Cameron documentary claims to have found Jesus' Tomb. Oh, and dead body too...

[Cain]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not married myself, but I do know some people who are and religion has nothing to do with it. They have a rule book though, and it's a pretty simple one. They know what their roles and responsibilities are and they've never needed some organization or book to tell them not to screw other people, spend all the money or leave the kids in the car. You don't need a rulebook to tell you to act with some common sense.

This sounds like yet another example of "we need religion, otherwise we'd be immoral", which is nonsense. Human beings may be stupid, but we aren't individually hopeless.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Religion is not by any means a requirement for having a good set of morals, or direction in your life. If it provides you with that, great, but it is by no means a necessity, nor where they originate.

[metallicat]

This thread seems to have gone off on a tangent.

Did the press conference take place today?

[Sparks]

50 years ago our society itself provided specific roles for each gender. Today everything becomes a matter of negotiation and possibly debate. Marriage for many have become like playing a game were the players make up the rules and often change the rules as they play.

Great! Are you saying that like it's a bad thing? I think it's fantastic.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not married myself, but I do know some people who are and religion has nothing to do with it. They have a rule book though, and it's a pretty simple one. They know what their roles and responsibilities are and they've never needed some organization or book to tell them not to screw other people, spend all the money or leave the kids in the car. You don't need a rulebook to tell you to act with some common sense.

This sounds like yet another example of "we need religion, otherwise we'd be immoral", which is nonsense. Human beings may be stupid, but we aren't individually hopeless.

If that common sense is all you need how come so marriages fail?

Also, if you read my last post you'll notice I didn't specify a particular rule book. I also, acknowledged that our society itself didn't have this problem
50 years ago because there were established rules within our society for conduct/expectations within a marriage.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Sparks

Great! Are you saying that like it's a bad thing? I think it's fantastic.

I suppose it is if you consider divorce as fantastic.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I suppose it is if you consider divorce as fantastic.

The benefits far outweight the costs.

Things we better back in the "good ole days" weren't they?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If that common sense is all you need how come so marriages fail?

Also, if you read my last post you'll notice I didn't specify a particular rule book. I also, acknowledged that our society itself didn't have this problem
50 years ago because there were established rules within our society for conduct/expectations within a marriage.

I don't know if common sense is all you need, but I would imagine it helps. You don't need a rulebook to follow it either.

What is so great about 1957? My grandparents were all married long before 1957 and believe me, there were debates and negotiations then. Sure there were established expectations (I won't say rules) when it came to marriage. There are now as well. Your argument sounds suspiciously like "in the old days, the women knew their place", so you might want to clarify what you mean by "conduct/expectations".

I don't know, maybe you can blame the divorce rate on the fact that fewer people believe they will go to hell if they get a divorce, and refuse to waste the one life they do have suffering through a marriage they don't want to be in. You may think that's a bad thing, but some of us don't. That doesn't mean I'm "pro-divorce", but I don't believe that people should suffer needlessly and ruin their lives in a marriage they ultimately don't want to be in so they can avoid a place that doesn't exist.

[Azure]

Maybe those people shouldn't get married in the first place if they're not sure they can make things work?

Unless you're taking about suffering as in abuse, where I would agree with you, and so would a sane religious person.

I don't know, but I think the divorce rate would be much lower if couples would actually give it a go, or at least try to fix their marriage instead of opting for the easy way out.

Thunderball had a great post about that earlier.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

I'm not sure anymore. I always assumed there was a historical Jesus in the past, but the evidence is really lacking (not contemporaneous or hearsay). Seems more and more "scholars" are re-examining original assumptions. A number of the "scholars" are theologians with a deeply vested interest in the answer.

The definition of what a professional theologian would be helpful in this regard. I am constantly being confused with one, despite the fact that I am by profession a biblical scholar. The former is one for whom the study of religious doctrine is the goal; biblical scholars—on the other hand are much less interested in spiritual formation, and much more interested in the history and literature connected to the religious practices of the Church and throughout Judaism. Biblical scholars—the reputable ones, anyway—are in general agreement that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual figure from history. And I am not talking merely of those scholars who happen to be confessional like myself; I am speaking also of the agnostics and the skeptics who happen to study Jewish and Christian literature and history professionally.

Originally Posted by troutman

The other problem that comes to my mind is the Jesus mythology is not very original. It seems to borrow heavily from other belief systems from that time and place. [on reflection, that may not say much really about a historical Jesus - he could have lived, and the mythology was laid on top later]

Cowperson referred to this previous thread:

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...ighlight=Jesus

Whether or not the mythology that grew around Jesus of Nazareth is original or not is beside the point. In no way does this detract from the plausibility of his existence. In fact, I would argue that the very obvious stream of development that can be traced through the Gospels is positive proff that the legend of Jesus had a beginning, and that seminal point was in the life, teachings, and deatn of an extraordinary man. I will concede that there is much doubt surrounding the historicity of the gospel accounts, and of the religious practice that it produced, but I think you would be surprised at how well many of the activities of Jesus (and here I am talking primarily of his travels and his teaching apart from his miracles) conform to recorded Greco-Roman history.

[Vulcan]

In my experience there are two kinds of people, those who know god and those who don't. Everybody who doesn't know is guessing, fun but not getting to the heart of the matter. The heart, as Socrates said is to "know thyself". This means we don't have to know the infinite universe, the Bible, the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita. We just have to know ourself. If we can take the phrase that god is everywhere then he is also inside us and so can be experienced by each of us. I don't look at god as an object or noun, to me he is more of a verb, an energy, so proving this exists in something so personal can only happen if you too experience it. I don't know who has had this experience or is even currently experiencing it but I think most have had at least a taste even if they don't recognize it as such. This experience is open to all, you just have to learn how.
excuse the sermon, I just get tired of it all.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Your argument sounds suspiciously like "in the old days, the women knew their place", so you might want to clarify what you mean by "conduct/expectations".

One of my grandmother's brothers left his wife and child(if i remember right) for another women. My Grandpa wouldn't allow him in his home because of it. It was shameful to abandon your family or not provide for them. During the Great Depression that was no easy task. Women knew their place but so did the men and if anybody forgot their extended family
was there to remind them.

I'm not suggesting the roles we find in 1930 were perfect. What I've been suggesting is that our society today lacks any societal standards governing conduct/expectations and that present void is a primary cause
of high divorce rates.

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't know, maybe you can blame the divorce rate on the fact that fewer people believe they will go to hell if they get a divorce, and refuse to waste the one life they do have suffering through a marriage they don't want to be in. You may think that's a bad thing, but some of us don't. That doesn't mean I'm "pro-divorce", but I don't believe that people should suffer needlessly and ruin their lives in a marriage they ultimately don't want to be in so they can avoid a place that doesn't exist.

I doubt if the fear of hell has much to do with the stability of marriage
within the history of our society or in other cultures around the world. I'm
sure you could find societies which don't believe in hell that have fairly stable marriages, as well.

[Sparks]

Posted by RougeUnderoos:

I don't know, maybe you can blame the divorce rate on the fact that fewer people believe they will go to hell if they get a divorce, and refuse to waste the one life they do have suffering through a marriage they don't want to be in.

Not to mention situations involving domestic violence, which I also suspect would have often gone unreported in the 1950s.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

I think the biggest benefit a deeply religious couple have over a nominal
person of faith or an agnostic/atheist is that they have a rule book.
Their religion defines their roles/responsibility within the relationship as well
as their expectations. This of course can be bad if the religion has oppressive expectations on one particular gender.

As both a religious person and a married man (going on 14 years now), I don't believe you can legitimately make such a statement. How do we measure the quality of relationships between men and women among theists and agnostics or atheists? If is is based purely upon a statistical analysis, then I'm afraid this is horribly flawed. Surely you, a religious person yourself, know as well as I do the kinds of pressures that accompany marriage among those within the Church. The kinds of pressures which keep relationships together which should probably otherwise be aborted. The kinds of pressures which place young people into positions where they believe there is something they should or should not do without having the opportunity to reason objectively about the consequences for their actions. I have had too many friends who married under religious pressure when they should not have done so. Furthermore, I'm afraid to say that I also know too many people who married, and should not remain married but will do so anyways because of their religious obligation.

My point in all of this is that clear "definition(s) of roles/responsibility within a relationship" is not what makes a relationship successful. Nor does a set of ruoles and guidelines. The only way I know how to survive marriage and to remain happily committed to it is through love, sacrifice, cooperation, and commitment. No "rulebook" can provide any of these essential items.

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

50 years ago our society itself provided specific roles for each gender. Today everything becomes a matter of negotiation and possibly debate. Marriage for many have become like playing a game were the players make up the rules and often change the rules as they play.

If this were true, then every successful marriage would work in exactly the same way. Furthermore, the boundaries between roles and responsibilities within a family would be so non-negotiable that they would be static. I defy you to demonstrate a static pattern of clearly defined roles and responsibilities that work exactly the same way for every couple—married or otherwise.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

One of my grandmother's brothers left his wife and child(if i remember right) for another women. My Grandpa wouldn't allow him in his home because of it. It was shameful to abandon your family or not provide for them. During the Great Depression that was no easy task. Women knew their place but so did the men and if anybody forgot their extended family
was there to remind them.

That kind of action would still be conisidered shameful. You don't need a rule book, a God,a religion or fear of eternal damnation to know that ditching your wife (or husband) and kids is not a good move to make. At least I don't. Divorce is one thing, abandoning your own children is something else.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Wow every time I check were on a different topic.

I think the biggest benefit a deeply religious couple have over a nominal
person of faith or an agnostic/atheist is that they have a rule book.
Their religion defines their roles/responsibility within the relationship as well
as their expectations. This of course can be bad if the religion has oppressive expectations on one particular gender.

50 years ago our society itself provided specific roles for each gender. Today everything becomes a matter of negotiation and possibly debate. Marriage for many have become like playing a game were the players make up the rules and often change the rules as they play.

Lol, I know, it does meander doesn't it. I didn't hear anything further about the press conference yet, so I guess we're all still waiting.

I think I agree with you about a deeply religious couple having a "rule book" helping the relationship, but not for the same reason. I think it helps a couple get into the mode of working out how things are going to work, gets everyone open and up front about the structure of things. Because really, roles in a modern Christain family are filled in as diverse a way as any other family.

And I think that can be established without religion as well, the couple has to be equally honest and communicative. They have to work those things out before hand. So I don't think it's exclusive to religion, I think it has more to do with your other point:

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

If that common sense is all you need how come so marriages fail?

Because it's not that common! I know a few younger married couples where I've heard the guy utter the phrase "if my wife knew...". That right there is the core of the problem. Dating often seem to be a game of presenting the best side, hiding the flaws, jockying for power, etc, and then when they get married since that's all their dating relationship ever covered, that's the only way they know to interact!

When I was dating my wife, we both told each other pretty early on that we weren't going to be false with each other; we were going to be honest (not hurtful or stupid, we're dating, of course we're going to try to win the other person's heart) with each other so that if we decided to take our relationship to the next level of commitment, that we knew who we were getting into it with. Not some facade, but the real person, their beliefs, dreams, hopes, fears, flaws, crazy parts... And I think we benfited greatly from that.

Originally Posted by Azure

Great post.

Thanks

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

My point in all of this is that clear "definition(s) of roles/responsibility within a relationship" is not what makes a relationship successful. Nor does a set of ruoles and guidelines. The only way I know how to survive marriage and to remain happily committed to it is through love, sacrifice, cooperation, and commitment. No "rulebook" can provide any of these essential items.

I agree that no rulebook can provide the essentuals and also, there are
good marriages that don't possess a rulebook. A rulebook or strong societal pressure does help though. It gives the relationship boundaries
and areas of certainty.

Originally Posted by Textcritic

If this were true, then every successful marriage would work in exactly the same way. Furthermore, the boundaries between roles and responsibilities within a family would be so non-negotiable that they would be static. I defy you to demonstrate a static pattern of clearly defined roles and responsibilities that work exactly the same way for every couple—married or otherwise.

Well maybe rules are too strong of a word. How about an ideal which is reconized and up held by the couple and society in general.

[Textcritic]

A friend of mine completed his Ph.D. at St. Andrews University in Scotland under Prof. James Davila, who happens to keep a very informative blog on the internet. I have attached a link to it which will help to clarify the general academic consensus surrounding the Jesus Family Tomb phenomenon. In my experience, Prof. Davila is exceptionally balanced, which is decidedly less than I can say for Toronto film-maker Simcha Jacobovici—whom I met while working on a project in Jerusalem.

The entry on the blog page about the Tomb is the second entry for Tues, 27 February; just scroll down to find it.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

A friend of mine completed his Ph.D. at St. Andrews University in Scotland under Prof. James Davila, who happens to keep a very informative blog on the internet. I have attached a link to it which will help to clarify the general academic consensus surrounding the Jesus Family Tomb phenomenon. In my experience, Prof. Davila is exceptionally balanced, which is decidedly less than I can say for Toronto film-maker Simcha Jacobovici—whom I met while working on a project in Jerusalem.

The entry on the blog page about the Tomb is the second entry for Tues, 27 February; just scroll down to find it.

http://paleojudaica.blogspot.com/

Excellent thanks, always looking for good blogs!

[Bobblehead]

The only thing about that blog that I would criticise is how they downplay the odds because the names are so common.

Even if they are each individually common, as a group that makes it much more rare. Just looking at Joseph, Mary and Jesus, the odds of getting all 3 together are 8.3% x 21.4% x 3.4% (using the odds posted in the blog).
The result is .06% or 6 in 10,000 chance of that particular grouping of names. If you include the rest of the names the odds are even greater.

So I don't think the commonness of a name is a good method to discount this theory.

That being said, my guess would be that this finding is a coincidence and that it will be impossible to prove that it is THE Jesus beyond any reasonable doubt. Unless someone has DNA that can be confirmed as coming from the biblical characters I can't see how there will ever be definitive evidence (with today's technology).

[Thunderball]

Its important to note:

Religion = Morality, but Morality =/= Religion.

The problem is in our society, too many people abandoned religion, and failed to replace it with a secular form of morality that governed people to the extent religion has.

Too many people are getting married and divorced for selfish reasons, and not for moral ones. Most importantly, there is a serious lack of individual and collective pride and deference, something a strong moral, cultural, spiritual or religious backing helps instill. I personally think our multicultural secularism is to blame for this. I don't think its any secret that people who hold fast to their cultural and spiritual beliefs and refuse to compromise them have a better track record in things like marriage, divorce, pride, etc.