|
What's wrong with handling rattlesnakes?Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
You are after a list arent you?
thank you for sharing. it just shows me that much more how hitchens wil spin things. Then again many do..
I detected pretty much zero spinning (If by that one means dishonesty, deception, or manipulation anyway. If you mean he's not pretending to be a neutral advocate, well it's a debate. That's not his job. The Bishop and MP certainly didn't pretend neutrality.) in Hitchens' presentation, though he did make one error of fact which he corrected, but did not acknowledge, in his second speech. It's the line about whether or not a gay person can be a parishioner at a Catholic church.
What did you have in mind?
|
|
thank you for sharing. it just shows me that much more how hitchens wil spin things. Then again many do..I detected pretty much zero spinning (If by that one means dishonesty, deception, or manipulation anyway. If you mean he's not pretending to be a neutral advocate, well it's a debate. That's not his job. The Bishop and MP certainly didn't pretend neutrality.) in Hitchens' presentation, though he did make one error of fact which he corrected, but did not acknowledge, in his second speech. It's the line about whether or not a gay person can be a parishioner at a Catholic church.
What did you have in mind?
Sorry I have been at work for the last few days I will write a longer post on this shortly.
OK, let me make sure I understand this. We've got radiocarbon dates that show a Medieval age,It has [been] sho[w]n, several times, that the radio carbon dates are wrong. Everything else points to it being a legitimate relic.
By "everything," you mean the style of the writing?
There are always more than two possibilities. If the Medieval radiocarbon dates are thrown out, that doesn't mean that the shroud is therefore automatically from the exact time of Christ's death, for example. It just means it's probably not Medieval. If the style is consistent with the time of Christ, that doesn't imply authenticity any more than a sonnet that I write in iambic pentameter is somehow an authentic Shakespeare sonnet.
Now, I don't know enough about the Shroud to comment further; if there are other lines of evidence, one way or the other, we'd need to look at those, too. But from what was linked so far, it sounds like the jury is completely out.
|
|
By "everything," you mean the style of the writing?
As a matter of fact no, the style of writing is quite new in fact, since this was overlooked by the previous carbon dating. It may have been looked at before but with the previous carbon dating was in fact overlooked, there being no more need to check evidence if it was in fact proven it was a medieval fake.
Many people link for various reasons the Shroud with the Image of Edassa. If this is in fact the same image and several old document held in the Vatican Library seem to show at least a tenuous link thereof, then the image is at least from 384 A.D. And while this moves it much further back in history it does not in fact mean it is the image of the historical Jesus.
A slightly more compelling reason is that all of the art work from around that time show Jesus much like the figure shown in the Shroud. Though circumstantial at best all art work previously is merely images of Mitra or Apollo that were redrawn to fit the artists interpretation of what Jesus may have looked like. IE Halo, no beard, blond hair ect…
Of particular note should be the relationship of the Sudarium of Oviedo to the shroud. The Gospels point out that there were multiple pieces of linen. Historical practices of separately wrapping the head also show that there should have been a second cloth. The blood type on the cloth is the same as on the shroud and the wounds match up. The Sudarium however has an historical trail to at least 614 if not to 570. It is of the same weave and may in fact have been cut from the same cloth. This is the main reason the carbon testing was looked at a second time since it is known to be much older then the carbon dating of the Shroud suggested.
The details of the crucifixion are scientifically correct but not what has always been depicted due to poor translations of the original Greek or Aramaic. There not being a word in Aramaic for wrist but one for palm, for example.
The flowers, pollen grain and other residue on the Shroud are correct for 1st century Palestine.
This is what I mean for “everything else.”
Is this “proof”? well circumstantial at best, but when dealing with such sensitive subject matter, this is the best one could hope for.
Truth be told, the writing on Shroud makes me wonder about something else. They wrote around the face. Meaning that this was either written after the Shroud was recovered or before. If written before the death it makes on pause. Was this a natural occurrence? Did the people who wrote this information on the cloth experience someone else’s image on a cloth before? If this is the case then it could very well be the burial shroud of Jesus but not a miracle. Now many have tried to duplicate this before and have failed. This does not however rule out a natural effect, just not an effect we are aware of.
|
Minaret controversy in SwitzerlandDirect democracy at its worst (IMO).
Actually Switzerland is one of the last places I would have expected something like that.
|
|
What did you have in mind?
I had a much longer winded response but I lost it so here goes.
I think that I have expressed myself poorly. When I say spin I do not explicitly mean saying a lie. Spin, in my opinion, is the ability to make your opinion sound like fact. Mr. Hitchens would take this as a compliment. It doesn’t mean he is correct it just means he is a better debater then his opponents. I respect the Cardinal but he is in no way a good public speaker, in English anyway. The lady I had never heard of before. She come off like a crotchety old woman, and due to The Cardinals poor English he seems to be unsure of his opinions and the reasons thereof. He in my opinion seems to be unsure why there is even any debate in the first place.
Hitchens keeps the Topic on Sexuality in general and the Churches opposition to homosexuality in specific then goes on to point out the terrible things that are still coming out in specific regions with as he adequately puts it “Child Rape.” This one horrible fact will leave the Church scarred forever. We may say a hundred mea culpa’s for Galileo and some will never forgive, But the child abuse can never be forgiven, no matter how many steps we take to ensure it never happens again.
Keeping the debate thus focused on one or two issues allows him to bypass anything else that the Church does or has done. Saying things like the Church has X amount of money and all of these pieces of art that should be sold off, adds to this. A line he stole for Sarah Silverman I might add. Though funny only helps obfuscate the reality that as far as the church is concerned we do not in fact own these pieces of art but in fact hold them for the world at large. The fact that though the Pope is at the head of this large organization he does not in fact have any money of his own.
I guess what I am saying is that I do not agree with him and that though I do think he is a good debater it was like arguing on the internet. Just because you win doesn’t make you right.
CJ -- thanks for the interesting reply! I can see I've got some reading to do before I can adequately discuss this further. Luckily, thanks to Galdor I now have a hyperlinked source of references!
|
|
CJ -- thanks for the interesting reply! I can see I've got some reading to do before I can adequately discuss this further. Luckily, thanks to Galdor I now have a hyperlinked source of references!
Anything to help a good conversation along, I do not think I always adequately do so. Double check the info on that website. I seem to remember looking at it before and found some of the information to have been misleading. Well to me anyway.
Minaret controversy in SwitzerlandDirect democracy at its worst (IMO).
Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply introduce an initiative to limit further immigration from Islamic countries, rather than to abridge the freedom of those Muslims who are already there? Just curious -- I'm not sure how I personally feel about the whole situation; I'm just throwing the idea out there.
|
|
Wouldn't it be more straightforward to simply introduce an initiative to limit further immigration from Islamic countries, rather than to abridge the freedom of those already there? Just curious -- I'm not sure how I personally feel about the whole situation; I'm just throwing the idea out there.Minaret controversy in SwitzerlandDirect democracy at its worst (IMO).
Well that is politics for you. A more strait forward responce maybe the politically incorrect one. IE we will let everyone come here but you have to all be like us. You run into some of the same attitudes in some rural regions in the states. "You can be here but you all have to learn english."
You run into some of the same attitudes in some rural regions in the states. "You can be here but you all have to learn english."
Exactly! And in both cases, the argument is made that it's about whether the intent is integrating, vs. transforming. If a large number of people come to the U.S. with the express purpose of refusing to learn English -- but rather intend to form insular communities segregated by language and culture, so they're not really sharing so much as creating pockets of their former homeland which they then hope to spread -- is that necessarily a healthy thing?
Luckily, most people aren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it can't happen.
Example: Most neighborhoods in Houston I go into with all Spanish signs, I can smile and go into bakeries and restaurants and stores, and try out new foods, and everyone is happy. But I've been to some neighborhoods in Dallas, for example, where the graffiti clearly read (in Spanish): "This neighborhood is part of Mexico. Whitey better keep the hell out!" And the reactions of the locals to my approaching the cleary-delineated border left no question that I had better damn well not approach any closer without an escort.
I suppose they make the same case with building minarets in Switzerland... is it meant simply to show the locations of mosques, or are they marking territory, like saying "Christians not welcome in this neighborhood"? I have no idea, not living in Switzerland. It's a tricky situation, no matter how you look at it.
|
|
You run into some of the same attitudes in some rural regions in the states. "You can be here but you all have to learn english."Exactly! And in both cases, the argument is made that it's about whether the intent is integrating, vs. transforming. If a large number of people come to the U.S. with the express purpose of refusing to learn English -- but rather intend to form insular communities segregated by language and culture, so they're not really sharing so much as creating pockets of their former homeland which they then hope to spread -- is that necessarily a healthy thing?
Luckily, most people aren't doing that. But that doesn't mean it can't happen.
Example: Most neighborhoods in Houston I go into with all Spanish signs, I can smile and go into bakeries and restaurants and stores, and try out new foods, and everyone is happy. But I've been to some neighborhoods in Dallas, for example, where the graffiti clearly read (in Spanish): "This neighborhood is part of Mexico. Whitey better keep the hell out!" And the reactions of the locals to my approaching the cleary-delineated border left no question that I had better damn well not approach any closer without an escort.
I suppose they make the same case with building minarets in Switzerland... is it meant simply to show the locations of mosques, or are they marking territory, like saying "Christians not welcome in this neighborhood"? I have no idea, not living in Switzerland. It's a tricky situation, no matter how you look at it.
That was very eloquently stated.
Of interest is the severly retarded responces under the articles.
|
|
With regards to the shroud, my understanding is that there is more evidence that image is of leonardo de vinci and represent an early photographic experiment, than it being a religious relic. That said, the chance of it being a hoax undertaken by aliens is probably higher than it being genuine
There is no evidence of it being an image from Leonardo. Just a few crack pots saying it is so. The evidence is that it is quite possibly real. Being a divine article however is a matter of faith and one I might add that the Church has neither confirmed nor denied.
With regards to the shroud, my understanding is that there is more evidence that image is of leonardo de vinci and represent an early photographic experiment, than it being a religious relic. That said, the chance of it being a hoax undertaken by aliens is probably higher than it being genuineThere is no evidence of it being an image from Leonardo. Just a few crack pots saying it is so. The evidence is that it is quite possibly real. Being a divine article however is a matter of faith and one I might add that the Church has neither confirmed nor denied.
I deleted my comment on this because well I didn't want to get drawn into the world of conspiracy nuttiness and religious hysteria that surround that rag but fine, i guess i wasn't quick enough.
Sorry, but calling people who look for a rational explination for the shroud 'Crack pots' is rediclous. I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
|
|
With regards to the shroud, my understanding is that there is more evidence that image is of leonardo de vinci and represent an early photographic experiment, than it being a religious relic. That said, the chance of it being a hoax undertaken by aliens is probably higher than it being genuineThere is no evidence of it being an image from Leonardo. Just a few crack pots saying it is so. The evidence is that it is quite possibly real. Being a divine article however is a matter of faith and one I might add that the Church has neither confirmed nor denied.I deleted my comment on this because well I didn't want to get drawn into the world of conspiracy nuttiness and religious hysteria that surround that rag but fine, i guess i wasn't quick enough.
Sorry, but calling people who look for a rational explination for the shroud 'Crack pots' is rediclous. I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
Rational, they have no evidence except oh look he looks like leonardo and ignore any other evidence.
I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists.
Your second question is a bit of a non-sequitor; I think everyone has been quite clear that even certified genuine shroud still leaves the question of divinity unresolved -- and a certified hoax likewise.
Your second question is a bit of a non-sequitor; I think everyone has been quite clear that even certified genuine shroud still leaves the question of divinity unresolved -- and a certified hoax likewise.I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists.
True. But when you believe in deities, it isn't exactly wise to call people nut cases. You know, people in glass houses not throwing stones and all that.
|
|
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
There is a thing I call circular logic. It goes as such:
Can you show proof that God exists?
No, but can you show Proof he does not?
Why should I the proof is up to you?
No it is up to you to prove he does not?
Ad nauseum….
At this point most would choose Occam's razor, the problem with this option is “if you put S4@7 in, you will get S4@7 out.” Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.
One can argue that there is so much unknown to man and science, or as CS Lewis, a one time atheist, said “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
|
|
True. But when you believe in deities, it isn't exactly wise to call people nut cases. You know, people in glass houses not throwing stones and all that.Your second question is a bit of a non-sequitor; I think everyone has been quite clear that even certified genuine shroud still leaves the question of divinity unresolved -- and a certified hoax likewise.I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists.
If you think that this is a reason for being insane then most of the world in your view must be crazy. If so, I feel very sorry for you to have to live life that way.
And yes, my opinion is that Lillian Schwartz is a nut job just from her interviews, but hey what do I know, interviews may at times make people seem different then they really are.
So does the internet.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
There is a thing I call circular logic. It goes as such:
Can you show proof that God exists?
No, but can you show Proof he does not?
Why should I the proof is up to you?
No it is up to you to prove he does not?
Ad nauseum….
At this point most would choose Occam's razor, the problem with this option is “if you put S4@7 in, you will get S4@7 out.” Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.
One can argue that there is so much unknown to man and science, or as CS Lewis, a one time atheist, said “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
That isn't circular logic.
This is circular logic. It is the special comfy sweater of the literalist.
The existance is not a simple or eligant answer. it implies that everything we see in the universe is wrong.
You have entirely failed to grasp the concept of burdon of proof. Simple put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim of the existance of deities, is the most extraordinary claim there is.
What did you have in mind?I think that I have expressed myself poorly. When I say spin I do not explicitly mean saying a lie. Spin, in my opinion, is the ability to make your opinion sound like fact.
You mean such as you did with regard to Hitchens' ability to spin? I'm having some trouble with the idea of equating spin with the ability to present one's position in an honest and forthright manner. The Bishop and MP did precisely that. So did Stephen Fry. So I'm not quite sure what you mean here. I got the impression that you were using the term in a negative sense and I still have this impression after reading your second post on the topic. Are you damning all four participants, then?
I ask because I see here the world's most ordinary debate. A proposition is offered and we have the affirmative who argue that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. Those arguing in the negative say that it is not. Both are quite convinced that they are in fact right and spoke with some confidence on the matter. The Bishop's English might or might not be limited (It's very hard to tell. He didn't have much of an accent and speaking slowly and a bit quietly is normal for most people in a non-native language regardless of general proficiency. Especially given the format one must expect he was taking some care with his words as well.) but he left no doubt that he considered it a fact that the Catholic church is a force for good in the world. Nor did the MP.
It doesn’t mean he is correct it just means he is a better debater then his opponents.
Well sure. Winning a debate could simply mean that you're quicker on your feet or your opponent is a boob. But it is possible to ascertain the truth through discourse, don't you agree?
Hitchens keeps the Topic on Sexuality in general and the Churches opposition to homosexuality in specific then goes on to point out the terrible things that are still coming out in specific regions with as he adequately puts it “Child Rape.” This one horrible fact will leave the Church scarred forever. We may say a hundred mea culpa’s for Galileo and some will never forgive, But the child abuse can never be forgiven, no matter how many steps we take to ensure it never happens again.
Well said. But I can't help but note that the response of the Church has been rather, well, a part of the problem. We discovered in the US that the hierarchy knew about it for decades, paid liberal allotments of hush money, and let the molesters go back to molesting. During the first wave of such revelations and the first investigations of the matter, the church refused to cooperate with law enforcement. It's still not cooperating, in fact. The Bishop of Boston decided to resign and then flee to the Vatican after it became so clear how deeply involved he was in the facilitation of child rape that even his own priests called for the resignation.
The American example does not appear all that unique either, considering the findings of the recent commission in Ireland. Any secular organization with this kind of record in the US would likely be facing charges under statues originally designed to fight the Mafia, and rightly so. Even when George W. Bush, who I can rarely find anything even tolerable to say about, mentioned the issue to the Pope he to the brush off. The child rape scandal isn't a series of isolated events, but rather the result of an organized and deliberate policy on the part of the various dioceses and their leadership carried out at the least with the Vatican's willing silence.
It's clear to me that a very deep change has to occur in how the hierarchy deals with sex abuse cases. They're not doing enough and they're quite resistant to even trying to do so. The general theme is that they're more concerned with keeping their prestige and authority over their own intact than they are in doing what's right.
(I suppose this is in accord with the MP's argument that the church isn't actually about the world. If that's true, and I think the hierarchy would generally agree that it is, then one presumes they see no reason to do anything differently. God will sort it out.)
Keeping the debate thus focused on one or two issues allows him to bypass anything else that the Church does or has done.
I don't think either man argued that the Church was perfectly, universally, without exception and for all time completely in the wrong. (That would be a pretty startling conclusion even for me. Though the Bishop and MP seemed reluctant to acknowledge it had ever been much more than superlative in exactly the same way I just said, but in a positive direction.) Their position seemed to me to be that on the balance, it has been a bad thing for the world, and then they listed their reasons why. At which point the MP complained that bringing up bad things the church had done in a discussion of its moral character was somehow a cheap trick. To this Stephen Fry responded with his line about the burglar complaining at trial that nobody mentioned he gave his father a gift and they were all obsessed with this burglary business.
Saying things like the Church has X amount of money and all of these pieces of art that should be sold off, adds to this. A line he stole for Sarah Silverman I might add. Though funny only helps obfuscate the reality that as far as the church is concerned we do not in fact own these pieces of art but in fact hold them for the world at large. The fact that though the Pope is at the head of this large organization he does not in fact have any money of his own.
The Pope is, by church dogma, an absolute monarch. All the tithes given end up in his hands and it's his to spend as he will. Who is going to gainsay him? Certainly not his treasurers and accountants. He can hire and fire them at will. This includes lots of money that Mother Theresa eagerly pretended was going to her mission and hers alone but went straight to the general fund.
The Vatican owns outright all the artworks, buildings, and the like within its bounds. (I've been there. I didn't see any signs saying Piece X or Y was on loan from elsewhere.) To say it does not is simply absurd. To argue that these are held in trust for all humanity to enjoy is silly. If that was the case, they could certainly be donating it to worthy museums. Furthermore the Church is hardly shy about asserting its property rights in any other occasion. Try to do something they don't want on church property and see how long it is before you're asked to leave. It's not public land.
Now I'm not saying the best solution to world poverty is to drive a wrecking ball through St. Peter's. But to claim that the Church as a whole is anything but loaded is just silly. The Church certainly maintains control and property rights over all it owns. It has as much right to sell any of it as it has to acquire anything new. But it does in fact keep fabulous collections of art and massive bank accounts. How much goes to actually helping the needy from all of that? Some, certainly. How much goes into maintaining St. Peter's and all the other basilicas and churches, historic and otherwise, when it could be going to homeless shelters and clinics? How much goes to support the priesthood and its seminaries, when it could be going to condoms and doctors? (For that matter, how shall we calculate the number of deaths its contributed to by refusing not only to provide condoms in Africa, but by refusing to allow any organization that works with it to do the same, and then topping it off by claiming that condoms are wholly ineffective in preventing HIV (a lie I also heard from one of its parishioners in a public school health class he was teaching in the early 90s), or worse still that they increase the risk of infection all by themselves? If a nation was behaving like this, we'd accuse them of low tech biological warfare.
The Church wants people to think it's a pure non-profit charity organization, but it operates like a fairly typical multinational. In the US it's common to point to the Catholic Charities as an example of the good it does, which is fine so far as it goes. But much of the money that the organization spends is given to it by the state. And that gift isn't without strings attached, as the same Church is now bent on closing down orphanages and the like because it doesn't want to have to hire homosexuals. If they were motivated only by the sincere desire to help those in need, would they behave like this?
I guess what I am saying is that I do not agree with him and that though I do think he is a good debater it was like arguing on the internet. Just because you win doesn’t make you right.
Well ok. So you disagree with the entire idea of having the debate? (The MP seemed to, which is odd considering the boilerplate she spit out about being happy to be there.) Do you disagree that the truth can be arrived at through honest discussion and debate? Leaving aside the particular issues with regards to the question under contention, are you just saying that we shouldn't even be talking about it?
True. But when you believe in deities, it isn't exactly wise to call people nut cases. You know, people in glass houses not throwing stones and all that.Your second question is a bit of a non-sequitor; I think everyone has been quite clear that even certified genuine shroud still leaves the question of divinity unresolved -- and a certified hoax likewise.I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists.If you think that this is a reason for being insane then most of the world in your view must be crazy. If so, I feel very sorry for you to have to live life that way.
And yes, my opinion is that Lillian Schwartz is a nut job just from her interviews, but hey what do I know, interviews may at times make people seem different then they really are.
So does the internet.
Cultural religious belief, the kind that you can take apart with reasoned argument and decent science education, that was only half held anyway, is dime a dozen. People who have such faith arn't insane, they are just conforming to the cultural norms of their society and being mislead by cultural leaders. But if you 'know' god is 'real', then i am sorry, but your functionally indistiguisable for a person suffering from a delusion.
Really not sure why accepting the fact that the world would be a better place if science education was better makes you sad for me.
While i don't really know anything about Lillian Schwartz's claims, i do know that the shroud has been repeatedly tested with various radiometric dating techniques and that it can't possibly be from the same time as jesus.
|
|
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
There is a thing I call circular logic. It goes as such:
Can you show proof that God exists?
No, but can you show Proof he does not?
Why should I the proof is up to you?
No it is up to you to prove he does not?
Ad nauseum….
At this point most would choose Occam's razor, the problem with this option is “if you put S4@7 in, you will get S4@7 out.” Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.
One can argue that there is so much unknown to man and science, or as CS Lewis, a one time atheist, said “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
That isn't circular logic.
This is circular logic. It is the special comfy sweater of the literalist.
The existance is not a simple or eligant answer. it implies that everything we see in the universe is wrong.
You have entirely failed to grasp the concept of burdon of proof. Simple put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim of the existance of deities, is the most extraordinary claim there is.
I will say a couple of things here. First, you are right about one thing, that is also Circular logic.
Thank G~D I am not a literalist.
You could also reason that the entirity of creation is Extrordinary Proof. I doubt though that if you had a visitation tonight by Angels you would even think this was any proof, rather it was just a bad plum you ate before you went to bed.
|
|
True. But when you believe in deities, it isn't exactly wise to call people nut cases. You know, people in glass houses not throwing stones and all that.Your second question is a bit of a non-sequitor; I think everyone has been quite clear that even certified genuine shroud still leaves the question of divinity unresolved -- and a certified hoax likewise.I am no expert on the subject of the shroud, so i wont be drawn into specifics related to it.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists.If you think that this is a reason for being insane then most of the world in your view must be crazy. If so, I feel very sorry for you to have to live life that way.
And yes, my opinion is that Lillian Schwartz is a nut job just from her interviews, but hey what do I know, interviews may at times make people seem different then they really are.
So does the internet.
Cultural religious belief, the kind that you can take apart with reasoned argument and decent science education, that was only half held anyway, is dime a dozen. People who have such faith arn't insane, they are just conforming to the cultural norms of their society and being mislead by cultural leaders. But if you 'know' god is 'real', then i am sorry, but your functionally indistiguisable for a person suffering from a delusion.
Really not sure why accepting the fact that the world would be a better place if science education was better makes you sad for me.
While i don't really know anything about Lillian Schwartz's claims, i do know that the shroud has been repeatedly tested with various radiometric dating techniques and that it can't possibly be from the same time as jesus.
Actually you need to look into the carbon dating again. There is no current reliable carbon dating, and in fact with the last fire there can not be a good carbon dating. People are looking very hard for some of the last testing pieces from before the fire to see if they can be used with a new carbon testing.
OK, let me make sure I understand this. We've got radiocarbon dates that show a Medieval age,It has [been] sho[w]n, several times, that the radio carbon dates are wrong. Everything else points to it being a legitimate relic.By "everything," you mean the style of the writing?
There are always more than two possibilities. If the Medieval radiocarbon dates are thrown out, that doesn't mean that the shroud is therefore automatically from the exact time of Christ's death, for example. It just means it's probably not Medieval. If the style is consistent with the time of Christ, that doesn't imply authenticity any more than a sonnet that I write in iambic pentameter is somehow an authentic Shakespeare sonnet.
Now, I don't know enough about the Shroud to comment further; if there are other lines of evidence, one way or the other, we'd need to look at those, too. But from what was linked so far, it sounds like the jury is completely out.
Waves a shiny lure in front of Kirth.
So I recently had an encounter with an anti-vaccination homepath.
Any homeopaths here?
What's wrong with handling rattlesnakes?Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
I handle gay Christian rattlesnakes who proselytize with tambourines. Can I be friends with you?
|
I handle gay Christian rattlesnakes who proselytize with tambourines. Can I be friends with you?What's wrong with handling rattlesnakes?Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
Get a real instrument, SPOTTY.
sniff!
|
|
I handle gay Christian rattlesnakes who proselytize with tambourines. Can I be friends with you?What's wrong with handling rattlesnakes?Ok, after a hundred pages, have we figured out anything yet?Yes. I've found some Christians who are not nut cases, who do not shake tambourines, speak in tongues, handle rattlesnakes, throw rocks at gay people, or try to proselytize me. They're my friends now. Et ca c'est bien.
Yes you can.
|
|
Really not sure why accepting the fact that the world would be a better place if science education was better makes you sad for me.
Actually you never said anything about science education. I am all for better science education and more stringent requirements for teachers. I am sad for you because you are so static in your ideas you have no chance of changing them. Sort of like a lot of the Christians you seem to so despise, that feel that everyone but their little group are going to go to hell since they don't believe exactly the same way they do.
|
|
You mean such as you did with regard to Hitchens' ability to spin?
Ok, I will give you that one. My responses were overly aggressive and that is in my opinion one of Hitchens faults.
Are you damning all four participants, then?
Yes and no. In many ways the Cardinal was incapable of doing so, both due to his approach and to his linguistic capability.
I was however more impressed with Stephen fry’s responses. I may not agree but you “should give the devil his due.”
Well sure. Winning a debate could simply mean that you're quicker on your feet or your opponent is a boob. But it is possible to ascertain the truth through discourse, don't you agree?
Not always, I think that this was a good topic for debate because if the Church must face questions of this nature you cannot do so behind closed doors. I think that because of the SINS of the Past the Church in hesitant of this sort of debate. But if it does help a new group who are able to actually debate and respond well to such questions it will be a good thing in the long run for the Church.
At times though it is just beating a dead horse, such as when people refuse to even try to see another’s point of view or chose to assume your position on different subjects.
Stuff about Child abuse scandals
The Churches response was the problem. It is one thing if it was one priest, who was then drug through the coals due to his actions. But the hierarchy both here and abroad did little or nothing to stop it. They used the excuse of the confessional to allow this atrocity to continue. Many if not most of them have been removed from office. The Arch Bishop of Atlanta, a Jesuit, was replaced by a Franciscan friar. This may not mean much to a Non-Catholic, but to us that is like putting an Air force general in charge of the Navy.
It is now mandatory that all laity, and in fact any, who come in contact to children go through what most teachers already have, classes of sexual harassment and how to recognize it if you might see it and how to address it.Once again this will never make up for what has happened. It is however strong responses, at least here in the states, to put right what once was wrong.
I don't think either man argued that the Church was perfectly, universally, without exception and for all time completely in the wrong…. At which point the MP complained that bringing up bad things the church had done in a discussion of its moral character was somehow a cheap trick.
Maybe I should watch it again; I did get this impression from Hitchens not once but in more than one statement.
The MP’s response was in the fact that whenever anyone brings up the Church and why they think it is bad they have to harp on Condoms. This is in my opinion is a very cheap trick.The Church has specific reasons for its issues with condoms and these are in its opinion a moral issue. So be it. I disagree. I however realize that Condoms alone will not fix the aids issue in Africa. Hitchens and I will give him credit for saying this, not the way he says it but that he did mention Condoms are not the only answer. He just implied that it was. And that the Churches opinion on condoms was the reason for all the ills in the continent. At least that was my take.
In case you don’t know there have been many groups who have promoted condoms in east Africa even going so far as developing a coffee flavored one to attempt to slow the spread of aids. Even if the Church endorsed them I doubt it would do any good. People are people and sex is a very basic act. We all have the capability to rise above our baser instincts few of us do.
The Pope is, by church dogma, an absolute monarch. All the tithes given end up in his hands and it's his to spend as he will. Who is going to gainsay him?
By Dogma he is the successor of Saint Peter. In fact he is not and has not been an absolute Monarch for hundreds of years.
Try to do something they don't want on church property and see how long it is before you're asked to leave. It's not public land.
You are quite correct.
How much goes to actually helping the needy from all of that? Some, certainly. How much goes into maintaining St. Peter's and all the other basilicas and churches, historic and otherwise, when it could be going to homeless shelters and clinics? How much goes to support the priesthood and its seminaries, when it could be going to condoms and doctors?
(For that matter, how shall we calculate the number of deaths its contributed to by refusing not only to provide condoms in Africa, but by refusing to allow any organization that works with it to do the same, and then topping it off by claiming that condoms are wholly ineffective in preventing HIV (a lie I also heard from one of its parishioners in a public school health class he was teaching in the early 90s), or worse still that they increase the risk of infection all by themselves?
Well you would be very surprised. I wish I did have a copy of at least my parish’s expenses. Most of it goes out the door before it reaches anyone’s hands. We support not only a homeless shelter but also a very large soup kitchen, several Parochial schools not to mention sending money to the local United Way for adult education programs.
The fact of the matter is that many people did not feel it did much good back in the 90’s. We were wrong. Many people were wrong about Aids and how it was spread. The deaths from this disease are horrid. It is not a Gay disease, nor just a druggie Disease. It is a Human disease. Countries were doing what you are saying, and have done in the past. At one time so was the US. It is a sad state of affairs all around.If you were forced to do something you are morally opposed to because a government mandated you must, would you?
So you disagree with the entire idea of having the debate? (The MP seemed to, which is odd considering the boilerplate she spit out about being happy to be there.) Do you disagree that the truth can be arrived at through honest discussion and debate? Leaving aside the particular issues with regards to the question under contention, are you just saying that we shouldn't even be talking about it?
No I do not as I mentioned above. The MP did not gain any respect from me, both from her responses and her attitude.
I once again think that open and honest debate is good for the community and also for the Church. I do not agree that this was exactly that. I can however see your positions on this. And once again I think debates such as this are good, overall.
I think I have exhausted my responses for this so if you don’t mind maybe we can speak of something else. Thank you once again for sharing, it was……………… interesting.
Crimson, since we seem mostly agreed and you say you'd like to talk about other things (I don't blame you. Child rape isn't a fun topic. Few things are more firmly in the camp of subjects which we must consider, rather than those we would wish to consider.) I'll just zero in on a few small (in terms of verbiage, anyway) points.
The MP’s response was in the fact that whenever anyone brings up the Church and why they think it is bad they have to harp on Condoms. This is in my opinion is a very cheap trick.
The Church has specific reasons for its issues with condoms and these are in its opinion a moral issue.
So it's as my side in the debate (I forget if it was Hitchens or Fry) said: AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse. We're agreed that the Church has this opinion. For that matter, I suspect the MP is too. Surely that goes to whether the Church in general is a good thing for the world or not. I mean, if it's assisting the spread of HIV that's not exactly a morally neutral act.
If she had gone on to make your argument, that the Church's opinion on the matter simply isn't influential, then that would at least have been an attempt. It's not a very persuasive one, though. It's true that other groups, with lots less money and lots less influence, have had some success with condom distribution. If they've done it, then the Church with its vastly greater wealth and influence could do so much more. Instead every few years it makes it to the attention of the Western media that yet another bishop is telling people that HIV swims right through the pores in condoms and the Vatican either cheers the fellow or remains silent.
If you were forced to do something you are morally opposed to because a government mandated you must, would you?
If my choice is between continuing the oppression of a hated minority and giving up on helping people genuinely in need that are not necessarily members of that hated minority, then I don't see any downside at all. This (I am assuming we are now talking about how the Church is closing down adoption agencies because it can't be bothered to step its foot off the neck of homosexuals for a nanosecond.) is just like condoms. The church thinks that it's bad that children don't have homes, but it would rather they remain in that state than have to employ a single gay person. They would not have to even start preaching that homosexuality is a normal, natural element of human sexuality to accommodate the laws.
It goes right back to the question, doesn't it? Is an organization with this set of priorities a force for good in the world? When it always comes down to helping people being the least favored outcome? It doesn't seem at all likely.
|
|
It goes right back to the question, doesn't it? Is an organization with this set of priorities a force for good in the world? When it always comes down to helping people being the least favored outcome? It doesn't seem at all likely.
Depends which is helping them more. All groups have priorities. Not all of them are the same as yours. It is like the US being guilty of the majority of the worlds hate crimes, because we report them.
Or the old saying "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't."
Depends which is helping them more. All groups have priorities. Not all of them are the same as yours. It is like the US being guilty of the majority of the worlds hate crimes, because we report them.It goes right back to the question, doesn't it? Is an organization with this set of priorities a force for good in the world? When it always comes down to helping people being the least favored outcome? It doesn't seem at all likely.
Not quite. Employing homosexuals or distributing condoms would do nothing whatsoever to impede the good work the Church is capable of doing against HIV's spread or with putting children into homes. But the Church has chosen without fail to defer those worthy activities in the name of dogma. This is a pretty poor argument for it being a force for good in the world.
Minaret controversy in SwitzerlandDirect democracy at its worst (IMO).
That's the truth. I'm no friend to houses of worship, but the Swiss weren't about to vote a moratorium on building church steeples or bell towers. It looks like the Swiss government was bent on doing the right thing, but it got overruled.
Always a bad idea to entrust the rights of a minority to the majority. They're the reason the minority normally needs rights to begin with.
|
|
Not quite. Employing homosexuals or distributing condoms would do nothing whatsoever to impede the good work the Church is capable of doing against HIV's spread or with putting children into homes. But the Church has chosen without fail to defer those worthy activities in the name of dogma. This is a pretty poor argument for it being a force for good in the world.Depends which is helping them more. All groups have priorities. Not all of them are the same as yours. It is like the US being guilty of the majority of the worlds hate crimes, because we report them.It goes right back to the question, doesn't it? Is an organization with this set of priorities a force for good in the world? When it always comes down to helping people being the least favored outcome? It doesn't seem at all likely.
Well thats your opinion.
Instead, would you be willing explain what evidence you have that god exists. Do you have any independantly varifiable evidence that deities of any sort exist? If you do not, how exactly is it rational to believe in their existance, without that evidence?
There is a thing I call circular logic. It goes as such:
Can you show proof that God exists?
No, but can you show Proof he does not?
Why should I the proof is up to you?
No it is up to you to prove he does not?
Ad nauseum….
At this point most would choose Occam's razor, the problem with this option is “if you put S4@7 in, you will get S4@7 out.” Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.
One can argue that there is so much unknown to man and science, or as CS Lewis, a one time atheist, said “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen. Not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.”
That isn't circular logic.
This is circular logic. It is the special comfy sweater of the literalist.
The existance is not a simple or eligant answer. it implies that everything we see in the universe is wrong.
You have entirely failed to grasp the concept of burdon of proof. Simple put, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the claim of the existance of deities, is the most extraordinary claim there is.
I will say a couple of things here. First, you are right about one thing, that is also Circular logic.
Thank G~D I am not a literalist.
You could also reason that the entirity of creation is Extrordinary Proof. I doubt though that if you had a visitation tonight by Angels you would even think this was any proof, rather it was just a bad plum you ate before you went to bed.
If angels visited me, it might well change my opinion about god. But without independant verification, by a very large number of other people, measurements, video and photographic record of the event i would not attempt to convince anyone it actually occured. Why? Well, firstly, because without evidence the most rational explination for the experience is that i had a psychotic episode. If said angels told me to do anything and it conflicted with my moral code or reason and i found my self tempted to do anything about it, i sincerierly hope that i would have the moral fortitude to have my self commited.
Seeing angels is functionally indistiguishable for believing your charlie chaplin.
The world is no kind of proof of the existance of a deity. If you believe it is, perhapes you'd be willing to explain why you think it is.
Lastly on this point. The example you game isn't circular logic, it is an attempt to dodge the burdon of proof.
Actually you never said anything about science education. I am all for better science education and more stringent requirements for teachers. I am sad for you because you are so static in your ideas you have no chance of changing them. Sort of like a lot of the Christians you seem to so despise, that feel that everyone but their little group are going to go to hell since they don't believe exactly the same way they do.
Really not sure why accepting the fact that the world would be a better place if science education was better makes you sad for me.
Dispise? Hardly.
I have an open mind. I practice very hard to keep it open.
For instance, i am in the strictest sense an agnostic. In that i cannot absolutely say that there are no gods. I also cannot absolutely say that there are no fairys, no alien visitations to earth, no invisible and intangible pink unicorns, no flying spagetti monster and no celestial tea pot. I look at all of these things i consider the likely hood of all of them and assign likely hood to them. They are all very monumentally unlikely, but fairys and aliens on earth seem to me to be somewhat more like but still so unlikely to be something that can be dismissed. Theistic gods is just about the most unlikely of the lot, because the infomation we have about the universe does not seem consistant with the existance of an interventionist, all knowing, all powerful and all good god.
It isn't closed mindedness that leads me to the position, it is the fact that the evidence is constant. Should the evidence change, then my position should change as well.
This is why i ask for the evidence which supports your claim.
Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.
There is nothing elegant in the proposition of an all knowing, all powerful, good being who allows evil in his creation. If you were not referring to the Judeo-Christian god, then I am willing to listen to your idea of god.
Do you also believe in Santa Claus? I can not prove that he exists. I challenge you to prove that he does not exists. I doubt either of us will be very successful. Since millions of children receive gifts Christmas morning, the most elegant and simple answer is there must be a Santa Claus.
Using this method though you can also come to the “fact” that God exists simply because it is the simplest most elegant answer.There is nothing elegant in the proposition of an all knowing, all powerful, good being who allows evil in his creation. If you were not referring to the Judeo-Christian god, then I am willing to listen to your idea of god.
Do you also believe in Santa Claus? I can not prove that he exists. I challenge you to prove that he does not exists. I doubt either of us will be very successful. Since millions of children receive gifts Christmas morning, the most elegant and simple answer is there must be a Santa Claus.
*Hugs the puppy* Oh court fool, you have made my day so very much indeed.
|
"Man, I'm out of it for a little while and everyone gets delusions of granduer."
Re: the Shroud -- like others have said, does it really matter? Looking at the Wikipedia article I don't ever see things coming to a resolution. It looks like the article has been pretty well contaminated due to a number of circumstances making carbon dating difficult at best. Based on a large number of other things though, I find it incredibly unlikely that it was the article used to cover Jesus in the tomb. At the same time -- let's suppose it was. What would that prove? Nothing really.
CJ -- are you Catholic? Just trying to get a feeling of where you're coming from.
Re: this massive debate thing that you guys have been discussing. I haven't had much of a chance to take a look at it. What was the general premise to begin with? Based on your responses, I think I have a fairly good idea as to the outcome, but I'm at a loss as to why it happened in the first place. It almost looks like it was a specific attack made against the Catholic Church to begin with. Possibly needed to happen if that was the intent, but it feels kind of like there was a specific agenda outside of some of the things that were discussed.
Kirth -- as an aside, I thought that carbon dating was better for things that were considerably older than most things found from the Greek and Roman era to the present. I thought that a lot of dating techniques with more recent archeology used other methods for dating. I also thought that carbon dating organic material gave quirky results. I readily admit that I know nearly nothing in this field and hence is the reason why I'm asking for a little more of an explanation.