04 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe shroud is a hoax. So are any claims regarding the ark. That you are willing to believe any story that you think supports your religion only shows how desperate you are to cling on to your religion and how worried you are that it is wrong.
That is what you think. The shroud of Turin was also attempted to be
exposed as a hoax and a fraud with no success.
04 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou may not be aware of it but I have already provided proof that
The shroud is a hoax. So are any claims regarding the ark. That you are willing to believe any story that you think supports your religion only shows how desperate you are to cling on to your religion and how worried you are that it is wrong.
the scientists admitted that their carbon 14 dating was in error and
one of them stating that the shroud may be 2000 years old.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsI am aware of it. It is still a hoax. And you are still clinging on to "it may be" and such phrasing because you desperately want it to be true. There are no good religious reasons for thinking the shroud is genuine, and there are no good scientific reasons. Yet you still want it to be genuine.
You may not be aware of it but I have already provided proof that
the scientists admitted that their carbon 14 dating was in error and
one of them stating that the shroud may be 2000 years old.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe shroud is highly likely to be a hoax, however that is irrelevant.
You may not be aware of it but I have already provided proof that
the scientists admitted that their carbon 14 dating was in error and
one of them stating that the shroud may be 2000 years old.
If it were a cloth that was wrapped around a man who had been crucified 2000 yrs ago
that means nothing.
Many many people were executed by crucifixion 2000 yrs ago, the fact that we have a cloth
that one of them was wrapped in does not prove who that person was, and it doesn't prove
anything they did while alive, and it doesn't prove that they came back to life after dying.
And the ark/flood story/find is categorically false/fake.
There was, and has been, no worldwide flood killing all but a handful of the people on earth.
And there certainly hasn't been one in the last 6 thousand years.
Belief in such things is idiotic.
05 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe Shroud of Turin and "Face-cloth of Christ" have not been proven to be
I am aware of it. It is still a hoax. And you are still clinging on to "it may be" and such phrasing because you desperately want it to be true. There are no good religious reasons for thinking the shroud is genuine, and there are no good scientific reasons. Yet you still want it to be genuine.
hoaxes. I believe there is enough evidence that they are genuine. There is
not one shread of evidence that proves they are a fake.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe evidence gained from the Shroud of Turin indicates a man crucified and
The shroud is highly likely to be a hoax, however that is irrelevant.
If it were a cloth that was wrapped around a man who had been crucified 2000 yrs ago
that means nothing.
Many many people were executed by crucifixion 2000 yrs ago, the fact that we have a cloth
that one of them was wrapped in does not prove who that person was, and it doesn't ...[text shortened]... certainly hasn't been one in the last 6 thousand years.
Belief in such things is idiotic.
beaten, including the crown of thorns and the side wound from the spear,
exactly like is discribed of Jesus. Very strong evidence in the opinion of
many investigators.
Time will tell if the discovery of Noah's Ark is genuine or not, but you
can visit Jerusalem and see the empty tomb for yourself.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsSo what????
The evidence gained from the Shroud of Turin indicates a man crucified and
beaten, including the crown of thorns and the side wound from the spear,
exactly like is discribed of Jesus. Very strong evidence in the opinion of
many investigators.
Time will tell if the discovery of Noah's Ark is genuine or not, but you
can visit Jerusalem and see the empty tomb for yourself.
The claim I object to is not that there was a guy called Jesus who got crucified,
it's that this guy was the son of god and could do miracles.
The fact that you (probably don't) have a cloth this guy was wrapped in, and have
an empty tomb into which he may or may not have been put at some point,
says absolutely nothing about whether he was the son of god or performed miracles.
I really don't understand how you don't get this.
You are trying to prove something I don't disagree with or care about.
What you want is proof that JC was the son of god, and could perform miracles,
not proof (which you still don't have) that a guy called JC existed.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeI have 13 games awaiting my move so I don't have time to get into
So what????
The claim I object to is not that there was a guy called Jesus who got crucified,
it's that this guy was the son of god and could do miracles.
The fact that you (probably don't) have a cloth this guy was wrapped in, and have
an empty tomb into which he may or may not have been put at some point,
says absolutely nothing about whether h ...[text shortened]... ld perform miracles,
not proof (which you still don't have) that a guy called JC existed.
this; but if you are a hard-core atheist I will not be able to help you
understand anyway.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsMy atheism hasn't got anything to do with this.
I have 13 games awaiting my move so I don't have time to get into
this; but if you are a hard-core atheist I will not be able to help you
understand anyway.
I am arguing that you don't have evidence that JC was the son of god, or could perform miracles.
You respond by trying to present evidence that JC existed.
Whether JC existed or not is irrelevant, the question is "is JC the son of god?"
Your 'evidence' doesn't answer that question.
What I don't understand is how you can't understand that the evidence you are presenting is
evidence (momentarily granting it to be genuine) for the existence not the divinity of JC.
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe point is that we can believe what the Holy Bible tells us about Jesus, if
My atheism hasn't got anything to do with this.
I am arguing that you don't have evidence that JC was the son of god, or could perform miracles.
You respond by trying to present evidence that JC existed.
Whether JC existed or not is irrelevant, the question is "is JC the son of god?"
Your 'evidence' doesn't answer that question.
What I don't ...[text shortened]... dence (momentarily granting it to be genuine) for the existence not the divinity of JC.
He existed as a real person and His resurrection really occurred as He had
prophecied. The empty tomb along with the burial garments support the
fact that He did rise from the dead and therefore we can trust the other
things He said like being the son of man and the Son of God. As the apostle
Paul said, "Our faith is in vain if He has not risen."
06 Nov 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe shroud is not a proven hoax. Try again.
The shroud is a hoax. So are any claims regarding the ark. That you are willing to believe any story that you think supports your religion only shows how desperate you are to cling on to your religion and how worried you are that it is wrong.