|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Féachadóir
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
 |
|
Scríobh "alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com>:
| Quote: |
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DER1k.2842$89.2405@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
|
[...]
| Quote: |
I stand corrected on the status of the shroud. However, as I said in an
earlier message, it just proves my point: anytime there is physical
evidence that can be disputed, the Catholic church does not embrace it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, if evidence can be disputed then
why should the Church - or, indeed, anyone - "embrace" it?
It only embraces those things which cannot be examined to verify what it
believes.
Tell us how the Church does not embrace ToE for example
|
From another thread hereabouts:
"The formation of human beings necessitated a particular contribution
by God, though it remains that their emergence was brought about by
natural causes" - Vatican statement.
This is known as having your cake and eating it.
--
'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
© Féachadóir |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"chris thompson" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b07a49b8-488a-462f-bb4c-2ae1319405eb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: |
On Jun 5, 3:29 am, "alwaysaskingquestions"
alwaysaskingquesti...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalb...@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RGC1k.6350$mh5.6220@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
On 6/4/2008 9:35 AM, alwaysaskingquestions went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
"Ilas" <nob...@this.address.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9AB3A8AF82871lurker@195.188.240.200...
[....]
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.
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; I would be more convinced that it is a fake if
somebody could produce a credible explanation for how the image was created
the best part of a thousand years before we even knew about negative
imagery.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
alwaysaskingquestions
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:DER1k.2842$89.2405@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
| Quote: |
On 6/5/2008 12:29 AM, alwaysaskingquestions went clickity clack on the
keyboard and produced this interesting bit of text:
"Vernon Balbert" <vbalbert@gmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RGC1k.6350$mh5.6220@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
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...
[....]
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 stand corrected on the status of the shroud. However, as I said in an
earlier message, it just proves my point: anytime there is physical
evidence that can be disputed, the Catholic church does not embrace it.
|
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, if evidence can be disputed then
why should the Church - or, indeed, anyone - "embrace" it?
| Quote: |
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
| Quote: |
To me that sounds like they're scared of reality.
--
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so, Brain.but where would a yak put PVC tubing?"
|
|
|
| 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:Xns9AB470ACE81F2lurker@195.188.240.200...
[...]
| Quote: |
When we get verfiable evidence of somebody whose leg grows back, then
please, feel free to gloat.
|
If you think there is any element of gloating in this, then you have
completely misunderstood my position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6asadfF39l9q1U1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"chris thompson" <chris.linthompson@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b07a49b8-488a-462f-bb4c-2ae1319405eb@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups.com.
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? 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6asa31F38s2r9U1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"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. You knew exactly what he meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ascemF38n4q3U1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"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.
| Quote: |
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. 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? |
|
| 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:Xns9AB563C6DD0CElurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"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.com.
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.
| Quote: |
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. |
|
| 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:Xns9AB5632A3E062lurker@195.188.240.200...
| Quote: |
"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.
| Quote: |
You knew exactly what he meant.
|
Perhaps, but I was correcting what he wrote, not my opinion of what he
meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6ascc8F32sflaU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"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.
| Quote: |
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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 4:12 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:04:36 -0500, Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.com>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
The ideas attributed to AlwaysDodgingQuestions were not his words but
were his genuine position as seen in longer and more digressive posts.
The offense is one of style, not substance.
Good post. But getting people to stick to conventions is....
Well, yeah. But even the occasional discussion of the fact that people
_do_ sometimes put statements in quotes as a way of indicating "this is
the sort of thing X keeps saying" instead of "these are his exact words"
is more productive than yelling liar, liar, pants on fire.*
Pretend-quotes is probably a bad habit, but the habit's out there and we
might as well deal with it.
L.
*If you want "more matter and less art," in your conversations, that is.
If you don't want to talk substance, arguing about the rules is a time-
honored way to avoid it.
Which goes back to my previous statement. AlwaysDodgingQuestions seems
unable to either address main points seriously or to stop churning out
words _as if_ he were addressing them. For years at a time. I remain
flabbergasted not that he has the nerve to do it, but that he thinks it's
a worthwhile use of his time.
Seriously, Always -- think of the feeding the hungry, visiting the sick,
etc. you could have done with the time you spent here over the years. Or
doing dishes and watching paint dry, even.
|
My personal belief, in this case, is that the original "quotes" were a
paraphrase of exactly what AAQ has said in the past. He was,
therefore, an idiot to make the fuss he did. But then, he has shown he
can be an idiot in so many ways, and so many times, I've come to
expect it.
--
Bob. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ilas
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
"alwaysaskingquestions" <alwaysaskingquestions@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6b2dj7F35uingU1@mid.individual.net:
| Quote: |
"Louann Miller" <louann_m@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5dudnXa5b7wpUNfVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
Ye Old One <usenet@mcsuk.net> wrote in
[...]
Which goes back to my previous statement. AlwaysAskinQuestions
[childish name calling corrected] seems
unable to either address main points seriously or to stop churning
out words _as if_ he were addressing them. For years at a time. I
remain flabbergasted not that he has the nerve to do it, but that he
thinks it's a worthwhile use of his time.
Seriously, Always -- think of the feeding the hungry, visiting the
sick, etc. you could have done with the time you spent here over the
years. Or doing dishes and watching paint dry, even.
So you're worried about how I spend my time and better ways I could be
spending it in your gracious opinion.
Tell me, is that some sort of maternal instincts I bring out in you or
is it simply you being an uppity female
|
Uppity female? That's nice. Am I an uppity male too, or is OK for us men
to have opinions?
sticking your nose into other
| Quote: |
people's affairs or is it you fulfilling your self declared role as
some sort of net nanny?
BTW (1) you don't win many arguments around here with childish name
calling.
|
Yes. I find that uppity females are always using childish name calling.
That's uppity females for you.
Far be it for me, a mere atheist, to give advice to a man of god such as
yourself, but Matthew 7:3 dear boy, Matthew 7:3. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Ye Old One
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: Re: Re: thoughts on Jesus |
|
|
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:32:45 +1000, j.wilkins1@uq.edu.au (John
Wilkins) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
| Quote: |
John McKendry <jlastname@comcast.dot.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:58:01 -0700, louann_m@yahoo.com wrote:
On Jun 10, 3:27 am, Ilas <nob...@this.address.com> wrote:
Tell me, is that some sort of maternal instincts I bring out in you
or is it simply you being an uppity female
Uppity female? That's nice. Am I an uppity male too, or is OK for us
men to have opinions?
Keep in mind, that was the bit that allowed me to counter-attack with
the phrase "girl cooties."
Isn't "girl cooties" redundant?
I thought cooties came in a number of species: nerd cooties, weener
cooties and, in Australia, wog cooties (for Italian and Greek kids).
|
cootie
n noun North American informal a body louse.
ORIGIN
First World War: perhaps from Malay kutu, denoting a parasitic
biting insect.
--
Bob. |
|
| 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
