Page 7 of 13

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 2:14 pm
by Penelope
In reply to Chris and Robert - regarding references to Reincarnation in the Bible:-

I suggest you ask 'Frank' - God Bless Him....he know his Bible better than I....and I bet he can point you to the quotes I want.

My husband is getting disturbed at my rifling through my 'Cruden's Concordence' - and looking in my Bible for quotes....he thinks I'm becoming demented. And for once....I know I'm not... :laugh:

I love you all on here.....you are my friends (even Mr.P)....but my husband matters more....so bloody look it up....your bloody self!!!!

xxxxxxx

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:20 pm
by Chris OConnor
There was a young man I workled with that had a similar situation
Nick, is "workled" a mix of "fondled" and "worked?" So you fondled this young man at work?

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:59 pm
by ginof

What if I made up a story with an abundance of symbolic power? As long as the story elicits the desired effect in the target audience the truth isn't important. This seems to be what you're saying when you say, "A question such as whether the nails went through Jesus' hands or the wrists is barely relevant to the symbolic power of this iconic event." If we can identify holes in the story and find absolutely no empirical evidence for the balance of the tale why should we believe?

I know...I'm a bit of a party pooper. I think too much. I question too much. I'm a skeptic and a cynic. Maybe I should just join the flocks of followers and stop analyzing every last detail. But I can't. It isn't in my nature.
no, you are not a party pooper. this is exactly the point. if someone wants to make up wonderful stories, I'll read harry potter, the hobbit, etc. But if someone wants me to base my belief system on this. I want it to be factual. And being able to show that it is factual, or at least reasonably should be factual, is very, very important.

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:15 pm
by Mr. P
Chris OConnor wrote:
There was a young man I workled with that had a similar situation
Nick, is "workled" a mix of "fondled" and "worked?" So you fondled this young man at work?
Yes actually...I fondled him at work with a piece of Jesus toast.

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:54 pm
by Chris OConnor
:laugh: That was good Nick.

Oh, and I am in agreement with you, Ginof. When it comes to stuff I actually believe I want facts not warm and fuzzy stories.

So, what am I doing here?

Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:17 am
by ginof
Chris OConnor wrote: 'Virgin Mary' toast fetches $28,000
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4034787.stm
WTF am I doing wasting my time posting to this board?! I'm going to go work the toaster!!!!

:laugh:

Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:20 am
by Chris OConnor
I have thought about this ridiculous eBay auctions many times. There has to be something stupid I can sell and make a fortune.

Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:21 am
by Robert Tulip
ginof wrote: if someone wants to make up wonderful stories, I'll read harry potter, the hobbit, etc. But if someone wants me to base my belief system on this. I want it to be factual. And being able to show that it is factual, or at least reasonably should be factual, is very, very important.
Ginof, I completely agree, but the question I was trying to raise in mentioning the wrist/palm crucifixion issue was that actual belief systems have a mutating mythic content, and that this content evolves in response to cultural resonance. The cross is primarily a myth (ie a source of cultural meaning) rather than a basis for objective knowledge. I view the story of the cross as a displaced trauma. Josephus in The Jewish Wars described the Roman behaviour towards the Jews in 70 AD in the siege of Jerusalem as follows (see http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/jd ... ephus.html
they were first whipped, and then tormented with all sorts of tortures, before they died, and were then crucified before the wall of the city. This miserable procedure made Titus greatly to pity them, while they caught every day five hundred Jews; nay, some days they caught more: yet it did not appear to be safe for him to let those that were taken by force go their way, and to set a guard over so many he saw would be to make such a great deal of them useless to him. The main reason why he did not forbid that cruelty was this, that he hoped the Jews might perhaps yield at that sight, out of fear lest they might themselves afterwards be liable to the same cruel treatment. So the soldiers, out of the wrath and hatred they bore the Jews, nailed those they caught, one after one way, and another after another, to the crosses, by way of jest, when their multitude was so great, that room was wanting for the crosses, and crosses wanting for the bodies.
It is estimated at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70) that more than one million people may have died as a result of the siege of Jerusalem in 70AD. According to Josephus, the limiting factor on crucifixion was wood for crosses. This massive assault led to the Jewish diaspora around the Mediterranean.

Analysing Christian beliefs about the cross against the psychological framework of mythic displacement of trauma, it can be argued that the massive Roman assault of 70AD was too much for collective memory to bear, so the memory mutated into the 'one for all' idea of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb, already attractively presented by Paul and the Gospels. The stigmata are signs of kingly power, like power beams from the fantastic four. Hence in the popular imagination this version that Jesus was crucified through the hands as a sacrificial scapegoat came to have pride of place. It is a shame that the church is incapable of analysing its beliefs through mythic anthropology. I think this example helps to show why Christianity had such powerful popular resonance in the ancient world, with the massive shocking reality of the Roman assault transmuted into something bearable and even redeeming. Part of the issue is that in the history written by the victors the Romans shared their guilt with the Jews, when in reality the death of Christ was primarily a crime of Rome. In deconstructing such a story it is important to be sensitive to the dimension of mythic cultural meaning, rather than rejecting it simply because it is inconsistent.

Re: Review of Chapter 3: "Faith Is a Good Thing":

Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:44 am
by ginof
hegel1066 wrote: Faith is always, in part, answerable to logic and reason: the objects of my faith are all in accord with modern-day science (and, I hasten to add, Einstein's field equations.) The dynamic part of faith, however, does not rest in the ability of its content to be either proven or disproven. Faith is a wooly mix of person, interpersonal, communal, and cultural standards which can't be quantified (or qualified) by reason alone. The author shows that he does not understand this subtlety when he says, "I have faith in many things, too, but not in the existence of gods because there is nothing to base that faith on." (p. 27). Precisely: If you had "something to base that faith on," it would stop being faith and commence being something else: namely, scientific evidence. In short, the objects of faith cannot (or, in my opinion, should not) contradict what we know about the natural world, but the purview of faith is not science and scientific fact: the contents of faith are often those cultural, historical and religious meta-narratives that explain, console, and sometimes leave us in awe.
first and foremost: thank you for constraining your faith to things to be in accord with modern day science. Also, please recognize that many of us are forced to deal with who do not have this same respect for science. We find it particularly dangerous when those with these 'lesser' opinions are in control of the White House and large voting blocks of the house and senate.

but I'm not quite sure I agree with you about the purview of faith is not science and scientific fact. the cultural, historical and religious narratives should fall squarely in the realm of anthropology, right? And many areas that have been mysterious to persons of the past are beginning to be studied scientifically (although obviously in the early stages), and some amazing results are in (see the previous booktalk book: Looking for Spinoza). The greatest conflicts between religion and science historically has been when science finds something that 'debunks' religion. Just ask Galileo. Today we see this issue with evolution and global warming. In many ways significant parts of the faith community are 'slowing down' the pursuit of knowledge and to that extent is being harmful to us all.

I do see legitimate places for the faith community in the scientific one: ethics. Should we build a bigger bomb? What about cloning? etc. But it is also possible to have that discussion without relying on faith alone.

Re: Review of Chapter 3: "Faith Is a Good Thing":

Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 12:50 am
by ginof
hegel1066 wrote:For Kierkegaard, to have faith is to make a trans-rational break with the rational, to connect with something more uncanny (the German here might be translated to Freud's unheimlich). So - and this is the clencher - to truly, and to say with intellectual honesty that you have faith that god exists - you must be uncertain of god's existence.
That's just awesome. It makes total sense to me. To have the firmest, unshakable faith, you must have been a doubter and worked your way back to it. For someone who has actually done this, I can see why it would be so powerful.

my guess is that not too many actually make this journey. I wish there was some data on it (perhaps there is?). It would be a great piece of evidence in the overall puzzle.