Toto

Why Do Some Christians Need Material Evidence? - an article worth reading on the Bible and Interpretation website by Antonio Lombatti. I had not known that Calvin was such a critic of relics.

Minimalist

Because even they understand at some level that the story is nonsensical and desperately need tangible confirmation for it?

Just guessing.

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", or thereabouts, may have been Calvin's thinking. Relics have given way to sighting of the true ark and evidence for the historical Jesus. Why should a true christian care if evidence were found to support what they believe in unless they are having doubts, right?

It's like saying that you believe that you've fathered a child, but being elated and even relieved when the paternity test comes in and actually confirms it. Doesn't say much for the strength of your belief, does it, so why should it matter to a christian of faith if all the evidence is stacked up against their belief?

Petergdi

If you were the brown-eyed child of two blue-eyed parents, would you not take some pleasure in reports saying that this is in fact possible, if uncommon? While you may never have doubted your parentage: you would have read that it was impossible in your biology textbook, and perhaps your teacher may have stated as a fact that it was proof against paternity.

Yes, you would believe your parents, but I think you would agree that it would be nice if so many people didn't claim that the facts were against it.

There are a lot of people claiming that there are "facts" which contradict Christian belief. Being able to demonstrate that the "facts" are wrong can be important even if you have no doubts yourself.

Peter.

simongc

i thought they found the NOAH's ark a coupla weeks ago - they were 99.9 % sure they had got it ..

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.
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.


Pretty weird fellow.

Transient

Easily explained. God duplicated the body bits so more people could see them.
And of course so more religious mongrels could make money and fame out of them.
All can be explained - you just need to have faith brother.

mountainman

A Treatise on Relics
by John Calvin

The Project Gutenberg EBook of
A Treatise on Relics by John Calvin


Calvin tells an interesting story about Jeromes defence of the relics of the martyrs, but also discloses that other people condemned them as idolatry.


Calvin relates one of "Father Jerome's" obvious lies about the Christian
vs Pagan horse racing event. You know, the one who translated the
Vulgate ....

Quote:

“A Christian citizen of Majuma, called Italicus, kept horses for racing, but was continually beaten by his rival, a pagan ducumvir of Gaza, who, by using certain charms and diabolical incantations, contrived always to damp the spirits of the Christian’s horses, and to give vigour to his own. Italicus applied, therefore, for help to St Hilarion, who, thinking that it was improper to make prayers for such a frivolous object, advised Italicus to sell his horses, and to give their price to the poor, for the salvation of his soul. Italicus represented, however, that he was discharging against his inclination the duties of a public office, and that as a Christian could not resort to magical means, he addressed himself to a servant of God, particularly as it was important to defeat the inhabitants of Gaza, who were known as enemies of Christ, and that it was not so much for his own interests as for those of the church that he wished to overcome his rival. Hilarion, convinced by these reasons, filled with water an earthen vessel, from which he usually drank, and delivered it to Italicus, who sprinkled with the water his horses, his chariots and charioteers, his stables, and even the barriers of the racing ground. The whole city was in a great excitement, the idolaters deriding the Christians, who loudly expressed their confidence of victory. The signal being given, the Christian’s horses flew with an extreme rapidity, and left those of his rival far behind. This miracle produced a very great effect upon the spectators, and many persons, including the beaten party, became converts to Christianity.”

Needless to say that the fabrication of the christians is a many-facetted gem of forgery conducted on an on-going basis since the 4th century, generation after generation after generation .... all the way to this generation.

Newfie

The point is that christianity makes claims to which there is insufficient evidence to accept on face value, therefore faith is required to solidify belief. Should evidence be discovered which helps support the christian set of claims then skeptics would be justified in adjusting their perception about christianity, but what should a christian feel? Relief that they can now get by without exerting as much faith, or sadness that so many of their pew mates really needed the material proof?

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? Should they, for example, flock to sites and museums that claim to have evidence to support YECism, or should they be wary that these are as much christian tourist traps as the relics and shrines found throughout Europe and the Holy Land? How is this any different than Bigfoot enthusiasts accepting every gorilla suit they see in a freezer as "proof?" At the very least, shouldn't a christian be careful about accepting things as evidence without careful scrutiny? Yet, within minutes of the famous James ossuary being found I saw postings by christians that had already accepted it as referring to the Jesus. Tell me, how much sway should any claims of "proof" have on a christian's overall belief in their religion?

patchy

No need to go hanging ridiculous quote marks around "facts", just because you don't like the implications of them.

You can hook your fingers and put air-quotes around things that are demonstrably true all you want to, but that doesn't change the fact that they are true.

One Christian belief (just to pick one) is that there was a global flood--and very recently.

It is a FACT, however, that there was no such flood. Not recently, not ever. No quote marks, no doubt, no "teach the controversy", no "one man's interpretation," no "other side of the same coin," no nothing, except the cold hard reality that there was no such global flood.