12th February 2009, 12:50 PM
Hi Oddie
My experience shows an overwhelming support for retention and display of human remains which offer potential for the greater understanding of humanity in terms of social, physical and spiritual development.
I'm confused, do you want praise for being non-violent? what are you talking about?
You keep phrasing things in terms designed to provide you with the answers you want. for example:
"even if no evidence can be demonstrated to show that every person buried in consecrated ground were practicing Christians..."
Its is impossible to prove that level of detail about past people's activities so you have set up a non-viable test based on terms which can never be satisfied. If however, you take a more sensible and reasoned stance, the evidence (actually the fact) that burials which are considered christian are from christian cemeteries is actually quite compelling in terms of proof of religious beliefs in archaeological retrieved burials.
All your argument does is weaken your stance that you can act on behalf of non-christians as you have much less evidence concerning the connection between those individuals (who you want reburied) beliefs and your own!
"however, does indeed bring the neophyte intom the collective family... unless you are able to disprove this..."
As the whole of religious beliefs rest on dogma its actually impossible to disprove it isn't? Just as its impossible to prove it!
However, I CAN prove that retained prehistoric remains have through analytical techniques produced new significant evidence concerning the past. I CAN also prove that many more people have learnt about the past through the educational use of human remains than have requested reburial.
So the question becomes....on balance should a decision be made based on dogma from a faith that does not claim ideological connection or on the basis of evidence?
Steven
My experience shows an overwhelming support for retention and display of human remains which offer potential for the greater understanding of humanity in terms of social, physical and spiritual development.
I'm confused, do you want praise for being non-violent? what are you talking about?
You keep phrasing things in terms designed to provide you with the answers you want. for example:
"even if no evidence can be demonstrated to show that every person buried in consecrated ground were practicing Christians..."
Its is impossible to prove that level of detail about past people's activities so you have set up a non-viable test based on terms which can never be satisfied. If however, you take a more sensible and reasoned stance, the evidence (actually the fact) that burials which are considered christian are from christian cemeteries is actually quite compelling in terms of proof of religious beliefs in archaeological retrieved burials.
All your argument does is weaken your stance that you can act on behalf of non-christians as you have much less evidence concerning the connection between those individuals (who you want reburied) beliefs and your own!
"however, does indeed bring the neophyte intom the collective family... unless you are able to disprove this..."
As the whole of religious beliefs rest on dogma its actually impossible to disprove it isn't? Just as its impossible to prove it!
However, I CAN prove that retained prehistoric remains have through analytical techniques produced new significant evidence concerning the past. I CAN also prove that many more people have learnt about the past through the educational use of human remains than have requested reburial.
So the question becomes....on balance should a decision be made based on dogma from a faith that does not claim ideological connection or on the basis of evidence?
Steven