JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:44 am
otseng wrote: ↑Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:55 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:41 pm
My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.
Can you point to any Christian doctrine that states Jesus was a "half god"? Who believes Jesus was a "half god"? Evidence please, otherwise it's just another baseless opinion.
In the human species, at least during the time in question, a pregnancy occurs when a female is empregnated by a male. In the Christian story, God empregnates Mary, thereby producing a half human / half god hybrid.
Again, it's just your personal unsupported opinion since you have not provided any reference
Site rulings indicate I'm not bound to provide alternative explanations for your claims.
True, there's no rule against people who cannot debate rationally. But, if you want to debate me, you'll need to step up your game.
Beyond that, as you asked me my opinion, I presented it as my opinion, and will not restrict my opinion to only those answers you deem acceptable.
I've never asked for your opinion
. As a matter of fact, I don't want your opinion. I want a logical debate. This means I make a claim, then provide evidence and show where I got that evidence. You make a counter-claim, provide evidence and show where you got that evidence. This is how debates work. If you do not accept this, then you are not debating, but only providing personal opinions.
C'mon, you attack fundamentalist Christians all the time about them not providing evidence and backing up their claims. Why do you fail to do what you continually demand others to do?
I've merely pointed out that the blood and image on the shroud can't be confirmed as belonging to a half human / half god hybrid as related in biblical tales.
It's not pointing out anything. It's you stating your opinion
on something. More than that, it's simply ranting by the sheer number of times you've stated this opinion.
I will not bind myself to only those answers that bring you comfort.
You don't want to make a claim because it will make you uncomfortable. It's not picking at the low hanging fruit which you are comfortable with. Making a claim and defending it is not comfortable or easy work. It takes a lot of research and effort in composing posts. And it easily takes me over an hour to compose each of my arguments. And I've been doing this for all the topics I've debated in this thread. So, comfort is the last thing to describe myself.
Site rules indicate I'm under no obligation to provide alternative explanations for your claims.
Hmm, maybe I should change the site rules then to enforce people to debate logically....
Maybe you'll find more comfort debating those skeptics whose arguments bring you comfort.
Actually, it's the other way around. Skeptics have been uncomfortable debating me and left, as testified by you...
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:56 am
There's some great noms herein, but otseng is smart, tenacious, and ever thoughtful, no matter if I disagree on so much of his position.
I'm reminded of a video I once saw forever ago. A water buffalo was left alone from the protection of the herd, facing a pride of hungry lions. There was a chase, an attack defended. Another chase, another attack defended. For a good fifteen minutes the battle raged, neither side gaining the edge. Finally, the lions started dispersing. First one, then another, until the remainder of the pride decided it just wasn't worth risking them horns, that fury, that massive bulk.
otseng ain't no buffalo - I wouldn't want to dismiss his humanity - but that's just a quirk of his birth.
It's time he got his propers.
No serious skeptic on the shroud simply claims it was not Jesus.
Implies I'm not serious or sincere, though I've maintained this argument with you over the course of a multitude of posts.
Your own testimony reveals you are not a serious skeptic...
JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:27 pm
A few more questions for you:
Have you even been studying the Shroud of Turin?
I've studied it right up until I ran headlong into the three facts I've presented.
What sources have you been reading from?
The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant.
Can you post the urls for those sources?
I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts
From your reading, what shroud skeptics do you find the most convincing?
What are the top claims by shroud skeptics to argue against the authenticity of the shroud?
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud can't be shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
I do not know, nor have any means to confirm who, or what, is involved in the shroud image. I can only maintain that it does strike a human appearance.
We agree it was a human involved. But I maintain it is Jesus and you do not. So, you have to provide the evidence why it's not Jesus. Otherwise, you have no justification for it being someone other than Jesus.
If you can't offer us some means to confirm it's the biblical Jesus, why fuss at me for not accepting the claim that it is?
Of course I'll get to that and provide evidences. But are you willing to do the same for it being someone else?
The top skeptics - Walter McCrone, Michael Tite, Edward Hall - all have a position on what they think the shroud is. These are the most informed shroud skeptics and even they don't just stop at saying the shroud is not Jesus.
Maybe you'd find more comfort engaging them then.
If they want to join this debate, that'd be incredible. But, highly doubtful since McCrone and Hall are both dead. And Tite is quite advanced in age.
Where they don't bring you comfort, don't fuss at me.
The repeated charge of my comfort is ridiculous. It's like a lone water buffalo attacking a pack of lions and saying the buffalo is afraid to fight.
My argument, as I've said over and over, is...
1. There's no confirmed record of a human / god hybrid ever producing viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
How come you're so happy to debate all that other bunch of skeptics, but so reticent to consider the three facts above?
Why should I respond to unsupported baseless personal opinions?