Shroud of Turin - New Findings!!!!!

[annandatje]

Yet more evidence for the great power of science in our culture. I have no religious faith, but I'm just positive that if I did, the last place I would go to learn about it would be science. I actually find pursuing religion with science to be a bit insulting to both science and religion.

 

Just an opinion. No tomatoes thrown.

 

:iagree: Both prosper when they ignore one another.

[Iucounu]

Found this link at the foot of the msnbc.com article, but unfortunately don't read a lick of Italian:

http://opac.bologna.enea.it:8991/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdf

 

This looks like an English translation (it roughly agrees with spot-checked, garbled translations generated by me at freetranslation.com):

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedings/DiLazzaroWeb.pdf

 

"In summary, our results demonstrate that a short and intense burst of directional VUV radiation can provide a linen coloration having many peculiar features of the Turin Shroud image, including the hue of color, the coloration of the outermost fibers of the linen threads and the lack of fluorescence. However, the total VUV radiation power required to color a linen surface corresponding to a human body... makes impracticable the reproduction of the whole Shroud image by using a single laser, as this power cannot be delivered by any VUV source built to date. Rather, we have shown that a VUV laser is a powerful tool to gain a deeper insight into the physical and chemical processes that generated the body image embedded into the Shroud, independently of the radiation (or energy) source that possibly generated this image. The enigma of the origin of the body image of the Turin Shroud is still 'a challenge to our intelligence'."

 

It will be interesting to see how much further the new study goes, in terms of assertions. I guess I can see how these researchers could honestly feel (without necessarily being right) that a forgery is unlikely: the STURP testing seemed to rule out pigment-based methods entirely, and the ENEA team doesn't believe in the other methods of replication (acid, etc.). In casting about for some physical method that could produce the coloration of the Shroud, they found that a UV laser could; and it must be tempting to conclude that after running through their engineering and experimentation process, and finding a method that roughly works, it points to the only way (which is still different from theirs, and offers a far less likely explanation than forgery using another method ). It does seem to me that they're probably the victims of confirmation bias, but I'll still read the new study with interest.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Iucounu

[Mergath]

Mergath, no snark, I promise. But many Christians would say the same would apply to Athiests; they're not prepared to discard any given hypothesis if the evidence points elswhere, when it comes to their (lack of? non? I don't know the pc term, so forgive me) faith.

 

To me, the evidence of a Creator is creation. An Athiest would disagree, no?

 

Even if we assume that there is a creator, the creation itself doesn't give us any information about the nature of that creator. ;)

 

I'm a Pagan, not an atheist, but if I had definitive proof that the Christian faith (or whichever religion) was true, I'd have no qualms about converting. At this point, I'm listening to my heart and my mind to find the truth. But believe me, if Jesus walked into my living room and sat down to watch a Vikings game with me, I'd believe. :D

[Wayfaring Stranger]

And yet some things are difficult to explain scientifically, and progress is slow. The fact that there's debate on the Shroud of Turin doesn't show its authenticity; it just means the jury's out.

 

You're absolutely right, though. There's essentially no way to build scientific consensus that it's not possibly a fake, since one would first have to rule out all possible natural causes; this is essentially impossible, especially without a plausible explanation that's non-supernatural. One could only go as far as the ENEA study seems to go, raising questions about why it's so hard to come up with an explanation that satisfies everyone. One can never gain scientific consensus on a supernatural event. As a previous poster wrote, science by definition excludes consideration of the supernatural.

 

It's not that I've decided regardless of the evidence. It's that there isn't any evidence,

 

 

It sounds like you are saying that the shroud is not authentic because there is no consensus that it is authentic. And, there is no way to have a consensus that it is authentic, because science excludes the possibility of coming to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic, regardless of any evidence. In short it is not authentic and we do not need to do any experiments to show that because that is how science works. I hope I am wrong.

 

The shroud is one of the most studied pieces of cloth in the world, so there is evidence of it's origins. I want to know where the evidence leads.

 

It confuses us because it is contrary to the dictionary definition of supernatural. What is so undesirable about the events of the Bible sometimes being supernatural that you have to call it "not supernatural". Nothing shameful about supernatural in my book.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

My perspective, as an Orthodox Christian, is that Jesus always fit into the following definitions of natural (from your source).

 

Natural

 

2 - a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

 

7 : having a specified character by nature

 

It is natural for God to have power to: give life, heal, feed (feeding of 5,000), control nature (calm storms) and conquer death. If the classification is God, then this is what nature looks like. You can call it supernatural if you want but it is not contrary to the dictionary definition of "natural" to say the resurrection of Jesus is natural.

[WishboneDawn]

 

It sounds like you are saying that the shroud is not authentic because there is no consensus that it is authentic. And, there is no way to have a consensus that it is authentic, because science excludes the possibility of coming to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic, regardless of any evidence. In short it is not authentic and we do not need to do any experiments to show that because that is how science works. I hope I am wrong.

 

 

I've not seen Iucounu state whether she thought the shroud was authentic or not. I think she's saying that since the shroud of Turin involves an appeal to the supernatural it's not something science can ever resolve one way or the other.

[Teachin'Mine]

http://www.shroudstory.com/

 

I've only read a bit at this point, but it's interesting.

[Wayfaring Stranger]

I've not seen Iucounu state whether she thought the shroud was authentic or not. I think she's saying that since the shroud of Turin involves an appeal to the supernatural it's not something science can ever resolve one way or the other.

 

 

I don't believe the Shroud is authentic.

 

 

To me it is not about whether the shroud is authentic or not. It is about the current scientific philosophy. Specifically, I am bothered by the idea that some scientist could never accept the shroud as authentic no matter what the evidence says and to a lesser degree the idea that the burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic (it seems like the burden to provide evidence should be born by anyone making a statement about a subject, in this case if the shroud is not authentic, what is the evidence?). This combination is a conversation stopper. I am all in favor of following the evidence but we should follow it wherever it leads.

[Onceuponatime]

 

 

.

 

 

 

My perspective, as an Orthodox Christian, is that Jesus always fit into the following definitions of natural (from your source).

 

Natural

 

2 - a : being in accordance with or determined by nature b : having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature

 

7 : having a specified character by nature

 

It is natural for God to have power to: give life, heal, feed (feeding of 5,000), control nature (calm storms) and conquer death. If the classification is God, then this is what nature looks like. You can call it supernatural if you want but it is not contrary to the dictionary definition of "natural" to say the resurrection of Jesus is natural.

 

 

Are you saying God= Nature and Nature= God? In my whole Christian life, I was always taught that God= Supranatural. Nature is what exists in time and space, all of creation if you will. The Nature of God is beyond what exists in time and space, beyond the understanding of man. If there was a virgin birth, if there was a resurrection, they would most definitely be supernatural. If we could understand it, dissect it, prove it, and recreate it, what would that say about God? Christianity is based on faith, a hope in a power beyond nature.

 

Kalanamak is right. There is no shame in that.

[TheHomeScientist]

To me it is not about whether the shroud is authentic or not. It is about the current scientific philosophy. Specifically, I am bothered by the idea that some scientist could never accept the shroud as authentic no matter what the evidence says and to a lesser degree the idea that the burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic (it seems like the burden to provide evidence should be born by anyone making a statement about a subject, in this case if the shroud is not authentic, what is the evidence?). This combination is a conversation stopper. I am all in favor of following the evidence but we should follow it wherever it leads.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (Carl Sagan)

 

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. (Christopher Hitchens)

[TheHomeScientist]

I forgot ...

 

Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you. (Dara Ó Briain)

[C_l_e_0..Q_c]

I'm a Pagan, not an atheist, but if I had definitive proof that the Christian faith (or whichever religion) was true, I'd have no qualms about converting. At this point, I'm listening to my heart and my mind to find the truth. But believe me, if Jesus walked into my living room and sat down to watch a Vikings game with me, I'd believe. :D

 

:D That's almost what happened to me 8 years ago... I was somewhere between being an atheist and a pagan (I even ran the WTMPagan list for a while) then boom! Jesus came down and had a conversation with me. :001_huh:

It felt like hitting a brick wall, trust me, and being forced into a 180 degree turn.

We did not watch any sports together, but the irony is that it was the Shroud that brought the whole thing to me. I was reading up on the Shroud, studying the latest findings, when I had this Revelation.

 

I'm not saying this to attempt to convert you at all. I know where you are (well, I've got a reasonable idea, even if I don't know specifics) and I know my witnessing is not enough to convert anyone. I would not have converted if someone has told me the above story, I would have thought they were quacky and I would have walked back and away very slowly. :tongue_smilie: I just wanted to let you know that it may happen to you. Enjoy your Vikings game and merry Christmas to you!

[Iucounu]

It sounds like you are saying that the shroud is not authentic because there is no consensus that it is authentic. And, there is no way to have a consensus that it is authentic, because science excludes the possibility of coming to the conclusion that the shroud is authentic, regardless of any evidence. In short it is not authentic and we do not need to do any experiments to show that because that is how science works. I hope I am wrong.

Why stress? Science can't validate your religious beliefs. That's just the way it is. It's a different tool for a different purpose.

 

The shroud is one of the most studied pieces of cloth in the world, so there is evidence of it's origins.

The only scientific evidence so far as to its actual origins is the carbon dating placing it over a thousand years after, with which you'd clearly not agree, and some other odds and ends (including the use of a weave not in use at the time of Jesus, IIRC). Religious belief in its origin as a holy relic is not evidence in the way I'm talking about-- scientific, real-world physical evidence-- no matter how much of that belief there is.

 

My perspective, as an Orthodox Christian, is that Jesus always fit into the following definitions of natural

You're entitled to your religious beliefs. They're not beliefs that describe the natural world, except to the extent Jesus was a real physical person, the Bible accurately describes historical events, etc. Thus when someone tells a story about Jesus working a miracle, based on his status and powers as the son/incarnation/avatar of God (with apologies for any statement that anyone finds offensive), the story is about something supernatural, as it's based on occurrences that don't occur just based on the laws of the physical universe.

 

When we're talking about words such as natural and supernatural during a discussion of science, we are never talking about what you find to be concomitant with being an all-powerful creator of the universe. At least I'm not. Thus we are not having a discussion on that basis; it doesn't make any sense due to confusion (using a term to mean two different things in a context that only allows for one) and lack of true communication.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Iucounu

[Iucounu]

... and to tack on to what Mergath wrote, I would certainly convert to a religion in the fact of indisputable evidence that it was the one true religion. I expect that there would be mass conversions if such a thing were to occur, including a great many confirmed atheists. I'm guessing that most atheists are not at war with the idea of a god, so much as they are skeptics about religion. Re: the Shroud, it's not that I want it to be a fake (honestly, I'd be relieved to find out that there's life available after death), it's that it's pretty clearly a fake in my opinion.

[Teachin'Mine]

 

The only scientific evidence so far as to its actual origins is the carbon dating placing it over a thousand years after, with which you'd clearly not agree, and some other odds and ends (including the use of a weave not in use at the time of Jesus, IIRC). Religious belief in its origin as a holy relic is not evidence in the way I'm talking about-- scientific, real-world physical evidence-- no matter how much of that belief there is.

 

 

In many of the links given, it's explained that the sample taken for carbon dating was probably from part which was repaired in the middle ages. IOW the carbon dating was probably accurate, but it wasn't fibers from the original cloth of the shroud which were used.

[Iucounu]

In many of the links given' date=' it's explained that the sample taken for carbon dating was probably from part which was repaired in the middle ages. IOW the carbon dating was probably accurate, but it wasn't fibers from the original cloth of the shroud which were used.[/quote']

Yes, that's what the people who dispute the findings say. If you like we can revisit this after the new radiocarbon dating is performed (have a link to it somewhere, apparently a new non-destructive method is to be used on the whole Shroud at once). In the meantime, I'm not aware of any scientific evidence linking it to Jesus's death, or even the time of his death.

[TheHomeScientist]

... and to tack on to what Mergath wrote, I would certainly convert to a religion in the fact of indisputable evidence that it was the one true religion. I expect that there would be mass conversions if such a thing were to occur, including a great many confirmed atheists. I'm guessing that most atheists are not at war with the idea of a god, so much as they are skeptics about religion. Re: the Shroud, it's not that I want it to be a fake (honestly, I'd be relieved to find out that there's life available after death), it's that it's pretty clearly a fake in my opinion.

 

Yes. No true scientist could ever be a "hard" atheist, in the sense of denying that there is even the tiniest probability that a god or gods exist. On Richard Dawkins' 7-point continuum, he defines a 7 as a hard atheist. He originally placed himself as a 6--someone who is as close as possible to an absolute atheist; who does not deny the possibility that gods exist but believes it to be extraordinarily unlikely--but later revised that, saying he was a 6.9 (or was it a 6.99?).

 

I'm with Dawkins at that 6.9 or 6.99. I don't absolutely deny the possibility, but I'd put the probability as something considerably lower than, say, drawing a hand of 13 spades a thousand times in a row.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of religion are certainly extraordinary, and to date believers have presented exactly zero evidence for those claims.

[Teachin'Mine]

Yes. No true scientist could ever be a "hard" atheist, in the sense of denying that there is even the tiniest probability that a god or gods exist. On Richard Dawkins' 7-point continuum, he defines a 7 as a hard atheist. He originally placed himself as a 6--someone who is as close as possible to an absolute atheist; who does not deny the possibility that gods exist but believes it to be extraordinarily unlikely--but later revised that, saying he was a 6.9 (or was it a 6.99?).

 

I'm with Dawkins at that 6.9 or 6.99. I don't absolutely deny the possibility, but I'd put the probability as something considerably lower than, say, drawing a hand of 13 spades a thousand times in a row.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The claims of religion are certainly extraordinary, and to date believers have presented exactly zero evidence for those claims.

 

Going back to what I had said earlier, IMO science has to be approached with an open mind, and the existence of a loving God has to be approached with an open heart. There are so, so many documented miracles. But similar to the Shroud, I don't think the evidence would be overwhelming enough for you at this time - I may be wrong. :) Generally, someone who is searching for God has an open mind and an open heart, but generally someone who is more interested in proving His non-existence isn't going to find proof of His existence, or His non-existence for that matter. Of course there are many exceptions to this. As Cleo was brought to belief through the Shroud, so have many scientists who have done research on the Shroud in hopes of proving it the fake they believed it to be.

 

I could list some miracles which are fascinating to read about, if you're interested. Like with the Shroud, there will be plenty of websites "debunking" them, but there are also many with first hand accounts and/or details of the research conducted, and stories of the countless lives changed as a result.

[TheHomeScientist]

I could list some miracles which are fascinating to read about' date=' if you're interested. Like with the Shroud, there will be plenty of websites "debunking" them, but there are also many with first hand accounts and/or details of the research conducted, and stories of the countless lives changed as a result.[/quote']

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Show me even one "miracle" that is reproducible, testable, and falsifiable, and then we'll talk.

[Teachin'Mine]

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Show me even one "miracle" that is reproducible, testable, and falsifiable, and then we'll talk.

 

 

Ah. That 6.99 assessment is accurate. :tongue_smilie: By the very nature of miracles, they are generally not reproducible by human efforts. That's part of what qualifies them as having been brought about by divine intervention to begin with.

 

Falsifiable means able to be proven false - no? So how can something which is real be proven false. My scientific vocabulary and knowledge is very limited, so I'm sure I'm misunderstanding. As most miracles happen only once, they are not able to produce the type of irrefutable evidence you are looking for.

 

I'm bowling out of this as I think we'll need to agree to disagree and maybe someone who can converse more intelligibly with you will do so. :)

[Wayfaring Stranger]

Are you saying God= Nature and Nature= God? In my whole Christian life, I was always taught that God= Supranatural. Nature is what exists in time and space, all of creation if you will. The Nature of God is beyond what exists in time and space, beyond the understanding of man. If there was a virgin birth, if there was a resurrection, they would most definitely be supernatural. If we could understand it, dissect it, prove it, and recreate it, what would that say about God? Christianity is based on faith, a hope in a power beyond nature.

 

 

The christian teaching is that the supernatural became natural (in Jesus). He really came to earth (and there is a lot of evidence of that) and what he did here was falsifible and testable.

 

The only scientific evidence so far as to its actual origins is the carbon dating placing it over a thousand years after, with which you'd clearly not agree, and some other odds and ends (including the use of a weave not in use at the time of Jesus, IIRC). Religious belief in its origin as a holy relic is not evidence in the way I'm talking about-- scientific, real-world physical evidence-- no matter how much of that belief there is.

 

 

If the first carbon dating is accurate then the shroud is fake.

 

The claims of religion are certainly extraordinary, and to date believers have presented exactly zero evidence for those claims.

 

What claims are you talking about? Are you saying that no religion has ever provided any evidence for any of its claims? The existance of four books about Jesus is definitely evidence that he existed.

 

This is the kind of thing I am concerned about on this thread. Scientists are making up agruments with no evidence just to prove a point. I am here as a religious person arguing that we should follow the data where ever it leads and the scientists are saying we cannot do that because it might lead to something that is supernatural.

 

The plural of anecdote is not data.

 

Show me even one "miracle" that is reproducible, testable, and falsifiable, and then we'll talk.

 

Here is an experiment that you can do that is reproducible, testable, and falsifiable. It is on this podcast (the last of a 17 part series). It will take about an hour to listen to.

 

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/darwin_and_christianity_-_part_17_the_final_chapter

[Mergath]

The christian teaching is that the supernatural became natural (in Jesus). He really came to earth (and there is a lot of evidence of that) and what he did here was falsifible and testable.

 

 

Just out of curiosity, how could you test or falsify things that were done two thousand years ago?

[Iucounu]

This blog entry cogently points out what I feel to be the main fallacy that's been so widespread for the last few days, intensified of course by the false reports that magnify the scientists' claims out of all proportion:

 

All this business with lasers is neither here nor there. I’m reminded of magician James Randi’s line from Flim-Flam! about the pseudoscience technique of the Provocative Fact.

 

The same technique was used by the Gellerites when they assured us that at no time did Uri Geller use laser beams, magnets, or chemicals to bend spoons. This was quite true. It is also quite true that he had no eggbeaters, asbestos insulation, or powdered aspirin in his pockets either. So what?1

Turns out it’s hard to make a Shroud copy using lasers. That’s hardly surprising, but neither is it relevant.

 

http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/12/23/shroud-of-turin-redux/

[Iucounu]

The christian teaching is that the supernatural became natural (in Jesus). He really came to earth (and there is a lot of evidence of that) and what he did here was falsifible and testable.

Is there some evidence, besides the words of millennia-dead folks in religious texts in which you believe, that Jesus turned water into wine, etc.? Is there some way to reproduce turning water into wine with a wave of the hand? See, that's the sort of thing that the PP is talking about. One need not falsify such claims of miracles-- they essentially come pre-falsified. :)

 

Hence while we might agree that Jesus was likely a real human being, and so "came to earth" in one way or another, there's no way to scientifically debate the phenomena he's said by some to have caused. They're of supernatural origin, and as we know science doesn't "go there". No physical explanation for what he's said by some to have done has been advanced, so there's nothing to falsify. (I suppose one could claim a "thermodynamic miracle" or some such thing, but as TheHomeScientist wrote, extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence to be believed.)

[hsmom2011]

We don't need proof! The proof is in God's word! But I did see the article, and it is soooo awesome! :D

[Iucounu]

The Telegraph UK article is inaccurate and misleading. The blog post linked by the OP is sheer sensationalism, and even more inaccurate; no researcher has claimed that the cloth is "authentic". Not what I'd call awesome, although I can understand how such report can give people the warm fuzzies. :)

[Teachin'Mine]

You know what's awesome about all of this? Beyond the studies or anything else mentioned here ... it's about the awesomeness of our God. He willing endured such excruciating torture, humiliation, and even mockery - all because He loves us. That is beyond awesome.

 

You know, we see news pieces about a mother cat going into a burning building to rescue her kittens who suffers burns on her paws, but keeps going back into the burning building as she feels the need to save each and every one of her precious kittens, and we get the warm fuzzies and are amazed at her outpouring of love and willingness to suffer for their sake. If all we did was to scientifically dissect what she did and look at the heat of the surfaces she walked over, retraced her steps to see if they were of sufficient number to validate the injuries, evaluated the level of smoke to see if she could have managed to survive in the building that long, and conducted multiple tests and contemplated all those things and more without noticing her love and devotion, we'd have missed the point.

 

Merry Christmas everyone! :)

[Iucounu]

I don't think that testifying to one's religious faith adds much to a discussion of whether a particular relic is a fake, so I have to disagree that your particular good feelings about your religion are what's "awesome about all of this" ("this" of course being the ENEA study and study of the Shroud in general). The point is that we don't, many of us, accept miraculous claims without convincing evidence. This thread is a discussion of early reports of a scientific study, not our feelings about love and devotion.

[Teachin'Mine]

I don't think that testifying to one's religious faith adds much to a discussion of whether a particular relic is a fake, so I have to disagree that your particular good feelings about your religion are what's "awesome about all of this" ("this" of course being the ENEA study and study of the Shroud in general). The point is that we don't, many of us, accept miraculous claims without convincing evidence. This thread is a discussion of early reports of a scientific study, not our feelings about love and devotion.

 

 

Being the OP, I beg to differ. :D

[Iucounu]

I guess, then, my response has to be that no, that's not what's awesome about any of this at all. There is no evidence of the Christian god besides the holy documents of the Christian religion; meanwhile there are plenty of other religions, with their own holy documents and conflicting beliefs, whose adherents also feel that their cherished beliefs are pretty awesome.

 

Your faith in Christianity has no more to do with the ENEA study than a Muslim's faith in Islam. The fact that any particular person has particular religious beliefs really has nothing to do with what's interesting about the study-- which is an approximation of certain effects of the Shroud of Turin using a laser.

 

It's also worth noting that the only reason the Shroud of Turin is of interest at all is that it's proposed as a holy relic. Accepting on faith that it is what it purports to be sidesteps the whole point of its study-- it's been proposed by the faithful as evidence of divinity, which it would be a bit silly to avoid examining further.

 

I'm all for saving kittens from fires and admiring valorous cats, and I'm also for knowing the truth.

[Teachin'Mine]

And I truly hope that one day you will know the truth. We all will one day.

[ThisIsTheDay]

There is no evidence of the Christian god besides the holy documents of the Christian religion; meanwhile there are plenty of other religions, with their own holy documents and conflicting beliefs, whose adherents also feel that their cherished beliefs are pretty awesome.

 

I disagree. There are hundreds of Biblical prophecies, historical and otherwise, that have been fulfilled which no one ever could have guessed ahead of time. Archaeological finds provide further confirmation of what the Bible states, rather than refuting it. This is not the case in ANY other "religion."

 

One could claim that's not evidence of a "Christian god." Say what you will about your "truth"; we will have to agree to disagree.

 

If the shroud were proven to be "real," I'd still be skeptical I wouldn't look to any one item to hold proof, particularly after its history.

[Mergath]

And I truly hope that one day you will know the truth. We all will one day.

 

Ah yes, the old "You'll know I was right when you're burning in the flames of hell" argument. :rolleyes: :ack2:

[Mergath]

I disagree. There are hundreds of Biblical prophecies, historical and otherwise, that have been fulfilled which no one ever could have guessed ahead of time. Archaeological finds provide further confirmation of what the Bible states, rather than refuting it. This is not the case in ANY other "religion."

 

From what I've read, all of those "prophesies" were either not recorded until after they'd actually been (supposedly) fulfilled- which somewhat defeats the purpose of a prophesy in the first place- or they were so vague that you could pick just about any even you like and claim it fulfills prophesy.

 

And are you really going to make the case that no other religion has any archaeological evidence? Because that's just plain false, tbh.

[Teachin'Mine]

Ah yes, the old "You'll know I was right when you're burning in the flames of hell" argument. :rolleyes: :ack2:

 

I would have never thought to get a response from you like that Mergath. :confused:

 

On the contrary, I believe that there will be events which will take place which will help some to see the truth. For some, it will just be more things to dispute. But I do believe that when we die we meet Jesus face to face and at that time will know the truth. My understanding is that all of us will then have the free will to accept His love, or to reject it. I most certainly don't believe that non-believers go to hell just because of their non-belief. Many are really good, loving people (and the judging for any of us is completely up to God). I consider you to be in that category. :grouphug:

[Mergath]

I would have never thought to get a response from you like that Mergath. :confused:

 

Why not? I'm sorry if I'm overly snarky this morning- I didn't have the best day yesterday and I'm still cranky- but I'm really tired of Christians saying stuff like that. It's just so smug and arrogant. Honestly, if I hear one more person tell me, "Well, you'll know the truth someday" *smirk* I'm going to lose it. I'm sorry if that wasn't what you were saying, but it's how it came across.

 

Of course, it may just be the time of year. If one more person on facebook tells me "Merry CHRISTmas!" I'll probably lose it, too.

 

I think maybe I should just avoid the computer until I've de-crankied, lol.

[unsinkable]

Teachin' Mine :grouphug:

 

[TheHomeScientist]

From what I've read, all of those "prophesies" were either not recorded until after they'd actually been (supposedly) fulfilled- which somewhat defeats the purpose of a prophesy in the first place- or they were so vague that you could pick just about any even you like and claim it fulfills prophesy.

 

And are you really going to make the case that no other religion has any archaeological evidence? Because that's just plain false, tbh.

 

Yep. Like all "prophecies", a classic example of the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy

[Iucounu]

And I truly hope that one day you will know the truth. We all will one day.

We may, if there's life after death and there's a basis for knowledge. If there's no life after death, then the complete disruption of all cognitive processes would certainly cause a problem. If your guess is true, that Jesus will appear to me and give me a choice upon my own death, that would certainly be a strong reason for belief, and under encouraging circumstances. :)

[Teachin'Mine]

Teachin' Mine :grouphug:

 

 

Thank you!!! :grouphug:

 

We are indeed! :001_smile:

[kalanamak]

If your guess is true, that Jesus will appear to me and give me a choice upon my own death, that would certainly be a strong reason for belief, and under encouraging circumstances. :)

 

But what about the poor mentally ill paranoids, who cannot trust and take any overtures as an attack? (This is particularly odd because many have felt harassed by a deity in the form of auditory hallucinations, and some even think they are JC themselves.) Do they keep the free will of their malfunctioning brains, or all we all "corrected" before given the choice. In which case, who would say no?

 

I am reminded of that rather beloved Monsignor of the 19th century who said he believed in Hall because the CC said it existed, but didn't believe anyone was in it. :)

[Teachin'Mine]

We may, if there's life after death and there's a basis for knowledge. If there's no life after death, then the complete disruption of all cognitive processes would certainly cause a problem. If your guess is true, that Jesus will appear to me and give me a choice upon my own death, that would certainly be a strong reason for belief, and under encouraging circumstances. :)

 

That is very encouraging. :)

[TheHomeScientist]

Do they keep the free will of their malfunctioning brains, or all we all "corrected" before given the choice. In which case, who would say no?

 

Well, I would say no. As Billy Joel said, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun..."

 

Having read the Bible from cover to cover more than once, I found the claims of "goodness" and "love" to be at odds with the documented actions of this supposed god. If we're to believe the Bible, this so-called god is a murderous psychopath. Killing children wholesale, demanding that a parent murder his child, encouraging incest, praising a father for forcing his daughters into prostitution, and so on. Not someone I'd care to spend any time at all with, let alone eternity.

 

Furthermore, science has recently made some very interesting discoveries concerning free will. Basically, it turns out to be an illusion. We may think we decided to have pepperoni rather than sausage on the pizza we just ordered, but in fact brain scans done during decision-making show that the decision takes place *after* the action being decided has already taken place. Rather than deciding anything, we're pre-programmed to do what we do.

[PiCO]

What claims are you talking about? Are you saying that no religion has ever provided any evidence for any of its claims? The existance of four books about Jesus is definitely evidence that he existed.

 

Really? I understand that you believe the bible is the true word of god, but do you not see the the problem with this argument?

 

Just because 4 books have been written about something does not make it a fact.

 

I also don't understand why a religion should need proof to back up its claims. Isn't religion about faith?

[Teachin'Mine]

But what about the poor mentally ill paranoids, who cannot trust and take any overtures as an attack? (This is particularly odd because many have felt harassed by a deity in the form of auditory hallucinations, and some even think they are JC themselves.) Do they keep the free will of their malfunctioning brains, or all we all "corrected" before given the choice. In which case, who would say no?

 

I am reminded of that rather beloved Monsignor of the 19th century who said he believed in Hall because the CC said it existed, but didn't believe anyone was in it. :)

 

We have a loving and merciful God. I don't know the exact details ;) but I do know that there are those who continue to reject Him.

 

Unfortunately there are Catholics and priests who do not believe in hell, or that there are souls there, but they are mistaken. This thinking thrived in the 70's. :tongue_smilie: I had been taught this as well at one time.

 

If anyone is interested in a prophesy which had been fulfilled, this movie might be of interest. It only skims the surface, as any movie of this length is severely limited in how much information can be given, but it's a good place to start.

 

http://www.amazon.com/13th-Day-Jane-Lesley/dp/B002LDCZCU

 

The miracle at Fatima occurred in 1917 and the sign appeared as the Blessed Mother had promised the children it would.

[TheHomeScientist]

Just because 4 books have been written about something does not make it a fact.

 

Why, of course it does. Just as the fact that four books and 56 short stories were written about Sherlock Holmes proves that he really existed. Not to mention the innumerable books set in the Star Trek universe. How could anyone doubt that Kirk and Spock were real? We even have original, full-color footage of them.

[Teachin'Mine]

Well, I would say no.

 

Clearly I had misunderstood your previous post.

[PiCO]

Ah yes, the old "You'll know I was right when you're burning in the flames of hell" argument. :rolleyes: :ack2:

 

Well, you brought some sunshine to my morning! I get that a bit as well.

 

As for everyone saying Merry Christmas, I just pretend they are saying Krismus. It's a cultural event.

 

Glad Yule, Mergath.

[Lady Florida.]

 

Just because 4 books have been written about something does not make it a fact.

 

 

Why, of course it does. Just as the fact that four books and 56 short stories were written about Sherlock Holmes proves that he really existed.

 

Well, there were 7 books written about Harry Potter, and some of them are quite long. They are popular worldwide (argumentum ad populum). Therefore, the entire wizarding world must be real.

[TheHomeScientist]

Well, there were 7 books written about Harry Potter, and some of them are quite long. They are popular worldwide (argumentum ad populum). Therefore, the entire wizarding world must be real.

 

Yes, of course. And 2,000 years from now, it's quite possible that many people will believe in the historicity of Harry Potter. Certainly, the Potter books are much more internally-consistent than the books of the Abrahamic religions.

[Teachin'Mine]

Well, you brought some sunshine to my morning! I get that a bit as well.

 

 

I've no doubt that others say that and mean it as it was taken. However, it's not at all what I thought or meant in what I wrote.