I mean no disrespect towards the kind folk that make this site happen, but this sort of thing is always the inevitable result when certain types are allowed to post to their heart's content on science-oriented message boards.
why don't you come out and just say it tj, you feel science is a realm for certain topics only. which makes you a hypocrite since science is not all encompassing yet is influenced by many factors.
for those who don't agree, religion is part of science, it is par t of archaeology and is the only all encompassing topic you will find as it influences all parts of life. something none of you seem to acknowledge as you seek to eliminate the possibility from consideration. a task that is impossible.
no matter how hard you try, religion, the Bible, christianity will need to be addressed and not in the dismissive manner that people want here. i have shown that it can be discussed archaeologically, which upsets many i think as they continue to repeat the same ideasover and over again.
let me remind you that the non-believing world, the scientists, the archaeologists and so on, do not own the topics and they are beyond their authority to place restrictions on what theories and opinions or evidence can be discussed or analyzed in the laboratory, the classroom, wherever.
it is the bias of those who are unbelieving that leads them to place such restrictions which undermines their definitions of science and of being objective and such actions disqualify them from the classroom, the laboratoty, wherever...
Stan is right about minimalist and i have failed to understand why michelle lets him take that role. it does work against having good discussions as points have been raised that i would liked to have discussed further, in a more sane manner but have seen them closed off as thisone person has been self-appointed as the guardian of the site.
I am disappointed that it has taken someone else so long to say something about this matter and am disappointed that all the other posters have let him continue to occupy such a wrongful position.
if it weren't for the fact some good points and some good topics were here, i would have left long ago because of minimalists tirades and overbearing manner. "Realist" is a case in point. i am only here to present my side of things, to discuss, and i think i have stayed within the rules quite well along with furnishing both scientific and archaeological evidence for my perspective (maybe not as definitive as you would like but at least as good as what non-believers post).
which is what this board is all about, the problem lies inthe fact that those who reject the Bible, only want to be able to tear it down and not hear or let its supporters present the other side of the coin. in other words they only want a one way street in discussions and are unwilling to put their principles in action and be objective--case in point:
"The authenticity of this Greek text has been widely rejected because of its apparant Christian witness to Jesus' divinity" pg. 153 Arch. & the N.T.
if that is the sole criteria for rejecting evidence then the principles scientific , non-believing people use, has undermined their credibility and have shown their bias which corrupts their findings, along with eliminating any data that would shed light on a topic. Making their work useless in findingof any answers they seek.
then we come up with the problem of the principle, 'history is inthe eye of the historian' and how easy it is tomanipulate historical evidence to fit the worker's thesis but that is another issue and for another time.
if you are honest, objective then you should have no problemwith christianity being presented here as long as it does not follow the jean marie's of the world.