 |
|
|
|
 A reliquary box thought to have been used to carry the bones of John the Baptist.
June 22nd, 2012
07:55 AM ET
Bulgarian bones could be John the Baptist's as claimed, scientists sayBy Richard Allen Greene, CNN (CNN)– When the tools of modern science are applied to religious relics, the results are almost always the same: Science says the relics aren't what their supporters claim. The most famous of them all, the Turin Shroud, is widely regarded as a Middle Ages forgery, and even the Catholic Church does not insist the shroud was actually used to wrap the body of Jesus himself. So when Bulgarian archeologists announced two years ago that they had found the bones of John the Baptist, Tom Higham was skeptical. He got a surprise. Higham, an Oxford University scientist and an atheist who doesn't believe in "any kind of religion or God or anything like that," was asked to test six small bone fragments found on an island named Sveti Ivan - St. John. CNN's Belief Blog: the faith angles behind the big stories The bones turned out to be from a man who lived in the Middle East at the same time as Jesus, Higham said. "We got a date that was exactly where it should be, right in the middle of the first century," said Higham, a radiocarbon dating expert. It's not proof that they belonged to John the Baptist, since there's no DNA database of early Christian saints, the archeologist who found the bones said. But the mere fact that the testing didn't prove the bones are fakes is unusual. Archeologist Kazimir Popkonstantinov led the team that found them under the altar of a fifth century basilica on Sveti Ivan, a Black Sea island off Sozopol on the south coast of Bulgaria. The bones were in a reliquary, a container for holy relics, with a tiny sandstone box. Written on the box in Greek were the words, "God, save your servant Thomas. To St. John. June 24."  Scientists take samples of the bones for radiocarbon and genetic analysis. The date is the Christian feast day of John the Baptist, believed to be his birthday. When the bones were found in 2010, Popkonstantinov said it was "logical to suggest that the founders of the monastery did their best to bring relics of its patron saint." Higham, the deputy director of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, got involved because a colleague knew the Bulgarian archeologists. National Geographic was also interested, so it provided funding for more extensive testing than Higham originally planned, and made a film about the project. Radiocarbon dating showed that the bones were from the right period to be from John the Baptist, Higham said, while genetic testing showed it was a man and all the bones were from the same person. DNA testing by colleagues at the University of Copenhagen suggested that the person was most likely to have been from the Middle East, he said. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter More detailed nuclear DNA testing could pin down his location even more accurately, Higham said, but "does cost quite a lot of money." There is reasonably good historical evidence that John the Baptist, whom Christians believe baptized his cousin Jesus, did exist, said Paul Middleton, a senior lecturer in Biblical studies at the University of Chester. All four gospels and the contemporary Jewish historian Josephus say he was beheaded on the orders of the ruler Herod Antipas, Middleton said when the bones were found. The six small bones are far from the only relics purporting to belong to him. Four locations, from a mosque in Damascus, Syria, to a museum in Munich, Germany, claim to have his head, while the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul, Turkey, has a relic alleged to be his right arm. A monastery in Montenegro says it has his right hand, while another in Egypt has a crypt containing relics of the saint. Tom Higham says he can test them to see if they match. "We have a complete genome. It's possible that we could step this a step further and see if there is any similarity," in the genetic material of all the relics. "We've sort of got interested in this. It's not beyond the realms of possibility, and we know that there were relics moving out of the Middle East in the fourth and fifth century," he said. But for him, the project remains a purely scientific one. "I'm an atheist," he said. "I perceive this as an archeological dating problem. We have some bones and we're trying to get as much information out of them as we can." CNN's Simon Hooper and Susannah Palk contributed to this report.
« Previous entryBelief Blog's Morning Speed Read for Friday, June 22
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
For me...
I Follow Christ . I never wanted proof. I just had faith.
HE WHO follows Me, walks not in darkness,” says the Lord (John 8:12). By these words
of Christ we are advised to imitate His life and habits, if we wish to be truly enlightened and
free from all blindness of heart. Let our chief effort, therefore, be to study the life of Jesus
Christ.
The teaching of Christ is more excellent than all the advice of the saints, and he who
has His spirit will find in it a hidden manna. Now, there are many who hear the Gospel often
but care little for it because they have not the spirit of Christ. Yet whoever wishes to understand
fully the words of Christ must try to pattern his whole life on that of Christ.
What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you
displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a man holy and just, but a virtuous
life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it.
For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the
philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity,
except to love God and serve Him alone.
This is the greatest wisdom—to seek the kingdom of heaven through contempt of the
world. It is vanity, therefore, to seek and trust in riches that perish. It is vanity also to court
honor and to be puffed up with pride. It is vanity to follow the lusts of the body and to desire
things for which severe punishment later must come. It is vanity to wish for long life and
to care little about a well-spent life. It is vanity to be concerned with the present only and
not to make provision for things to come. It is vanity to love what passes quickly and not
to look ahead where eternal joy abides.
Often recall the proverb: “The eye is not satisfied with seeing nor the ear filled with
hearing.”1 Try, moreover, to turn your heart from the love of things visible and bring
yourself to things invisible. For they who follow their own evil passions stain their consciences
and lose the grace of God.
See for yourself.
Pfft. Drivel.
No these are not the bones of John the Baptist. In the 1830s John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and put his hands on their heads to restore the Aaronic Priesthood to the earth. This was giving them the authority to baptise which had been taken from the earth. In order to have flesh and bones, to have hands to put on someones head, the person could not be a spirit but had to be a resurrected person. Therefore Johns bones would not be on earth but would be with him at this time, as he now is a resurrected person. He actually touched their heads with the bones in his hands.
Hilarious!
Religion is "magical" thinking. It is not logical and is based on things that you can never know. Accepting things as fact that you can't know, may give you a "boost" or a type of high. It's a type of surrendering one's self, which can be liberating, but is purely a reaction to dopamine being released in the brain. When people have large releases of dopamine, they become memorable events, some life changing. That does not make the perceived events true. The bones found, could be in fact the man called John the Baptist. That does not make anything that he did, or for that matter, what Jesus did, facts. People from all cultures are taught myths from birth, the purpose of which is to keep their societies working. The Jesus Myth teaches people to love, not steal, treat others as you would have them treat you, and more. These are all good rules to live by, but it is not necessary to believe in Jesus, Mohammed, or any profit or saint to be a good and humane person.
What you term magical I would call spiritual. It really is a mystery and when looked at without the holy spirit it does not compute. You must believe before you can communicate with God through his holy spirit. That trips a lot of folks up. The holy spirit does have a physical effect on the body and I don’t doubt that it could cause a release of dopamine. Jesus was crucified for us to obtain forgiveness for sins and God raised him from the dead for our justification. If you believe that you can receive the holy spirit and you won’t think of him as a myth. I agree with you that people can be good from a human perspective without believing in Jesus. The difference is what humans call good or moral is one thing and what God calls good or holy is something entirely different.
@Robert Brown
LOL First you need to believe then you'll be able to believe more. LOL Ever hear of circular arguments? Oh I just love that stupid assertion.
Mr. Brown,
The definition of "Spiritual" is completely subjective and therefore in essence meaningless.
Hey HawaiiGuest,
Hope you are doing well. In case you forgot, I really try not to argue. Instead, I try to share what I have learned about God. If I could explain why some believe and some do not, wouldn’t that be something? I do believe you have to have some faith to obtain more. Even if it is only the belief that there could be a God to start with, some is better than none. He said, seek and you will find, not deny and you will find.
Hello Just Claims, No Truth,
I hope you a doing good too. I was using spiritual as in the holy spirit of God. Folks use spiritual in a lot of secular contexts, so thanks for pointing that out.
@Robert
Sorry, but a belief that you need to believe to believe is just plain stupid.
Mr. Brown,
Can you name one other area in the human experience where it is good advice to believe something before it is possible to 'prove' it and why that should not be considered delusion?
Just Claims, No Truth,
Sure, if I am the cable guy and I say I am coming to your house between 10 and 2 to hook you up. You will believe that I am coming. Now, if I don’t show up you may be a little skeptical going forward. But either way, how could I prove to you that I was going to be there? You had to trust that I would.
Mr. Brown that is not religious faith. That is an expectation based on evidence and not what I was refering to, but you know that and you are just being intellectually dishonest. You are asking people to believe before they are given religious proof which if done the way you ask is just confirmation bias.
nicely put. To match the analogy, you would have to wake up some morning, truly believe the cable guy is coming that day between 10 and 2 WHILE never actually calling the cable company to confirm that. You just BELIEVED he would show up at that time. You had no real physical indication that he would show up however, you're just sure he will because you believe he will........
Literal,
It is worse than that, there would have to be no real cable company, only one that people tell you is there and that you have to meditate and believe they will come, then when they don't show up after weeks, months and years of meditating, you give up and stop believing they are actually going to come. Then the believers in the cable company tell you that you never REALLY believed in the cable campany and you wern't meditating correctly.
Just Claims, No Truth: Thanks for the analogy expansion, agree totally.
Oh, I also forgot that we are then told we are close minded to the possibility that the cable company really does exist, and we are actually angry at the cable company we can't find any evidence for.
Hah! It does get silly when you run it to that logical conclusion, doesn't it? So it sounds like we have a number of people just not willing to run the logical thought experiment to it's conclusion. (I.E. this exit looks good and I'm tired of driving, why not just stop here?)
For you. From my heart.
A thought to consider without an ego response
Accept Jesus christ as your lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
The world denounces truth....
Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.
Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.
The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.
Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners.
We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .
Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
See the truth...
do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from som other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..
Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .
Trancsend the temporal world.
Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .
Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.
Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith above reason in Jesus Christ.
Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....
Read Ecclesiastes. Read corinthians.
You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.
Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are in christ.
I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .
Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?
Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.
once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it
You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus
my testimony
Romans 10:9
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved
""If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved"
So god will reward all those who are gullible that believe on faith alone. That is not kind it is cruel.
IAMEN BROTHER!! AGREE WITH YOUR POST WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!
When I was a child, my mom made me eat SPAM. I hated SPAM. To this day I hate SPAM. I detest SPAM. I loath SPAM. When I think of SPAM, I throw up a little in my mouth.
All you do is SPAM board after board. If there is a god, I hope she hates SPAM as much as I do. I hope she smites you with boils and locusts.
Ooooh, don't run @kindness off. At least when she/he is here she/he is not on our front doorsteps.
But from my POV jesus is not a lord, certainly beyond any doubt he not my lord at any rate.
Primewonk wrote, “Your bible claims the god first created the heavens and the earth. Science show that the earth didn't form until the universe was already 9,000,000,000 years old.”
Verse 1 in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now stop. According to prominent theologians no time line here, it just says in one very short sentence that he created the universe. Why mention the earth specifically? Could it be that this is where he planned to create man? The bible was written for us. Why wouldn’t he mention it specifically? Theologians also believe that verse 2 is the second creation of life on the earth.
Primewonk wrote, “Your bible claims the sun was formed on the "4th" day after the earth poofed in existence. Science shows that the earth formed from the accretion disk that formed the sun. Your bible claims that liquid water existed on earth before the sun was made by god. Science shows that this is false. There is not enough geothermal energy in the earth for there to be liquid water without the sun. Your bible claims that vegetation existed on the surface of the earth before a photon source to drive photosynthesis (sun) existed. Science shows that vegetation could not exist on the surface of the earth without the sun.”
You have conveniently ignored the first day 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. Granted the sun, moon, and stars are on the fourth day. Anything said about this would be speculation, I just wanted to point out that light was present on day one.
Overall the Bible is the account of the redemption of man and God intentionally didn’t explain to us his creation. There are 66 books in the bible. In the first 11 chapters of the first book 2000+ years were covered. In the whole rest of the bible another 2000 years. Obviously, creation was not the main subject. Rather, that Jesus died for our sins and was raised for our justification. Some believe, some don’t, it is a mystery.
Ok so photons are day one then.... Granted the sun, moon, and stars are on the fourth day. .. = bs
So I ignored your fact that god created light on the first "day"?
God, you fundiots are nutters! The universe was way too hot and way too dense for there to be light in the beginning. In fact, the universe had to cool and expand for 300,000 YEARS in order for their to be visible light.
Just because YOU choose to be ignorant about science, don't expect the rest of us to be ignorant.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth Genesis 1:1. Now stop. According to J. Vernon McGee in his bible commentary this was the original creation of the universe, one short sentence to describe the entirety of what we can perceive. His thought is that the following verses that describe the six day events are the remake of the original, or the second time life was created on earth. No mention is made of what happened but he surmises it must have been a terrible catastrophe. When he described this I thought of when Satan and his angels were thrown out of heaven into the earth. He points out several things that support his thought and I recommend if you are interested to listen to his commentary on Genesis for the full description. I will attempt to describe what I gleaned from his work. First, the word “bara” (not sure of the exact spelling this is what it sounded like) which translates to create or make from nothing is used only three times in the creation story. It is used in the above verse, in verse 21 concerning the creation of all the animals, fish, and birds, etc., and finally in the creation of humans. Secondly, verse 2 says “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” According to McGee, the word from the original manuscripts for “moved upon” actually means to brood over. Third, verse 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Notice the word replenish in verse 28. God would have no reason to tell them to replenish the earth if it wasn’t being redone. He could have just said fill the earth.
All of this causes just as many questions as it attempts to answer. Has life on earth been created and destroyed either partially or entirely twice already? Could this explain some of the findings of scientists who now say the universe is billions of years old? How old was Adam when he was created? Eve? How old were the rocks when created? the universe?
How long is a day for God? An Infinite God.
It doesn't matter if they were in the same time period, or even from the Middle East. They will never be able to prove it was John the Baptist's bones so why are they wasting money on this?
Believe in Christ and go to heaven. Don't believe and burn in hell. The choice is yours. Bob Seger did a song especially for all you non believing atheists called "Fire Down Below". How totally fitting. Have FUN!!
Thank you for sharing your delusion.
@Greg
Yes we are well aware that the god you worship is an immoral asshat.
Another talibangelical fundiot who doesn't understand Pascal's Gambit isn't valid.
Wanna buy the Brooklin bridge? I'll write down in a book that its for sale so you will believe me.
Pascal's Wager:
In effect, Pascal's wager states that while we can't know with absolute certainty whether the christian god exists, a rational evaluation should lead to a belief. If having to choose between believing (in the christian god), or not believing, the reward for being correct, and the price for being wrong, tips the balance in favor of believing.
It says, if you believe and are correct, you will gain heaven, while the price for being wrong is nothing. On the other hand, if you don't believe, it says you will gain nothing for being right, yet lose everything if you are wrong. So, belief results in a win/neutral, and non-belief in a neutral/lose position, tipping the balance clearly in favor of the "belief" position.
Why Pascal's Wager is a fallacy:
a) Pascal's Wager assumes that there are only two options.
b) Pascal's Wager assumes the christian god doesn't care whether someone actually believes, or simply goes through the motions.
c) Pascal's Wager discounts the price paid for belief before death.
d) Pascal's Wager vastly overestimates the odds for the reward and the risk of punishment.
Positing only two options is ridiculous. There are, of course, thousands of possibilities when it comes to gods. Based on the evidence available for these gods, it is not reasonable to assume one is more likely than any of the others. To increase the odds of a positive outcome of this wager, the believer would have to believe in, and worship, every possible god. Including the ones that haven't been invented yet. Aside from the drain on the available time, it presents the problem that quite a few of these gods are pretty selfish. They frown upon believers believing in other gods. In some religions that is enough to not be eligible for the reward (making the belief position a lose/neutral one).
Also, just going through the motions and pretending to believe may fool your community, but it can't fool an all-knowing god. It is very unlikely that anyone would gain the ultimate reward for simply faking belief (making the belief position a lose/neutral one).
The price paid for the belief position isn't nothing. It involves going through the rituals, day after day, week after week. It may have severe side effects on physical and mental health. Sex life suffers, too.
In estimating whether the cost of any given action is worth it, an evaluation of risk versus reward is in order.
Risk is (simplistically) the chance that a negative event occurs, multiplied by the cost of that event. As an example, being hit by a meteorite carries a very high cost (probably death), but since the odds are extremely low, the risk associated with it is low. Similarly, the chance of getting rained on is pretty high, but the cost is very low, representing also a low risk. On the other hand the cost and chances of, and therefore the risk associated with, a traffic accident are high.
The choice whether to mitigate a risk depends on, among other things, the severity of the risk, the cost of the mitigation and the tolerance of that risk. In the above examples, the cost to mitigate each risk are; exorbitant, low and high, respectively. Methods to reduce or eliminate the risk of meteorite impacts are cost prohibitive and far exceed the risk. An umbrella and a check of the weather forecast effectively mitigate the risk of getting rained on, and is easily worth the cost. Car crashes, and their after-effects are mitigated to various degrees by expensive technology (from street surface technology to driver training, airbags and traction control). People bear those costs to their financial ability and tolerance for the risk.
A similar reasoning applies to reward. The choice whether to pursue a reward is guided by the perception value of the reward, the perception of the odds of gaining the reward and the cost to pursue it.
In the belief versus non-belief question, believers tend to irrationally overestimate both the reward for belief, and the risk associated with non-belief.
Well aren't you a nice person. What a great representative for your cult.
@LinCA: You sound like an awesome person to have a lengthy and investigative debate. We would probably agree much more than disagree but when we disagree, at least I would know your position is logically based.
@Literal
Thanks.
Josephus was born after Jesus and John the Baptist were already dead, he's no witness. He wrote about the existence of Christians and what they believed, but he's not some reputable historian. If I wrote an essay on what I've learned about WWII, it doesn't make my account historically accurate. I wasn't there. It's a retelling. This article is stupid. Richard Greene is stupid.
who cares if it even it the bones of John the BAPTIZER not "baptist". God said to have no graven images or any of the like before Him. people will try and worship mans bones.... but they will not worship God the King of all? hmm seems a little obscure to me. oh and no one cares what atheist think... haha
And where and when did "he" say this? The Babble you say? Thanks, that's all I need to know!
Kabob, that really stings! Everyone should care what good and decent atheists think. We are the guiding hand of wisdom here on earth. We created all the things that make the lives of drooling, slack-jawed evangelicals better through science, industry, and hard work. Left to your own devices, you'd still be living in caves and gathering berries. Atheists have carried you and their shoulders for millenia. It's time to fall to your knees and thank us. You're welcome.
If you want to be the biblical literalist, how is a bone "a graven image"?
I think its absolutely hilarious that these ignorant athiests making comments believe that their "facts" are based on hard evidence. Unless you went out yourself with the knowledge of radiocarbon dating or any other kind of dating and discovered for yourself the supposed "age of the earth" or other supposed "scientific facts" with absolute certainty you're a hypocrite at best for bashing faith. You're basing your entire belief system on something a whole bunch of self-justified scholars have been coming up with for the past 200 years. All the while the education they each receive over time becomes...hmmm outdated and incorrect? You make me laugh and not just some kind of chuckle. I get a serious rise out of your infantile behaviour and lack of any real logic. You know the definition of faith and are honestly too stubborn and ignorant to even realize you have plenty of it! Faith in your fellow man. Faith in your BOOKS! Oh no! What?! You base your beliefs on a book filled with a bunch of words written by...MEN? DUH DUH DUH! Just keep letting that Hypocricy flow boys and girls. It really gets people like me off to see you make such giant fools of yourself. It must also really burn your britches to know more people believe in God than in nothing like you pathetic bunch. Its cool either way though at least the people who cling to faith aren't in denial like you sorry bunch.
Our books were written by man, we do not claim that some magical mystical deity used someone's hand to author them. If "god" wanted to write a book, why use man to do it? Just "blink" and whoop there it is, right?
had a rough night ?
Us "ignorant atheists" are smart enough to know that you don't use radiocarbon dating to determine the age of the earth.
Look Sparky, we get it. You choose to be ignorant about science. And because you choose to be ignorant, you think others should be ignorant as well.
You need to stop getting your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world. The problem is that "Pastor Dave"" is just as ignorant about science as you are.
Easy boy, do ye not know what spirit ye are of? We shall not cut off their ears.
Bein' Hypocrite since 06/26, I'm going to give you a list. Pick the ones that are real and pick the ones that are fantasy. Here goes: God, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, Tinker Bell, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, donkeys, and leprechauns.
The answer is:
Real: donkeys
Fantasy: God, Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Jesus, Tinker Bell, the Easter Bunny, unicorns & leprechauns
WOW, That has got to be the stupidest thing I ever read !! Im glad Im an athiest !!
Get a load of this jabroni
Hard evidence when your sourcebook is a collection of translated, edited iron age hearsay? That is amusing
You are so right,
I am going to stop believing the Earth goes around the Sun and not the other way around because since I didn't do the work how can I be sure it is true?
You know what else, I am going to stop using moderm medicine like antibiotics and I suggest you do the same.
By your logic... all people convicted of murder should be let go, because the jurists, didn't do the forensic work themselves... Now... who is thinking logically?
Oh... and by the way... just because a majority of people believe in a god, doesn't make it so... your argument is an ad populum logical fallacy, and can be tossed out... I'll break it down for you... a majority of Germans, prior to WW2 believed that their problems derived from the Jewish population... did that make it true?
@NTJC
Your correct in saying many people leave their faith. This is not a new concept. Some people leave their faith because life gets them to busy and they drift away from it. Others like yourself go atheist and take it a step further and campaign against the idea of God. Whatever the case maybe life redirects people and some choose to leave the faith. One of the main problems with the church is not emphasizing enough that being of the faith doesn't exonerate you from hardships. Being of the faith is demanding and requires devotion, its not easy. The easiest path is to live godless; nothing is required for this lifestyle. You set your own guidelines and devote what you see fit. Either way those who hold on to their faith out number those who denounce God. It makes no difference people come and go, though all are welcome not all will hold on till the end.
@Rich
Correct the majority doesn't get it right all the time and the same can be said for the minority. I agree its a lame argument.
"Being of the faith is demanding and requires devotion, its not easy. The easiest path is to live godless"
Chance,
I can just as easily claim that living with "faith" is easier. Either you make up your own reality, or accept what someone else tells you is true and in either case you don't have to actually do the work to determine what is real. Then you have the biggest ally on your side , the creator of the universe, whom you have a PERSONAL relationship with (a concept you claim is humble) who is going to reward you for eternity and punish those who he (and you, convieniently) disagrees with. I could go on but I think I made my point.
@NTJC
The key your leaving out is when someone goes through a difficult situation; then they are faced to continue or to abandon faith. Inevitably you will face trouble so your case is flawed about faith being easier. The fact that life will give you challenges but yet you must hold on to faith is the difference. If I live godless everything that happens has no weight of God looking over you. In faith you believe that God is looking over you and when trouble comes you question it. So as you can see your argument is flawed. Please try again.
Chance,
Christianity is nonsense, that is why I left, it had nothing to do with having difficulties in life.
Chance, you will never understand that your logic is circular. I understand that, organized religion requires circular logic.
@NTJC
this is just one example of why people leave the faith.
@Lit
circular logic argument is irrelevant I'm simply stating the reason why some leave faith; circular logic is child's play.
The journalist's claim that the Shroud of Turin is "widely believed to be a medieval forgery" is misleading, since the shroud is also "widely believed" not to be a forgery. There are conflicting studies on the issue. In 2005 the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta published a study that supported the shroud's genuineness (news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4210369.stm). There are other studies that have reached the same conclusion. The much-publicized 1987 carbon-dating study that supposedly proved the contrary has been criticized as using faulty methods; some parts of the shroud were rewoven in the Middle Ages, and the sample that was carbon-dated may have been inadvertently taken from one of those parts. The Vatican neither affirms nor denies the shroud's genuineness, for the simple reason that it recognizes its lack of competence to decide the issue.
Bang on the money, but when you are trying to "prove" something don't let facts get in the way. True journalism.
This is not the bone or relic of St. John the Baptist, I can justify with the Holy Spirit because I AM the justifier who will justify to whatever that science can not do with the help of the Holy Spirit from God Almighty the Father, the most powerful in the universe. The creator of all things in heaven and in earth! The Shroud of Turin is not also the cloth used by Jesus Christ...believe me. If you don't believe fine and I don't need any arguments. SHALOM!
You're rambling. A long hard night of drinking, pal?
Venerating body parts seems to be sick and ghoulish
It's like Christian taxidermy.
Now we must look fot the bones of Hercules. Then the Ark of the Covenant . LOL
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen
Faith is the acceptance of a claim without evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary.
Indeed faith is. And yet it is not necessary for anything.
There is no evidence at all. Do you make this stuff up?
Jimbo, there is no evidence at all. Do you make this stuff up?
& Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Religion and Science exist because humans do not like loose ends. Science is for people able to comprehend the world around them to a certain degree, religion is for the great mass of ignorant immortal vermin that plague our species.
heil hitler!
Yes, main Fuher. Religious people are the most dangerous of all!
More dangerous than the Nazis! More dangerous than the secular Soviet regime! More dangerous than Maoist China!
Religion is responsible for more wars and war deaths than anything. It is only surpassed by WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietname, Cold War proxy wars, 1812, American Revolution, French Revolution, 100 Years War, etc.
My new favorite definition: Faith is pretending to know about things you do not know about!
Robert Brown: People have all sorts of different faiths. Are they all from the word of god?
We all have faith or hope for things that are yet to pass. Faith is not exclusive to religion.
@TD to tough intellect is childish.
Sam Stone, Jim gave the biblical definition of faith. I just pointed out the biblical way to obtain faith. The biblical use of the word faith and the secular use of the word faith can and do differ.
Hello god, you there? Helllooooooo?!?!?
Sorry no gods are speaking to me... I think you are pretending to know something about which you do not know! :^))
Here's proof God doesn't exist. . . . If there is a God, Strike me now! . . . . . . Still here!
WOW that's funny and true hahahahahahahahahahahahawwww. Who says the truth can't be funny
You see, when you strike a pose such as that you are implying that GOD needs to answer your request to prove his own being. And therein lies your mistake, because you are NOT equal to GOD, and thus have no right to request him doing anything, much as you'd like to. Understand? Probably not.
How do you know that God isn't just ignoring you so he can laugh at you later? It would make a great punchline in heaven.
Really Jersey? And how do you know you haven't been lied to all your life? How do you know that absolutely no repercussions exist? Answer: you don't. You just insist that you are right, because being unsure is scary, and ooooh, if you're unsure, maybe you`'re wrong, but, pah, you can't be wrong because you BELIEVE!!!! Sounds very arrogant to me....
The proof I have that God is... and Jesus is His son and the bible is real and true... is my experience. Faith begins and perpetuates a believer's walk with God. However the change of one's character and thought processes are the eventual "proof" that the faith was / is in fact proved to the individual. God does ask / stipulate that a person "believe" without "proof" as the world calls it... however when a person decides to believe. God will always give that person a foundation that allows that faith to become more firm and confident. There is a catch "22" as it were to believing in God and understanding His word... you must decide to believe Him first. When a person does this He, God then gives them the ability to understand Him and their own selves. Jesus is Lord! No doubt. Michael
Get a grip, Mikey. Do you also believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy? Each has equal proof of existence to your Magic Dad and Lard Jesus.
Exactly the same reasoning that a Muslim gives regarding Allah. Also the same as a Hindu would give regarding Vishnu or Ganesh. Early Native American myths by the Cherokee make the same claim. Everyone claims to "know" that their particular God exists based upon "experience" or "hearing the word" or "grace."
Consequently, whenever this is brought up, the "faithful" will always retort with "I know I am right because I hear the word, experience the grace, or am saved by sacrifice or some other self affirming nonsense. There is a point, where you have to look at all religions and realize that, more or less, every person is using the same terms and concepts to prove their faith to the exclusion of all other faiths. It's like two children playing tag and one says, "Tag, you're it." The other replies, "Tag, you're it times infinity," Of course the retort will be, "Tag, you're it times infinity plus one."
Eventually, you just have to come to the realization that humans enjoy creating these delusions because we are all afraid of death.
Subjective experience is not proof.
Mike, talking yourself into believing something before you have reason to believe it is the receipe for delusion. Show me one other area in your life, besides religion, where this is sage advice?
This is truly the first time I have ever heard of a 'catch-22' situation being described as a 'good thing'. Joseph Heller, please forgive him.
Faith is defined as unquestioned acceptance, even in the absence of proof. Therefore, I don't understand why Atheists always try to argue with people of faith over the existence of "God". Christians Believe (i.e., have faith) that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Saviour. Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing will ever change that. The same goes for Atheists. To all the Christians, your proclamations that the non-believers are somehow less moral and will end up in hell is pointless. If you tell me the boogey-man is going to get me if i don't act a certain way, but I don't believe in the boogey man exists, why would it matter what you tell me? If i don't believe it to begin with why would I fear it?
Why do you insult each other so when there is no definitive proof either way? Whether it Creationism or the Big-Bang comes down to what you believe. Whether it's scientific data about how the universe formed, or scriptures written decades after the lifetimes of the individuals in the bible....Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, Agnostic,...it comes down to your individual belief in what you've seen, heard, and experienced, and how strongly you do or do not believe in it
It comes down to critical thinking. If there's no proof of something (unicorns) it makes sense to disbelieve until proof is provided. Same deal for god. Disbelief/atheism is the more logical position. Faith can be used to believe in anything–as is demonstrated by countless spiritual beliefs around the globe.
I agree. I also think that arguing faith with logic is pointless. For the believer, faith becomes conviction, which somehow transforms into truth in their mind and no matter what proof you present, their "truth" cannot be contradicted or criticized.
I think science is more flexible, allowing for variation pending new discoveries and theories. IMHO this world is a beautiful combination of both the scientific and mystic. I believe in the scientific discoveries that have been made while acknowledging that there are still things science has yet to prove
Is everything true until you prove it isn't? Or is nothing true until you prove it is? Are atheists obligated to prove God doesn't exist or are Christians obligated to prove he does exist? The burden of proof lies with the believers; otherwise, unicorns exist because you can't prove they don't.
Moby – The New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They lived and worked with Jesus; they witnessed the things He said and did. John was at the foot of the Cross with Jesus' Mother when He died. So they were FIRST hand witnesses.
Peter, the chief apostle co-opted Paul as an honorary apostle because he was a scholar. His letters to the ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians etc give credence to what the Four Evangelists wrote.
Atheists drone on about the Gospels being written 400 years AFTER Jesus died. Well certainly some were. BUT they are called the Apochryphal Gospels because they weren't first hand like the New Testament.
That's proof enough for me. I like to share this with you and I wish you believed it ; but whether you DO accept or not, is up to you and is a matter of supreme indifference to me personally. I've done my bit.
God, through His Son, Jesus Christ, gave ALL people everywhere the Invitation to Heaven. Don't be so juvenile as to blame God if you don't accept it.
@ Veritas. who said "The New Testament was written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They lived and worked with Jesus; they witnessed the things He said and did. John was at the foot of the Cross with Jesus' Mother when He died. So they were FIRST hand witnesses.
Peter, the chief apostle co-opted Paul as an honorary apostle because he was a scholar. His letters to the ephesians, Colossians, Thessalonians etc give credence to what the Four Evangelists wrote."
No. Of the 'four evangelists' only Luke was likely literate. The gospels are not first hand accounts, they are at best third hand, written down generations afterward.
Paul was not 'co-opted' by Peter. He was, in the story, co-opted by God on the road. Peter, also, was illiterate, being a fisherman.
There is also not a shred of commentary on Jesus' life to be found in Paul's epistles. Not a shred of Jesus' history or recounting his teachings can be found. Paul even denies that the three apostles he did meet told him anything about Jesus. He says it was all revealed to him personally, in his mind, but Jesus.
Why this is suspect, in response to people answering – he didn't because everyone knew the Jesus story, is because he wrote to GENTILES. people who would not have known Jesus' story. He traveled far and widely, according to scripture. Why did he not remind people in his letters about what Jesus' did? The only logical reason is – he did not know.
That there was some sort of 'heretical' Jewish sect tied up with a historical version of Jesus is quite likely. Paul was said to have persecuted them, before his conversion. But the lack of story? is a large problem.
The more I read about Paul, and the more I study the history of the gospels and the early church, the more I get the feeling that I'm seeing the dove-tailing of two separate Jewish based cults, which a hundred, two hundred years later became the origins of the religion.
Just saying.
If nothing will ever change christians to atheists why are our roles full of previously believing christians? And don't say we dind't believe it, we did.
@JCNT
Your correct in saying many people leave their faith. This is not a new concept. Some people leave their faith because life gets them to busy and they drift away from it. Others like yourself go atheist and take it a step further and campaign against the idea of God. Whatever the case maybe life redirects people and some choose to leave the faith. One of the main problems with the church is not emphasizing enough that being of the faith doesn't exonerate you from hardships. Being of the faith is demanding and requires devotion, its not easy. The easiest path is to live godless; nothing is required for this lifestyle. You set your own guidelines and devote what you see fit. Either way those who hold on to their faith out number those who denounce God. It makes no difference people come and go, though all are welcome not all will hold on till the end.
You said you could build a case that living the faith is easier but ignored the main reason people leave faith. Your argument is flawed.
The key your leaving out is when someone goes through a difficult situation; then they are faced to continue or to abandon faith. Inevitably you will face trouble so your case is flawed about faith being easier. The fact that life will give you challenges but yet you must hold on to faith is the difference. If I live godless everything that happens has no weight of God looking over me. In faith you believe that God is looking over you and when trouble comes you question it. So as you can see your argument is flawed. Please try again.
Chance,
I don't think you have any idea why people leave the faith. It has nothing to do with having difficulty in life. It has to do with the mythology being nonsense and being told that the only way to have fiath is to believe, it is a circular argument. It is called cognative dissonance and if living the "faith" is hard for you most likely that is why.
@Chance: NCJT has it correct, You have not left the faith, therefore you are not qualified at all to speak about how those who have left the faith truly feel, you are merely guessing since you have not gone through that transiton.
To use your own logic, it is much easier to believe.
Example: Hard times come into my life, it is harder to say, "I'll get through this myself with my own determination and skill" (even if you believe that determination and skill is god given) than it is to say: "I'll get through this because god is looking out for me".
One is proactive, the other is reactive. Saying, I have no worries because I believe is a lot easier than saying I will overcome my worries myself,
@NTJC & @Lit
Wow, so you know me. Interesting...First this is only one reason why people leave faith and you are ignoring it and saying unequivocally everyone walks away from faith because it's mythology. A that is a fallacy and a terrible generalization I would expect better from you. Also I growing up in church and having friends who did as well; know why some people leave faith because I have seen it first hand. Difficulty with life is on top of the list. Second faith for me is not hard I was giving you a example of why faith can be difficult and why people leave it.
@JCNT
Like you said in your case that living with faith could be easier.
For me I agree because like you said I have hope that this life is not all there is, that no matter what comes my way the best is yet to come.
@Lit
Its called socializing maybe you should try it...Yes I can talk about people leaving faith because I grew up in church and not all my friends stayed in the faith. They are still close to me and I know why they left or just stopped putting in the time. Your really lost if you think that first hand experiences are the only way to truly know. Socializing and communication go a long why in understanding process again I think you should try it someday since you seem to totally ignore this possibility. Like you said it is much easier to believe I have hope for something greater than anything I could ever accomplish in this life. Non believers hold on to a supposed axiom that it is pure speculation. None the less ease is subjective. I especially love your example, life is great when you know there is always something better waiting.
I agree both of your cases of living without God as more difficult. You make excellent cases. Thanks again.
@Chance:
"Your really lost if you think that first hand experiences are the only way to truly know. Socializing and communication go a long why in understanding process again I think you should try it someday since you seem to totally ignore this possibility"
I am actually an extremely social and communicative person. So, no, I am not lost and have tried and participated in what you suggest. It is through that process that I arrived at my beliefs. But again, you speak circularly, (which you yourself claim is irrelevent, making your argument irrelevent)
Circular logic: Lost if I think first hand experiences are the only way to truly know, yet, if i participate socially and communicatively, I will truly know.
You realize that being social and communicating ARE first hand experiences, even if listening to hearsay, it is your first hand experience at hearing that? You back up my point.
Wasn't John The Baptist resurrected?
No, that was Lazarus.
If God made us and our brains use them... They have found Jesus grave with mary(his mother), mary (his wife), his brother, and joseph all in the same tomb. And interestingly that Jesus and his wife have different genetic make-up. By the way yes he had a child there too. YES Jesus was real man and a wonderful at teaching morals and human behavior. Read JAMES TABOR you will be enlightened.
God made man in his image, God has DNA, God is human. Adam named the animals but could not write and the Jews didn't learn to write for thousands of years later and copied from religions (Sumerians) in the region established well before Adam/Eve. Cain went into the land of Nod and scored a wife....further evidence there were civilizations predating Adam. The Serphant never lied, their eyes were openned and saw God for what he was...one of them. It was God/men that lied to Adam attempting to protect him and keep him ignorant of the truth and from the outside world that was well established. Beings with DNA need flying vehicles like Ezekiel saw. The Jewish religion is simply copied and not original and is ismply false. Jesus was jsut another delusional person thinking they were a prophet. Men created and organized the "word of God"..
open minded – My mother told me it was unkind to mock the afflicted so I'll just say this –
Congratulations, you just filled a 30 pound sack with 45 pounds of bull poo!
Praying isn't healthy – DNA – what are you talking about. We are made in God's image and likeness MEANS that He is our Father. It doesn't mean He is HUMAN, It's like wading through molasses talking to you people.
Look, a word to the wise – you've got to learn about the Bible before you humiliate yourself publicly by showing extreme ignorance of the subject.
@open minded, you claim that Jesus was a wonderful teacher, but given that the gospels were written decades after the alleged events, in a far away land, in a foreign language, by non eyewitnesses who couldn't speak Hebrew and whom were unaware of Jewish customs, and at a time when Christianity was vying for the hearts and minds of pagan Romans, and when we have demonstrable proof of pious fraud, or lies, over and over again, some of which is admitted actually within the pages of the bible, AND you nor I can remember the best man’s speech verbatim, or in my case at all, from the last wedding I attended, I would think we know nothing of what Jesus actually said or taught.
@open. Here is a quote from C.S.Lewis “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
@Chuck,
C.S. Lewis was using a common tactic of trying to limit the possible options in order for him to be able to make his point more easily.
There is at least one other option. Legend, as in Robin Hood or King Arthur, both historians think were possibly real but the stories that are attributed to them are not real.
chuck: I enjoyed the Narnia books as a child, but I don't look to C.S. Lewis to tell me how to think. I am perfectly capable of coming to my own conclusions.
It is my belief that if there indeed was a "historical" Jesus, he was simply a radical rabbi with an interesting set of beliefs. Perhaps "Jesus" is a amalgamation of several people. But there is nothing in the historical record to indicate that any of the supernatural events attributed to this Jesus ever actually occurred. It is logical to conclude that the "miraculous" parts of the story were tacked on by later, in order to increase the appeal of the radical teachings.