What shaped your attitude(s) to Religion

[Darth Hoth]

True, that. If I fought against the Romans and lost, I would suicide-bomb them if I had a grenade left, and try to chew open my wrist arteries if I did not. After killing any family I might have had left. The more one reads up on them, the more one finds that the Nazis were not so bad after all. (Well, obviously they were, but not in comparison.)

On some other forum whose name escapes me at the moment, I once read some guy doing a comparison of the Romans and the Draka. The Romans came out the better . . . marginally. He made a pretty good case for Stirling's dystopia being simply the up-teched version of Rome transplanted into WWII.

As for Masada, like so many other things from ancient history, we will probably never know for sure.

[Kanastrous]

Simcha Jacobovich (sp?) put together an interesting episode of The Naked Archaeologist wherein he sort of 'debunked' a number of popular factoids about the seige of Masada. While I mistrust an awful lot of his conclusions (which about half the time are prefaced by most archaeologists discount the biblical account for all of these very good reasons, but I'm going to choose to believe it anyway) the show was pretty interesting.

[Thanas]

Regarding Masada, if what I have read is true, there is some historical dispute on whether Josephus's account of the mass suicide is actually trustworthy. It is entirely possible that the events there were more prosaic: The Romans simply slaughtered everyone, as was sometimes their wont. The argument has been raised that since he owed his life to the Romans, it would be very much in his interest for Josephus to downplay their brutality and up the fanaticism of the Jews.

This is a modern interpretation that assumes the Romans shared our mindset about violence. Of course, that is not the case - back then it was customary for the victors to enslave or kill the others, so why would Josephus feel bad about writing the killing of a few jews when Caesar was openly bragging about having killed whole tribes? Actually the romans were in many ways much, much kinder to conquered populations than the vast majority of ancient states.

Also, it is very unlikely that the Romans massacred good slaves. They were very pragmatic, after all.

Simcha Jacobovich (sp?) put together an interesting episode of The Naked Archaeologist wherein he sort of 'debunked' a number of popular factoids about the seige of Masada. While I mistrust an awful lot of his conclusions (which about half the time are prefaced by most archaeologists discount the biblical account for all of these very good reasons, but I'm going to choose to believe it anyway) the show was pretty interesting.

Yeah, I am so going to trust a popular writer and journalist who does not hold a single degree in the field and who has never published his "conclusions" in a single peer-reviewed article, much less ever given a speech about them over the opinion of people who have written whole books on the Jewish revolt.

Whenever somebody tries to go against scholarly consensus on a TV show, that is a strong indicator that his argument would not held up to scrutiny.

True, that. If I fought against the Romans and lost, I would suicide-bomb them if I had a grenade left, and try to chew open my wrist arteries if I did not. After killing any family I might have had left. The more one reads up on them, the more one finds that the Nazis were not so bad after all. (Well, obviously they were, but not in comparison.)

Are you being serious?

You are an idiot. You obviously have done no reading at all on how the Romans treated conquered people.

Justify the asusmption now that the Romans were as worse or that the Romans even approach Nazi-level in destruction. For once, the Romans never fought a war with the intent to committ genocide.

On some other forum whose name escapes me at the moment, I once read some guy doing a comparison of the Romans and the Draka. The Romans came out the better . . . marginally. He made a pretty good case for Stirling's dystopia being simply the up-teched version of Rome transplanted into WWII.

Then he is an idiot for saying so and you are an idiot for believing it.

[Molyneux]

I simply came to the gradual conclusion, over several years, that given a perpetual lack of response, God most likely does not exist - and if He does, He's not taking an interest. My opinion of religious people has been shaped by experiences with them - many of them are quite nice folks who just hold a strange and self-contradictory belief - but my personal religious choice is predicated on the problem of God being omnipotent and omniscient, yet somehow unable to respond to anything on Earth - especially with regard to the problem of evil.

As the joke goes, "If Jesus loves me, why doesn't He ever call"?

[Temujin]

Simcha Jacobovich (sp?) put together an interesting episode of The Naked Archaeologist wherein he sort of 'debunked' a number of popular factoids about the seige of Masada. While I mistrust an awful lot of his conclusions (which about half the time are prefaced by most archaeologists discount the biblical account for all of these very good reasons, but I'm going to choose to believe it anyway) the show was pretty interesting.

Yeah, I am so going to trust a popular writer and journalist who does not hold a single degree in the field and who has never published his "conclusions" in a single peer-reviewed article, much less ever given a speech about them over the opinion of people who have written whole books on the Jewish revolt.

Whenever somebody tries to go against scholarly consensus on a TV show, that is a strong indicator that his argument would not held up to scrutiny.

I tried watching him once out of curiosity, and quickly realized where I had seen him before: The James Cameron History Channel Exodus Special; where Jacobovitch was making leaps of logic of biblical proportion. I later looked him up and found out what a controversial and dishonest attention whore he is. I wouldn't trust anything that idiot says.

[Thanas]

You got a link to that information? It might come in handy.

[Kanastrous]

Justify the asusmption now that the Romans were as worse or that the Romans even approach Nazi-level in destruction. For once, the Romans never fought a war with the intent to committ genocide.

What about Cato the Elder's perennial Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam? In the end the Romans did do quite a number on the Carthaginians...

...in my own defense I'll note that I *did* indicate my lack of trust in Jacobovich's conclusions, in general...an Orthodox Jew is after all at a starting disadvantage when it comes to regional archaeology.

[Spoonist]

What about Cato the Elder's perennial Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam? In the end the Romans did do quite a number on the Carthaginians...

They enslaved them, not exterminated them. Plus all the peasants outside the city was spared, it was conquest of the trade after all.

[Thanas]

Justify the asusmption now that the Romans were as worse or that the Romans even approach Nazi-level in destruction. For once, the Romans never fought a war with the intent to committ genocide.

What about Cato the Elder's perennial Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam? In the end the Romans did do quite a number on the Carthaginians...

Have you ever read the sources and archeological records in question?

The Romans captured the city, then they sold the inhabitants into slavery. However, contrary to popular opinion, they never sowed it with salt (what nonsense, wasting good land like that).

However, this is not genocide. It would be genocide if they had killed all survivors and then proceeded to wipe out the culture present. That is not the case. In fact, Romans quickly adopted parts of the Carthaginean culture for themselves (for example, google Iuno caelestis) and favored many other cities of punic culture (for example, Lepcis Magna even became the birthplace of a Roman Imperial dynasty). The romans were pragmatists, matters of race or religion did not really enter into their thinking. Also, the destruction did not extend beyond Carthage itself. This was a war of conquest, not of genocide.

Also, the romans eventually rebuilt carthage (first attempt being made a mere 32 years after the destruction), with it growing into an Imperial city and eventually being listed as one of the six most important and most proud cities of the Empire.

[Temujin]

You got a link to that information? It might come in handy.

It was a few years back, and I'm not sure if I saved the link. I'll check when I get home tonight.

[Thanas]

Thanks.

[Spoonist]

You got a link to that information? It might come in handy.

It was a few years back, and I'm not sure if I saved the link. I'll check when I get home tonight.

Uhm his wiki page is quite extensive. There you got links to most of his production.
If you can enter bbc online there is plenty about the naked archeologist as well.

[Kanastrous]

Thanas, I had known a little bit about the eventual Romanization of Carthage but I hadn't known about the Romans' adoption of Carthaginian customs. Something to read up on. Thanks!

[Temujin]

You got a link to that information? It might come in handy.

It was a few years back, and I'm not sure if I saved the link. I'll check when I get home tonight.

Uhm his wiki page is quite extensive. There you got links to most of his production.
If you can enter bbc online there is plenty about the naked archeologist as well.

I believe Debunking the Exodus Decoded was one of the sources I read. I'll have to look through the others.

[Temujin]

Here's some other good links debunking Cameron and Jacobovitch:

Here's a link attack Charles Pellegrino who's collaborated with both of them. It's pretty long and I haven't read it all.

Jesus tomb found, says film-maker
Jesus had a son named Judah and was buried alongside Mary Magdalene, according to a new documentary by Hollywood film director James Cameron.

The film examines a tomb found near Jerusalem in 1980 which producers say belonged to Jesus and his family.

Speaking in New York, the Oscar-winning Titanic director said statistical tests and DNA analysis backed this view.

But Mr Cameron's claim has been attacked by archaeologists and theologians as unfounded.

Archaeologists said that the burial cave was probably that of a Jewish family with similar names to that of Jesus.

But Mr Cameron said the combination of names found on the tombs convinced him of their heritage.

Samples tested

Israeli construction workers building an apartment complex in Jerusalem's East Talpiot district first uncovered 10 of the 2,000-year-old ossuaries - or limestone coffins - in a tomb in March 1980.

According to the Israel Antiquities Authority, six of those coffins were marked with the names Mary; Matthew; Jesua son of Joseph; Mary; Jofa (Joseph, Jesus' brother); and Judah son of Jesua.

Another grave said by producers to be of Mary Magdalene convinced researchers of the truth of their find, Mr Cameron said at a New York news conference.

Unveiling his documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Mr Cameron said the chances of finding that combination of names together was like finding a grave marked Ringo next to others marked John, Paul and George.

"Mariamene is Mary Magdalene - that's the Ringo, that's what sets this whole film in motion," he said.

Christian contradiction?

The documentary asserts that tests on samples from two of the coffins show Jesus and Mary Magdalene were likely to have been buried in them and were a couple.

The film-makers used this finding to claim that the coffin marked "Judah son of Jesua" contains the son of Jesus and Mary.

But they said the discovery of the tomb does not undermine the key Christian belief that Jesus was resurrected three days after his death.

Academic Stephen Pfann, a scholar at the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, said he did not expect Christians to accept the film's findings.

"I don't think that Christians are going to buy into this," said Mr Pfann, who was interviewed by the film-makers.

"But sceptics, in general, would like to see something that pokes holes into the story that so many people hold dear."

Findings refuted

Israeli archaeologist Amos Kloner, who was among the first to examine the tomb when it was first discovered, said the names marked on the coffins were very common at the time.

"I don't accept the news that it was used by Jesus or his family," he told the BBC News website.

"The documentary filmmakers are using it to sell their film."

Mr Cameron showed two of the coffins at the news conference.

"It doesn't get bigger than this," he said in an earlier press release.

"We've done our homework; we've made the case; and now it's time for the debate to begin."

Local residents told the BBC News website they were pleased with the attention the tomb has drawn.

"It will mean our house prices will go up because Christians will want to live here," one woman said.

Jesus' Family Tomb Discovery is a Titanic Fraud
"It's time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism", says Donohue

NEW YORK, February 26, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - "Titanic" director James Cameron and Canadian TV-director Simcha Jacobovici are claiming they have evidence of a Jerusalem tomb that allegedly houses the remains of Jesus and his family. However the foremost archaeologists in Israel have slammed the claims as totally without foundation.

Israeli archeologist Amos Kloner, who was in charge of the 1980 investigation of the tomb which is the subject of the new claims by Cameron-Jacobovici, said "The claim that the burial site has been found is not based on any proof, and is only an attempt to sell." Kloner added, "I refute all claims and efforts to waken a renewed interest in the findings. With all due respect, they are not archeologists." Kloner said that while "it makes a great story for a TV film," there is "no likelihood" that Jesus and his relatives had a family tomb, and dismissed the claims as "impossible" and "nonsense."

"Not a Lenten season goes by without some author or TV program seeking to cast doubt on the divinity of Jesus and/or the Resurrection," said Catholic League president Bill Donohue, commenting on the hype generated. "Last April," added Donohue, "NBC's 'Dateline' featured the wholly discredited and downright laughable claims of Michael Baigent, and two years ago ABC treated us to a special that questioned every aspect of the Resurrection." He concluded, "Now we have the Cameron-Jacobovici thesis."

Archeologist Joe Zias, who spent a quarter-century at the Rockefeller University in Jerusalem, said "Simcha has no credibility whatsoever."

Donohue points out that "Jacobovici's credibility explodes when one considers that he still believes the 2002 tale about an ossuary with the inscription, 'James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus.'" On June 18, 2003, the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) in a unanimous decision the 15-member committee, condemned the 'James ossuary' as a modern forgery.

Donohue blasted the Discovery Channel for airing both the James ossuary fraud and the current one. "The Discovery Channel aired the 2002 hoax and now it's back with the Titanic fraud. It's time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism," he said.

Cameron should of stuck to just making fiction.

[Lagmonster]

Cameron should of stuck to just making fiction.

I think the point is, that he is. Any serach for a historic person on which the Jesus myth was based is interesting from a historical perspective, but I'd imagine spectacularly hopeful.

It'd be worthwhile to get Thanas in here, or someone else familiar with burial practices that would have been likely for someone like the guy Jesus was supposed to have been.

[Kanastrous]

IIRC the usual Jewish custom at the time was entombment, followed after perhaps a year or so by disinterment of the bones and their transfer to an ossuary (like the forgery involved in that whole 'James, borther of Jesus' nonsense from a few years back) which was then returned to the family tomb.