Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit Discussion
In a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Irregular Times Diaries: Unfit DiscussionIn a time of the spring, old paths are obscured and new growth begins.
Everybody’s heard the story by now: Filmmaker James Cameron has produced a documentary, The Lost Tomb of Christ, that claims that the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdelene have been found in the same family crypt in Jerusalem.
You’ve also probably read some of the reaction from Christians. In local newspapers around the world, this reaction is usually given by priests, pastors, reverends and the like. They’re called up by reporters, and asked to give their opinions about the idea that the bones of Jesus might have been found.
Almost every single one of these clergy rejects the idea right away. In fact, they don’t just reject the claim that James Cameron has documented the finding of the bones of Jesus. They absolutely reject the possibility that such a thing ever could happen.
For example, in a South African newspaper, Anglican bishop Rubin Phillip is quoted as saying,
“In terms of scripture Jesus ascended from this world. It was not only a spiritual ascension and resurrection, but a physical one, so there can’t be any remains of Christ. The person making these claims sounds like a fraudster looking for publicity. I don’t think any Christian would take these claims seriously because it goes against biblical teaching.”
Pay attention to the argument being made by this bishop. He isn’t saying that James Cameron sounds like a fraudster because the argument James Cameron makes in his film, or the fact that he uses to make that argument, are faulty. Bishop Phillip is saying that James Cameron sounds like a fraudster because his film fails to agree with what the Bible says is true. In this view, any idea that does not fit with biblical teaching is regarded automatically as a fraud - even before the facts of the case are considered.
A quote in the same article by another Anglican priest, Chris Townsend, illustrates the broader problem revealed by the reaction to The Lost Tomb of Christ. Townsend says, “It will be very difficult to verify if the bones are indeed those of Jesus… We should be more concerned with living the good news, not worry about bones.”
On the one hand, Townsend declares that there must be a high threshold of proof that the found bones are those of Jesus. On the other hand, Townsend requires a very low threshold of proof for the “good news” that Jesus was was the divine son of the creator of the Universe, and never died but instead was put on a cosmic train up into the sky, where, in spite of the low levels of oxygen and complete lack of food (not to mention toilet facilities), Jesus is now still living, almost two thousand years later.
Townsend wants us all to “not worry about bones”, but concentrate on following his religion’s beliefs about reality. That ought to sound familiar. Creationists have been saying the same about biological evolution for generations. The arguments that are used to prematurely reject James Cameron’s claims are the very same faith-based evasions of reality that have been used to reject Darwin’s theory on the origin of species through natural selection. Forget the facts about what the old bones say, we’re told. We’re asked only to look at what the Bible says is true, and never mind about the ways that external reality fails to match that truth.
For myself, I’m quite skeptical of the claim that the bones of Jesus and Mary Magdelene have been found and identified to within a reasonable doubt. Biblical archaeology has a rotten reputation of fraud in such matters. A few years back, a funeral vessel was found that was claimed to have the name of James, the brother of Jesus, written on it. It turns out that the inscription was fake.
However, skepticism is not the same thing as automatic rejection. It’s doubt. I doubt the claims made by James Cameron’s documentary, but I haven’t seen the film yet myself, and so I recognize that I really don’t have enough information yet to say for sure that they are unlikely to be true. In fact, my skepticism encourages me to see the film for myself. For a skeptic, doubt is a precursor to true consideration.
What bothers me is not the fact so many Christians are rejecting the reality of the bones. Rather, I am disturbed by the way that they’re making this rejection instantly, before they have had the chance to seriously consider the facts, or even watch the documentary.
These Christians, who are willing to dismiss evidence without even looking at it, don’t worship Jesus. They don’t even know Jesus. They worship a book. Their religion ought to be called Biblism, not Christianity.
This is not just a semantic distinction. There’s a big difference between religious people who try to follow the teachings of Jesus as written about in the Bible, and religious people who try to follow the Bible.
Biblism is not just the consequence of failure to think clearly. It is a threat to free society. The Bible worshippers are so fixated on their idol of a book that they cannot imagine it being untrue in any way. They don’t keep this certainty to themselves, but try to force it on others. They work to impose their book on everyone else.
Using the Bible as justification, they try to control what we can see on television, how our children are taught in school, who we marry and how we divorce, when we have children and when we go to war. Bible worship has practical consequences for us all, whether or not we are Biblists ourselves.
People ought to have the right to believe such strange ideas as those of the Biblists. However, we ought to skeptical of the claims Bible worshippers make, lest we become subject to them.
(222 votes, average: 2.96 out of 5)
Irregular Times
New Button Designs
72 queries. 1.415 seconds
Top Article Last Week
February 28th, 2007 at 11:48 am
I’m not Anglican, but my reading of the scripture is the same as the Anglican bishop.
Before the Gall declares an Anglican Conspiracy to control what non-Anglicans watch on TV, learn in school, or do to procreate, he ought to study up a little more on Anglicanism. In my experience, atheists are much more likely to try to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Where was The Gall’s outrage when the Religion of Peace was burning embassies?
February 28th, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Whatever the Bible says, it’s true?
Scripture is just a fancy word for something that somebody wrote. Let’s use plain language, please.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Now, now, Perigrin. “Scripture” is certainly not “just a fancy word for something that somebody wrote.” It’s different because it is magic.
February 28th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
I’ve written a comprehensive rebuttal to claims and evidence of this film. Please read it and decide for yourself.
You will find it at extremetheology.com
March 1st, 2007 at 6:15 am
Thanks for the spam comment!
March 1st, 2007 at 10:29 am
For those who read Marcus Borg and John Shelby Spong, yet another Easter season film announcment will be greeted with cynicism, but Mr. Rosebrough represents a different, and perhaps more common religious stream.
Mr. Rosebrough applies the “methodology” used by Cameron to all of the bones sets discovered back in 1980 and concludes that although some of the names are similar to biblical names, other names are not known family members of Jesus, plus several known brothers of Jesus are missing from the tomb, which you would not expect if this is a family tomb.
One of the posters also questions why someone in antiquity from the lower classes would purchase a middle class tomb a hundred miles away from their village where they had no ties. Another poster points out the announcement was made at a press conference and not a scholarly event.
Saddest is the poster who writes:
All of that for a publicity stunt.
And is IrregularTimes sincerely interested in the phenomenon, or is it just an excuse to try to impose their beliefs on everybody else?
March 1st, 2007 at 11:46 am
Wow. So are you seriously saying that by expressing our own opinions, we are imposing our beliefs on everybody else?
I’ve written about my doubts about the claims made by James Cameron. But, that’s not what this article is about.
This article is about the way that so many Christian leaders have expressed their disbelief in Cameron’s claims before even seeing the film or considering the evidence. As they themselves state, the reason they reject Cameron’s claims is because of their belief that anything that contradicts the Bible cannot possibly be true.
That’s what this article is about, Alan. The article is also about the very concrete ways in which Christian groups do try to impose their beliefs on others, by attempting to legally mandate the replacement of science with religion in our public schools.
You’re trying to change the subject, Alan. Not going to work.
March 1st, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Why call Rosebrough’s comment spam just because you don’t agree with it? I don’t agree with it either, but it’s not spam.
Why attack Rosebrough? He wasn’t rude to you. The remark was made in good faith. It was interesting, well-thought-out, and served to advance public discourse. If you don’t agree with it, don’t just attack the guy personally. Say what you don’t agree with and why.
People really don’t have a clue what atheists think. A lot of people think atheists are just argumentative assholes. This is a chance to develop your own ideas and present yourself to an advantage. If you start out by dissing sincere people you are going to lose a lot of good will, and not just from the lunatic right-wing fringe.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Where does Bishop Phillip say he wants to “mandate the replacement of science with religion in our public schools”? I don’t see it. Where does he say that? He doesn’t.
What he says is,“In terms of scripture Jesus ascended from this world.” That is exactly what scripture says. What exactly would satisfy you? Do you expect him not to read the Bible, to be an atheist like you? He’s a bishop, for cryin out loud. That’s what bishops do.
You need to google Anglicanism.
This article starts out with a specific statement from one bishop “In terms of scripture Jesus ascended from this world”. Then that statement is used to stereotype all Christians as “a threat to free society,” trying to “force it on others”, working to “impose their book on everyone else”, and trying to “control what we can see on television, how our children are taught in school, who we marry and how we divorce, when we have children and when we go to war”. Pa-leez. Do google “Anglican”. The Anglicans are not in a conspiracy against you.
So what’s my real point? You’re coming very close to hate speech, Peregrin. I’m tired of hearing about how “the Jews” this conspiracy and “the Jews” that conspiracy. After 9/11 did you talk about “the Moslems” attacking the World Trade Center, as if all of Islam was a monolith? Then why talk about Christians in that way?
This is how wars begin. First you take something out of context, use it to make sweeping statements about a religious or ethnic group, then stereotype anyone from that group as a villian and an enemy.
Here is how you stop wars. You refer to people by name. No Christians this and Christians that. Talk about what individuals actually said by name. Quote accurately. And if you’re going to talk about Anglicanism, please do try to find out something about it.
March 1st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
As far as the location of the bones, I don’t think it’s stupid to look to the Bible for information. If the Bible says some people claimed the body was taken away by the followers, and the writings of the followers say Jesus ascended to heaven, and the gospels say Jesus was last seen after the crucifixion preaching up north in the area of the Sea of Gallilee, does anyone in their right mind really expect to find Jesus’ bones in the Jerusalem area, in plain sight, with his name written on the box?
March 1st, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Alan -
#1. I call it comment spam because it’s a cut-and-paste message that the writer is plopping down in several places without bothering to enage in the actual conversation. It’s commonly recognized as rude behavior.
#2. You’re dishonestly switching the subject of my sentence to become “Bishop Phillip”. It’s not. Here’s the full sentence I wrote: “The article is also about the very concrete ways in which Christian groups do try to impose their beliefs on others, by attempting to legally mandate the replacement of science with religion in our public schools.” The subject of the sentence is “Christian groups”, not “Bishop Phillip”.
I don’t even say “all Christian groups”, and that makes an important difference that you don’t seem to understand. When people say “Pigs eating the vegetables in the garden,” there is no implication that all pigs are eating vegetables in the garden. Do you see the linguistic parallel, now?
It seems to me that you’re wanting to get upset about something that’s really not upsetting. Hate speech? Critical examination of a newspaper article is not hate speech.
Alan, are you seriously saying that Christian groups are not trying to legally mandate the replacement of science with religion in our public schools?
The people in the Dover school district in Pennsylvania might disagree with you about that.
I’m not starting any wars, Alan. I’m commenting on a newspaper article.
I’m not a violent person, Alan, and I’ll never go to war. If Christians go to war against people like me merely because I question the validity of their beliefs, I don’t think the fault rests with me.
What would satisfy me is if people would stop quoting “scripture” as a reference of truth. It isn’t. The only truth it refers to is that somebody wrote something once.
March 1st, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Alan, in relation to this controversy, the Bible is being quoted as saying that Jesus floated up into the sky.
That’s not plausible.
You’re asking us all to accept the Bible as a reliable source of information about true historical events.
I will not accept books that talk about people floating around in the air with no means of support other than supernatural power as reliable sources of information about true historical events.
The Bible is not a credible source.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:51 pm
Where does this article say anything about public schools?
I’m not saying you shouldn’t talk about separation of church and state or freedom of religion. I think you SHOULD talk about it and talk about it often. But talk about it in context and with a person’s name attached to whatever is happening. Make sure the article says something about the point you’re trying to make. I don’t really mean to yell at you, but I think it’s terribly important to be accurate about this or you do end up sounding like hate speech.
If you haven’t figured it out yet, the Anglicans–Episcopalians in the U.S.–are the ones with the openly gay bishop.
Yes, the Bible is a credible source if you read it as a historical document, taking into consideration the bias of the source. I wasn’t there and I didn’t see whether Jesus floated up into heaven or not. But some people did say they saw it and if they said that publicly, they must have been pretty damn sure no inconvenient bones were going to turn up.
March 1st, 2007 at 11:53 pm
Sure, just like the people who say they saw bigfoot, and Nessie, and the Chupacabra.
March 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 am
I met a guy in Scotland who said he saw Nessie. I don’t know if he saw Nessie or not, but he said he did. That people say they see Nessie you can take for a historical fact.
Unlike JC, some Nessie-type creature did leave some bones behind. I saw the bones. They belonged to a fresh-water dinosaur creature with huge fins and you can see them in the School of Mines museum in Rapid City, South Dakota. Sometimes there is something behind these strange tales.
March 5th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Does everyone honestly believe everything they hear? This is just an excuse for guilt. Do you really think this will crush Christianity? The power of the cross is much bigger than some silly story. I can find a box in my backyard that says Tupac on it. He’s alive now?.. come on now.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:02 am
You’re so right, Paula! Why, I read a newspaper article about how a crucifix fell off the wall of the nursery school in a local church, absolutely crushing a copy of The Cat in The Hat. See, the power of the cross is much bigger than some silly story!
The Bible tells a story. The documentary tells a story. Neither one has very good proof for much of what it says. How do you choose one over the other?
March 7th, 2007 at 1:08 am
The Cat in the Hat is hardly a silly story. Why, I played it for my students just the other day. Since they all speak a language where a table “la mesa” is feminine and a car “el carro” is masculine, they had no clue about the gender neutral prononun “it”, and no explanation of mine could make them catch on. Until they saw the Cat in the Hat bring out Thing One and Thing Two and the Things did a little dance together. Now when I draw my little third person singular diagram on the board they all perk up, nod sagely, and say “Cosa Uno, Cosa Dos”.
No matter how many “accidents”, the power of the Cat in the Hat will never be crushed.