13 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouseSonhouse, I want to go back to this post of yours for a moment. I am well aware of the atrosities that go on around the world. Mostly done in the name of religion, but only in name. As the truth is, greed and power. In Africa, it is a thing of power to control the "soul" of another. This control is accomplished by exploiting those whom oppose you. Selling young girls and boys into slavery. (most of whom do not live past 12yrs old). In Asia Minor, it is very similar. Exploitation of children mostly, and women, into perversions that would make you sick.
And you can't even begin to understand the degradation of human attributes assigned to gods. You swollow the ponzi scheme of religion hook line and sinker, not even CONSIDERING the idea the whole concept of your god as just made up by men who wished to set up a religion that could trap people for the express purpose of control.
I would never say there c ...[text shortened]... gious food chain.
Don't you think it strange the top leaders are the ones with the mansions?
I see it all, and more.
I've already spoken to you of my spiritual work; to a point.
Remember, we think physical, all the time. The truth is, we are more than just a physical being, we are spiritual too.
I know where you stand about religion, no big deal in my mind. And maybe to the surprise of some, it is no big deal that you don't believe in God either. I do know that you care deeply for others, that you are rich with compassion. The healing of the world starts with one person reaching out to another. Let's work on that.
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by KellyJayListen, the Democrats are not giving anyone anything. They just made not
Listen, the Democrats are giving anyone anything. They just made not
having insurance illegal and put a fine on it. On top of that they forced
the cost of all things up making cost more.
Kelly
having insurance illegal and put a fine on it. On top of that they forced
the cost of all things up making cost more.
small correction sorry
Kelly
Originally posted by SuzianneThe first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves. The Republicans in Congress worked to write and to pass the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. These landmark amendments to the Constitution helped to outlaw slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the laws, and to secure voting rights for African American men.
At least the Democrats are trying to give ALL Americans a chance to have insured healthcare. The Republicans are trying to stop that from happening. Republicans are the old, rich, white men I referenced earlier. They want to focus all the nation's (actually the world's) wealth to themselves, and screw everyone else. These are the people who fought tooth ...[text shortened]... . You're being led around by the nose, Ron, and the fact is that you're actually proud of that.
In 1896, the GOP made the first strides towards women’s suffrage. The Nineteenth Amendment was successfully ratified because 26 of 36 state legislatures were under the control of the GOP at the time.
The Civil Rights Act of 1957, Pub.L. 85–315, 71 Stat. 634, enacted September 9, 1957, primarily a voting rights bill, was the first civil rights legislation enacted by Congress in the United States since Reconstruction following the American Civil War.
Following the historic US Supreme Court ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which eventually led to the integration of public schools, Southern whites in Virginia began a "Massive Resistance". Violence against blacks rose there and in other states, as in Little Rock, Arkansas, where that year Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower had ordered in federal troops to protect nine children integrating a public school, the first time the federal government had sent troops to the South since Reconstruction. There had been continued physical assaults against suspected activists and bombings of schools and churches in the South. The administration of Eisenhower proposed legislation to protect the right to vote by African Americans.
The Democratic Senate Majority Leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party, whose southern bloc was anti-civil rights and northern members were more pro-civil rights. Southern senators occupied chairs of numerous important committees due to their long seniority. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee, led by Senator James Eastland from Mississippi, who proceeded to change and alter the bill almost beyond recognition. Democratic Senator Richard Russell from Georgia had claimed the bill was an example of the federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from civil rights advocates for passing the bill, while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for reducing it so much as to kill it.
Democratic Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, an ardent segregationist, sustained the longest one-person filibuster in history in an attempt to keep the bill from becoming law. His one-man filibuster lasted 24 hours and 18 minutes; he began with readings of every state's election laws in alphabetical order. Thurmond later read from the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and George Washington's Farewell Address. His speech set the record for a Senate filibuster. The bill passed the House with a vote of 285 to 126 (Republicans 167-19 for, Democrats 118-107 for) and the Senate 72 to 18 (Republicans 43-0 for, Democrats 29-18 for). President Eisenhower signed it on September 9, 1957.
Although Democratic Senator Lyndon Johnson had fought against the 1957 Civil Rights Act during the Eisenhower administration, he will always be remembered for his later statement before Congress to honor President Kennedy's memory by the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long and for signing that 1964 Civil Rights Act as President. However, that bill would never have passed without overwhelming support from Republicans in the House and Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
http://www.policymic.com/articles/12137/how-the-gop-lost-the-african-american-vote-and-their-civil-rights-reputation
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
The Instructor
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou have no evidence the Shroud came from JC. It housed a person and that is it. It is just your desperation talking when you insist the shroud came from JC. I said for YOU to call on your god to explain why it is a no show during hundreds of millions of death. Surely it will listen to you.
Why do you ask about the where-abouts of the God you do not believe exists? Do you believe the Shroud of Turin exists?
The Instructor
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSo tell me, why do the republicans want to keep 20 million or more americans from getting health insurance? BTW, since the inception of obamacare, the prices for insurance on this open market has gone DOWN 16%.
The first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing the slaves. The Republicans in Congress worked to write and to pass the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. These landmark amendments to the Constitution helped to outlaw slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the laws, and to secure voting right ...[text shortened]... 2010/may/25/michael-steele/steele-says-gop-fought-hard-civil-rights-bills-196/
The Instructor
Republicans don't like THAT one bit, it bites into the superpac money because now the insurance companies won't be making trillions any more.
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe Shroud has all the evidence of all the injuries indicated in the Gospels of the crucifixion of Christ. The scorging, crown of throwns, spear wound in the side with no evidence of legs being broken were unique to the crucifixion of Christ. An honest look at all the evidence is proof enough that this Shroud with the super-natural image must be the one that was on Jesus at His resurrection.
You have no evidence the Shroud came from JC. It housed a person and that is it. It is just your desperation talking when you insist the shroud came from JC. I said for YOU to call on your god to explain why it is a no show during hundreds of millions of death. Surely it will listen to you.
The Instructor
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsYou are free to believe what you want. Just don't try to shove it down our throats.
The Shroud has all the evidence of all the injuries indicated in the Gospels of the crucifixion of Christ. The scorging, crown of throwns, spear wound in the side with no evidence of legs being broken were unique to the crucifixion of Christ. An honest look at all the evidence is proof enough that this Shroud with the super-natural image must be the one that was on Jesus at His resurrection.
The Instructor
14 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsJust caught that 'honest look' phrase. So you figure your having an agenda, that is to say, you want to prove that JC was real, and died in that cloth, THAT is an honest look.
The Shroud has all the evidence of all the injuries indicated in the Gospels of the crucifixion of Christ. The scorging, crown of throwns, spear wound in the side with no evidence of legs being broken were unique to the crucifixion of Christ. An honest look at all the evidence is proof enough that this Shroud with the super-natural image must be the one that was on Jesus at His resurrection.
The Instructor
Someone with no agenda just looking at the cloth will invariably give a dishonest look then? Like scientists trying to figure out if it is real or a fake and if real could it be EVER proven to be JC?
I assume in your mind, ANY discourse like that would be dishonest.
In your mind, you HAVE to go into it already believing.
Of course, that is not science. That is an agenda to prove it came from JC, at all costs no matter what the scientific data suggests.
15 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouseBarrie Schwortz was the official photographer for the only official scientific team to have examined the Shroud of Turin. Here is the beginning of a 12 part interview with him that I think even you would consider to be unbiased. Although he does not provide the kind of analysis as others, he at least gives the hard facts that should be considered.
Just caught that 'honest look' phrase. So you figure your having an agenda, that is to say, you want to prove that JC was real, and died in that cloth, THAT is an honest look.
Someone with no agenda just looking at the cloth will invariably give a dishonest look then? Like scientists trying to figure out if it is real or a fake and if real could it be EV ...[text shortened]... is an agenda to prove it came from JC, at all costs no matter what the scientific data suggests.
Shroud of Turin Expert Barrie Schwortz (1 of 12)
The Instructor
15 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsPhotography is only one tool to use, the others are deep isotopic analysis which cannot be done now because the Vatican will not allow more samples to be taken. It is a shame the samples were taken from a repaired part of the shroud but that is how it is and it looks like no real analysis is to be done any more.
Barrie Schwortz was the official photographer for the only official scientific team to have examined the Shroud of Turin. Here is the beginning of a 12 part interview with him that I think even you would consider to be unbiased. Although he does not provide the kind of analysis as others, he at least gives the hard facts that should be considered.
Shrou ...[text shortened]... Expert Barrie Schwortz (1 of 12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHaMEOPvbUA
The Instructor
Maybe 100 years from now we can do all the analysis through a window without touching it but that is as close as the Vatican will probably allow it to be analysed so there is no solid science behind it now that they found the portion taken was a repair job. There can be no effective microanalysis of the threads where the image appears so it is all up in the air.
16 Oct 13
Originally posted by sonhouseWell. it was enough evidence to convince Mr. Schwortz that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.
Photography is only one tool to use, the others are deep isotopic analysis which cannot be done now because the Vatican will not allow more samples to be taken. It is a shame the samples were taken from a repaired part of the shroud but that is how it is and it looks like no real analysis is to be done any more.
Maybe 100 years from now we can do all the ...[text shortened]... be no effective microanalysis of the threads where the image appears so it is all up in the air.
The Instructor
16 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsWhat about the views of the scientists, the data collected and the conclusions of the studies made. Surely that would be at least as reliable as the opinion of of a single member of the team, probably the least qualified of the lot
Well. it was enough evidence to convince Mr. Schwortz that the Shroud was the authentic burial cloth of Jesus.
The Instructor
The study he was involved in concluded that the piece analysed was from several hundred years after the death of Christ. It was then said that the piece was from a repair. The photographer himself is campaigning for another analysis of the original material. Why would the Vatican refuse this unless they were afraid it might turn out to be a fake?
--- Penguin
16 Oct 13
Originally posted by RJHindsSorry, but if the image is supernatural then there is no way to use science to determine its origin as 'supernatural' basically means 'defying the laws of science'.
An honest look at all the evidence is proof enough that this Shroud with the super-natural image must be the one that was on Jesus at His resurrection.
You must either claim it is supernatural and drop all claims that you have evidence that it is Jesus' burial cloth, or you must drop the claim that the supernatural is involved. You can't have both.