Prove the Shroud of Turin a Fake

Originally posted by Suzianne
And frankly, that's about as bad as what twhitehead's been doing to me in this forum.

Now thats totally unfair. Your starting to get persecution complex as bad as Robbies.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You defintely have your head up your arse this time.

There is no way you are a 2200 chess rating. Conversing with you feels arguing with a retarded 6 year old.

stick a fake glory glory hallelujah on that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Well, there we go.

You let your internal bias color everything you hear when someone says "the Church", calling everything coming after that "scriptural nonsense". That's as bad as the atheists going around with their fingers in their ears, adding nothing to the conversation.

And yet, you make these snap decisions about me, even though I've tried to ...[text shortened]... And frankly, that's about as bad as what twhitehead's been doing to me in this forum.

Don't be so deliberately obtuse.

My comment about "Church" is reflective of yours and Hinds view that saying "the Church believes! or "the Church accepts" somehow lends credence to something (anything), it doesn't. It is a superficial thing for you to say when most here do not accept that the catholic Church stands for anything nor is able to validate anything. The catholic Church has rejected the the head wrapping as being authentic anyway.

What's wrong with snap decisions anyway? We live in a fast world online, you are what you post. As I see it you are discounting scripture in favor of what the "church" says or at least holding an option open. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Now thats totally unfair. Your starting to get persecution complex as bad as Robbies.

No way. Carrobie and Galveston cultivated persecution complexes second to none here; true masterpieces of self-delusion and reinforced circular thinking.

Originally posted by divegeester
There is no way you are a 2200 chess rating. Conversing with you feels arguing with a retarded 6 year old.

stick a fake glory glory hallelujah on that.

With you against a retarded 6 year old at chess, I am betting on the 6 year old. 😏

Originally posted by divegeester
As I see it you are discounting scripture in favor of what the "church" says or at least holding an option open.

Yes, I am holding the option open. I have not been convinced of its validity or its falsity. I don't believe there is ample evidence for either side.

I still don't see how you think I am "discounting" scripture.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did not say it was going to be taken to a court. I was just suggesting there is enough evidence to make a good circumstantial case.

Yes, and I was pointing out that this 'suggestion' was utterly nonsensical.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Yes, and I was pointing out that this 'suggestion' was utterly nonsensical.

And that just shows how ignorant you are. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
And that just shows how ignorant you are. 🙄

And yet you are unable to list any actual evidence suggesting that his artefact is anything other than a clever fake.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
And yet you are unable to list any actual evidence suggesting that his artefact is anything other than a clever fake.

I did better thab that. I posted links to information and videos from actual investigators of the Shroud. Here is one example:

YouTube

Originally posted by Suzianne
Yes, I am holding the option open. I have not been convinced of its validity or its falsity. I don't believe there is ample evidence for either side.

I still don't see how you think I am "discounting" scripture.

In terms of the evidence, yes I agree it could be either way.

But, I do think you are discounting that scripture which says it is 2 pieces (in terms of the Turin shroud that is).

Originally posted by RJHinds
I did better thab that. I posted links to information and videos from actual investigators of the Shroud. Here is one example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJqoAef9VHA

That you think that this constitutes evidence only debases your position further.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
That you think that this constitutes evidence only debases your position further.

How about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57410982/controversial-new-theories-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

Originally posted by RJHinds
How about this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-57410982/controversial-new-theories-on-the-shroud-of-turin/

No, it's just more nonsense.

Look, take a pot of ground charcoal and spread it all over your face. Then get a cloth and gently drape it over your face and pat it down, transferring your image onto the cloth in charcoal. Then very carefully remove the cloth and lay it on a flat surface, charcoal side up. You will see that the image is not a flat, photographic representation of your face in the way that the image on the Turin shroud is. It makes no sense at all to believe that the image of Jesus would be transferred as a photographic image onto a flat sheet if that artefact were actually wrapped around his body.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
No, it's just more nonsense.

Look, take a pot of ground charcoal and spread it all over your face. Then get a cloth and gently drape it over your face and pat it down, transferring your image onto the cloth in charcoal. Then very carefully remove the cloth and lay it on a flat surface, charcoal side up. You will see that the image is not a flat, ...[text shortened]... a photographic image onto a flat sheet if that artefact were actually wrapped around his body.

Apparently it makes sense to the scientific researchers.

P.S. It does not make sense to you because you are ignorant of the facts.