Just in time for next Holy Week

R

Realmhiker

Guest
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/02/25/tomb_arc.html?category=archaeology&guid=20070225073000&dcitc=w19-502-ak-0000

must read of course between the lines
 
http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/02/christians-react-to-jesus-scam.html

Must read of course between the lines....
 
HAHAH There are no lines to read between this one... HAHA

I find it very interesting how NO ONE can question the authenticity and the information of the Bible based solely on belief. Once you look for authenticity, you have to use methods that are not belief based.

I really don't know whether anyone will ever really know whether the bones of Jesus and his family is on those ossuaries. Any claims to that effect are indeed suspect. However, any claims to say the gospels are TRUE, and authentic history, is even more suspect as more than 1900 years of deliberate alterations to the story (if there was a story to begin with) have done their deed.

We don't even know what really happened in recent events, 911, London and Madrid Bombings etc, because everyone adds to substracts to the facts to suit their own agenda. If Christian followers could stick to "love thy neighbors" no one would be having a problem with the movement. The problem lies on the doctrines created around the Christian myth to evengelize, and deliberate conquer and hurt other people, creating more suffering, even genocide etc... Of course Christians are not the only ones perpetrating these atrocities, pretty much most other religions have. The thing is now the most powerful nations susbcribe to a similar belief system and will impose it on all others if no one puts a break to them.

I am blabbin' now...

Peas...
 
Realmhiker said:
HAHAH There are no lines to read between this one... HAHA

I find it very interesting how NO ONE can question the authenticity and the information of the Bible based solely on belief. Once you look for authenticity, you have to use methods that are not belief based.
Click to expand...
HAHAH
Give an example of just one method that is NOT "belief based" :)
 
Good question... so how do you get to the truth? how do you comb beleif from fact?
 
Realmhiker said:
Good question... so how do you get to the truth? how do you comb beleif from fact?
Click to expand...
Taken from Merriam Webster On Line dictionary

Main Entry:
scientific method
Function:
noun
Date:
circa 1810

: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Click to expand...
Main Entry:
the·o·ry
Pronunciation:
\ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -ries
Etymology:
Late Latin theoria, from Greek the� ria, from the� rein
Date:
1592

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 A belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b: an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances — often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a: a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b: an unproved assumption : conjecture c: a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

synonyms see hypothesis
Click to expand...
Main Entry:
hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation:
\hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural -e·ses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology:
Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date:
circa 1656

1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement synonyms hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.
Click to expand...
You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death. It is easy to say you believe a rope is strong as long as you are merely using it to cord a box. But, suppose you had to hang by that rope over a precipice? Wouldn't you then first discover how much you really trusted it? C.S. Lewis
Click to expand...
 
Then of course, there is this:

http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blogspot.com/2007/03/tales-from-crypt-or-mummy-returns-to.html

and this:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/127860-The+Most+Dangerous+Cult+in+The+World%21

No need to read between the lines there, either.
 
Thank you Kenlee, that is all I needed. Thank you for answering my question.
 
Allow me to read between the lines. What if the aim of this documentary is not so much in support of it's claims (the creators are upfront about presenting mere starting points for research), in as much as it is a lure to fundamentalist bibliographic Christians to publicly undo themselves, now more convincingly than ever. The reaction to DaVinci Code was just a glimpse at what is possible (and the parallels drawn are too obvious at least in the Jesus + Mary Magdalene allusion) To accomplish this they do not need 100% accuracy, just present enough compelling evidence to construe a different "story" to force the conversation. Once you get debate started merely about the potential for archeological evidence that challenges traditional Christian belief, your job is finished. The Da Vinci Code could perhaps never do this, obviously as a work of fiction simply are ideas on paper but perhaps it too has the same aim. Archeological evidence presented to the contrary of fundamentalist literalist beliefs however, will raise a much more prominent debate. In my opinion this is their design. Not so much to prove this or that, but to reveal the nature of the beast, to demonstrate cognitive dissonance in an entire class of social introverts or "interverts" (my term for the socio-psychological interactions of people who are bonded by their disagreement with experience). It is only now possible that many of us are able to go online to engage and respond to such a compelling topic because of web discussion forums and the like. This time the topic itself is viral rather than the technology, none of which was previously possible. The function of the Tomb documentary then is to demonstrate to people online the social illness plaguing much of the western thought, since this will not likely be up for debate at the local Churches (gee imagine that!). So by confronting Christians with a 'realistic' possibility that if hard evidence had, or ever could be obtained, we would see a result that is an utterly irrational denying-till-death reaction, clearly for all to see. If it works, it renders an entire subclass of society even more irrelevant as they appear too irrational for modern times, and with that we lose their role of "moral compass" that once was able to gather the political momentum to do insane things like the Iraq war. Obviously any sane individual should be open to ponder the question of ones beliefs when facing some new form of evidence, unless s/he descends ever further into delusional fantasies
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom