Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do try to stay out of the full on debates - although I know I don't always succeed. 99% of the time - nothing people say really affects me - in a bad way, I mean. However - that 1% of the time really sucks!!! I have been pleasantly surprised by many people, many times - so that has been nice. Also, to add to what some others have said - this forum hasn't necessarily changed my mind about my own beliefs - but it has made me discover and explore my own beliefs more fully. I've always felt at peace with myself - and the better I understand myself and others -the more peaceful I am!
It's nice to know that Dewdrop.
As far as the debates...I usually find myself in the thick of it. But that's because I actually dig it. The basic debate that is...the mean stuff tweaks me a bit.
I could never look at this forum in a negative light. I've learned too much here to do that.
MOF you are one of the people that has taught me a lot on this forum...I read your posts and it teaches me that to be truly content, you have to accept that nobody else is actually going to have exactly the same belief as you do and that your personal belief (your "Heatherism" concept) is what you need to embrace...while at the same time accepting that others will all believe differently, to a greater or lesser degree, than you--I'll go to my grave remembering a girl on an internet forum who put out a super-sweet vibe, that inspired me to contemplate and come to truly realize that.
So, in summation...I know that under the right conditions...not only can you mix Religion and Forums...but it can result in something very cool.
As far as the debates...I usually find myself in the thick of it. But that's because I actually dig it. The basic debate that is...the mean stuff tweaks me a bit.
I could never look at this forum in a negative light. I've learned too much here to do that.
MOF you are one of the people that has taught me a lot on this forum...I read your posts and it teaches me that to be truly content, you have to accept that nobody else is actually going to have exactly the same belief as you do and that your personal belief (your "Heatherism" concept) is what you need to embrace...while at the same time accepting that others will all believe differently, to a greater or lesser degree, than you--I'll go to my grave remembering a girl on an internet forum who put out a super-sweet vibe, that inspired me to contemplate and come to truly realize that.
So, in summation...I know that under the right conditions...not only can you mix Religion and Forums...but it can result in something very cool.
Well, that's just about the sweetest thing I've ever heard! You have touched my heart - GldnRule. I'm a bit misty eyed over here.
Basically this looks like personal websites of two authors and neither of them is exactly a neutral source. (They're both doing books on atheism it sounds like. I tried to avoid things I thought were religious in nature and thought of even dumping the U of Chicago one on reading it's by a Mormon) Is this really supposed to impress me or anyone?
I might look for more academic sites that Nazareth existed if you want, but I don't think it's necessary. I feel my sources are more respectable or academic and that I made my case. I was never claiming Nazareth was a major city or even a major town. I showed that there was a village or settlement there in the first century and I think for now my case is made.
Still your confusion is perhaps understandable. It's true Nazareth is not mentioned in writing until about the third century AD. This is not evidence for it not existing in the first century as it's not that odd for villages of laborers or the like to not be written about. Also it's just generally clear that "not being written about" is not the same as "not existing" or most of the towns of the Inca would not have existed. That being said a focus only on what's in written history, although misguided on many levels, is not that unusual. And I guess one could argue that just because a town was there doesn't mean they called it Nazareth so from that you could say there is no evidence of "Nazareth" until the third century because it could have been called something else before then. I don't think that's what you said, and what you're saying borders on preposterous in some ways, but still maybe I'm patronizing you too much.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 08-07-2010 at 07:32 PM..
Basically this looks like personal websites of two authors and neither of them is exactly a neutral source. (They're both doing books on atheism it sounds like. I tried to avoid things I thought were religious in nature and thought of even dumping the U of Chicago one on reading it's by a Mormon) Is this really supposed to impress me or anyone?
I might look for more academic sites that Nazareth existed if you want, but I don't think it's necessary. I feel my sources are more respectable or academic and that I made my case. I was never claiming Nazareth was a major city or even a major town. I showed that there was a village or settlement there in the first century and I think for now my case is made.
Still your confusion is perhaps understandable. It's true Nazareth is not mentioned in writing until about the third century AD. This is not evidence for it not existing in the first century as it's not that odd for villages of laborers or the like to not be written about. Also it's just generally clear that "not being written about" is not the same as "not existing" or most of the towns of the Inca would not have existed. That being said a focus only on what's in written history, although misguided on many levels, is not that unusual. And I guess one could argue that just because a town was there doesn't mean they called it Nazareth so from that you could say there is no evidence of "Nazareth" until the third century because it could have been called something else before then. I don't think that's what you said, and what you're saying borders on preposterous in some ways, but still maybe I'm patronizing you too much.
Never mind debating whether Nazareth existed...some of the Atheists on this board will claim that Jesus Christ himself never existed.
They will dispute just about ANYTHING that has to do with religion...especially Christianity. They are biased and intolerant, and will speak critically of it, or anything relative to it, in any way possible. But then, I'm sure this is nothing you didn't already know.
Never mind debating whether Nazareth existed...some of the Atheists on this board will claim that Jesus Christ himself never existed.
They will dispute just about ANYTHING that has to do with religion...especially Christianity. They are biased and intolerant, and will speak critically of it, or anything relative to it, in any way possible. But then, I'm sure this is nothing you didn't already know.
Well, that's just about the sweetest thing I've ever heard! You have touched my heart - GldnRule. I'm a bit misty eyed over here.
I'm happy you feel that way.
A very wise man once said...you reap what you sow. So, you were harvesting a little of what you planted.
You never know when, where, or how you can influence someone and enrich their life. You've sure enriched mine. I'm certain there have been many others along the way...probably a lot you never even realized, because they didn't say.
Keep putting out that vibe Dewdrop...it's very rare...and the world needs all of that it can get.
"Heatherism" and City-Data...proof that you CAN mix religion and forums, and get a positive outcome.
Because there is no record of it existing. It's not mentioned in the OT. The Talmud lists 63 towns in the area but there is no Nazareth on the list. It isn't mentioned in any Jewish literature. No ancient historian mentions Nazareth. Franciscan monks have fully excavated the area where Nazareth is supposed to have been and not found it. The The Book of Joshua lists 12 towns and 6 villages in the area but no mention of Nazareth...nor is there any 'Nazareth' among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus. The first mention of Nazareth by the Jews was in the 3rd century CE.
Will that do?
Yes, that is quite a few lists. I reckon Nazareth must have been a very small place. And was probably a bit of refuge for scoundrels and the like. I reckon that Jewish people probably liked to pretend that it didn't exist.
John 1:45,46
[45] Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
[46] And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
When there is lot's of evidence I like to go with Scripture. What do you think of the verses above? Why do you think the people who wrote the Bible would want to misrepresent the place of Jesus' earthly origins?
Never mind debating whether Nazareth existed...some of the Atheists on this board will claim that Jesus Christ himself never existed.
They will dispute just about ANYTHING that has to do with religion...especially Christianity. They are biased and intolerant, and will speak critically of it, or anything relative to it, in any way possible. But then, I'm sure this is nothing you didn't already know.
Although not universal among atheists, even here, I have noticed this tendency and find it slightly weird.
At least some atheists here seem intent on not crediting Christianity with anything good of any kind and I find that
1: Not like atheists I'm used to who are often not promoting atheism anyway.
2: Not necessary to even the goal of promoting atheism. In fact it might even be counterproductive to that goal.
On the second if a Christian refuses to say anything good about what non-Christian faiths have done it can easily just look intolerant and blind. A Christian who wouldn't acknowledge the value of the zero (Hindus) or rockets (Taoism) or other things invented by non-Christian faiths would look pretty dumb. A Christian who depicted non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures as just bad, with no qualities, would look unfair.
Indeed some of the people I know who leave the faith do so because they don't like talk about other religions being totally false and condemnable. So why atheists think parroting the most intolerant outlook of Christianity is a winning strategy could be unclear to me.
The main thing I can think of is that it emphasizes the strength of their conviction. Many atheists seem so confident and secure that this shows a certain solidity in a way. Militant atheists are confident that Truth should defeat Falsehood and that they know or can know what is false. I think only Islamists and the Catholic groups that oppose Vatican II have that kind of confidence. It is weirdly seductive to see someone that strong and opinionated. It is also kind of repellent (plenty of people who don't believe in God don't want to be associated to the "error has no rights" form of atheism) so it's a bit of a Catch-22. Still the mix of simplicity and certainty I guess has its charms.
Could you have the simplicity and certainty without intolerance? Well probably not. When you're system is simply "X is wrong, wrong things are harmful" than intolerance is probably inevitable. Still I don't know if the level of intolerance is particularly necessary. You can think something is overall wrong and harmful while recognizing it has some positive features. I can say almost nothing good about Scientology, but I'm willing to believe it did help Kirstie Alley get off drugs. I don't think their drug rehab programs are particularly successful mind you, but I imagine they have some rate of success. I mean even Synanon, which was mostly a cult that even put a rattlesnake in someone's car, had a few successes in getting people off drugs. I don't think saying that means I'm all ready to join Tom Cruise.
I kinda wondered about this part... "and is revered as the original workshop of Joseph and home of the Holy Family."
Makes ya' wonder if there were tool handles marked 'property of Joe" or maybe a family crest on the wall or something
Yeah! A school book with 'This book belongs to Jesus.' written inside the cover.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
Basically this looks like personal websites of two authors and neither of them is exactly a neutral source.
Maybe they aren't a neutral source but the "Truth about Nazareth" site has enough links to and quotes from unbiased archaeologists (as opposed to one's working for the tourist industry in Nazareth).
"The IAA report makes no mention of first-century remains, much less of evidence from the turn of the era (“time of Jesus”). Consistent with other excavations in Nazareth, structural remains found in this excavation date to “the Roman period,” which lasted into the fourth century CE." The truth about Nazareth
It's a con Thomas. Yet another example of the 'Lying for Jesus' tactics of those who desperately want it all to be true when it isn't and those who can see the tourist dollars rolling in.
Although not universal among atheists, even here, I have noticed this tendency and find it slightly weird.
At least some atheists here seem intent on not crediting Christianity with anything good of any kind and I find that
1: Not like atheists I'm used to who are often not promoting atheism anyway.
2: Not necessary to even the goal of promoting atheism. In fact it might even be counterproductive to that goal.
On the second if a Christian refuses to say anything good about what non-Christian faiths have done it can easily just look intolerant and blind. A Christian who wouldn't acknowledge the value of the zero (Hindus) or rockets (Taoism) or other things invented by non-Christian faiths would look pretty dumb. A Christian who depicted non-Christian or pre-Christian cultures as just bad, with no qualities, would look unfair.
Indeed some of the people I know who leave the faith do so because they don't like talk about other religions being totally false and condemnable. So why atheists think parroting the most intolerant outlook of Christianity is a winning strategy could be unclear to me.
The main thing I can think of is that it emphasizes the strength of their conviction. Many atheists seem so confident and secure that this shows a certain solidity in a way. Militant atheists are confident that Truth should defeat Falsehood and that they know or can know what is false. I think only Islamists and the Catholic groups that oppose Vatican II have that kind of confidence. It is weirdly seductive to see someone that strong and opinionated. It is also kind of repellent (plenty of people who don't believe in God don't want to be associated to the "error has no rights" form of atheism) so it's a bit of a Catch-22. Still the mix of simplicity and certainty I guess has its charms.
Could you have the simplicity and certainty without intolerance? Well probably not. When you're system is simply "X is wrong, wrong things are harmful" than intolerance is probably inevitable. Still I don't know if the level of intolerance is particularly necessary. You can think something is overall wrong and harmful while recognizing it has some positive features. I can say almost nothing good about Scientology, but I'm willing to believe it did help Kirstie Alley get off drugs. I don't think their drug rehab programs are particularly successful mind you, but I imagine they have some rate of success. I mean even Synanon, which was mostly a cult that even put a rattlesnake in someone's car, had a few successes in getting people off drugs. I don't think saying that means I'm all ready to join Tom Cruise.
I don't want to make you proud or give you an ego trip or anything like that Thomas R but you write some really good stuff. I take it you are a scholar of spiritual matters.
I fully agree with what you say here. I say it like this: There is truth in all falseness, but there is no falseness in the truth.
One things that makes me look at myself is where you wrote about Islamists, Catholics and Militant Atheists. I don't consider myself any of those, but I do think that in the end the truth does eliminate falseness.
Isn't that what Scripture says here:
No. Actually, I have just looked and I am incorrect. Can you think of a greater tragedy than a man who lived a life of total ignorance and shame, was saved by Christ, came to know him as the truth, and then, by his actions rejected his own salvation.LOL.
When falseness is one's comfort then they can rest assured that their own future is bleak. Weeping and gnashing indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
