What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
121 Comments
- stutimandal, on 06/29/2009, -10/+501) Pope Benedict announced on Sunday that fragments of bone from the first or second century had been found in a tomb in the Basilica of St Paul in Rome,
2) which he said confirmed the belief that it housed the apostle's remains.
How does 1) imply 2)? It just means some human with bones was buried in a tomb. - rjshatz, on 06/29/2009, -15/+42I can't believe so many people can get all uppity in the comments about this. Honestly, could you be more blatant in your anti-religion *****?
- Xwhy, on 06/28/2009, -4/+27Roman prisoners tend not be buried in basilicas, either. However, the body was moved to his place of honor. Thus, the ones honoring him would prepare the body in a reverent manner.
- LordBoreal51, on 06/29/2009, -10/+32It is actually fairly accepted by historians that Jesus existed, and I don't quite see how this would makes any difference since his existence does not mean that Christianity has any factual basis, it just means they're worshiping a Jewish teacher from Galilee.
- Birdoftruth, on 06/29/2009, -3/+25Man it really is the articles that have anything to do with religion that bring out the ignorant sycophants on digg.
--The Catholic church believes in evolution and trusts carbon dating
--Historians accept the existence of a man named Jesus in 1st century Galilee
These two points should be able to wipe out half of the ignorant comments that have been attached to this article. - Waiting2awake, on 06/29/2009, -7/+28Tell me it isn't so, are you really, really, saying that the Pope might be in error of making wild assumptions and leaps in logic?
- shig, on 06/29/2009, -5/+25His body was placed there by Constantine in the 4th century. His head is kept with St. Peter's in a golden urn at the papal alter of the Lateran. Before that his body was in a mortuary built by a Roman noblewoman after his death (60ish), then placed along with St. Peter's at the Basilica of St. Sebastian in a marked catacomb (258), until Constantine made endowments to have basilicas built for both of them (324).
Constantine's knowledge of these saints was impeccable. It has been confirmed numerous times that he built these basilicas exactly as they are described, with the alters placed accurately, and the contents of their reliquaries genuine. - kalvinb, on 06/29/2009, -3/+23A body buried in Paul's lavish tomb turns out to be from the same period as Paul thereby making it much more likely that it is in fact Paul as has been claimed since about the time of Paul. It's very unlikely that they went to all that trouble just to bury some unknown person pretending it's Paul.
Hardly an unreasonable leap in logic. Finding Paul buried in Paul's tomb.
If there's one thing the Catholic church is good at, it's preserving Christian history. - shig, on 06/29/2009, -1/+17"This says to me that the bones belong to a king or someone of social stature, not a Roman prisoner."
Good catch. His body was placed where it is today by the Emperor Constantine who lavished the tombs and the basilicas as he felt appropriate. - Asrrin29, on 06/29/2009, -3/+17I agree. I know how anti-religious people are on digg, but in the past few decades the Catholic Church has been one of the few churches to advocate the Sciences. It's still an imperfect and man-made organization, but far better then some of the fringe Evangelical churches you see springing up all over the place.
- avengingturnip, on 06/29/2009, -4/+16FooFoo,
So where are the records of all the victims who suffered the indignity of Roman crucifixion during the first century in its provinces? If you cannot produce those then your claim is absurd on its face. - alais, on 06/29/2009, -1/+12One can find plenty of evidence of a man named Jesus who lived during the reign of Tiberius, however the phrasing of your question hints that you would ignore it no matter how compelling.
- Subduction, on 06/29/2009, -2/+12I can't see how any Catholic could possibly take offense to you calling them all consistent pathological liars.
- paulvq, on 06/29/2009, -0/+9Their stance against condoms isn't a science-based decision. They believe that using condoms is rejecting what to them is a gift and miracle (pregnancy and childbirth).
- joshnovak, on 06/29/2009, -2/+11St. Paul created the Roman Catholic Church? You're thinking of St. Peter buddy.
St. Paul was a Christian prosecutor from Tarsus who was converted from a vision of Jesus while on the road. He then went around the Roman Empire writing letters and converting people. He is credited as being one of the most significant spreaders of Christianity, but did not create the Church. Nothing like L. Ron Hubbard who created his religion. Please, if you're going to make an argument, at least know what you're talking about. - Hetman, on 06/29/2009, -1/+9The Catholic Church accepts evolutions.
- Asrrin29, on 06/29/2009, -1/+7The Catholic Church is not a fringe Evangelical movement. they are not creationists. In fact they even have a private PhD Astrophysicist that works in the Vatican to help further the sciences. the CC acknowledges carbon dating and everything else that science has proven.
- edwadokun, on 06/29/2009, -2/+7there's no proof that plato ever existed either. the only evidence he existed are copies of his writings over 1000 years after he died yet u dont dispute his existence. even other religions such as judaism and muslims acknowledge his existence. in fact a lot of historical figures are only mentioned in text and old writings just like Jesus was
- SQLDigger, on 06/29/2009, -3/+8The article simply stated that the pope said it *seemed* to confirm it, not that it was definitive proof (which is pretty hard to come by when dealing with written history). It is consistent with the tradition, and that is all anyone can really say that this adds. That sarcophagus has been in the possession of the Roman church for a very long time; I really don't think that this discovery is a big surprise to anyone. They probably had a pretty good idea of the age of the sarcophagus before they even started.
- Myonosken, on 06/29/2009, -2/+7Just catholics? Not Christians in general?
- avengingturnip, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4I will call you on that claim. Which other Paul, apostle, martyr who died at the end of the first century is this likely to be?
The people who entombed the remains under that altar believed them to be Paul. Dating is consistent with that belief. There is no reason to claim that the remains are not Paul's except for distaste for the conclusion that one of the major figures of New Testament history apparently really lived. You beloved Ockham's razor would tell you to the simplest explanation is the most likely. It is probably Paul. - joshnovak, on 06/29/2009, -1/+5It proves that the bones could have been of St. Paul, as carbon dating shows that they are form the first or second century AD. Even if it doesn't prove that it was from Paul himself, it shows support for it and the carbon dating doesn't disprove that they were Paul's bones.
- zslice, on 06/30/2009, -0/+4@bsl4doc: It surprises me that you're offended at what I said. I am so sorry if you felt that I implied that there was anything other than science that is being used in the study of evolution and while there is a lot of postulation, I assure you it is not wild. Thank you for providing me with some of the methods 'we' use in the field. You use the term 'we' loosely I imagine, because you're smattering of jargon and overall argument reeks of armchair biologist; there's no way you've studied this (or any other science) at a high level.
Understand the following: An apple falls from the sky, that is a fact. We measure the speed and rate at which the apple falls, that is (hard?) science. Based on these measures we postulate the existence of gravity, that is theory. Theories change (gravity of course being an example). Treating evolution as an absolute fact is NOT scientific, ironically, you are creating a religion out of the work we do. At least religion's excuse for their 'egregious error' is a belief in the supernatural. What's your excuse? - xevidentx, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4rarson, the RCC after vatican II is pretty accepting of science that doesn't have moral implications (cloning, etc). there are plenty of catholic universities that have great science programs
- paulvq, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3bsl4doc,
If everyone actually did practice the true form of abstinence as the Church would expect them to, then it would ideally decrease the number of STI's in the world. The only way someone would get an STI if they practiced true 100% abstinence would be out of their control(rape, passing from mother to child at birth, etc.)
But asking people to practice 100% pure abstinence isn't a realistic thing, and that's why abstinence-only education hasn't actually worked in STI prevention. - NinjaBoy, on 06/29/2009, -0/+3I think thats his point.
- dbonneville, on 06/29/2009, -1/+4You have your churches mixed up. The RCC teaches that evolution and faith are not incompatible. Many Protestant churches teach that carbon-14 is inaccurate. These are also the same churches, mind you, that also say, in the same propoganda tracts, that the Pope is the anti-christ and all Catholics are going to hell. Think before you speak...or a least look up some facts.
- dave11980, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Their was a monument erected over his original burial site and tomb. A couple centuries later Constantine I built the basilica there which was later added onto and rebuilt, etc. but always at the same site and maintaining the tomb of St. Paul.
Given St. Paul and St. Peters importance in Christian history, they were two of Jesus' disciple after all, makes it quite likely that they would have known the whereabouts of his tomb and remains for several hundred years. We have Washington's and Jefferson's remains still. England has the remains of several kings from centuries ago. We have Pharaohs from 4000 years go. Why is it hard to believe that they could have remembered where the first two apostles were buried. It seems entirely likely that they would, even kind of unlikely that they wouldn't have known.
Maybe it's just because this is something christian that you think somehow science and logic must refute it. That isn't always the case. - hakluytbean, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3Here's a recent BBC radio 'In Our Time' programme on St Paul, it's somewhat academic but not particularly secular (it assumes his historical existence):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/inourtime/inou ...
And for the sceptically inclined:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/paul.htm
Trying to be balanced... - Talphin, on 06/29/2009, -1/+3mlvassallo: If Atheism is a religion, does that also mean that not collecting baseball cards is a hobby?
Or perhaps not running is a sport! - avengingturnip, on 06/30/2009, -0/+2Because St. Paul Outside the Walls is not already a tourist attraction?
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/italy/rome-st-p ... - DiggzDE, on 06/29/2009, -0/+2BLASPHEMY!
- zslice, on 06/29/2009, -5/+7I am not Christian, but it does bother me when people set up straw-man logical arguments, destruct them and claim victory. Take a religion neutral approach:
If a supposed grave of a man who had a tombstone dated to a specific period was found to contain bones of that period, you would be further inclined to believe that the person named in the tombstone existed. It would behove 'evolutionists' (I use that term only to show that alternative views exist) to accept the logic of the argument, as it is one we use to prove evolution.
Presence of remains or fossils can only give a partial narrative of whether or not an evolutionary link exists, but if what is required to create a full narrative that proves evolution is a video-camera and a time machine, then we can never accept evolution. If that's what you need to prove one of Christianity's great figures didn't exist, then good luck. - bowens44, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1just you.....
- enantiodromia, on 06/29/2009, -0/+1I think you are mixed up. Read again. I said "accurate enough", not "the Vatican doesn't believe in Science".
Here they are saying Carbon-14 can narrow down a date within 100 years. When it came to the Shroud of Turin, the Vatican said Carbon-14 was only good enough for +/- 1,300 years. That's a nice 2,600 year spread.
So again, I think it is convenient the Pope says radiocarbon dating is accurate enough to pinpoint a single person's lifetime, but other times, it's not accurate enough to distinguish an object found at Solomon's Temple, or William Shakespeare's theatre.
Is that fact enough for you? - rl41, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1I'm actually not religious at all. Take your presumptions somewhere else.
- Bravocowboy, on 06/29/2009, -2/+3The pope uses carbon dating to verify the age of the bones of a saint. That's the same scientific principal that can prove the Earth has been in existence for at least 60,000 years. Then there's Uranium dating that goes back 4.5 billion years. Does this mean he's saying he believes the Universe is more than 6,000 years old?
- dbonneville, on 06/29/2009, -1/+2You aren't too far off.
- Subduction, on 06/29/2009, -2/+3Or how about Jews or Muslims or Atheists or Hindus or anyone with beliefs that extend one iota beyond the current state of scientific canon?
- LordBoreal51, on 06/29/2009, -8/+8I agree with you wholeheartedly that it's entirely possible that the church created this mythological character of Jesus as a savior to further their quest for power over the masses, but I also know that for the time period and culture, hearsay is pretty much the only evidence available. My point is that one shouldn't blind their impartial historical analysis with anti-religious prejudice any more than the Catholic Church should fabricate evidence to support their own (fairly ridiculous) claims.
- JoeParanoid, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2I love people who bury stuff for simply stating uncomfortable truths. I note all the comments that were even marginally critical of the church were buried.
- LilRabbitFooFoo, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1Yes, I should have made my note clearer. I was referring to Peter as the founder, but I agree that my sentence makes it look like I am saying Paul was. Apologies for the confusion.
- Alheithinn, on 06/30/2009, -2/+2Dig me down. It will still be hilarious.
- Moldyrutabaga, on 06/30/2009, -0/+0Yes. He always did. The Catholic church has had theologians since the first century AD (Origen, Augustine) who believed that the first chapters of Genesis are allegorical. The pope may be a lot of things, but he is not a southern Baptist fundamentalist! :>
- rl41, on 06/30/2009, -1/+1It doesn't have to prove anything dickweed
- InvincibleQ, on 06/29/2009, -1/+1It should, however Diggers are persistent now days.
- Reddog_x2000, on 06/29/2009, -9/+9@Given how many people believe in Jesus don't you think it would be somewhat dangerous for historians to come out and state that there isn't in fact any verifiable proof that the man existed?
Also take into account that many historians probably ARE/were actually Christians themselves and may have a hard time separating their religious beliefs from their work. - dbonneville, on 06/29/2009, -4/+4If it wasn't for the RCC, there would not have been a university to go to where you could major in Communications or English or Computer Science that would have made you savvy enough to get on Digg and say really stupid things about the RCC.
Where did specialized bachelor's degrees come from? Do the research and keep going backwards...the truth will helpful, perhaps, to the sychophants... :) -
Show 51 - 100 of 124 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is