Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Religion The Bones of the Saints Cannot Withstand It
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:59 AM
CNN reports:
Scientific tests prove bones housed in the Basilica of St. Paul in Rome are those of the apostle St. Paul himself, according to Pope Benedict XVI.In Capital ("Commodities and Money"), Marx writes that the bones of saints cannot resist (or withstand) the pull and power of money. In this report, we see that these bones are also unable to resist the power and pull of science."Tiny fragments of bone" in the sarcophagus were subjected to carbon dating, showing they "belong to someone who lived in the first or second century," the pope said in a homily carried on Italian television.
"This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul," Benedict said in Sunday's announcement.
The tomb also holds "traces of a precious linen cloth, purple in color and laminated with pure gold, and a blue colored textile with linen filaments," the pope said.
The tests were carried out by inserting a probe into a small opening in the sarcophagus, "which had not been opened for many centuries," the pontiff said. The probe "also revealed the presence of grains of red incense and traces of protein and limestone."
Share via
2
I love it when the religious folks try to use "science" to bolster their beliefs. I mean, great--they're old bones, therefore IT MUST BE PAUL!!! Genius.
I'm also puzzled as to why if it was a "unanimous and undisputed" tradition, they bothered to do scientific tests. You only test things which are...in doubt or disputed.
So, nice try Pope Nazi Pants, now please continue fucking off.
I'm also puzzled as to why if it was a "unanimous and undisputed" tradition, they bothered to do scientific tests. You only test things which are...in doubt or disputed.
So, nice try Pope Nazi Pants, now please continue fucking off.
4
I think we should be discussing how fucking ludicrous it is that the Pope is attempting to pick and choose when science (and carbon god damn dating of all things) is legitimate based on convenience. What a clown.
5
Chuckles, this story is a joke. Why the fuck did you post it? Or maybe you're dumb enough to have actually been incapable of sufficient critical thought to question the Pope's statement. Either way, it's a pretty sad commentary on you.
Stick to the photos of the white wimminz.
Stick to the photos of the white wimminz.
6
Nick - name one kind of science that the Catholic Church doesn't think is legitimate. I'll give you a hint: there is (to my knowledge) only one widely-accepted scientific idea that the Church thinks is false, and they will, as they have in the past, come around.
The Catholic Church has a lot of flaws, but their current relationship with science really isn't one of them.
The Catholic Church has a lot of flaws, but their current relationship with science really isn't one of them.
7
Amazing! Since Peter was he only person alive during this period, the bones MUST be his. Well, I'm convinced...
8
Unless he was the only person to die in that 200 year period this doesn't really prove much of anything. Nor does it really matter, since Paul was most likely a real person.
No one doubts the existence of Christians, just their magic.
No one doubts the existence of Christians, just their magic.
9
@7 - It's Paul, actually, but your point is still well-made. We don't know who is buried in most of those ancient tombs. Constantine may have claimed that body to be Paul when he moved it, but there is literally no way of knowing. If people want to venerate it or any relics, more power to them, but honestly, no one knows who any of those bones belong to, or if that little vial really has breastmilk from the Virgin Mary, or if that sliver of wood is from the "true cross".
And Jocelyn @6 - what idea are you referring to? Embryonic stem cells? I'm just really curious...
And Jocelyn @6 - what idea are you referring to? Embryonic stem cells? I'm just really curious...
10
Wow - wow, wow, wow - so carbon dating is accurate in dating bones that are 2,000 years old but not accurate when dating rocks that show the Earth as more than 6,000 years old? That's just hilarious.
11
@6 Global warming? Evolution? The big bang? Stem cells? The entire concept of miracles? Condoms? And, yes, carbon dating; great point @10.
12
In other scientific news, there is laboratory evidence that the pope's brain is made of fruit loops.
13
@10, while I am loath to defend religion the catholic church is much more accepting of reality then say evangelicals. They tend to be cool with evolution, an old earth, ect. They try to insist that their brand of magic played a role, but its much more mild then the young earthers.
14
@6 In vitro fertilization, cloning, astrohpysics and parts of quantum physics. You should check out the Vatican's own website for more details. Don't try to pretend that the Church is fundamentally different than it was in the 14th century...
15
9 - Technically, the Church doesn't deny the scientific purpose of embryonic stem cell research, just the morality of it. They've got this hang-up about embryos that I'm quite convinced is closely linked to their hatred and mistrust of women.
No, the only respected theory in science (to my knowledge) that is refuted by the Church is the idea that people are born gay. That said, I could be wrong.
No, the only respected theory in science (to my knowledge) that is refuted by the Church is the idea that people are born gay. That said, I could be wrong.
16
ATTENTION EVERYONE: THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BELIEVES IN GLOBAL WARMING AND EVOLUTION. PLEASE CHILL.
14 - Again, they take issue with the morality, not the science. The Church, while certainly not yet to the point of being good, is a very different entity than it was in the 14th century. For one thing, they no longer rule the world. For another, they no longer carry out mass genocide (though I think telling Africa not to use condoms comes pretty close). They've apologized to Galileo, they accept and embrace the existence of evolution, and they're moving, albeit painfully slowly, towards becoming a just, enlightened institution. They are behind the times, for sure, but I think they can get there. They have, after all, improved already.
14 - Again, they take issue with the morality, not the science. The Church, while certainly not yet to the point of being good, is a very different entity than it was in the 14th century. For one thing, they no longer rule the world. For another, they no longer carry out mass genocide (though I think telling Africa not to use condoms comes pretty close). They've apologized to Galileo, they accept and embrace the existence of evolution, and they're moving, albeit painfully slowly, towards becoming a just, enlightened institution. They are behind the times, for sure, but I think they can get there. They have, after all, improved already.
17
@16 All they would have to do is abandon the myth and superstition. Its not really that hard to do.
Until they do that though they are in no way enlightened.
Until they do that though they are in no way enlightened.
18
17 - The majority of the human race will never abandon myth and superstition. All we can advocate for is the evolution of morality.
21
@18, I disagree, we already embrace much less than we have in the past. I don't think it will happen soon, but it will happen.
23
Giffy - We as humans believe less than ever in the religious ideas that are in direct conflict with science, because we no longer need to invent explanations for the world around us. We're figuring it out. That said, there is a fundamental need in most people to believe in a higher power than themselves. While a percentage of the population is fine not believing in God, the majority of people really do feel a physical need to believe in some idea of Him (or perhaps several ideas). I do not think this will change. Perhaps our ideas of God will become more abstract, which I would argue is a good thing as it will make religions more inherently similar and thus less likely to kill each other, but I do not believe most people will embrace the idea that there is no God. I hope, however, that they get better at embracing the idea that others have a right not to believe without being hassled.
Which, you know, would be easier if there weren't atheists going around referring to all religion as "magic," "myth," and "superstition."
Which, you know, would be easier if there weren't atheists going around referring to all religion as "magic," "myth," and "superstition."
24
@18 All we can advocate for?! That's defeatist talk. Polling data shows the proportion of religious people in America has been on a long slow decline. Secularism is higher than ever and the Catholic church has less power than ever.
Never is a long time.
Never is a long time.
26
@23, Well it is magic, myth, and superstition, I see not reason to not be accurate.
However I would say what you describe is pretty much an abandonment of myth and superstition. I would put simply believing in a god on par with simply say being an optimist. Its more of a preference than something that really affects on decisions or life.
What I have a problem with is when reality is subjugated to some random guess on how old the world is, what is the best way to treat disease, ect. Having an abstract belief in some random god is not the same thing as insisting that you have revealed knowledge from that being(myth), that this being is fiddling with reality (magic) or that seeking this beings favor though ritual or prayer(superstition) will have an affect.
That being said, nearly 50% of the population in some European countries see no reason to invent a god to beleive in, and that number is increasing. I know personally I see no reason to do it. I like reality just fine.
However I would say what you describe is pretty much an abandonment of myth and superstition. I would put simply believing in a god on par with simply say being an optimist. Its more of a preference than something that really affects on decisions or life.
What I have a problem with is when reality is subjugated to some random guess on how old the world is, what is the best way to treat disease, ect. Having an abstract belief in some random god is not the same thing as insisting that you have revealed knowledge from that being(myth), that this being is fiddling with reality (magic) or that seeking this beings favor though ritual or prayer(superstition) will have an affect.
That being said, nearly 50% of the population in some European countries see no reason to invent a god to beleive in, and that number is increasing. I know personally I see no reason to do it. I like reality just fine.
27
24 - I don't think it's defeatist, since I believe in God and I'm pretty happy allowing others to believe in Him or not, depending on their preference. I acknowledge that part of the fact that I believe is because I need to. I was raised Catholic, thought that was a bunch of bullshit, thought atheism made a hell of a lot more sense, and went around being miserable until I decided that maybe I should try to find an idea of God that doesn't conflict with my own logic, and I did. I'd never make the claim that atheism makes people miserable, but it certainly contributed to my personal unhappiness, and therefore I am a person who needs to believe in God. Whether it is inborn or bred, I can't really say (although I doubt it was bred since my parents are the kind of Catholics who don't believe in or talk about God. Or Catholicism. But we still had to go to Church. It's like they read How to Religiously Confuse the Shit out of your Children 101 or something).
I'm all for secularism, but I highly doubt we will ever see the complete dissolution of non-fact-based belief. While humans certainly possess plenty of logic, we've got other things that guide our decisions as well. It's not all cut-and-dry.
I would like to see the dissolution of archaic dogma and, by extension, organized religion in its current incarnation. That said, I don't think we'll see that for a long time (if ever) either. People really seem to need tradition as well.
No, if we want to fight a winning battle, we need to concentrate on the disparity between the particulars of religious morality and the reality of human morality. That's really more important than what people believe anyway, I think.
I'm all for secularism, but I highly doubt we will ever see the complete dissolution of non-fact-based belief. While humans certainly possess plenty of logic, we've got other things that guide our decisions as well. It's not all cut-and-dry.
I would like to see the dissolution of archaic dogma and, by extension, organized religion in its current incarnation. That said, I don't think we'll see that for a long time (if ever) either. People really seem to need tradition as well.
No, if we want to fight a winning battle, we need to concentrate on the disparity between the particulars of religious morality and the reality of human morality. That's really more important than what people believe anyway, I think.
28
26 - Well, we're mostly agreed, then. But I see no reason to promote the idea that there is no God as "reality." After all, there is, by nature, no evidence that can prove or disprove the existence of God. Certainly, we can disprove the idea that the world was created 6,000 years ago in six days, as we can disprove many specific ideas of God. Whether or not some form of God exists, however, remains to be seen. And again, there is no direct evidence that can prove or disprove it.
True "reality" would be agnosticism, technically. But you're atheist because that makes more sense to you personally, and I'm not because that makes more sense to me personally. So, we're both being a little illogical here.
True "reality" would be agnosticism, technically. But you're atheist because that makes more sense to you personally, and I'm not because that makes more sense to me personally. So, we're both being a little illogical here.
29
Wh-- uh, wait. I'm pretty sure carbon dating is the same horribly flawed scientific nonsense that says that dinosaur bones come from hundreds of thousands of years ago and eons before the first man. Now the Pope is saying it proved something?
Did Ol' Ben just unwittinly hand over the keys to the kingdom?
Did Ol' Ben just unwittinly hand over the keys to the kingdom?
31
@28, I think we do mostly agree.
However I would say that in the absence of evidence the best stance is non-belief. It is not so much that I am an atheist because I have disproved god, more that no one has yet proved god. Its the same reason I don't believe in goblins or the Illuminati.
The argument that one can beleive in god simply because there is not disproof would not work when applied to almost any other belief people have.
However I would say that in the absence of evidence the best stance is non-belief. It is not so much that I am an atheist because I have disproved god, more that no one has yet proved god. Its the same reason I don't believe in goblins or the Illuminati.
The argument that one can beleive in god simply because there is not disproof would not work when applied to almost any other belief people have.
32
31 - Agreed. Then why not say it's totally legit that people can and do believe in those things, as long as they acknowledge the very real possibility that they're wrong?
I would, however, argue that something like goblins would leave behind evidence - perhaps bones, fossils, or excrement. Unless, of course, they disintegrate upon death like vampires do.
I would, however, argue that something like goblins would leave behind evidence - perhaps bones, fossils, or excrement. Unless, of course, they disintegrate upon death like vampires do.
33
Jocelyn, the Catholic church does believe that people are born gay, or at least develop their sexual orientation at a yount age. I don't have a catechism here to quote you chapter and verse. But they also believe that people who are gay are called to a life of celibacy, as are all unmarried people. There is some kind of language in the catechism that talks about what a challenge that is for gay people.
HOWEVER...it does also say that homosexuality is an "inherently disordered state," which is Catholic code words for sinfulness, which arises from humanity's free will. I'm remembering as I type this how absolutely crazy that drove me when I was taking a class on the new catechism. Basically, they are saying that people who are gay are probably born that way, but being oriented toward people of the same gender is inherently sinful. Therefore, people who are gay have to work twice as hard to stay pure and holy, and all that jazz.
That's at least part of the reason I'm not Catholic any more. My current denomination doesn't believe in any form of justification by works.
HOWEVER...it does also say that homosexuality is an "inherently disordered state," which is Catholic code words for sinfulness, which arises from humanity's free will. I'm remembering as I type this how absolutely crazy that drove me when I was taking a class on the new catechism. Basically, they are saying that people who are gay are probably born that way, but being oriented toward people of the same gender is inherently sinful. Therefore, people who are gay have to work twice as hard to stay pure and holy, and all that jazz.
That's at least part of the reason I'm not Catholic any more. My current denomination doesn't believe in any form of justification by works.
34
33 - Ah, well my mistake. So what is the gay then, just an even-worse extension of original sin?
By the way, the concept of original sin is why I'm not Catholic anymore. I think we're all born just fine, thanks.
By the way, the concept of original sin is why I'm not Catholic anymore. I think we're all born just fine, thanks.
35
@34 - Pretty much. But apparently Baptism doesn't "fix" that one.
And yeah, I'm with you on original sin, at least the way most of us have been taught about it as kids. I believe we are all imperfect and have the capacity to sin, I just don't believe it's because Adam decided to have a snack one day and ate the wrong fruit.
And yeah, I'm with you on original sin, at least the way most of us have been taught about it as kids. I believe we are all imperfect and have the capacity to sin, I just don't believe it's because Adam decided to have a snack one day and ate the wrong fruit.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Life and Death in a Recliner in South Carolina by Dan Savage
-
Pit Bulls! by Dan Savage
-
Becoming a Man by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Hot & Drunk by Dan Savage
-
$2,600,000,000 by Dan Savage
-
All The Best Men Are Taken by Dan Savage
-
I Hate You, Garrison Keillor by Jen Graves
-
Unreal Americans by Dan Savage
-
Precious: Brutal New Classic or African-American Bruno? by David Schmader
-
Meanwhile in Vancouver by Dan Savage
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (35) RSS