Shwa

Nope, you missed again as evidence by this very sentence which is nonsensical. Then - just because you say it - you go on to try and validate your nonsense with all kinds of irrelevant questions and goading comments. That's not science either, it's game playing. And game playing of a lower order I may add. Here is the original challenge: The key phrase here asks, "any ideas?" I see - many pages later - that you have none. But because you have no idea how the report could possibly be scientifically true and true from a Biblical perspective doesn't mean they can't be reconciled. It simply means you don't have any idea how they could be. Science isn't about proving YOU right, it is about finding the TRUTH. If you can get that one simple little fact in your head and give up your tender preconceptions or fixed ideas, you might get somewhere with actual science. Otherwise, as I wrote to a previous poster, you are stuck in Plato's cave pretending to be a worthy advocate of something you have no idea about. So... for the second time... moving on now...

Then the "townspeople" either should have thrown their hat in with the SN protesters and supported their legal claim from the beginning or taken their lumps for inaction disinterest. Maybe the "townspeople" should have calmed down the yahoos in their midst. But from what I have seen of Caledonia over the summer, there doesn't appear to be that much damage done to the "townspeople." I still saw Mohawks grabbing a coffee at the Timmies without any brawls. All in all the place looked as quiet and quaint as when I first visited many years ago. Much ado about nothing.

"That self-appointed nobility doesn't, however, excuse the ploys they've chosen to reach their ends." You see? By saying "self-appointed nobility" proves you have no coherent understanding about "warriors" and what they stand for, how they operate, what their goals are, etc. You have assigned them a false attribute based upon some weird 'noble savage' prejudice you have. The "ploys they've chosen" have achieved their objective. No one needs an excuse because they did what they set out to do. And they were only brought into the situation as a last resort - a fact that seems to be lost on many people. And really, what was the overall cost of their ploys in relation to their objective? Very, very minimal. No towns were burned down, no tortures, murders or mass graves, no dead policemen or Natives. What a couple of black eyes and some hurt feelings? More people get hurt at boxing competitions and even they sign waivers.

Ahhh, this is where your whole perspective goes off the rails. Don't be frightened, you are not alone in this. The "warriors" act for the "gain" of the community and this is their charge. Always has been, always will be. I highly doubt that you have any insight into the historical, political, social or legal make-up of the "warriors" so your comments about them will be highly suspect including attempts to generalize, sterotype or ostracize. Or compare with the Mafia LOL So, the "warriors" gained their objectives for their communities in Oka, Ipperwash and now Caledonia. Pretty good record so far so their methods must be effective.

Yes. I am trying to validate the story. Nope. This is where you started. Nope. I am assuming that the report of Lazarus' ressurection is true and accurate to the reporter. Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I am not trying to validate ressurection. I am trying to valid the story. See above. Invalid conclusion based upon false premise. I see no flaw in my logic therefore I must be using "science." Invalid conclusions based on false premise and irrelevant questions to the enquiry. Irrelevant commentary. Not so. I used your replies as input into the conclusion of your personal bias and circular reasoning technique. Irrelevant question to the enquiry. I don't want to answer irrelevant questions to the enquiry and I doubt either could find fault with that.

Are you talking about news reporting on crimes or on the crime detection methods police use? There are often reports of a particular kind of murder - first degree, manslaughter, vehicular manslaughter, etc. There are most always some sort of qualification reported about crimes, including type, location, suspects, time of day, etc. Sometimes the police will control those qualifications and what information is made public for investigative purposes. If someone is reported for hate crimes it might encourage others to come forward with similar complaints if that information were reported. In the same way that sexaul assualt "suspects" are reported or have their picture in the paper.

My "theory" is based upon observation of the words and phrases in the passages cited and coming to a conclusion that is testable. I have actually stated my hypothesis several pages ago - did you miss it? Again? GH, you have amply demonstrated that you only wish to divert the discussion to focus on your personal beliefs. Your "faith" as it were. Your dogma. Little real science can be conducted under such conditions.

Yes, the police really are. Don't get fooled into making direct correlations between the terms in the Criminal Code and popular phrasing used in the media: Hate Propoganda including Advocating Genocide and Inciting Hatred: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/C-46/page-6.html#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318 Also, under The Purpose and Principles of Sentencing

But the SN protesters TACTICS are the result of a quarrel about land claims. While trying to divorce the tactics from the issue is convenient, it is a non-starter. The tactics are a direct result from the quarrel regarding the land claims and the previous years of inaction by several layers of government to address that issue. And, whether you like it or not, the tactics are pretty effective in that they have gotten results. By and large they have achieved their objective. I also feel badly for those innocent residents of Caledonia; it is a nice town with mostly nice people. Their Timmies is top notch. Sure they took an economic hit, but it could have been avoided long ago and most of the smarter Caledonians know that. They will recover in time and everyone will go back to doing what they were doing before.

LOL! No, I am not confusing the acts, I am comparing the purpose of the the acts the results. Oka had results. Ipperwash had results. Caledonia has results. And once things are all settled up, the "natives" will settle back down having achieved their objective. As it has always been. The Mafia on the other hand will never achieve their objectives and will continue to covertly main, murder, rape, cheat, theive, bribe, etc. This is "the way" in which these things are carried out.

Yes the Mafia murder, beat, maim, rape, cheat, thieve, bribe, corrupt, destroy, etc., while the thugs in Six Nations pee on lawns. Much more sophisticated indeed.

I already pointed out the evidence. The problem is GH is that you are using the same literal translation of the words as the religious people are and simply drawing different conclusions. You might feel safe with that way of looking at this, but you certainly cannot make any honest claims on the behalf of science while you reject the methods and thinking. You are a hanger-on. A science groupie as it were. The prospect for any scientist is that a great deal of time their theories are wrong and they will have to re-visit, re-visit, re-visit, etc. Why do you think they call it "WD40?" Because the formula was wrong the previous 39 times. In your case you are not even willing to take a look at formula version 1. This would indicate to me that you have so much invested in hiding your shortcomings, that you pretend you are providing some form of peer-review when all you are really doing is backing into your literal-translation-corner over and over. Not too worry, the world is full of science groupies and hangers-on as much as there are religious supplicants and congregants. The common thread is that y'all think the same. Moving on now...

Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! C.H gets two points for this! Congratulations. Of course we can GH. Remember, the report is TRUE to the REPORTER. We are not trying to determine if the report is TRUE to YOU, but to see if a scientific validation can be applied so that from the reporter's perspective, they reported TRULY what THEY observed. So I'll skip the structuralists listing of the elements and get to the point. Which is a bit of a shame because I believe your ability to snap judge from a skeptical point of view can provide unnecessary limitations to your understanding of how science works. One of actors says that, So she has indicated a scientific fact about death. She knows. They know. We know. So then it is reported There is no report of any smell. No report of any rot. No report that any skin was sloughing off of Lazarus. The only thing reported was that Lazuras was clad in the typical funerary clothes of the day - which is likely accurate. So now, casting aside your religious bias and your extreme skepticism, what can we conclude from this? And can that conclusion be supported by science?

Man, you make it sound like the Natives are like the Mafia or something.

Not quite. The important thing is to acknowledge that the original oral report has undergone some contamination of some sort. This might be important later. Ah, now it is going to go over to you. When we look at the report, it could be a fatal mistake - especially from an anthropological view - to assign our values to the actions or concepts of reports from the distant past or cultures. Actually, it is a mistake to do this in modern times too, but that is beside the point. What we need to determine is what the meaning of those report elements are to the culture that described them. The first way we can do this is to break the account down into essential elements (I am not going into linguistics, but Levi-Strauss called them 'mythemes') and then see how they are structured. Once we have a rough idea of the structure of the account we can test other accounts to see if this same sort of structure exists. So let's start with the beginning of the account. What elements do you observe and can you list them in a rough chronological pattern? I am most certain that there are other elements that preceed the 'resurrection' element. What are they?

John 11, lines 38-44: Yes, so for the purposes of this investigation, we have to accept that the original oral tradition may have come to us in a modified form either through data loss or revision. Sort of like finding a very old pottery shard on top of the ground that shows signs of burning. What we want to do is look at the 'shard' of the story (lines 38-44) that concerns Lazarus' death and resurrection and see if that report is compatible with a scientific view. Do you follow?

You guess wrong, which is no surprise at all. I own a very nice expensive house in a modern urban area and even still I would not subject myself to 486 days of incessant abuse. And I mean, realistically, how much can some little shack in Caledonia be worth? Especially when it is right next door to this big Native protest. Let the market decide the price eh? Otherwise, there are ways to recoup those sorts of losses and the smart thing would have been to engage those processes before too long. Not quite. The accepted term in Canada is Aboriginal. But it has as much meaning as saying that the protesters who shut down the Gardiner in the summer were 'south asian.' Technically correct, but not too bright. And... Technically speaking, everyone who lives here is not a "native" since "native" usually refers to someone born here, which excludes many, many people. The etymology of the word has its roots in the concept of birth. However, using the word capitalized is also an accepted form to denote Aboriginal people or First Nations people; or Mohawks or other folks from Six Nations. Nice try though. For someone who once had "extreme sympathy" you show a complete lack of knowledge of even the simplest accepted terminology. Are you sure you aren't confusing Native people with an orchestra and you had "extreme symphony" instead?

496 days?? Wow! I think the smart thing would have been to move. I mean, there are victims and then there are volunteers. Unless there was some form of ulterior motive, who in their right mind would subject themselves to the level of abuse that they claim has happened to them? Aborigines? Did some Australian natives join the protest in Caledonia? I didn't hear about that! Who paid for their airfare? Did they shoot off some boomerangs or something? This is terrible! :angry:

Ok GH, here we go (briefly). With apologies to the reductionists among us. First, the content: according to recent scholarship, the Gospel of John was written some 80-100 years after the events it describes. There is a strong likelihood that this story originated in oral form, but there is no real consensus as to its first origin or the contents of that original(s) oral version. This transfer from oral to written could have resulted in data loss and revisioning. There is some indication that there has been revisioning and parts added at the time of it being written down or later revisions. So we can deduce that in one form or another there has been contamination of the original oral version of the story whether through data loss or revisions/additions. In addition, there are several current versions of the story in different textual format, some use different words and different setup schemes. For the purposes of assessing the validity of the claim that Biblical reports can be compatible with scientific explanations, let's use this version for the KISS principle: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html Specifically, John section 11 lines 38-44. It is this 'shard' we want to take a look at and see if the reporting in this passage can be 'true' with a scientific perspective or a test of logic if you prefer. Agree?

And remember, that is a $100 dollar per plate pork dinner! Not that Mike Duffy would know anything about pork...

Oh but it does, all the time and moreso in the anthro field than most anywhere else. In fact, science has always dealt with religon and visa versa. And sometimes with not so good results. ------- I think I need to re-state the question/problem so we can bring it up to speed. Can a Biblical report - specifically the report of the resurrection of Lazarus by Jesus - be factual both from a Biblical and scientific perspective? Yes or no? Please briefly explain.

This is a great post! I may not fully agree on the all the details, but I completely agree with the sentiment. It reminds of the saying that we ought to love people and use things instead of loving things and using people. Thanks Oleg Bach.

"Seemingly" incompatible facts. Surely you are familiar with the meaning of the word "seemingly?" Science tries to answer questions and problems that are seemingly impossible, incompatible or irreconcilable all the time. Science tries to answer these questions within a problem solving model that is open to all for inspection, questioning and further development. Be sure you fully understand the question before you attempt to answer it because it might lead to false answers. This is folly because you are assigning a value based upon a definition developed in a medium of understanding that you oppose. Never mind the conclusion without showing your work. You have stated your bias - that is good, but not really applicable. We are not here to examine "miracles." We are here to examine the content of a small Biblical passage as a piece of cultural phenomena that might lead us to see (or not) further portions of the greater piece in a new light or understanding. I don't pick up a small pottery shard and make snap conclusions about the validity of the religious concepts of the culture I am studying. However, I can make some observations about the content of that shard that will lead to an increased understanding of that culture, even if that understanding is very small. Eventually I might be able to 'piece' something together. Which is what we are trying to do here. I have already stated my hypothesis earlier. This is what we are trying to test. Are you up to it?

Now THATS humour! LOL! Thanks for that!

"If you are studying anthropology, you are also studying evolution of humans." In a way yes. But I have no prior bias that would affect the outcome of our little experiment. That is, I don't have to turn an examination of a small sample into a generalization about the whole population. So don't get hung up on any potential trickery that is somehow going to lead me down some preconceived garden path. Scientific thinking takes a form of mental discipline correct? The only thing you need to do is apply your scientific thinking to the question at hand: How can science reconcile these seemingly incompatible facts? As a source for anthropological information of a certain sort the Bible is invaluable. The problem of using the data in the Bible to study man is that it is seen as something far more that it was likely ever meant to be seen as. That is an opinion, not a fact. So back to the story of Lazarus. What facts do we know about the recording of the story itself that may shed light onto those incompatible facts? Any ideas?