Topic: "The Great Lie"

[larsong]

I recently became aware of this book and the author's web site. I found it very interesting. I haven't read the book yet, but spent some time on the site.

I found it as a result of my research regarding a certain "miraculous" story that has been circulating on other discussion lists. I certainly believe in the divine, but have always been taught to avoid the superstition. It seems a lot of people are threatened by Mr. Kalopoulos' ideas that confront some of these beliefs. It's always been my opinion that any religion believing in its truth should not feel threatened by science or logic.

Has anyone else seen this, or read the book? Thoughts?

http://www.greatlie.com/en/main_frame.cfm

I am sure the subject is bound to be controversial on this list.

Greta

[TomS]

"The supposed 'miracle' of the 'Holy Light' of Jerusalem celebrated yearly by the Eastern Orthodox Church is exposed as a man-made fraud."

I have always maintained this.

[Sir Sundae]

Here's a review by a Protestant apologist named J.P. Holding, http://www.tektonics.org/books/bibrelrvw.html

[Anastasios]

Elsewhere on that site he refers to "St Basil, alias Santa Claus." Hmmmm...what kind of rigorous fact-checking is going on there? LOL

[Sir Sundae]

I take him to be a disgruntled intellectual with an axe to grind...

my humble opinion of course.

--Chuck

[observer]

I have spoken with people who have seen the 'fraudalent' fire descend like spheres from the cupola.  HOw did the clever Greeks do this?  Again the author does not explain why the fire does not burn.   Try telling the people of Dresden that phosphorus doesn't burn.  Of course how did the Greeks/Jews rigged the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth?  Rationalism at times is a serious spiritual disorder.

[OrthodoxRobert]

When I read the piece about holy fire and the men who replecated it, it made me think of this passage of scripture:

So Moses and Aaron went to see Pharaoh, and they performed the miracle just as the LORD had told them. Aaron threw down his staff before Pharaoh and his court, and it became a snake. Then Pharaoh called in his wise men and magicians, and they did the same thing with their secret arts. Their staffs became snakes, too! But then Aaron's snake swallowed up their snakes. Pharaoh's heart, however, remained hard and stubborn. He still refused to listen, just as the LORD had predicted.
Ex 7:10-13

So Moses and Aaron did just as the LORD had commanded them. As Pharaoh and all of his officials watched, Aaron raised his staff and hit the water of the Nile. Suddenly, the whole river turned to blood! The fish in the river died, and the water became so foul that the Egyptians couldn't drink it. There was blood everywhere throughout the land of Egypt. But again the magicians of Egypt used their secret arts, and they, too, turned water into blood. So Pharaoh's heart remained hard and stubborn. He refused to listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had predicted.
Ex 7:20-22

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron to point his shepherd's staff toward all the rivers, canals, and marshes of Egypt so there will be frogs in every corner of the land." Aaron did so, and frogs covered the whole land of Egypt! But the magicians were able to do the same thing with their secret arts. They, too, caused frogs to come up on the land.
Ex 8:5-7

So a man can go on TV and produce what he calls Holy Fire. Big Wow. I have spoken with people also who have been at the Church with their own candles brought from America and when it lit before them there was no question that what they saw was real. The flame they said did not burn at all.

It just simply comes down to this, those who want to believe will, and those who do not will not.

Which requires more faith, holy fire or that bread and wine actually become the flesh and blood of Jesus.

Robert
ICXC~NIKA

[Anastasios]

I was thinking about this last night some more. His whole book shows HOW the ancients could have been frauds, but does not provide a motive nor proof that the methods he described were real, nor proof that the events weren't real.  He says "this is how they could have faked it, so it must be fake." What kind of spurious logic is that?! LOL

[larsong]

I was thinking about this last night some more. His whole book shows HOW the ancients could have been frauds, but does not provide a motive nor proof that the methods he described were real, nor proof that the events weren't real.ÂÂ  He says "this is how they could have faked it, so it must be fake." What kind of spurious logic is that?! LOL

So, you have you read the whole book? That wasn't my impression of what it was about. It seemed to me that some of the articles on the web site had theories on the  motivation for the fraud -- eg: power, control, money.

[Anastasios]

So, you have you read the whole book? That wasn't my impression of what it was about. It seemed to me that some of the articles on the web site had theories on theÂÂ  motivation for the fraud -- eg: power, control, money.

No, I haven't read the book nor will I waste my time or money on it. I base my opinion on his own reviews of his book and excerpts. The money, power, control thesis is what everyone says. That still doesn't prove it happened the way they opine.  If I want to read a good secular critique of Christianity, there are many such good books in the local library by people with PhD's. This guy is sensasionalistic.

[Ebor]

I was thinking about this last night some more. His whole book shows HOW the ancients could have been frauds, but does not provide a motive nor proof that the methods he described were real, nor proof that the events weren't real.ÂÂ  He says "this is how they could have faked it, so it must be fake." What kind of spurious logic is that?! LOL

It looks like a combination of logical fallicies to me, possibly including:

False Analogy:In an analogy, two objects (or events), A and B are shown to be similar. Then it is argued that since A has property P, so
also B must have property P. (Act A (human deed) and Act B (Miracle) look the same.  A is done in such a way, so B must also be done that way.

as well as Begging the Question.  He's already accepted that they were fake, so the premises (they could be) are accepted. ÂÂ

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Or was that a rhetorical question, Anastasios? ÂÂ  

Ebor