Re: to blind new agers
@Afrim, I do take your point, and agree that archeology isn't perfect. It is an imperfect science a lot of it is based on guesswork as much as physical evidence, and yes you are right that some archeologists do tend to ignore, skip, and even hide evidence that doesn't fit neatly into one of their pet theories. That's a consequence of being human, and scientists are as human as anyone else. Therefore when faced with something they can't explain or that disagrees with a long held belief the usual response is to bury it, hide it, and act like that evidence doesn't exist.
For example, the oldest human remains that have been located. There is a controversy over how long modern humans, homo sapiens, have been around on Earth. Conventional evolutionary theory holds about a million years. Yet there is evidence that modern homo sapiens have been around far longer. Quite possibly at least four million years or more. There is no way to convince most arche ologists and paleontologists of this because it simply does not square with their current notions of evolution. Therefore they will ignore the potential evidence and outright shun anyone who proposes a theory that disagrees with the most popular one of the day.
That said, I still think archeology offers us the best method for discovering our past, of figuring out what may have happened, and long as we realize some of that is subjective conjecture we can use it to further our understanding of the past. As far as I am concerned it isn't archeology that has failed but simply people who refuse to consider new evidence or alternative opinions when it is presented to them.
As far as Easter Sunday goes it is actually not a fixed day. It is based on a lunar calendar rather than a solar calendar meaning that from year to year Easter falls on a different day from year to year. I'm not sure why the orthodox church celebrates Easter on a different day, but I'm sure th ey have their reasons.
@Dark, science definitely is not perfect. Yes, there is the problem of induction, and no not everyone who claims to be a scientist is always logical, rational, and capable of making decisions based on logic and reason alone. Fact is the world's scientists are just as human as everybody else, is able to make mistakes, and often allow their personal biases, opinions, and expectations to drive scientific discovery. Therefore in that sense science is in its own way a type of faith or religion because not everything scientists believe to be true can be proven with empirical evidence.
As for the matter of faith it seems we are working with a different definition of the word. For my part I am assuming faith is defined the way the bible defines it. The bible says faith is things hoped for but is unseen. That is the Christian definition of the word and the one I often mean when I compare it to science. So Christian faith is not really about experience, evidence, but about hope and trust in the unseen.
What you are talking about faith based on an experience with something spiritual, call it God, is something other than faith. I'd call it personal experience which can't always be quantified by science but none-the-less may be true. It is these subjective experiences that have some basis in reality, are true as far as the individual involved goes, but is not easily proven to a second or third party. I wouldn't call those kinds of experiences as faith per se, but would classify it as personal evidence for believing in something that is otherwise not easily provable.
@Steve, I'd be curious to know what misconceptions you speak of. I grew up a Christian, spent many years reading and studying the bible, so feel I have a pretty good grasp of core Christian doctrines. That said, I know there are hundreds of different denominations that all have different points of view on biblical interpretation so its poss ible my own interpretations are different than your's. All the same I'd like to know for discussion's sake what misconceptions you believe I have regarding your faith.
@Themadviolinist, I am in total agreement with you. After I left the Christian faith, became agnostic, and began to question everything from the doctrine of salvation to the nature of God I began to feel offended and frustrated with Christians who obsessed over my eternal soul. To this day I am still frustrated with the Christians who get on forums like this, on various mailing lists, or come knocking on my door trying to save me from going to hell. They don't seem to want to know or understand I made a choice, weather for good or bad, to walk away from those beliefs. The constant bible preaching, admonitions to get saved, etc just end up offending me and make me want less to do with Christianity and Christians because they simply won't shut up and leave me be.
[ a-t ]
@Afrim,
as for when the Koran and the bible were written we have a pretty good idea when they were written. Even though it might not have been taught to you in school does not mean we do not have any idea when they were composed.
The bible, for instance, seems to have began being transcribed by Jewish scribes while in captivity during the fifth and sixth century BCE. The Old Testament was later converted into Greek during the first century BCE and likely was in use at the time of Jesus's ministry.
The first books of the New Testament are believed to have been written by Paul between 50 and 60 CE. The first gospel, Mark, was probably composed between 60 and 70 CE. These dates aren't exact, but are what most Christian bible scholars believe.
The Koran on the other hand was probably written in Baghdad by Muslim scribes around 800 CE which would have been about two hundred years after Muhammad supposedly ass ended up into heaven. So there is likely quite a bit of time between Mohammad's Earthly ministry and the time the Koran came into existence.
In any case just because you haven't been taught when these religious text were written does not mean we don't know when they were written. We do know when and where they were written in many cases. The problem for scholars is by whom were these religious texts were written since the scribes who copied and wrote the texts didn't take credit for any work on the manuscripts themselves. Instead they were accredited to a saint or profit who was believed to originally compose that manuscript even though it is possible that person did not write it.
_______________________________________________ Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
