Dr. Nick Riviera Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 And I'm sure you wear polyester and cotton blend clothing, heretic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 I didn't even realise this topic was still alive...Oh, it wasn't Just watched the programme about how the Turin Shroud is a fake, produced most likely by an early form of photography, very possibly by Leonardo Da Vinci and thought of this thread. Just another tick in the box for the fictional story of Christianity . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Wood Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I don't really wish to start a new debate here and I'm by no means a Christian... But alot of your posts recently have been anti-christian. Could you not just accept it makes them happy and get on with your own life while they do the same? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamtrials Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 That is also blasphemy, I don't think you understand 'being a Christian'If you think calling a fellow Christian a blasphemer for saying "bloody hell" is part of being a Christian then I think you're the one that doesn't understand it... Welcome to the 21st century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT! Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 I don't really wish to start a new debate here and I'm by no means a Christian... But alot of your posts recently have been anti-christian. Could you not just accept it makes them happy and get on with your own life while they do the same?Why can't same sex people get married...... because of religion.The reason i have big issues with religion is becuase it does effect non religious people it a lot of ways. When I went to get my marriage licence i had to sware to god. "So help me god". It's on money (where i am anyway) and shops and allsorts are closed on Sundays, this is becuade of religion - you know that bikepart that wasn't deliverd on sunday, but delyaed till monday, that's because of religion!That's why i have a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 alot of your posts recently have been anti-christian. Could you not just accept it makes them happy and get on with your own life while they do the same?I thought my recent posts, except that one ^^, have been more anti-scientology. Not really trying to cause arguments, but this topic was really quite interesting when it went to the physics of the universe etc. I also thought the Da Vinci programme was quite interesting and thought it might make for a good discussion, not necessarily in a Christian bashing way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Why can't same sex people get married...... because of religion.The reason i have big issues with religion is becuase it does effect non religious people it a lot of ways. When I went to get my marriage licence i had to sware to god. "So help me god". It's on money (where i am anyway) and shops and allsorts are closed on Sundays, this is becuade of religion - you know that bikepart that wasn't deliverd on sunday, but delyaed till monday, that's because of religion!That's why i have a problem.Interesting JT, I presume you are actually living in Yankland? In the UK recently, gays can 'join hands' in a civil service, but it isn't classed as 'marriage' in the eyes of the law or religion, more of a union I believe? A bit like a 'common law' couple. (I only know this through attending a couple of gay and lesbian ceremonies, simply because my wife is a hair stylist and mixes in those circles, ... ) Also, when me and the Wife got married 5 years ago in a Civil Ceremony, registry office and such, (mainly through my non religious leanings and persuasion), we were informed beforehand that the ceremony would contain absolutely no religious content. We also had to submit our CD of songs to played throughout the wedding beforehand, to ensure that there would be no hymns, religious words of praise or mentions of idols and such. Result! We therefore chose songs containing lyrics of a sexual, violent and homophobic nature.(not really )MAM.I thought my recent posts, except that one ^^, have been more anti-scientology. Not really trying to cause arguments, but this topic was really quite interesting when it went to the physics of the universe etc. I also thought the Da Vinci programme was quite interesting and thought it might make for a good discussion, not necessarily in a Christian bashing way.Congratulations on breathing some Life back into this discussion fella. My oh my, it's been dull without it. Edited July 2, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 (edited) Anyone see 'The Da Vinci Shroud' on C5?No I didn't, unfortunately. I've been thinking about it though. Was this supposed to be the 'Only' evidence of a living Jesus, or are there more found examples? The most important that spring to mind are maybe; the Cross he died on, the Spear that killed him, the Cup he drank from on the Last Supper - 'The Golden Chalice?. Maybe the crown of thorns or the 'Holy Grail'? I learnt my religious symbolism through having an Irish Catholic Mother. Or maybe I've seen too many Hollywood adventure films like Indiana Jones etc. Or am I treading on the toes of Dan Brown novels (which the Wife has read)? I dunno.But anyway, hasn't Christianity always relied on 'props'? From the 'sheep', bowing down in a man-made 'House of God', to a man-made 'Altar' , to a supposed 'Man of God'. A place filled with gold, marble, stone and glass. People are prepared to fall to their knees and Pray before half baked effigies, believing they're talking to their Saviour. If the Turin Shroud were to officialy be declared a 'fake' by Scientists, I doubt it would make a difference to peoples Faith. Religious sybolism is completely undeniable, and always will be.MAM.Edited; for religious content. Edited July 2, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 But anyway, hasn't Christianity always relied on 'props'? From the 'sheep', bowing down in a man-made 'House of God', to a man-made 'Altar' , to a supposed 'Man of God'. A place filled with gold, marble, stone and glass. People are prepared to fall to their knees and Pray before half baked effigies, believing they're talking to their Saviour. If the Turin Shroud were to officialy be declared a 'fake' by Scientists, I doubt it would make a difference to peoples Faith. Religious sybolism is completely undeniable, and always will be.I think I'm missing your point, that last sentence particularly! It's always made me laugh (read angry) when my mum's come back from Italy with pictures and books of the fantastic, extravagant gold and marble cathedrals and churches which must've cost the people huge amounts of money in days gone by while they were living in poverty. It makes me sick to see the amount of time and resources which must've been wasted on these places.I agree that the Turin shroud being declared a fake has made no difference to people's faith, this thread alone has shown that those who have 'faith' are perfectly willing to ignore every piece of evidence, logic and sensible thought that what they believe in may well be a pile of codswallop. However, it also makes me very happy that it was a heretic and true visionary who (most likely) created the shroud and made such an excellent job of the forgery!The programme itself set out some of the history, indicating that the true original shroud was a very poor fake, simply painted and bought by some foolish king. His successor was embarrassed of the piece so (the story goes) he commissioned Da Vinci to create a more believable fake using new techniques. The carbon dating proved the cloth to be from around 1390AD and they believe that Leonardo used one of the first examples of a camera (a camera obscura) after soaking the cloth in silver nitrate. He then projected the image of a body (thought to be one of his human dissection specimens) onto the cloth to leave the negative. Real human blood could then be added to the cloth to give the impression of the details of the 'victims' fate. They think he did it in three separate images- the front, the back (which, by the way, are of different heights- again proving the image was in no way created by a real body in contact with it) and finally for the head/face. The proportions of the head have also been shown to be wrong which indicates this final image.Anyhoo, I think we can safely say the shroud has sweet fa to do with anybody with the surname Christ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
middleageman Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 (edited) Wow! Thanks for your very detailed response. That documentary sounded like food for thought indeed. Of course, I personally haven't got the scientifical knowledge or the documented evidence to hand, but the reasoning sounds 'believable'. But Hey, I didn't believe the Turin Shroud was real, I doubt many aethiests do. I also doubt many Christians did either. The whole point of Christianity, (or any religion) is the belief in Faith. Faith does, and will always transcend fact. MAM.Edit: Thinking about it, as I asked previously, are there any other physical pieces of 'evidence', relating to the possible existance of Jesus, besides the Turin Shroud? Edited July 3, 2009 by middleageman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 But Hey, I didn't believe the Turin Shroud was real, I doubt many aethiests do. I also doubt many Christians did either. I'm not convinced that's the case... I'm sure with enough evidence they'd all come running saying 'no, of course we didn't believe it was real! Anyway, we don't need a bit of cloth to prove our saviours existence'. However, my guess is that if they've been told it's real and was used to wrap Jesus after his crucifixion, with just a shred of doubt (like the fact no one will ever be allowed to get close to it to test for traces of silver nitrate), they would still try and defend it for the rest of time because that's the mentality of 'believers', again as has been shown in this thread...Edit: Thinking about it, as I asked previously, are there any other physical pieces of 'evidence', relating to the possible existance of Jesus, besides the Turin Shroud?No, pretty sure there's zero physical evidence. All the pieces you mentioned before, I think, are basically mentioned in the bible and have just been used in Hollywood films; The Holy Grail in The Da Vinci code and Indiana Jones, the Spear of Destiny in Constantine... those are the only ones I can think of now- pretty sure all other things are biodegradable and would never be around these days. Even things like the cave thing where he was buried with a big ass boulder in front which has been moved out the way might provide some kind of evidence but my guess, and call me a cynic if you like, is that that will never happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nasheenofteeth Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 you those people are the Phelps and they are completely crazy out of there minds they give Christianity a very bad name, but unfortunately their not the only ones out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeyseemonkeydo Posted July 26, 2009 Report Share Posted July 26, 2009 you those people are the PhelpsHuh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.