RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:04 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:52 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 7746
Location: miles from nowhere
It's a good point, but Hitch is clearly not understanding that the point of the Binding of Isaac story is that Yhvh doesn't want people to sacrifice their children to Him.

Just rams. :D

Unless he's talking about that NT story where a Being of infinite love shows it by having His Son die on the Cross. I definitely agree that's also some tough love. :D
Um, then why not just provide a ram from the get go?

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 3:25 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12428
What I love about the Bible is that it is an obvious load of bull. For instance, Jesus was born from a virgin, right? Joseph was NOT Jesus' father, right? Nothing to do with it, right? A DNA test would show that Joseph had nothing to do with it.

But the prophesies said that Jesus would be descended from King David. So, you crack open the very first book of the New Testament, and it shows how Jesus is descended from King David via...

...wait for it...

Joseph!

Interesting how nobody notices that. That was one of my first WTF moments when I really read the Bible. That's Matthew. In the Book of Luke, there's yet ANOTHER genealogy of Jesus, which differs quite a bit from Matthew. They were just making it up as they went along.

Interesting point about the DNA test and it would be interesting to see the results. It also poses the question if God does exist and impregnated Mary it would mean God has DNA. Why would God need DNA? I can see it for Earthly lifeforms to reproduce but if there is only one God then he (God must be a he if he impregnated Mary) has no one to mate with so there would be no need for DNA. That in itself would make it ultimate birth control.

Now, if God does have DNA then that would mean he is a mere mortal, not a god, and somehow by impregnating Mary either he raped her, had an affair with her, or Joseph allowed him to have sex with Mary because Joseph was impotent or had a low sperm count. Who knows, maybe they had a menage a trois and that's when Mary got pregnant.

_________________
IMPEACH NOW, REPLACE LATER!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 8:08 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10765
Location: Sunny South Florida
Um, then why not just provide a ram from the get go?


Seems to me the obvious point of the story is to tell the Israelites not to sacrifice children to Moloch and Baal, like the Canaanites around them, did. I agree, putting Abraham and Isaac through the psych! routine may have been overmuch (the Talmud says Isaac never ever spoke to Abraham after this event), but it gives it dramatic emphasis. Yhvh may demand stuff from you, but unlike Moloch, not your kids!

Somebody's based a Roguelike video game on it. Yeah, I don't quite get it, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bindi ... video_game)

Soren Kierkegaard wrote a whole philosophical treatise on the Biblical story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling

BTW, some people have proposed that Jesus' DNA is on the Shroud of Turin. I have always sort of wondered the same thing. If he was a virgin birth, then he would have no Y chromosome. Where would that have come from? But anyway, it's not his burial shroud anyway, it's not 2000 years old, and the whole thing is kind of silly.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9885

Seems to me the obvious point of the story is to tell the Israelites not to sacrifice children to Moloch and Baal, like the Canaanites around them, did. I agree, putting Abraham and Isaac through the psych! routine may have been overmuch (the Talmud says Isaac never ever spoke to Abraham after this event), but it gives it dramatic emphasis. Yhvh may demand stuff from you, but unlike Moloch, not your kids!

Somebody's based a Roguelike video game on it. Yeah, I don't quite get it, either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bindi ... video_game)

Soren Kierkegaard wrote a whole philosophical treatise on the Biblical story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Trembling

BTW, some people have proposed that Jesus' DNA is on the Shroud of Turin. I have always sort of wondered the same thing. If he was a virgin birth, then he would have no Y chromosome. Where would that have come from? But anyway, it's not his burial shroud anyway, it's not 2000 years old, and the whole thing is kind of silly.


Years ago in the late 70's I knew a Catholic physicist who was on a team who were allowed to investigate and date the Shroud of Turin. He said it's old enough and it was a burial shroud for someone who was crucified, but who's burial shroud it was is anyone's guess.

He had a film about the investigation, I saw it. He was an Air Force officer as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 10:46 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10765
Location: Sunny South Florida
The Shroud was carbon dated to ~1300 CE. By three independent labs, cross-confirming each others' results.
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

It was first displayed at Lirey, France around 1350 CE. This is all that can be historically determined for certain. When it was displayed, someone immediately wrote the Bishop of Lirey, telling him to take down the forgery as they knew the artist who made it. It was only moved to Turin in the 1500s.

I don't think it's anybody's burial shroud. Most people wrapped in burial shrouds in that time period were wrapped like a burrito. This will not produce a back and front image like we supposedly have on the Shroud. The face should look moon-shaped.

Shroudman, BTW, let's call him, is around 6'6". That would have been impressive in an era where the average height was around 5'4". He truly would have been a giant among men. He also has impossibly long arms.

I'll grant one point -- the artist got one detail right, it actually shows crucifixion wounds in the wrists rather than the hands, unlike most medieval paintings.

Yeah, there is DNA on the Shroud. From all the pilgrims who touched it and handled it.

According to microscopist Dr. Walter McCrone, the areas on the Shroud that people call "blood stains" are not. They are paint.
https://mcri.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 12:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35461
The magical thinking of the religious folks are astounding. It's truly hard to believe. Of course, the Bible doesn't speak of DNA, or even germs, for that matter, why? Because it was just people that wrote it. They had no idea of the real world, so disease was caused because God was displeased, for instance.

And they don't see that reality even today. It's much better that they don't have to take responsibility for their own actions, because God scapegoated his only son to take their sins away and render them guiltless. What a load of bullshit.

And God is most upset about what people do with their sexual organs. Out of all the universe, that's what takes all of his attentions.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9885
The Shroud was carbon dated to ~1300 CE. By three independent labs, cross-confirming each others' results.
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

It was first displayed at Lirey, France around 1350 CE. This is all that can be historically determined for certain. When it was displayed, someone immediately wrote the Bishop of Lirey, telling him to take down the forgery as they knew the artist who made it. It was only moved to Turin in the 1500s.

I don't think it's anybody's burial shroud. Most people wrapped in burial shrouds in that time period were wrapped like a burrito. This will not produce a back and front image like we supposedly have on the Shroud. The face should look moon-shaped.

Shroudman, BTW, let's call him, is around 6'6". That would have been impressive in an era where the average height was around 5'4". He truly would have been a giant among men. He also has impossibly long arms.

I'll grant one point -- the artist got one detail right, it actually shows crucifixion wounds in the wrists rather than the hands, unlike most medieval paintings.

Yeah, there is DNA on the Shroud. From all the pilgrims who touched it and handled it.

According to microscopist Dr. Walter McCrone, the areas on the Shroud that people call "blood stains" are not. They are paint.
https://mcri.org/v/64/The-Shroud-of-Turin


That would appear the be the last word on the issue but's its not.

There's a great deal of controversy about that carbon dating and for that matter every aspect of all of the examinations which have taken place on the Shroud.

The professor I knew was on the Shroud of Turin Research Project, Rudolph J. Dichtl, University of Colorado. This describes their work:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of ... ch_Project



With regard to the carbon dating this is a paper about the controversy I'm speaking of I found this link:
EVIDENCE FOR THE SKEWING OF THE C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN DUE TO REPAIRS
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf

Quote:
In light of the compelling evidence that we are about to present, we believe that the theory that the Shroud has literally been patched with medieval material from the 16thcentury, in the C-14 sample itself, explains the medieval carbon dating results.

Furthermore, several other sindonologists have identified various anomalies that also seem to point to undocumented repairs (Gervasio, 1986: 264, 268), which adds credence to the hypothesis that the C-14 sample area may have been similarly enhanced. Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the C-14 sample, which was from the same area from which the 1973 “Raes piece” was taken, stated:

I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become mixed up with the original fabric …(Riggi 1988:182).




In light of this controversy that date given by the 1988 testing should not be viewed in a vacuum or be regarded as the last word with regard to when the shroud was made.

One compelling reason I feel the paper above should be considered comes from my association with Major Dichtl and that film I viewed before the 1988 carbon testing was performed. Major Dichtl spoke of the repairs which had been made to the shroud and that film discussed and illustrated their extent.

That presentation about the Shroud of Turin Research Project at the University of Colorado was 10 years before the sample was taken which was used to carbon date the shroud.

The reason I refer to Rudolph J. Dichtl of the University of Colorado as Major Dichtl is because he was also a Major in the Air Force reserve and I saluted him as a superior officer when I knew him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:52 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35461
It is my opinion that ANYONE that truly believes the Shroud of Turin is actually a magical burial shroud of God's son, and the image was put upon it miraculously, is a fool, NOT a scientist in any way, shape or form.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 5:25 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 9885
It is my opinion that ANYONE that truly believes the Shroud of Turin is actually a magical burial shroud of God's son, and the image was put upon it miraculously, is a fool, NOT a scientist in any way, shape or form.


GoUnion I don't know anyone your overloaded statement would describe. :|

Furthermore even if one removes the condition that it be applied to a scientist and substitutes Catholic Pope in its place I don't know of any Pope since the 1890's that statement would describe.

"Pope John Paul II stated in 1998 that:"Since it is not a matter of faith, the Church has no specific competence to pronounce on these questions. She entrusts to scientists the task of continuing to investigate, so that satisfactory answers may be found to the questions connected with this Sheet."" -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:11 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 35461
Once again, my opinion: Anyone that thinks it's worthwhile to study the shroud as a possible actual shroud of the son of God might as well study a piece of toast with Mary's image burned in.

Why the hell do we even mess with such bullshit? It's living proof of Bird's Theorem, for sure. The idiotic things that people will worship boggles the mind.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:19 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10765
Location: Sunny South Florida
BISHOPS HENRY AND D’ARCIS - PROOF THAT THE SHROUD WAS FORGED?
http://www.miraclesceptic.com/lireyshroud.html

In the 1300's, a shroud bearing the image of Jesus front and back was venerated at Lirey as the true burial cloth of Jesus. De Charney was its owner and kept a strict silence on how he got the cloth except to say it was a gift which some interpret to mean it was a spoil of war. The silence is telling.

The bishop Pierre Henry and his successor D'Arcis were enraged with the shroud veneration for they saw this as a scam with which to fool pilgrims and get their money. De Charney and the priests were accused of setting up and running this fraud. The bishop's problem was that the evidence was that the image was a fake and the artist who created it had been interviewed. D'Arcis prepared documentation for the pope, Clement VII of Avignon, in order to get the buffoonery stopped. The D'Arcis Memorandum is the name of this document. Clement banned anybody from declaring the image authentic but warned D'Arcis that he would pay the penalty of excommunication unless he stops warring with the clergy at Lirey.

From the D'Arcis Memorandum

"The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes the dean of a certain collegiate church, to wit, that of Lirey, falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which he bore...And further to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them, pretended miracles were worked, certain men being hired to represent themselves as healed at the moment of the exhibition of the shroud."

Of the previous bishop who investigated he wrote, "Eventually after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed."

[snip][end]

This is what bodies in 1st century burial shrouds tend to look like.

Image

Let's assume, as most people do, the image was formed from bodily fluids from the corpse.

It would not form a clean front and back image suitable for display in a cathedral. Nice for display, not what a real image of a wrapped body would look like.

BTW, I respect STURP and their scientists. However, I note in their report they say there is hemoglobin (blood) on the shroud. Walter McCrone examined those areas with a microscope and found they were vermillion paint. Blood dried and in the air after 2000 years does not stay bright red. It turns brownish-black.

Image

In short: even though some have questioned McCrone's microscopic analysis - odd as he was an expert in the field - whatever the red stuff is on the Shroud, it cannot be blood. Unless a miracle occurred and somehow kept it red, unlike other blood, for 2000 years.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 6:29 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 10765
Location: Sunny South Florida
On the carbon dating ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... al_repairs

Mechthild Flury-Lemberg is an expert in the restoration of textiles, who headed the restoration and conservation of the Turin Shroud in 2002. She has rejected the theory of the "invisible reweaving", pointing out that it would be technically impossible to perform such a repair without leaving traces, and that she found no such traces in her study of the shroud.

Prof H E Gove, former professor emeritus of physics at the University of Rochester and former director of the Nuclear Structure Research Laboratory at the University of Rochester, helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona. Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again."[7]

[snip]

In December 2010 Professor Timothy Jull, a member of the original 1988 radiocarbon-dating team and editor of the peer-reviewed journal Radiocarbon, coauthored an article in that journal with Rachel A Freer-Waters. They examined a portion of the radiocarbon sample that was left over from the section used by the University of Arizona in 1988 for the carbon dating exercise, and were assisted by the director of the Gloria F Ross Center for Tapestry Studies. They viewed the fragment using a low magnification (~30×) stereomicroscope, as well as under high magnification (320×) viewed through both transmitted light and polarized light, and then with epifluorescence microscopy. They found "only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers" and no evidence that the samples actually used for measurements in the C14 dating processes were dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. They concluded that the radiocarbon dating had been performed on a sample of the original shroud material.

[snip][end]

Final question. How was the image made and could they do it with medieval technology? According to Dr. Garlaschelli, yes.

Smithsonian Channel Video
www.youtube.com Video from : www.youtube.com


To conclude, it could have been made in the 1300s, its first recorded appearance was in 1300s, and that matches the carbon dating. In science, we call that a confluence of evidence.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group