Syro-Palestinian Archaeology

[seeker]

That's good, at the end of the day the evidence speaks for itself.

If only that were true.

http://christiananswers.net/q-aiia/aiia-arch1.html

Unfortunately evidence in archaeology tends to get shouted down by propaganda. When you consider though that even they are forced to acknowledge that few archaeologists believe the biblical narrative as history I think the evedence is speaking volumes.

[seeker]

My question about Global Warming was because the idea that it due to human activity is based on a “consensus” of scientists.
But science is not a “consensus” study.
The facts may very well contradict the “consensus.”
If the facts are about global warming, the agreement between archeological backed up history and the Bible, or back side of the Moon doesn’t matter.
Just because it is the currently accepted “scientific” idea doesn’t mean it is correct.
Ask Galileo.

The problem for you is that the consensus is based on scientific observation and evidence. During Galileo's time (which I'm surprised you brought up since it illustrates my point) many of the discoveries Galileo made were known but had been suppresed by the church because they contradicted religious doctrine.

[seeker]

Archaeologists who questioned the biblical story simply rarely got into positions where they could have much influence. There was a lot more money to be made supporting the status quo than there was in telling people the painful truth. Its really a testimony to the overwhelming nature of the evidence against the biblical story that any paradigm shift happened at all

Fundamentally, seeker, its not a biblical problem. Its a politcal one and continues today, unchecked in many fields of study; most of which have absolutely nothing to do with the bible or its teachings.

If the Judeo Christian church had this great choke hold on science, why are children learning about evolution, big bang, the 30 billion year old universe, a heliocentric solar system, etc? The middle ages and inquisition were a long time ago. Why is it only archaeology seemed incapable of withstanding the Judeo-Christian crusade of misinformation until recently? The fact is, much research was conducted by men and women who were and are Christian or Jewish. They studied their finds and interpretated them according to their knowledge and experience. Today some are re-examining their work and positing other interpretations. It does not diminish the contributions of those pioneers and early researchers in any way. They have damaged nothing and they have not hurt science.

In my opinion, the reason we are seeing new opinions and ideas being cutoff and repressed in every field of research is because, reputations are at stake, tenure, money, fame, etc. It is a human problem, a political problem, not a religious one. We have been discussing its impact on this board for a long time.

Let's get some perspective here shall we. Darwins "Origins of Species' doesn't come out until 1859. Here in the US there was a law which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded educational establishment in Tennessee, of "any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals. that law wan't contested until 1925 (The Scopes Trial). The interesting thing about that trial is that William Jennings Bryan was called in to prosecute that case by an organizarion called the World Christian Fundamentals Association While Clarence Darrow and the ACLU volunteered their time.

he fact is that education of the masses is a very recent development in human history and only occured at all as a result of the French and American revolutions, which were themselves symptomatic of the rebellion against the repression of the Church

[Minimalist]

education of the masses is a very recent development in human history

...and not one of its more successful endeavors!

[Forum Monk]

The interesting thing about that trial is that William Jennings Bryan was called in to prosecute that case by an organizarion called the World Christian Fundamentals Association

Interesting example you have chosen, as I feel it underscores my point. William Riley's organinzation of WCFA began life as a religious movement designed to promote the theology of premilleniumism. However as it grew more political in ambition, it enjoed the support of some rich individuals to finance the political agenda. The agenda began to focus on anti-evolution legislation. Laws not religious values. As a political movement, however it was not that large nor influential, although well financed. After Riley, died the organization fell apart. WCFA was much like today's PAC's trying to influence congressional legislation, though they were more regionally focused.

he fact is that education of the masses is a very recent development in human history and only occured at all as a result of the French and American revolutions, which were themselves symptomatic of the rebellion against the repression of the Church

I disagree that the american and french revolutions were symptomatic of church repression. Why do you conclude that? I do agree church repression and forced religion was very much a part of the landscape in europe, however and was just one more thing the people of that period had to deal with.

[Minimalist]

More like the Russian and French revolutions. The American revolution was a political quarrel that escalated. Russia and France had some real hatred behind them.

[seeker]

education of the masses is a very recent development in human history

...and not one of its more successful endeavors!

[seeker]

The interesting thing about that trial is that William Jennings Bryan was called in to prosecute that case by an organizarion called the World Christian Fundamentals Association

Interesting example you have chosen, as I feel it underscores my point. William Riley's organinzation of WCFA began life as a religious movement designed to promote the theology of premilleniumism. However as it grew more political in ambition, it enjoed the support of some rich individuals to finance the political agenda. The agenda began to focus on anti-evolution legislation. Laws not religious values. As a political movement, however it was not that large nor influential, although well financed. After Riley, died the organization fell apart. WCFA was much like today's PAC's trying to influence congressional legislation, though they were more regionally focused.

I'm not sure how you can support the notion that a religious organization promoting anti-evolution legislation is not promoting religious values. The problem is that they were doing exactly that, trying to use the legal system to suppress scientific teaching which contradicts religious doctrine.

he fact is that education of the masses is a very recent development in human history and only occured at all as a result of the French and American revolutions, which were themselves symptomatic of the rebellion against the repression of the Church

I disagree that the american and french revolutions were symptomatic of church repression. Why do you conclude that? I do agree church repression and forced religion was very much a part of the landscape in europe, however and was just one more thing the people of that period had to deal with.

You are kidding right? The church was so involved in people's personal lives that they literaly were prosecuting people for thought crimes. What do you think the Inquisition was? Royalty of those times could only be put in placwe with the Church's blessing and there of examples of the Church removing people from their kingships because they would not follow along.

Two of the specific outgrowths of the French Revolution were the nationalisation of the Catholic Church and the declaration of a 'cult of reason' which included the notion that the Church was a bastion of ignorance and superstition. In France it went as far as a 'de-christianization' which pretty clearly spells out the opposition to the Church.

In America the revolution was a little more abstract because of the more Protestant roots of the settlers but it was still heavily driven by anto-Church sentiment.

[seeker]

More like the Russian and French revolutions. The American revolution was a political quarrel that escalated. Russia and France had some real hatred behind them.

The Russian and French revolutions were certainly more dramatic. The Russian revolution comes so much later that , while the Church was still a strong factor in that event its power had waned somewhat. The American Revolution is somewhat under-rated in its religious import in my estimation. People tend to forget that the Inquisition was still going on (nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition) as late as 1750. In fact my ancestors came to this country in 1750, Spanish Jews fleeing the Inquisition and settling into New Mexico (then a part of Mexico).

The whole 'freedom of religion' thing in our constitution is an acknowledgement of the Catholic vs. Protestant problem that was developing here.

[Minimalist]

To a great extent, Madison and Jefferson, who were the brains behind the revolution, saw separation of church and state as benefitting religion more than the state. As Madison wrote:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?

This is exactly the situation we see today with the born-again crowd trying to advance their particular vision of christianity and using the ballot box to do it.

[kbs2244]

Boy, have we wandered again!
This is a long way from either Syria or Palestine
But:
I don’t recall in either the French or Russian revolutions that the people burned churches or shot and beheaded Church authorities the way they did the Royalty.
The two were undeniably in cahoots with each other when it came to control of the common people. But the Church, in both cases, seems to have a better public relations department.

On the religious Wars theme, the French Indian War (as we call it in the US) is one of the rare case of a war in the colonies working it’s way back to the homelands.
The East Coast Brits were afraid of the French/Catholic influence west of the Appalachian’s and sought to stop it. (This is where Geo. Washington got his first military experience.)
By the time it was all over we had the 7 Years War in Europe, in fact around the globe, and England as the first true global power.

[kbs2244]

Seeker:
The Jewish exodus from Spain to Mexico to escape the Inquisition has been of interest to me for some time.
Why. Of all places, the head waters of the Rio Grande?
And were they openly Jewish, or Catholics with some “extra family traditions?”
This all ties into my fasciations with the Samaritan version of the 10 commandants carved into the rock at Los Lunas, NM that nobody wants to talk about.
There are arguments over it’s age but the range is from 1000 BC to 1000 AD.
That is a long time ago.
What kind of prior knowledge of that area would your family had to pick it in 1750?

[Minimalist]

In September of 1792, the National Assembly legalized divorce, contrary to Catholic doctrine. At the same time, the State took control of the birth, death, and marriage registers away from the Church. An ever increasing view that the Church was a counter-revolutionary force exacerbated the social and economic grievances and violence erupted in towns and cities across France. In Paris, over a forty-eight hour period beginning on September 2, 1792, as the Legislative Assembly (successor to the National Constituent Assembly) dissolved into chaos, three Church bishops and more than two hundred priests were massacred by angry mobs; this constituted part of what would become known as the September Massacres. Priests were among those drowned in the Noyades for treason under the direction of Jean-Baptiste Carrier; priests and nuns were among the mass executions at Lyon, for separatism, on the orders of Joseph Fouché and Collot d'Herbois. Hundreds more priests were imprisoned and made to suffer in abominable conditions in the port of Rochefort.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristia ... Revolution

True about the French and Indian War, kb, but, of course Britain and France were "officially" at war for most of the 18th century and "unofficially" at war for the rest of it....(it was the Second Hundred Year's War, after all) and while religion may have played a small part of it the prime driver was Empire on both sides. In any war situation one group will instantly look for reasons to hate the other group.

[kbs2244]

Wow:
I didn’t know about the Mob vs. the Church stuff in France.
In 1792?
Is that when Ben Franklin was in Paris?

[Minimalist]

Franklin returned in 1785 or so...to be be replaced by Thomas Jefferson who was there until the end of 1789 and so did witness the early moments of the revolution....which he supported!