[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[Triggaaar]

The Vatican does not claim that it is the shroud of Jesus, but they do not say that it definitely is not either.

But kuzushi says it's been proven that it is! So what do they think it is?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Live and let live is basically how our society is. You have your beliefs, others have theirs, and we all get along fine. The difference on this thread is that someone is trying to argue that the bible and scholars and scientists have somehow proven that Jesus is the son of god. It's pretty clear to everyone else that that is not the case, and so it is being debated. It's unusual for it to be debated on here, because not many people share @kuzushi 's beliefs. Most Christians have beliefs more similar to yours, and wouldn't really try to argue that there's any evidence of Jesus being the son of god.

Nail on head

 

[Triggaaar]

So you would prefer people not to take account of what is now accepted thinking?

Not at all, I think people are just lying to themselves if they refuse to look at evidence. But you must concede that it makes a mockery of any belief in the bible when bits keep being shown to be wrong?

 

[Baldseagull]

But kuzushi says it's been proven that it is! So what do they think it is?

An interesting artifact that serves as a reminder of Christs suffering for our sins.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Not at all, I think people are just lying to themselves if they refuse to look at evidence. But you must concede that it makes a mockery of any belief in the bible when bits keep being shown to be wrong?

No I don’t concede that. When people wrote the creation story, which was basically handed down story telling eventually recorded, they were trying to explain something that they didn’t have a hope in hell of understanding.

but all this is why I wouldn’t normally get my knickers in a twist about such stuff and concentrate on the philosophy and the teachings, most of which are about social justice.

 

[Triggaaar]

No I don’t concede that. When people wrote the creation story, which was basically handed down story telling eventually recorded, they were trying to explain something that they didn’t have a hope in hell of understanding.

Ok, that covers creation - so what stories from the Bible do you believe?

 

[The Clamp]

My kids go to a C of E school, and they respect all faiths and even atheists are allowed, but it really annoyed my daughter that as she was about to sit her GCSE exams a teacher would often say a prayer for them. Not what she wanted before trying to concentrate on her exams.

I’d just take that as someone wishing the best for them.

I don’t believe in luck but if someone says “good luck” to me, it’s no distraction.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

i would encourage people to think for themselves and do their own reading about anything they find difficult. There are respected Bible commentaries and so on which will offer comments on what Jesus - for example - was thinking about when he said such and such…….. but you will be aware of such things, I would guess!

I agree that people should think for themselves. But once they do, the bible can unravel fast. Here are a couple of examples.

I think we all agree that the creation stories in Genesis are fiction. So what about Jesus’s genealogy in Luke, which shows that Jesus is related to Adam, who we’ve just agreed is fictional?

Most people agree that the Exodus never happened (I’m happy to discuss if you disagree). If it didn’t happen, Moses is another fictional character. But in the New Testament Moses makes a comeback at Jesus’s transfiguration. Not bad for a dead fictional character.

But let’s assume for a moment that Moses was a real person. After his death he would be dead until Jesus’s 2nd coming, which hasn’t happened yet, so how did Moses appear during the transfiguration? Whether Moses is real or fictional, he should not have appeared in the New Testament.

With your background, I’d be interested in your views on such biblical inconsistencies.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yeah, he's decided that the piece they tested must have been from a repaired piece of cloth.

That makes no sense. When selecting a piece of cloth to remove from the shroud, it goes without saying that they'd remove the least important part of it - a part from a corner with no imagery on it. Given that it was a worthless piece of a the edge of a corner, why on earth would anyone have felt the need to repair that bit in the first place? And how would they have repaired it without it being possible to see that it wasn't part of the original fabric? It makes no sense.

Presumably the Pope thought that the carbon dating would prove that the shroud was from the time of Jesus. It didn't, it proved that it was a fake. If the Pope beilived they'd taken the wrong bit, then he'd have arranged for another bit to be taken.

Nail on head.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't think his faith has been tested one bit.

Rock solid this one and he keeps ignoring the contrary and adding evidence to support his narrative.

Yeah.....what I mean is that he has been presented with good arguments that there are flaws in lots of key issues, such as virgin birth, the age of the earth, the age of the shroud, even the existence of god, and he has rebuffed it all because his faith is strong.

The thing I don't understand is the presentation of his own 'evidence'. Evidence denies faith.

I could really go a bundle on faith because one can never lose. But I'd feel I was lying to myself, cheating myself, denying my frail and temporary existence, and absolving any need to put in a shift for the benefit of my family.

"Nothing to eat again, HWT? How will we survive?"

"Just pray. All will be well."

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Ok, that covers creation - so what stories from the Bible do you believe?

To be frank, I find this sort of questioning as off putting as blind faith and a loud insistence of righteousness. It also puts people off being willing to engage or openly express themselves since they're worried anything they come out with will be answered by an extended interrogation of their beliefs and life philosophy.

 

[kuzushi]

But kuzushi says it's been proven that it is! So what do they think it is?

I didn't say it's been proven.
What I'm saying is that the director of the 1988 radiocarbon dating said that they tested a repaired patch of the cloth, so it's wrong to rely on those results to show that the shroud is fake.
That's the director himself, Ray Rogers. Should we heed what he has to say about the test? That's a question there, by the way.
The video is 5 minutes long. Worth a watch.

Raymond Rogers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Radiocarbon dating of the Shroud of Turin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kuzushi]

The $1m challenge: ‘If the Turin Shroud is a forgery, show how it was done’

Expert on revered relic calls on British Museum to back up the results of its disputed carbon dating tests

www.theguardian.com

 

[The Clamp]

I don’t see the point in trying to prove the existence of a higher power.

One either has faith, or one doesn’t.

It’s not rational and it’s all rather silly if we drill down into it.

Nevertheless faith can be a powerful healer. I know at least two people that would have been in an early grave, literally, were it not for their faith in a higher power.

At its best, faith can heal, motivate, inspire and create great things. It can be based on unconditional love and help people who have lost all hope.


We all know what it can be at it’s worst, unfortunately.

It doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It doesn’t stand up to historical analysis.
But it does have limitless capabilities for good.

And they do a lovely cream tea at my church.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

You're being facetious. It's a shame though, because I would have genuinely liked to see what you think it's about.

Not being facetious now. You asked a question so I shall consider it.

My mouth is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce my hands and my feet.
All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.

So, it is a crucifixion, but whose?

I am guessing not Jesus - too obvious. And in any case it is in the nominative voice. So it must be a metaphor, or a prediction of what lies ahead. Crucifixion was probably invented several hundred hears before Christ, so it would have been a powerful metaphor for suffering. So I'm guessing someone wrote it several hundred years before the famous crucifixion as a metaphor (for, probably, how shit everything was - nasty and dangerous).

I am guessing that you consider that it means something else. A prophecy of Jesus' crucifixion maybe?

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I don’t see the point in trying to prove the existence of a higher power.

One either has faith, or one doesn’t.

It’s not rational and it’s all rather silly if we drill down into it.

Nevertheless faith can be a powerful healer. I know at least two people that would have been in an early grave, literally, were it not for their faith in a higher power.

At its best, faith can heal, motivate, inspire and create great things. It can be based on unconditional love and help people who have lost all hope.


We all know what it can be at it’s worst, unfortunately.

It doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It doesn’t stand up to historical analysis.
But it does have limitless capabilities for good.

And they do a lovely cream tea at my church.

The most sensible post on this thread to date!

in terms of intellectual scrutiny, I can remember a while ago Richard Dawkins talking about the Larj-Hadron collider and its possibilities, saying something along the lines of “we will be able to prove how the Universe was created. We won’t need God any more. We‘ll be able to prove God doesn’t exist”. The first sentence I can accept (I am not a scientist). The second sentence I can cope with, but the third I think is intellectually and philosophically one of the silliest comments I’ve ever read anywhere.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

...the third I think is intellectually and philosophically one of the silliest comments I’ve ever read anywhere.

Well, I can eliminate my uni supervisor from the list of candidates for who you might be away from NSC.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don’t see the point in trying to prove the existence of a higher power.

One either has faith, or one doesn’t.

It’s not rational and it’s all rather silly if we drill down into it.

Nevertheless faith can be a powerful healer. I know at least two people that would have been in an early grave, literally, were it not for their faith in a higher power.

At its best, faith can heal, motivate, inspire and create great things. It can be based on unconditional love and help people who have lost all hope.


We all know what it can be at it’s worst, unfortunately.

It doesn’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny. It doesn’t stand up to historical analysis.
But it does have limitless capabilities for good.

And they do a lovely cream tea at my church.

Spot on. Engaging with proof tests is science (I posted earlier about this, no doubt as part of a rant). Religion is a personal/social ritual. In many religions the objective is to be good and kind. In that context I'm all for it.

(Not happy this thread has slipped into a 'prove it vs believe it' contest but I hold my hand up as being a prize ninny in my engagement with that.)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The most sensible post on this thread to date!

in terms of intellectual scrutiny, I can remember a while ago Richard Dawkins talking about the Larj-Hadron collider and its possibilities, saying something along the lines of “we will be able to prove how the Universe was created. We won’t need God any more. We‘ll be able to prove God doesn’t exist”. The first sentence I can accept (I am not a scientist). The second sentence I can cope with, but the third I think is intellectually and philosophically one of the silliest comments I’ve ever read anywhere.

Dawkins is a hubristic arse. The maths are great but then he loses his shit and starts telling us what he believes. Nobody cares what you believe, Rick, my old fruit. Just tell us what you can prove. About the movement of objects in space and time, loads, and thanks for that. About the existence of god? f*** all, Rick. Faaaaark all!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Not at all, I think people are just lying to themselves if they refuse to look at evidence. But you must concede that it makes a mockery of any belief in the bible when bits keep being shown to be wrong?

As noted earlier, religion should not engage with proof tests.

With respect that 'that's it for religion, now we can move on', the elephant in the room is the recruitment issue. Fishers of men and that. If religious people desisted from attempting to recruit me (or persuade me they are right) then, live and let live and all that. But without recruitment.....where will the recruits come from?

So the imperative for people like me (athiest/scientist) to push back, and keep pushing, is hard to resist.

Now, a derailment. Rastafarianism. I was exposed to this vicariously by my enthusiasm for dub reggae as a teen. I will post 'step it in ethiopia' on track of the day shortly, as I have 'Maijuana in my brain' on right now. Back in the day, 47 years ago, by the time 'step it' came up, second joint rolled and lit, I was communing with the higher plane. Curious, I started to listen to the narrative....

So, we have, soon, the ships of the Black Star liner arriving to take us all to Ethiopia, the promised land. Rastas are a tribe of the lord, Jah. Watch out for Bag O wire. A religion?

Adam and Eve went up my sleeve and didn't come down till Christmas eve. That's very hard to believe.

But religion is nevertheless about belief. And in many respects it seems like every other aspect of human life, sport, politics and religion, the stuff we aren't supposed to mention at dinner.