On Atheism vs. Christianity

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Prove the method of the image being on the shroud as something like an energy surge or some such event likely when a dead guy becomes alive after three days in a cave etc... It becomes a bit more than nice. [/b]

let's suppose A clever scientist comes up with a technique - using only circa 1300 materials and methods - that produces an image on cloth. What do you suppose the reaction would be? Let me make an educated guess.

First reaction:
We don't believe the cloth is from 1300. We have our own experts that say your carbon dating is flawed. We think the shroud is from 30AD. So your technique using 1300-AD methods and materials is invalid. You must create an image using 30AD methods and materials.

(Scientist goes off and produces an image-on-cloth using circa-2000 methods and materials.)

2nd reaction:
We've examined the image you produced, and it has some properties different from those on the shroud. Yes, we understand that your technique is handicapped by the fact that it's impossible to "age" your work product 2000 years, but unless you can PROVE that the ONLY differences are due to the aging issue, we reject your technique.

(Scientist somehow proves the differences are solely due to the aging issue OR a method of rapidly aging cloth images by 2000 years is developed, and the artificially aged image closely matches the shroud image.)

3rd reaction:
Although you've created an image using AD-2000 technology, and we agree that it matches all of the important properties of the shroud, you cannot PROVE that your technique was the actual one used. It's still possible that an energy surge during resurrection was the cause. And unless you can PROVE to us that such an energy-surge did NOT cause the image, we are not persuaded by your efforts.


And so on.

As I wrote earlier, why waste any effort on this at all? People who want to believe in the divine Christ will continue to believe, regardless of the results of science. People who don't want to believe will continue to NOT believe whether a scientific method is or is not found.

Shira, I'm not hard to please. I simply want Peer Reviewed Scientific results. The image and the age of the image on the shroud and the age of the shroud are three different issues. Rogers was quite happy to prove the date was 1200 or so and equally happy to announce his retraction and produced the proof which Science accepts now.

So, therefore, IF they find the image was created by a process that suggests some energy that leads them to a conclusion that the dead guy did it when he exploded to life we'd have an answer that science give their blessing to. Or if they said it was caused by an extinct termite that we can't reproduce but the evidence is there that once upon a time they existed and did this very same thing elsewhere then we'd have that answer.

Ok.. if the latter process (above) was found to be and published there would be no reason to move on. But if the former was found to be then it logically becomes important to try and determine both the age of the cloth and the age of the image. I'd assume both would be able to support the other in the dating process. The image dated to 30AD would surely date the cloth to at least that time but could be much older as well. Now how on earth can they date an image? I'm not sure how or even if we can. The blood has far too few DNA to do anything with but maybe just maybe there is a way to age something of the image and the associated 'stuff' on it. If I found a thingi, a spore or like that, that found itself embedded in the shroud and it was shown to be to around 30AD that would give me a bit of a clue. Some technique should be able to accurately date that shroud.

You waste effort to discover stuff. To billions this would be a discovery of monumental proportions. Not sure how many folks cared about finding Pluto (the planet, not the dog)
It may renew the faith of many and turn them to their God and away from their insanity mentioned by another poster. It may have consequences beyond our imagination if it is the death shroud of Christ.

It maybe we can't conclude one way or another but we should try. Just imagine if Science Concludes... "We are convinced beyond any doubt that this Turin shroud is the death shroud of Christ" What that could mean to the world. His message might be renewed to the world. The Muslim might change their minds a bit and say he was crucified etc.. he is the Son of God. The possibilities are endless... and all because of a link to his existence and power over death.


EDIT: I edit cuz I do accept that folks already have faith that it is the Shroud of Christ and others dismiss it in a who cares attitude. But to me... and maybe Moonbeam, I see this as being the single most important scientific search I can think of. Why send a man to the moon when you have a chance to send man to heaven. (non scientific observation, I agree but still)

 

[Moonbeam]

If there were a video of Jesus resurrecting I would not come to faith via it. I would assume it was some kind of trick, even if every scientist in the world said it was real. I don't believe people can rise from the dead. I don't believe in the statistical anomaly that one out of billions and only one can. I don't care even what science was able to say. It would only make me angry and confused. I would feel cheated, that I failed to believe without proof, even though I can't do that either.

I can't believe there is any way to faith in God that relies on physical data. I believe that people believe because they experience something that makes them feel there has to be a God to create that feeling. I can't see how faith in God could be anything but self sustaining..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If there were a video of Jesus resurrecting I would not come to faith via it. I would assume it was some kind of trick, even if every scientist in the world said it was real. I don't believe people can rise from the dead. I don't believe in the statistical anomaly that one out of billions and only one can. I don't care even what science was able to say. It would only make me angry and confused. I would feel cheated, that I failed to believe without proof, even though I can't do that either.

I can't believe there is any way to faith in God that relies on physical data. I believe that people believe because they experience something that makes them feel there has to be a God to create that feeling. I can't see how faith in God could be anything but self sustaining..

In the end of time God is going to look at you and simply say "Welcome to my home". You're gonna stand there or float there wondering what you did to deserve being in heaven. I can see it all now... Moonbeam asks God "Hey I don't believe nuttin with out proof. I don't know that you are God you could be LunarRay playing tricks on me again"... God would chuckle and say "You still don't get it do you? Well, here watch this video of you back when... See... that's you struggling to find ME. You used everthing in your power to find me. You finally decided I was you and you were me. Not far off really. I'm Simply Love! And my dear Moonbeam, I was with you always." "Welcome, LunarRay has the coffee going over there for you"

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If there were a video of Jesus resurrecting I would not come to faith via it. I would assume it was some kind of trick, even if every scientist in the world said it was real. I don't believe people can rise from the dead. I don't believe in the statistical anomaly that one out of billions and only one can. I don't care even what science was able to say. It would only make me angry and confused. I would feel cheated, that I failed to believe without proof, even though I can't do that either.

I can't believe there is any way to faith in God that relies on physical data. I believe that people believe because they experience something that makes them feel there has to be a God to create that feeling. I can't see how faith in God could be anything but self sustaining..

Moony, Moony, so many people have come back from the dead. Why do you think a corpse was laid out in public sight during a three day wake and a string coming out of the coffin was attached to a bell?

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: WHAMPOM

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
If there were a video of Jesus resurrecting I would not come to faith via it. I would assume it was some kind of trick, even if every scientist in the world said it was real. I don't believe people can rise from the dead. I don't believe in the statistical anomaly that one out of billions and only one can. I don't care even what science was able to say. It would only make me angry and confused. I would feel cheated, that I failed to believe without proof, even though I can't do that either.

I can't believe there is any way to faith in God that relies on physical data. I believe that people believe because they experience something that makes them feel there has to be a God to create that feeling. I can't see how faith in God could be anything but self sustaining..

Moony, Moony, so many people have come back from the dead. Why do you think a corpse was laid out in public sight during a three day wake and a string coming out of the coffin was attached to a bell?

I guess that is why folks opted to be cremated... not a chance you'd wake up in a coffin or is there . I guess being embalmed is a good thing also.

But, ya know... What interests me is it is said they had Roman guards at the tomb of Jesus. Roman guards don't sleep on duty. Who ever moved that stone (I presume a stone) would have awaken the other dead as well as the guards.
Moonbeam is just too obstinate to die. He'll simply cease to reflect.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I can't believe there is any way to faith in God that relies on physical data. I believe that people believe because they experience something that makes them feel there has to be a God to create that feeling. I can't see how faith in God could be anything but self sustaining..

If man was a monism, he might be God, but he typically has instead a dualism of faith and disbelief. The faith, as faith, is self-sustaining and self-developing, but it is still possible that the disbelief is instead empowered, allowing oneself to do nothing or the contrary while waiting for "proof". That is a self-contradiction, and a spiritual danger, but luckily there's a God to drag us through that too. Cheers.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So, therefore, IF they find the image was created by a process that suggests some energy that leads them to a conclusion that the dead guy did it when he exploded to life we'd have an answer that science give their blessing to. Or if they said it was caused by an extinct termite that we can't reproduce but the evidence is there that once upon a time they existed and did this very same thing elsewhere then we'd have that answer.

Ok.. if the latter process (above) was found to be and published there would be no reason to move on. But if the former was found to be then it logically becomes important to try and determine both the age of the cloth and the age of the image. I'd assume both would be able to support the other in the dating process. The image dated to 30AD would surely date the cloth to at least that time but could be much older as well. Now how on earth can they date an image? I'm not sure how or even if we can. The blood has far too few DNA to do anything with but maybe just maybe there is a way to age something of the image and the associated 'stuff' on it. If I found a thingi, a spore or like that, that found itself embedded in the shroud and it was shown to be to around 30AD that would give me a bit of a clue. Some technique should be able to accurately date that shroud.

If the actual cause was a "divine energy field" associated with the dead buy "exploding to life," how could scientists ever determine that THAT was the cause? Do scientists get training in the nature, characteristics, and effects of "divine" energy fields and corpses exploding to life?

No, what is be far, far more likely to occur is that scientists come up with a much more mundane explanation (something like, "If someone left a fire burning in the cave containing the shrouded corpse, and the heat in that enclosed area reached at least 145 degrees for a few hours, an image could easily be produced because of the XYZ effect"). But then true-believers will respond, "But that amount of heating MIGHT have been caused by an energy field associated with a corpse exploding to life. Since we don't understand the nature of divine energy, this cannot be ruled out."

Something like what I've described above WILL happen.

As I continue to assert, pursuing the cause of the shroud image is a foray into folly.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: shira
As I continue to assert, pursuing the cause of the shroud image is a foray into folly.

You're arguing with someone who thinks a cloth has jesus' reborn energy imprinted on it.



Marinate.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So, therefore, IF they find the image was created by a process that suggests some energy that leads them to a conclusion that the dead guy did it when he exploded to life we'd have an answer that science give their blessing to. Or if they said it was caused by an extinct termite that we can't reproduce but the evidence is there that once upon a time they existed and did this very same thing elsewhere then we'd have that answer.

Ok.. if the latter process (above) was found to be and published there would be no reason to move on. But if the former was found to be then it logically becomes important to try and determine both the age of the cloth and the age of the image. I'd assume both would be able to support the other in the dating process. The image dated to 30AD would surely date the cloth to at least that time but could be much older as well. Now how on earth can they date an image? I'm not sure how or even if we can. The blood has far too few DNA to do anything with but maybe just maybe there is a way to age something of the image and the associated 'stuff' on it. If I found a thingi, a spore or like that, that found itself embedded in the shroud and it was shown to be to around 30AD that would give me a bit of a clue. Some technique should be able to accurately date that shroud.

If the actual cause was a "divine energy field" associated with the dead buy "exploding to life," how could scientists ever determine that THAT was the cause? Do scientists get training in the nature, characteristics, and effects of "divine" energy fields and corpses exploding to life?

No, what is be far, far more likely to occur is that scientists come up with a much more mundane explanation (something like, "If someone left a fire burning in the cave containing the shrouded corpse, and the heat in that enclosed area reached at least 145 degrees for a few hours, an image could easily be produced because of the XYZ effect"). But then true-believers will respond, "But that amount of heating MIGHT have been caused by an energy field associated with a corpse exploding to life. Since we don't understand the nature of divine energy, this cannot be ruled out."

Something like what I've described above WILL happen.

As I continue to assert, pursuing the cause of the shroud image is a foray into folly.

As I said before, I'm easy to please. IF Science can develop a theory that stands up to peer review and has no other competing peer reviewed explanation(s) which point to this explosion to life I'd be able to move on and so too would be many others, I imagine. But, until it can be shown or duplicated how the image got on the shroud all the other information regarding it must be considered relevant to the image. For instance, the coins NASA has found covering the eyes and have determined they were coins from that time period (minted between 28 - 32 AD) is a good indication (other dead folks were found to have coins in their skulls) it was a practice in place at that time and supports the 'image of Christ' scenario. I think, however, that even IF it is determined to be from 30 AD folks not inclined to believe it is Christ's image will argue that unless you can compare the image to a picture or painting of Christ you can't say it is Christ. So always will be a debate but Science can go with a confidence level considering all the other aspects of the shroud and that is good enough... either way.
I don't care if the Scientists are all Atheist so long as they ARE scientists. At the moment we have what we have. They cannot reject the null nor can they put forth a peer sanctioned explanation. (I don't think)
What folks may or may not accept or reject is for them to decide. I think it is a challenge to science which begs for resolution. I would imagine some are busy bees atm trying to find some way to finalize this shroud issue.
I also agree that this is sort of like other current studies in other fields. We tend to accept what we believe to be true (global warming/cooling causation)

 

[LunarRay]

Shira,
As an aside to your most recent post I'd proffer that that explanation of a camp fire in the grave cave or what ever it is was considered and it like the notion of Roman Guards present and they don't sleep on duty ergo, a miracle is not borne out by evidence. It seems a simple matter to replicate Dead guy, cave, fire, cloth, bam... image with all the 3D info contained etc.. They could use a dead cat for that matter.
Anyhow, You and I don't seem to agree that it is a study worth going after. I personally can't imagine it still baffling science and so for me for that reason alone it is compelling.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
As an aside to your most recent post I'd proffer that that explanation of a camp fire in the grave cave or what ever it is was considered and it like the notion of Roman Guards present and they don't sleep on duty ergo, a miracle is not borne out by evidence. It seems a simple matter to replicate Dead guy, cave, fire, cloth, bam... image with all the 3D info contained etc.. They could use a dead cat for that matter.
Anyhow, You and I don't seem to agree that it is a study worth going after. I personally can't imagine it still baffling science and so for me for that reason alone it is compelling.

I don't think it's worthwhile if the intent is the validate one or another belief system.

The nature of the image is certainly an interesting puzzle from a scientific perspective, though I don't know what anyone would do with such knowledge.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
You mentioned the Arab, who I presume would be Islamic, didn't believe Jesus to be the messiah.

"In Islam, Isa (Jesus) is also called the Messiah (Masih), but like in Judaism he is not considered to be the literal physical Son of God"

I'm not conversant with Islam but had this notion that they did consider him the Messiah. I looked and tried to garner an understanding of what that would have meant to their faith, if anything. The best I can determine is that the Messiah is for the Jew but not Islam. I think Islam considers the Messiah to be 'King of the Jews' or like that and a major prophet.

Regarding the rhetorical(s), I pretty much saw what you were attempting to do. You'll notice, I'm sure, that our friend has pretty much sated his quest for historical truth to support faith. Paul Harvey always had a 'The rest of the story' but some turned off the radio before that.
I'd love to discuss 'The DaVinci Code' in the context of the life of Jesus instead of mailing copies to the Taliban That discussion would outrage with out merit, I think. In those days it would be normal for a 30 yr old to have been married and etc. Actually, I'd think folks would have thought him abnormal otherwise. So abnormal that he'd have been hard pressed to then claim to be the Messiah. But, that is another story.

Well you are wrong about Jesus being the Messiah in Judaism or Islam. He is seen as a prophet of the real Messiah in Islam and as pretty much nothing more than another human in Judaism.

The quote I gave at the top portion of my post is from Wikipedia. I went on to indicate I thought they considered him the Messiah. But after checking a bit I learned that although, - and this is another quote - " ... Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masi? ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief ... " They call him by that name or could call him that, the meaning is different, apparently.
I think the only folks waiting for THE Messiah are the Jews. Christians found him whilst others have a view that sort of ascribes the functionality of the Messiah to God himself (Allah etc.). I think that Islam is amongst that crew. Except, Jesus is an end game player and comes down to battle someone and then Allah comes.

Bloody Hell, I'm now off reading the Qur'an. I don't care what they believe actually. So I'm a hush up from now on. I thought it noteworthy that they (Islam) do or can refer to him as Messiah but don't mean Messiah as we do...

I am Jewish by heritaga and i have read it all, Jews are waiting for a Messiah but they don't see Christians as anything else then something to be spat upon, which would happen to you too if you went to Jerusalem wearing a cross.

From what i had to study, the Islam religion does belive that Jesus was a propeht like Muhammed was a prophet and while they do incorporate some of the new testament in todays Koran (let's not even pretend we can spell the word correctly without doing it Arabic, i found that most people despised our attempts to do so) with the old testament and the Koran being their guide..

Jews and Arabs probably have more in common as they are both semites and their religions have more in common than christianity.

Jews really do spit on Christians, so if you are ever in Israel, don't wear a cross.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
As an aside to your most recent post I'd proffer that that explanation of a camp fire in the grave cave or what ever it is was considered and it like the notion of Roman Guards present and they don't sleep on duty ergo, a miracle is not borne out by evidence. It seems a simple matter to replicate Dead guy, cave, fire, cloth, bam... image with all the 3D info contained etc.. They could use a dead cat for that matter.
Anyhow, You and I don't seem to agree that it is a study worth going after. I personally can't imagine it still baffling science and so for me for that reason alone it is compelling.

I don't think it's worthwhile if the intent is the validate one or another belief system.

The nature of the image is certainly an interesting puzzle from a scientific perspective, though I don't know what anyone would do with such knowledge.

Perhaps the technique to solve the mystery might further our understanding of other issues. I don't know beyond what I know regarding scientific stuff, which ain't much. Perhaps it is as simple as not having the right minds on the task.
I know that either way this shroud can't alter my faith. I'd sort of like to know who had the mind to create it if it ain't the Christ Image. Leonardo of Da Vinci? What a mind that someone must have had.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
You mentioned the Arab, who I presume would be Islamic, didn't believe Jesus to be the messiah.

"In Islam, Isa (Jesus) is also called the Messiah (Masih), but like in Judaism he is not considered to be the literal physical Son of God"

I'm not conversant with Islam but had this notion that they did consider him the Messiah. I looked and tried to garner an understanding of what that would have meant to their faith, if anything. The best I can determine is that the Messiah is for the Jew but not Islam. I think Islam considers the Messiah to be 'King of the Jews' or like that and a major prophet.

Regarding the rhetorical(s), I pretty much saw what you were attempting to do. You'll notice, I'm sure, that our friend has pretty much sated his quest for historical truth to support faith. Paul Harvey always had a 'The rest of the story' but some turned off the radio before that.
I'd love to discuss 'The DaVinci Code' in the context of the life of Jesus instead of mailing copies to the Taliban That discussion would outrage with out merit, I think. In those days it would be normal for a 30 yr old to have been married and etc. Actually, I'd think folks would have thought him abnormal otherwise. So abnormal that he'd have been hard pressed to then claim to be the Messiah. But, that is another story.

Well you are wrong about Jesus being the Messiah in Judaism or Islam. He is seen as a prophet of the real Messiah in Islam and as pretty much nothing more than another human in Judaism.

The quote I gave at the top portion of my post is from Wikipedia. I went on to indicate I thought they considered him the Messiah. But after checking a bit I learned that although, - and this is another quote - " ... Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masi? ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief ... " They call him by that name or could call him that, the meaning is different, apparently.
I think the only folks waiting for THE Messiah are the Jews. Christians found him whilst others have a view that sort of ascribes the functionality of the Messiah to God himself (Allah etc.). I think that Islam is amongst that crew. Except, Jesus is an end game player and comes down to battle someone and then Allah comes.

Bloody Hell, I'm now off reading the Qur'an. I don't care what they believe actually. So I'm a hush up from now on. I thought it noteworthy that they (Islam) do or can refer to him as Messiah but don't mean Messiah as we do...

I am Jewish by heritaga and i have read it all, Jews are waiting for a Messiah but they don't see Christians as anything else then something to be spat upon, which would happen to you too if you went to Jerusalem wearing a cross.

From what i had to study, the Islam religion does belive that Jesus was a propeht like Muhammed was a prophet and while they do incorporate some of the new testament in todays Koran (let's not even pretend we can spell the word correctly without doing it Arabic, i found that most people despised our attempts to do so) with the old testament and the Koran being their guide..

Jews and Arabs probably have more in common as they are both semites and their religions have more in common than christianity.

Jews really do spit on Christians, so if you are ever in Israel, don't wear a cross.

Wow! Well, I don't wear a cross or any outward indication of my faith. I'm sort of ... what words can I use here... less concerned about who spits on me than I am about who I might offend by such an act they may find repulsive. Why they'd be repulsed by a cross is for them to deal with.
Islam and Judaism: It does seem there ought to be a binding attraction sort of like Mormon and Catholic, for instance. But in both are the differences that provide for the pointed finger and all that entails.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As I said before, I'm easy to please. IF Science can develop a theory that stands up to peer review and has no other competing peer reviewed explanation(s) which point to this explosion to life I'd be able to move on and so too would be many others, I imagine. But, until it can be shown or duplicated how the image got on the shroud all the other information regarding it must be considered relevant to the image.

I like how you're claiming that you'll pretty much only be swayed by peer reviewed scientific explanations, but in the meantime you'll go on believing that the image was caused by a Jesus corpse bomb, just because.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Shira,
You mentioned the Arab, who I presume would be Islamic, didn't believe Jesus to be the messiah.

"In Islam, Isa (Jesus) is also called the Messiah (Masih), but like in Judaism he is not considered to be the literal physical Son of God"

I'm not conversant with Islam but had this notion that they did consider him the Messiah. I looked and tried to garner an understanding of what that would have meant to their faith, if anything. The best I can determine is that the Messiah is for the Jew but not Islam. I think Islam considers the Messiah to be 'King of the Jews' or like that and a major prophet.

Regarding the rhetorical(s), I pretty much saw what you were attempting to do. You'll notice, I'm sure, that our friend has pretty much sated his quest for historical truth to support faith. Paul Harvey always had a 'The rest of the story' but some turned off the radio before that.
I'd love to discuss 'The DaVinci Code' in the context of the life of Jesus instead of mailing copies to the Taliban That discussion would outrage with out merit, I think. In those days it would be normal for a 30 yr old to have been married and etc. Actually, I'd think folks would have thought him abnormal otherwise. So abnormal that he'd have been hard pressed to then claim to be the Messiah. But, that is another story.

Well you are wrong about Jesus being the Messiah in Judaism or Islam. He is seen as a prophet of the real Messiah in Islam and as pretty much nothing more than another human in Judaism.

The quote I gave at the top portion of my post is from Wikipedia. I went on to indicate I thought they considered him the Messiah. But after checking a bit I learned that although, - and this is another quote - " ... Numerous titles are given to Jesus in the Qur'an, such as al-Masi? ("the messiah; the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings), although it does not correspond with the meaning accrued in Christian belief ... " They call him by that name or could call him that, the meaning is different, apparently.
I think the only folks waiting for THE Messiah are the Jews. Christians found him whilst others have a view that sort of ascribes the functionality of the Messiah to God himself (Allah etc.). I think that Islam is amongst that crew. Except, Jesus is an end game player and comes down to battle someone and then Allah comes.

Bloody Hell, I'm now off reading the Qur'an. I don't care what they believe actually. So I'm a hush up from now on. I thought it noteworthy that they (Islam) do or can refer to him as Messiah but don't mean Messiah as we do...

I am Jewish by heritaga and i have read it all, Jews are waiting for a Messiah but they don't see Christians as anything else then something to be spat upon, which would happen to you too if you went to Jerusalem wearing a cross.

From what i had to study, the Islam religion does belive that Jesus was a propeht like Muhammed was a prophet and while they do incorporate some of the new testament in todays Koran (let's not even pretend we can spell the word correctly without doing it Arabic, i found that most people despised our attempts to do so) with the old testament and the Koran being their guide..

Jews and Arabs probably have more in common as they are both semites and their religions have more in common than christianity.

Jews really do spit on Christians, so if you are ever in Israel, don't wear a cross.

Wow! Well, I don't wear a cross or any outward indication of my faith. I'm sort of ... what words can I use here... less concerned about who spits on me than I am about who I might offend by such an act they may find repulsive. Why they'd be repulsed by a cross is for them to deal with.
Islam and Judaism: It does seem there ought to be a binding attraction sort of like Mormon and Catholic, for instance. But in both are the differences that provide for the pointed finger and all that entails.

The whole deal is too long to explain, but it has to do with how they lived together, the Jews were accused of many things all over the world and especially in that region where Israel is today. There was a time when Jews were not let into the US and many other nations for that matter because the stories about them stealing Christians blood were told and as they grew it became organs and especially hearts, the reason to do it was explained in one US paper at the time, it was because without the heart the Christians could not go to heaven.

In most of the world that has changed, but in Israel, well, just don't wear a visible cross or tell anyone you are a Christian because while spit won't hurt you, it certainly is disgusting.

There are a LOT more to be said about Islam and Judaism, they both follow the laws of Judea which Christians do not. But the most important one is not believing Jesus is the son of God. That is what really puts the three Abrahamic religions in two corners, two that do not believe that, and one that does.

Oh, and BTW, i wouldn't spit on anyone, except a creationist trying to teach his bullsheit but that would be more like a punch than a spit.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: LunarRay
So, therefore, IF they find the image was created by a process that suggests some energy that leads them to a conclusion that the dead guy did it when he exploded to life we'd have an answer that science give their blessing to. Or if they said it was caused by an extinct termite that we can't reproduce but the evidence is there that once upon a time they existed and did this very same thing elsewhere then we'd have that answer.

Ok.. if the latter process (above) was found to be and published there would be no reason to move on. But if the former was found to be then it logically becomes important to try and determine both the age of the cloth and the age of the image. I'd assume both would be able to support the other in the dating process. The image dated to 30AD would surely date the cloth to at least that time but could be much older as well. Now how on earth can they date an image? I'm not sure how or even if we can. The blood has far too few DNA to do anything with but maybe just maybe there is a way to age something of the image and the associated 'stuff' on it. If I found a thingi, a spore or like that, that found itself embedded in the shroud and it was shown to be to around 30AD that would give me a bit of a clue. Some technique should be able to accurately date that shroud.

If the actual cause was a "divine energy field" associated with the dead buy "exploding to life," how could scientists ever determine that THAT was the cause? Do scientists get training in the nature, characteristics, and effects of "divine" energy fields and corpses exploding to life?

No, what is be far, far more likely to occur is that scientists come up with a much more mundane explanation (something like, "If someone left a fire burning in the cave containing the shrouded corpse, and the heat in that enclosed area reached at least 145 degrees for a few hours, an image could easily be produced because of the XYZ effect"). But then true-believers will respond, "But that amount of heating MIGHT have been caused by an energy field associated with a corpse exploding to life. Since we don't understand the nature of divine energy, this cannot be ruled out."

Something like what I've described above WILL happen.

As I continue to assert, pursuing the cause of the shroud image is a foray into folly.

As I said before, I'm easy to please. IF Science can develop a theory that stands up to peer review and has no other competing peer reviewed explanation(s) which point to this explosion to life I'd be able to move on and so too would be many others, I imagine. But, until it can be shown or duplicated how the image got on the shroud all the other information regarding it must be considered relevant to the image. For instance, the coins NASA has found covering the eyes and have determined they were coins from that time period (minted between 28 - 32 AD) is a good indication (other dead folks were found to have coins in their skulls) it was a practice in place at that time and supports the 'image of Christ' scenario. I think, however, that even IF it is determined to be from 30 AD folks not inclined to believe it is Christ's image will argue that unless you can compare the image to a picture or painting of Christ you can't say it is Christ. So always will be a debate but Science can go with a confidence level considering all the other aspects of the shroud and that is good enough... either way.
I don't care if the Scientists are all Atheist so long as they ARE scientists. At the moment we have what we have. They cannot reject the null nor can they put forth a peer sanctioned explanation. (I don't think)
What folks may or may not accept or reject is for them to decide. I think it is a challenge to science which begs for resolution. I would imagine some are busy bees atm trying to find some way to finalize this shroud issue.
I also agree that this is sort of like other current studies in other fields. We tend to accept what we believe to be true (global warming/cooling causation)

Well, i don't know, i honestly do not know, but to fill the gaps with something else that is entrirely unprovable... Seems like a cop out to me.

I do agree with you on the whole though, it's up to each and every one of us, BUT, evolution isn't, eveolution IS, it's a fact, like gravity is a fact and the scientific theory of evolution is like the scientific theory of gravity, it's a means to explain HOW it happens, not THAT it happens.

There are a lot of other MUCH MUCH less validated scientific theories out there, the one with the overwhelming amount of evidence is Evolution, the scientific theory of gravity can't even compete.

That is why i wonder why intelligent falling didn't catch on, i mean, it's a shitload easier to discredit the scientific theory of gravity than it is to pretend you have mathematical equations to disprove evolution...

Are these people fucking daft or something, GO WITH INTELLIGENT FALLING!

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: LunarRay
As I said before, I'm easy to please. IF Science can develop a theory that stands up to peer review and has no other competing peer reviewed explanation(s) which point to this explosion to life I'd be able to move on and so too would be many others, I imagine. But, until it can be shown or duplicated how the image got on the shroud all the other information regarding it must be considered relevant to the image.

I like how you're claiming that you'll pretty much only be swayed by peer reviewed scientific explanations, but in the meantime you'll go on believing that the image was caused by a Jesus corpse bomb, just because.

I don't think I said or believe what you attribute to me. I have no Idea what Christ looked like but I have faith that he existed, ergo, I believe all the bits attributed to him in the Bible including death and resurrection. I have faith in that. It is easy for those similarly stead, therefore, to point to and accept the likelihood of the shroud being of Christ. I'm not there yet. The image on the Shroud seems to be of someone. It is not a painting or anything like a painting. It contains 3D information and the tests show it could not be a painted image or like that. etc.

Here is what I do accept.
There is a shroud upon which is an image. It seems to be an image of a person scourged and crucified and dead. It may be the image of a person who underwent this execution in or around 30 AD. Aside from the carbon dating which has been peer reviewed shown to be inaccurate there is nothing to prove otherwise. Other evidence contained on the shroud or pictures and other scientific means seems to confirm or at least not deny a dating of around 30 AD. Who it is depicted on the Shroud can never be determined without independent visuals that would support an identification. So that even absolute proof of the dating of the shroud, how the image got on the shroud and when the image and shroud 'married' we cannot be certain from a scientific POV who it is. Who it is has no bearing on my faith. It may have a bearing on the faith of others which may benefit humanity on earth and who knows, elsewhere as well.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I like how you're claiming that you'll pretty much only be swayed by peer reviewed scientific explanations, but in the meantime you'll go on believing that the image was caused by a Jesus corpse bomb, just because.

I don't think I said or believe what you attribute to me. I have no Idea what Christ looked like but I have faith that he existed, ergo, I believe all the bits attributed to him in the Bible including death and resurrection. I have faith in that. It is easy for those similarly stead, therefore, to point to and accept the likelihood of the shroud being of Christ. I'm not there yet. The image on the Shroud seems to be of someone. It is not a painting or anything like a painting. It contains 3D information and the tests show it could not be a painted image or like that. etc.

Here is what I do accept.
There is a shroud upon which is an image. It seems to be an image of a person scourged and crucified and dead. It may be the image of a person who underwent this execution in or around 30 AD. Aside from the carbon dating which has been peer reviewed shown to be inaccurate there is nothing to prove otherwise. Other evidence contained on the shroud or pictures and other scientific means seems to confirm or at least not deny a dating of around 30 AD. Who it is depicted on the Shroud can never be determined without independent visuals that would support an identification. So that even absolute proof of the dating of the shroud, how the image got on the shroud and when the image and shroud 'married' we cannot be certain from a scientific POV who it is. Who it is has no bearing on my faith. It may have a bearing on the faith of others which may benefit humanity on earth and who knows, elsewhere as well.

Fair enough. I just wanted to say Jesus corpse bomb.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I can't remember the last time i have ever seen anything good come out of faith for any God, all i've seen is death and torture in the name of God, Christians from Serbia and Muslims in three other locations. In the name of god they kill, torture and maim because others do not believe like they do and they can do it with their lives at risk because if they die, they'll go to heaven.

I hate religion.

 

[LunarRay]

JoS said:

Oh, and BTW, i wouldn't spit on anyone, except a creationist trying to teach his bullsheit but that would be more like a punch than a spit.

I somehow don't think you'd punch either or maybe someday you won't.

In my youth I'd walk from the Academy where I went to school to my grandmother's flat where I lived passing the kids along the way. Groups of rather tough kids all bent on picking a fight with me/anyone because they could. I was physically big but a coward with out fear. I've never had a 'fist fight' but never feared to go where I wanted.
One day this rather large kid 'Big Sal' called to me 'Hey, Jimmy Rielly, punk, god freak. I'm gonna bust your face if you come by here with them f'ing god books.' (Rielly was my grandmother's name not mine but they knew me by that name.) I never once mentioned God to any one of them Brooklyn hoods, never once. There was my objective, the library, and there was 'Big Sal' and a few others as well... So I walked up to Sal smiled and asked him in a low voice ''What do you really want" and in a voice so soft and gentle he said "The only thing I have is my size. I don't go to school or nuthing. There has to be something more than this corner and fighting" I didn't say a thing more but let him know I knew what he meant. Sal was an Italian kid who was a Catholic by family tradition who died in Vietnam. His new set of friends that I met in Nam described him as a person who was as gentle as lamb who spoke like a lion protecting a kill but who spoke of his God as loudly as he could because he could. I knew it was not cuz he could but cuz he'd found more than that corner.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy
I like how you're claiming that you'll pretty much only be swayed by peer reviewed scientific explanations, but in the meantime you'll go on believing that the image was caused by a Jesus corpse bomb, just because.

I don't think I said or believe what you attribute to me. I have no Idea what Christ looked like but I have faith that he existed, ergo, I believe all the bits attributed to him in the Bible including death and resurrection. I have faith in that. It is easy for those similarly stead, therefore, to point to and accept the likelihood of the shroud being of Christ. I'm not there yet. The image on the Shroud seems to be of someone. It is not a painting or anything like a painting. It contains 3D information and the tests show it could not be a painted image or like that. etc.

Here is what I do accept.
There is a shroud upon which is an image. It seems to be an image of a person scourged and crucified and dead. It may be the image of a person who underwent this execution in or around 30 AD. Aside from the carbon dating which has been peer reviewed shown to be inaccurate there is nothing to prove otherwise. Other evidence contained on the shroud or pictures and other scientific means seems to confirm or at least not deny a dating of around 30 AD. Who it is depicted on the Shroud can never be determined without independent visuals that would support an identification. So that even absolute proof of the dating of the shroud, how the image got on the shroud and when the image and shroud 'married' we cannot be certain from a scientific POV who it is. Who it is has no bearing on my faith. It may have a bearing on the faith of others which may benefit humanity on earth and who knows, elsewhere as well.

Fair enough. I just wanted to say Jesus corpse bomb.

I got a chuckle out of it too... ehehehehheeh

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
JoS said:

Oh, and BTW, i wouldn't spit on anyone, except a creationist trying to teach his bullsheit but that would be more like a punch than a spit.

I somehow don't think you'd punch either or maybe someday you won't.

In my youth I'd walk from the Academy where I went to school to my grandmother's flat where I lived passing the kids along the way. Groups of rather tough kids all bent on picking a fight with me/anyone because they could. I was physically big but a coward with out fear. I've never had a 'fist fight' but never feared to go where I wanted.
One day this rather large kid 'Big Sal' called to me 'Hey, Jimmy Rielly, punk, god freak. I'm gonna bust your face if you come by here with them f'ing god books.' (Rielly was my grandmother's name not mine but they knew me by that name.) I never once mentioned God to any one of them Brooklyn hoods, never once. There was my objective, the library, and there was 'Big Sal' and a few others as well... So I walked up to Sal smiled and asked him in a low voice ''What do you really want" and in a voice so soft and gentle he said "The only thing I have is my size. I don't go to school or nuthing. There has to be something more than this corner and fighting" I didn't say a thing more but let him know I knew what he meant. Sal was an Italian kid who was a Catholic by family tradition who died in Vietnam. His new set of friends that I met in Nam described him as a person who was as gentle as lamb who spoke like a lion protecting a kill but who spoke of his God as loudly as he could because he could. I knew it was not cuz he could but cuz he'd found more than that corner.

Most people don't get this, because they have an "internet persona" but i'm like this in real life. I'm very black and white, when something is in my world it is, if it's not it isn't. I need to be this way to be the Officer i am, i have to be the exceptional one who doesn't get it wrong, ever.

So i am really the one who would walk right up to him and clock him the fuck out, not because i can, but because i have to. It's my job to do that.

It is strange that you should mention lion though, i've been told many times that people think of me as a male lion, protecting his flock.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
JoS said:

Oh, and BTW, i wouldn't spit on anyone, except a creationist trying to teach his bullsheit but that would be more like a punch than a spit.

I somehow don't think you'd punch either or maybe someday you won't.

In my youth I'd walk from the Academy where I went to school to my grandmother's flat where I lived passing the kids along the way. Groups of rather tough kids all bent on picking a fight with me/anyone because they could. I was physically big but a coward with out fear. I've never had a 'fist fight' but never feared to go where I wanted.
One day this rather large kid 'Big Sal' called to me 'Hey, Jimmy Rielly, punk, god freak. I'm gonna bust your face if you come by here with them f'ing god books.' (Rielly was my grandmother's name not mine but they knew me by that name.) I never once mentioned God to any one of them Brooklyn hoods, never once. There was my objective, the library, and there was 'Big Sal' and a few others as well... So I walked up to Sal smiled and asked him in a low voice ''What do you really want" and in a voice so soft and gentle he said "The only thing I have is my size. I don't go to school or nuthing. There has to be something more than this corner and fighting" I didn't say a thing more but let him know I knew what he meant. Sal was an Italian kid who was a Catholic by family tradition who died in Vietnam. His new set of friends that I met in Nam described him as a person who was as gentle as lamb who spoke like a lion protecting a kill but who spoke of his God as loudly as he could because he could. I knew it was not cuz he could but cuz he'd found more than that corner.

Most people don't get this, because they have an "internet persona" but i'm like this in real life. I'm very black and white, when something is in my world it is, if it's not it isn't. I need to be this way to be the Officer i am, i have to be the exceptional one who doesn't get it wrong, ever.

So i am really the one who would walk right up to him and clock him the fuck out, not because i can, but because i have to. It's my job to do that.

It is strange that you should mention lion though, i've been told many times that people think of me as a male lion, protecting his flock.

Yes, I do understand the 'Officer' mentality and the flock. They are yours to protect, lead, teach and defend. Actually, any senior NCO would have the same attributes or should. I enlisted but did receive my commission.
You apparently have learned what works and what don't along with how you have to be seen to be. That may come naturally or developed.
Sal, in my post above, was in charge too. But in his case he was not complete being the baddest ass in the 'hood'. Some folks never contemplate anything more than what they see themselves to be. They are satisfied in their lives. I accept that. It is in their genes, so to speak.
I know it possible to be both is my point. Faith is personal. It transcends the world we live in. And it is real. This I know.
I would expect no less from a combat leader than absolute dedication. I also would expect you to act within that dedication to the benefit of the troops you lead. Some day, however, The lion will lay down with the sheep and the jackal maybe when all this war stuff ends or your bit in it all... but it will happen to us all. In life or in death it will happen.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
JoS said:

Oh, and BTW, i wouldn't spit on anyone, except a creationist trying to teach his bullsheit but that would be more like a punch than a spit.

I somehow don't think you'd punch either or maybe someday you won't.

In my youth I'd walk from the Academy where I went to school to my grandmother's flat where I lived passing the kids along the way. Groups of rather tough kids all bent on picking a fight with me/anyone because they could. I was physically big but a coward with out fear. I've never had a 'fist fight' but never feared to go where I wanted.
One day this rather large kid 'Big Sal' called to me 'Hey, Jimmy Rielly, punk, god freak. I'm gonna bust your face if you come by here with them f'ing god books.' (Rielly was my grandmother's name not mine but they knew me by that name.) I never once mentioned God to any one of them Brooklyn hoods, never once. There was my objective, the library, and there was 'Big Sal' and a few others as well... So I walked up to Sal smiled and asked him in a low voice ''What do you really want" and in a voice so soft and gentle he said "The only thing I have is my size. I don't go to school or nuthing. There has to be something more than this corner and fighting" I didn't say a thing more but let him know I knew what he meant. Sal was an Italian kid who was a Catholic by family tradition who died in Vietnam. His new set of friends that I met in Nam described him as a person who was as gentle as lamb who spoke like a lion protecting a kill but who spoke of his God as loudly as he could because he could. I knew it was not cuz he could but cuz he'd found more than that corner.

Most people don't get this, because they have an "internet persona" but i'm like this in real life. I'm very black and white, when something is in my world it is, if it's not it isn't. I need to be this way to be the Officer i am, i have to be the exceptional one who doesn't get it wrong, ever.

So i am really the one who would walk right up to him and clock him the fuck out, not because i can, but because i have to. It's my job to do that.

It is strange that you should mention lion though, i've been told many times that people think of me as a male lion, protecting his flock.

Yes, I do understand the 'Officer' mentality and the flock. They are yours to protect, lead, teach and defend. Actually, any senior NCO would have the same attributes or should. I enlisted but did receive my commission.
You apparently have learned what works and what don't along with how you have to be seen to be. That may come naturally or developed.
Sal, in my post above, was in charge too. But in his case he was not complete being the baddest ass in the 'hood'. Some folks never contemplate anything more than what they see themselves to be. They are satisfied in their lives. I accept that. It is in their genes, so to speak.
I know it possible to be both is my point. Faith is personal. It transcends the world we live in. And it is real. This I know.
I would expect no less from a combat leader than absolute dedication. I also would expect you to act within that dedication to the benefit of the troops you lead. Some day, however, The lion will lay down with the sheep and the jackal maybe when all this war stuff ends or your bit in it all... but it will happen to us all. In life or in death it will happen.

Well, i was thinking of what i wrote, and that i should tell you that i am not ony an Officer of RAF, but also a father, once a husband so i may not be all one single sided, there are other things in my life that i feel great about when i am home, but i can tell you one thing, that protector thing, it's there at all time.

I have faith in this world, i believe that when i get out of where i am now, it will be ok, and it will be ok because of a friend of mine and my two kids... well they are not kids anymore but when it all comes together, i will be ok.

So maybe you are right.

I truly hope that i will find the peace you seem to have found in your life, because you do seem at rest.

???? ?????