Freethought & Rationalism Archive

patchy · 06-04-2010, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

In 817, Pippin I of Aquitaine, a grandson of Charlemagne, received a relic which was said to be the head of John the Baptist. This relic was triumphally brought to Angeriacum, which is now Saint Jean d’Angely, near La Rochelle.

Interesting.
One of my favourite books of fiction is Umberto Eco's "The Name of the Rose".
In there somewhere the protagonist Brother William [aka Sean Connery in the film] tells his young acolyte that a particular place had the head of John the Baptist "as a young man".
It takes his protege a little while to pick up the absurdity but it prompted me to start a google search for J the B's head/relics.
I remember finding about 11 of them, all absolutely genuine of course.
I dunno why I did the search, must have been bored at the time.
But it was interesting and I found a few other fascinating ones as well but can't recall them offhand and I don't want to waste my time again.

There are some gullible people out there as Phineas T. Barnum knew.

Isn't Jesus' foreskin (ewww) supposedly among the treasured possessions of way more than one church? (And, let's be clear--anything more than one is a problem.)

It reminds me of all the "bricks from the actual garage wall in Chicago where the St. Valentine's Day Massacre took place" that have been sold over the years; if all of them were genuine, that garage wall would have dwarfed the one in China.

spin · 06-04-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_the_Baptist#Relics

The church of San Silvestro In Capite apparently has the head of John the Baptist.

As does Amiens Cathedral.

And Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.
Along with the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul.

Topkapi actually has the hand of JtB and it's on display for all to see. There's also a tooth belonging to Mohammed and some of his beard shavings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

And a few other places have it as well so I read once.
About 11 places in all.

A couple or more also have several of his hands between them as well.

Very dextrous.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Pretty weird fellow.

Snakes can shed skin. Why can't baptists shed hands? Their hands must get old doing all that baptizing.

spin

yalla · 06-04-2010, 11:53 AM

Yeah, I went to the Topkapi and before we entered my wife had a quiet word to me and warned me on the subject of decorous behaviour and such. Quite forthright she was too.
So we went in but had to leave rapidly when her sister, not me but her sister, looked at the hairs of the beard of the Prophet [with a capital 'P'] and started to giggle uncontrollably.
We escaped unscathed but I exploited the fact of her sister's shameful behavious mecilessly.

spin · 06-04-2010, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yalla

Yeah, I went to the Topkapi and before we entered my wife had a quiet word to me and warned me on the subject of decorous behaviour and such. Quite forthright she was too.
So we went in but had to leave rapidly when her sister, not me but her sister, looked at the hairs of the beard of the Prophet [with a capital 'P'] and started to giggle uncontrollably.
We escaped unscathed but I exploited the fact of her sister's shameful behavious mecilessly.

What a bloody infidel! I hope you chastised her sorely for her soul's sake.

spin

Toto · 06-04-2010, 07:57 PM

An off topic rant related to a misinterpretation of the word holocaust has been removed to E.

mountainman · 06-04-2010, 08:12 PM

John Calvin deals with the NAILS.

Quote:

There is a still greater contradiction concerning the nails of the cross. I shall name those with which I am acquainted, and I think even a child could see how the devil has been mocking the world by depriving it of the power of discernment on this point. If the ancient writers, such as the ecclesiastical historian Theodorite, tell the truth (Historia Tripartita, lib. ii.), Helena caused one of the nails to be set in the helmet of her son Constantine, and two others in the bridle of his horse. St Ambrose, however, relates this differently, saying that one of the nails was set in the crown of Constantine, a second was converted into a bridle-bit for his horse, and the third was retained by Helena. Thus we see that twelve hundred years ago there was a difference of [pg 235] opinion on this subject, and how can we tell what has become of the nails since that time? Now, they boast at Milan that they possess the nail which was in Constantine's bridle; this claim is, however, opposed by the town of Carpentras. St Ambrose does not say that the nail was attached to the bridle, but that the bit was made from it,—a circumstance which does not agree with the claims of Milan or Carpentras. There is, moreover, one nail in the Church of St Helena at Rome, and another in that of the Holy Cross in the same city; there is a nail at Sienna, and another at Venice. Germany possesses two, at Cologne and Tréves. In France there is one in the Holy Chapel at Paris, another in the same city at the church of the Carmelites, a third is at St Denis, a fourth at Bruges, a fifth at the abbey of Tenaille in the Saintonge, a sixth at Draguignau, the whole number making fourteen shown in different towns and countries.132 Each place exhibiting these nails produces certain proofs to establish the genuineness of its relic, but all these claims may be placed on a par as equally absurd.

Newfie · 06-04-2010, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

"What kind of faith can a Christian have in the truth of the bible when they are constantly looking for outside evidence for what they should already profess to believe in"?

The Bible is outside evidence. The best evidence is inside of you.

The bible is a collection of books, ancient writings not dissimilar to others inspired by, or inspiring different religions. Are all such writings good evidence? Should we believe in the hydra and medusa as well? They're in an ancient book too you know?

It's a set of writings, copied and corrected through countless scribes throughout the ages and still I find it amazing that some people actually believe that it is the exact same scriptural text that was originally placed upon paper. What do some christians believe, exactly? That Adam stole the copy (in English, of course) from the nightstand drawer before being kicked out of his suite at The Garden?

As for evidence that is inside you the problem with it is that everyone, even christians, believe that people can be delusional about certain things, but nobody ever admits that what they happen to believe might be delusional. That's kinda the point, right? It seems real, to you. So, when offered a notion that you would, on face value, consider delusional, would you not ask for proof? Proof that would convince you?

Newfie · 06-04-2010, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

The question seems to be if it is proper for christians to seek out, and be taken in by, the many claims of "evidence" out there?

People tend to be insufficiently critical of accounts that confirm their existing prejudices. I'm not the least bit convinced that atheists have any advantage over believers in this respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

Tell me, how much sway should any claims of "proof" have on a christian's overall belief in their religion?

None. At least none of the sort of "proof" you are talking about. But exactly the same thing goes for atheists. Bogus claims and poor scholarship should have no sway over atheists. But it is manifest that these things plague both sides. The only solution is to be critical consumers of purported information.

Peter.

Well, lack of proof for something is not the same as evidence against something, yet both can be stacked against something being factual. Take unicorns, for example. We have lack of evidence that they actually exist. All we have are stories and artistic conventions of a horse with one horn sticking out of it's head. No living examples and no fossils. That's lack of evidence for their ever having been real.

Could they have existed? Well, no evidence suggests that equines have ever grown horns, or antlers, or even tusks that could be mistaken for horns, and certainly never just one phallic example sticking out of it's forehead. So, I would have to suggest that no, I have no reason to believe that such a creature could ever have existed.

Christianity also has both a lack of proof and evidence against it. What evidence is there that Jesus actually lived? The bible? That's like saying that we should accept that the vampire Dracula actually lived, fangs, coffins, bat morphing ability and all. He too is a character in a book, after all.

Could Jesus have existed? A human preacher named Jesus who taught much of what is in the gospels certainly could have. There were plenty of them around at the time. Some were even said to be the messiah. Nothing spectacular with that notion. But try adding miracle-making abilities, claims of being a supernatural being, claims of being able to "cast out" other supernatural beings and, you know, all the son of God stuff and we have a problem.

There have been many thousands of gods in human experience and well over 99.9% of them are now believed to have been mythological constructs by almost everyone. Poor odds in itself for Jesus the god to have been real. Do we have confirmed evidence that such beings could exist? Do we have modern day miracle workers who can perform real miracles under controlled conditions? Do we have live specimens or fossils of man-gods? Do we have man-god DNA to compare to regular human DNA?

Why, then, should we believe in man-gods any more than we do unicorns? Unicorns are imagined to exist by little girls who hope and wish that they did exist. Tell me how christianity is any different.

Dogfish · 06-09-2010, 06:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgreen44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newfie

"What kind of faith can a Christian have in the truth of the bible when they are constantly looking for outside evidence for what they should already profess to believe in"?

The Bible is outside evidence. The best evidence is inside of you.

A string of random characters would make as much sense as this. This kind of crap is what too many people substitute for actual thinking.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-04-2010, 11:53 AM	#23
yalla Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: oz Posts: 1,848	Yeah, I went to the Topkapi and before we entered my wife had a quiet word to me and warned me on the subject of decorous behaviour and such. Quite forthright she was too. So we went in but had to leave rapidly when her sister, not me but her sister, looked at the hairs of the beard of the Prophet [with a capital 'P'] and started to giggle uncontrollably. We escaped unscathed but I exploited the fact of her sister's shameful behavious mecilessly.

06-04-2010, 07:57 PM	#25
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	An off topic rant related to a misinterpretation of the word holocaust has been removed to E.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.