Originally Posted By friendofdd Jonvn, I very deliberately did not call you a name of any kind. Please reread the post. I respect you as a poster and enjoy reading much of what you post, but you err in misreading what I said.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<RT? Sorry to derail this thread but what anxiety med's do they have your brother on?>> For Lisann22: They have him on Haldol. His wife told me this morning that they have doubled the dose they were giving him and that seemed to greatly reduce his agitation. For the original topic: I don’t think religion can be proved one way or the other. You must accept religion with faith, knowing that there is no tangible proof of the existence of God. Most of the time I can do that.
Originally Posted By jonvn Whether a strict reading of your post says that, I took it as that, because I feel it implies it. It doesn't matter. I'm not a religious bigot in any case, I simply hold my views, which are not the same as others. That does not make me anything other than someone who holds certain views. It's really out of the realm of this discussion anyway.
Originally Posted By jonvn "They have him on Haldol." They gave my father Haldol. Zonked him out. I guess it works.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>people do different things<< Of course. Much of which in influenced by the circumstances they are in at the time of death -- their physical condition, the types of meds they are on, the people around them, their own temperment and world view, etc. I watched someone die and be mean to a person that, in their right mind, they would never be mean to... not in a million years. But it happens, as part of the dying process, so much of that "anger" and such isn't the conscious decision that faith is all a sham. It is part of the dying process, almost an involuntary reaction, as I'm sure your many relatives in the healthcare field would confirm. You have sweet little old ladies suddenly swearing like anything. This doesn't mean that they have simply suppressed these things and suddenly feel free... it's sort of a brain dump of emotions, and reading too much into any of that causes undue pain for loved ones.
Originally Posted By jonvn I didn't say "many relatives." Most of my relatives are actually already dead.
Originally Posted By pecos bill I find it amusing that people are giving any thought at all to this Cameron thing. There is really no proof here that warrants such an extravagent claim as having found the remains of the Jesus of Christianity. This is just another Geraldo at Al Capones vault, and it's funny that they made a crack about that in Cameron's film Titanic. Without proof, it is just a theory, and that just dont cut it. I dont say this as a religious person, as I am not, but there is too much fantasy and too few facts. (P.S.) My condolences to those who have loved ones who are so terribly ill as to make a quick death look like a blessing.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>This is just another Geraldo at Al Capones vault<< LOL -- good analogy.
Originally Posted By jonvn <So sue me for saying "many."> OK, what jurisdiction do you live in? I agree with pecos bill. The whole thing is ridiculous. Cameron is trying to make a quick buck on the faithful, like Mel Gibson did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 RT and 2oony, I'm so sorry to hear about your brother and your dad. As for Cameron's thing, it will be forgotten in a month.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka The same people who are obsessed with The Da Vinci Code will probably be thrown into another tailspin by this "news".
Originally Posted By DlandJB True - Archeologists are already saying it is just a publicity stunt. <a href="http://www.dailymail.com/story/News/+/2007022871/Archaeologists-call-Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus-a-publicity-stunt" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.com/story /News/+/2007022871/Archaeologists-call-Lost-Tomb-of-Jesus-a-publicity-stunt</a> Excerpt: WASHINGTON -- Leading archaeologists in Israel and the United States denounced the purported discovery of the tomb of Jesus as a publicity stunt. Scorn for the Discovery Channel's claim to have found the burial place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and -- most explosively -- their possible son came not just from Christian scholars but also from Jewish and secular experts who said their judgments were unaffected by any desire to uphold Christian orthodoxy. "I'm not a Christian. I'm not a believer. I don't have a dog in this fight,'' said William Dever, who has been excavating ancient sites in Israel for 50 years and is widely considered the dean of biblical archaeology among U.S. scholars. "I just think it's a shame the way this story is being hyped and manipulated," he said Tuesday.>>> and later in the article: "Jodi Magness, an archaeologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, expressed irritation that the claims were made at a news conference rather than in a peer-reviewed scientific article. By going directly to the media, she said, the filmmakers "have set it up as if it's a legitimate academic debate, when the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this,'' she said. Magness noted that at the time of Jesus, wealthy families buried their dead in tombs cut by hand from solid rock, putting the bones in niches in the walls and then, later, transferring them to ossuaries. She said Jesus came from a poor family that, like most Jews of the time, probably buried their dead in ordinary graves. "If Jesus' family had been wealthy enough to afford a rock-cut tomb, it would have been in Nazareth, not Jerusalem,'' she said. Magness also said the names on the Talpiyot ossuaries indicate that the tomb belonged to a family from Judea, the area around Jerusalem, where people were known by their first name and father's name. As Galileans, Jesus and his family members would have used their first name and home town, she said. "This whole case (for the tomb of Jesus) is flawed from beginning to end,'' she said."
Originally Posted By jonvn Gee...peer reviewed scientific article.... "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in archaeology of this period have flatly rejected this" But I bet someone could come up with a list of 15,000 scientists who say it is true!
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<But I bet someone could come up with a list of 15,000 scientists who say it is true!>> LOL
Originally Posted By Beast77 <<But I bet someone could come up with a list of 15,000 scientists who say it is true!>> While that is true for so many topics, in this case, any trained archaeologist will quickly see the holes in the approach used in this case. While it cant be proved that this was NOT Jesus... there is not enough data to establish that it was. Additionally, because of the way they went about the project, it is unlikely that real archaeologists will ever be able to get usable data from the tomb in any event... that is too bad. As Dr. Dever said, this is a perfect example of the worst case scenario of amateurs representing archaeology incorrectly.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Sure, the story of the Bible refers to an empty tomb, which SEEMS to contradict Cameron's findings. But we have found quirks in Biblical accounts before.>> "Quirks." Here we go. The Christian Machine is once again set to deflect any possible challenges to its mythololgy.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<But when I look at the lives of the people with the most rock-solid faith, their lives have truly been filled with the most difficulty. Could there be a link between suffering, and loss, and growth? Perhaps.>> There's a definite connection. Sociologically, it's clear that the level of "belief" is directly and predictably proportionate to the difficulty of one's life. Let's take the US population as an example. Poor people tend to believe in a God who takes an interest in their personal well-being. He makes demands of them and he promises rewards if they obey. They pray to him; he presumably responds. It's a very personal relationship. At the other end of the spectrum, people with money (and an easier life) don't bother with a God who is so intrusive in their lives. They retain the comfort of believing that someone is watching over them (and they maintain the societal norm of having "religion") without having to actually DO much related to their beliefs. "God" is more of a reassuring concept than a personal presence. (Except, of course, that he can be made more reassuring and personal as the situation requires.) Worldwide, the relationship between religious belief and personal situation is even more pronounced. The people with the most agrarian and difficult lives believe in the most involved and demanding gods. So, yeah. Hard life, strong belief. Not a surprise.
Originally Posted By Mr X Makes perfect sense, Marc. If your life totally sucks, and you see no way out of your poverty and suffering...why not believe in a supreme being that will "reward" you in the afterlife for living such a crappy life?
Originally Posted By jonvn Here's an article with someone describing the feelings I mentioned. It's not uncommon: <a href="http://www.insidebayarea.com/search//ci_5358837" target="_blank">http://www.insidebayarea.com/s earch//ci_5358837</a>
