# Discussion about Religious Beliefs



## Last Fearner

Greetings all,

Following a brief exchange in another thread about the "Christmas" holiday, I have decided to start this thread with the intention of allowing individuals on every side of the topic of religion to discuss their viewpoints and present *facts*, *research*, *as well as personal interpretation* of events and other related subjects.  This thread is intended to be a "*discussion*" rather than a "*heated debate*!"

Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "ridiculous," "absurd," "foolish," or "*flat out lies*!"  No one should be so arrogant as to think that it is impossible for them, the evidence they offer, the experts they quote, or the conclusions they have drawn to be wrong.  Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.

I will start with this question.  Have any of you ever seen the PBS show of the late Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D., or are you aware of his work?  I saw the show where he teaches about the academic reasons and logical conclusions that led him to believe the stories about Jesus, as presented in the New Testament, to be true.  It was fascinating, and quite compelling

Here is the bio page of his website in case you are not familiar with him:
http://www.drgenescott.org/docbio.htm

I look forward to a healty, productive, and polite discussion of religion! (fingers crossed)

Last Fearner


----------



## Andrew Green

Last Fearner said:


> I will start with this question.  Have any of you ever seen the PBS show of the late Dr. Gene Scott Ph.D., or are you aware of his work?  I saw the show where he teaches about the academic reasons and logical conclusions that led him to believe the stories about Jesus, as presented in the New Testament, to be true.  It was fascinating, and quite compelling



What where they?  I'll be honest, every attempt at applying logic and reason to faith that I have seen comes across as weak, which IMO is why it is considered faith.  Reason and science cannot lead a person to God.

[/quote]
Here is the bio page of his website in case you are not familiar with him:
http://www.drgenescott.org/docbihttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDU7rKleDFYo.htm

I look forward to a healty, productive, and polite discussion of religion! (fingers crossed)

Last Fearner[/quote]


Polite? and you bring Gene Scott up? 






I don't know, but in my mind a person looses some credibility when they die from the cancer they claimed God cured them of and refuse medical treatment.

Fiath is a personal thing, it makes people feel good, gives them hope and purpose.  Whether there is a reality behind it cannot be decided by reason.

My objection to religion is not faith on a personal level, but when reality is ignored because of ancient teachings, or wishful thinking.  A person refusing medical treatement because a faith healer got God to heal them, that is wrong. Denying our history (evolution) because people thousands of years ago had a different theory, also wrong.  Going to war and killing people because God told you to, very big wrong.

The message behind all religion seems to be peace, wellbeing, be kind to your neighbour, be a good person, etc.  Really nice ideals. But when people use other peoples faith to manipulate them, whether it is going to war, crashing planes, bombing abortion clinics, telling them which lifestyle choices are ok, and which are abominations, that is where I have a problem with religion.

That and when I get refered to as a godless heathen...  no, nevermind, I'm ok with that, it's true. 

In a lot of ways I prefer the older polytheistic views on religion.  Where you could accept that different people have different gods, and that is ok.  If you are in Rome, then Roman Gods are there, but Egypt might have different Gods.  Gods where more human-like, they had strengths and weaknesses.  Some where good, others bad, or rather they where all shades of grey.

The one God, and only one God who is perfect, omnipetent, omniscient, benevelent and there are no others and anyone that says so is wrong attitude of Jeudeo-Christian belief I'm not so found of.  Acceptance of other belief systems is a lot harder when you take the stance of there is one, and only one true religion.  

Acceptance means accepting that other people have other beliefs.  And if your beliefs require that only your beliefs are valid, and that you must try and convert all others in order to "save" them, I think that interfers with your ability to accept them, and there beliefs as valid as well.

I'm an athiest.  I have never seen a convincing piece of evidence to show me that any one of the thousands of religions is true, or that any sort of god(s) exist.  That's the way my brain works, logic tends to get in the way of faith. If someone was ever able to prove me wrong, I'd be quite happy with them. 

I'd also never try to sway anyone to becoming an atheist.  I don't see the point.  People should be free to believe as they choose, providing it doesn't interfer with the freedom of others to belive as they choose.  So while I would not try to get a person to become a atheist, I would perhaps argue to the point that there beliefs are not correct to the exclusion of all others, and that in the absence of that, it's probably better to accept that other religions have value as well, and followers should not be converted in order to be saved, they are fine as they are. (especially us godless heathens)


----------



## tellner

It's a noble effort. Really. I just think you're going to have to pan an awful lot of gravel to get the nuggets here. Good luck.


----------



## Shaderon

My beliefs are simple but I don't know who else believes them... i.e., I don't know what the name of the religion is IF there is one.

I believe that we are all part of what some people call "god", our spirit comes from a great spirit, is joined to it even in life, and goes back to it when we die taking the information and experience it gained with it.   That's the simplest form, it really means that everything we do here on earth, is really all very small and insignificant in the end.  Every life is short but important, for without it we would not experience ourselves.  We are here to live, to be happy and to experience our own love.

When things get difficult, it's what we have chosen to live like, before we became concious here, we chose our paths before we started to live them.  Here on earth, we are seperate from each other only so we can fully experience, if we knew we were all the same being, then we wouldn't act the same.   Would the Lion kill the Zebra if she knew it was herself? If she felt it's pain?  Probably not, but it needs to in order to survive.

Beyond that, the questions of whether Jesus lived, or whether other highly enlightened people lived is immaterial to me, as we are all the same person in the end, does it matter who lived?  They were all just teachers and we have to now find the answers within ourselves.

I also believe that every religion has it's points, but it's like the blind men experiencing the elephant, one will feel the tail and say it's like a rope, one will feel it's feet and say it's like a tree, one will feel it's trunk and say it's like a snake, but none of them will ever see the whole unless they accpet each others beliefs and study them too.


----------



## heretic888

I'm not really sure what the topic of this thread is. Are we discussing the historiography and textual criticism related to the Bible?? Or, are we discussing our own personal philosophical beliefs?? Both are very broad subjects and this thread could end up going in a number of different directions.

I ask this because Biblical historiography has very little, if anything, to do with my own personal philosophical beliefs. Even if I felt compelled to draw upon the Judeo-Christian tradition for analogy to my own positions, it would be from perennial mystics like Pseudo-Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssa, John of the Cross, Johannes Eckhart, or even the more modern Thomas Merton. The Bible would play virtually no part at all in a discussion of my beliefs.

While I am not an atheist, I find myself largely agreeing with Andrew Green's post in the ways in which "mythology" can conflict with "reality" and the repercussions this can have on humanity. As such, my own rejection of much of the Biblical narrative is for scientific reasons, not philosophical ones. Philosophically, the Bible is irrelevant to me personally.

I hope that made sense.


----------



## bushidomartialarts

i think a line needs to be drawn between faith and religion.

for purposes of the discussion, i'm going to give some definitions.  they're not the best ever, but they should serve to illustrate my point.

by 'faith' i mean an individual's personal belief in and relationship with the divine -- be that god, allah, thor, gaia or the flying spaghetti monster.

by 'religion' i mean the institutions that exist as a result of faith.  the nation of islam, the roman catholic church, branch davidian and all the rest.

faith seems almost universally a good thing.  it comforts people, it moves folk to do good works, it serves as a concience.

almost everything that's ever happened to make people disdainful of people of faith was the fault of religion.  holy wars.  the existence of wedge issues.  entrenched dogma rather than informed debate about evolution and abortion.  take your pick.  faith didn't cause those.  it was the manipulation of faith by religious institutions.

with faith you get discovery, peace, joy.  with religions you get beuracracy, power politics and the abuse of power.

there are exceptions.  many religions are responsible for widespread good works.  my point isn't that relgion is inherently bad.  it's just that faith seems a good thing, but that it can be spoiled by religion if one isn't careful


----------



## Empty Hands

bushidomartialarts said:


> faith seems almost universally a good thing.  it comforts people, it moves folk to do good works, it serves as a concience.
> 
> almost everything that's ever happened to make people disdainful of people of faith was the fault of religion.



You can't have religion without faith.  Thus, attempting to separate the two is disingenuous.  What is bad due to religion is at least in part possible and due to faith.


----------



## Andrew Green

Empty Hands said:


> You can't have religion without faith.



But you can have faith without religion.  

You also can't eat KFC without chicken, doesn't mean chicken is unhealthy.


----------



## Empty Hands

Andrew Green said:


> But you can have faith without religion.



In individuals, perhaps.  But people in general are social animals.  I doubt that any shared faith in the long run could fail to generate an organized structure.  Even small tribes had their power-holding shamans.

Look at it this way as well.  The fact that someone has faith means you have a potential lever of power to use on them.  Eventually, someone will want to give those levers a pull, and religion is how you do it.


----------



## Andrew Green

The I think the question becomes which controls which.  Do the people control there faith, and in turn there religion? Or does there religion control them?

There is a difference between a culture that allows people to believe as they choose, and religion comes about do to the fact that people are social in contrast to one that has a specific priest class that dictates the religion and its values to the people.


----------



## Carol

Humans are also showing a trend of being increasingly less and less social.  Why with computers we can shop, work, develop photos, and even have groceries delivered without dealing with *shudder* _other people.  _  

I dunno...just speaking for me and me only...my faith seems to become more and more of a personal thing to me.  Its something that I want to share only with those closest to me...only with those that I trust.


----------



## Xue Sheng

What I find absolutely amazing (EDIT: and sad) here is that in a discussion titled &#8220;Discussion about Religious Beliefs&#8221; that the following statement was necessary.



Last Fearner said:


> Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "ridiculous," "absurd," "foolish," or "*flat out lies*!"


 
And it WAS necessary.

OK, I&#8217;ll go now


----------



## bushidomartialarts

Empty Hands said:


> You can't have religion without faith.



true



Empty Hands said:


> Thus, attempting to separate the two is disingenuous.  What is bad due to religion is at least in part possible and due to faith.



not so much.  as was already mentioned, you _can_ have faith without religion.
religion is faith decided by committee.

interesting point earlier about how a religion evolves and why it exists.  one that grew as a natural combination of humanity's tendency towards faith and humanity's tendency towards being social is a very different animal from a religion that was cynically set up as a means of achieving and maintaining power.

my belief (based on extensive but neither exhaustive nor systematic reading and research)  that most religions begin as the former but eventually devolve into the latter.


----------



## Andrew Green

Here is a interesting article on religion, well more of a interview:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/04/02/elaine_pagels/index.html

It's on a recently uncovered document regarding the Gospel of Judas, and how Christianity has changed over time.


----------



## Last Fearner

There have been some interesting contributions here, and I am glad to see this thread attracting some interest.   



heretic888 said:


> I'm not really sure what the topic of this thread is.
> 
> ...this thread could end up going in a number of different directions.


 
To give this thread some more specific direction, I would like to focus on certain key issues pertaining mostly to the existence of a God (or an supreme diety), examination of various religious documents and any evidence which supports or refutes them in part or whole (The Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Torah, etc.), and the significance of any key individuals in these various religions (Jesus, Buddha, The Pope, etc).

I would like to see people ask questions about religious matters that they feel they are missing explanations, and for others to provide specifically referenced data, and research that offers one possible explanation or theory.

Here are some things that I have considered when pondering religion, and my own personal beliefs.

I. Either there is a "God" (supreme diety) or there is not?
(if there is not, it might be difficult to prove that other than to say that I have not discovered evidence of one yet, thus can not prove or disprove it)

II.  If there is a God, is there one and only one, or multiple Gods?

III.  If there are multiple Gods (or such spiritual entities), is one more powerful than all the others, or are there two or more that have the same power and abilities?

IV.  Have any living figures been direct descendants of God(s) such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, Jesus of Nazareth, or any other person?

V.  Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?

VI.  Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to heal people through means other than conventional methods? (I'm looking for specific cases, and discussion over relevant facts rather than just a personal belief that these things happen).

VII. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to predict the future? (More specifically about famous prophets and notable predictions as opposed to modern day psychics - unless you believe in a modern day prophet).  I am looking for the exact prophecy, or prediction, when it was made and by whom, and if it came to pass.

VIII.  Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament).

IX.  What is your viewpoint on the "time-line" of Earth's history, and how it relates to the theory or belief in creation or pure evolution? (keep in mind, I believe it is scientifically proven that plants and animals do evolve, and have evolved to adapt to their environment over time.  Indicating that the evolutionary process occurs does not rule out creation, just that we could have evolved after creation).  Other than simply saying one theory makes sense and one does not, what specific evidence concludes that one or the other is the primary source of human existence and the other is not?

For the creation theory, how do explain the apparent age of the Earth, the presence of dinosaurs over millions of years (or do you deny they existed -  ), any discoveries of human skeletons dating hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neandertal and other pre-historic "man-like" creatures)

For the evolution theory, what evidence (if any) exists to show fossils, or skeletal remains of creatures that existed  for whatever period of time it took humans to evolve from each step prior to bipedal, or any figures resembling modern man before Neandertal, or "Lucy" or others?  If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?

If you believe that some of the above questions are unanswerable, then don't address them.  These are just thoughts and questions that have crossed my mind.  I'm looking more for specific research, and proof (with some personal interpretation allowed) rather than long replies about personal, individual beliefs.  Let's get to the hard facts, and root of these issues! (politely, of course)

Last Fearner


----------



## Carol

Last Fearner said:


> For the creation theory, how do explain the apparent age of the Earth, the presence of dinosaurs over millions of years (or do you deny they existed -  ), any discoveries of human skeletons dating hundreds of thousands of years ago, Neandertal and other pre-historic "man-like" creatures)



Depends on which creation theory you are talking about.  I did a google search on creation stories once and found dozens of them.


----------



## Makalakumu

LF - Each one of your points would be a wonderful thread in its own right!


----------



## Empty Hands

Andrew Green said:


> The I think the question becomes which controls which.  Do the people control there faith, and in turn there religion? Or does there religion control them?



I am not sure anyone can control their faith.  You would be hard pressed to find a devout theist that would claim they could choose to become an atheist, or a "devout" atheist who would claim they could choose to believe in God tomorrow.  This is not to say that faith can't be influenced - most Christians have Christian parents and live in Christian societies, most Muslims have Muslim parents and live in Muslim societies, etc.

As for religion, some people will always resist the elements of control - like those who are "spiritual but not religious."  Looked at from a wider view however, over a longer period, it is hard to argue against religion as controlling.  Also, that the religious lever can't gain a hold without that faith, no matter how benign originally.  This is also not to say that all control is "evil" - using religion and the "Fear of God" to steer people away from murder and cheating on their taxes is control, too.



Andrew Green said:


> There is a difference between a culture that allows people to believe as they choose, and religion comes about do to the fact that people are social in contrast to one that has a specific priest class that dictates the religion and its values to the people.



Sure, but my point is that no matter how freely chosen and benign, religion offers potential levers of control over people.  It is hard to avoid that priest class eventually springing up when all that power is just left lying around.  Also, once again, that you can't have the religious control without the faith - thus it makes no sense to claim that religion is "bad" and faith "good".


----------



## Empty Hands

Xue Sheng said:


> And it WAS necessary.



Who has been disrespectful?  No one I have seen.


----------



## Empty Hands

bushidomartialarts said:


> not so much.  as was already mentioned, you _can_ have faith without religion.



Yes, but you _can't _have religion without faith.  Thus, any evil that descends from religion depends in part upon faith.  Thus faith cannot be considered an unalloyed good.  Not that it is intrinsically bad, just that it can be used for bad ends.



bushidomartialarts said:


> my belief (based on extensive but neither exhaustive nor systematic reading and research)  that most religions begin as the former but eventually devolve into the latter.



Yes, that is exactly what I am getting at.  No matter how "nice" the religion and how it is or used to be, it can always "devolve."


----------



## Last Fearner

Ok, Folks!  Since I started this thread for a specific purpose, I am going to request that it gets back on track to what I mentioned earlier.  I don't want to have to wade through a bunch of wordy debates over personal feelings about faith.  Please contribute brief statements, questions or evidence pertaining to items in my earlier post.  For debates over religion and faith in general terms, please start another thread!

Thank You!
Last Fearner


----------



## Makalakumu

LF - I'm an Athiest and I've been trying to turn a new leaf.  I truly do appreciate the fact that people have faith in a higher power and I AM NOT ON A CRUSADE to change anyone's belief.  It's part of their own personal journey.  With that being said, for me, I would say that I trust my reason over my (non-existent) feelings in this matter.  I think that science shows that the concept of an external GOD is highly unlikely and that all of the stories that we associate with this or that various GOD are informative fairytails.  As my first salvo to support this position, I offer this...










 
The universe is far bigger then any GOD that humans can contrive...


----------



## terryl965

Last Fearner this is how I see it religion is self base on practical use for each individual, thus the meaning of religion will have more than one self contain purpose here. As far as history goes religion is it own worst enemy, we have over the time have made changes based on what those wanted to believe or interpit while reading the Bible. I whole heartily believe in God but does that mean God is here with us for me Yes for others no. What is so dramitic about religion no-matter who you are most of the time you are wrong based on other people interpetation of what religion is.

I think this is a great topic but could it be norrow down to which history you would like to discuss.
Thank you
Terry


----------



## Makalakumu

As my second salvo...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3X1toPT-E&mode=related&search=


----------



## Makalakumu

How can we, on this pale blue dot, floating in the photon beam of this all-to-common star, in this po-dunk corner of the galaxy, and this indifferent place in the universe, how can we, with all of the potential that is out there, claim that one person, or even one religion knows the truth of this existence?  Are we so special that we transcend the lightyears so that our thoughts regarding our origins are miraculously shared with the countless other intelligent organisms that inhabit this universe?  Are we so arrogant as to believe that the creator of this entire universe sent his only son to this pale blue dot...to redeem us all from the sins of our evolution?

If you were to coat a baseball with a watered down coat of varnish, you may equal the scale of the Earth's atmosphere around this planet.

We are such a fragile and isolated species, lost amongst a sea of stars and our own thoughts.  And we build ever bigger Moai, looking for an answer that never comes.  The only thing that will ever make a difference is the destiny we will for ourselves.  

We will choose our path and the gods will prove themselves worthless, as always.

The "Secret of Steel" is in my hand...


----------



## Steel Tiger

I am not going to step into faith beyond saying it is a personally developed entity which spawned the worlds religions.  Personally, I ascribe to the Daoist philosophical concepts.

Religion has grown over the centuries until it is now something very different to what it was originally.  Why do religions exist?  It is a good question, and I think the fundamental answer is death.  There is a vast and great fear of death in humanity.  This is to be expected because beyond death there is a great unknown and what is unknown and not understood is frightening.  The various religions gives their adherents a way to cope with this unknown by putting forward theories as to what they can expect to find in the great beyond.  Be it heaven, paradise, nirvana, samsara, or hell it is the basic grounding of religion.  

Since the founding much has been added to religions and now the fundamental founding concept is lost inside a mire of power games and conceptual amendments designed to keep those in power in power.


----------



## heretic888

Like upnorthkyosa, I feel each of the sub-topics raised could be a discussion thread in their own right, and as such, this thread is probably going to be spread too thin to be very coherent. That being said....



Last Fearner said:


> I. Either there is a "God" (supreme diety) or there is not?



I consider myself a panentheist. 

I don't believe in a personal deity _per se_, but I do believe in something akin to Paul Tillich's Ground of Being, Johannes Eckhart's Godhead, John of the Cross's Cloud of Unknowing, or Gregory of Nyssa's Luminous Night. I consider these descriptions as more or less analogous to similar concepts in the Eastern traditions, such as Buddhist shunyata, the Tao, or the Atman-Brahman.

In addition to cross-cultural religious literature, I also believe there are empirical findings that support such conceptions in the research studies of transpersonal psychology and related fields. Of course, their normative explanation for this phenomena is "unitive consciousness state".



Last Fearner said:


> II.  If there is a God, is there one and only one, or multiple Gods?



"God" is non-dual. All dualities, including singularity versus multiplicity, need not even apply. 



Last Fearner said:


> III.  If there are multiple Gods (or such spiritual entities), is one more powerful than all the others, or are there two or more that have the same power and abilities?



See answer to II.



Last Fearner said:


> IV.  Have any living figures been direct descendants of God(s) such as the Pharaohs of Egypt, Jesus of Nazareth, or any other person?



I personally don't believe "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed in history.

As to the issue of "sons of God", as I said before the Godhead spoken of here is non-dual. "Child" versus "parent" implies a duality, of which there is none.



Last Fearner said:


> V.  Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?



This, again, implies duality.



Last Fearner said:


> VI.  Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to heal people through means other than conventional methods?



Define "conventional methods". I've seen acupressurists and acupuncturists do some pretty interesting things. 



Last Fearner said:


> VII. Does anyone (past or present) have the ability to predict the future?



This assumes "the future" actually exists. Independently of perception, that is.  



Last Fearner said:


> VIII.  Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament).



This could be a rather extensive topic in and of itself, but the short answer is: No.



Last Fearner said:


> IX.  What is your viewpoint on the "time-line" of Earth's history, and how it relates to the theory or belief in creation or pure evolution?



I believe the planet Earth is between 4 to 5 billion years old and that all organisms found therein arrived here via evolutionary common descent. In the words of Meister Eckhart, I believe the Creation is "outside of time" and has absolutely no bearing or relevance to "history" whatsoever.



Last Fearner said:


> For the evolution theory, what evidence (if any) exists to show fossils, or skeletal remains of creatures that existed  for whatever period of time it took humans to evolve from each step prior to bipedal, or any figures resembling modern man before Neandertal, or "Lucy" or others?



Much of the data concerning evolutionary theory is explained in great detail at  talkorigins.org. Concerning the genus _Homo_, we actually have a very robust picture of the fossil record, including a number of "transitional forms" such as Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.  



Last Fearner said:


> If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?



Human beings didn't exist during the Mesozoic Era nor is there any "fossils" (that haven't been revealed as hoaxes) to indicate they did, so I'm not sure how to answer that question.


----------



## Kacey

Reform Judaism - at least the way it was taught to me as a child - revolves around a single central tenet:  "The Lord is thy God, the Lord is One."  No other details are given, and other than the monotheistic nature of God, it's pretty much left up to the person.  I realize that this may be different for people raised in different synagogues, in different variants of Judaism, and so on.  Nonetheless, it is the way I was taught as a child.  

For a long time, this was enough for me.  Then I got to college, and started taking comparative religion classes... and I had the great good fortune to take a class called Understanding The Old Testament from a Reform rabbi who gave no answers - he had us read the Old Testament in sections, and discuss our personal interpretations; then he told us which Biblical scholars' opinions we had unknowingly adopted.  He taught us that there is no one "right" interpretation, and that it was not his job to provide the "right" interpretation - it was his job to give us the tools that allowed us to reach our own conclusions.

I began to read more - different versions of the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha, books on religion... and I came to believe that religion is a framework that allows people to express their faith - but that even people who share a religion may have very different personal faiths.  I don't know that I can express my faith in words... it's somewhere between the monotheistic God of Judaism that I was raised with, and the Buddhist belief in a life force that permeates the planet - almost like the force of the Star Wars Jedi, or an extension of the collective unconscious of Jung, but expanded beyond humanity into the entire ecosphere, possibly the entire universe.  The best I can do to explain it is this quote from the movie Keeping the Faith, by Father Brian Finn, speaking to his congregation (especially the bolded portion):



> The truth is, I don't really learn that much about your faith by asking questions like that... because those aren't really questions about faith, those are questions about religion. And *it's very important to understand the difference between religion and faith. Because faith is not about having the right answers. Faith is a feeling. Faith is a hunch, really. It's a hunch that there is something bigger connecting it all... connecting us all together. *And that feeling, that hunch, is God.


----------



## Last Fearner

I thank everyone for contributing thus far. I know I will grow and develop in my understanding of religions as I continue to read comments and learn what others know and believe.

It will take me some time to view each of the links before I can comment, but others should continue to add their input. If the specific direction of the thread is still not clear, let me suggest that you take any statement about any religion that you feel is *important* and perhaps controversial, and offer some *specific resources* as to research already done, and *expert opinions* which address those issues.



heretic888 said:


> "God" is non-dual. All dualities, including singularity versus multiplicity, need not even apply.


 
This is a good example of a conclusion drawn, now perhaps you have some logical rationale as to why you believe "God" is "non-dual." I happen to believe that God is one diety (however I do believe in the trinity of God). The other perspective of this question is for those who believe in multiple Gods and what supports their position or belief?




heretic888 said:


> I personally don't believe "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed in history.


 
This one I find troubling. I have heard people make statements like this, but yet to find specific reasoning other than they don't believe it happened. Believing stories were made up because they sound unbelievable, or because similar stories existed in other cultures or religions is not enough evidence to counter a fairly well established claim. I can cite many stories that have been proven true, yet they sound incredible, or might resemble other earlier stories.

An example off the top of my head would be space travel to the moon. To many, this sounds incredible, and they don't believe it is possible (a century ago, not many would have believed it). It also resembles stories of "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers in the 21st century" which was science-fiction told before space travel actually occurred.

From Encarta Encyclopedia:
*"Jules Verne*
*Considered one of the first writers of science fiction, French novelist Jules Verne wrote highly popular adventure stories that have also turned out to be prophetic. In his 19th-century works, Verne's fertile imagination accurately predicted some of the technology seen in the world today, including spacecraft, guided missiles, aircraft, and submarines. In Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea (1870), one of his most famous books, Verne told the story of a crazed submarine commander, Captain Nemo, who piloted his vessel beneath the world's seas. In other works, Verne guided his readers to space and the far reaches of earth, as in Phileas Fogg's journey around the world to win a bet in Around the World in Eighty Days (1873). Culver Pictures, Inc."*

*"Jules Verne," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 96 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.*


Whether you believe Jesus was the "Messiah" is another issue, which some here might want to offer evidence on either side, but there seems to me to be eye-witness accounts, and significant events that strongly suggest, if not prove he was a real person. Even if events are transcribed later, they are as legitimate as if my Great-Great Grandparents said they knew a Native American Indian named Geronimo. Even if no written record was made of Geronimo, people knew him and his life shaped many events. Geronimo has a burial tomb at Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, but I can guarantee you (99.9% certain) that Geronimo's body is not buried there.

It may take me a little time to gather the proper references that I believe support my position that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, but in the mean time, this one source is from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia:

The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century as the generation that had known Jesus firsthand began to die. The Epistles of Saint Paul and the Acts of the Apostles also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, interpreting the available sources in a variety of ways, produced biographies of Jesus in which his life was purged of all supernatural elements.* Today, scholars generally agree that Jesus was a historical figure whose existence is authenticated both by Christian writers and by several Roman and Jewish historians.*

("Jesus Christ," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 96 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1995 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. (c) Funk & Wagnalls Corporation. All rights reserved.)

_V. Has God, or any Gods, or spiritual entities ever communicated directly with any living human beings?_


heretic888 said:


> This, again, implies duality.


 
You might have misunderstood my question. Whether you believe in One God or more Gods, the question pertains to communication with God. Anyone may supply specific instances they believe their God (or Gods) spoke to a living human and what supports this belief.



heretic888 said:


> Define "conventional methods".


 
Not acupuncture, or acupressure. I am talking about healing by word, prayer, or touch. Many believe these occur, and we pray for healings, but I am looking for specific claims, and medical confirmation of such (names, dates, and illnesses would be ideal - please cite the source).





heretic888 said:


> This assumes "the future" actually exists. Independently of perception, that is.


regardless of what it assumes, let's see if anyone has any claims and what they believe supports it.

_VIII. Is there any credible, verifiable records in history, outside of religious sources, that confirm, support, or otherwise corroborate any stories in the Holy Bible (Old Testament or New Testament)._


heretic888 said:


> This could be a rather extensive topic in and of itself, but the short answer is: No.


Short answer too short. Looking for specifics and reasons. This might be an extensive topic, but this is just what I am looking to get into here. If there are many examples in the Bible, then pick one and prove or disprove its connection to actual, confirmed historical events.



heretic888 said:


> However, as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction.


 
So you are saying, from beginning to end every bit of the following is fiction - - no truth whatsoever?
The Gospel according to Matthew
- - Was Matthew a real person? Did any of the events of Matthew's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Mark
- - Was Mark a real person? Did any of the events of Mark's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to Luke
- - Was Luke a real person? Did any of the events of Luke's life in this Gospel occur?
The Gospel according to John
- - Was John a real person? Did any of the events of John's life in this Gospel occur?
Acts of the Apostles (chapters 1 through 28)

- - Were any of the 12 Apostles real people?
(Peter, Andrew, James the Great, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the Less, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. Also, Matthias who was chosen in place of Judas (Acts 1:26)).

If any information, or actual lives of real people contained in the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles existed in history, then it is not complete fiction.

Was the Apostle Paul a real person? Did Paul write any of the letters listed below?
Was any of the information in Paul's letters actual historical events?
Paul's letter to the Romans
Paul's first letter to the Corinthians
Paul's second letter to the Corinthians
Paul's letter to the Galatians
Paul's letter to the Ephesians
Paul's letter to the Philippians
Paul's letter to the Colosians
Paul's first letter to the Thessalonians
Paul's second letter to the Thessalonians
Paul's first letter to Timothy
Paul's second letter to Timothy
Paul's letter to Titus
Paul's letter to Philemon
Paul's letter to the Hebrews
Letter from James
First letter from Peter
Second letter from Peter
First letter of John
Second letter of John
Letter from Jude
Revelation of John

All of the above never happened? Not any of it?

Was Jesus a real person? Was his mother, the Virgin Mary a real person? Was her husband, Joseph, a real person? Jesus was said to have been born during the reign of King Herod - *was Herod a real person*? Jesus was said to have been executed by order of Pontius Pilate - was *Pilate a real person*?





heretic888 said:


> Much of the data concerning evolutionary theory is explained in great detail at talkorigins.org. Concerning the genus _Homo_, we actually have a very robust picture of the fossil record, including a number of "transitional forms" such as Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens.


 
Thanks for sharing this! I am going to spend some time reading, then I'll get back to you.


_If humans did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs (Mesozoic Era), yet we find their bones and fossils, what exists of the "links" between modern man and each previous stage of evolution?_



heretic888 said:


> Human beings didn't exist during the Mesozoic Era nor is there any "fossils" (that haven't been revealed as hoaxes) to indicate they did, so I'm not sure how to answer that question.


 
I think you misunderstood my question. I *know* that research shows humans did not exist in the Mesozoic Era. That was not up for question. My point is that dinosaurs existed millions of years before anything that resembles modern humans, yet we can find dinosaur remains from the Mesozoic Era (65 million to 210 million years ago).

I have yet to see evidence of stage-by-stage transformations of humans from the so-called evolutionary link to its earliest ancestors. There should be many examples of creatures which looked like humans (skulls, spines, elbows, knees, and feet), but that walked on all fours. How many thousands of years did it take humans (allegedly) to go from crawling, to walking, and what did their bodies and heads look like during the transformation periods? There seems to be missing links, and perhaps no coherent chain at all. Other species may have evolved to modern day examples, including Neandertal, but what if modern, intelligent man was created separately by God during that evolutionary process?

If the answer is in the links you provided, I'll check it out!

Last Fearner


----------



## heretic888

Last Fearner said:


> This is a good example of a conclusion drawn, now perhaps you have some logical rationale as to why you believe "God" is "non-dual."



I thought I explained my reasoning sufficiently in my last post. To summarize, because this is what we find in the cross-cultural literature of the mystics (from Gregory of Nyssa to John of the Cross to Shankara to Plotinus to Nagarjuna) and because this is what we find in the research studies of transpersonal psychology.

Of course, this is solely from a phenomenological perspective and there are inherent problems from that approach.



Last Fearner said:


> This one I find troubling. I have heard people make statements like this, but yet to find specific reasoning other than they don't believe it happened.



I would suggest the works of G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and Earl Doherty for a good summarization of most of the pertinent arguments.



Last Fearner said:


> Whether you believe Jesus was the "Messiah" is another issue, which some here might want to offer evidence on either side, but there seems to me to be eye-witness accounts, and significant events that strongly suggest, if not prove he was a real person.



That's just it, there are no "eye-witness accounts". 

Prior to the middle of the second century, all four of the gospels were anonymous. Their authorship was never ascribed to anyone before this time. Furthermore, at least two of the gospels (Matthew and Luke) are dependent upon an earlier gospel (Mark), copying it word-for-word in some pericopes. Eyewitnesses don't copy. For more on Markan Priority, please see the following.

Then, of course, there's the issue of the glaring errors that "Mark" makes in terms of Judean geography and law, to the point that very few mainstream scholars hold that he had ever been to Israel.



Last Fearner said:


> It may take me a little time to gather the proper references that I believe support my position that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, but in the mean time, this one source is from Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia...



With all due respect, its an encylopedia entry. It makes assertions, not arguments.



Last Fearner said:


> Short answer too short. Looking for specifics and reasons. This might be an extensive topic, but this is just what I am looking to get into here. If there are many examples in the Bible, then pick one and prove or disprove its connection to actual, confirmed historical events.



For the Old Testament, I would suggest Silberman and Finkelstein's work, particularly _The Bible Unearthed_. Here is a good summarization from one Amazon.com reviewer:

In "The Bible Unearthed," Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman display a rare talent among scholars--the ability to make specialized research accessible to a general audience. In this book the authors reveal how recent archaeological research forces us to reconsider the historical account woven into the Hebrew Bible. Among the conclusions they draw are:

1) The tales of patriarchs such as Abraham are largely legends composed long after the time in which they supposedly took place. This is seen in anachronisms such as the use of camels, not domesticated in the Near East until nearly 1000 years after Abraham's time, in many of the stories.

2) There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.

3) The Israelite "conquest" of Canaan, such as there was, was far from the military invasion of the books of Joshua and Judges. Many of the cities described as being conquered and destroyed did not even exist at the time, while those that did were small, unfortified villages, with no walls to be brought down, by blowing trumpets or otherwise.

4) While there is evidence that a historical David existed, and founded some sort of ruling dynasty known by his name, there is good reason to believe that he did not rule over the powerful united monarchy described in II Samuel. One reason for doubt: Jerusalem, portrayed as the great capital of a prosperous nation, was during the time of David little more than a village.

5) Neither Israel nor Judah emerged as organized kingdoms until significantly after the supposed period of the united monarchy. Israel does not appear as a recognizable kingdom until the time of the Omrides of the 9th century BCE, while Judah does not appear as such until the late 8th century BCE, at the time of kings Ahaz and Hezekiah.

Along with their revision of the biblical account of history, Finkelstein and Silberman attempt to explain the origins of the Hebrew Bible, suggesting that the composition of much of the Bible can be tied to the religious agenda of King Josiah of Judah during the late 7th century BCE. While the origins of the Bible will never be known with certainty--there simply isn't enough evidence--Finkelstein and Silberman definitely provide a plausible interpretation.​


Last Fearner said:


> So you are saying, &#8220;from beginning to end&#8221; every bit of the following is fiction - - no truth whatsoever?



Not as _history_, no. The New Testament has much value as religious _literature_, though.



Last Fearner said:


> The Gospel according to Matthew
> - - Was Matthew a real person? Did any of the events of Matthew's life in this Gospel occur?
> The Gospel according to Mark
> - - Was Mark a real person? Did any of the events of Mark's life in this Gospel occur?
> The Gospel according to Luke
> - - Was Luke a real person? Did any of the events of Luke's life in this Gospel occur?
> The Gospel according to John
> - - Was John a real person? Did any of the events of John's life in this Gospel occur?



Once again, _all_ of the gospels were anonymous works until the middle of the second century. Even Justin Martyr, writing around 140 CE, couldn't cite them by name.

As for your question, Matthew and Luke (and possibly John) coped from Mark to construct their gospel. Mark took his gospel largely from Old Testament stories to create a Pauline storyboard. For more information on this, please see Michael Turton's analysis of the Markan gospel.



Last Fearner said:


> Acts of the Apostles (chapters 1 through 28)
> - - Were any of the 12 Apostles real people?
> (Peter, Andrew, James the Great, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew, James the Less, Thaddaeus, Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot. Also, Matthias who was chosen in place of Judas (Acts 1:26)).



The "12 Apostles" change from gospel to gospel. The ones mentioned by Paul's letters were probably real, the others being literary conventions. I suspect the number was more important than the actual people.



Last Fearner said:


> If any information, or actual lives of real people contained in the Gospels or Acts of the Apostles existed in history, then it is not &#8220;complete fiction.&#8221;



Acts of the Apostles is second century proto-Catholic propaganda, it is virtually worthless as history. The whole point was to paint Paul as conciliatory with Cephas and James and to invent an "apostolic origin" for the newly forming church.



Last Fearner said:


> Was the Apostle Paul a real person? Did Paul write any of the letters listed below?
> Was any of the information in Paul's letters actual historical events?



I believe Paul was a real person. However, he only wrote seven of the thirteen letters ascribed to him. The other six being second century forgeries that co-opted Paul's name for authority (most of the psuedo-Paulines are anti-heresy diatribes, such as the Pastorals).

As for "actual historical events", Paul isn't writing history. He's writing theology. Any "historical events" he describes are incidental.



Last Fearner said:


> Was Jesus a real person? Was his mother, the Virgin Mary a real person? Was her husband, Joseph, a real person?



That neither Joseph nor Mary are mentioned by either Paul or by the earliest gospel (Mark) speaks volumes. 



Last Fearner said:


> Jesus was said to have been born during the reign of King Herod - *was Herod a real person*? Jesus was said to have been executed by order of Pontius Pilate - was *Pilate a real person*?


 
Herod and Pilate were quite real.



Last Fearner said:


> I have yet to see evidence of stage-by-stage transformations of humans from the so-called evolutionary link to its earliest ancestors. There should be many examples of creatures which looked like humans (skulls, spines, elbows, knees, and feet), but that walked on all fours. How many thousands of years did it take humans (allegedly) to go from crawling, to walking, and what did their bodies and heads look like during the transformation periods? There seems to be missing links, and perhaps no coherent chain at all. Other species may have evolved to modern day examples, including Neandertal, but what if modern, intelligent man was created separately by God during that evolutionary process?
> 
> If the answer is in the links you provided, I'll check it out!



The website I linked does have the information you asked for, but a previous post I made gives visual representations of some of the fossil changes we observe in the genus Homo.

As for the idea that "intelligent man was created separately by God", this is just anthropocentrism. We're just not that special.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

Though I align myself with Christianity, I do not accept it's doctrines wholesale.  Simply stated, any diety sufficient to the task of creating and maintaining a universe, such as the one we find ourselves in, is certainly beyond the comprehension of the mere human mind (which is finite).  It follows that any attempt to define such a diety will, invariably, fall short.

Consequently, I feel that no religion has the corner on God.  What I feel, however, is different.  I have a connection to something greater than I and I am comforted and strengthened by that connection.  The group of people that I share the expression of that connection (my church) is a matter of preference.  If I were a quieter type, I might pursue a membership in quieter church.  If I were more rigid, personally, I might consider a more legalistic congregation.  

As a matter of faith, I commune daily with my God, try to discern what it is I am to do as a result of that communion, and strive to let it guide me.  Beyond that, I try not to **** with things too much.


----------



## Last Fearner

Carol Kaur said:


> Depends on which creation theory you are talking about. I did a google search on creation stories once and found dozens of them.


 
Hi Carol,

Thanks for mentioning this.  I have decided to turn what little spare time I can create into a personal quest for more accurate and thorough knowledge of religion (particularly my Christian beliefs - but also to research others for facts as well).  If you happen to come across any interesting facts, or would like to post links to any of the "creation stories" that you find out there, it might help to share what each of us find pertinent.

Last Fearner


----------



## Last Fearner

upnorthkyosa said:


> LF - Each one of your points would be a wonderful thread in its own right!


 
Hi upnorth,
You are probably right, but I am going to try to collect as many questions and answers to various "hot topics" on religion in this one thread and pursue each of them individually (as time allows).  If any of them get to be to involved in and of themselves, then we can split that one off to a new thread, and put a link to it here in this thread.

Last Fearner


----------



## Carol

Last Fearner said:


> Hi Carol,
> 
> Thanks for mentioning this.  I have decided to turn what little spare time I can create into a personal quest for more accurate and thorough knowledge of religion (particularly my Christian beliefs - but also to research others for facts as well).  If you happen to come across any interesting facts, or would like to post links to any of the "creation stories" that you find out there, it might help to share what each of us find pertinent.
> 
> Last Fearner




Sure, although that's prolly something I'd start on another thread sometime.   But I'd be happy to open up a friendly discussion in the near future, absolutely.


----------



## Last Fearner

heretic888 said:


> Of course, this is solely from a phenomenological perspective and there are inherent problems from that approach.


 Huh!?! What'd he say? (ok, getting out my dictionary!) :lol: 




heretic888 said:


> I would suggest the works of G. A. Wells, Robert Price, and Earl Doherty for a good summarization of most of the pertinent arguments.


Yes, I will look into this and get back to you....



heretic888 said:


> That's just it, there are no "eye-witness accounts".


I'm gonna have to get back with you on this one....



heretic888 said:


> Then, of course, there's the issue of the glaring errors that "Mark" makes in terms of Judean geography and law, to the point that very few mainstream scholars hold that he had ever been to Israel.


I'll get back to you on this too!  



heretic888 said:


> For the Old Testament, I would suggest Silberman and Finkelstein's work, particularly _The Bible Unearthed_.


I will definitely review their work thoroughly, and we will discuss their conclusions in the future!



heretic888 said:


> The ones mentioned by Paul's letters were probably real,
> 
> I believe Paul was a real person.
> 
> Herod and Pilate were quite real.


 
I agree with you...... and there are more.

So, I think you need to revise your statement that "as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction."

I believe you have confirmed that some people, places, and events mentioned in the New Testament are verifiably real, thus it is not "*complete fiction*." Now, I intend to follow up on which ones are accepted as real, and which ones are questioned or claimed to be fiction, and seek out the truth based on facts and evidence. I hope everyone here will contribute what they have on either side, because it is by challenging these beliefs that we can solidify the evidence that supports them.



heretic888 said:


> The website I linked does have the information you asked for, but a previous post I made gives visual representations of some of the fossil changes we observe in the genus Homo.


Thanks, I will be looking into these links you have provided (you're gonna keep me busy!)  



heretic888 said:


> As for the idea that "intelligent man was created separately by God", this is just anthropocentrism. We're just not that special.


I happen to think we are! :ultracool 

Last Fearner


----------



## Carol

Last Fearner said:


> Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.



And now for something completely different.  

I don't have an argument.  Never needed one.  I don't require that anyone else believes what I do, therefore I don't feel the need to prove what I believe to anyone.


----------



## pstarr

Well said, Carol!


----------



## Makalakumu

Carol Kaur said:


> And now for something completely different.
> 
> I don't have an argument. Never needed one. I don't require that anyone else believes what I do, therefore I don't feel the need to prove what I believe to anyone.


 
Carol, does this implies that all questions are answered for you?  Does this mean that you are completely convinced of the veracity of your beliefs?


----------



## heretic888

Last Fearner said:


> Huh!?! What'd he say? (ok, getting out my dictionary!) :lol:



Heh. 

Well, without putting too fine a point on it, _phenomenology_ is a methodological approach found in both philosophy and certain schools of psychology that examines information primarily from a first-person point of view (i.e., subjective experiences). When a person gives their recollection of events or describes their thought processes to you, that's phenomenology.

I should amend my original statement, though, in that a good deal of the data from transpersonal psychology also comes from a second-person _structuralist_ view. Meaning, the researchers collect the subjective experiences and observations of a number of different subjects, make note of any patterns or correlations that seem to underly them (i.e., background _structures_), and then construct a theoretical explanation to account for these. These background structures are not directly observable from within a person's own mind (i.e., nobody can directly "see" the formal-operational stage of cognitive development subjectively), because they are intersubjective constructs that are almost entirely unconscious to the individual.

What one finds in some of the literature is that there are appear to be developmental structures that are genuinely "spiritual" or "transpersonal" in nature. A concrete example of this would be Susanne Cook-Grueter's expansion of Jane Loevinger's work on ego development.



Last Fearner said:


> So, I think you need to revise your statement that "as a matter of actual history, the New Testament is, from beginning to end, complete fiction."
> 
> I believe you have confirmed that some people, places, and events mentioned in the New Testament are verifiably real, thus it is not "*complete fiction*."



People and places, yes. Events, no.

Herod Agripas, Pontius Pilate, and John the Baptist were all real historical persons. However, Herod never ordered a wholesale murder of firstborns in Judea, Pilate never had any "Jesus of Nazareth" relucantly crucified (and, in fact, the rather benevolent way Pilate is depicted in the gospels is completely un-historical), and John the Baptist never baptized any "Jesus of Nazareth" to be his successor.

The key here is historical _context_. A thoroughly fictitious story can take place within an appropriate historical context and even include real historical figures in the story, but that doesn't change the fact that the events described therein remains thoroughly fictitious. As an example, I could write a story set in London during World War II and one my characters could be Winston Churchill, but that doesn't change the fact that the events of my story never actually happened.

So, yes, I would maintain the New Testament stories are fiction. Fiction set within a historical context, but fiction nonetheless. Also, please be aware that "fiction" is not the same thing as "lies" (as some people seem to believe). I believe the gospel authors were writing theological allegory, not history.  



Last Fearner said:


> I happen to think we are! :ultracool



Well, the issue here is _why_ believe humans are so special?? What basis is there for this notion??

The fact of the matter is that the purported "missing links" we observe in hominid evolution are pretty much typical of the fossil record as a whole. There are no more "missing links" for humans than there are for any line of evolutionary descent. In fact, what we know of hominid evolution is actually far more robust than other evolutionary lines. We can observe hominid evolution with a fair degree of consistency for at least 1 million years back.

If some extraterrestrial deity intervened in human evolution at some point in the distant past, there just isn't any physical evidence of it. Nor is there any evidence that humans are intrinsically "special" or "different" compared to other natural organisms. The traits we praise among humans --- cephalization and socialization --- are a trend observed among _all_ paleo-mammalian species for at least the past 300 million years (i.e., ALL mammals' brains have been getting larger, not just humans'). If its bipedalism you prize as being distinctively human, Homo erectus was bipedal thousands of years before us.

There is just no basis for noting humans are "special" among creation other than a _desire_ for us to be so. Anthropocentrism, pure and simple.


----------



## Carol

Wow...I've been tossing those questions about in my head all morning, John, they are very insteresting.  

To me, faith isn't static.  Its something where I always want to be learning and exploring.  I don't find contentment in having the answers, I find contentment in being able to explore a question, if that makes sense.  

Faith to me is about a personal relationship with God.  I don't feel that I am improving that relationship by requiring another person to believe as I do.  Do I feel that I have absolute veracity in my beliefs...well...it would be a rather boring journey if I was absolutely sure about everything.  To me a relationship with God is more about harmony and consonance than it is deciding on one absolute truth.  If anything I believe that I need to keep learning and keep growing.  

Does that make sense?


----------



## crushing

heretic888 said:


> Well, the issue here is _why_ believe humans are so special?? What basis is there for this notion??


 
Time-binding

Today I was just reading a speech given by Robert Heinlein on 7/4/41 and he thought that pretty much time-binding was the only thing that really differentiated humans from the other animals.  Personally, I'm not so sure that is the only thing, I'm just putting it out there.

We keep a record of our past, and plan for the future.  Heinlein didn't come right out and say this, but I got the feeling that he thought the more mature humans were even able to learn from the past and apply it to in the planning for the future and then proceeded to give huge kudos to H.G. Wells.

Anyway, now it seems to me that without time-binding, you really couldn't develop a religion.  So many religious beliefs are based on what was thought to have happened in the past and using that information to secure a better future/eternity.

Now back to your question.  Based on this, it's our specialness, that gives us the ability to create a belief system that allows us to believe that we are special.


----------



## heretic888

Carol Kaur said:


> To me, faith isn't static.



James Fowler's Faith Development Theory


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

heretic888 said:


> James Fowler's Faith Development Theory


 
But, that thread begins by describing a progression of faith perceptions that people my grow through.  Not static at all.


----------



## Tez3

I had to laugh when I read this bit of Heretic's post quote _Pilate never had any "Jesus of Nazareth" relucantly crucified _unquote. I don't think anyone fictional or real has ever been willingly crucified. Sorry, it's just the way it read, I got Monty Python visions for a few minutes.


----------



## heretic888

OnlyAnEgg said:


> But, that thread begins by describing a progression of faith perceptions that people my grow through.  Not static at all.



I know. I was agreeing with Carol.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

oh...my duh

sorry


----------



## Zida'sukara

This is difficult to write for me and make it understandable the way I would like it to be.

I believe like Shaderon that we are part of a total concept and that our souls are learning from every earth life it has. No soul can learn everything in one human life. 

I believe in positive and negative energie. By being positive to everything around you, you will recieve positivity back.(what you send forth, comes back to thee) Perhaps not at once but at least your soul will not be bothered and closed with negativity from itself so his channels remain open for further (universal)energy flow. 

At present, I do not have any religion. After a lot of researches myself, I cannot commit myself to one religion. I try to be a good human being and I believe in faith, love and ultimate truth. I think I am a bit of a mixture from Buddhism and Wicca. I learned that Wicca does have a lot in common with Buddhism but it is more touchable, you learn a lot about nature, nature healings and your role in it and it teaches you to keep your mind open for every human being, doesnt matter which religion it has.
One thing from Wicca, where I cannot commit myself to, is their worshipping of Gods and Goddesses and their rituals, I believe that your soul itself is capable of doing that what he needs and protecting himself. We only have to learn how. For some people it helps to achieve this to pray to a God and for other people it helps to do a ritual but infact it is the persons strength itself who is doing it with his true believe, doesnt matter in what. 

I like reading and learning about different religions and how they came to life. Their rituals or the prayings. I love to go to graveyards to taste the peacefull atmosphere or go to different churches to see all the happy people. I time I went to a Gregorian Church in Austria. I didnt understand one word but the priest was singing for more than 1 hour and it was so beautifull even now I an getting cold when I think of it.

So, to come to the point, I think that every religion matters for the person itself in his present life, as it will bring him on a path that he or she needs to take to grow. Everybody needs to find his or her own way and a religion can give security and strenght, by believing in it, to go further on their paths of life.  

Well this is what I believe and think, hope that I wrote it a bit understandable. It took me 1 hour to post this.  

Barbara


----------



## heretic888

Tez3 said:


> I had to laugh when I read this bit of Heretic's post quote _Pilate never had any "Jesus of Nazareth" relucantly crucified _unquote. I don't think anyone fictional or real has ever been willingly crucified. Sorry, it's just the way it read, I got Monty Python visions for a few minutes.



Tez, the point I was trying to make was the _way_ that Pontius Pilate is depicted in the gospels is thoroughly un-historical. He is painted as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, and genuinely benevolent; he doesn't want to be involved with this whole let's-crucify-Jesus business at all. In reality, of course, Pilate had a reputation as a bloodthirsty and viscious ruler, widely despised by the Jewish people.

Now, of course, the _reason_ for this is to cast 100% of the blame on the Jews (which becomes far more evident in the later pro-Rome Gospel of Luke). That simply points to the fact that the gospel authors were writing at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were two clearly delineated groups (i.e., Christians had been expelled from the synagogues), placing them no early than 90 CE.

Anyone who thinks the gospel stories aren't neck-deep in the politics of the day are, quite frankly, deluding themselves.


----------



## CoryKS

Interesting article on CNN.com today:  Are humans hard-wired for faith?


----------



## Tez3

heretic888 said:


> Tez, the point I was trying to make was the _way_ that Pontius Pilate is depicted in the gospels is thoroughly un-historical. He is painted as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, and genuinely benevolent; he doesn't want to be involved with this whole let's-crucify-Jesus business at all. In reality, of course, Pilate had a reputation as a bloodthirsty and viscious ruler, widely despised by the Jewish people.
> 
> Now, of course, the _reason_ for this is to cast 100% of the blame on the Jews (which becomes far more evident in the later pro-Rome Gospel of Luke). That simply points to the fact that the gospel authors were writing at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were two clearly delineated groups (i.e., Christians had been expelled from the synagogues), placing them no early than 90 CE.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the gospel stories aren't neck-deep in the politics of the day are, quite frankly, deluding themselves.


 

Oh dear me and my passion for correct English! my point wasn't on faith etc it was on correct English. The way it was written made it sound as if Pilate only crucified willing parties hence the Python moment. My apologies.


----------



## heretic888

Tez3 said:


> Oh dear me and my passion for correct English! my point wasn't on faith etc it was on correct English. The way it was written made it sound as if Pilate only crucified willing parties hence the Python moment. My apologies.



No worries. Just trying to make myself clearly understood.


----------



## heretic888

CoryKS said:


> Interesting article on CNN.com today:  Are humans hard-wired for faith?



Ah, yes.... neurotheology.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:


> In reality, of course, Pilate had a reputation as a bloodthirsty and viscious ruler, widely despised by the Jewish people.


What we enlightened people today see as bloodthirsty and viscious was the way the Romans maintained their rule of others.  The Jews dispised foreign rulers, as do/did most occupied peoples.

By way of information: I believe in a God who is the Father of our spirits.  And that Jesus Christ was born, lived, died and was resurrected.  I try to be a follower of Christ.  This time of year especially brings to mind the rememberance of his sacrifice and victory over death.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:


> What we enlightened people today see as bloodthirsty and viscious was the way the Romans maintained their rule of others.  The Jews dispised foreign rulers, as do/did most occupied peoples.


   Actually, Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome shortly after a series of arrests and executions around 36 CE. He never returned to Judea afterward.      As I stated before, the way that Pilate is depicted in the gospels is both absurdly non-historical (especially the amusing attempt to pass him off as some kind of philosopher-king) and intended to criticize the Jews. Its politics, plain and simple.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:


> Actually, Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome shortly after a series of arrests and executions around 36 CE. He never returned to Judea afterward.      As I stated before, the way that Pilate is depicted in the gospels is both absurdly non-historical (especially the amusing attempt to pass him off as some kind of philosopher-king) and intended to criticize the Jews. Its politics, plain and simple.


I have no disagreement that Rome was "in control" and quick to make examples of entire populations.  

The amount of reference to Pilate in the bible is small and certainly can't be used to reconstruct a good portrayal of the man.  There is insufficient information to pass him off as a philosopher-king.  Yet he was a man who lived in superstitious times and was probably as prone to taking his superstitions into account as the average man would.

I also do not believe that the biblical account suffices to blame "the Jews" for Jesus' death.  I do not read it as an attempt to place blame---however there have been many people who put their own spin on it (as well as everything else).


----------



## heretic888

Sorry, double post.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:


> The amount of reference to Pilate in the bible is small and certainly can't be used to reconstruct a good portrayal of the man.  There is insufficient information to pass him off as a philosopher-king.  Yet he was a man who lived in superstitious times and was probably as prone to taking his superstitions into account as the average man would.


  This has nothing to do with "superstitions". When Pilate meets Jesus in the gospel accounts, he is painted as a Socratic philosopher and start questioning Jesus about the nature of "truth". To a historian, the whole scene is absurd. However, Pilate's character does serve as a useful literary foil to "the Jews" that demand for blood.  





Ray said:


> I also do not believe that the biblical account suffices to blame &quot;the Jews&quot; for Jesus' death.  I do not read it as an attempt to place blame---however there have been many people who put their own spin on it (as well as everything else).


  Your reluctance to see the politics of the day in the gospel accounts does not change the fact that they are there, all the same.  In the gospel story, the Jewish Sanhedrin are the ones that accuse Jesus of his &quot;crimes&quot;, spirit him away during the middle of Passover night (which by itself is historically ridiculous), and bring him to Pilate for execution (because they lack the legal power to do so themselves). When Pilate refuses to execute the man, he asks a conveniently nearby &quot;Jewish mob&quot; what he should do, and their reply is to crucify Jesus instead of a convicted killer. This was, apparently, in keeping with the non-existent Jewish tradition of releasing a criminal on Passover (yeah, I know). The story was written at a time when there open animosity and antagonism between the &quot;Jews&quot; and the &quot;Christians&quot; (i.e., when Christians were publicly expelled from synagogues), sometime between 90 and 100 CE. This portrayal has a double mission of painting the Christian religion as conciliatory and passive toward Roman rule, as evidenced by the fact that the Roman representative is painted as benevolent and unwilling to crucify Jesus. 
Like I said, politics.


----------



## Tez3

Zida'sukara, while not everyone will agree with your views I think everyone will agree they were well put and very understandable.


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:


> ... To a historian, the whole scene is absurd.
> ...
> Your reluctance to see the politics of the day in the gospel accounts does not change the fact that they are there, all the same. ...


Thank you for proving the point, as I said some people put their own personal spin on everything.


----------



## heretic888

Ray said:


> Thank you for proving the point, as I said some people put their own personal spin on everything.



I see. 

Sociohistorical context is "personal spin". Thank you for elucidating your position so clearly.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I believe the gospel authors were writing theological allegory, not history.


 
There's a lot of times I feel this is true.  I don't think it necessarily detracts from the lessons the writers are trying to impart, though.

*shrug*  Who am I to say?  Certainly there's much scholarly evidence pointing to the crafted nature of spiritual texts; but, I don't think that's the important point.  It seems to me that, if a text guides one to a better spiritual understanding of themselves, it has done a good thing.

As Shepherd Book said to Mal, '_It doesn't matter what you believe.  Just believe_'.


----------



## heretic888

OnlyAnEgg said:


> There's a lot of times I feel this is true.  I don't think it necessarily detracts from the lessons the writers are trying to impart, though.



No, of course not.

_Allegory_ was described in the following way during the Middle Ages: "This story never happened, but it is true." That's the whole point of allegory.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

Understood.
arigato :asian:


----------



## Last Fearner

heretic888, I started this thread with one simple request:



Last Fearner said:


> This thread is intended to be a "*discussion*" rather than a "*heated debate*!"
> 
> Please be polite, and avoid insulting or demeaning comments which label other beliefs as "*ridiculous*," "absurd," "foolish," or "*flat out lies*!" No one should be so arrogant as to think that it is impossible for them, the evidence they offer, the experts they quote, or the conclusions they have drawn to be wrong. Simply present your argument, and what personal reason or scientific support you have for believing it.


 


heretic888 said:


> the Jewish Sanhedrin are the ones that accuse Jesus of his &quot;crimes&quot;, spirit him away during the middle of Passover night (which by itself is historically *ridiculous*),


 
This is dangerously close to violating the rules that asked everyone to honor here. I started this thread for the purpose of "discussion." If you believe something is not historically credible, then state the reasons to support that position. Please do not simply attack the religious belief that is based upon those alleged incidents. Simply saying it does not stand to reason, is not offering proof or evidence in support of your position. Please do not call biblical accounts "historically ridiculous!"  If you can prove these events did not occur, then do so.

I intend to address each of your comments about Pilate, and the "politics" of the times, but I will do so in my next post. This post is to remind you, and everyone else, to be cautious of how you phrase your arguments.

CM D.J. Eisenhart


----------



## Last Fearner

It is difficult to perceive what was said and done by people two thousand years ago.  How can we identify their "character" and "personality?"  People in modern times surprise us by acting "out of character."  What motivates people to do what they do at any given time?  Could someone have an off day?  Could someone of usually mean character have a "good moment" when they feel benevolent or philosophical.  How is it for us, thousands of years later, to characterize an individual like Pontius Pilate to the extent that we can determine what he would or would not have said or done.  "Out of character??"  Perhaps, but not that unlikely.

If Jesus was not the Christ, then this would have been an ordinary man brought before Pilate.  If your argument is, "the story of the Son of God being treated by a ruthless Pilate in such a manner could not be true because it would have been out of character for Pilate" does not hold weight because if Pilate was indeed faced with the Messiah, his demeanor may very well have changed.  By those of faith, if the story is true, God can cause people to do and say things they might not ordinarily.  Jesus certainly could have had a profound effect on Pilate upon their meeting.

*Mark 15:4* And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they witness against thee.
*Mark 15:5* But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marveled.

I have been around many modern day Judges, and even those with the most ill disposition will occasionally see a defendant that intrigues them.  They hear the same cases, the same arguments, and the same excuses over and over, case after case.  Once in awhile, they marvel at a new approach, or unique defense.

It is not beyond reason to believe that Pilate was tired from his journeys, and had pressures from Rome, and was fed up with the Sanhedrin attempting to use him to do their dirty work.  Pilate would have expected Jesus, were he an ordinary prisoner, to argue, plead for his life, or deny the charges.

It would not have been inconceivable that Pilate would have marveled when Jesus stood calm, quiet, and refused to answer.  For all we know, Pilate may have had a moment of doubt that this could be the Messiah.  His faith may have been shaken, and his spirit stirred in the presence of Jesus.



heretic888 said:


> Pontius Pilate is depicted in the gospels is thoroughly un-historical. He is painted as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, and genuinely benevolent; he doesn't want to be involved with this whole let's-crucify-Jesus business at all. In reality, of course, Pilate had a reputation as a bloodthirsty and viscious ruler, widely despised by the Jewish people.


 
Where does this "reputation" of Pilate's come from, and how accurate can we be sure it is?  Could it be that he had multiple sides to his personality depending on the day, who he was dealing with, and what his mood was?  The bible does not "paint him as calm, reasonable, conciliatory, or genuinely benevolent."  There is no fact in that assessment.  Reading the scriptures you get words, which are not much different than reading words posted in these internet threads.  How often do people reading other's posts get the wrong impression of tone, or intention.  Pilate may very well have been angry, and speaking in a loud, authoritarian voice when he questioned Jesus.  However, he might have been just as angry at the Sanhedrin for bothering him with their petty problems.

You speak of politics of the day?  I see Pilate's actions as being very consistent with his job, his reputation, and the politics of the time.  For those who have never seen the movie, I suggest watching "Jesus of Nazareth" staring Robert Powell as Jesus, Anne Bancroft, Ernest Borgnine, James Earl Jones, James Mason, Sir Laurence Olivier, Christopher Plummer, Anthony Quinn, Michael York, and many other famous movie stars.  It is one of the best depictions which present scenes like the ones with Pilate as being reasonable for the motives of each character.

Pilate had a job to do.  He had to answer to Rome if there was unrest in these regions.  Kings, like Herod, had limited power, because they too had to answer to Rome.  However, for the zealots, and other mobs that opposed Rome, and the presence of Roman soldiers and Roman authority in their villages, Pilate knew that an unwise decision would likely cause an uprising.  Any kind of violence could cause Pilate problems when reporting to Caesar.  

Pilate would not have wanted to take this case of Jesus, who proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, because it was a religious matter, and we all know how much those issues can get out of control.  Pilate would have been persuaded to at least hear the case on the charge that Jesus claimed to be "King of the Jews," which would have violated Roman Law.  The Sanhedrin attempted to present Jesus as the leader of a rebellious group that could cause an uprising.

When Pilate met Jesus, he saw that he was a peaceful man and posed no threat to Rome, thus he told them to deal with him themselves.  However, the Sanhedrin convinced Pilate that they themselves would not be happy, and much unrest would occur if Jesus were left to preach his gospel.  They reminded Pilate that they would execute Jesus under their own laws of Blasphemy, but Rome forbade them to execute anyone.

Pilate knew that if he released Jesus, he would have rebellion by those who wanted him dead, and if he executed him, he would have rioting by those who were his followers.  The only safe, political thing to do, was to use the excuse of an ancient custom of the local people to have one prisoner released during passover.  If he made the decision to release Jesus, Rome would be resented more, and he would be blamed for any uprisings.  There would be bloodshed, and Caesar would likely not be happy.  However, if he presented two accused criminals to a crowd of people, in an open public square, and they decided who was to be released, then he could wash his hands of the whole incident.



heretic888 said:


> Now, of course, the _reason_ for this is to cast 100% of the blame on the Jews (which becomes far more evident in the later pro-Rome Gospel of Luke). That simply points to the fact that the gospel *authors were writing at a time when "Jew" and "Christian" were two clearly delineated groups* (i.e., Christians had been expelled from the synagogues), placing them no early than 90 CE.


 
The two delineated groups were well established during the times of John the Baptist, before Jesus arrived.  When the Pharisees questioned John, he clearly drew a line between the Jewish religious leaders who believed they were righteous, and those who were to believe in the one who would later follow him (Jesus).

*Matthew 3:7* But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, *O generation of vipers*, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
*Matthew 3:8* Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance:
*Matthew *3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, *We have Abraham to our father*: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.

And Jesus certainly established himself (being the founder of the Christian Church) to be on the opposite side of the scribes, Pharisees, and Jewish religious leaders.

*Matthew* *23:13* But *woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
*Matthew* *23:14* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
*Matthew* *23:15* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
*Matthew* *23:16* *Woe unto you, ye blind guides*, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
*Matthew* *23:17* Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
*Matthew* *23:18* And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty.
*Matthew* *23:19* *Ye fools and blind*: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?
*Matthew* *23:20* Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon.
*Matthew* *23:21* And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein.
*Matthew* *23:22* And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
*Matthew* *23:23* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
*Matthew 23:24* *Ye blind guides*, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
*Matthew* *23:25* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
*Matthew* *23:26* *Thou blind Pharisee*, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
*Matthew* *23:27* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
*Matthew* *23:28* Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
*Matthew* *23:29* *Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites*! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
*Matthew* *23:30* And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
*Matthew* *23:31* *Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.*
*Matthew* *23:32* Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
*Matthew* *23:33* *Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?*
*Matthew* *23:34* *Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Matthew* *23:35* That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
*Matthew* *23:36* Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
*Matthew* *23:37* *O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee*, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
*Matthew* *23:38* *Behold, your house is left unto you desolate*.
*Matthew* *23:39* *For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.*



heretic888 said:


> Anyone who thinks the gospel stories aren't neck-deep in the politics of the day are, quite frankly, deluding themselves.


 
You are right!  Although the gospel was about the Jesus and his message to the world, the people of his time were "neck-deep" in politics.  Not just in 90CE and later, but during the life of Jesus.  The Gospel reflects the fact that the Pharisees and Leaders of the Sanhedrin rejected John the Baptist, and did not accept Jesus as the Messiah, and the Jewish religious leaders turned him over to Pilate.

Last Fearner


----------



## Carol

heretic888 said:


> James Fowler's Faith Development Theory


 

Absolutely fascinating. I want to learn more.   THanks! :asian:


----------



## oxy

I watched a few documentaries on TV. I was on the fast track to becoming a believer.

But then, one day, I decided to take a Pilates class.

I never got the results by the end of the month. I was never able to nail people to wood without their body weight tearing them off the nail. Never understood what moving my leg up and down had to do with human-timber carpentry.

That's when I lost my faith...

Footnote: Nail guns don't help at all.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

heretic888 said:
			
		

> _Define "conventional methods"._


 


			
				last fearner said:
			
		

> Not acupuncture, or acupressure. I am talking about healing by word, prayer, or touch. Many believe these occur, and we pray for healings, but I am looking for specific claims, and medical confirmation of such (names, dates, and illnesses would be ideal - please cite the source).


 
Why wouldn't accupressure count as healing by touch?

As to the thread, it _is_ getting a little heated.

And, as long as we're using movies for reference materials, I rather thought David Bowie made a much more believable and reasonable Pilate.


----------



## Last Fearner

OnlyAnEgg said:


> Why wouldn't accupressure count as healing by touch?


 
In general terms, it would be. However, as an analogy, I could start my car by "touch" if I turn the key in the ignition. Yet, if I were to simply place my hand on the hood of the car, and it started, that would be an incident worthy of further investigation into "spiritual" or "mental" abilities beyond the mechanics of ordinary touch to make things work. A chiropractor touches the body, and (sometimes) "heals" by manipulating the flesh and bones. This type of physical adjustment is not the category that I would classify as "spiritual healing" by touch or laying of the hands.  Acupressure works through the natural mechanics of the body, like pushing the right buttons on your keyboard to make your computer do certain things.  Now, if your computer gets a virus, and you lay your hands on the sides of the hard-drive, and all viruses disappear, then you might have something special.

I happen to believe that all healing of our bodies comes from God. The fact that when we cut ourselves, yet the wound does not just stay open forever, get infected, and we die. If cleaned and cared for, I think it is a miracle of God the way that an open wound grows back together and repairs itself. Even the use of herbs, medicine, and other modern technology is drawing upon God's creation (according to my belief).

I believe that our spirits, our soul, are connected to God's spirit, and we can heal anything within our own bodies through God's power. Unexplained recoveries when modern medical options fail, occur all the time. If a person were to appear to be directly responsible for bringing about such a recovery, I would be interested in medical documentation, video recording of the process, or anything else that offers compelling evidence to such an alleged spiritual healing. We see these on religious television shows quite frequently. I believe some are real, and some are not (there will always be frauds among the true prophets).  Perhaps someone knows of a website that has compiled physical evidence to support these claims.

If necessary, a separate thread could be started dedicated specifically to following up on this subject. If such power and abilities are possible, Martial Artists should become aware of them. I know I would like to be aware of any such abilities.  It's a big universe out there, and I don't believe we have all the answers yet!

____________________
Last Fearner


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

Last Fearner said:


> I happen to believe that all healing of our bodies comes from God. The fact that when we cut ourselves, yet the wound does not just stay open forever, get infected, and we die. If cleaned and cared for, I think it is a miracle of God the way that an open wound grows back together and repairs itself. Even the use of herbs, medicine, and other modern technology is drawing upon God's creation (according to my belief).


 
And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?

I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing.  Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts.  I still fail to see a functional difference.


----------



## Carol

OnlyAnEgg said:


> And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?
> 
> I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing. Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts. I still fail to see a functional difference.


 
I don't see a functional difference either.  If all healing comes from God, then God's healing can come in any form, whether it be naturopathic, pharmaceutical, surgical, spiritual...or even preventive.  All represent different types of healing, just different vehicles of bringing healing power to the body.


----------



## Makalakumu

OnlyAnEgg said:


> And cleanliness and aseptic technique is not modern?
> 
> I attend a pentecostal church and I have witnessed Pastor laying his hands on the afflicted aspect of a congregant in the process of miraculous healing. Accupressure may use some contemporary techniques; but, it is deeply rooted in the spiritual concepts. I still fail to see a functional difference.


 
As a non-beleiver, I am entirely skeptical of faith healing and I am wary of accupressure.  The latter seems to have a higher rate of success when actually measured in experiment, however.

Anyway, regarding the difference between the two, I must say that it all comes down to methodology.  Accupressure is based off of a body of knowledge that is very in depth, if not somewhat scientific.  Faith healing, on the other hand, is entirely the product of belief...meaning that if one doesn't believe, there will be no placebo effect benefit.  As far as accupressure is concerned, I don't have to believe to recieve positive effects from it.

With that being said, I don't think it's entirely accurate to label them both as spiritual practices.  They do have deep philosophical differences.


----------



## heretic888

I can't address the majority of your post, Last Fearner, as it is largely a set of faith assumptions and speculations devoid of any historical substance. However, a few comments stood out...



Last Fearner said:


> Where does this "reputation" of Pilate's come from, and how accurate can we be sure it is?



In 36 CE, Pilate arrested and executed a large number of Samaritans for dubious reasons. The public outrage in Judea was so great that he was recalled to Rome a short time later.



Last Fearner said:


> The only safe, political thing to do, was to use the excuse of an ancient custom of the local people to have one prisoner released during passover.



Here's the problem. This supposed "ancient custom of the local people" didn't exist. The Jews didn't have a custom of releasing criminals on Passover. This is sheer fiction.

Furthermore, it isn't neutral fiction. Its fiction with an agenda. The whole _point_ of this incident is to condemn "the Jews" for allowing a murderer to go free while calling for the blood of Jesus. Its anti-Semitic apologetic.



Last Fearner said:


> The two delineated groups were well established during the times of John the Baptist, before Jesus arrived.



Only if you uncritically accept the Gospel account as "history".

As I stated before, the Gospel of Mark is the earliest of the gospels and he's writing no earlier than 90 CE. The Gospel of Matthew that you quote from is derivative of Mark, copying him word-for-word in several pericopes. Neither of these authors knew John the Baptist (he probably died before they were even born), so it is naive to assume they had special knowledge of his teachings that we don't find in any other sources.

Heck, Mark wasn't even _from_ Judea!

Literary criticism tells us the evangelists are writing at a time when "Christians" and "Jews" were two clearly divided groups no longer on speaking terms with one another. This places the text toward the end of the first century, when Christians had been forcibly and publicly expelled from the synagogues. _That_ is why characters like John the Baptist use the rhetoric they do, not because of some retroactive historical insight from writers who had probably never even been to Jerusalem.



Last Fearner said:


> You are right!  Although the gospel was about the Jesus and his message to the world, the people of his time were "neck-deep" in politics.  Not just in 90CE and later, but during the life of Jesus.



I don't believe "Jesus" even lived in the first place, so this is a moot point.

The gospels aren't just concerned with condemning the Jews with their anti-Semitic fictions, however, but with condemning _other Christians_, as well. The Markan evangelist was undoubtedly a Pauline Christian and he goes out of his way to rip apart Peter (who Paul opposed in his letters), portraying him as a dunce, a nitwit, a guy who just doesn't "get it". The Matthean evangelist, while copying Mark word-for-word in some sections, then turns around and goes out of his way to redeem Peter and portray him as the true heir to the Word. Then we have the Johannine evangelist who, for some reason or another, really doesn't like that Thomas fellow.

What the gospels show us with their chronological development is the bickering that went on among the various pre-Catholic Christian communities (who undoubtedly claimed to have been "founded" by different apostolic authorities like Paul, Peter, John, and so on). Each gospel was essentially a work of propaganda attacking the purported "founders" of other Christian communities.

Of course, that's the kind of thing you _don't_ learn in Sunday School.


----------



## Makalakumu

I've been reading this conversation and this link really summed up what I think...





 
Seriously, how can anyone think that the creator of the ENTIRE universe sent his only son, Jebus, to this tiny little world with its insignificant little nothings scrambling over this little peice of dust mote hanging in a photon stream?  

Think about how arrogant and provincial all of this is when you really consider all of the potential that this universe has to offer.  Discussing the veracity of this myth seems almost rediculous when this is taken to account.

It's not that this isn't interesting material, its just that the perspective of all this is really narrow.


----------



## Last Fearner

upnorthkyosa said:


> I've been reading this conversation and this link really summed up what I think...


 
Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot."

Sounds like the Matrix *diatribe* where agent Smith tries to tell Morphius that humans are nothing more than a virus.

Earth is only a "pale blue dot" from a distance. Christianity is a belief that God is not removed from the Earth.

*Ge 1:1* In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
*Ge 1:2* 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.*

While God's presence is known everywhere in the universe, God created Earth for a specific purpose. This notion that it is a "convenient coincidence" that God looks exactly like man" is an ignorant misunderstanding.

*Ge 1:27* So God created man in his own *image*, in the *image of God* created he him;

No one knows exactly what God looks like, what color his eyes are, or his hair, or even if He has eyes or hair as we know it. Nothing in the Bible says that God looks "exactly" like man. Created in his "image" means that there are similarities. We, the creation, reflect in our being, the image of the Creator.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Think about how arrogant and provincial all of this is when you really consider all of the potential that this universe has to offer.


 
Of all the vastness of all the galaxies in all the universe, Earth may very well be the most spectacular of all creation. It does not have to be in the physical center of space to be the most special place in God's creation.

A belief in God is neither arrogant, nor provincial. In fact, Christianity is quite the opposite. Arrogance is defined as "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others: _an arrogant contempt for the weak_."

*Luke 7:6* Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for *I am not worthy* that thou shouldest enter under my roof:

*Matthew 5:5* Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

*2Co 12:9* And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for *my strength is made perfect in weakness*. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
*2Co 12:10* Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: *for when I am weak, then am I strong.*

*No one knows for sure where we came from, how we got here, or how the entire universe came to be. An accident? A force of natural chain of events? Perhaps. A supreme intelligence which created and directs the universe - one which we do not fully understand? Perhaps. Chose your belief, but understand this. A religious belief in a Creator as one plausible explanation is not arrogant - - it is either right, or wrong. We should all open our minds and our hearts to proof on either side, but do not condemn those who hold such beliefs as though they are the ignorant, hicks of the countryside that don't know any better because of their limited perspective.*

*


upnorthkyosa said:



			Seriously, how can anyone think that the creator of the ENTIRE universe sent his only son, Jebus, to this tiny little world with its insignificant little nothings scrambling over this little peice of dust mote hanging in a photon stream?
		
Click to expand...

* 
*Example: Suppose I looked over the entire planet Earth, and decided that North America was the place I wanted to live. Then, I chose a particular state, and within that state I found one little remote spot that I considered to be paradise to raise a family. I get married, have a son - he gets married and has children of his own.*

*A couple of generations later, my job is taking me all over the world, and my son travels with me. My grandchildren and great-grandchildren still live in the town where I selected to raise my family, and they never get to see me. Then, I receive word that they are in financial trouble and need help. Would it be so strange that I would send my only son to help them? Would they be arrogant if they would believe that I, the father of their father and their father's father would think that they are significant, and important enough for my son to go to their little spot on Earth? Is it arrogant to think that I care for them, and although I can not be with them at this time, I know where they are since I selected the special place for them to dwell?*

*If, in fact, there is a Heavenly Father, there is no reason to doubt that we are significant enough, or that this planet is special. We are not being arrogant - - just true to our beliefs. If we are wrong, then so be it. Viewpoints, such as Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" are more arrogant than anything because such people place their alleged intellectual insight above other people's beliefs as if they can not be wrong.  I would hate to be in their shoes if they are wrong!*

*Last Fearner*


----------



## Makalakumu

LF - Many people believe many things and lots of other people think those things are somewhat rediculous.  I'm not out to insult or convert anyone with my comments in this thread.  I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one.  Also, I want you make this clear before I address the rest of this post, I have no problem with anyone who holds religious beliefs.  Heck, I still go to church even though I'm an Athiest.  

It makes for provacative conversation...



Last Fearner said:


> Earth is only a "pale blue dot" from a distance. Christianity is a belief that God is not removed from the Earth.


 
Lets think about this for a moment.  If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe.  And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe?  Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?



> While God's presence is known everywhere in the universe, God created Earth for a specific purpose.


 
Both of these statements are just assumptions.  How do you KNOW this?  Again, I ask, isn't it presumptuous to assume that every intelligent being in this entire universe shares the same god?  Much less even has a god?  

I think that if we look at our own home as an example, we can see that this absolutely CANNOT be the case.  We have a manifold diversity of religions on THIS planet that hold all manner of beliefs, from no gods at all to thousands and thousands.  

Thus, I would posit, using the above as my yardstick, that these assumptions are not measuring up to reality very well.




> This notion that it is a "convenient coincidence" that God looks exactly like man" is an ignorant misunderstanding.
> 
> *Ge 1:27* So God created man in his own *image*, in the *image of God* created he him;
> 
> No one knows exactly what God looks like, what color his eyes are, or his hair, or even if He has eyes or hair as we know it. Nothing in the Bible says that God looks "exactly" like man. Created in his "image" means that there are similarities. We, the creation, reflect in our being, the image of the Creator.


 
Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible meant what they said?  I think that it is pretty clear that they think that God looks like us.  And if you think about what these people actually knew about the universe around them, it makes sense that they would think that.  

We know A LOT more now.  



> Of all the vastness of all the galaxies in all the universe, Earth may very well be the most spectacular of all creation. It does not have to be in the physical center of space to be the most special place in God's creation.


 
Think about the concept of a lightyear for a moment.  Think about the actual distance involved in 1 lightyear.  The universe is BILLIONS of lightyears across.  If the tiny little area in Eurasia that gave birth to Christianity is the most special place in God's creation, then doesn't the rest of this vastness seem like an aweful waste of space?



> A belief in God is neither arrogant, nor provincial. In fact, Christianity is quite the opposite. Arrogance is defined as "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others: _an arrogant contempt for the weak_."


 
I would still argue that it is arrogant.  The sheer presumptuousness of all this indicates an underlying sense of priviledge.  The designation that "we are special" and the rest of the universe is not so is indicative of the superiority inherit in arrogance.




> No one knows for sure where we came from, how we got here, or how the entire universe came to be. An accident? A force of natural chain of events? Perhaps. A supreme intelligence which created and directs the universe - one which we do not fully understand? Perhaps. Chose your belief, but understand this. A religious belief in a Creator as one plausible explanation is not arrogant - - it is either right, or wrong. We should all open our minds and our hearts to proof on either side, but do not condemn those who hold such beliefs as though they are the ignorant, hicks of the countryside that don't know any better because of their limited perspective.


 
A new particle accelerator was built in Switzerland and it just came online recently.  One of the purposes of this machine is to test many of the various naturalistic "creation" theories that physicists have formulated.  Think about that for a moment.  We are literally on the verge of pulling one of the last things that God might have done out of his proverbial hands.  

The process that started during the Enlightenment is reaching a proverbial peak.  Does this mean that all of our questions will be answered?  Absolutely not.  It just means that we no longer will have any reason to invoke a GOD to explain anything in our universe.  

A belief in a Creator is not plausible and will soon become indefensible.  The God hypothesis is fast approaching null and the "provincial ignorance" that Carl Sagan spoke of is one of the reasons that keeps people clinging to it.  

Imagine if a hyperintelligent race of beings visited us tomorrow?  What would they think of the unwashed masses of Christians (and others) who reject the basic knowledge of our universe in favor of this or that tribal myth?




> If, in fact, there is a Heavenly Father, there is no reason to doubt that we are significant enough, or that this planet is special. We are not being arrogant - - just true to our beliefs. If we are wrong, then so be it. Viewpoints, such as Carl Sagan's "Pale Blue Dot" are more arrogant than anything because such people place their alleged intellectual insight above other people's beliefs as if they can not be wrong. I would hate to be in their shoes if they are wrong!


 
There are plenty of reasons to doubt.  Lightyears of reasons.  And our alleged intellectual insight is the only method we have of truly knowing any of them.  There will not be this miracle of "Reverse Enlightenment" that suddenly proves all Christian myths correct if one of these theories happen to be wrong.  All that will matter is the details and, as of this moment, NONE of those details will ever encompass a god or even resemble anything written in the Bible or whatever holy book you wish to follow.


----------



## Ray

upnorthkyosa said:


> I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one.  Also, I want you make this clear before I address the rest of this post, I have no problem with anyone who holds religious beliefs.  Heck, I still go to church even though I'm an Athiest.


Although I am a Christian, I too prefer to use the same [scientific] approach at understanding the universe around me.  It only makes sense....Most everything that happens can be explained by natural means and the scientific method excludes the supernatural as an explanation.  

For things that can't be explained by natural, normal means science uses randomness or chaos or some other strange attractor.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Lets think about this for a moment.  If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe.  And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe?  Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?


That's good logic.  Now we need to establish that there IS intelligent life somewhere else in the universe.  I believe that it is only logical that intelligent life exists elsewhere, but I have no evidence that would allow me to make it a scientific fact.  I believe there is intelligent life elsewhere based upon scientist's odds calculations as well as scripture.


upnorthkyosa said:


> Or maybe the people who wrote the Bible meant what they said?  I think that it is pretty clear that they think that God looks like us.  And if you think about what these people actually knew about the universe around them, it makes sense that they would think that.


I believe that we were created in the express image of God.  Especially since Genesis uses the same language in Hebrew comparing the images of Man & God and Adam & Seth. [I think it was Seth].


upnorthkyosa said:


> If the tiny little area in Eurasia that gave birth to Christianity is the most special place in God's creation, then doesn't the rest of this vastness seem like an aweful waste of space?


I believe that golf courses are an aweful waste of space...but I'm not a golfer....


upnorthkyosa said:


> A new particle accelerator was built in Switzerland and it just came online recently.  One of the purposes of this machine is to test many of the various naturalistic "creation" theories that physicists have formulated.  Think about that for a moment.  We are literally on the verge of pulling one of the last things that God might have done out of his proverbial hands.


We will come to understand these things but we will not be able to replicate them on such a scale as a God.  We will  each die out into nothingness; and our race and our world will vanish.  We will be nothing, never known to have existed.  

Or we are Eternal.


upnorthkyosa said:


> A belief in a Creator is not plausible and will soon become indefensible.  The God hypothesis is fast approaching null and the "provincial ignorance" that Carl Sagan spoke of is one of the reasons that keeps people clinging to it.


Perhaps in your life this is true.  As a former athiest, it is no longer true in mine.


upnorthkyosa said:


> Imagine if a hyperintelligent race of beings visited us tomorrow?  What would they think of the unwashed masses of Christians (and others) who reject the basic knowledge of our universe in favor of this or that tribal myth?


Not all of us Christians have the same tribal myths.  And not all Christians are unwashed [unwashed meaning ignorant].  We can imagine a race of hyperintelligent beings...we can imagine anything but it's just imagination until we have some evidence.  We can "what if" endlessly.


upnorthkyosa said:


> There are plenty of reasons to doubt.  Lightyears of reasons.  And our alleged intellectual insight is the only method we have of truly knowing any of them.


God gives me a thousand reasons to believe and a few reasons to doubt.  The reasons to doubt cause me the most trouble.


----------



## Makalakumu

Good rebuttle, Ray.  I don't have time to post a lot about this right now, but, at the very least, I think we have clarified all of the assumptions.  My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?


----------



## Ray

upnorthkyosa said:


> My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?


Mongo say "assumptions bad."  

In all aspects of my life, I strive to not assume.  I have been taught to "experiment upon the word."  I also seek out different ideas in my martial arts, test and try new things as well as challenge my current understanding.  And, although not a scientist, I still cannot let assumptions rule my work life.


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:


> My question is this...which is more valid, assumptions based on science or assumptions based on faith?



I would say that _naive realism_ is no better than _supernaturalism_. Both are ontological blackholes, in my opinion.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:


> I would say that _naive realism_ is no better than _supernaturalism_. Both are ontological blackholes, in my opinion.


 
When I close my eyes, the Moon is still there, caught in the gravitation sink that surrounds the Earth's mass.

My observation has no bearing on this and I dare you show me otherwise.


----------



## Ray

upnorthkyosa said:


> When I close my eyes, the Moon is still there, caught in the gravitation sink that surrounds the Earth's mass.
> 
> My observation has no bearing on this and I dare you show me otherwise.


I think that statement is deeper than I think.


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:


> When I close my eyes, the Moon is still there, caught in the gravitation sink that surrounds the Earth's mass.
> 
> My observation has no bearing on this and I dare you show me otherwise.



Well, honestly, how could I?? 

Your statement is essentially an _a priori_ faith assertion that is impossible to falsify. Might as well ask me to disprove the existence of "God". Just because you proceed from different ontological assumptions doesn't put you in a different boat than the supernaturalists. Your "faith" is the same as theirs (psychologically speaking).

By the way, are you referring to the Moon you see, the Moon I see, or the hypothesized "real" Moon that underlies both our perceptions??


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic888 said:


> Your statement is essentially an _a priori_ faith assertion that is impossible to falsify. Might as well ask me to disprove the existence of "God".


 
The Moon is not God, heretic.  I can observe the moon every single day if I want to and that is not so with God.  If I shut my eyes the probability the moon is still there is much higher then if I were to do the same thing with God...of whom I've never ever seen in my entire life.



heretic888 said:


> Just because you proceed from different ontological assumptions doesn't put you in a different boat than the supernaturalists. Your "faith" is the same as theirs (psychologically speaking).


 
And I would argue that it is not faith at all to make an assumption based on repeatable observation.  This is more along the lines of a pretty safe guess.  There is a real problem with trying to label both of these things as faith.  It assumes that real parity exists between assumptions based on faith and those based on reason.  This is a chic argument for our overly PC times.  Unfortunately, this just isn't the case and my example above demonstrates exactly why it isn't the case.

Sorry folks, science trumps religion...always.



heretic888 said:


> By the way, are you referring to the Moon you see, the Moon I see, or the hypothesized "real" Moon that underlies both our perceptions??


 
The Moon that would be there if all humans were exitinct.  The Moon that was there before humans ever existed.  The very same Moon that crossbedded the Hinkley Sandstone Formation 1.5 billions years ago by pulling on the oceans with its gravity.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

I opened a box, once, to see if the cat was still there...


----------



## Makalakumu

OnlyAnEgg said:


> I opened a box, once, to see if the cat was still there...


 
Was it?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

yes...but, maybe (just maybe) it wasn't there when the box was closed.

I know I thought it was.


----------



## Ray

OnlyAnEgg said:


> I opened a box, once, to see if the cat was still there...


PETA's going get you for putting that cat in the box.  TIP: If you kill the cat first, you can rest assured it's not leaving the box.


----------



## Makalakumu

OnlyAnEgg said:


> yes...but, maybe (just maybe) it wasn't there when the box was closed.


 
For all practical purposes, the cat was still there.  And, the fact that people could even think that it "might" not be there is actually a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics.  I'm not trying to patronize anyone, btw, I just want to clarify something.

You have effectively no chance of witnessing quantum effects at the sizes that humans normally experience.  To indicate "might" or even imply that the cat or the moon "might" not be there is really misleading because it's not taking into account the probabilities involved.  

We're talking that if you were to count up every proton and neutron in the universe, you might get numbers involved in these odds.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg

I'm just saying I believe the cat is there whether or not I can see it.  Another may say it's not there because they can't see it. What does not exist, in the context of a cat, a box and two points of view is an impartial way for either observer to prove their assertion.

Kinda like the thread.


----------



## elder999

upnorthkyosa said:


> When I close my eyes, the Moon is still there, caught in the gravitation sink that surrounds the Earth's mass.
> 
> My observation has no bearing on this and I dare you show me otherwise.


 
Actually, by coupling Bell's Theorem with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relations, it's demonstrably provable that when no one is looking at it, the moon is not there-not to muddy the waters or anything, but the admixture of physics with "religious beliefs" is a philosophical minefield without a satsifactory resolution for either party. Best to leave them exclusive, _for now._...carry on.


----------



## Makalakumu

That depends on your standard of "proof".  However, there does exist a way to vastly support one assertion over another.  

There is a difference.


----------



## Makalakumu

elder999 said:


> Actually, by coupling Bell's Theorem with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relations, it's demonstrably provable that when no one is looking at it, the moon is not there-not to muddy the waters or anything, but the admixture of physics with "religious beliefs" is a philosophical minefield without a satsifactory resolution for either party. Best to leave them exclusive, _for now._


 
Would you care to clarify?  I've heard this argument before, but it was unconvincing.  For example, "no one" was looking at the moon 1.5 billion years ago when its gravity was crossbedding the Hinckly Sandstone deposits...


----------



## elder999

upnorthkyosa said:


> Would you care to clarify? I've heard this argument before, but it was unconvincing. For example, "no one" was looking at the moon 1.5 billion years ago when its gravity was crossbedding the Hinckly Sandstone deposits...


 

It's a mathematical conceit...a _What the @#$%_ kind of thing that the math holds up for. Bottom line is that quantum mechanics don't entirely apply to objects larger than quanta-in fact, they mostly just don't apply-hence, no time travel, no being in two places at once, and the moon is actually always there....but the math can be manipulated to say that it isn't..that's all..


----------



## heretic888

upnorthkyosa said:


> The Moon is not God, heretic.



Actually, quite a few human cultures worship or have worshipped the Moon. Same deal with the Sun.  



upnorthkyosa said:


> I can observe the moon every single day if I want to and that is not so with God.  If I shut my eyes the probability the moon is still there is much higher then if I were to do the same thing with God...of whom I've never ever seen in my entire life.



Allow me to rephrase.

What you refer to as the Moon, as with all knowledge, is a construction. All knowledge is constructed. The Moon is a construction. The Sun is a construction. God is a construction. The self itself is a construction.

The very act of "observation" fundamentally modifies and shapes what can and cannot be observed in the first place, and this happens in ways that individual men and women cannot even begin to be consciously aware of (due to both biological and cultural constraints). This is the essential insight of philosophy over the past 100 years, that there is no such thing as "innocent" observing, no passive "map-making" of reality. The Myth of the Given has been laid open bare.

Hell, even the idea that knowledge is a construction is itself a construction....

This is also why modern philosophy of science (in the way of Thomas Kuhn's insights about paradigm shifts) does not embrace the naive realism that many individual scientists subscribe to. Ever since Sir Karl Popper, we've moved away from the idea that scientific progress occurs directly through empirical observation (due to the threat of methodological bias). We now realize that inductive reasoning based on such empirical observations is how knowledge progresses in science.



upnorthkyosa said:


> And I would argue that it is not faith at all to make an assumption based on repeatable observation.  This is more along the lines of a pretty safe guess.



The problem with the 18th century worldview you are espousing is the naive assumption --- there is a reason philosophers call it 'naive realism', after all --- that your observations correspond with reality in a self-evident fashion. Your observations take place within a certain context (the combination of psychological, biological, and social constraints that limit what you can observe) and everything you "see" is filtered through that context. 

As long as you work within the confines of this context, paradigm, or schema, then things are fine. However, once you move outside of this context, then the self-evident "truth" of your observations no longer holds. In particular, the truth of these statements becomes less obvious as you move further away from formal-operations and closer to network-based systems thinking. And this isn't even getting into altered states of consciousness!

This isn't to say that all knowledge is relative or arbitrary, merely that is inevitably contextual in nature. There are, of course, narrower and deeper contexts. The logical formulations of concrete-operations is a relatively "narrower" or more "shallow" context than the logical formulations of formal-operations (since the latter encompasses the former).



upnorthkyosa said:


> There is a real problem with trying to label both of these things as faith.  It assumes that real parity exists between assumptions based on faith and those based on reason.



Reason?? 

Despite whatever psuedo-philosophy you've been fed, all "logic" and "reason" refer to are internally consistent arguments. The premises for which these arguments begin can be based on mythological faith assumptions as easily as they can be on empirical observations.

Reason is directly compatible with faith assumptions. It calls them premises, and has no real way of distinguishing between them.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Sorry folks, science trumps religion...always.



Sometimes, science and religion are the same thing. 



upnorthkyosa said:


> The Moon that would be there if all humans were exitinct.  The Moon that was there before humans ever existed.  The very same Moon that crossbedded the Hinkley Sandstone Formation 1.5 billions years ago by pulling on the oceans with its gravity.



So, in other words, you don't know. Fair enough.


----------



## elder999

elder999 said:


> It's a mathematical conceit...


 
And it's not *my* conceit;It belongs to  N. David Mermin, Horace White Professor Emeritus at Cornell University. He wrote an amusing paper that was published in _Physics Today,_ back in 1985 or so, titled _Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and Quantum Theory._


----------



## tellner

When I first took bayat (became part of a Sufi community and was accepted as a student of the Shaykh) my wife was still a hardcore anti-theist. Not just "no dieties" but a visceral disgust for religion in general. My Shaykh is a very wise man who goes out of his way not to convert people. As he says, the only way a Muslim is permitted to do so is by the example of his good works and by answering honest questions about Islam. He gave me a series of devotional exercises and talked to my wife and to me over tea.

He was perfectly cool with the idea of me being a Jew and a Sufi and with my wife being an atheist. "What's important," he said "is love and the connection between people." Several of our friends began referring to her as "The Tariqa's Official Dog of an Infidel" 

Well, a little while later she asked the Shaykh what she could do to help me. His instruction was "Love him, but don't put with his ********." Fortunately for me but unfortunately for my ego it was excellent advice. He also suggested a spiritual exercise that actually has a lot of resonance with the traditional Buddhist practices on the Chinese side of her family. 

Well, Tiel started doing the assignment. After a while she said "I've got a cat in a box. Until I ask myself a question I won't know if it's a live cat or a dead cat." Every once in a while she'd say "The cat is still in the box." Almost a year later she said "I'm driving down to Napa tonight. I opened the box, and it's a Sufi cat." 

And so she did. And she's taken to it like a fish to water. She's still the same frighteningly intelligent no-nonsense beautiful woman I married. And she still believes that you're never going to find The Truth in a church, any church. But now she wants G-d and suddenly started wearing a headscarf and writing devotional poetry. Really good stuff and largely in difficult formal modes like sonnets, rondels, gods-help-us-dorsimbras, sestinas and triolets. Me? I'm still counting on the merciful and compassionate clause.


----------



## Carol

tellner said:


> And so she did. And she's taken to it like a fish to water. She's still the same frighteningly intelligent no-nonsense beautiful woman I married. And she still believes that you're never going to find The Truth in a church, any church. But now she wants G-d and suddenly started wearing a headscarf and writing devotional poetry. Really good stuff and largely in difficult formal modes like sonnets, rondels, gods-help-us-dorsimbras, sestinas and triolets. Me? I'm still counting on the merciful and compassionate clause.



   Ummm....pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor.  Migosh Tellner, Tiel's poetry is outstanding.  Her Haiku really blew me away.

Sufiism is quite fascinating.  There is quite a bit of my own scriptures that were from Sufi saints, perhaps the most beloved being Saint Kabir.  Good stuff.


----------



## Makalakumu

heretic, all of that sounds quite impressive, but I am not enamored with the squishy way that philosophers treat the universe.  In my opinion, its counter-intuitive and I think that because it just doesn't jive with what we can measure and count.  

And I know that "measuring" and "counting" are constructions...but if the universe contained one "thing" and I counted it as "one" that thing would still be there even if I was gone.  So how much does that really matter?

With that being said, lets rephrase this gobbly-guk.



heretic888 said:


> What you refer to as the Moon, as with all knowledge, is a construction. All knowledge is constructed. The Moon is a construction. The Sun is a construction. God is a construction. The self itself is a construction.


 
What if there is no one around to "construct" anything?  Would the celestial body that we call the moon still be a "construction"?  Would it still exist?  

The answer is obviously yes.  The moon is still going to be there.

Now apply the same test to "God."

Is that going to be there if no humans are around to "believe" in it?

Whether you answer yes or no, the way you support this assumption is going to be totally different then the way you support your assumption about the moon.



> The problem with the 18th century worldview you are espousing is the naive assumption --- there is a reason philosophers call it 'naive realism', after all --- that your observations correspond with reality in a self-evident fashion. Your observations take place within a certain context (the combination of psychological, biological, and social constraints that limit what you can observe) and everything you "see" is filtered through that context.
> 
> As long as you work within the confines of this context, paradigm, or schema, then things are fine. However, once you move outside of this context, then the self-evident "truth" of your observations no longer holds. In particular, the truth of these statements becomes less obvious as you move further away from formal-operations and closer to network-based systems thinking. And this isn't even getting into altered states of consciousness!
> 
> This isn't to say that all knowledge is relative or arbitrary, merely that is inevitably contextual in nature. There are, of course, narrower and deeper contexts. The logical formulations of concrete-operations is a relatively "narrower" or more "shallow" context than the logical formulations of formal-operations (since the latter encompasses the former).


 
Have you ever considered that some people may have taken something that is pretty simple and tied it into esoteric knots?  IMO, alot of this stuff seems pretty silly when you start asking the questions I asked above.  

And then there is the sheer conceit to think that the existance of the universe DEPENDS on the observation/interaction/constructions that we create.  

The amount of hubris inherit in that is staggering.



> So, in other words, you don't know. Fair enough.


 
There is a wonderful state park near my home that has a fairly consistent red/brown sandstone formation that overlays some harder and more resistant basalts.  On the way to the park, there is a road cut that gives some great fresh surfaces.  If you look closely, you can see cross bedding that is directly analogous to the cross bedding created by sand on a shallow tidal beach.  Radiometric dating has shown this rock to be more then a billion years old.  

The Moon and the Sun's gravity caused these features to form.  There were no humans around...no one was there to "construct" anything so they could observe this.

And it still happened.

Why?


----------



## tellner

Carol Kaur said:


> Ummm....pardon me while I pick myself up off the floor. Migosh Tellner, Tiel's poetry is outstanding. Her Haiku really blew me away.


 
She doesn't claim credit for any of it. She almost always starts readings off with "This Verse Does Not Belong To Me" and usually finishes with one of my favorites "Bitter Wells". 



> Sufiism is quite fascinating. There is quite a bit of my own scriptures that were from Sufi saints, perhaps the most beloved being Saint Kabir. Good stuff.


 
And we have the _coolest_ hats of any religion.  Well except for some of the really flamboyant blue-turban Sikhs. 

Seriously, it is. Other people have come up with good spiritual technologies that help you deal with your **** and wake up. This just happened to be one that got through my _nafs_ and provided the much-needed kick in the ***. 

One of the things that made a really deep impression was the matter-of-fact attitude towards the extraordinary. Yes, there are strange and wonderful spiritual states. Do the work long enough and you'll find them. They are traps. Keep doing what you're supposed to, and they will pass. You may encounter or become the vessel for miracles. Don't worry about it. Just keep working on opening your heart, getting out of G-d's way (and your own way) and make G-d your goal. They'll go away. Even heaven and hell are traps. Eternal torture or eternal partying; if they distract you from what's important (the Beloved) they are even more insidious traps. 

One of my favorite Sufi books is written by a guy who would probably look at you funny if you said so - Richard Adams who wrote _Watership Down_. His book _Shardik_ really hits a lot of important Sufi concepts in some very subtle and not-so-subtle ways. And it's a great sprawling story as well.

What are some of Kabir's writings which you would recommend? So far I've been working my way through Al-Ghazzali and Abdul Qadir Jilani who are counted among our _pirs_. It's heavy going, and a change of pace would be nice.


----------



## Carol

LOL!  You must be speaking of the blue turbans of the Nihangs!  They are something else.   

I think you'll find Kabir to be much easier to read.  He has a very...practical way of writing, and it is a line from one of his poems that gives Sikh scripture the closest equivalent to the Golden Rule when he writes "As thou deemest thyself, so deem others"  

The poem that the line is from is even more powerful.   Here is its context:

*The Temple of Mecca is hidden within your mind, if you only knew it. ||2|| 

* *That should be your prayer, to administer justice. Let your Kalma be the knowledge of the unknowable Lord. 

* *Spread your prayer mat by conquering your five desires, and you shall recognize the true religion. ||3|| 

* *Recognize Your Lord and Master, and fear Him within your heart; conquer your egotism, and make it worthless. 

* *As you see yourself, see others as well; only then will you become a partner in heaven. ||4||* 
Source: Sri Guru Granth Sahib, ang 480.


There is a poet by the name of Robert Bly who has assembled a lot of Kabir's translated works.  They are available on Amazon and they are wonderful.  The Ecstatic Poems of Kabir is very highly recommended.  

Kabir has this wonderfully vulnerable way of writing that seems so easy to identify with.  


   "When my friend is away from me, I am depressed; 
         nothing in the daylight delights me, 
         sleep at night gives no rest, 
         who can I tell about this?


        "The night is dark, and long...hours go by... 
         because I am alone, I sit up suddenly, 
         fear goes through me.... "Kabir says:   Listen, my friend 
         there is one thing in the world that satisfies, 
         and that is a meeting with the Guest."


----------



## tellner

The Nihangs. That's them. No offense meant but for a religion that truly values peace and kindness the Sikhs are the baddest of bad-asses. And the Nihang are the scariest mofos of the lot. If those are pacifists I don't want to meet the mean ones  One thing that's really impressive is the way that knight errantry, which is what it amounts to, isn't a matter of birth or wealth but committment, choice and discipline. It's darned near unique.

I will definitely check out Kabir. There's so much wonderful poetry of the spirit from that part of the world. So little of it is translated and so little of that is translated well.


----------



## Carol

tellner said:


> The Nihangs. That's them. No offense meant but for a religion that truly values peace and kindness the Sikhs are the baddest of bad-asses. And the Nihang are the scariest mofos of the lot. If those are pacifists I don't want to meet the mean ones



I don't think there is a Sikh in the world worth his/her _kesh _that would be offended by that.  :lol:


----------



## Last Fearner

upnorthkyosa said:


> LF - I'm not out to insult or convert anyone with my comments in this thread. I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one.


 
That's cool, kyosa. I can understand your point. Although, I do object to the type of demeaning inferences created by Carl Sagan's words in Pale Blue Dot. I strive to avoid the kind of argument that says God cannot exist because it seem impossible, or illogical, or it sounds "made up" and since you can't prove God exists, that's proof that he doesn't.

Sagan's words outline an opposition to any belief in God simply because those who believe in God are ignorant fools who can't see the apparent truth that the rest of the enlightened and educated population sees. His argument is arrogant, demeaning, and has no basis in scientific fact to refute the possibility of a God. It sounds like a five year old on a playground saying, "you're ugly, and stupid, and you dress funny so everything you say is wrong!"

All I care about hearing is, "The theory of a God says this, and that can not be true, and here is why..." Not, it sounds absurd, far-fetched, and thus it has to be fiction made up by people who want a God that looks like them.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Lets think about this for a moment. If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe. And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe? Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?


 
Ok, first of all, I did not say that "Christianity is NOT removed from Earth." Christianity is a belief in a messiah; the Christ; the anointed one, meaning that a person born of bone, flesh, and blood - like any other man - would be anointed by the spirit of God to be able to communicate in thought and prayer with God, and speak on behalf of God with the full power and authority of God. Those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is the Christ, are of this planet, thus Christianity is a faith among people of Earth.

What I said before was that God is not removed from Earth. My statement is in rebuttal of Sagan's perspective that this insignificant "pale blue dot" of a planet in nowheresville, an obscure corner of space, could not possibly be of any importance to a God - if in fact there were one. This kind of logic is so backward in that it tries to deny the logic of there being a God by saying that if there *were* a God, why would he care about us insignificant people on Earth when there is such a vast universe, thus God cannot exist because we are not that important! This is circular logic that makes no sense whatsoever!!!

If God does, in fact exist, and did create all things, then we did not make him up - - he made us up. Therefore, we are important to him, and this Earth would be significant to him regardless of where he chose to put it in his vast universe. If God does NOT exist, then yes, we made him up, and he would be a fictitious creation of our imagination that we arrogantly designed to look like us - - we are special in our own minds. However, if that is the ONLY way you look at it, then you will never be able to even consider another possibility of being true - - one which might very well be true.

If an unknown artist paints a self-portrait, it might look somewhat like himself. If I have the painting and hang it in my home, I can say it is a piece of artwork created by this artist who gave me the painting for free. Others could dispute it saying there is no such person, and I created the painting myself. They might argue that the painting looks suspiciously like me, therefore I am the one who painted it, and I am trying to create this mysterious artist that does not exist. Others further argue that this is clearly a masterpiece by a skilled artist, so why would he give it to me for free. They argue that the fact that it looks like me, it is too valuable to just give away, and I am a nobody in some hick town so this proves that it was not created by another artist.

Then, I could explain that the unknown artist was my father who died many years ago, thus a portrait of himself is going to bear some resemblance to me. He gave it to me because I am his son, and this hick town was special to him because this is where I was born. I am special to him, therefore I feel special in his eyes - - does this make me arrogant? If you only view things from the perspective of the person in possession of the portrait saying that they must have created it, then you are missing the perspective of the true creator of the artwork who would have reason to bestow a gift to his children, and would care about the place where they live.

Look - I could be completely wrong in my beliefs, but at least I have a pretty sound understanding that proof that God does not exist, does NOT lie in the fact that the universe is big, and we are small and insignificant. If you think there are other "intelligent beings" somewhere in all that vast space, then all I can say is "maybe you are right." I have considered that as a possibility too. However, since none have revealed themselves to us (no proof that I am aware has been confirmed), belief in any other planet with any life similar to ours is only a wild guess, and not even based on an educated guess. There are no statistics or odds that could possibly calculate that. If it were true, then fine, but the mere thought of this possibility in people's imagination does not make it true, and certainly does not count for any weighty evidence against the existence of a God.

If other beings exist in space, there still could be a God, that created them all. God could have sent Jesus to Earth, then went to take care of other planets (I don't happen to believe that, but this would be another theory that allows for both other intelligent beings and a God who created Earth).

My point is this. When seeking the truth, we have to play the roll of accepting all opposing points of view as being true while we trouble-shoot the theory to confirm or refute it. If I start with the premise that God is real (a supreme, all-powerful, intelligent being), then I can certainly grasp that all things could have been created by such a being (who am I to say this can't happen, and by what scientific proof). If God wanted to create a world with plants, animals, and intelligent people, where else would he do this?

If you are concerned about the vastness of space, and what might be out there, consider what would be here if there were no planets, stars, or any objects to occupy space. Where is all of this floating around, what are its boundaries, and what is beyond those boundaries? Take it *ALL* away, and what would exist? I can't answer those questions anymore than anyone else on Earth. If a God chose to make a planet with people, and give those people an opportunity to live a short life before returning to the spirit world (if that's the way it works), then what is so difficult to comprehend that he would have his main focus on this one little planet, yet be able to throw an entire universe of stars, and other celestial bodies out there for us to look at, wonder about, and even for his own amusement?

A waste of space??? What else would God do with the rest of space? Make it vanish so that we are right in the center, and we can feel even more important about ourselves? Maybe you think God would have made thousands of planets with people on them, or all kinds of different aliens like a Star Wars movie. Why? What is so unbelievable that God (going on the premise that God exists) would only need one little planet to accomplish his mission of our souls living in the flesh for a short time.





upnorthkyosa said:


> Again, I ask, isn't it presumptuous to assume that every intelligent being in this entire universe shares the same god? Much less even has a god?


 
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that other intelligent beings exist? Where is the proof of that? Again, even if there is other life out there, then still - either there is no God, or there are multiple Gods for each planet and species, or there is only one God. Any of these theories could be true, and no evidence exists to even remotely disprove the others.

If I believe in one God, and I happen to be correct, then yes, there is one God for all of the universe, which includes all creatures on all planets - regardless of what they believe. Maybe it is *their* one God that is real, and we are all creations of that God. Whoever is right is right! There might be multiple explanations that no one religion has gotten it right yet. But again, my belief could be correct, and this one God of Earth is the one and only God, and neither Carl Sagan, nor anyone else has offered any proof against that except to say that it is "arrogant" to think so highly of myself! Please!!!! Don't waste my time with such empty arguments. Find proof and present it!



upnorthkyosa said:


> I think that if we look at our own home as an example, we can see that this absolutely CANNOT be the case. We have a manifold diversity of religions on THIS planet that hold all manner of beliefs, from no gods at all to thousands and thousands.


 
"CANNOT be the case"???? Where is this absolute proof that makes the theory of ONE GOD an impossibility? Diverse religions, and varied beliefs in multiple Gods or even NO God, does not make those theories correct either. Just because those beliefs exist is not proof that the ONE GOD theory is wrong. It might be wrong, but a mixture of religious beliefs means nothing but a vast majority of the people might all be wrong. If there really are several Gods, then the ONE GOD theory people would be wrong, and the multiple God people can say "nah, nah - I told you so!" Just please don't offer to me as "proof" that a ONE GOD theory is not possible simply because so many other theories exist! No logic in that - in my opinion.

Last Fearner


----------



## mrhnau

elder999 said:


> Bottom line is that quantum mechanics don't entirely apply to objects larger than quanta-in fact


well, not exactly... I also think thats the whole nature of Schrodinger's cat, taking a quantum effect and making it an observable. But in principle, yes


----------



## Ray

heretic888 said:


> Allow me to rephrase.
> 
> What you refer to as the Moon, as with all knowledge, is a construction. All knowledge is constructed. The Moon is a construction. The Sun is a construction. God is a construction. The self itself is a construction.
> 
> The very act of "observation" fundamentally modifies and shapes what can and cannot be observed in the first place, and this happens in ways that individual men and women cannot even begin to be consciously aware of (due to both biological and cultural constraints). This is the essential insight of philosophy over the past 100 years, that there is no such thing as "innocent" observing, no passive "map-making" of reality. The Myth of the Given has been laid open bare.


I'm beginning to understand why we can't end world hunger...we can't even agree on the moon.


----------



## Makalakumu

Last Fearner said:


> All I care about hearing is, "The theory of a God says this, and that can not be true, and here is why..." Not, it sounds absurd, far-fetched, and thus it has to be fiction made up by people who want a God that looks like them.


 
The problem with what you are asking is that you cannot PROVE 100% that anything exists or not.  I can provide support for this or that theory or I can show how this or that theory, when weighed against the evidence is surely rediculous, but I cannot absolutely show you that one choice is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  (This is highly related to what Heretic and I are discussing in this thread.)

With that being said, the argument that there is a god, that he created the entire universe, created us in his own image, and sent his only son to a tiny corner of THIS planet is absurd.  It is absurd simply because it does not explain all of the evidence.  The scale of this universe and all of the things in it are simply too vast for this little provincial argument to encompass.  

This is one of the reasons that I've been bringing up extra-terrestrials.  If you look at the universe as we know it and you really weigh the odds, which are based simply on the conditions that we KNOW can support life, we approach the assumption that it is nearly a mathematical certainty that not only other life exists, but other intelligent life.  

In fact, when we look at the sky, we see galaxies that look just like ours, with stars in it that are just like ours, presumebly with planets that are probably just like ours over 10 billion light years away.  There are entire clusters of galaxies like this...billions...each with hundreds of billions of stars.  

Civilizations that would have lived on these planets could have died out far before the Earth had ever coalesced.  In fact, the very stars themselves would have died before humans had even evolved.  We are only seeing the photons that are traveling through space, carrying history with them.  

How can the theory that is posited by the Bible and Christianity possibly encompass that?  This is real evidence, btw.  These are real odds.  If you were to place a bet on any of this stuff in a horse race, you would effectively have no chance of losing.

With that being said, does this argument preclude the existence of a God?

No.  Even though it portrays the Christian Myths as most probably false, it doesn't handle the theory that there could have been another or other Gods that are responsible for the Creation of the universe.

Before I go on, I just want to point out that this explanation is markedly different then the Christian explanation that is posited in the Bible.  In fact, this explanation is treading on all of the heresies that Christians were burning people for hundreds of years ago.  

The main problem with the assertion that there is a God or Gods that were responsible for the creation of the universe is that no body can answer what exactly God did.  We have all of these physical laws that explain almost everything in the universe and none of them imply any sort of supernatural explanation at all.  So, either there is no God or Gods or It or They created the universe with all of its physical laws intact and then did nothing else.  

That is Deism and that is the last truly defensible theistic explanation for the creation of the universe and our subsequent existance.  Most of the scientists, who are also believers, are in effect, deists.  They believe that their is a God, but that god is responsible for the physical laws of the universe and that it operates within those laws.  God either does not or cannot do anything outside of those laws.

This is a very tenuous postulation.  

Today, in our times, right now, scientists are supporting theories that explain the creation of our universe in naturalistic terms.  They require no gods at all to explain the existence of the universe...and the evidence is mounting for these theories.  

That's why I asked the question about the new partical accellerator.  What happens if a particle or series of particles is created that basically shows that one of these theories really did happen?  Alot of physicists think that it is a very distinct possibility.  

So what happens?  What did god (not the christian god btw) or gods do?

The answer is nothing.  

So, what is the point?

This is where I'm at with my faith.  From what I've learned as a scientists, from what I know that is currently being researched, a god or gods have very little or no bearing on our world what so ever.  

So, whats the point?  

The god hypothesis, when it comes to explaining anything at all about "why we are here" is essentially meaningless.

A far better explanation is that humans create their own meaning and that religions have meaning only in the context of other humans.  We can value our myths for the lessons that they teach us, for the fact that even they are they product of our evolution, that in many ways, they shape who we are, but they are not responsible for the natural world around us.  They do not explain the universe.  

Rezu Aslan describes humans as being not only _homo sapians_, but _homo religioso_.  This designation means that we have the capacity for faith.  That we crave a reason for our existence and actively create those reasons.  There's something special in this, I think.  This is something that truly ties us all together.  We all can have whatever beliefs we want and they all fullfill this basic human need and there is no real way to talk about which beliefs are better then others *in this context*.  

Humans are still alone in this vast universe...separated by distances that most people cannot even imagine...but we have each other...we have our minds...and our imaginations...and that brings us all together.

upnorthkyosa


----------



## Ray

upnorthkyosa said:


> ...   This is real evidence, btw.  These are real odds.  If you were to place a bet on any of this stuff in a horse race, you would effectively have no chance of losing.


We can bet, but we won't live long enough to collect.


----------



## Last Fearner

*The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo*​ 
When the topic of Jesus of Nazareth comes up, and there is speculation that Jesus was a fictitious person made up by the authors of the New Testament, I have to wonder if these doubters have done any in-depth research into the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, and what their opinion is of the *historical* and *scientific* *evidence* concerning these two items.

In the past couple of days, I watched a PBS special that discussed the most recent scientific evidence concerning the carbon dating of the Shroud. The Shroud is said to have been the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, and the other smaller cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, was believed to be the cloth that was placed over the face of Jesus after the crucifixion, but removed before the burial in the tomb.

The Shroud of Turin first appeared (to our modern records) in the medieval times of the 14th century. Those who believed it was a fake were initially vindicated when carbon dating in 1988 revealed that the cloth was no older than the 14th century. However, more recent tests, and *scientific scrutiny* has proven that the original results were *invalid* because it was discovered that the piece of the cloth which was tested was from a repair patch done in the 14the century, and does not match the rest of the Shroud. These newer findings have been held up to peer review and published in many scientific journals as absolute fact that the Shroud is much older, and could possibly date back as far as 2000 years.

I found the following website on the internet which covers this topic in great detail. I strongly recommend that *everyone* reads this entirely. 

http://www.shroudstory.com/​ 
Be sure to scroll down and read the informative story on the first page, then start the five section story book at the top of the page. It is very informative, and enlightening. The main thing is that it presents the *scientific research* that has been published in *scientific journals* and subjected to *peer review* for those who are only compelled by scientific evidence of historical events. The total picture of this history is not complete, but it gives a compelling argument that lends much more credibility to the existence of Jesus rather than the notion that he never lived.

If the Shroud of Turin is, in truth, the burial cloth of Jesus (and that is not such a big "if" combined with all of the legends, stories, and biblical accounts, and coupled with the scientific evidence about the Shroud), then this shows that this man was beaten, scourged with whips, crucified, and died in the very same way as described in the Bible (nails in the wrists, wound in the side, and bleeding from the scalp caused by the crown of thorns).

This story is presented in the above website link in five sections

1. introduction
2. from edessa to turin
3. mysterious images & science
4. more topics
Sudarium of Oviedo
coins over the eyes?
5. open letter to journalists

I suggest that *everyone* view each section of the story in the *order numbered above*, and learn some fascinating things. One thing that just blew me away was the symmetry shown in comparison of the image on the shroud to the mosaic tile above the main gate to the city of Edessa, a Christian city in the 6th Century.

In 544, workers repairing the city found a cloth bearing the image of Jesus. This cloth confirmed the legend of Abgar, which told the story that a disciple named Thaddeus brought a cloth with the image of Jesus on it to Abgar V, King of Edessa (*ruled 4BC to 7AD and again from 14 to 50AD*). It is believed that the tile on the gate which depicts the face of Jesus was painted shortly after the discovery of the cloth in 544 AD.

The amazing thing you will see in this interactive storybook layout is that you can move your cursor over the portrait on the tile to reveal the image of the shroud with exactly the same positions of the mouth, nose, eyes, and hair as the face on the tile. There should be no doubt to your own mind, seeing it with your own eyes, that the painted tile on the city gate in 544 was taken precisely from the Shroud of Turin. 

Thus the Shroud dates back, at least, to the 6th century, and when coupled with the earlier legend of Abgar as to how the mysterious cloth arrived in Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus, we must conclude that the Shroud dates to the early half of the 1st century AD.

This is clearly the burial cloth of someone who was scourged by Roman whips (as confirmed by the scientific data published), crucified on a cross with blood stains proving the arms were outstretched and raised when the blood dripped from the wrists, and matching in detailed stains and blood type to both the Shroud of Turin, and the face cloth of the *Sudarium of Oviedo* which has its own well documented history separate from that of the Shroud of Turin after they were each removed from Jerusalem.

The 3-D image on this website, showing the face of Jesus lifted from the cloth, is overwhelming as they explain the *scientific evidence* that proves the image was not painted on, nor created with any known photographic technology, but is actually a "*proximity" image* which provides information to produce a computer generated 3-D image in the same manner as modern radar and laser imaging.  You can actually *see* what the face of Jesus looked like because of this preserved image on his burial cloth.

Please view this entire website, and comment on the scientific and historical findings which I believe confirms the fact that Jesus lived, and was crucified on the cross.

Last Fearner


----------



## Makalakumu

I was looking to see which journals in which this was published and could not find any.  I'm actually familiar with the technique of radiocarbon dating, so I'd like to see what they did or even if it WAS published in a journal.

Meanwhile...

http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/as/schafersman.html



> *The Shroud's Medieval Radiocarbon Date*
> 
> Without question, the most spectacular refutation of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin was the determination that the linen on which the image lies dates from approximately 1325. The Shroud was sampled and the dates determined by the most scrupulous and scientifically-valid techniques and procedures that are possible. Sampling was carefully conducted and witnessed, the samples were properly cleaned and prepared, and three different laboratories performed the 14C dating using blind control samples in addition to the Shroud samples. All the dates were consistent among the labs. Since Robert E. M. Hedges has reviewed the radiometric dating analyses and results in this journal24, I need not repeat them here. I merely want to state that the quality of the radiometric data are so rigorous that no objective, rational person can reasonably deny them.
> 
> Naturally, believers in the Shroud's authenticity have thrown up numerous criticisms that are variously ludicrous, vacuous, and without merit. Contrary to pro-authenticity advocates, the linen samples were _not_ deceptively switched, _not_ taken from the wrong part of the Shroud material, _not_ improperly cleaned and prepared, did _not_ have a bioplastic coating, were _not_ contaminated by modern bacteria and fungi that were not removed, the carbon-14 content of the cloth was _not_ altered by the fire of 1532, the final results were _not_ deliberately falsified by a conspiracy of anti-religious scientists, and so forth. As has been pointed out by others, modern material of approximately twice the mass as the Shroud samples would have to be added to the samples to bring authentic first-century linen up to radiocarbon dates of the fourteenth-century, and this would have been just too obvious to go unnoticed by so many independent investigators. Once again, the ad hoc excuses, criticisms, and counter-arguments of the radiocarbon dating by Shroud enthusiasts were put forward to preserve appearances at any cost, a classic characteristic of pseudoscience. In real science, legitimate and reliable data that falsify one's most treasured hypotheses and beliefs are accepted, and lead one to abandon one's former beliefs. But sindonology is a pseudoscience, not real science.


----------



## Ray

If a person wanted to experiment a little bit, it might help people see a problem with the shroud of turin.

Wet your face with some harmless liquid that will show up on cloth.  Place a white cloth over your face so that you can transfer the image of your face onto the cloth (like by laying face up and draping the cloth). Don't rub, (patting might be okay to help the cloth completely cover your face), let the liquid transfer your features.

Remove the cloth and lay the cloth flat on a table.  You will see that your face is distorted on the cloth.  Because your face is wrapped on your somewhat spherical head it will not look the same on the flat cloth.

In my opinion, the face on the shroud of turin too neatly resembles a face as it would look if painted.

I wonder what others who try this think.


----------



## tellner

The Shroud of Turin was debunked freaking decades ago. It was a medieval forgery. The researchers were able to figure out the method.


----------



## Last Fearner

upnorthkyosa said:


> Meanwhile...
> 
> http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/as/schafersman.html


 
[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]*Unraveling the Shroud of Turin*[/FONT]​*[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]STEVEN D. SCHAFERSMAN
Department of Science and Mathematics
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Odessa, Texas[/FONT]*

*Copyright © 1998*


Since the research data, and *modern* scientific findings explained in the link I first provided in my previous post were of the 21st century, this outdated link from 1998 has little to no merit. 

I went to the trouble of doing extensive reading through the website I mentioned.  It is about the most recent scientific reports published on the Shroud of Turin, and I placed the link here in my earlier post with a strong urging that others read it entirely *first*, then comment *after*.

It would seem that those who have commented thus far failed to read this website at all, and therefore lacked the information needed before they posted links to old material, quoted outdated findings, and simply dismissed the Shroud as having been &#8220;debunked freaking decades ago.&#8221;  Since it is apparent that the website I recommended was not thoroughly read, let me quote you some excerpts to think about.

*&#8220;An Open Letter to Journalists*​*​*A few weeks before he died in 1963, Washington Post publisher Philip Leslie Graham described journalism as the &#8220;first rough draft of history.&#8221; ...
...All of us can think of many instances when the first draft of history was wrong; from world events to science.  It is a problem when journalists, by turning to dusty archives or online repositories, repeat an old story without taking the trouble to look for new information....​
...When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, journalists often fall into the first-draft trap.  Some recent examples - that have become something of urban legends - will serve to illustrate this:

* John Blake in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote: &#8220;The image of a bearded man was declared to be the image of the crucified Christ for centuries until carbon dating in 1988 suggested it was a medieval forger.&#8221; (March 2, 2007)

* Randi Kaye on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 said: &#8220;Forensics in the past 40 years didn't show blood, instead, something similar to paint.&#8221; (February 26, 2007)

Updated, peer reviewed science tells a completely different story, as we will see.  Blake completely ignored the ongoing scrutiny of the shroud by scholars. Yes, ongoing. Yes, scholars...

...Look at the list of scientific journals.  Read the articles (listed in an appendix to this letter).  There is not a single religious assumption.... ...Controversy surrounding the possible authenticity of the shroud, as we will see, is a matter for real science, objective history and archeology.

Parnie Schwortz, one of the most prominent and objective shroud researchers of the last three decades, serves as a useful example.  He once wrote:

_'Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified.  That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement  with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype.  The only reason I am still involved with the Shroud of Turin is because knowing the unbiased facts has convinced me of its authenticity.  And I believe only a handful of people have really ever had access to all the unbiased facts.  Most of the public has had to depend on the media, who always seem to sensationalize the story or reduce the facts to two minute sound bites from so-called experts who have 'solved the mystery.'_

...Towards the end of the CNN segment on the Shroud of Turin, Chetry said to Gallagher:

'The argument that the gentleman made in the piece is that they accidentally -- or they -- not accidentally, but they snipped a piece that ended up being a reconstructed part of the shroud....Do we buy that?'

Buy what?
That John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers' findings.  Brown worked independently and with different methods, including a Scanning Electron Microscope.  He wrote:

_'This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan's attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.'_

Had the shroud been correctly carbon dated, the cloth should produce measurable amounts of vanillin.  Found in medieval linen, but not in much older cloth, vanillin diminishes and disappears with time.  Rogers, who initially accepted the carbon dating, discovered that there was no detectable vanillin in the flax fibers of the main part of the shroud just as there is no vanillin in the linen wrapping from the Dead Sea Scrolls.  There was, however, vanillin in the corner from which the carbon 14 samples were taken.  He demonstrated -- his methods and conclusions withstood the rigors of peer review - - that the main part of the shroud and the carbon dating sample had a different age.  Had the cloth of the shroud been manufactured in 1260, the oldest date suggested by carbon dating, it should have retained about 37% of its vanillin.&#8221;​ 


tellner said:


> The Shroud of Turin was debunked freaking decades ago. It was a medieval forgery. The researchers were able to figure out the method.



Ok, now let me introduce you to the *21st century of scientific findings*.

The following are some of the journals listed on the last page of the above letter I quoted:

Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp. 189-194).  The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect online information site.

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Lloyd Currie.
NIST, Washington D.C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)

Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto.
&#8220;The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.&#8221; (2004: pp 491-503)
Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna.  &#8220;The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-

Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.&#8221; s vol. 4,
Ames, J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg,
(2003, pp. 106-113)

Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. &#8220;Comparison of
Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.&#8221;46:142-154(2002)


Here are my questions about the Shroud of Turin by itself, and the connection to the Sudarium of Oviedo:

1. It seems to me that there are three main pieces of contested evidence that is being used to claim the Shroud is a medieval artist rendering.

*a. The carbon 14 dating*:
- - Modern research has at least brought into question, if not adequately proven that the sample taken was from a patch of material which was added as a repair in the 14th century.  This argument is not faulting the carbon 14 tests, or claiming the test was contaminated or gave false results.  The newer evidence shows the test to be invalid because it was not of the material from the main section which scientific research shows is older than the sample.

*b. The alleged presence of a paint-like substance*:
- - Modern scientific methods has refuted this previously mistaken conclusion, and the researches have published new results that states there was no paint on the main section or used in the image.

*c. The letter by the 14th Century Bishop*:
- - It seems clear to me that this alleged claim by one man during a time of controversy over legitimate artifacts, would not hold up to the scrutiny of the skeptics own standards if this type of so-called &#8220;evidence&#8221; was offered on the other side of the debate.  The Bishop can not be held as an unbiased witness, nor as an &#8220;expert&#8221; witness.  His testimony was taken from an apparent draft of a letter that might not have ever been sent, thus makes no official, open declaration.  His alleged knowledge of an artists claim to have created the shroud was hearsay which he claims originated with his deceased predecessor who never made any such noted claim in his lifetime, and cannot corroborate the Bishop's claim.  Furthermore, it would appear that no one has ever identified the alleged artist who claimed to have made the shroud.

2. Each of the above points are pivotal to denying the Shrouds authenticity.  Without them being true, the Shroud stands out as a very credible piece of history.  Modern, 21st century, scientific research, peer reviewed and published, has brought each of these three key points into serious question, and further research has tipped the scales toward the likely-hood that the Shroud existed centuries before the alleged 14th century creation.

Consider the following five points and address them individually if you like:

1. Even if the type of image on the shroud could be theoretically reproduced, in parts, by methods available in the 14th century, where is the scientific and historical evidence that anyone of that time period knew of it.  Why only one artistic item with this reverse negative image?  If it were used then, why have not more been found.  Why would an artist use anything resembling a negative image instead of just painting the figure as a normal image? 

Also, the fact that the figure's thumbs were not visible raises the medical issue that a crucified man would have this physical reaction.  How would a 14th century artist know this, and why would he think to make the image without visible thumbs?  Only through advanced, modern technology are we able to examine details of the shroud, not visible to the naked eye, which reveals the amount of wounds from whipping on the back, buttocks, and legs, as well as other bleeding wounds.  How would an artist think to include any of these details, how would he accomplish this process, and why would an artist forging an image of Christ on a cloth take time to create nearly invisible markings that would either go unnoticed, or if they were made more visible to the eye at that time, would clearly be fake marks to the 14th century observer.

2.  The tile image at the main gate of Edessa in 544 A.D., is clearly an exact replica of the face on the shroud.  If anyone has evidence to refute the existence of the tile, or that it does not exactly match the symmetry of the Shroud, let them post it here!  To my eye (from my own perspective as an artist) there is not anywhere near likely that these two renditions could be so identical and not have one taken from the other.  

Therefore, either the shroud was present in Edessa in the 6th century, or the alleged forged shroud was placed over the tile (or an exact duplicate of the image on the tile) in the 14th century.  One was clearly taken directly, and precisely from the other.  Does anyone have evidence that the tile was removed from Edessa, or that an exact replica of the Edessa tile was taken to where the Shroud was allegedly forged?

3.  The historical account of workers repairing the gate of Edessa in 544 A.D. says that they found a cloth hidden in the gate which contained the image of Jesus of Nazareth.  Is this story contested, and claimed that it never happened, or is the claim that this was a different cloth?  If the story can be confirmed, then what cloth was it, and why wouldn't the image of Jesus on the new tile over the main gate of Edessa after 544 be taken from that cloth?  

Unless people discount that story, and even prove it is false, it seems logical that when they found a hidden cloth with an image of Jesus on it, they would use that image to create the gate's tile image thereafter.  If that were true, then it is clear that the cloth they found is the same Shroud that turned up later in Turin because the images are the same.

4.  If there is no evidence to refute the story of the workers finding a cloth with the image of Jesus on it, where did that cloth come from?  Would this not be supported by the earlier legend that a disciple brought such a cloth to King Abgar?  Do others deny that King Abgar existed?  Do they deny that the earlier legend of the disciple existed?

5.  Finally, and of very high importance, what is the argument against the physical, scientific evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) contains the same type of human blood, and the markings match for the various blood stains?  Science seems to suggest, rather convincingly, that these two cloths are related, and were together at one time when they were used on a crucified man.

Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two.  Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?

To conclude, I don't have time to quote all of the current, 21st century evidence and its publications, so I ask that those who wish to simply dismiss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as proven during the last century to be a fraud, ignoring udated research, and further ignore the Sudarium of Oviedo, then please read the link that I posted earlier before you quote *old*, *outdated*, scientific *first-draft findings*.

Last Fearner


----------



## pstarr

Well put.  The most recent research done on the shroud certainly seems to blow the "paint" and other forgery ideas out of the water.  Whatever else it may be, it appears that it is certainly a shroud that was placed over a man who was, in fact, crucified.  The "dried blood" was tested and found to be human blood - it was even typed.

Wish that the scientists could do a bit more work on the shroud...it'd be truly fascinating.


----------



## Makalakumu

Even if the Shroud was put around someone and absorbed the negative of their image, how do we know it's Jesus?  It could be anyone.  

Oh well, at least the dude's got a beard and thats close enough...


----------



## Makalakumu

Last Fearner said:


> Since the research data, and *modern* scientific findings explained in the link I first provided in my previous post were of the 21st century, this outdated link from 1998 has little to no merit.


 
Of course it has merit.  If you are going to understand the arguments made against the shroud, then you have to read them, correct?



> I went to the trouble of doing extensive reading through the website I mentioned. It is about the most recent scientific reports published on the Shroud of Turin, and I placed the link here in my earlier post with a strong urging that others read it entirely *first*, then comment *after*.


 
I read through the site and checked for a couple of things...mostly hoping that the journal articles cited would be linked.


Ok, now let me introduce you to the *21st century of scientific findings*.

The following are some of the journals listed on the last page of the above letter I quoted:



> Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp. 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect online information site.
> 
> Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Lloyd Currie. NIST, Washington D.C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)
> 
> Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. *The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud*. (2004: pp 491-503)
> 
> Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. *The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation*. s vol. 4, Ames, J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, (2003, pp. 106-113)
> 
> Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. *Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results*.46:142-154(2002)


 
One of the salient questions here is how the researchers determined that the peice of cloth tested as taken from a patch.  Another is which study actually outlines the "new" carbon 14 dates.  As you can see, from the titles that I bolded, 3-5 that I listed apparently have nothing to do with carbon dating.  So, that leaves only two that may have anything to do with carbon dating methods and which sample was taken.  Both of these look like they may appear on online...

I'll check that later.



> 1. Even if the type of image on the shroud could be theoretically reproduced, in parts, by methods available in the 14th century, where is the scientific and historical evidence that anyone of that time period knew of it. Why only one artistic item with this reverse negative image? If it were used then, why have not more been found. Why would an artist use anything resembling a negative image instead of just painting the figure as a normal image?
> 
> Also, the fact that the figure's thumbs were not visible raises the medical issue that a crucified man would have this physical reaction. How would a 14th century artist know this, and why would he think to make the image without visible thumbs? Only through advanced, modern technology are we able to examine details of the shroud, not visible to the naked eye, which reveals the amount of wounds from whipping on the back, buttocks, and legs, as well as other bleeding wounds. How would an artist think to include any of these details, how would he accomplish this process, and why would an artist forging an image of Christ on a cloth take time to create nearly invisible markings that would either go unnoticed, or if they were made more visible to the eye at that time, would clearly be fake marks to the 14th century observer.


 
I don't think you want to plead to the ignorance of 14th century artists.  Any trip through Europe to visit the exquisite detail and workmanship of said people is sure land one with crow in the mouth.  

If you really look at the work of any of the great rennaiscance artists, you'll see the same sort of brilliance that exists nowdays.  Except, there was much less opportunity for that greatness to be expressed.  

So, why wouldn't an accomplished artist think of all those things?



> 2. The tile image at the main gate of Edessa in 544 A.D., is clearly an exact replica of the face on the shroud. If anyone has evidence to refute the existence of the tile, or that it does not exactly match the symmetry of the Shroud, let them post it here! To my eye (from my own perspective as an artist) there is not anywhere near likely that these two renditions could be so identical and not have one taken from the other.
> 
> Therefore, either the shroud was present in Edessa in the 6th century, or the alleged forged shroud was placed over the tile (or an exact duplicate of the image on the tile) in the 14th century. One was clearly taken directly, and precisely from the other. Does anyone have evidence that the tile was removed from Edessa, or that an exact replica of the Edessa tile was taken to where the Shroud was allegedly forged?


 
Is this the image you were talking about?







It certainly isn't a negative if it is...



> 3. The historical account of workers repairing the gate of Edessa in 544 A.D. says that they found a cloth hidden in the gate which contained the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Is this story contested, and claimed that it never happened, or is the claim that this was a different cloth? If the story can be confirmed, then what cloth was it, and why wouldn't the image of Jesus on the new tile over the main gate of Edessa after 544 be taken from that cloth?
> 
> Unless people discount that story, and even prove it is false, it seems logical that when they found a hidden cloth with an image of Jesus on it, they would use that image to create the gate's tile image thereafter. If that were true, then it is clear that the cloth they found is the same Shroud that turned up later in Turin because the images are the same.


 
Or maybe this is the historical origin of the Shroud of Turin story and the forgers were trying to substantiate it with a hoax?



> 4. If there is no evidence to refute the story of the workers finding a cloth with the image of Jesus on it, where did that cloth come from? Would this not be supported by the earlier legend that a disciple brought such a cloth to King Abgar? Do others deny that King Abgar existed? Do they deny that the earlier legend of the disciple existed?


 
Where is the evidence that they found a cloth?  How do we know that this "historical account" is credible?



> 5. Finally, and of very high importance, what is the argument against the physical, scientific evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) contains the same type of human blood, and the markings match for the various blood stains? Science seems to suggest, rather convincingly, that these two cloths are related, and were together at one time when they were used on a crucified man.


 
I have yet to check the "evidence" in questions, but lets assume for a minute that both of these are authentic in that they both were associated with a man who was crucified.  How could we ever know that this man was Jesus?  What tests could ever be done to show that both of these actually wiped the forhead of Jesus or that they shrouded the body of Jesus?  Why couldn't the Church have procured both of these items and then arbitrarily claimed that they came from Jesus of Nazareth?

Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?


----------



## Last Fearner

pstarr said:


> Wish that the scientists could do a bit more work on the shroud...it'd be truly fascinating.


I agree!  From what I understand, the examination of the shroud and any evidence, old or new, is constant and on-going.

The last page of that "Open Letter to Journalists" in the link I posted said, "Before finalizing this letter, I sent a draft to over one hundred people who are well informed about the shroud.  Most are academics.  Most are scientists.  Most are members of the international Shroud Science Group, an organization that will be hosting a very much secular, scholarly conference on the shroud at Ohio State University in August of 2008."

I am looking forward to what they might find between now and then!  



upnorthkyosa said:


> Even if the Shroud was put around someone and absorbed the negative of their image, how do we know it's Jesus?


You're right, kyosa, we don't know!  It might not be the shroud of Jesus but someone else.  We might never find out.  I guess the first step is to determine, with reasonable certainty, if it is older than the 14th century, then take it from there.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Of course it has merit. If you are going to understand the arguments made against the shroud, then you have to read them, correct?


Again, you are correct!  It is good to read all of the evidence, and theories, past and present.  My point was that, once new evidence is discovered which seems to refute and nullify old findings, it has no real merit to answer the new findings by referring to statements from the former, incorrect findings.  The only valid argument, in my opinion, would be to show that the new findings were somehow flawed (with evidence to prove that allegation), which we could then revert back to the original findings.  Does that make sense??? 




upnorthkyosa said:


> So, that leaves only two that may have anything to do with carbon dating methods and which sample was taken. Both of these look like they may appear on online...
> 
> I'll check that later.


Thanks for checking into this!  I am having limited time to do all the research I want to on this, So I appreciate your posting anything you find.




upnorthkyosa said:


> I don't think you want to plead to the ignorance of 14th century artists.


I don't!  I want to plead to my ignorance!  I don't know much about 14th century artists.



upnorthkyosa said:


> So, why wouldn't an accomplished artist think of all those things?


I don't know - - maybe he could have.  It's just that I have studied for several years in High School, and am a bit of an artist as well (drawings, paintings, pottery and ceramic sculptures), and I don't see the logic or the likely-hood of an artist conceiving the notion of a negative image for an imprint of a crucified man, and planning out every detail that wouldn't be discovered for centuries, and not until the invention of highly technical equipment which did not exist then.  Why would he try so hard to fool a 14th century audience with details they could not detect, and how could he conceive that future scientists would be able to find these details?




upnorthkyosa said:


> Is this the image you were talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It certainly isn't a negative if it is...


I don't know!  Where did you get that one?  The link I provided had that experiment on one of the pages where you move your cursor over the image of the tile, and reveal the symmetry to the Shroud.  I don't even know where their image came from, or if it is verified as being legit.  I'll have to look into it further.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Or maybe this is the historical origin of the Shroud of Turin story and the forgers were trying to substantiate it with a hoax?


Could be!?!  This is why I'm very interested in the connection between the Shroud and the Tile, if they were ever together in one place, where and when.  Also the connection between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo to see if they actually are linked by blood and other evidence.



upnorthkyosa said:


> Where is the evidence that they found a cloth? How do we know that this "historical account" is credible?


I don't know!!!  You're asking the same questions I'm asking.  
I want answers to these things too!



upnorthkyosa said:


> I have yet to check the "evidence" in questions, but lets assume for a minute that both of these are authentic in that they both were associated with a man who was crucified. How could we ever know that this man was Jesus? What tests could ever be done to show that both of these actually wiped the forhead of Jesus or that they shrouded the body of Jesus? Why couldn't the Church have procured both of these items and then arbitrarily claimed that they came from Jesus of Nazareth?


We might never find out if this was the shroud of Jesus, and even if we do, it won't likely prove that he was the Son of God, or the resurrected Messiah.  That might have to be left to faith, but it might help to prove that Jesus was a real man, and really did live (which is why we have a "B.C./A.D" calendar, and why we celebrate Christmas, Easter, and have so many "Churches of Jesus Christ," "The Virgin Mary," and "The holy trinity" -  )



upnorthkyosa said:


> Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?


I'm not sure what you meant by this one??  I am not denying that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times.  I believe there is evidence that it was held as a relic from the 6th century or earlier, but I have not confirmed that research yet.

Let's keep up the pursuit of knowledge and work together to reveal the results - - whatever they are!

Last Fearner


----------

