| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Christ deliberately left behind his garments of death for this purpose. |
I don't think Christ was interested in leaving physical evidence, nor did he want people to believe based on it. In fact the bible is quite against graven images, curios or other regalia (although catholicism welcomes it). The shroud may or may not be genuine, but it matters not. "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words will not pass away" - ie, his message is all that matters, and it has survived everything.
| ED209 wrote: |
It is pointless as those that don't believe in a Jesus as the son of God aren't going to be convinced by a piece of cloth. |
The intention is not for skeptics to be convinced by any physical evidence, but to be reached by your creator. Reading a peer reviewed paper about a bit of cloth is irrelevant, hearing the words of God and your personal reaction to it is all thats important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
wannago
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
I am very impressed that there is a conversation regarding Christianity that is actually civilized.
The shroud, at least for me, makes absolutely no difference in my faith. I will say that it intrigues me, but whether it ultimately proves true or false will not affect what I believe one iota.
A few years back I read a book A Skeleton in God's Closet by Paul Maier. While the book was poorly written on a literary level, the premise of someone discovering Christ's bones was interesting.
Maier does a lot better with a non-fiction work of his: In the Fullness of Time: A Historian Looks at Christmas, Easter, and the Early Church
This is a good read if you are interested in this sort of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Christ deliberately left behind his garments of death for this purpose. |
I don't think Christ was interested in leaving physical evidence, nor did he want people to believe based on it. In fact the bible is quite against graven images, curios or other regalia (although catholicism welcomes it). The shroud may or may not be genuine, but it matters not. "Heaven and earth shall pass away but my words will not pass away" - ie, his message is all that matters, and it has survived everything.
| ED209 wrote: |
It is pointless as those that don't believe in a Jesus as the son of God aren't going to be convinced by a piece of cloth. |
The intention is not for skeptics to be convinced by any physical evidence, but to be reached by your creator. Reading a peer reviewed paper about a bit of cloth is irrelevant, hearing the words of God and your personal reaction to it is all thats important. |
While, it is true that Jesus was not one who promoted forms and looking at forms. The Jews of that time did believe in the concept of saints or holy men as many Jews do today, and the Catholics followed that tradition. As far as the shroud, one should not base their belief on a shroud, but one can also say that one should not base one's faith on miracles. If say the shroud is a "miracle", there is nothing wrong with feeling blessed in its presence or blessed to be in front of a miracle or part of it. I can understand the point of view above, but many Catholics have gone to Lourdes and were healed. You can say their faith healed them, but symbolism is part of life. As long as one does not feel that the the symbols are the religion. You could argue against the idea of wearing crosses depending on how far you want to take things. I think the shroud is interesting, at least. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| I don't think Christ was interested in leaving physical evidence |
I think you're just pissed off god saw fit that it got in the hands of the catholics, the one true religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Like Steve, merely pointing to a nebulous bunch of claims without actually telling me which of those claims you yourself find compelling is somewhat stupid. The reasons I reckon I detailed above. Why can't you do the same? I have long learned that asking you to put your nickel down on any specific claim is as productive as arguing with your shoe.
In short, there's a known technique and paint was found. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| but many Catholics have gone to Lourdes and were healed |
No they haven't. Zero evidence for faith healing. Either bring some evidence, or we will take that as a silent retraction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
ED209:
| Quote: |
| Then it's a bit of a lame parlour trick on his part. It is pointless as those that don't believe in a Jesus as the son of God aren't going to be convinced by a piece of cloth. If you prove the age of the cloth and that it was made by a human body, then that's all you have 'a 2000year old piece of cloth' not proof of Jesus. If people lack faith then Jesus needs to ante up. Stop ruining my toast or sending mum to appear on office block windows. He should have burnt his name on the moon with his lazer eyes or something more impressive. What a silly thing to leave behind. |
Jesus didn't need to resort to trickery to get his point across. His persuasion came from miracles and acts of compassion in the heartless world of the Romans. And I never said that the cloth, if proven authentic, would demonstrate that Jesus is the Son of God. At most, it would demonstrate that He existed. But then that's beside the point since the video does operate from either supposition. The last part of your quote is incomprehensible, so enjoy your inside joke.
Comment again when you're on the same page, i.e. after viewing the documentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 5:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| His persuasion came from miracles |
Zero evidence of miracles, both then and now, equals miracles are very much like the flying spagetti monster, superman, spiderman, and the christian god. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
| Comment again when you're on the same page, i.e. after viewing the documentary. |
Or you can articulate what you found compelling about the documentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
stillnotking wondered:
| Quote: |
| I will watch it. It looks interesting. However, I still don't see why it is germane. Everything I know about Christian theology says it is silly, even sinful, to "test one's faith" by seeking out confirmation or disconfirmation of it. So my question stands: why do Christians care? |
You pose a fair question. Jesus said, "Blessed are those who do not see and yet believe" in response to Thomas, who walked with the Lord.
In Faith, a Christian strives to be abiding but our human frailty, especially in this age of growing faithlessness among so many, gives reassurance. It also serves as a reminder of Jesus' presence in this world and a symbol of the world before the Resurrection (read John:14-16).
Christ deliberately left behind his garments of death for this purpose. |
I think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If the Shroud of Turin constitutes possible evidence for the resurrection of Christ, then we surely have to consider all the possible evidence against it. For instance, the Bible mentions all kinds of dire and dramatic events (earthquakes, a three-hour solar eclipse, dead saints rising from their graves etc.) accompanying the Resurrection, but no contemporary historical account mentions any of them.
Otherwise, you're just cherry-picking, seeking out evidence that confirms your beliefs without giving equal weight to contrary evidence. That's not faith, it's bias. Junior's approach is more intellectually consistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What do you think of the claims of statues of Jesus and also the Virgin Mary crying blood? That even happened in Bangladesh at an Armenian church, and I believe in Brazil, Lebanon. What about things like Stigmata? Are they all divine manifestations? Of course, one can argue only Christians see those things. It can't be true. A Muslim cleaning lady in Bethlehem was shocked when she was cleaning a church saw a picture of Jesus weeping. I am not sure what to think of the shroud, I am skeptical that it is the shroud of Jesus. How would we have arrived with a shroud of Jesus, anyway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
| What do you think of the claims of statues of Jesus and also the Virgin Mary crying blood? That even happened in Bangladesh at an Armenian church, and I believe in Brazil, Lebanon. What about things like Stigmata? Are they all divine manifestations? Of course, one can argue only Christians see those things. It can't be true. A Muslim cleaning lady in Bethlehem was shocked when she was cleaning a church saw a picture of Jesus weeping. I am not sure what to think of the shroud, I am skeptical that it is the shroud of Jesus. How would we have arrived with a shroud of Jesus, anyway? |
Maybe not only Christians see visions of Jesus, but the overwhelming majority of people who see them are Christians. Plenty of non-Christians see visions related to their particular faiths. For that matter, hundreds of thousands of people claim they've been abducted by aliens.
Visions, trances, and hallucinations aren't confined to any religious tradition. Obviously there's a lot about the mind that we don't understand, but taking these accounts as objective evidence of the truth of a particular religious creed is absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| What do you think of the claims of statues of Jesus and also the Virgin Mary crying blood? |
I think the claims are nonsense. People who desperately want to see confirmations of thier faith will go to great lengths of self delusion to comfort themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Funkdafied wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What do you think of the claims of statues of Jesus and also the Virgin Mary crying blood? |
I think the claims are nonsense. People who desperately want to see confirmations of thier faith will go to great lengths of self delusion to comfort themselves. |
Indeed. Penn & Teller can make a statue or painting cry blood. It's rather easy too. When people aren't looking (called distraction in the magic biz) you simply dip your hand in your hidden blood load and splash the blood on the statue. Behold. It's crying tears of blood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
