Judgement, Injustice, and love

Originally posted by googlefudge
no,
assuming it isn't a fake, which is a big assumption,
There are a myriad of ways the image could have been formed without divine intervention,
thus it is not evidence for a miracle.

Can you name a couple that were available in 31 A.D. ?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You aparently did not read this about "shrouds" from Wikipedia:

Shroud usually refers to an item, such as a cloth, that covers or protects
some other object. The term is most often used in reference to burial sheets,
winding-cloths or winding-sheets, such as the famous Shroud of Turin or
Tachrichim (burial shrouds) that Jews are dressed in for burial. ...[text shortened]... strips of linen cloth like the Eqyptian mummies. They
used linen sheets called "shrouds".

try as you might, you have not refuted a single one of the points i presented with supporting quotes from the bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you suggesting Jesus was a mummy, brother?

the egyptian method of mummification follows a completely different procedure which requires removal of organs and embalming, a process likely reserved for royalty and the rich. the jews did not use this practice.

the method of cleaning, anointing with oils and spices and wrapping in strips of linen was a jewish burial custom, a custom shared by many other cultures.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Can you name a couple that were available in 31 A.D. ?

Well there are numerous possibilities, to say what is likely in this instance I would need
access to the shroud to do tests on it to find out what it's made of/coated in/ect.
Something the catholic church wont allow.
I am not about to just wildly speculate on what it could be when it's not even clear it was
made in 31AD.

However to claim it as a miracle you need to demonstrate it's not possible for it to be anything
but magic/work of god and for that you need it to be physically impossible.
It evidently isn't physically impossible to make a faint image of a man on a cloth, thus it is not,
and can't be claimed as, a miracle.

I have to say that your 'miracles' are ridiculously mundane parlour tricks.

If your god is as powerful as you claim then he could do vastly more impressive feats than making
a really faint image of a man appear on a piece of cloth.

Like my suggestion of rearranging the solar system inserting a few hundred extra earth like planets
for us to colonise, or by making earth 10 times larger but with the same surface gravity.
Stuff the breaks the laws of physics, but should be trivial for your god to do, and would be actually
useful.

Instead you claim parlour tricks as miracles that any half decent magician can outdo.

Your problem is you are far to easily impressed, you claim a god capable of creating the entire universe,
a god of infinite age, and understanding, and power, and then say some tiny triviality is proof of his existence.

You want proof of an extraordinary being you need extraordinary proof.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
try as you might, you have not refuted a single one of the points i presented with supporting quotes from the bible.

None of your quotes prove anything that is related to the shroud of Turin
being a fraud.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the egyptian method of mummification follows a completely different procedure which requires removal of organs and embalming, a process likely reserved for royalty and the rich. the jews did not use this practice.

the method of cleaning, anointing with oils and spices and wrapping in strips of linen was a jewish burial custom, a custom shared by many other cultures.

As I pointed out before there is no record of the Jews using strips of cloth
except to cover the face. They used linen sheets called "shrouds" like the
famous Shroud of Turin to wrap the body. I quoted this to you from the
wikipedia article on the "shroud".

P.S. Do you have any idea why they had 75 pounds of spices to cover
the body of Jesus? Doesn't that seem like a little over-kill?

Originally posted by RJHinds
None of your quotes prove anything that is related to the shroud of Turin
being a fraud.

that's okay, i don't have to convince you. you ignore all the inconvenient parts of the bible anyways, i wouldn't expect you to believe what the bible says about strips of linen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You aparently did not read this about "shrouds" from Wikipedia:

Shroud usually refers to an item, such as a cloth, that covers or protects
some other object. The term is most often used in reference to burial sheets,
winding-cloths or winding-sheets, such as the famous Shroud of Turin or
Tachrichim (burial shrouds) that Jews are dressed in for burial. ...[text shortened]... strips of linen cloth like the Eqyptian mummies. They
used linen sheets called "shrouds".

did you stop reading the article after point? that custom was invented in the 2nd century.

and i already told you the egyptian method is different, but you choose to embrace your ignorance instead.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well there are numerous possibilities, to say what is likely in this instance I would need
access to the shroud to do tests on it to find out what it's made of/coated in/ect.
Something the catholic church wont allow.
I am not about to just wildly speculate on what it could be when it's not even clear it was
made in 31AD.

However to claim it as a ...[text shortened]... his existence.

You want proof of an extraordinary being you need extraordinary proof.

The Shroud of Turin has already been put under many tests by
scientist. Isn't their reports of their findings enough for you?
What do you think they did not test exactly? I think that our
own existence is extraordinary proof enough that God exists.
It is good enough for me, but perhaps I am too easy to please.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
that's okay, i don't have to convince you. you ignore all the inconvenient parts of the bible anyways, i wouldn't expect you to believe what the bible says about strips of linen.

The Holy Bible does not say anything about "strips" of linen. There is no
word there that could be translated "Strips".

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Shroud of Turin has already been put under many tests by
scientist. Isn't their reports of their findings enough for you?
What do you think they did not test exactly? I think that our
own existence is extraordinary proof enough that God exists.
It is good enough for me, but perhaps I am too easy to please.

What is your preferred translation of John 20:7 ?

and how do you reconcile that with your shroud?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
What is your preferred translation of John 20:7 ?

and how do you reconcile that with your shroud?

I guess the New Internation Version comes closest. The other translation would
be good if they would stop adding words like - wrappings, strips, cloths, clothes

http://niv.scripturetext.com/john/20-7.htm

http://interlinearbible.org/john/20-7.htm

Originally posted by Suzianne
PK, there is always going to be an enmity between atheists and Christians. From your post, I can see that you seem confused as to why this should be.

The basis of it is this.

To Christians and to God, rejecting God is a sin. Not only is it a sin, it is probably the only sin that cannot be atoned for by the redemptive salvation of Christ's sacrifice because I know you're not buying anything I'm saying. Forgive me for trying.)

I understand all that Suzianne. But it doesn't still explain why you continually feel the need to make disparaging remarks about atheists. If you feel it is your job to save us atheists from the 'precipice', maybe you should change your style. Insulting me will get you nowhere.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I understand all that Suzianne. But it doesn't still explain why you continually feel the need to make disparaging remarks about atheists.

general suzzianne grievous: i have you now, proper obi wan ka knob
proper obi wan ka knob: i thought you'd be taller general suzzianne grievous
general suzzianne grievous : atheist scum!

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Shroud of Turin has already been put under many tests by
scientist. Isn't their reports of their findings enough for you?
What do you think they did not test exactly? I think that our
own existence is extraordinary proof enough that God exists.
It is good enough for me, but perhaps I am too easy to please.

That is because you by into the idea of creationism and intelligent design.
Both of which are scientifically debunked, and even if they were not they are not explanations of anything.

The natural world (and our existence) would only be evidence for god if and only if it was impossible
for them to have come about ANY other way.

To determine that you would have to rule out every other possibility first.

As it is quite possible to explain the world around us without any recourse to god the world around us is not
evidence for let alone proof of god.


You are trying to argue for a god of the gaps, what you are too ignorant to be able to explain (and I say you here
because you are claiming gaps that no longer exist) you try to explain by saying god did it.
However god did it is not any kind of explanation.
You can't explain a mystery by claiming it was done by another mystery.
We don't understand god (due to his total apparent non-existence if nothing else) and thus can't use god to explain
anything.


As for the shroud...
How many times do I have to say I don't give a damn if the shroud were genuine or not?
It's irrelevant to the discussion of whether god exists or JC was divine.
It doesn't demonstrate anything supernatural.
Even if I can't tell you how the image formed on the cloth (I might if allowed access to the cloth with the right equipment
but that's not happening) that doesn't mean it's justifiable to say god did it.
You would have to rule out all possible non-miraculous methods first and frankly you are never going to do that because there
are many ways of creating an image and even if people when it was made (fake or genuine, medieval or biblical) made it by
pure accident due to some combination of chemicals that was light sensitive that is vastly more plausible than god did it.
And again, doesn't prove who JC was, or that he existed, or that he came back from the dead, or that he was the son of god,
or that he could perform miracles.

Again what you claim as miracles (apart from claiming the entire universe as a miracle but you have no justification for that as I
explained earlier and many times before) any half decent magician could outdo, look at the gap between the kind of thing I would
describe as miraculous (total breach of laws of physics as the planet increases its size by a factor of ten while retaining it's habitability
with no earthquakes of volcanoes or change in surface gravity, and/or hundreds of new earth like ready terraformed planets
impossibly orbiting around vast new gas giants all orbiting perfectly stably in impossible orbits around the sun) with what you claim
as a miracle.
You claim your god is all powerful and yet claim parlour tricks as proof.
You can't claim the universe as proof because we can explain that without god, meaning that it isn't proof of, or even evidence for, god.