James Cameron's new documentary

Cathy

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/

Thoughts?

kelly1

Cathy wrote:

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/26/raising-the-titanic-sinking-christianity/

Thoughts?

It makes me angry! :mad:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

The danger is that this cr*p is undermining the faith of people who faith is shaky and open to persuasion.

What must Jesus think of people who attack His good name even though He came to save them from their sins!? He died on a cross for us and this is how we repay Him!

What are your thoughts Cathy?

God bless,
Noel.

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

The danger is that this cr*p is undermining the faith of people who faith is shaky and open to persuasion.

So when anything like this is found it should be just ignored?

kelly1

Ciaran500 wrote:

So when anything like this is found it should be just ignored?

Basically yes! Ever since the time of Christ, His good name has
been attacked by evil men. This is nothing new. Mr. Cameron can't prove any of his claims because they aren't true.

Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don't! If you believe Him to be God the Son, then how could you doubt the resurrection?

God bless,
Noel.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote:

It's not at all surprising where Discovery Channel is concerned. They've produced so much anti-Christian filth. This is just more of the same.

Depends on what you mean by "anti-Christian" .. the truth (assuming this is the truth) cannot be anti anything, it simply is what it is.

Not that it really matters. Christians, like all religious people, will simply choose not to believe this as it contradicts their faith. It won't be the first time, it won't be the last time.

Excelsior

I think it is as likely that this is the tomb of Jesus as God Save The Queen being sung at Croke Par.... oh wait.

Seriously though, Yeshua in 2nd Temple Judaism was about as common a name as John is in Ireland today. Joseph, Marinme, Yose, these are all the most common names in use. Presuming that the tomb is not a fake (and considering the potential profit involved this must be our first assumption) it is about as surprising as finding a grave headstone 2000 years hence in Ireland that talks about Sean and his wife Brigid who had three kids, Eoghan, Paul and Claire.

I am a Christian in a large part because of historical evidence. If this is the tomb of Christ (a very unlikely situation but...) then Christianity has to pack itself up and die out as instantly as possible.

But for the moment, I had a chat with God this morning over the Scriptures and he didn't tell me anything about this.

Excelsior

Wicknight wrote:

Christians, like all religious people, will simply choose not to believe this as it contradicts their faith.

While I agree with your sentiment, as usual, you really need to explain to me sometime how you figure cognitive bias doesn't apply to "non-religious people".

(First we might have to discuss whether people exist without constructing faith-based axiomatic perspectives of the world that approach "religious" regardless of organised dogma... )

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

While I agree with your sentiment, as usual, you really need to explain to me sometime how you figure cognitive bias doesn't apply to "non-religious people".

Now you mention it that is actually a very good point

I stand corrected. People, religious or not, will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of the evidence.

At least they will believe what they want to believe if that belief is important to a foundation of their outlook on life. In this instance this applies to religious people and their religion (to most religious people their religion is an important foundation on their outlook on life), but equally it can also apply to non-religious people.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

I am a Christian in a large part because of historical evidence. If this is the tomb of Christ (a very unlikely situation but...) then Christianity has to pack itself up and die out as instantly as possible.

As i always say about things like this does this not just simply show that the Bible is incorrect about details of Christs life? Which is understandable since it was written years after he died, mostly by people who never meet him.

How says the bones go up to heaven with the body? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't marry Mary? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't have a son. The Bible.

Maybe, just maybe, the Bible is incorrect :eek:

After all don't you all talk to Jesus on a regular basis? Who are you talking to if it isn't God?

Fanny Cradock

From my brief glance at the article it seems that he is assuming that this is Jesus' grave because of a name(s) and no other concrete reason. I have two problems with this:

1) As has been pointed out, you would imagine that these were common names, which proves absolutely nothing beyond coincidence;

2) Assuming this person did claim to be the real Jesus, then applying the same principals to some other nut like David Koresh, who also claimed the same thing, would produce the same results.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

2) Assuming this person did claim to be the real Jesus, then applying the same principals to some other nut like David Koresh, who also claimed the same thing, would produce the same results.

Well back then the name Jesus would have been largely meaningless in relation to the son of God want-a-bes. It would have only become a house hold name as it were years later. So no one would pretend to be Jesus, as Jesus wouldn't have been well known enough for that to happen.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

As i always say about things like this does this not just simply show that the Bible is incorrect about details of Christs life? Which is understandable since it was written years after he died, mostly by people who never meet him.

How says the bones go up to heaven with the body? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't marry Mary? The Bible. Who says Jesus didn't have a son. The Bible.

Maybe, just maybe, the Bible is incorrect :eek:

After all don't you all talk to Jesus on a regular basis? Who are you talking to if it isn't God?

From reading the article I get the impression that the implication of the documentary is that as Jesus' body (or the meagre remains) has been found and, therefore, it debunks the reality of his existence. After all, if he's still there in a tomb in dust form then he never ascended to heaven, and it was all just a lie.

I don't understand your logic. You seem to take exception with the fact that the Bible clearly states certain things about His life, but you seem to ignore that the Bible is fundamental to Christianity. You can't believe in Jesus and take exception to the Bible.

JimiTime

I always find that the big hoo haw that religious leaders and their followers make over things like this just gives them weight. Stuff like this comes and goes all the time. Theres always documentaries floating about saying all sorts. 'Whatever', is what I would say. The world will do what the world will do. I am a christian, and in being a christian I have certain moral standards that alot of people wouldn't agree with, abortian, sexual promiscuity etc would be things I'd reject. In many places these things are socially acceptable. Its like the latest Gay marriage and adoption episodes. I hear religious people come out and say that it undermines their marriage etc. This always gets on my nerves because, as a married man myself, all things outside do not undermine my love for my wife. The reason I don't condone the above is because I have accepted Jesus as my teacher, and God as my moral authority. Enough said. If the powers that be do not recognise God, then so be it. Christians still will. let the world get on with itself, and continue in your Christian life, being an example etc. Some people will disagree with you, mock you, and some will be changed because of you. This is the way I see it anyway. So going back to the OP, I'm not unduly concerned about it, I just hope zealous religious folk don't give it too much weight.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote:

Well back then the name Jesus would have been largely meaningless in relation to the son of God want-a-bes. It would have only become a house hold name as it were years later. So no one would pretend to be Jesus, as Jesus wouldn't have been well known enough for that to happen.

Huh? Largely meaningless? Even if you have no belief in Jesus as a Saviour, then you should at least familiarise with the impact he has in his lifetime. You assume that he had no immediate impact - my beliefs aside - the accepted history tells otherwise.

I would feel that the dates suggested between the time of Christ and the death of the guy in the tomb are anything but a ball park figure. I would imagine that there is quite a large degree of uncertainty when attempting to accurately date the remains of bones.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

From reading the article I get the impression that the implication of the documentary is that as Jesus' body (or the meagre remains) has been found and, therefore, it debunks the reality of his existence.

Surely finding his bones confirms the reality of his existence, not the other way around. After all, apart from the gospels, there is hardly any historical evidence that Jesus actually existed as a single person. If this story is true then it confirms that he did exist, and that the family relationships he had, as described in the Bible, were pretty much spot on (his mother, his father, his brother) etc.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

After all, if he's still there in a tomb in dust form then he never ascended to heaven, and it was all just a lie.

Says who?

I'm unaware that there are rules about how one can and cannot ascend to heaven, and that one must take ones body with them otherwise it isn't a proper ascention.

Why would his body ascend to heaven anyway, that has never made any sense? What would God need with a body?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I don't understand your logic.

you seem to ignore that the Bible is fundamental to Christianity.[/quote]
Says who exactly?

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You can't believe in Jesus and take exception to the Bible.

Again, says who?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Huh? Largely meaningless? Even if you have no belief in Jesus as a Saviour, then you should at least familiarise with the impact he has in his lifetime.

Actually in the grand scheme of things Jesus had a tiny impact in his life time, short as it were. At most he preached to a few thousand people, and would have had no greater influence than the hundreds of other Judeo cults that were springing up all the time.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

You assume that he had no immediate impact - my beliefs aside - the accepted history tells otherwise.

Well considering that there is absolutely no record of Jesus what so ever anywhere out side the gospels except a very brief description of him by a Roman historian recorded 100 or so years after his death (when the church has grown), that would kinda imply that his influence was not that big until quite a bit after he died.

Fanny Cradock wrote:

I would imagine that there is quite a large degree of uncertainty when attempting to accurately date the remains of bones.

There is. But then no more so than anything else from that time, including the Gospels.

Personally I think it is quite unlikely that Jesus was buried at all, as the common practice for cruxification was to be thrown to wild animals. But then we have no idea really. This find is no more or less historically accurate than the gospels. In reality we know almost nothing about the real life of Jesus (assuming he existed and was one person), and we probably never will (until I invent my time machine that is).

Fanny Cradock

From reading the article the implication of the documentary seems to be that finding his bones proves that he was just a person. Do you actually believe that Cameron is going to say that because circa 2000 year old DNA sample was found it proves that he was really the Son of God? Obviously there is a vested interest to the documentary: that is to disprove the claims that Jesus was who he said he was - 'look we found a body' - and supplant the more palatable truth (for certain people) that he did exist, but that he was a liar or mad.

As for the postulation that you can be a Christian and not believe in the Bible, well, I don't even know where to being trying to explain why that is wrong. If you for a moment consider the possibility that there was a Jesus and he did all the things that are written in the Bible, then why is it so unlikely that the Bible was anything other then Divinely inspired, i.e. written by God through man? If you don't believe that the Bible (with all it's difficult teachings) is anything but primary to Christianity then you misunderstand Christianity at it's most elemental level.

hairyheretic

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

As for the story itself ... I suspect that very few minds will be changed by it one way or the other. Those who want to believe will, those who don't want to believe it won't. The truth of the matter seems somewhat irrelevent.

JC 2K3

kelly1 wrote:

Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don't! If you believe Him to be God the Son, then how could you doubt the resurrection?

If you don't believe in the ressurection and aren't a Christian are you not allowed to research Jesus by rational means?

Bradidup

The word of God says it all, but unfortunitally many in this world even Christians will be foolish enough to adhere to Mr Camerons claims.(Fables) .......and others http://www.jesus-is-savior.com

Mark 13 vs 22
For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.


2 timothy 4 Vs 2 to 4.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; : And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

Michael G

No one will take it seriously, except for the hundreds of thousand of learning-difficulties types who think the Da Vinci Code is probably true.

Asiaprod

Wicknight wrote:

Why would his body ascend to heaven anyway, that has never made any sense? What would God need with a body?

Same for me. I have never understood that bit. He came into this world without a body, yet he leaves with one. Surley it is the essence (soul) of the person that would ascended. The only answer I have heard is the quote "He made man in his own image," i.e. he went back in his natural state. Even if they did actually find his body, would it really change anything. I would have thought that finding Jesus' bones would actually be helpful, though I am sure a large number of the hierarchy would not be to happy about the discovery.

GuanYin

It amuses me that those who are so skeptical about claims made without providing solid evidence for peer-reviewal in other disciplines, seem to readily accept these claims of Cameron's.

Honestly, I'm very skeptical, given the vested interest (ermm making money), the profession of the project head (ermm making fictional stories) and the fact that just about every notable academic has dismissed the claims....

Willymuncher

hairyheretic wrote:

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

I've been wondering that myself.

Asiaprod

hairyheretic wrote:

One thing I'm curious about is the DNA claims. Who are they matching this DNA to in order to establish anything?

Willymuncher wrote:

I've been wondering that myself.

According to the official report (www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1611402/posts) they sampled the DNA from the different ossuaries and were able to establish a network of siblings and maternal links between the individuals buried in the tomb. One interestiing facet that is in the report is the discovery of a skeleton laid out still wrapped in a burial shroud. Carbon 14 dating placed the shroud at the first-half of 1AD. Tests also revealed that the remains were of a man, probably of aristocratic birth (i.e. well fed and nutured) that had suffered from leprosy and most probably had died from Tuberculosis.

<Bear in mind that this is the 4th time that the Tomb of Jesus has been discovered>

Dave!

psi wrote:

the fact that just about every notable academic has dismissed the claims....

Have you any links to academics' responses?

I doubt these claims are true but even if they are it won't make a difference, not while people like kelly1 are around.

If it's proven it should be ignored! duhh

KTRIC

I still fail to see how the supposed discovery of the body of Jesus of Nazareth would be a problem for Christians.

He was born of flesh and blood and died for our sins. Then he ascended to heaven, at no point did it say that he brought his earthly body with him.

kelly1

JC 2K3 wrote:

If you don't believe in the ressurection and aren't a Christian are you not allowed to research Jesus by rational means?

Yes, of course anyone can do this, Christian or not. To give any credence to Mr. Cameron's claims however shows a lack of faith. For me personally, I don't need
to look any further into his claims because I have faith in Jesus. He will never be able to prove any of his speculation. The devil and his minions will always do whatever they can to undermine people's faith in Jesus and this will go on until the end of the world.

God bless,
Noel.

kelly1

DaveMcG wrote:

Have you any links to academics' responses?

I doubt these claims are true but even if they are it won't make a difference, not while people like kelly1 are around.

If it's proven it should be ignored! duhh

He has no proof of his claims, has he!? These type of claims keep cropping up all the time and all it does is to sow the seed of doubt in people's minds. There's a spiritual battle going on for our souls!

God bless,
Noel.

Ciaran500

kelly1 wrote:

These type of claims keep cropping up all the time and all it does is to sow the seed of doubt in people's minds. There's a spiritual battle going on for our souls!

Maybe people are just searching for some truth and don't believe the blanket answer that god/the devil is testing us.

Dades

KTRIC wrote:

He was born of flesh and blood and died for our sins. Then he ascended to heaven, at no point did it say that he brought his earthly body with him.

So instead his earthly body stayed on earth, got married and had a family? Riight.

TBH, short of using Wicknight's Time Machine™, this is all just interesting speculation which will probably never be verified one way or the other. The evidence is too shaky to start spouting scripture or shouting 'I told you so'.

Next headline-grabbing claim, please.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

It amuses me that those who are so skeptical about claims made without providing solid evidence for peer-reviewal in other disciplines, seem to readily accept these claims of Cameron's.

Honestly, I'm very skeptical, given the vested interest (ermm making money), the profession of the project head (ermm making fictional stories) and the fact that just about every notable academic has dismissed the claims....

I would agree that it is healthy to be sceptical of the claims. After all as you say Cameron is a film maker looking to make money out of this. You don't make money by claiming you haven't found the tomb of Jesus

To me (an atheist) what is far more interesting about controversies like this is how Christians react to them. The range of responses has been quite fascinating, from people claiming that if this is true it doesn't change their faith at all, to others claiming that to be a Christian one must accept the Bible's telling completely and reject this as untrue hurtful nonsense.

OctavarIan

Wicknight wrote:

To me (an atheist) what is far more interesting about controversies like this is how Christians react to them. The range of responses has been quite fascinating, from people claiming that if this is true it doesn't change their faith at all, to others claiming that to be a Christian one must accept the Bible's telling completely and reject this as untrue hurtful nonsense.

This is true actually. Claims such as these really interest me because I enjoy sitting back and reading the various debates and arguements that follow. Although I am an atheist, I'm more neutral than most (the only thing I can't stand are atheists and theists who are too blind and brainwashed to be open to the others' opinions) I find this Cameron claim to be totally unfounded bull**** He surely must know something that he's yet to reveal, I can't believe someone would sink so low as to try sell this story as a credible documentary. Currently the claims he's made are not in the least bit concrete, surely he can see this?

kelly1 wrote:

To give any credence to Mr. Cameron's claims however shows a lack of faith. For me personally, I don't need
to look any further into his claims because I have faith in Jesus. He will never be able to prove any of his speculation. The devil and his minions will always do whatever they can to undermine people's faith in Jesus and this will go on until the end of the world.

Are you implying that James Cameron is a minion of the devil?

*edit*

KTRIC wrote:

I still fail to see how the supposed discovery of the body of Jesus of Nazareth would be a problem for Christians.

DNA testing could show a link between him and Mary and Joseph, it would really throw the idea of the immaculate conception awry.

Zombrex

OctavarIan wrote:

Are you implying that James Cameron is a minion of the devil?

Didn't Titanic winning 11 Oscars already establish that fact?

seamus

Well, one has to remember that the Bible has been so distorted through the years. Various Popes and Emperors have modified and omitted large sections of Christian doctrine to suit their own means. So in the event that Mr. Cameron (or indeed anyone professing such claims) is actually correct, that doesn't necessarily point to fraudulence on Jesus's part, or otherwise any necessity to "disband" Christianity.

As much as non-Christians love to point at the Bible and pick holes in it, ultimately its just a book of stories. People will always make up myths and exaggerate tales about those whom they consider "great men". This was even moreso true up until our modern era of information. So to say that an entire story is a big pile of rubbish purely because every element doesn't add up, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The actual body of Jesus being found in a tomb with those of his family, would prove little more than "His body didn't ascend to heaven". Which I think most modern Christians tend to accept anyway.

DNA testing could show a link between him and Mary and Joseph, it would really throw the idea of the immaculate conception awry.

This is only an issue for Roman Catholics. The idea of an immaculate conception is disputed by most of the other major branches of Christianity.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Didn't Titanic winning 11 Oscars already establish that fact?

He can't be a minion of Hell, didn't Leonardo die in the end?:D

BrianCalgary

seamus wrote:

Well, one has to remember that the Bible has been so distorted through the years. Various Popes and Emperors have modified and omitted large sections of Christian doctrine to suit their own means. .

This statement has absolutely no foundation in fact.

Can you please provide the following:

Which popes made what changes to the Bible and when?
Which Emporers made which changes and when?
What distortions have been made to the Bible, provide us with the original and what it now says?


Appreciate your input and enlightenment on this topic.

Dave!

kelly1 wrote:

He has no proof of his claims, has he!? These type of claims keep cropping up all the time and all it does is to sow the seed of doubt in people's minds. There's a spiritual battle going on for our souls!

God bless,
Noel.

Firstly, I've already said that I doubt it's true. But it's irrelevent whether or not it's true, because you've already said that if it's proven true, that it should be ignored. This makes you a fundamentalist, BTW, since you'll put the story as revealed in the Bible before actual verifiable facts.

Zombrex

DaveMcG wrote:

Firstly, I've already said that I doubt it's true. But it's irrelevent whether or not it's true, because you've already said that if it's proven true, that it should be ignored. This makes you a fundamentalist, BTW, since you'll put the story as revealed in the Bible before actual verifiable facts.

What is interesting is that if people are prepared to do this now in this day and age it is safe to assume that people were prepared to ignore or alter facts that contradicted with their religious beliefs in ancient times (probably more so).

It is often said that the Bible doesn't record other prophets, the Bible records eyewitnesses, the Bible records miracles, and why would the Bible lie or ignore things that contradicted the divinity of Jesus, as that would make no sense, the early Christians would want to know if they were following a false prophet or not.

Clearly the way some modern Christians react in such a knee jerk fashion to things like this demonstrates that actually no they don't want to know.

GuanYin

DaveMcG wrote:

Have you any links to academics' responses?

I doubt these claims are true but even if they are it won't make a difference, not while people like kelly1 are around.

If it's proven it should be ignored! duhh

Very few independent scholars accepting it - a few have said it *could* be, which is fair enough, but the evidence put forward for scrutiny thus far is lightweight (that a family of people, some of whom with the most common names of the region and era were buried together).

I'd wanna see something alot more concrete than that to accept that the tomb in question is that of a man for whom we know relatively little about in terms of an overall historical perspective.


Scientific American

Indo

Guardian


Google is your friend tbh.

kelly1

DaveMcG wrote:

Firstly, I've already said that I doubt it's true. But it's irrelevent whether or not it's true, because you've already said that if it's proven true, that it should be ignored. This makes you a fundamentalist, BTW, since you'll put the story as revealed in the Bible before actual verifiable facts.

Dave,
you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. How could I refute something that has been proven to be true? We are dealing here with speculation/assumptions, not something proven to be true.

I believe, by faith, that his claims or similar claims will never be proven true because it contradicts the truth written in the bible and what is taught by the Church.

God bless,
Noel.

Tusky

kelly1 wrote:

Basically yes! Ever since the time of Christ, His good name has
been attacked by evil men. This is nothing new. Mr. Cameron can't prove any of his claims because they aren't true.

And can yea Christians prove any of your claims ? Nope.

Either you believe Jesus is who He says He is, or you don't! If you believe Him to be God the Son, then how could you doubt the resurrection?

Im sick of people talking about the bible and Christianity in general as if it were a history book and a work of fact. I welcome things that challenge it. There isnt enough of them in my opinion and I always giggle at the amount of annoyance they seem to cause among the Christian community. Well imagine the annoyance in being agnostic and going to a Cathloic primary/secondary school and living in a massively Catholic country, it has been shoved down our throats for years and I LOVE when documentarys/books/films show up to challenge the ridiculous fairy-tale religious that Christianity is.

Owen

BrianCalgary wrote:

This statement has absolutely no foundation in fact.

Does it not say "King James Version" on the front of most Bibles? The mere fact that the Catholic Church chooses which Gospels are included, and which aren't, is disheartening. AKAIK, the Gnostic Gospels are still not accepted. Bear in mind the flip flopping of the Vatican on issues like Limbo, etc., and you'll see why Athiests perceive the notion of organised religion as a folly of man.

As a former practising Catholic, now an Athiest myself, I find it extraordinarily difficult to resolve the Bible with common sense. I find it difficult to accept that the world was created in 7 days, and is only 6000 years old. I find it difficult to conceive that Noah was 600 at the time of the flood, and that he carried every single type of animal on the Ark in pairs, without needing a Ship the size of the UK, and somehow managed to prevent them from preying on one another. I find it difficult to understand Jesus wandering exactly 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, not 37.6 days, and 37 nights - that he somehow timed it perfectly. It's only when you look at this stories through the thought process of common sense that you realise that men must have had an input in their notation, and distribution - after all 40 days and 40 nights is much more symbolic and dramatic than a realistic figure, isn't it?

Catholics blindly clinging to the Bible as an absolute will only result in one thing, more Catholics growing, and leaving the faith. You must be willing to accept the possibility that there are mistakes in your Doctrine. You must also be willing to accept that the world can change, and that the faith must move to grow and change with the world it finds itself in.

Was it not Pope Leo X who said "This myth of Christ has served us well"?

Owen

kelly1 wrote:

I believe, by faith, that his claims or similar claims will never be proven true because it contradicts the truth written in the bible and what is taught by the Church.

It saddens me so much to see this defense always touted by Catholics. If anyone argues/debates/challenges what the Vatican tells you to believe, you hold up your bible, put on ear muffs, and proclaim "La la la, I'm not listening, if you don't agree with what my faith is teaching, then you must be wrong, and sod all your evidence". Catholicism teaches mutual respect, understanding, but also teaches blind faith.

The Bible is a book written by men, distributed by men, and interpreted by men. Have the faith in yourself, and your God, that you are created intelligently enough to have other ideas yourself, and challenge what you are fed, with what you conceive. It is why we have free will.

kelly1

Tusky wrote:

I LOVE when documentarys/books/films show up to challenge the ridiculous fairy-tale religious that Christianity is.

And I suppose you can prove that Christianity is a ridiculous fairy tale, can you? Not likely!

Owen

kelly1 wrote:

And I suppose you can prove that Christianity is a ridiculous fairy tale, can you? Not likely!

I could. But then I'd be banned for Trolling.

kelly1

ned78 wrote:

It saddens me so much to see this defense always touted by Catholics. If anyone argues/debates/challenges what the Vatican tells you to belive, you hold up your bible, put on ear muffs, and proclaim "La la la, I'm not listening, if you don't agree with what my faith is teaching, then you must be wrong, and sod all your evidence". Catholicism teaches mutual respect, understanding, but also teaches blind faith.

This is another mis-representation. What is this "evidence" that your refer to?
The Catholic religion is based on faith AND reason.

Owen

kelly1 wrote:

This is another mis-representation. What is this "evidence" that your refer to?
The Catholic religion is based on faith AND reason.

I didn't refer to any evidence at all Noel, I made a simple argument that if someone of fundamentalist beliefs were to be faced with concrete hard hitting evidence, that they would refute it unless it was accepted by the Vatican - that is the blind faith, and lack of intelligent thought I detested. The Catholic church is based on faith and morals - and bravo to it for standing firm on those tenets.

Reason has little to do with it. Reason implies independent thought. Not regurgitating what you've been conditioned to believe since you were baptised.

Dr Pepper

Tusky wrote:

And can yea Christians prove any of your claims ? Nope.



Im sick of people talking about the bible and Christianity in general as if it were a history book and a work of fact. I welcome things that challenge it. There isnt enough of them in my opinion and I always giggle at the amount of annoyance they seem to cause among the Christian community. Well imagine the annoyance in being agnostic and going to a Cathloic primary/secondary school and living in a massively Catholic country, it has been shoved down our throats for years and I LOVE when documentarys/books/films show up to challenge the ridiculous fairy-tale religious that Christianity is.

Seconded..

Furthermore, in relation to the common-ness of the names of the time (and I don't believe most people who used this argument have the faintest notion how common certain names are in Israel now let alone 2000 years ago), it doesn't take an athiest to realise that the significance of finding a combination of 3 or 4 'holy family' names in one tomb is greater than that of finding a single 'Jesus' or 'Mary' grave.

That said, I am as sceptical as any Christian on here about the ligitimacy of Cameron's claims (that's why I'm an athiest! )

kelly1 wrote:

you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. How could I refute something that has been proven to be true? We are dealing here with speculation/assumptions, not something proven to be true.

So how do you explain your belief in the bible's fairytales?.. Oh yeh.. 'faith'. kelly1, you do your fellow Christians no favours here. ned78 has given you some good advice..

kelly1

ned78 wrote:

I didn't refer to any evidence at all Noel, I made a simple argument that if someone of fundamentalist beliefs were to be faced with concrete hard hitting evidence, that they would refute it unless it was accepted by the Vatican - that is the blind faith, and lack of intelligent thought I detested.

I'm not a fundamentalist! For instance I don't belive the universe was created in 6 days. The bible is primarily a spiritual book not a scientific text.

BrianCalgary

ned78 wrote:

Does it not say "King James Version" on the front of most Bibles? The mere fact that the Catholic Church chooses which Gospels are included, and which aren't, is disheartening. AKAIK, the Gnostic Gospels are still not accepted. Bear in mind the flip flopping of the Vatican on issues like Limbo, etc., and you'll see why Athiests perceive the notion of organised religion as a folly of man."?

Most Bibles in my church say NIV. But that does nothing for your argument that it was changed. Still waiting by whom and when?

limbo was a doctrine that had no Biblical foundation. The theology was changed not the Bible.

Then try an independant denomination if you hate organised religion.

ned78 wrote:

As a former practising Catholic, now an Athiest myself, I find it extraordinarily difficult to resolve the Bible with common sense. I find it difficult to accept that the world was created in 7 days, and is only 6000 years old. I find it difficult to conceive that Noah was 600 at the time of the flood, and that he carried every single type of animal on the Ark in pairs, without needing a Ship the size of the UK, and somehow managed to prevent them from preying on one another. I find it difficult to understand Jesus wandering exactly 40 days and 40 nights in the desert, not 37.6 days, and 37 nights - that he somehow timed it perfectly. It's only when you look at this stories through the thought process of common sense that you realise that men must have had an input in their notation, and distribution - after all 40 days and 40 nights is much more symbolic and dramatic than a realistic figure, isn't it?"?

There are those who accept a literal history within the first few books of Genesis and others who don't. How is it difficult to believe Jesus was in the desert for 40 days and 40 nights. Go on to any travel website and you'll see, on North American ones anyway: 15 nights and 15 days in Mexico. Now if you wanted to figure it out to the hour you arrive to the hour you leave, it would be different than the 15 days, but the point is clearly understood.

ned78 wrote:

Catholics blindly clinging to the Bible as an absolute will only result in one thing, more Catholics growing, and leaving the faith. You must be willing to accept the possibility that there are mistakes in your Doctrine. You must also be willing to accept that the world can change, and that the faith must move to grow and change with the world it finds itself in.

Was it not Pope Leo X who said "This myth of Christ has served us well"?

I can accept that there are errors in my doctrine. I just need someone to establish a clear concise argument against it. It certainly doesn't appear that kelly1 is accepting blindly, he certainly has well presented arguments. you do him a disservice.

Can you back up seamus claims of th echanges in the Bible, by whom and when?

It appears that you are rejecting the Bible quite blindly without foundation.