Director James Cameron rewrites religion!

Beady said:
We're getting bogged down in details, here. Essentially, my points are:

1. Things aren't as bad as they've been made to appear, and they're showing tangible signs of getting better. The pace may appear glacial at the moment, but it's downright dizzying when measured against the whole.
Click to expand...

You mean on a historic timescale? Agreed.

2. Rather than complaining that things aren't happening fast enough, perhaps it would be better to be grateful to be witnessing what may be the next stage of evolution.
Click to expand...

I wasn't advocating complaining. I was advocating voting, activism, and doing one's part.

3. Error is not denial, misinterpretation is not distortion.
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for the existence of god, and the numerous miracles of Christian dogma and scripture fly in the face of the most elementary understanding of geology, physics, and biology. A person must be in denial of the countless facts that contradict Christianity to be a Christian, unless they take the position that everything which was impossible never happened, which does not resemble Christianity as represented by religious doctrine or scripture.

4. Ultimately, we have to co-exist with these people. You can try to do it while regarding them as evil and/or deluded, or you can tolerate them as fallible fellow-humans and lead by example. I know which method I prefer.
Click to expand...

Live-and-let-live and lead-by-example simply do not work in a republic or democracy. Each deluded theist's vote, guided by Bronze Age bigotry dressed up as respectable mysticism, counts for just as much as the most clear headed free thinker. We must debate and oppose their political agendas because, if for no other reason, the group that mobilizes its base and/or influences the undecided the best steers the course. Fair minded and quiet tolerance is, in my opinion, a recipe for disaster.
 
Beady said:
The reasoning is that the chosen representative of humanity should not be someone who thinks that virtually the entire race is delusional. This is a position that is difficult to argue with.
Click to expand...
Not if the majority of humans actually are delusional.
 
cj.23 said:
This has to stop. In teh UK we have an Established Church, (I'm part of it) and we have Civil Partnership. I feel strongly about this because one of my mates boyfriends died and he got not a penny, because it was before the Act. Ironically an earlier Will meant it did go to a previous boyfriend however... Equality under law, regardless of religion - how can anything else be justified?



I agree absolutely - I just think ID doesn't hurt folks the way other beliefs do. I prioritise it lower therefore. People don't kill people over Creationsim - I hope! I stronly oppose the rise of the Religious Right, and have been researching in the area for some years - but I think ID is still a fairly minor problem realistically. Racism, homophobia, lack of equality and opportunity for women, poverty, hunger, disease, global warming - all coem higher on my list of evils to fight...





Yes I gathered. I'm UK based, but my reponses are also in regards to the US really. I started another tread to discuss $$$ and woo. I don't think we disagree much - I just prioritise different things maybe?

j x
Click to expand...

I suppose one might recall Voltaire's maxim that those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. It's true, as far as I know, that nobody has been murdered over ID yet, But many see ID as the thin end of a wedge; both its opponents and its proponents often regard it as a move toward a fundamental change in government and culture. And while ID by itself may not kill anyone, theocracy in general has a far more dismal record.
 
Dave, how's this?

I bet you 100 dollars it's not found to be the grave of the holy family.

You must admit, though, that it is amusing when believers and skeptics both come out against something for polarly opposite reasons.
 
CJ, you're a practising Christian in the UK? That makes two that I've met.

How did it come about that you go to church? Not to stereotype but are you by any chance an immigrant?
 
Not really - I'm technically Danish, and lived in Denmark a while, but went to school in England and have been in the UK the vast majority of my life. I'm that rare thing, a UK Anglican who is not on the Charismatic or Evangelical wing, a sort of moderate Broad Churchman (latitudinarian). Yes the Church of England is so vast we have to have little descriptions of where we fall within it!

No offence at all - it's fairly unusual as the UK is overwhelmingly secular -- but I was a convert from my childhood atheism, and I guess more folks go the other way. My church averages 15 attendees, mainly elderly ladies. Mind you the Church down the road which is Charismatic Anglican gets 3,000+, mainly young professionals and teenagers, every Sunday...

cj x
 
Quick update, from my friend David, with references --

It's also all happened before. In 1945 the great Israeli archaeologist E.L. Sukenik discovered a cache of ossuaries in Talpiot, marked with the names Simon, Lazarus, Judas, Ananias, and Jeshua (Jesus), one of whom was a son of Joseph, Miriam (Mary), Martha, elisabeth, Salome, Johanna, Sapphira, Apphia, and Barsabas. There was the usual media hoo-ha about whether he had found the tomb and bones of Christ. The ossuaries dated from the 1st century BC to 70 AD.

Sukenik himself maintained that he hadn't, but instead considered that he had found 'the earliest records of Christianity'. Some of the ossuaries were marked with a cross, and two of the ossuaries were marked with 'Jesus Aloth' and 'Jesus Iou'. 'Iou' is ancient Greek for 'woe', and 'Aloth' was interpreted to be an expression of woe, or from a Hebrew root meaning 'to arise', so that Jesus Aloth was interpreted as 'Jesus, let Him arise'.

Others have cast doubt even on this statement. Iou could be a form of the Hebrew name, Jehu, and Aloth is also a complete personal name. Jesus Aloth could be the complete name of a single person, or mean, 'Jesus, son of Aloth'.

So, lots of Jesus', various other Biblical names, but no real link to Christ or the other members of the early Christian community, though the names Apphia and Barsabas were so rare that it was possible that these were names of early Christians mentioned in Acts.

So, put simply, we've been here before. There's no story, and nothing to see. If you want to check the details, try D.J. Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology (London, The Tyndale Press 1958), p. 82, J.A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Exeter, the Paternoster Press 1973, pp. 321-4).
 
cj.23 said:
Quick update, from my friend David, with references --

It's also all happened before. In 1945 the great Israeli archaeologist E.L. Sukenik discovered a cache of ossuaries in Talpiot, marked with the names Simon, Lazarus, Judas, Ananias, and Jeshua (Jesus), one of whom was a son of Joseph, Miriam (Mary), Martha, elisabeth, Salome, Johanna, Sapphira, Apphia, and Barsabas. There was the usual media hoo-ha about whether he had found the tomb and bones of Christ. The ossuaries dated from the 1st century BC to 70 AD.

Sukenik himself maintained that he hadn't, but instead considered that he had found 'the earliest records of Christianity'. Some of the ossuaries were marked with a cross, and two of the ossuaries were marked with 'Jesus Aloth' and 'Jesus Iou'. 'Iou' is ancient Greek for 'woe', and 'Aloth' was interpreted to be an expression of woe, or from a Hebrew root meaning 'to arise', so that Jesus Aloth was interpreted as 'Jesus, let Him arise'.

Others have cast doubt even on this statement. Iou could be a form of the Hebrew name, Jehu, and Aloth is also a complete personal name. Jesus Aloth could be the complete name of a single person, or mean, 'Jesus, son of Aloth'.

So, lots of Jesus', various other Biblical names, but no real link to Christ or the other members of the early Christian community, though the names Apphia and Barsabas were so rare that it was possible that these were names of early Christians mentioned in Acts.

So, put simply, we've been here before. There's no story, and nothing to see. If you want to check the details, try D.J. Wiseman, Illustrations from Biblical Archaeology (London, The Tyndale Press 1958), p. 82, J.A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology (Exeter, the Paternoster Press 1973, pp. 321-4).
Click to expand...

I await the reply from Dr. Tabor and the other experts involved. This is what is needed now, good discussion and debate. It's weird to me the people that want to snatch each little fact and try to use it to declare the debate/discussion is over. And yes, cj.23 that's directed at you, and how conclusively you end this post in claiming that past overreaching sensationalism is proof positive that the same thing is happening here.
 
Dave1001 said:
I await the reply from Dr. Tabor and the other experts involved. This is what is needed now, good discussion and debate. It's weird to me the people that want to snatch each little fact and try to use it to declare the debate/discussion is over. And yes, cj.23 that's directed at you, and how conclusively you end this post in claiming that past overreaching sensationalism is proof positive that the same thing is happening here.
Click to expand...

Dave, if you read my earlier posts on this thread you will see I supported Cameron et al from attacks on those grounds, and made clear that I did not think a claims truth was in anyway related to its sensationalism. I pointed this out several times, and qquite emphatically, and was the first poster to do so!!! :D

Your dislike of Christians also seems to have blinded you to an obvious fact - you are ascribing a quote I posted to me - I cited it, but I am not the author... jeeeesh...

Take a break, chill...

EDIT _ Actually my fault Dave, and I apologise _ I somehow made the quoted text blue but did not put a quote box round it! And i completely agree with you - there is zero point in speculating without a full knowledge of the facts, but that has not stopped the press. I want to see what the experts say, I'm fascinated.


cj x
 
Last edited:
Dave1001 said:
It's weird to me the people that want to snatch each little fact and try to use it to declare the debate/discussion is over.
Click to expand...

It's weird to me that you're so apparently hopeful that this is anything but the over-hyped non-event that it appears to be. Seriously, what new revelation are you waiting for from this lot?
 
Meet the Jesuses

I will wait for further evidence to decide if this find is anything significant.

But I will predict one thing. If the remains of the historical Jesus and his family are ever found, it won't even be a speed bump for Christianity.

They will just declare that the ascension of Jesus into Heaven was a spiritual truth, which is in no way altered by the facts of the case, and continue merrily onwards with their legions of braying sheep happily dropping money into the collection plate.

To quote Eli Weisel, "Some events do take place but are not true; others are, although they never occurred."

To Christians, the Grand Jesus Myth is an example of Truthiness, not Factiness.
 
Beady said:
Not enough to think the sky is falling. Fact is, I'm personally acquainted with many of these folks, and I find them to be rather decent sorts, by and large.
Click to expand...

Beady, I must ask just how many of those decent folks are Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostals? As Pentecostals are quickly becoming the most popular and influential denomination in America, and the line between church and state is becoming thinner, I find it a bit uncomfortable.
 
Big Les said:
It's weird to me that you're so apparently hopeful that this is anything but the over-hyped non-event that it appears to be. Seriously, what new revelation are you waiting for from this lot?
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of hope. I'd like to see see a good reasoned discussion. There seem to be credible people on multiple sides of this issue. I'd like to see a good discussion and debate between Dr. Tabor's side and other sides.
 
cj.23 said:
Dave, if you read my earlier posts on this thread you will see I supported Cameron et al from attacks on those grounds, and made clear that I did not think a claims truth was in anyway related to its sensationalism. I pointed this out several times, and qquite emphatically, and was the first poster to do so!!! :D

Your dislike of Christians also seems to have blinded you to an obvious fact - you are ascribing a quote I posted to me - I cited it, but I am not the author... jeeeesh...

Take a break, chill...

EDIT _ Actually my fault Dave, and I apologise _ I somehow made the quoted text blue but did not put a quote box round it! And i completely agree with you - there is zero point in speculating without a full knowledge of the facts, but that has not stopped the press. I want to see what the experts say, I'm fascinated.


cj x
Click to expand...

cj.23, Ah, I see we're actually on the same page. Consider my post directed at whoever the author of the blue portion was.:blush:
 
The Vampire said:
...and the line between church and state is becoming thinner
Click to expand...

The "Religious Right" has always been there. Its political power ebbs and flows, just like with any other demographic. You can either allow them their voice, or you can become the very thing you claim to be fighting.

BTW, I do know a few Fundies (one of them will be installing a new roof on our house), but I've never run across a "Jesus shouting, baby tossing, snake handling Pentecostal." How many of those do you know? A second question may be, Are you sure you haven't lost your sense of proportion?
 
Last edited:
Beady said:
The "Religious Right" has always been there. Its political power ebbs and flows, just like with any other demographic. You can either allow them their voice, or you can become the very thing you claim to be fighting.
Click to expand...

False dichotomy and a strawman both. Firstly, vigorously debating something does not equate to wanting it forcibly abolished. Personally, I want to publicly ridicule religion and oppose the political agenda of fundamental and moderate religious groups through democratic processes. Only in the sense that I want rationalists to be as active as religious nut cases are the agendas similar. Religious wackos want it to be illegal to teach science in a science class in a public school. No one here is arguing that it should be illegal for religion to be taught in a religious class in a church. We are not risking becoming what we oppose.
 
Beady said:
I'm not quite sure you've settled in your own mind, just exactly what your viewpoint is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should clarify. What I reject is the fashionable sentiment that any differing opinions are equally valid, and that the best course of action is compromise and moderation. When one group wishes to forever enshrine bigotry against homosexuals in law, ban the teaching of science in science classes, and prohibit every other action that offends their invisible friend, I oppose that. I simply have no tolerance for that attitude. I stop short, however, of advocating forcibly abolishing their religion.
 
ImaginalDisc said:
What I reject is the fashionable sentiment that any differing opinions are equally valid, and that the best course of action is compromise and moderation.
Click to expand...

My own call for detente is not validation of their religion, but a recognition that, as I've said before, we have to share the planet with these people. We have to buy from them, sell to them, socialize with them and, in far more instances than not, make common cause with them. None of this is going to be made any easier by some atheistic nutbar standing on a soapbox and damning all believers to hell (or whatever it is that atheistic nutbars do).
 
Beady said:
My own call for detente is not validation of their religion, but a recognition that, as I've said before, we have to share the planet with these people. We have to buy from them, sell to them, socialize with them and, in far more instances than not, make common cause with them. None of this is going to be made any easier by some atheistic nutbar standing on a soapbox and damning all believers to hell (or whatever it is that atheistic nutbars do).
Click to expand...

It sounds reasonable up to a point. I will happily coexist with anybody who is willing to coexist with me. Make common cause when our goals are common. But for me, at least, the gloves are off if they try to rewrite the grand, wonderful, and secular constitution we also must share.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom