Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 The "James Ossuary" has proved to be a fake, a total fraud (details here and here). If you want to see just how many were fooled by this, just run a search on "James ossuary". So many are so desperate to find some actual "evidence" of their faith that they are gullible to this sort of thing. I am beginning to understand why so many find it so easy to gulp down "intelligent design" as a worthwhile "academic" field. I certainly hope the future of christianity doesn't depend on fake relics and pseudo science. Who is more to blame here, the fakers or the people who are so eager to find such "evidence" that they will believe anything?
SilverNRed Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 WHAT? You mean the "Playstation 2 actually played by Jesus" that I bought on eBay might not be the real deal? Ugh, worst 300 bucks I've ever spent. How do Biblical relics actually provide 'evidence' or validate the faith? There's nothing you could dig up that would prove that the resurrection ever happened and I think people know that. I don't think this proves religious people are guillible.
Terry Tate Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 I certainly hope the future of christianity doesn't depend on fake relics and pseudo science. 190395[/snapback] Your concern is duly noted. No doubt your future research efforts will reflect what I am sure is your interest in promoting a healthy view of Christianity by now concentrating on all the good Christianity has brought and continues to bring the world. May God bless you.
OnTheRocks Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 The "James Ossuary" has proved to be a fake, a total fraud (details here and here). If you want to see just how many were fooled by this, just run a search on "James ossuary". So many are so desperate to find some actual "evidence" of their faith that they are gullible to this sort of thing. I am beginning to understand why so many find it so easy to gulp down "intelligent design" as a worthwhile "academic" field. I certainly hope the future of christianity doesn't depend on fake relics and pseudo science. Who is more to blame here, the fakers or the people who are so eager to find such "evidence" that they will believe anything? 190395[/snapback] Mick....honestly evaluate this post...and tell me what the point is? Because surely....there are plenty of Biblical relics that have been uncovered that have been proven authentic.
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 Your concern is duly noted. No doubt your future research efforts will reflect what I am sure is your interest in promoting a healthy view of Christianity by now concentrating on all the good Christianity has brought and continues to bring the world. May God bless you. 190518[/snapback] Where should I start? The crusades maybe? Galileo? The inquisition? Salem, witch trials? Silence during the holocaust? Koresh? Jonestown? Maybe you are afraid to confront the abuse of christianity but I think it has value even when the abuse is perpetrated by christians themselves. I don't think the cause of christianity is advanced by charlatans peddling forged relics or pseudo science. I guess that means I am not christian enough for you. I don't suppose you'd actually care to discuss the issue of the too eager willingness by some to accept as authentic biblical relics that are in fact frauds rather than attacking me?
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 Mick....honestly evaluate this post...and tell me what the point is?Because surely....there are plenty of Biblical relics that have been uncovered that have been proven authentic. 190620[/snapback] List some that have been proven authentic with links to that proof and I will respond. I see no point in having an amorphous discussion about unidentified relics of presumed authenticity. The ossuary at issue has been in the news quite a bit lately and was even the subject of a 60 Minutes report not long ago. This is the latest development on the story. The forgers involved have been faking relics, hundreds of them, for a long time and as a result, the whole field of biblical antiquities has been turned upside down. I think that is interesting so I passed it on. Moreover, I think that such fakes are easier to pass as legit because there are those whose objectivity when it comes to biblical relics is lacking because it touches on their faith. Certainly, those who questioned the authenticity of this relic were widely criticized by many segments of the christian community. I see a paralell with "intelligent design". It is just as much a load of hoo-ha as that ossuary. Becuase of people's faith, I think they can be vulnerable to this kind of thing. Fabricated relics, fabricated "theories". Same thing. I don't think it is exactly a revolutionary thought that a person's most deeply held beliefs might compromise their objectivity. It is why a juror in a capital case can be relieved of jury duty if capital punishment is a violation of their beliefs. Just pointing out the possibility that such a theory holds no water or that a biblical relic is a fake subjects one to attack as an anti-christian which is in fact, precisely the response my post illicited when it just as easily could have begun an intelligent discussion on the abuse of faith by even the faithful.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Where should I start? The crusades maybe? Galileo? The inquisition? Salem, witch trials? Silence during the holocaust? Koresh? Jonestown? Maybe you are afraid to confront the abuse of christianity but I think it has value even when the abuse is perpetrated by christians themselves. I don't think the cause of christianity is advanced by charlatans peddling forged relics or pseudo science. I guess that means I am not christian enough for you. I don't suppose you'd actually care to discuss the issue of the too eager willingness by some to accept as authentic biblical relics that are in fact frauds rather than attacking me? 190697[/snapback] I'm Orthodox, and I'll NEVER disregard the past abuses of Christianity... One must strive to improve humanity through good words and deeds, not hypocrisy and ignorance. Some people are stupid, that's your main point I think. AGREED!
OnTheRocks Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 List some that have been proven authentic with links to that proof and I will respond. I see no point in having an amorphous discussion about unidentified relics of presumed authenticity.190748[/snapback] precisely why i am not going to bother....round and round the mulberry bush. i would provide links that support...you would come up with links that refute.
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 precisely why i am not going to bother....round and round the mulberry bush.i would provide links that support...you would come up with links that refute. 190763[/snapback] ...or so you assume. And if we did, wouldn't I learn in the process what relics are considered to be the most "authentic" and wouldn't you learn what doubts still linger about those same relics? Learning. If it doesn't result in an absolute and irrefutable truth, it is a total waste of time.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Learning. If it doesn't result in an absolute and irrefutable truth, it is a total waste of time. What a pompous ass. History also proves again and again that socialism doesn't work, yet you push that pseudo-religious garbage every chance you get. Give me a break.
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 I'm Orthodox, and I'll NEVER disregard the past abuses of Christianity... One must strive to improve humanity through good words and deeds, not hypocrisy and ignorance. Some people are stupid, that's your main point I think. AGREED! 190754[/snapback] No doubt about that. Seriously, I think the problem is deeper than that and an important one for a christian to consider. How do you get around the problem that passionate belief can't help but endanger objectivity? There is no problem when the inquiry at hand does not touch, even slightly, on matters of faith. When it does, there is a clear conflict between investigative objectivity and faith that can be difficult to handle. One way it can reveal itself is in too eager acceptance of a relic as being genuine.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 No doubt about that. Seriously, I think the problem is deeper than that and an important one for a christian to consider. How do you get around the problem that passionate belief can't help but endanger objectivity? There is no problem when the inquiry at hand does not touch, even slightly, on matters of faith. When it does, there is a clear conflict between investigative objectivity and faith that can be difficult to handle. One way it can reveal itself is in too eager acceptance of a relic as being genuine. 190822[/snapback] What is required is an OPEN MIND in these matters... closing the mind to accept things blindly spells doom in the end. I think it is more of a matter of ego and pride in a lot of those cases. That's why when it comes to these 'relics', you can't be fully sure of anything really. Anyway, religion isn't about relics... it's about the LIVING.
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 What a pompous ass. History also proves again and again that socialism doesn't work, yet you push that pseudo-religious garbage every chance you get. Give me a break. 190802[/snapback] Please point out a post where I "pushed" socialism. Since, according to you I post that stuff every chance I get, I am sure you can find tons of examples. Why do you find the notion that learning about something has value even if it doesn't end with an absolute answer to be so objectionable? You do realize that I was being sarcastic, highlighting the poster's unwillingness to discuss the issue in more depth because he was sure we woudn't ultimately agree.
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Please point out a post where I "pushed" socialism. Since, according to you I post that stuff every chance I get, I am sure you can find tons of examples.Why do you find the notion that learning about something has value even if it doesn't end with an absolute answer to be so objectionable? You do realize that I was being sarcastic, highlighting the poster's unwillingness to discuss the issue in more depth because he was sure we woudn't ultimately agree. 190861[/snapback] The natural reaction of someone who wants to read FAR BEYOND the lines is my take. A reaction to the post is not worth the time. I am learning this is my old age!
OnTheRocks Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Ok...here ya go....take a look at this study and tell me why the evidence that the folks at AIG provide is wrong. Let the refuting begin.
Terry Tate Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 Where should I start? The crusades maybe? Galileo? The inquisition? Salem, witch trials? Silence during the holocaust? Koresh? Jonestown? Maybe you are afraid to confront the abuse of christianity but I think it has value even when the abuse is perpetrated by christians themselves. I don't think the cause of christianity is advanced by charlatans peddling forged relics or pseudo science. I guess that means I am not christian enough for you. I don't suppose you'd actually care to discuss the issue of the too eager willingness by some to accept as authentic biblical relics that are in fact frauds rather than attacking me? 190697[/snapback] If the examples you cite are what defines your view of Christianity, I can understand your determination to continually post about it in the worst possible light. Pardon me if I suggest your concern for it's future is not heartfelt. I am not afraid of abuses of Christianity; their main "value" appears to be in detractor's use of them to paint the whole religion with a broad brush - I assure you they have no affect on my faith. The "cause" (whatever that may mean) of Christianity will no doubt survive this latest incident. Whether or not you are Christian enough is not for me to judge - that job is taken. If wishing God's blessing on you is considered an attack, time to take a deep breath.
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 Ok...here ya go....take a look at this study and tell me why the evidence that the folks at AIG provide is wrong.Let the refuting begin. 190957[/snapback] The article you reference is based on the work of Bryant Wood whose group is the Associates for Biblical Research. They describe themselves as "the only Christian organization committed to demonstrating the historical reliability of Scripture through excavation and research in Biblical archeology." Does that sound like an objective academic group to you or one with an agenda? The Jericho site was most extensively studied by Kenyon and she dated the walled city there way before the Bilble does. Wood disputed that (after Kenyon's death) and you article covers that by simply saying she made a mistake and that actually the city was there in 1407 BC as the Bible says it was. The article doesn't say what the mistake was nor provide a reference. Worse, it ignores follow up work done after Wood's assertion that Kenyon had the date wrong that shows, in fact, Kenyon was right all along: When did what walls fall? and Is Bryant Wood's Chronology for Jericho valid? Allegedly, Wood trucks tourists out to sites to have them dig up biblical evidence and has been called a crackpot. I won't bother with the link as I think it is easy enough to address his arguments without even bothering to get into an argument as to whether he is a loon. Besides, sometimes crackpots are right. Interestingly, I was able to find tons of hits for Wood's work on various christian sites and almost all of them had no reference at all to the subsequent work on dating samples and the British Museum's withdrawl of the age calculation upon which he based his conclusion. They simply site Wood, rave about his findings and move on. The biblical chronology site was the exception. The additional radio carbon testing done by Bruins and Plicht were hard to find and not mentioned on creationist sites.
OnTheRocks Posted January 3, 2005 Posted January 3, 2005 would you say that there is no proof or evidence that "stories" or "passages" in the Bible are true?
Mickey Posted January 3, 2005 Author Posted January 3, 2005 Its a pretty long book, you'll have to be more specific than that as I am not sure what you mean by "passages". The Bible is not just a description of spiritual matters. It has a historical aspect to it. Proving that a historical event described in the Bible actually happened doesn't really get you very far. It doesn't prove divinity and that is the way many people of faith look at it though certainly not evangelical christians. For example, we know a lot about ancient Egyptian history. Some of it we have learned from deciphering Egyptian writings, some from archaelogical discoveries. Their texts describe both spritual and historical matters. Proving that a set of hieroglyphs describing an ancient war is accurate does not prove that the Sun God Ra, also discussed in the same set, actually existed. Proving that Jericho existed and that it fell doesn't establish divinity. That isn't what most researchers find important anyway. However, if your faith demands that you take the Bible as being literally true from cover to cover, then proof that the Bible is wrong about Jericho is a threat you have to defeat somehow. It can't be tolerated. For evangelicals who believe thus, it all has to be true right down to the last word. For them, proof of historical accuracy is proof of divinity and the lack of historical accuracy conversely threatens the divine.
OnTheRocks Posted January 4, 2005 Posted January 4, 2005 Its a pretty long book, you'll have to be more specific than that as I am not sure what you mean by "passages". The Bible is not just a description of spiritual matters. It has a historical aspect to it. Proving that a historical event described in the Bible actually happened doesn't really get you very far. It doesn't prove divinity and that is the way many people of faith look at it though certainly not evangelical christians. For example, we know a lot about ancient Egyptian history. Some of it we have learned from deciphering Egyptian writings, some from archaelogical discoveries. Their texts describe both spritual and historical matters. Proving that a set of hieroglyphs describing an ancient war is accurate does not prove that the Sun God Ra, also discussed in the same set, actually existed. Proving that Jericho existed and that it fell doesn't establish divinity. That isn't what most researchers find important anyway. However, if your faith demands that you take the Bible as being literally true from cover to cover, then proof that the Bible is wrong about Jericho is a threat you have to defeat somehow. It can't be tolerated. For evangelicals who believe thus, it all has to be true right down to the last word. For them, proof of historical accuracy is proof of divinity and the lack of historical accuracy conversely threatens the divine. 191463[/snapback] nothing is threatened. that is why it is called "faith".
Recommended Posts