I don't understand why a Swedenborgian is so invested in the claims about the shroud.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: November 5, 2024, 3:25 pm
Thread Rating:
Evidence: The Gathering
|
Ok, so the answer actually is "no". Wooters: To save some time, for future reference, a dubious documentary isn't a citation. You made a claim to a scientific study; you ought to be able to cite the research paper so it can be verified. Where for instance are the History Channel's sources? See, you can't simply throw in one voice of alleged authority and expect not to be called on it.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(July 22, 2015 at 8:32 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You do realize that questioning the source doesn't refute the message? The fact remains that the facial proportions of the image are consistent with its use a a wrapping. The claim of the earlier poster about 'distortion' is not true. What are you talking about? Of course it does! The entire argument from authority fallacy is based around the idea that inappropriate authorities cannot be trusted on their opinions alone. The source regularly means that the message is refuted: it's why we won't take David Barton as a source on US history, why taking a layman's opinion on scientific topics is inappropriate, and so on. To say that a questionable source has no impact upon the message is simply foolishness, and in this case is just special pleading toward your source because it says something you want to be true. Tell me, if I'd used a source with a history of inaccurate reporting to disprove something you believed in, would you still be so insistent that questionable sources as fine?
"YOU take the hard look in the mirror. You are everything that is wrong with this world. The only thing important to you, is you." - ronedee
Want to see more of my writing? Check out my (safe for work!) site, Unprotected Sects! RE: Evidence: The Gathering
July 22, 2015 at 10:38 am
(This post was last modified: July 22, 2015 at 10:39 am by Cyberman.)
Case in point: Bart Sibrel's documentary "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" and its sequels all prove that the Apollo landings were faked. QED. Fuck the physical and historical evidence.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
RE: Evidence: The Gathering
July 22, 2015 at 11:25 am
(This post was last modified: July 22, 2015 at 11:26 am by JesusHChrist.)
Well, to be fair, The History Channel's docu-drivel is where religious batshittery belongs; suitable for supping by gullible saps.
More like the Hysterical Channel... History Channel, right...
I reject your reality and substitute my own!
(July 22, 2015 at 11:25 am)JesusHChrist Wrote: Well, to be fair, The History Channel's docu-drivel is where religious batshittery belongs; suitable for supping by gullible saps. Now, now . . . they don't just provide questionable history lessons and docu-drivel for the superstitious and conspiracy theorists. They are also a useful recruiting arm for the military. (July 20, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Esquilax Wrote:(July 20, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No, dude. The fact that there is a painting of the shroud that is older than the flawed C-14 dating suggests for the age of the shroud is an inconvenient fact that you cannot explain. That was a lot of typing in order to say nothing. Objectively speaking, the Shroud of Turin cannot be proved to be the burial cloth of Jesus, can it? We both know and agree on this. Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it. MOST crucified people were not scourged first. MOST crucified people did not have a lance wound in their side. AND to hear you boys tell the tale, MOST crucified people weren't even buried at all...they were left to rot on the cross or thrown into a shallow grave. So, that makes this shroud kinda unique, doesn't it? Oh, and all that pollen and stuff that has been documented from the shroud...you know the stuff that only grows in a tiny region of ISRAEL...wow, what a coincidence that the forger was smart enough to TAKE his canvas to Palestine first...just so he could contaminate it with pollen spores native to NOT EUROPE. But hey, I say it's probable; you say it's not. I say it's another clue that leads some to faith; you say no way. Whatever. Meanwhile, the boys in the lab are coming to the conclusion that there is nothing else like this piece of cloth known to man. (July 22, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it. From this I gather, you didn't look at the Smithsonian video. No surprise here. Truth is, we know nothing about the provenience of the shroud. We only know that it surfaced when relics were the commodity to make a fortune. And as long as the church doesn't grant another invasive procedure on the shroud, it will stay that way. (July 22, 2015 at 6:49 pm)abaris Wrote:(July 22, 2015 at 6:44 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Where we differ is in our views of what we can BELIEVE about the shroud based upon all the information we know about it. Have you ever read a book on the Shroud of Turin? If so, what was the title? |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)