Doctor X

Haran:

Ipse dixit and wrong [Stop that.--Ed.]

Oddly enough, I try to keep religion out of discussion of biblical literature. Unpacking your complaint may move this a bit far of field here. However, sorry, but you misrepresent believers in psychic phenomenon.

One person's delusion is another's "secret." I am afraid I have witnessed apology here which fits rather well with the apology claimed by proponents of various "paranormal" events. Lack of critical thinking is lack of critical thinking--it does not have to be blind or insane. Thus:

methinks you reveal a bias. I am unaware of "atheist websites" that commit "little white lies" to "knock down a few Christians." Nevertheless, true or not it is irrelevant to the point which you rather concede--people will bend the truth in order to serve the truth they want to be true--"know" to be true. That you find atheists do this only supports the argument I made above.

How many Christians assume the birth narratives are "true?" Which one should we assume? How many assume that the disciples are good people? The list goeth on to the Crack of Doom [No Shakespeare!--Ed.] How many "know" Mary Magdelene was a prostitute? Perhaps it is unfair to judge Christian apologists by some of the posts on this forum, but a survey of defenses of the historicity of the creation and flood myths of Genesis rather exemplify my point.

Unfortunately, given what has come out, it appears a clear-cut fake.

Period.

--J.D.

Haran

J.D.,

I feel you completely missed my point.

Allow me to put in the quote I was referring to what seemed implied:

Seen in this light, you seem to imply that Christians don't mind telling "a little lie" because it is somehow "justified" in their minds.

This is what I was objecting to. I doubt that many of these people, whether "fans of psychics" or Christians believe that they are telling "little lies", even less that they are "justified" in doing so, when they present information that may to you look like they are bending over backwards to support their view.

Perhaps that clarifies.

And I heartily disagree with you about the ossuary. That is why there was such a debate between major scholars in the first place... It has only become a "clear-cut" forgery for some, whether this is what they want because they do not believe in or like Christians or Christianity (hopefully this is no more true that what you imply of Christians - though I fear this may be in a few cases, especially with respect to a couple of particular scholars) or because they have simply interpreted the data differently than others. Many, many people have made uninformed decisions about the ossuary based on a lack of in-depth understanding of the issues.

Doctor X

Haran:

Ah . . . methinks I perceive the problem.

I did not intend anyone to "insert" as you did in my quote. However, adherents do have an assumption of the truth--they believe what they believe is true. Thus:

Many indeed do. Gardner's Homer character in The Flight of Peter Fromme expresesses this as being a "loyal liar" versus a "truthful traitor." Sorry for the digression, but it tells the story of an atheist minister who uses religion to influence his flock to do good in opposition to a student who is a fundamentalist. Neither can accept the "empty tomb"--bodies resurrecting. For the young man, to "lie"--pretend it is true--is a lie, but it threatens his entire conception of religion. The professors argues that to do that may remove the good a religion can do . . . to over-simplify a very good book. Anyways, it explains the process of lying to save the overall truth.

When was Junior born? Did he exist? These such discussions innundate this page and believers have tried to deny the contradictions because to accept contradiction threatens the foundation of their belief.

Now, do ALL Christians behave this way? For this reason, I cautioned that you misrepresented psychic fans. Yes . . . some know that a spoon-bender cheated but believe the myth of his powers and argue that the lie was necessary. You will find fans of faith healers do the same thing.

More appropriately--and for this topic--is the excuses fans make to save a belief. Listen to a fan of Jon Edward explain his horrible track record. Now consider the apology made for this Ossary--you would let your mum SCRUB an artifact?! I am sorry, but that strikes me as apologetic as saying that Edward was "blocked by negative thinking."

If asked, both do not consider themselves "lying." They feel they are defending the truth.

Now, I did imply that, perhaps, a small segment of Ossary fans may "know" it is a fraud but wish to support it to support "the Truth." Perhaps Golan, himself, thinks that way. I, unfortunately, do not have the ability to read minds. Furthermore, it seems to me that some have invested too much "academic currency" to the thing to remain objective. This is understandable--who would not want to be part of "the Most Extraordinary Find?"--save the extreme atheist you note.

I can accept that. I certainly did not wish to imply that "all Christians" are sitting around knowingly lying any more than fans of a psychic all knowingly lie. I do, I am afraid, expect people to apply critical thinking, but that, again, is a tangent.

Again, I do not want to send this into a complete tangent, but what do you say to a proponent of creationism who does not look at the science of cosmology? After a while, it is no longer ignorance but willful ignorance. This reminds me of paranormalists and fans who refuse to be tested.

For what it is worth, my opinion "solidified" with recent revelations on its history--"where it came from" and all of that. I also find some of the excuses rather beyond belief--that scrubbing again! I am more than happy to be proven that it is genuine, but I am afraid the preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise.

Certainly your charge will apply to some atheists. As the "historical Junior" debates regurgitate on this page demonstrate, just as some HAVE to have SOMEONE proven to exist to have faith, some without faith want NO ONE. Frankly, the best these historical Junior debates demonstrate is that if someone existed we really have no bloody idea what he said or did with any certitude.

However, the point remains for both extreme sides.

Similarly, if we could prove the ossary not only is genuine but proves the existence of James we are left where we are now--if you believe Galalatians is genuine: that a brother existed which rather implies a historical figure existed.

. . . of which we know nothing!

However, those who have found faith threatened by scholarship--and the lack of "proof" of a historical Junior--this promises a "tangible" proof of existence.

Of course, either way should interest a serious scholar!

. . . ahhh . . . I think this is becoming less than a matter of interpretation and perspective.

. . . at least the way I see it. . . .

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

Nope, that was mostly out of ignorance. Most people who worked with it or looked at it did not understand the first thing about forgery, and few were willing to educate themselves. The scholars debated because they had no relevant expertise, not because there was room for doubt.

Yes, for example, everyone who ventured an opinion without boning up on forgery cases, and everyone who thought that because some scholars authenticated the paleography, it actually meant something.

Vorkosigan

Haran

Considering that the hard sciences are proving as inconclusive as the paleography, I wonder what we'll rely on next. Just suspicions and innuendo and simply stating that the ossuary must of necessity be a fraud, I suppose.

Steven Carr

Not at all. Everyone accepts that there is genuine 1st-century ossuary with the names 'Jesus, son of Joseph' on it, found in a tomb with other New Testament names.

This is not disputed. Not all finds are frauds, you know.

Vorkosigan

What exactly is inconclusive? The isotope ratios? The microfossils? Those are completely conclusive. Shanks and the others who intended to make money and advance their religion simply will not accept facts. Of course, the fact that Golan owns a forgery workshop is not "suspicion and innuendo."

It's over, Haran.

atheist

Jesus must be rolling in his grave!


I gotta make that my sig.

Weltall

Got any evidence (other than wishful thinking)? It's a fraud, we know it's a fraud and anyone who bothers to research can find out why it's a fraud. Why do you persist in defending it?

spin

Referring to Altman's problems with the font used on the ossuary:

"wrong ideas", huh? What wrong ideas exactly?

Do you want to defend the integrity of the font used on the ossuary?


spin