An interesting issue of religious freedom

[The Flying Tench]

John, take a look at that article (from a medical journal) that I linked to further up the thread. It's pretty certain (from what little evidence there is) that the flogging that preceded a crucifixion was not meant to be of a severity likely to cause death. An integral part of the humiliation of the whole procedure was to make the victim (after flogging) carry part of the cross to the place of execution outside the city walls.

 

It's by no means certain that death was always from suffocation, and this in any case depended on the position in which the victim was crucified. As the authors of the paper point out, all of the religious images of Christ's crucifixion show him in a head-up position, with both hands and feet transfixed by nails, whereas the available evidence shows that this was not invariably (or even most commonly) the way it was done.

 

And why is the spear thrust in the side mentioned by John but not by the other three gospel writers? Could it have been added as an afterthought (about 30 years after the others, in fact), in order to fulfill a prophecy: "They shall gaze on Him whom they pierced" (Zechariah 12:10)?

 

DavyR, I don't think you gave a link, and it's a bit late just t present to hunt on Google. Still it's interesting to hear what you are saying. But even if the flogging wasn't as serious as I have read elsewhere - and, after all, Jesus was NOT able to carry his cross very far - I still feel there are plenty of reasons for thinking Jesus was dead, though of course there may be other arguments in the article you mention which I should read.

 

On the point about the reliability of John's comment about the spear, one reason he may have recorded it , but not the others, is that he was the only one there. I take the point about the Zechariah prophecy (though he doesn't say 'this was to fulfil' etc), but the bit about the blood and water sounds like 'eyewitness stuff'. The general view of textual critics is that, if a statement supports some axe someone has to grind, then one should be suspicious, but if it is largely irrelevant (like she was wearing a green coat) then it is probably an eyewitness comment. It's hard to see what motive John had for putting in the stuff about the blood and water, even though I accept what you say about the fulfilment of prophecy to a degree.

[The Flying Tench]

1. John - in the Middle East bribery is, was, and will be for the foreseeable future, a way of life!

ANY favour sought will have a price.

 

2. Well thanks for that - in response to your challenge, I sought for at least one plausible explanation that didn't rely on the supernatural. As you know, I believe there is a rational explanation for everything - so I am content that I found one in this case.

 

3. No surprise there. Stories about "heroes" and "gods" get embellished as a matter of course.

 

Just been to the village post office and got my new salmon licence and new trout licence, so am all set for next week.

Well we obviously have to agree to differ on our conclusions, but at least there has been a degree of meaningful dialogue - at least I think there has.

 

Incidently, i can't help wondering what you would believe now if your parents had been ardent die-hard atheists!

[The Flying Tench]

If that were possible, surely there wouldn't be any need for words like "faith" or "belief"?

 

Nobody is ever likely to be able to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of God. That doesn't stop me wanting to understand why so many people are believers, though.

 

Especially when there are often rational explanations for apparently supernatural phenomena.

Well I agree with what you say about faith. I'd add that we all commit to things based on uncertain beliefs, so we all exercise faith in one way or another.

 

As for why people believe. On both sides of the fence, of course, it's not always strongly rational. But for many, of all persuasions, reason is a big part. I set out broadly why I believe in post 34, but inevitably I couldn't go into that much detail. You say that many apparently supernatural phenomena have rational(istic?) explanations. True, but I suppose in my view many don't! And we'd have to discuss specific examples - which of course I'd be happy to do, though maybe it shouldn't be on this thread.

[The Flying Tench]

I am sorry John, but this is not proof of anything. For one thing I am not that interested in whether or not a nice young itinerant Jewish preacher called Jesus existed or not. He may well have done. I want you to provide proof for God, the one in the Old Testament. I don't expect absolute certainty as this is a childish thing to expect. All I ask is proof "beyond reasonable doubt" the same kind of proof that we ask a jury to accept before they will convict a criminal will do me nicely. Even if you can prove his existance, you would have problems convincing me that the tyrannical, mysogynistic, jealous despot who approves of slavery, ethnic cleansing, murder and who asks for human sacrifice is worthy of my worship.

Cory, you'd have to say which aspects of my reasons you don't find convincing, and why. otherwise the argument isn't moving forward. For example, i never suggested that the existence of Jesus as a preacher was evidence for anything. One argument was that he claimed to be God, which leaves 3 options - mad, bad, or what he said was true. If you want to disagree with this argument you need to either say why the basic argument doesn't work (eg there is a 4th alternative) or say which option you think is more likely than him being divine.

 

But this thread has been going on a while ...............

[Vagabond]

Incidently, i can't help wondering what you would believe now if your parents had been ardent die-hard atheists!

 

 

You are making the common mistake of assuming dissent is merely a sign of a rebellious nature, and that if brought up by atheists I would have become a High Churchman just to be contrary. Poppycock!

 

I can assure you it was no light matter to realise, at the age of seven, that one's parents were irrational. Religious mania is a very serious condition - largely unrecognised by the medical profession in those days. So serious was it, that my grandparents removed me from parental control until I was old enough to look after myself.

 

Almost certainly if brought up by atheists, I would believe the same as I believe now. Even as a child, I could just not understand why people believed in spirits, ghosts, witches, demons, angels, a hereafter, religions or anything supernatural. In fact, I formed the opinion that nobody (apart from the deluded) really did so believe, they only pretended to - the priests because that gave them control, the laity because they feared the social consequences of not conforming.

 

In some societies that may well be entirely true, but OK, I now accept that there are honest people about who genuinely believe in the supernatural. Try as I might, I still don't understand why - I suppose deep down I think their reasoning must be faulty, because whenever I try to think things through it seems so obvious to me that gods and tooth fairies alike are just myths.

[corydoras]

Even as a child, I could just not understand why people believed in spirits, ghosts, witches, demons, angels, a hereafter, religions or anything supernatural. In fact, I formed the opinion that nobody (apart from the deluded) really did so believe, they only pretended to - the priests because that gave them control, the laity because they feared the social consequences of not conforming.

Hi Dave

Exactly how I have felt since I was seven years of age. I guess you would describe my parents and grandparents as 'cultural Church of Scotland', not really beleivers but they would go to church for weddings and funereals. None of us were chsristened or babtised though, and I don't think that any of my cousins were either.

 

There is an interesting article here about clergy who don't believe in what they preach.

[The Flying Tench]

You are making the common mistake of assuming dissent is merely a sign of a rebellious nature, and that if brought up by atheists I would have become a High Churchman just to be contrary. Poppycock!

 

Sorry if my remark sounded presumptuous. I certainly don't think that all 'dissent' is merely a sign of a rebellious nature. I do think that, for people of any belief, reacting against parents can be one factor in the equation, though. I meet people who have reacted against the faith of churchgoing parents, particularly if they were 'made to go to church', and I sometimes have parents bringing their babies for baptism in reaction to atheistic or agnostic parents. It was probably a factor for me, in a way.

Edited March 27, 2010 by The Flying Tench

[chesters1]

i had balance in my life my mum was staunch church of scotland my old man son of staunch catholic ,i from my earliest recollection didnt take notice of my mums ludicrous notions about a god (i have a "black" book all to my self!" my old man just kept quiet as he did for all his life and gave the expected answers he should for a quiet life.I was babtised all the children were ,were mine no its their choice ,like pierced ears its best left till the child is an adult and decides for themselves.

i like seeing for my own eyes and yes you do get burnt playing with fire not just once but repeat times ,i'm sorry i am short on a god spot in the brain it resides very near almost non existent talent with musical instruments and a whole host of desirable traits even i would like.

some people no doubt have very large god spots i just hope their not disappointed wagering all their life theres more than just rotting flesh at the end of it.

 

i can be as bad as i like and can bet no god will appear to correct my actions thats why dictators get away with it .As i said if there is a god then is it a god we want what entity would see children suffer and not act? do we need it if it did exist?.

Good is inside you even bad people do good things it doesnt need some god to tell you kind actions bode well for the do-er most of the time.

 

god as in religion is a form of control nothing more ,its threats effect you when your alive and there no guarantee the rewards for excepting control will be doled out after it.

If religion was dreamt up today there's no way it could be allowed in law its a pyramid selling scheme of the highest calibre and having no proof its anything else wouldn't last long in court.

i get terribly peed of with the church especially one in farnham whose parking is only for the few .does god decide who parks no its some prick called the vicar ,if i parked and got smited (smote?) fair enough but this modern day hitler no doubt calls the coppers why doesn't his god smite him for not turning his cheek ? why doesnt he send out the churches owner to throw me off ,easy he knows full well there isnt one so keeps his prime parking spot for his greedy self!

are ministers just fallen MP's and councillors?

 

a lay preacher i knew at the uni used to start off while we were having a fag ,me asking for proof his god existed shut him up and we got down to smoking again ,this idiot had revelations almost bloody daily !he was addicted to god! nice chap outside of god ,he had a word with the vicar at a church near where we live if i could park a campervan on a bit of ajacent land 3 days a week for a couple of months (so i could carry on working at the uni) bugger said no so so much for christian values!

not just god as well one of my former employers was a Buddhist (jewish by birth) after a couple of hours NAM-MYOHO-RENGE-KYO'ing (had to cut and paste that) he and his mrs would appear very fired up didnt do bugger all his stint as a film director flopped and he buggered back of to america (the jewish bit was still engrained though he wanted to take a jerry can of petrol in the container ,it was "directed" into my petrol tank when the packer appeared with it)

 

he got me to go to a buddist meeting (wholesale chanting) all i saw was a bunch of very needy people desperate to do something to prove that life was nothing but existence then death with nothing further

Edited March 27, 2010 by chesters1

[DavyR]

DavyR, I don't think you gave a link,

 

It was this one, John:

 

A subject (cause of death in crucifixion) that has attracted a fair bit of academic interest in its time:

 

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr191.php

 

Go to the pdf link further down the press release for the full paper.

[The Flying Tench]

It was this one, John:

 

A subject (cause of death in crucifixion) that has attracted a fair bit of academic interest in its time:

 

http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr191.php

 

Go to the pdf link further down the press release for the full paper.

 

Thanks, indeed a good article. My only comment about the position in which Jesus was crucified is that christian art from an early date has always depicted him in an upright position, and since those who saw him die would have still been around I don't see any reason to think they would have got this wrong. As I understand it, Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down. These things make a big impact on those who love the victim.

 

Grisly stuff, unfortunately.

 

I take the point that there is uncertainty about exactly how he died. My personal view is still that suggestions that he did not actually die are special pleading - but I acknowledge that without more evidence we can't be 100% certain.