.
Whether peer review does not always get to the truth is irrelevant if evidence is not produced. Why not give peer review a shot at establishing the truth? If the evidence exists.
As far as the historicity of Jesus is concerned Marcus Borg I believe put it well in his book "The Heart of Christianity" that there is as much proof for the historical Jesus as there is for other great men in the past that we continue to accept. He also noted that there is hardly a Biblical or Jesus Scholar anywhere in the world that doubts the historicity of Jesus.
Can you produce any “great person†with the same stature as Jesus in the past two thousand years whose existence has been accepted as historical fact based on sparse and ambiguous decades old hearsay evidence?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
If you take a look at the notes at the back of the book "Excavating Jesus" you will find that both Reed and Crossan referred to archaeologists in their work. Crossan does not invent data he searches it out and documents his searches in the notes and the Bibliography. Thus I find it somewhat difficult to attack Crossan on those particular issues. Of course we might accuse him of being biased as he is a RC Priest.?
The fact is I cannot offer what you want to your satisfaction. But then there are folks on all sides of the arguments and among them besides ordinary folks there are scientists and scholars. There scientists who have no problem with a religious faith and there are scientists who do. It seems to me that it comes down to whom or what you choose to believe based on what you know and understand.
I have placed my position on a religious faith but am a pluralist. It is not a blind faith but one based on many years of study, discussion, prayer, meditation and personal experience as well as the observation of the experiences of others.
I accept the findings of science generally but certainly do not place ultimate faith in science. Both science and logic have to contnend with the human factor. That is why 4 doctors give four diagnoses to the same data. You have called it opinion but then we will have to call all analyses based on data opinion because the data has to be read and understood and here comes the human factor. Four astronomers can look into the sky and come up with 4 different "opinions" based on the same data. Damn that human factor.
If we rely on science alone to give us all the answers we are indeed in trouble. Science has made untold positive contributions to the world but it has also given us weapons of mass distruction, three mile island, Chernobyl, perhaps global climate change. There's that damned human factor again. We need far more then science to make this a better world to live in. We need the wisdom that comes from all of history in order to to make the best decisions we can for the human race. Science cannot do this.
Shalom
Ted:-6
If you take a look at the notes at the back of the book "Excavating Jesus" you will find that both Reed and Crossan referred to archaeologists in their work. Crossan does not invent data he searches it out and documents his searches in the notes and the Bibliography. Thus I find it somewhat difficult to attack Crossan on those particular issues. Of course we might accuse him of being biased as he is a RC Priest.?
The fact is I cannot offer what you want to your satisfaction. But then there are folks on all sides of the arguments and among them besides ordinary folks there are scientists and scholars. There scientists who have no problem with a religious faith and there are scientists who do. It seems to me that it comes down to whom or what you choose to believe based on what you know and understand.
I have placed my position on a religious faith but am a pluralist. It is not a blind faith but one based on many years of study, discussion, prayer, meditation and personal experience as well as the observation of the experiences of others.
I accept the findings of science generally but certainly do not place ultimate faith in science. Both science and logic have to contnend with the human factor. That is why 4 doctors give four diagnoses to the same data. You have called it opinion but then we will have to call all analyses based on data opinion because the data has to be read and understood and here comes the human factor. Four astronomers can look into the sky and come up with 4 different "opinions" based on the same data. Damn that human factor.
If we rely on science alone to give us all the answers we are indeed in trouble. Science has made untold positive contributions to the world but it has also given us weapons of mass distruction, three mile island, Chernobyl, perhaps global climate change. There's that damned human factor again. We need far more then science to make this a better world to live in. We need the wisdom that comes from all of history in order to to make the best decisions we can for the human race. Science cannot do this.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
If you take a look at the notes at the back of the book "Excavating Jesus" you will find that both Reed and Crossan referred to archaeologists in their work. Crossan does not invent data he searches it out and documents his searches in the notes and the Bibliography.
There’s a big gap between citing the works of archaeologists and coming to the conclusions Crossan does Ted. Crossan himself admits there are no signs of domestic habitation:
“The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us.â€
And yet from tombs he acknowledges would be outside a village, he confidently estimates the size of this village, a village we have not one scrap of domestic evidence for.
We do not need to invent a village immediately outside the area of these tombs when Japha, barely a mile away, was an excellent candidate for their use.
Ironically, Dr Pfann the christian head of the dig in the 1990’s drew attention to the utter lack of first century domestic finds at Nazareth when he became involved with the ‘Nazareth Village’ project - a reconstruction based on known archaeological evidence from other early 1st century digs in Israel in order to give us the “message of Jesus in its original settingâ€. Take a look at the Nazareth Village website:
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/new/gallery.php#
Study the gallery pictures and ask yourself some questions, such as –
Where are the dressed stones for walls and doors we see in ‘Nazareth Village’ at the real Nazareth site? Where are the glass, pottery, wood, and metal items we see in ‘Nazareth Village’ at the real Nazareth site? In fact, where are any of the items you would expect to find in an inhabited area?
Thus I find it somewhat difficult to attack Crossan on those particular issues. Of course we might accuse him of being biased as he is a RC Priest.?
And the same accusation could be levelled at the late Bagatti, or Pfann or Reed. And while pondering if these gentlemen allowed their christian zeal to colour their views, we can ask why the earliest digs in this area, by Benedict Vlaminck in 1892, and by Prosper Viaud in 1889 /1907-1909 when Nazareth was still a small village, (and therefore with no chance of 1 CE Nazareth being destroyed by later development) discovered nothing to indicate first century domestic habitation.
Also Ted, did you know that decades ago the Israeli government made archaeological salvage digs before (re)development mandatory throughout Israel? And yet nothing indicating domestic habitation from a first century Nazareth has been discovered during any archaeological salvage digs in the Nazareth area.
Four astronomers can look into the sky and come up with 4 different "opinions" based on the same data. Damn that human factor.
Science is built on differing opinions, and the scientific method is the best way we have of nullifying the ‘human factor’ and finding out which of these differing opinions offers the best explanation for what we observe around us. As I said before Ted, if you want certainties - opinions that will brook no argument as to what is truth - religion does that quite well.
If we rely on science alone to give us all the answers we are indeed in trouble. Science has made untold positive contributions to the world but it has also given us weapons of mass distruction, three mile island, Chernobyl, perhaps global climate change. There's that damned human factor again.
The very success of science in improving our lives makes it easy to name its failures. And for every failure or misuse of technology I can give you an example of how science is developing ways to put right the results of mistakes made in the past – including global warming.
Science makes no claims about its ability to change human nature. Science is a method of explaining and manipulating the world around us; it is not a set of moral precepts governing the ‘right’ way to live our lives.
We need far more then science to make this a better world to live in. We need the wisdom that comes from all of history in order to to make the best decisions we can for the human race.
If one thing can be said with certainty it is that humans never learn from history.
Science cannot do this.
And what do you think can Ted? The wisdom of theistic religion? Belief in god(s) has had thousands of years before the birth of empirical science to make this a better world for humanity. How has religion made this world a better place to live in for the human race compared to the achievements of science?
There’s a big gap between citing the works of archaeologists and coming to the conclusions Crossan does Ted. Crossan himself admits there are no signs of domestic habitation:
“The tombs, both those discovered by Bagatti and others known from earlier explorations, would have been placed outside the village and serve, in fact, to delimit its circumference for us.â€
And yet from tombs he acknowledges would be outside a village, he confidently estimates the size of this village, a village we have not one scrap of domestic evidence for.
We do not need to invent a village immediately outside the area of these tombs when Japha, barely a mile away, was an excellent candidate for their use.
Ironically, Dr Pfann the christian head of the dig in the 1990’s drew attention to the utter lack of first century domestic finds at Nazareth when he became involved with the ‘Nazareth Village’ project - a reconstruction based on known archaeological evidence from other early 1st century digs in Israel in order to give us the “message of Jesus in its original settingâ€. Take a look at the Nazareth Village website:
http://www.nazarethvillage.com/new/gallery.php#
Study the gallery pictures and ask yourself some questions, such as –
Where are the dressed stones for walls and doors we see in ‘Nazareth Village’ at the real Nazareth site? Where are the glass, pottery, wood, and metal items we see in ‘Nazareth Village’ at the real Nazareth site? In fact, where are any of the items you would expect to find in an inhabited area?
Thus I find it somewhat difficult to attack Crossan on those particular issues. Of course we might accuse him of being biased as he is a RC Priest.?
And the same accusation could be levelled at the late Bagatti, or Pfann or Reed. And while pondering if these gentlemen allowed their christian zeal to colour their views, we can ask why the earliest digs in this area, by Benedict Vlaminck in 1892, and by Prosper Viaud in 1889 /1907-1909 when Nazareth was still a small village, (and therefore with no chance of 1 CE Nazareth being destroyed by later development) discovered nothing to indicate first century domestic habitation.
Also Ted, did you know that decades ago the Israeli government made archaeological salvage digs before (re)development mandatory throughout Israel? And yet nothing indicating domestic habitation from a first century Nazareth has been discovered during any archaeological salvage digs in the Nazareth area.
Four astronomers can look into the sky and come up with 4 different "opinions" based on the same data. Damn that human factor.
Science is built on differing opinions, and the scientific method is the best way we have of nullifying the ‘human factor’ and finding out which of these differing opinions offers the best explanation for what we observe around us. As I said before Ted, if you want certainties - opinions that will brook no argument as to what is truth - religion does that quite well.
If we rely on science alone to give us all the answers we are indeed in trouble. Science has made untold positive contributions to the world but it has also given us weapons of mass distruction, three mile island, Chernobyl, perhaps global climate change. There's that damned human factor again.
The very success of science in improving our lives makes it easy to name its failures. And for every failure or misuse of technology I can give you an example of how science is developing ways to put right the results of mistakes made in the past – including global warming.
Science makes no claims about its ability to change human nature. Science is a method of explaining and manipulating the world around us; it is not a set of moral precepts governing the ‘right’ way to live our lives.
We need far more then science to make this a better world to live in. We need the wisdom that comes from all of history in order to to make the best decisions we can for the human race.
If one thing can be said with certainty it is that humans never learn from history.
Science cannot do this.
And what do you think can Ted? The wisdom of theistic religion? Belief in god(s) has had thousands of years before the birth of empirical science to make this a better world for humanity. How has religion made this world a better place to live in for the human race compared to the achievements of science?
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
memebias:-6
I guess you will believe as you will and I will do likewise.
Shalom
Ted:-6
I guess you will believe as you will and I will do likewise.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
:-6
Shalom to Ted and all the others,
Can I add a GREAT AMEN to Ted's last post.
Although brought up as a Scottish Baptist and PUT to church although my parents never joined it?
I find your discussion fascinating because I was lucky enough to be a teenager in the church when it had a very enlightened minister who had just been serving with the British forces in Palestine - not as a padre! - he became convinced that he should become a minister whilst serving there just after WWII.
He taught me at least three valuable lessons
(A) The knowledge about the origins and various sources of the BIBLE are always changing and being updated.
(B) Trainee ministers in the seminaries are taught a lot that they are also told to be very selective in telling their congregations.
(C) Never pull a pillar of faith from underneath an old "saint" who's beliefs have carried him through three score years and ten or even more, through the worst storms in the North Sea and all the tribulations that life, in general brings, UNLESS you have something far better to put in its place.
He told me a tale of his first church near Glasgow where one "old Saint" firmly;y believed that the BIBLE came down from heaven completely bound with COLLINS stamp on the spine - who should disillusion him?
Whatever we are taught as children and at school we slowly learn more and develop and I, personally, believe that each of us forms his or her own unique religion that suits us.
Just don't speak too much about it and upset others who are more set in their ways.
Some will never change and others do not want to change or learn anything different from what they were taught forty and fifty years ago.
Others keep joining another and another church one after the other - I don't really think that they know what they are looking for - but I wish they would not force themselves to the top of the ladder in each church they join, upsetting hundreds before they go on their way again.
AS THEY SURELY WILL.
God bless,
randall.
:)
QUOTE.:- MY FRIEND IS NOT PERFECT. NEITHER AM I!
Shalom to Ted and all the others,
Can I add a GREAT AMEN to Ted's last post.
Although brought up as a Scottish Baptist and PUT to church although my parents never joined it?
I find your discussion fascinating because I was lucky enough to be a teenager in the church when it had a very enlightened minister who had just been serving with the British forces in Palestine - not as a padre! - he became convinced that he should become a minister whilst serving there just after WWII.
He taught me at least three valuable lessons
(A) The knowledge about the origins and various sources of the BIBLE are always changing and being updated.
(B) Trainee ministers in the seminaries are taught a lot that they are also told to be very selective in telling their congregations.
(C) Never pull a pillar of faith from underneath an old "saint" who's beliefs have carried him through three score years and ten or even more, through the worst storms in the North Sea and all the tribulations that life, in general brings, UNLESS you have something far better to put in its place.
He told me a tale of his first church near Glasgow where one "old Saint" firmly;y believed that the BIBLE came down from heaven completely bound with COLLINS stamp on the spine - who should disillusion him?
Whatever we are taught as children and at school we slowly learn more and develop and I, personally, believe that each of us forms his or her own unique religion that suits us.
Just don't speak too much about it and upset others who are more set in their ways.
Some will never change and others do not want to change or learn anything different from what they were taught forty and fifty years ago.
Others keep joining another and another church one after the other - I don't really think that they know what they are looking for - but I wish they would not force themselves to the top of the ladder in each church they join, upsetting hundreds before they go on their way again.
AS THEY SURELY WILL.
God bless,
randall.
:)
QUOTE.:- MY FRIEND IS NOT PERFECT. NEITHER AM I!
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
randall:-6
Thanks for your commendations.
You, have indeed, met some very wise folks on you journey. Well worth listening too.
Amen.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Thanks for your commendations.
You, have indeed, met some very wise folks on you journey. Well worth listening too.
Amen.
Shalom
Ted:-6
Just how much credibility can we give the Bible as a historical source?
As this is dealing with history I thought this might be the best place to put this.
I thought that some might be interested in this quote from pg 20 "Who is Jesus", J. D. Crossan and R. G. Watts.
"Where Providence. . . has. . . adorned our lives with the highest good;. . . and has in her beneficence granted us and those who will come after us [a Saviour] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything in [peaceful] order. . . with the result that the birthday of our God signalled the begtinning of Good News for the world because of him. . . therefore. . ."
Quoted exactly as written in the book. So about whom are we speaking?
Shalom
Ted:-6
I thought that some might be interested in this quote from pg 20 "Who is Jesus", J. D. Crossan and R. G. Watts.
"Where Providence. . . has. . . adorned our lives with the highest good;. . . and has in her beneficence granted us and those who will come after us [a Saviour] who has made war to cease and who shall put everything in [peaceful] order. . . with the result that the birthday of our God signalled the begtinning of Good News for the world because of him. . . therefore. . ."
Quoted exactly as written in the book. So about whom are we speaking?
Shalom
Ted:-6