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

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Do we really want to start a debate about the Catholics?

Here, read this...

There is no debate. Some people that St.Peter is at the pearly gates. You and I may not believe it and it may not be in the bible, but some Christians do believe it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is no debate. Some people that St.Peter is at the pearly gates. You and I may not believe it and it may not be in the bible, but some Christians do believe it.

A bit contradicting, don't you think?

"It may not be in the Bible....but some Christians believe it..."

Fair enough though.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

There is no debate. Some people that St.Peter is at the pearly gates. You and I may not believe it and it may not be in the bible, but some Christians do believe it.

I'd be frankly surprised to find a Christian who hadn't heard of the concept...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

A bit contradicting, don't you think?

"It may not be in the Bible....but some Christians believe it..."

Fair enough though.

It may be contradicting, but contradictions and inconsistencies are sort of par for the course in any religious sect, as far as I can tell.

[Calgaryborn]

Revelations 21:25And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

If Peter's key were thought to be literal what do they open?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Burninator

MYK was demanding that he show evidence of god either existing or not existing because of this image. I was stating that the image was not out to prove or disprove god but rather show that religion lacks logic.

Religion isn't meant to conform to the logic of science. It's faith. That's the only thing I'm pointing out. I think it should be the same for athiests too.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Religion isn't meant to conform to the logic of science. It's faith. That's the only thing I'm pointing out. I think it should be the same for athiests too.

Which brings us back to the true meaning of the word "agnostic," which has been a question of some debate in this thread. To clarify (and I hope I'm not merely repeating what you said earlier...) an agnostic is NOT "in the middle" between theists and atheists.

An atheist believes that there is no god. Typically their case is made from a rationalist/materialist set of assumptions about the universe. The fact is, god's existence cannot be proven, and religion's claims about the material world are generally pretty easy to prove false. Ergo: religion's views about other things are also wrong.

A theist believes that there is a god, and that knowledge of said god comes from faith, etc. No amount of evidence will disprove the existence of god, because belief was never based on evidence in the first place.

An agnostic believes that the ultimate truth of the universe is unknowable. Note that this is different from saying "I don't know, but something might convince me. It is, as kermitology said earlier, kind of a proposition of infinitude about the universe, and an admission that we are not in a position where we can understand it. To wit: rational/materialist belief systems result in truths that can be proven within a rational/materialist framework. An agnostic acknowledges that there may be something exterior to that paradigm, but also dismisses the notion that simply having faith in some equally earth-bound human production (such as a church or religious text) is merely to pretend that churches have access to truth that is by definition unknowable.

I know which belief system I stand by. But some clarity as to the terms is valuable, in my opinion.

[Textcritic]

I'm sorry to have not had the opportunity to add a contribution to this thread while it was still on the topic of supposed evidence for the remains of Jesus of Nazareth. I really have no wish to get into a debate about the metaphysical construction of Heaven, nor about the method in properly distinguishing between an atheist and an agnostic.

I'm skeptical about the identification of the tomb for the simple reason that positively identifying 2000-year-old remains of a Judaean peasant and his family is a "Titanic" accomplishment under the best of circumstances. Of course, if the remains are indeed those of Jesus and his family, this presents an enormous problem for many segments of the Christian Church, but in several instances, it is probably not an insurmountable blow. Theological reflection, re-evaluation, and revision are a long standing tradition, and part of why the Christian religion has been so successful for so many years.

I want to make a point in response to Troutman's first post about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. From an insiders perspective, it should be acknowledged that there are very few scholars on any side of this debate who would affirm that Jesus was a mythical figure. Obviously, there are a litany of historical problems with the earliest records of his life and ministry, but this does not mean that they must all be accepted as whole-sale fabrications (if they were, then we must conclude that the evangelists and the apostles were the most successful frauds of all time). In all probability, Jesus was an authentic, first-century Jewish rabbi, who was survived by an explosively successful eschatological school of devotees. The best second hand accounts (Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonus, and Josephus—minus the Testimonium Flavium) all reflect this much with little debate.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which brings us back to the true meaning of the word "agnostic," which has been a question of some debate in this thread. To clarify (and I hope I'm not merely repeating what you said earlier...) an agnostic is NOT "in the middle" between theists and atheists.

An atheist believes that there is no god. Typically their case is made from a rationalist/materialist set of assumptions about the universe. The fact is, god's existence cannot be proven, and religion's claims about the material world are generally pretty easy to prove false. Ergo: religion's views about other things are also wrong.

A theist believes that there is a god, and that knowledge of said god comes from faith, etc. No amount of evidence will disprove the existence of god, because belief was never based on evidence in the first place.

An agnostic believes that the ultimate truth of the universe is unknowable. Note that this is different from saying "I don't know, but something might convince me. It is, as kermitology said earlier, kind of a proposition of infinitude about the universe, and an admission that we are not in a position where we can understand it. To wit: rational/materialist belief systems result in truths that can be proven within a rational/materialist framework. An agnostic acknowledges that there may be something exterior to that paradigm, but also dismisses the notion that simply having faith in some equally earth-bound human production (such as a church or religious text) is merely to pretend that churches have access to truth that is by definition unknowable.

I know which belief system I stand by. But some clarity as to the terms is valuable, in my opinion.

That's one of the most beautiful explanations of Agnostisism I've ever read.. well done.

For me this is the case, because knowledge of the universe is on an infinite scale. To me there is no creation, because everything is infinite. When I cease to be part of this conciousness of understanding I move to the next stage of an infinite progression of understanding.

To me it seems that faith in a lot of organized religions isn't wrong, it's just something that helps comfort the vastness of dealing with infinity. I find it hard to believe that Earth would be the focal point of an infinite universe and that a Creator, if there is one, would focus on us. It's not to say that it isn't possible, just 1/infinity in terms of possibility.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I want to make a point in response to Troutman's first post about the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. From an insiders perspective, it should be acknowledged that there are very few scholars on any side of this debate who would affirm that Jesus was a mythical figure. Obviously, there are a litany of historical problems with the earliest records of his life and ministry, but this does not mean that they must all be accepted as whole-sale fabrications (if they were, then we must conclude that the evangelists and the apostles were the most successful frauds of all time). In all probability, Jesus was an authentic, first-century Jewish rabbi, who was survived by an explosively successful eschatological school of devotees. The best second hand accounts (Tacitus, Pliny, Seutonus, and Josephus—minus the Testimonium Flavium) all reflect this much with little debate.

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 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

[Five-hole]

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.

To me that is the most likely explanation. It is not at all remarkable to have a political and spiritual figure at any time in history, and even less so 2000 years ago. There's lots of those.

I think his story just grew with each re-telling, so to speak.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'd be frankly surprised to find a Christian who hadn't heard of the concept...

So that automatically makes it part of the Christian faith?

Boy, you're really pulling strings today.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which brings us back to the true meaning of the word "agnostic," which has been a question of some debate in this thread. To clarify (and I hope I'm not merely repeating what you said earlier...) an agnostic is NOT "in the middle" between theists and atheists.

An atheist believes that there is no god. Typically their case is made from a rationalist/materialist set of assumptions about the universe. The fact is, god's existence cannot be proven, and religion's claims about the material world are generally pretty easy to prove false. Ergo: religion's views about other things are also wrong.

A theist believes that there is a god, and that knowledge of said god comes from faith, etc. No amount of evidence will disprove the existence of god, because belief was never based on evidence in the first place.

An agnostic believes that the ultimate truth of the universe is unknowable. Note that this is different from saying "I don't know, but something might convince me. It is, as kermitology said earlier, kind of a proposition of infinitude about the universe, and an admission that we are not in a position where we can understand it. To wit: rational/materialist belief systems result in truths that can be proven within a rational/materialist framework. An agnostic acknowledges that there may be something exterior to that paradigm, but also dismisses the notion that simply having faith in some equally earth-bound human production (such as a church or religious text) is merely to pretend that churches have access to truth that is by definition unknowable.

I know which belief system I stand by. But some clarity as to the terms is valuable, in my opinion.

I disagree quite a bit with this definition. I believe one can be agnostic about something that is knowable, just not with the current evidence.

Dawkins calls this temporary agnosticism in practice, versus permanent agnosticism in practice. Many people would try to say that a god would never be provable, and try to lump it in the permanent branch, but honestly, I do think that someday we will be able to confirm or deny it. It might be a long time from now, but it should be able to be answered, as the existence of an entity...is not an abstract thing.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by photon

By doing it, spread the word without judging. Why would you judge the lost? To what end? If you suceeded in making every sinner not sin, they still would not be saved would they? It's supposed to be the other way around, first the salvation, then the rest. Jesus himself said "for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." and "Ye judge after the flesh; judge no man." (Of course there's other scriptures where Jesus says he judges people, but that's another discussion)



There is no "right" person to marry. I married a person whom I love and who loves me back, and we're both comitted to our relationship and making it work. It's that commitment that MAKES that person the right person.

I know many pastors, and have known many. But I've never "known" when one was a real man of God and another wasn't. But I see you are unwilling to give any other answer.

Many of the pastors I have known I think of as great men. Because of how they treated others, how they loved and respected everyone (not just those in their flock or those that shared their beliefs). A number have had a great impact on my life. But so have other men who had nothing to do with the church.

in your regards to marrying the right person...thats your own opinion, i just hope it flys with the wife! i believe otherwise, that there is truly that someone out there for you. it's all in how strong your faith is... but surely yours isn't. can i ask you what do you believe in?

[flames85]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Join date, Feb2007.

Um, the CP crowd is not the forum where this debate should be have.

I wouldnt be surprised if this thread reaches 25 pages.

MYK

oh right, you can't have an opinion because i don't have 10,000 posts, and sit on the internet all day long. the cp off topic forum is just that, off topic... so if you don't want to participate then ignore it.

[flames85]

Originally Posted by Azure

Prove to me that in the Bible government means Pastor/Ministers.

I'm not confusing anything. The Bible clearly points out that the government was set up by God, for the good of mankind.

And he still controls the government to this day.

there are people who believe through faith, and then people who believe through facts....

[photon]

Originally Posted by flames85

in your regards to marrying the right person...thats your own opinion, i just hope it flys with the wife! i believe otherwise, that there is truly that someone out there for you. it's all in how strong your faith is... but surely yours isn't. can i ask you what do you believe in?

So what happens if you get it wrong the first time? Then you are doomed to a life of misery? All churches I've been to have spoken more about commitment, communication, and such far more than some magic "find the right person and it'll all work out".

Given how high the divorce rate is, obviously finding the right person isn't something that many people are able to do, no matter what their religion.

Love and commitment, communication and work, patience and kindness, trust and honesty, all those things have nothing to do with it?

Are you are saying because my faith isn't strong enough, my marriage is doomed to fail?

What do I believe in with respect to what? The Flames? We'll make one minor deal before tomorrow's end.

You're young and you have much to learn, try not to make too many enemies and alienate yourself from too many people too soon...

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by photon

So what happens if you get it wrong the first time? Then you are doomed to a life of misery? All churches I've been to have spoken more about commitment, communication, and such far more than some magic "find the right person and it'll all work out".

Given how high the divorce rate is, obviously finding the right person isn't something that many people are able to do, no matter what their religion.

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.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

So what happens if you get it wrong the first time? Then you are doomed to a life of misery? All churches I've been to have spoken more about commitment, communication, and such far more than some magic "find the right person and it'll all work out".

Given how high the divorce rate is, obviously finding the right person isn't something that many people are able to do, no matter what their religion.

Love and commitment, communication and work, patience and kindness, trust and honesty, all those things have nothing to do with it?

Are you are saying because my faith isn't strong enough, my marriage is doomed to fail?

What do I believe in with respect to what? The Flames? We'll make one minor deal before tomorrow's end.

You're young and you have much to learn, try not to make too many enemies and alienate yourself from too many people too soon...

Great post.

[RougeUnderoos]

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.

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.