|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ye Old One
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
 |
|
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 09:05:49 +0100, "alwaysaskingquestions"
<alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BC23B1130lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alc3rF38ne4uU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2B35E947CClurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akfboF380jerU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB26300BDDA2lurker@195.188.240.200...
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually
means
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special" word-of-god
book admits the man was dead.
If science doesn't even know whether he was dead or not then an
argument about it being opposed is meaningless.
Your book claims he was dead. It was 2000 years ago, so how could
science possibly have anything to say about it?
Ah ... the penny's dropped at last.
Oh, it dropped ages ago. In fact, it was never undropped. But by your
logic, we can't know if any of the billions of people who have died stayed
dead. By your logic, maybe it happens all the time- after all, we weren't
there. The problem is, you only want it to apply in one single case.
You claim that science can't possibly say anything about it but you want to
argue that it is against science .... yet you are the one who accuses me of
making inane posts.
|
Well stop making inane posts.
| Quote: |
Having said that, you now seem to be arguing that perhaps he wasn't dead
after all. You may want to check Catholic teaching before going down that
route.
I was obviously being much too subtle, my point seems to have gone right
over everybody's head.
|
Only in your imagination.
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB369C595092lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6an0muF37rso1U1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BC23B1130lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alc3rF38ne4uU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2B35E947CClurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akfboF380jerU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB26300BDDA2lurker@195.188.240.200...
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually
means
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special"
word-of-god book admits the man was dead.
If science doesn't even know whether he was dead or not then an
argument about it being opposed is meaningless.
Your book claims he was dead. It was 2000 years ago, so how could
science possibly have anything to say about it?
Ah ... the penny's dropped at last.
Oh, it dropped ages ago. In fact, it was never undropped. But by your
logic, we can't know if any of the billions of people who have died
stayed dead. By your logic, maybe it happens all the time- after all,
we weren't there. The problem is, you only want it to apply in one
single case.
You claim that science can't possibly say anything about it but you
want to argue that it is against science ....
Science can't possibly say anything about a specific single case from
2000 years ago. What it can say is that dead people stay dead,
|
What it can say its that dead people *usually* stay dead.
| Quote: |
and to say
otherwise is to drive a horse and cart right through the world of
chemistry, biology and physics. Simple as that.
|
So any exception is totally beyond every natural law that we know of.
Umm... religion agrees with that
<snip new red herring about Joshua> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB368BA21404lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6an14jF38hvniU1@mid.individual.net:
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ilf1k.3695$xZ.1349@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
May I make a suggestion? Start a prayer journal. Record what you
pray about and what you don't pray about and see how much prayer
actually affects what happens in your life. If you are honest, truly
honest, you should see some interesting results. No equivocations
allowed.
I already have seen plenty of interesting results.
You may want to look at the subject of probability. It used to be my
thing,
before I went off into the world of IT security. In short, strange things
and odd coincidences not only might happen, they have to happen. You can
actually make a living betting on it, if you have the confidence (which I
don't, although I have won a few drinks in my time, before my friends told
me to shut up). It's actually a subject that finally convinced me beyond
doubt that a lot of what is said to be miraculous is nothing of the sort,
just highly unlikely but nevertheless inevitable.
|
You are making assumptions about what I mean by interesting results. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6an14jF38hvniU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ilf1k.3695$xZ.1349@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
May I make a suggestion? Start a prayer journal. Record what you
pray about and what you don't pray about and see how much prayer
actually affects what happens in your life. If you are honest, truly
honest, you should see some interesting results. No equivocations
allowed.
I already have seen plenty of interesting results.
|
You may want to look at the subject of probability. It used to be my thing,
before I went off into the world of IT security. In short, strange things
and odd coincidences not only might happen, they have to happen. You can
actually make a living betting on it, if you have the confidence (which I
don't, although I have won a few drinks in my time, before my friends told
me to shut up). It's actually a subject that finally convinced me beyond
doubt that a lot of what is said to be miraculous is nothing of the sort,
just highly unlikely but nevertheless inevitable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 04, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6an0muF37rso1U1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2BC23B1130lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6alc3rF38ne4uU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB2B35E947CClurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6akfboF380jerU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB26300BDDA2lurker@195.188.240.200...
1) A good starting point might be defining what 'dead' actually
means
Nope. You can't go down that route. Even your "special"
word-of-god book admits the man was dead.
If science doesn't even know whether he was dead or not then an
argument about it being opposed is meaningless.
Your book claims he was dead. It was 2000 years ago, so how could
science possibly have anything to say about it?
Ah ... the penny's dropped at last.
Oh, it dropped ages ago. In fact, it was never undropped. But by your
logic, we can't know if any of the billions of people who have died
stayed dead. By your logic, maybe it happens all the time- after all,
we weren't there. The problem is, you only want it to apply in one
single case.
You claim that science can't possibly say anything about it but you
want to argue that it is against science ....
|
Science can't possibly say anything about a specific single case from
2000 years ago. What it can say is that dead people stay dead, and to say
otherwise is to drive a horse and cart right through the world of
chemistry, biology and physics. Simple as that. Equally, science can't
possibly say that the world stopped moving for a day several thousand
years ago (as your book claims). What it can say is that if it happened,
it would equally destroy the known laws of science. Now, I'm guessing you
don't believe the story about the world stopping for a day (although I'm
not sure why not, since the bible clearly states it did), but it's no
more ridiculous than the idea of a man coming back to life. You don't get
exemptions for your chosen religion, you don't get to pick and choose.
yet you are the one who
> accuses me of making inane posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OyC1k.6348$mh5.1714@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 6/4/2008 10:01 AM, alwaysaskingquestions went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:csKdnU2M37iNW9vVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews.com...
Vernon Balbert <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in
(re Shroud of Turin)
a) there's ONE scientist who currently believes that the shroud is
genuine and thinks the tests may be botched up and they could be off
by over 1,000 years.
(glance at wiki)
If you mean this guy, he doesn't even think that much.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
However, the 2008 research at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit
may
revise the 1260-1390 dating toward which it originally contributed,
leading its director Christopher Ramsey to call the scientific community
to probe anew the authenticity of the Shroud.[6][7] "With the
radiocarbon
measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the
Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the
different evidence" Christopher Ramsey said to BBC News in 2008, after
the new research emerged.[8] Despite keeping an open mind,
(now here's the payoff bit)
Ramsey has stressed that he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were
shown to be far off, let alone "a thousand years wrong."
"Surprised if" = "I don't really know" as illustrated by the fact that he
has since agreed that new tests need to be done.
Actually, in this case "surprised if" = "I'm an expert at radiocarbon
dating and my informed opinion is..." He's not just shooting in the dark.
He knows what he's talking about.
|
He certainly does - and he's expressing uncertainty, enough to agree that
the tests need to be redone.
| Quote: |
"Professor Christopher Ramsey, head of the Oxford University Radiocarbon
Accelerator Unit, has agreed to test Jackson's hypothesis that
contamination by carbon monoxide could throw off radiocarbon dating by
more than a millennium ... Ramsey also acknowledged the need to reconcile
radiocarbon-dating results with other forensic and historical evidence
that indicate the shroud is much older than 600 to 700 years old."
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/16451740/detail.html
It's Jackson I was referring to, not Ramsey.
|
And you suggested that he is the only scientiest to dispute the results;
he's not, there have been others, he is the one who has made a convincing
enough case that Ramsey agrees the tests should be redone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Féachadóir
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Scríobh Ilas <nobody@this.address.com>:
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6anui9F37hn5fU2@mid.individual.net:
Of the thousands of claims made about cures in Lourdes in the last 150
years, only 67 have been recognised as miracles.
Wow. So that's only the 67 suspensions of the laws of biology, chemistry
and physics. In one tiny town in France. I didn't realise miracles were
quite so scarce.
|
God must be a real bastard, ignoring all those other thousands.
| Quote: |
You do know that "inexplicable" cures happen all the time, don't you? You
do know that it's because we don't know everything about biology and
disease, don't you?
|
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB45E4D75E41lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6anui9F37hn5fU2@mid.individual.net:
|
Most relevent bit restored:
| Quote: |
' [If the Lourdes Medical Bureau ] decides that further investigation is
warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical
Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel
of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines from around the
world
(and of different religious beliefs) ... CMIL is not entitled to pronounce
a
cure "miraculous"; this must be done by the Church. The bureau may only
pronounce that a cure is "medically inexplicable".'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
Of the thousands of claims made about cures in Lourdes in the last 150
years, only 67 have been recognised as miracles.
Wow. So that's only the 67 suspensions of the laws of biology, chemistry
and physics. In one tiny town in France. I didn't realise miracles were
quite so scarce.
You do know that "inexplicable" cures happen all the time, don't you? You
do know that it's because we don't know everything about biology and
disease, don't you?
|
You were trying to some sort of point about things that can be tested
(though you didn't really follow it up).
Lourdes was one of the examples you picked. As it turns out, that is a place
where the Church insists on independent medical (i.e. scientific) tests
before it even expresses an opinion of her own and it never gives an opinion
in conflict with the results of those independent tests. Quoting Lourdes as
an example of the Church in conflict with science was not one of your better
ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6anui9F37hn5fU2@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
Of the thousands of claims made about cures in Lourdes in the last 150
years, only 67 have been recognised as miracles.
|
Wow. So that's only the 67 suspensions of the laws of biology, chemistry
and physics. In one tiny town in France. I didn't realise miracles were
quite so scarce.
You do know that "inexplicable" cures happen all the time, don't you? You
do know that it's because we don't know everything about biology and
disease, don't you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ao032F3840pnU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:csKdnU2M37iNW9vVnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@giganews.com...
Ramsey has stressed that he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were
shown to be far off, let alone "a thousand years wrong."
"Surprised if" = "I don't really know"
|
No it doesn't. Truly, it doesn't. Even if you really, really, really want
it to mean that, it doesn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RGC1k.6350$mh5.6220@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 6/4/2008 9:35 AM, alwaysaskingquestions went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB3A8AF82871lurker@195.188.240.200...
|
[....]
| Quote: |
And let's not start on the Shroud of Turin.
Ummm ... Vernon already did but didn't even get the basics right.
On the contrary. See my replies.
|
You said:
"The only physical proof your church can offer is a cloth made in the 13th
century that it believes is the burial cloth of Christ and has the actual
image of Christ embedded in it even in the face of physical evidence to the
contrary."
My church does not offer it as proof of anything, my church does not even
take a stance on whether it is genuine or not and the physical evidence you
refer to is under dispute - not by the Church but by scientists.
I think that's just about as wrong as you can get. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6apnldF38nqouU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
Lourdes was one of the examples you picked. As it turns out, that is a
place where the Church insists on independent medical (i.e.
scientific) tests before it even expresses an opinion of her own and
it never gives an opinion in conflict with the results of those
independent tests. Quoting Lourdes as an example of the Church in
conflict with science was not one of your better ideas.
|
Let me say this very slowly. The church is almost never in conflict with
science, and that's what I've said all along. That's because the Catholic
church has learned its lesson. It's not because the Catholic church is
science friendly, it's because the Catholic church has been made to look
veeeeery silly in the past, and the people who run it don't want that to
happen again. They may be deluded but they aint stupid. That's why they
stick to the unverifiable crap like Jesus coming back from the dead. It's
why transubstantiation has undergone a bit of a change in the past. It's
why the number of "miracles" keeps falling. Lourdes is the same sort of
crap. When we get verfiable evidence of somebody whose leg grows back, then
please, feel free to gloat. Until then, the "miracles" at Lourdes are
nothing of the sort, they're just the occasional inexplicable oddities and
misdiagnoses that happen, the sort of thing that happens every week in
hospitals, given extra prominance because they happend in Lourdes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
Féachadóir <Féach@d.óir> wrote in
news:tmaf44t7pdeo5p9m4ctsempg6e94d5d816@4ax.com:
| Quote: |
Scríobh Ilas <nobody@this.address.com>:
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6anui9F37hn5fU2@mid.individual.net:
Of the thousands of claims made about cures in Lourdes in the last
150 years, only 67 have been recognised as miracles.
Wow. So that's only the 67 suspensions of the laws of biology,
chemistry and physics. In one tiny town in France. I didn't realise
miracles were quite so scarce.
God must be a real bastard, ignoring all those other thousands.
|
And not one limb grew back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB566B848CEAlurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ascemF38n4q3U1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB563C6DD0CElurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6asadfF39l9q1U1@mid.individual.net:
"chris thompson" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b07a49b8-488a-462f-bb4c-2ae1319405eb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m.
Given all that, what's _your_ take on the Shroud? Do you think it
is genuine? When I say genuine, I mean the whole nine yards- do you
believe that the cloth miraculously accepted the image of Christ
during the Passion, with all that entails?
I think it is *probably* a fake but I don't have a firm view either
way. I think the carbon-dating is actually a bit of a blind alley,
because *if* the shroud is genuine, we don't know what effect the
resurrection could have had on the fabric itself;
If carbon dating proves it's only a few hundred years old, then that
could be because the resurrection screws up carbon dating. Do we know
this? Have we any proof?
My point precisely.
Yes. It was a fantastic point, very well made. As I say, I'm in awe - as
mental gymanstics go, that was a triple back flip with a quadruple twist.
Has anyone any data on what resurrections do to cloth? Nope,
and they never could have. But it *could* happen.
Brilliant. Just brilliant. I stand in awe.
Just as I stand in awe of your inability to grasp basic points.
Basic points? Good grief. The fact that you think that carbon dating of
the Turin shroud can't be trusted because cloth might be affected by a
god/man coming back to life is quite astounding.
|
And you don't think it's an argument that would be used by those who are
convinced the shroud is genuine? (Which group, I've already pointed out,
does not include me.)
| Quote: |
Have you never
considered that the mental contortions that you have to go through to
maintain your beliefs might indicate there's a problem with those
beliefs?
|
Which part of " I think it is *probably* a fake " did you not understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB567C0097Dlurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ascc8F32sflaU1@mid.individual.net:
"Ilas" <nobody@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB5632A3E062lurker@195.188.240.200...
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6asa31F38s2r9U1@mid.individual.net:
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DER1k.2842$89.2405@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
It only embraces those things which cannot be examined to verify
what it
believes.
Tell us how the Church does not embrace ToE for example
You're doing it again.
Yep, correcting nonsense.
No, deliberately misunderstanding to move the debate on to something
you're
more comfortable with. You've done it repeatedly, and while it may not be
dishonest, it certainly doesn't make you look good.
You knew exactly what he meant.
Perhaps, but I was correcting what he wrote, not my opinion of what he
meant.
Why? If you and everyone else knew what he meant, why?
|
Because I didn't *know* what he meant, this thread has been laden with
examples of people jumping to wrong conclusions about what people meant.
If he didn't mean what he actually wrote then I suggest it's up to *him* to
correct it, not for *you* to interpret what he meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
