For background: Shroud of Turin wiki.
Of course other sources may be preferred, that's just for the one person on the planet who ain't heard of it yet.
The debate:
The shroud of Turin is purported by some to be related directly to the burial / encavement of Jesus.
I propose that until the following three facts can be established, the shroud has not been shown to belong to Jesus...
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the hu,an / god hybrid in question.
For debate:
Do the three facts above do irreparable harm to claims that the shroud was ever draped over the biblical Jesus?
3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Moderator: Moderators
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
- boatsnguitars
- Banned
- Posts: 2060
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
- Has thanked: 477 times
- Been thanked: 580 times
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #31Yes, it is proven that Demi-Gods are like mules; infertile. This is a basic fact.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 12:31 pm ...
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
....
That, and Yeti's don't smell as bad as Sasquatches.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #32Now this is how to be a good human! You are an inspiration! Good on you for taking the high road. You have been silenced, which is a shame, but not for good (though threatend with it).JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 1:23 pm I don't understand why this line of inquiry is so problematic, and I ain't trying to be disruptive, so I'm gonna hafta bow out of the discussion before I get into more trouble than I'm already in.
Y'all be good.
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring.
This claim of yours, is a fact.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
This claim of yours, is a fact.
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.
This claim of yours is a fact.
I contend that to consider these facts to be merly claims is to ignore the meaning of the word fact and just a way to silence your claimed facts that are obviously uncomfortable to some.
(Evidence from this thread: These are not "facts", these are "claims")
I claim that it is a fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid. Why on earth would anyone take issue with such a thing? Claims can be factual obviously.
To the OP question directly: Do the three facts above do irreparable harm...
No, not irreparable harm as the supernatural is always an option to fall back on if the goal is to justify a belief.
Please continue to stay out of this thread though as losing your voice here would truly be a loss.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- AquinasForGod
- Sage
- Posts: 972
- Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
- Location: USA
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 71 times
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #33[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1]
I recommend watching
Although it will probably not convince you as it hasn't fully convinced me, it will inform you properly on the topic, which you are not.
I recommend watching
Although it will probably not convince you as it hasn't fully convinced me, it will inform you properly on the topic, which you are not.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20523
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #34He has been "silenced" for violating the rules. He is not being treated any differently than any other forum member.
Do you accept these claims/facts to be a rational refutation of the authenticity of the TS?I contend that to consider these facts to be merly claims is to ignore the meaning of the word fact and just a way to silence your claimed facts that are obviously uncomfortable to some.
- Clownboat
- Savant
- Posts: 9385
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1262 times
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #35You're the boss, but little ol me didn't witness any violations here in this thread where I was referring to the silencing happening.
(Seems as though the violations happened elsewhere, but are being enforced here to the point that the person in question is not comfortable remaining in this thread).
The TS has not been shown to be authentic.Do you accept these claims/facts to be a rational refutation of the authenticity of the TS?
Must I refute the existence of Bigfoot next?
Do you find both of these statements to be reasonable?:
- Bigfoots (sasquatches) have never been shown to exist or be authentic. Now please refute their existence.
- Human/God hybrids have never been shown to exist or be authentic. Now please refute their existence.
If human/god hybrids are not known to be a thing, why would a person be justified in claiming that they are an explanation for a thing like the Turin Shroud? Would that not be like someone claiming that Sasquatches are going through their garbages at night? Would you think such an explanation even needs to be refuted, just because it has been offered?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20523
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #36Yes, it was in a separate thread that this thread is based on. Here was the warning below:Clownboat wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 11:54 am You're the boss, but little ol me didn't witness any violations here in this thread where I was referring to the silencing happening.
(Seems as though the violations happened elsewhere, but are being enforced here to the point that the person in question is not comfortable remaining in this thread).
viewtopic.php?p=1111332#p1111332Bust Nak wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 11:44 amModerator WarningJoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Wed Feb 08, 2023 7:32 am Unfortunately, I was warned of sanctions for trying to discuss some of the facts surrounding the shroud. All I feel safe replying here is...
Quit it. Posting the same thing over and over again goes beyond mere discussions. It's not safe to push the boundary.
As for silencing in this thread, I've never said anything to prevent Joey from posting here except to simply follow the rules. If he follows the rules, by all means he can post here.
I'm expecting a simple yes or no to my question.The TS has not been shown to be authentic.Do you accept these claims/facts to be a rational refutation of the authenticity of the TS?
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: 3 Facts and the Shroud of Turin
Post #37I said I'd leave this be, but I think the following can clear some things up...
First, I absolutely reject strawman arguments, from me or anybody.
It's my firm conviction that Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth, his supernatural abilities, and various other notions, can, or should be considered the literal son of god, even as the Christian notion "Son of God" is differently understood.
That said, my brief looking into it just now indicates the vast majority (all?) of Christian doctrine / belief basically rejects my position regarding Christian claims in this matter. With this in mind, and seeing the disruption my view and terminology causes, I don't see a productive argument being had about this.
After all, there's plenty of goofy claims to go after without kicking up a fuss on this deal
First, I absolutely reject strawman arguments, from me or anybody.
It's my firm conviction that Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth, his supernatural abilities, and various other notions, can, or should be considered the literal son of god, even as the Christian notion "Son of God" is differently understood.
That said, my brief looking into it just now indicates the vast majority (all?) of Christian doctrine / belief basically rejects my position regarding Christian claims in this matter. With this in mind, and seeing the disruption my view and terminology causes, I don't see a productive argument being had about this.
After all, there's plenty of goofy claims to go after without kicking up a fuss on this deal
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin