Jayhawker Soule

Apparently so.
To the best of my knowledge, Aramaic Christianity was a 5th century construct. I know of absolutely no reason to believe that it preserves any more authenticity or historical accuracy than any other Christian sects. I'm certain that most of us here would be extremely interested in your evidence.
Huh? What does Deism have to do with the Maronites?
Whatever happened to "as scientific findings generally can be backed by evidence, I'll stick with science."?

Beach_MU

I will gladly give any evidence a fair hearing (that doesn't mean I'll agree with it, but I certainly hear you out) I will let you know as soon as I get a chance to investigate the links you posted. Also as far as my "patronizing", I apologize but after having said I didn't have time to answer everything to have several people comment that it seems I'm ignoring them is frustrating.

Beach_MU

Let me rephrase my position so that hopefully it's clearer. I do not have any problem with the idea of treating other cultures and religions with respect, but respect and saying that everybody is right are two different things. The part of multi-culturalism I don't agree with is that it suggests that everyone's ideas are correct if it works for them. This suggests an idea of no absolute truth and would allow for such simple contradictions as A and not A to occur. And to hopefully clear up any thoughts on personal attacks, so that maybe we can move beyond them, your statement "(as I am married to an Asian and have mixed race children, I am worried by the implicit racism of your remarks.)" suggests (perhaps only "implicitly") that I am personally racist, because such a statement indicates that you were worried that I would look poorly on such a marriage, and at least I personally view racism as a bad thing hence you'll forgive me if I didn't take it as a compliment. Besides that, saying there is no evidence that multi-culturalism and/or postmodernism has helped our society doesn't imply anything racist and I'm sorry if you felt that it did. We should probably both refrain from reading into what each other is saying since it isn't practical or useful and like it or not we both have been doing it.

Finally, we live longer, healthier and more satisfying lives. We have more options than even our parents did. Real income is up compared to previous generations. We can believe in any religion of our choice, or none at all. We have the right to vote, and voice opposing political opinions without fear of official retaliation. My son goes to a school, unlike the one I went to, where bullying is not tolerated. We've become more tolerant of people with differing opinions, and racism -- while still existent -- is not nearly as virulent as in the past. We can even communicate electronically through computer bulletin boards.

Those are all wonderful things and I don't think we should eliminate any of them. But look at some of the moral values our country holds presently: pornography is everywhere in our movies, advertisements, television etc, (and while it may not be full nudity, women in nothing more than underwear is simply called softcore). Or perhaps the many huge scandals that have so recently been uncovered in which these huge companies decided they could cheat and steal to get what they want. But besides any such things, I'm not attributing them to multi-culturalism or postmodernism.

That's a typical Christian response. Ignore the evidence; the truth is set immutably in stone and can not possibly change. What a stupid way of viewing it!

Did I say ignore the evidence? No. Simply because I don't agree with such a principle being the foundation of science doesn't mean I believe the opposite extreme. The evidence is incomplete and always will be, so while you say there isn't enough evidence to unquestionably prove it, I say that there isn't enough evidence to disprove it and so there isn't any reason, at this time, to conclude differently. And regardless of your analysis of me, I do understand perfectly well how science works, I simply draw different conclusions from it than you do.

One other quick thought. You suggest that I believe that anybody who provides evidence contrary to my views is an extremist (which simply isn't true), but at the same time if a scientist is a creationist, then most evolutionists will say that they manipulate the evidence and lie to try and make it fit their beliefs (and I don't speak for you. You may personally never make such a claim, but I know many who do). Isn't that the same thing that you suggest that I do? Maybe I'm wrong, but it's just a thought.

Beach_MU

I must say I agree with you on this point. I have done some investigation into the topic but the sources and materials I've found have been limited and lacking. If you have any materials or sources you know of relating to this I'd be interested in seeing them.

Also on a side note, do you think 20% error is a reasonable margin of error?

Radcliffe Emerson

If I were to ever be confronted by authorities or whoever and forced into a position where I had to choose science and reason or accepting Jesus because a book tells me too, then I choose science.
And I'm still studying the Aramaic stuff, so I as of yet know nothing of the Maronites.
However, why wouldn't we all be connected somehow? After all, the universe began from one starting point, so everything in it has the same matter. And all humans on earth have a strand of DNA that is identical to everyone else on earth. So yes, in a way, we are all connected.

And in regards to the 5th century Arameans, I guess I actually only have their insistence that their movement goes back to the late 2nd century as any evidence. No movement can be traced directly to the first century, from what I understand from my studies. They may also be Trinitarian for all I know, to which I will also reject their philosophies also. I actually have posed some questions to them, if that is their answer then they're claims of Jesus are no more valid than anyone else's.

I think humanism is the best philosophy, and I'll take it over religion, if I have to make a choice.
Do I think there is a Supreme Being? I don't know, noone does. Do I think we're connected to each other somehow? Yes.
Do I think Jesus existed? Yes.
Was he divine? Absolutely not, no human is or ever has been. He was just a human being.
He might have been a spiritual leader, but when he died, he died.
In a perfect world, I would love for all the bible-spouters who think they're the only chosen ones on earth to just shut up and leave everyone else alone, regardless of beliefs.
Because I don't think anyone on this planet is any better or worse than anyone else, faith-wise, or lack thereof.
But I know they won't, so I join the conversation and try to show them the obvious reasons they're debates have serious faults.
Maybe I hope there is some kind of deity and even eternal life. But I don't know that there is and I don't think anyone does. Certainly not a bunch of anonymous writers in the 2nd century claiming to have witnessed miracles and dead people walking around.
I do find studying all of the different faiths to be interesting though. I don't necessarily subscribe to any one of them, but humans have gotten these kind of beliefs ingrained to them since we first evolved from something. I guess I like to search for what that something is.
It's certainly not a creed or a set of rules however.

Jayhawker Soule

Who the hell asked you anything about "accepting Jesus"?

This is getting a bit like trying to push water up hill. Look, I could care less about what you might do if confronted, and even less about your likely response to being "forced into a position". I want to know if you were deceiving both of us, or just me, with all this talk of "as scientific findings generally can be backed by evidence, I'll stick with science". Because clearly you do not. You eschew mean, dogmatic Christianity in favor of some softer variant of theism which you covet irrespective of evidence.

Radcliffe Emerson

I prefer to keep an open mind.
Science does not backup any religion. I do not practice any formal religion. I am against formal religion based on myths.
That doesn't mean I can't be open to the idea that something might be out there.
As the debates were centering around (I thought) people on one side trying to prove the bible is literally historically true, and people on the other saying it's mostly myth, nothing supports it, I am on the side of it being myth. There is no scientific evidence for anything miraculous.
That doesn't mean however that I have to shut my mind off and be completely closed to different ideas. I see no harm in that.
I will endeavor not to contradict myself. I have so many different thoughts in my head at different times, I'm sure I do contradict myself now and then.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Radcliffe Emerson

That's a valid point, but on the other hand, if someone who witnessed the son of God rising from the dead told me about it, and they had solid proof for the event, I woudl think I'd try my best to get the facts surrounding the event accurate. At the very least the people he appeared to and number of days he hung around would match.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Radcliffe Emerson ]</p>

Skeptical

From my most recent readings, I've come to the conclusion that most of the history around the origin of NT in general is pretty sketchy (not just Q in particular). Hopes of finding an accurate picture of an HJ are pretty slim. The two writers I've looked at most recently are Luke Timothy Johnson and Crossan. I've also done some research on life in first century Palestine, especially the religious movements of the the time:

Palestine in the time of Jesus: Hanson & Oakman
Bandits, prophets and Messiahs: Horsley
The Jesus movement: Stegemann

It depends on a lot of factors and exactly what is being measured and by what methods. Some things in nature are difficult to measure accurately due to a large number of variables. Most of nature can be measured with a reasonable error bar of 5% or less. If we're talking about anything involving human activity, then the error bar can climb substantially higher as more variables are involved. (human behavior is inherently difficult to predict)

For example, a prediction of a companies budget over 5 years might have a margin of error of 20% or more, depending on market conditions, general consumer trends, etc. To say whether any margin of error is acceptable I would have to know _why_ the margin of error exists, which is probably equivalent to asking what variables are involved that cannot be predicted accurately.

If this question is related to our earlier discussion involving the age of the earth and radiometric dating, I don't want to get this thread back off topic, so I'll just post a link you can review in your spare time that has lots of good info on radiometric dating techniques:

<a href="http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability" target="_blank">http://www.tim-thompson.com/radiometric.html#reliability</a>

In particular, I highly recommend this paper, written by a scientist who is also a christian regarding radiometric dating of the earth (he is not a YEC):

<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html" target="_blank">http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html</a>

Jayhawker Soule

But your appeal to science lacks credibility. In fact, you are clearly not on the side you suggest for the reasons you suggest. If you were, you would be on the side of deism being a myth, and of theism being a myth, and of "Aramaic Christianity " being a myth, and of the Faerie Kingdom being a myth - because they all lack scientific evidence.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>