Tomb of Jesus Discovered?

[onodrim]

Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found   click to show 

Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News - Feb. 25, 2007 — New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

Discovery has set up a special Web site, www.discovery.com/tomb, to provide related in-depth information and to allow viewers to come to their own conclusions about the entire matter.

The Talpiot Tomb

On March 28, 1980, a construction crew developing an apartment complex in Talpiot, Jerusalem, uncovered a tomb, which archaeologists from the Israeli Antiquities Authority excavated shortly thereafter. Archaeologist Shimon Gibson surveyed the site and drew a layout plan. Scholar L.Y. Rahmani later published "A Catalogue of Jewish Ossuaries" that described 10 ossuaries, or limestone bone boxes, found in the tomb.

Scholars know that from 30 B.C. to 70 A.D., many people in Jerusalem would first wrap bodies in shrouds after death. The bodies were then placed in carved rock tombs, where they decomposed for a year before the bones were placed in an ossuary.

Five of the 10 discovered boxes in the Talpiot tomb were inscribed with names believed to be associated with key figures in the New Testament: Jesus, Mary, Matthew, Joseph and Mary Magdalene. A sixth inscription, written in Aramaic, translates to "Judah Son of Jesus."

"Such tombs are very typical for that region," Aaron Brody, associate professor of Bible and archaeology at the Pacific School of Religion and director of California's Bade Museum told Discovery News.

Ossuary Inscriptions

At least four leading epigraphers have corroborated the ossuary inscriptions for the documentary, according to the Discovery Channel.

Frank Moore Cross, a professor emeritus in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "The inscriptions are from the Herodian Period (which occurred from around 1 B.C. to 1 A.D.). The use of limestone ossuaries and the varied script styles are characteristic of that time."

Jodi Magness, associate department chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, told Discovery News that, based on the New Testament writings, "Jesus likely lived during the first century A.D."

In addition to the "Judah son of Jesus" inscription, which is written in Aramaic on one of the ossuaries, another limestone burial box is labeled in Aramaic with "Jesus Son of Joseph." Another bears the Hebrew inscription "Maria," a Latin version of "Miriam," or, in English, "Mary." Yet another ossuary inscription, written in Hebrew, reads "Matia," the original Hebrew word for "Matthew." Only one of the inscriptions is written in Greek. It reads, "Mariamene e Mara," which can be translated as, "Mary known as the master."

Francois Bovon, professor of the history of religion at Harvard University, told Discovery News, "Mariamene, or Mariamne, probably was the actual name given to Mary Magdalene."

Bovon explained that he and a colleague discovered a fourteenth century copy in Greek of a fourth century text that contains the most complete version of the "Acts of Philip" ever found. Although not included in the Bible, the "Acts of Philip" mentions the apostles and Mariamne, sister of the apostle Philip.

"When Philip is weak, she is strong," Bovon said. "She likely was a great teacher who even inspired her own sect of followers, called Mariamnists, who existed from around the 2nd to the 3rd century."

DNA Analysis

Jacobovici, director, producer and writer of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," and his team obtained two sets of samples from the ossuaries for DNA and chemical analysis. The first set consisted of bits of matter taken from the "Jesus Son of Joseph" and "Mariamene e Mara" ossuaries. The second set consisted of patina — a chemical film encrustation on one of the limestone boxes.

The human remains were analyzed by Carney Matheson, a scientist at the Paleo-DNA Laboratory at Lakehead University in Ontario, Canada. Mitochondrial DNA examination determined the individual in the Jesus ossuary and the person in the ossuary linked to Mary Magdalene were not related.

Since tombs normally contain either blood relations or spouses, Jacobovici and his team suggest it is possible Jesus and Mary Magdalene were a couple. "Judah," whom they indicate may have been their son, could have been the "lad" described in the Gospel of John as sleeping in Jesus' lap at the Last Supper.

Robert Genna, director of the Suffolk County Crime Laboratory in New York, analyzed both the patina taken from the Talpiot Tomb and chemical residue obtained from the "James" ossuary, which was also found around 1980, but subsequently disappeared and resurfaced in the antiquities market. Although controversy surrounds this burial box, Genna found that the two patinas matched.

"The samples were consistent with each other," Genna told Discovery News.

Upon examining the tomb, the filmmakers determined a space exists that would have fit the "James" ossuary. Given the patina match and this observation, Jacobovici theorizes the lost burial box could, in fact, be the "James" ossuary.

Statistical Data

A possible argument against the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb is that the collection of names on the ossuary inscriptions could be coincidental.

But Andrey Feuerverger, professor of statistics and mathematics at the University of Toronto, recently conducted a study addressing the probabilities that will soon be published in a leading statistical journal.

Feuerverger multiplied the instances that each name appeared during the tomb's time period with the instances of every other name. He initially found "Jesus Son of Joseph" appeared once out of 190 times, Mariamne appeared once out of 160 times and so on.

To be conservative, he next divided the resulting numbers by 25 percent, a statistical standard, and further divided the results by 1,000 to attempt to account for all tombs — even those that have not been uncovered — that could have existed in first century Jerusalem.

The study concludes that the odds are at least 600 to 1 in favor of the Talpiot Tomb being the Jesus Family Tomb. In other words, the conclusion works 599 times out of 600.

Another Tomb?

The researchers discovered a second, as-yet unexplored tomb about 65 1/2 feet from the Talpiot Tomb. During the documentary, they introduced a robotic camera into this second tomb, which captured the first-ever recorded footage of an undisturbed burial cave from Jesus' time. The team speculates that this other tomb could contain the remains of additional family members, or even disciples, though further examination and analysis are needed.

As Academy Award-winner Cameron said in a press release, "It doesn't get bigger than this. We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."

New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.

The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.

A documentary presenting the evidence, "The Lost Tomb of Jesus," will premiere on the Discovery Channel on March 4 at 9 p.m. ET/PT. The documentary comes from executive producer James Cameron and director Simcha Jacobovici.

I found this article while browsing earlier and thought it was certainly worthy of discussion. It's definitely going to bring out strong reactions from people on all sides.

As far as I see it, I don't believe there's any way to prove this one way or the other. Even if they did find a 2,000 year old tomb containing coffins with those names, how can we know that is is actually Jesus and his descendants. We have no DNA to test against.

And if there is reason to believe it may be true, why wait to publish the news until a documentary is being filmed. Is it all one big publicity stunt?

[ShaniFaye]

at best I can see how they might prove relationships to other's in the tomb...ie which of the bones were the parents of Judah, if joseph and mary's were the parents of Jesus

its interesting to see how the discovery site makes sure to explain how this discovery doesnt fly in the face of christian believe lol

Resurrection: It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus’ disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels.

Ascension: It is also a matter of Christian faith that after his resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven. Some Christians believe that this was a spiritual ascension, i.e., his mortal remains were left behind. Other Christians believe that he ascended with his body to heaven. If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology

as will all documentaries related to biblical archaeology I will def watch it

[highthief]

It's an interesting study - as you say, there's no way to know for sure, one way or the other, but it certainly generates debate and thought about the nature of Christ. That's not a bad thing.

[Sorcha]

Marked that on my calendar.

I don't know that it will have much implication for the Christian community, despite the seemingly provocative subject. I asked my mom what she would do if the body of Jesus were found, proven unequivocally, awhile ago. She said she'd think it was a fake. I got a similar response at a Christian forum I was a member of when I posted a discussion of this.

To be honest, although I'm not Christian, looking at this article I have to agree that it doesn't really prove anything completely. It could raise some really interesting theological discussion though, like highthief said.

[jorgelito]

Old news. James Cameron is not a theologian or biblical archaeologist. He's just looking for publicity.

This was covered way back in 1996 by the BBC. They already did a documentary on this tomb discovery and pretty much refuted it.

As in all things Hollywood, they just can't leave the original alone so they had to make a remake of an old documentary.

[Lady Sage]

It will either boost morale for the christians or it will give them something else to bicker over and divide themselves.

[ASU2003]

I say we clone Jesus and bring back the anti-christ. That would make a great movie.

If they did a DNA test, they should have enought for a clone then.

I could just imagine the media backlash from that suggestion.

[Lady Sage]

Ooooo I like it! Perhaps they will use any DNA found to clone whomever or whatever was there and we will get a look-see?

[newtx]

Thank you jorgelito. Very well spoken or typed as it were.

[Menoman]

If it was the BBC special doc, I saw, they didn't refute anything.

They basically ended it by saying "We can't prove it is infact the JEsus Christ in the bible, We can't prove it isn't"

[guthmund]

Originally Posted by Lady Sage

Ooooo I like it! Perhaps they will use any DNA found to clone whomever or whatever was there and we will get a look-see?

Well, you'd have to find that guy from Jurassic Park and then...wait...were the Jesus bones encased in amber? They weren't? Well, that might be a problem...

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Menoman

They basically ended it by saying "We can't prove it is infact the JEsus Christ in the bible, We can't prove it isn't"

Well, that's just the point. Without having a test sample, from a "known" relative, then DNA analysis is pretty useless...not?

I mean...it could be Jesus. Or...it could just as easily have been some guy named Fred.

All in all, I'll probably watch the documentary. It seems to be up my alley.

[Rekna]

Some things that should be noted is that the names Jesus, Mary, Joseph, and Judah are the most common names of that time. In addition, It was Jesus of Nazarus not Jesus of Jerusalem. In addition, the location of this tomb is no where near the believed location of Jesus's tomb. Finally, there were also some reports that the names have been miss translated but I haven't verified this yet.

I was watching a story on MSNBC last night and it reported that archaeologists across the globe are lining up saying that this documentary is not archaeologically sound with some of them saying the odds of this being the real Jesus's tomb is about one in a million. James Cameron is merely trying to make money by dishonestly creating controversy.

[kutulu]

It's called faith, not knowledge. It doesn't matter what you show someone. If they have strong faith they won't believe you.

[Rekna]

sorry double post.

[Val_1]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Well, that's just the point. Without having a test sample, from a "known" relative, then DNA analysis is pretty useless...not?

I mean...it could be Jesus. Or...it could just as easily have been some guy named Fred.

Exactly. So, we need to get a DNA sample from God, run the tests and see. Is God my baby's daddy? Watch and find out.

[World's King]

I've been trying to come up with a witty comment about this but...



I got nothing.

[Crack]

Damn the Romans. They can't do anything right. They should have hired the Mafia to do the hit.

We can find the tomb of Jesus, lost over 2000 years ago, but we still can't find Jimmy Hoffa

(how is that WK?)

[ObieX]

In addition, the location of this tomb is no where near the believed location of Jesus's tomb.

I've heard this mentioned a few times on a few reports.. but if you really think about it.. the bones WOULD NOT be found near the tomb. As is mentioned in the bible the body was moved out of the tomb or Jesus resurrected from the tomb and left it.. so why would the bones be in it? The bones are said to have been found "across town" from the tomb. Is it not logical that they could have been moved that short distance?

[Vincentt]

I recall that Jesus, Mary, and Joesph were popular names at the time.

Simply going on the names of the tomb is not enough evidence.

[highthief]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Well, that's just the point. Without having a test sample, from a "known" relative, then DNA analysis is pretty useless...not?

I mean...it could be Jesus. Or...it could just as easily have been some guy named Fred.

All in all, I'll probably watch the documentary. It seems to be up my alley.

I think the intention of the DNA comparison to compare the DNA of the people found in the tomb to establish a relationship to one another, more than anything else.

As for the BBC special - yes, the issue has been examined before, but obviously this guy has studied it again. To say "Well, something was studied once and X was the result, so we should never study it again" is not a very logical statement. A lot of people studied things, go a negative result, before someone else came along and turned that result on its head.

[Charlatan]

interesting that there are christian organizations coming out to say that discovery is mounting an attack on christianity.

anything that allows for the mortality of christ is bad. this doc, if true, suggests that christ had a child with mary madgeline and further that he did not physically ascend into heaven.

all things that throw his divinity into doubt.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

interesting that there are christian organizations coming out to say that discovery is mounting an attack on christianity.

Interesting? Nah...not so much. Predictable? Oh, most definately.

And I don't say that in a negative sense. IF this is ever proven, beyond an irrefutable doubt...and it is laid out, in plain and simple black and white, that we have been lied to for the past 2000 years...you think people aren't going to be dragged into this kicking and screaming?
For some, their entire lives...their very reason for existence...centers around their firm belief in the divinity of Christ, and his physical ascention into heaven.

I do have to wonder, though...why is it that everything these days seems to be viewed as an "attack on Christianity"? Are their walls weakening to the point that challenges are now becoming more of a threat?

[Daoust]

I think the best position for Christians to take is a wait and see attitude. In the end, these things always end up as hoaxes or dead ends, and the people who make these outrageous claims come off looking like fools. Of course Christianity at large is going to raise a bit of a stink because we don't like it when secular parties try to tell us that the things we believe in are all based on a lie. You can't challenge Muslims or any tennent of the religion of Islam without getting severe backlash from them, so why is it a surprise if Christians get their backs up when people try to refute the claims of their religion?

[Val_1]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

interesting that there are christian organizations coming out to say that discovery is mounting an attack on christianity.

That seems to be the latest tactic by christian groups to try to quite anyone that dare have another opinion. Any issue that gets brought up is suddenly an attack of some sort. War on Christmas, War on Faith, the attack on family values, blah, blah, blah ....

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I mean...it could be Jesus. Or...it could just as easily have been some guy named Fred.

Oh, it's a guy named Jesus all right. The question is more if it's The Jesus.

Fred's buried over there...

Originally Posted by crack

We can find the tomb of Jesus, lost over 2000 years ago, but we still can't find Jimmy Hoffa

Patience, patience. We've only been looking for Hoffa for 40 years. There's another 1960 years to go before we find him.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

This tends towards the bizarre even more than I do.

[jorgelito]

I'm not so sure that Christians are panicking or claiming an attack. The discovery of the tombs really doesn't shake the foundation of faith. There are plenty of reasonable explanations for the existence of the tomb without comprising the core of Christianity.

Further, the point I was trying to make in my previous post is that I think James Cameron is just looking for a publicity stunt, that the subject had been covered before by experts, not Hollywood sensationalists, and that Cameron really hadn't done his research thoroughly. Basically, just trying to present two sides of the story instead of the bandwagoning here.

The presence of a tomb of that size suggests a family wealth. The Jesus in question was not a wealthy man.

The tomb is most likely NOT of a man named Fred as Fred was not a popular Hebrew name of that period.

And BOR, the reason why Christians are getting riled up is because they ARE being attacked. The TFP is a great example. Look at all the atheism threads and the Christian bashing that goes on inside of them. I only recently, and reluctantly "outed" myself as a Christian whereas I was loathe to do so due to all the anti-Christian attitudes that is prevalent on these boards. It isn't 100% blatant but it does exist. And no, I'm not paranoid.

Like in all things, we probably should NOT make sweeping assumptions. There are plenty of Christians who are not afraid or panicked just because a "tomb discovery" was made. Current objection is more to the sensationalization and rush to "see I told you so" type judgements that erupted after the discovery. In other words, a panicked few Christians are responding to the taunts of a (presumably) few atheist, etc.

I agree with the wait and see. In either case, I remain fascinated at the possibilities and undeterred in my own faith.

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

I do have to wonder, though...why is it that everything these days seems to be viewed as an "attack on Christianity"? Are their walls weakening to the point that challenges are now becoming more of a threat?

Because somehow, the ~75% seems to like thinking that they are the minority.

[roachboy]

this is getting curiouser and curiouser.

with respect to the op: while i doubt that anything like a definitive claim could possible be made about whether this tomb is or is not that of "the" jesus--but i confess that i really quite hope that it IS the tomb of The Man, his wife and child--not least because that would destabilize the relations between the main gospels and some of their gnostic contemporaries. i am pretty sympathetic to gnosticism (well, some kinds of it) and thought that almost every reason augustine outlined to oppose gnosticism--particularly the problems that system posed for social regulation--were in a way virtues. the wrong variant of christianity won with the conversion of constantine.

other point:

jorgelito's post is interesting, i think.

first in the choice of the term "outing" with reference to his christianity--why that term? i find it more than passing strange.

in terms of the "anti-christian" stuff: i dont see it that way--i see a great diversity of positions, some of which are amenable to active questioning of believers themselves (as in why do you believe this...) and many others that are not.

one fairly obvious element that cuts across this (but even here, there is little consistency) is that most have had at least some experience of christianity and have broekn with it--and this for a variety of reasons. it seems to me that this break is not easy, particularly if in breaking with christianity you are breaking with signficant elements of your own frame of reference when you were younger. in these situations--and there are alot of them, if you read the various debates about atheism etc, of late--there is obviously a ton of affect from a variety of sources that gets displaced onto christianity---does this mean that the attitudes expressed are "anti-christian"?

i dont understand what "anti-christian" actually means.
would any expression of non-belief be anti-christian?
where does anti-christian stop and start?

there is a tendency within some christian communities to see in all expressions of beliefs that are not consistent with their own evidence of "anti-christian" attitudes--all of it gets associated with satan, yes?
and from that association, what alternatives are possible?
being-in-the-world is cast as warfare between two parties and everyone is of one party or the other.
this is consistent, cutting across all denominations--what varies is the centrality of this position in a larger worldview--not all denominations make this notion of spiritual warfare the absolute center of their views--but some do--fundamentalist protestants in the us are particularly committed to it, it seems (from my experience as a kid with some of these groups, it IS central)

it seems to me that many christian denominations operate from an assumption of hegemony and either will not or cannot adjust to being in a pluralist context--because within such a context, this notion of spritual warfare pitting the "good" (christians) against "evil" (everyone else) is wholly dysfunctional.

but hey, that's just my opinion, man.

[jorgelito]

Great post roachboy, I'm glad you asked those questions. I appreciate your honesty and sincerity. Allow me to address your curiosity.

I purposefully chose to use the term "outing" to evoke a feeling. In other words, for me, I felt I had to "hide" my religious identity amidst a hostile environment to my chosen religion. I wanted to offer that perspective to the board at large to share what it's like to be on the other side in the hopes of eliciting empathy.

Secondly, my use of the term "anti-Christian" is specifically aimed at prevailing attitudes towards that peer cohort by the mainstream which I define as non-religious or atheist (I'm using these labels for convenience and arguments sake). Some of these attitudes include attacking Christian belief, snide remarks, and downright hostility. In context of the OP and reference article, there has been a lot of reaction that can be reasonably defined as "anti-Christian".

What you are saying roachboy I actually do agree with but within the given context. In fact, we could open up another thread on that. The problem isn't the disagreement. Disagreement is healthy and stimulating. It's when it turns nasty or personal that all semblance of civil debate or "higher evolved learning - what the tfp is all about, (ironic isn't it) is decayed and discussion ceases and bashing begins.

So roachboy, no, "anti-Christian" does not mean non-belief.

I think some of the reactions we see are due in part because of the high-intensity level of emotions involved and the rush to "defend", or the panic effect when one group feels it is under attack. I would also contend that the Christian community is very diverse and not easily stereotyped. As such, wholesale assumptions and generalizations are not useful. What exacerbates the communication is the inherent laziness in people to reduce things to simple binaries: us vs them, good vs evil, Christians vs everyone else, everyone else vs Christians, Democrats vs Republican - when the reality is, in fact, much more complex, much more subtle, and much more deserving of a qualitative examination instead of the usual perfunctory glance over and typing. I suppose this would be part and parcel to the memes you always speak of. The reduction of complex issues to overly simplified sound bites.

And Roach, this is just my opinion too

note - Minority in a social context does not necessarily denote a literal numerical minority, but rather a power one. So while there could be a numerical Christian majority, it is possible for that group to be underrepresented in the power structure or otherwise feel unempowered in a social context.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

And BOR, the reason why Christians are getting riled up is because they ARE being attacked. The TFP is a great example. Look at all the atheism threads and the Christian bashing that goes on inside of them. I only recently, and reluctantly "outed" myself as a Christian whereas I was loathe to do so due to all the anti-Christian attitudes that is prevalent on these boards. It isn't 100% blatant but it does exist. And no, I'm not paranoid.

Paranoid? Maybe...maybe not, I'm not qualified to make that call. I would, however, suggest that you may be somewhat over sensitive. What I see...and correct me if I'm wrong...are atheists, myself included, speaking out after years and years of suppresion. Until somewhat recently, one did not so much as dare to speak out against the Church.
Again...I could be wrong (it's happened once before ), but I dont see Christians being "attacked". I don't see Christians being hauled off and beaten. I don't see churches being burned. Nor do I see public demonstrations condemning Christianity. You are being questioned...not attacked.

As a whole Christians do not...affect me? Phase me. Whatever. I have some very good friends, both on these boards and in real life that are devoutly Christian. That's great. I don't know if they are better people because of it, or in spite of it, but I respect them all the same. You included, Jorgelito. But, don't accuse us atheists of attacking your belief just because we don't believe in it and are becoming more vocal about it.

[ShaniFaye]

No we are just being told in another thread that we can be "cured" of our christianity. I have to say I feel the same way as jorgelito sometimes. I have yet to tell an atheist they are stupid or ridiculous or delusional if they think "this is all there is" because I so firmly believe the opposite, but yet its perfectly ok to tell ME that.

As for this "tomb". Im not at all "scared" about it....and I do think the reactions I've seen from other christians are too over the top and borders on showing how much faith they DONT have

[jorgelito]

Ah, I think I get what you are saying; that the axe swings both ways. But I suppose that in itself should prove both points. One would think that seeing both sides would bring more understanding.

I cannot attest to the years of suppression that you speak of as I have not lived through them and I think it would be geographically dependent. Religious attitudes vary from place to place which would affect our attitudes.

Obviously I am not referring to any "hauling off and beating" of Christians or "churches being burned" or "public demonstrations condemning Christianity" (although the war on Christmas and the fight to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance come close). On these boards, I have not seen any religious or Christians "attacking" non-religious or atheists but I have seen a lot of digging at Christians here. That is what I am referring to and in a broader context, the popularity of "anti-Christian" sentiment in our popular culture.

As I said before, questioning is good, it is healthy and stimulating. I would even go so far as to argue that instilling doubt every now and and then is a good "tool" or exercise in reaffirming one's faith regardless of religion. For the record Mr. O 'Rights, I am not "accusing atheists of attacking Christian belief just because you're questioning it and becoming more vocal", I am pointing out that there is an anti-Christian pattern going on outside of just questioning a belief.

I would also like to point out that the discussion is hardly singular. There are many facets to the "Great Debate" as it were and sometimes gets lost in an oversimplifies "us vs them" framework.

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

Obviously I am not referring to any "hauling off and beating" of Christians or "churches being burned" or "public demonstrations condemning Christianity" (although the war on Christmas and the fight to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance come close).

all i can say is that this is hogwash.

the american state is a secular state. there is no war on christmas and the removal of god from the pledge is just addressing the fact that not all americans are christian.

just because it gets said a lot doesn't make it a true thing.

[ShaniFaye]

I guess that depends on your outlook....I know in these parts its very rampant talk radio discussion during the christmas season on how offensive it is to hear "merry christmas" and as for the pledge....that crap makes me sick....its perfectly ok for a non believer to say THEIR rights are being stepped on for having to say "one nation under god" but yet if WE get upset that OUR right to say it is coming under fire we get labled as forcing our religion on people....but thats another discussion for another thread that Im sure exists somewhere already

(and before any one gets on their horse here....I AM a christian that understands that factual evidence has proven Christ was born in April and that the catholic church put it in december to try to take away from the winter solstice that the pagans practiced, but until the world decides christmas is in april instead of december, I will continue to say merry christmas in december)

[jorgelito]

It is not hogwash. First of all, you are taking it too literally.

There was a "war on Christmas" that took the form of knee-jerk banning of Christmas related items, decorations in some places. Whether banning of carols, Christmas trees, while not a literal war (I thought that was obvious), it was most certainly a social war of sorts. Then came the counter and "self-correction" that took place including reinstating of said formerly banned items. It got so out of hand that people were "offended" if they were wished a Merry Christmas. Wishing someone a Merry Christmas is a far cry from persecuting non-Christians or oppressing them. So yes, I most definitely feel there was a "crusade" of sorts or war if you will, carried out against Christmas.

As a Christian, I liked the Pledge the way it is but at the same time, as an American, I appreciate the secular nature of our country. As such I can agree that a contesting of the constitutionality of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is reasonable. By the way, removal of "God" from the Pledge is NOT "addressing the fact that not all Americans are Christian" because Christians are not the only ones who believe in God (Muslims, Jews etc). Sure I realize the original intent of the phrase was a reaction to Cold War sentiments as a way of sticking it to the non-believing Ruskies. But the fight to remove "God" from the Pledge quickly devolved from a Constitutional argument to Christian bashing (in some circles). That is what I am referring to.

I do realize not everyone or every atheist was like that but I thought it fair to point it out within the context of the discussion.

In the same way that "just because it gets said a lot doesn't make it a true thing" then you have to extend the same courtesy regarding Christians when many make blanket statements that "Christians are this or that...".

[kutulu]

Originally Posted by jorgelito

note - Minority in a social context does not necessarily denote a literal numerical minority, but rather a power one. So while there could be a numerical Christian majority, it is possible for that group to be underrepresented in the power structure or otherwise feel unempowered in a social context.

Give me a break. There is no underrepresentation of Christians in power. After over 200 years the first Muslim ever was voted into congress and there are about 30 Jews in Congress. There are no atheists. I didn't check gays, but I doubt they have an equal representation.

Gays, atheists, Muslims, and Jews get attacked on a daily basis on the radio, in print, and during sermons. Although our laws aren't formally Christian based, in practicality, a hell of a lot of them are.

Yes, the other sides have started pushing back. Its about damn time. Christians have shown they can't handle it and hence we have the 'War on Christmas'

Nobody is trying to take your Bible away from you. We are only shoving it out of our faces.

[jorgelito]

Whoa, calm down there buddy.

First of all, I never said Christians were a minority and I was not talking about the dominant power super structure, I was explaining the social definition. In some populations segments (sub divisions of the main), it is understandable why some would feel they were in the minority.

Funny you mention sermons because I have never ever heard one which "attacked gays, atheists, Muslims, and Jews on a daily basis". Let's not paint the whole group with the same brush. By the same token, all I hear is vitriol and hatred spouted at and directed at Christians on a daily basis on campus and in class. But I do not assume that all atheists or other believers to be this way.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Christian's can't handle" the "other sides pushing back". Did you expect that Christians would just sit here and let the attacks fly without any counterpoints?

And I'm not sure who is shoving a bible in your face here. I certainly haven't, nor any of my Christian brethren in my community (but I am sure some do, just not all of us).

[Charlatan]

on all sides of this issue it is not that all do. it is always that a few do. the few are just more vocal.