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

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by 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.

Religious people might have a better track record on things like marriage, divorce, etc., but are they happier? What if your religious-moral code prevents you from leaving your spouse despite the fact that you're terribly unhappy in the relationship? How many people slogged through a 50 year marriage hating every inch of the last 30 years of it, but were prevented from freeing themselves by their religious-moral code?

Its easy to look at the stats and say 'religious people don't get divorced as much', but I'm not sure its because they love each other more, but rather are compelled to stay together because of the 'religious law' they subscribe to. Kind of hard to divorce your miserable/abusive/drunken husband when your faith calls it a sin...

[Bobblehead]

I believe studies have shown that religion != lower divorce rates. link

Variation in divorce rates by religion:

Religion             % have been divorced   
Jews                   30%   
Born-again Christians  27%   
Other Christians        24%   
Atheists, Agnostics     21%

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Religious people might have a better track record on things like marriage, divorce, etc., but are they happier? What if your religious-moral code prevents you from leaving your spouse despite the fact that you're terribly unhappy in the relationship? How many people slogged through a 50 year marriage hating every inch of the last 30 years of it, but were prevented from freeing themselves by their religious-moral code?

Its easy to look at the stats and say 'religious people don't get divorced as much', but I'm not sure its because they love each other more, but rather are compelled to stay together because of the 'religious law' they subscribe to. Kind of hard to divorce your miserable/abusive/drunken husband when your faith calls it a sin...

I said, religious, moral OR cultural. Its not a sin for the last two. It might be a source of some shame, but if there's abuse involved, its typically worth the shame to get out. Religious people get divorced too... its just not for trivial reasons, like I tried nothing and I'm all out of ideas. Thats the issue... a respectable divorce rate should be around 10%, not 50%.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

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).

I should like to add some things to Davila's blog on the subject. What you say regarding the statistical evidence for the commonplace nature of the names is true, however, what I find so compelling in his discussion is that there is no way to determine the relationships that existed between the names, beyond saying that the people in the tomb were probably related. Also, the very shoddy hypothesyzing by Jacobovici and Cameron around the inscription Mariamneou e Mara only serves to nullify their own credibility.

On a related note: if this indeed were the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth, then it is in the wrong place. Jesus paternal home was in Galilee, and this is where one wouold expect to find the place of his burial and for that of his family. We can know rather definitively that Jesus was from Nazareth, because this is a part of the biblical story that does nothing to enhance the claims of his followers—being from Nazareth in the first-century C.E. was akin to being from Edmonton, or even Fort McMurry!

Furthermore, Jesus was from among the wrong social class to have even had a tomb like the one discovered. Peasants could not afford ossuaries and mosoleums; those that are discovered in and around Jerusalem are those which have belonged to members from the priestly and ruling classes in Jewish society (The tomb and ossuary of Ciaphas, the last High Priest in Jerusalem is a similar find to what has been described in Jacobovici's film).

Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough at this point: the discovery of the tomb happened over 27-years ago, and in that time not a single reputable archaeologist of biblical scholar has come on board and backed the Jacobovici/Cameron hypothesis. The fact that this is a discovery being vigorously promoted by two film-makers smacks of gross, sensationalistic oppertunism. The whole thing suffers from a sever lack of credibility.

[Azure]

There is nothing wrong with leaving your spouse if he/she abuses you.

Even the Bible says that.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Finally, it cannot be emphasized enough at this point: the discovery of the tomb happened over 27-years ago, and in that time not a single reputable archaeologist of biblical scholar has come on board and backed the Jacobovici/Cameron hypothesis. The fact that this is a discovery being vigorously promoted by two film-makers smacks of gross, sensationalistic oppertunism. The whole thing suffers from a sever lack of credibility.

They're trying to capitalize on the interest generated by "The Da Vinci Code" would be my guess.

[photon]

I was taught that the only reason that divorce was allowed that wasn't a sin was if the other partner was unfaithful.. so if the husband is abusive and the wife gets a divorce and remarries, then she's guilty of the sin of adultury as well as the sin of divorce.

At least that's what I was taught in all the churches I've been in. They would say the wife should pray for the husband's salvation and protection.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

They're trying to capitalize on the interest generated by "The Da Vinci Code" would be my guess.

During the season of Lent, and leading up to Easter, no less.

You, sir, are absolutely correct!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

I was taught that the only reason that divorce was allowed that wasn't a sin was if the other partner was unfaithful.. so if the husband is abusive and the wife gets a divorce and remarries, then she's guilty of the sin of adultury as well as the sin of divorce.

At least that's what I was taught in all the churches I've been in. They would say the wife should pray for the husband's salvation and protection.

I think so too.

Some churches have no problem with divorce, some do. Others support only when extremes are involved.

[Agamemnon]

I don't think the debate was whether or not divorce was condoned in the bible, its whether or not religion causes people to stay together out of fear/loyalty to that religion rather than because they're happy in the relationship. Divorce is frowned upon BIG time in the (Catholic) religious circles I grew up in... wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that religion doesn't cause couples to be more committed so much as it causes them to fear religious/social/community consequences resulting from it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think the debate was whether or not divorce was condoned in the bible, its whether or not religion causes people to stay together out of fear/loyalty to that religion rather than because they're happy in the relationship. Divorce is frowned upon BIG time in the (Catholic) religious circles I grew up in... wouldn't surprise me in the least to find that religion doesn't cause couples to be more committed so much as it causes them to fear religious/social/community consequences resulting from it.

I've witnessed it personally.. the person has to choose between getting out of a bad situation and being ostracized from the church community.

Gets back to the literal vs non-literal translation issue; if you look at it literally there's explicit instructions that divorce is a sin in all cases. EDIT: And the churches that I went to were all literal, so divorce was a sin period. Because taking the Bible less than 100% literal wasn't a consideration.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

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.

Religion does not = morality. Morality = morality.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but religious people don't necessarily have a better track record in marriage and divorce. And what do you mean by "pride".

http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/00/01/10/108/10844/

[Azure]

And I also wouldn't be surprised if mainstream Catholics are moving away from the traditional Catholic viewpoint.

I have a problem with divorce when you do it as a knee-jerk reaction. I thought marriage was all about working through the issues you face as a couple.

[Textcritic]

For those in the Lower Mainland, one of my colleagues will be on OMNI TV's program The Standard (9:00 pm), discussing Jacobovici's and Cameron's documentary. TWU Associate Professor Tom Hatina is an expert in the Gospels, early Christian literature, and studies in the historical Jesus.

http://www.twu.ca/academics/graduate...as-hatina.aspx

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

I was taught that the only reason that divorce was allowed that wasn't a sin was if the other partner was unfaithful.. so if the husband is abusive and the wife gets a divorce and remarries, then she's guilty of the sin of adultury as well as the sin of divorce.

At least that's what I was taught in all the churches I've been in. They would say the wife should pray for the husband's salvation and protection.

Correct, again its from the Old Tesitmate so its not really applicable now.

Simple fact is that marriage has become so farsical these days that its no longer a pact between man, woman, and god so divorce should not be viewed upon as necessarily a bad thing.

As soon as the state started issuing marriage licenses and giving tax breaks for the such, it stopped being a religious contract and became a secular one. As such the word divorce doesnt mean what it did.

MYK

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Religion does not = morality. Morality = morality.

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say here, but religious people don't necessarily have a better track record in marriage and divorce. And what do you mean by "pride".

http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/00/01/10/108/10844/

Religions are a faith-based code of rules and ethics...a form of morality. With that, it is not the exclusive source of morals. How can you not get that.

I'm saying that religious or moral / traditional people have a better track record in marriage and a better track record in not divorcing en masse for frivolous reasons. I never once said only religious people, just merely people devoted to a traditional code of conduct, which could easily be a devout atheist.

Pride is simply an established sense of self-worth, sense of purpose, and attunement to one's culture and tradition. Again, don't tie me to religion, cause I think organized religions are hypocritical. However, I am freely admitting that they are a strong source of morals and social conduct, regardless if one agrees with them.

[Agamemnon]

I don't necessarily see the connection between having morals and sticking with your marriage. My morals comprise values like 'don't hurt other people', 'help those who need help', 'don't lie, cheat, steal, or kill'. There's not much in there that says, 'even if you hate your marriage and don't love your wife any more... stick it out for 35 more years and then death can work it out'. If one or both of you legitimately want out because you're no longer in love with your partner (for whatever reason), I don't see that as morally shabby.

Sometimes people fall out of love and want to separate... pretty easy for the rest of us to pass judgement and call them 'immoral' for it until we're there ourselves. For those of you who have never been married/divorced, I'm sure sticking it out can seem like an impossible option for many, many divorcees.

[photon]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Correct, again its from the Old Tesitmate so its not really applicable now.

Actually it was taught from the NT as well as the OT:

http://www.horizonsnet.org/sermons/sm15.html

Though in those cases the NT seems to say that it's ok for the two to seperate (like if there's abuse) but they cannot remarry.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by photon

Actually it was taught from the NT as well as the OT:

http://www.horizonsnet.org/sermons/sm15.html

Though in those cases the NT seems to say that it's ok for the two to seperate (like if there's abuse) but they cannot remarry.

I stand corrected.

I spend more time in the OT than in the NT. OT can be used as a better guage to live my life, though not set in stone, its what God wants, the NT is more of a comprimise between God and secular lusts.

As such I normally dont consider the NT to be as credible as the OT. Just my opinion.

As I said before, a secular marriage contract is not the same as a religions contract (no matter where the ceremony is preformed or what corrupt misinster preforms it). So in todays terms its really meaningless. I wholeheartedly believe that you can have a marriage contract with god without legally being married (that will not be my path but I believe it is an acceptable one in some circumstances).

MYK

[photon]

Paul even covers that too, he does say it's better to be celibate, but if you can't get married.

And I agree with that too (the marriage contract with God through your religion) without a secular one, the law even accepts that with common law (so such a union would get the same benefits as a secular marriage).

We never did get an answer from you though, were you being serious when you used the less ribs in a man argument?