UnkleE, nowhere did I say you should please me. I have tried in my responses to keep to your caveats. I said maybe my question was not well framed and as such you answered to a different question.
Ah so historians may believe miracles happened in the earlier times but at some point just became scarce. I am going to study history!
Ah far from it. They both died, that was just hypothetical.
Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions. I will let it rest.
Well played William.
Nate, I think, from the time Unklee gave his caveats for answering questions, there has been a lot of civility. It is not being rude or uncivil if from a comment I drew a conclusion. All Unklee need say is that conclusion is erroneous and in what way but to call us uncivil is trying to railroad this discussion so to speak.
Yes, I think most of the discussion has been civil. I think you and Ark have had some really good points of discussion with unkleE. I was mostly referring to some of Gary’s comments and maybe yours when you talked about unkleE’s reasons for believing in miracles.
Not trying to derail the discussion though… sorry if it came across that way.
I think much of the disagreement between our camp and unkleE’s comes down to what kind of evidence is good evidence for the miraculous. I’ve read his post on modern day miracles before, and I recommend it to anyone who hasn’t read it. And though I haven’t researched those stories as thoroughly as unkleE has, what I’ve read so far hasn’t made me think those events were actual miracles.
And even if I did believe miracles do occur, I doubt I would believe the miracles stories of the Bible. I just don’t find the gospels or Paul’s writings to be reliable enough to carry that claim. While I don’t know for sure if Jesus ever lived, or if there was an actual empty tomb, or if the disciples who personally knew him came to believe that he came back to life, I can imagine explanations for those things that don’t require the supernatural. Furthermore, I find the theology of Christianity to be too inconsistent to be believable.
But I understand that some people see it differently.
What I find interesting is the fact that most Christians don’t know much about the details of these issues. And if they did, I wonder how many of them would still be Christians. What does that say about the quality of their belief? If the Christian god were real, would he still consider them true Christians? Surely he would know the quality of their hearts and know that their belief stems from ignorance rather than knowledge… I just find the moral implications of that interesting.
The majority of scholars (of the Koran) believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem, therefore since the majority of scholars believe this, I should too.
I am leaving my house at this very moment to go down to the local mosque to convert to Islam. The majority of scholars (of the Koran) say I should.
mohammad was a real man too. and his body is in the tomb, right where it should be. the true prophet knows that flesh does not reside in heaven, and that the soul is the true man, while the flesh is just a temporary vehicle made for earth.
it only makes sense that his earthly body be left on earth as mohammad is now tickling and playing magic and D&D with his 70 virgins in heaven… in his spiritual body.
UnkleE has made the assertion that the claims of the New Testament have strong historical evidence to support them. He has been asked to back up that claim regarding the most important claim of the NT, the resurrection of the Jewish prophet, Jesus.
Instead of directly answering that question, he has played the usual Christian game of appealing to assumptions, hearsay, and “scholarly” (Christian) opinion. In the process, he has been condescending, manipulative (debate by my rules or I’m taking my marbles and going home), and obfuscating. In one word, a prick.
I have no intention of stopping in calling him out for his insulting, condescending behavior and his refusal to answer a simple question. If that makes me a rude asshole, so be it. You will have to ban me from your blog to get me to stop.
Gary, why do we have to make such ultimatums? UnkleE hasn’t been a prick at all. His comments have been straightforward, and it seems to me that he’s been trying to answer specific questions. He hasn’t “spoken” to Ark in years, but he’s even put that aside in this thread, resulting in a decent, civil conversation between he and Ark.
Like I said in my last comment, there are some things unkleE views as evidence that the rest of us may not. That doesn’t mean he’s “playing games” or being “condescending” or “manipulative”. If anyone’s been condescending, it’s you. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
Look, I like you, and I like your contributions to the discussion. And chances are, you may not even realize how negatively some of your comments have come across. It’s easy for us to mock and make jokes about beliefs that we don’t agree with when we’re in a group of like-minded people. But I prefer to keep this blog open and welcoming to Christians, or people of any belief-set. I’m not saying we can’t show emotion, etc. But I just don’t see why we can’t be civil…
I am fully aware that some of my comments have been mocking and negative towards UnkleE. That is my intent.. What I am surprised by, Nate, is that you do not see the manipulative behavior of UnkleE. He only agreed to speak with Ark if Ark would first agree to his ground rules. If you don’t abide by UnkleE’s ground rules he stops speaking to you. What UnkleE wants is for all of us to accept that the majority of “historians” (Christian NT scholars) believe that Jesus performed miracles. If he can get us to admit that, then the idea of Jesus performing a BIG miracle, like coming back from the dead, is a reasonable and rational conclusion, and therefore we must accept his first century superstition as a valid 21st century worldview.
Its baloney. That is what he is attempting to do by not addressing the Resurrection directly. I’m calling his game.
“What UnkleE wants is for all of us to accept that the majority of “historians” (Christian NT scholars) believe that Jesus performed miracles.” – As I’ve said, that is a subversive tactic used by both Unk and Brandon alike – get everyone to accept one small premise, then add a larger one, then a larger still, etc. – suddenly, you’re balancing an inverted pyramid.
From my bystander view, it appears to me Gary wants unkleE to concede certain things that Gary feels are true/untrue. It’s not going to happen. As unkleE has said, he’s been researching and reading for 50 years. Does anyone think a few comments on a blog are going to change his mind?
Having said that, I do feel unkleE can be condescending. We had a discussion on my own blog sometime back that I finally had to call to a halt because he continued to discount the research that I had done.
Nevertheless, I agree with Nate. We need to ask ourselves if we would say the same things if we were talking face-to-face.
If you look at my conversation with Josh above, once he admitted that his belief system is based on faith and not evidence, I complimented him and gave him respect. That is the difference between you and me. I can respect someone who believes in a superstition if he admits that his belief is based solely on his feelings and intuition (faith), AND, as long as he does not try to threaten others with his faith-based superstition. Keep your superstitions to yourself, and I have no issue with you. However, tell me that you have “strong” evidence for your superstition and I demand you give me that “strong” evidence for me to give your superstition even an ounce of respect. Why? Because if liberals like UnkleE can garner respect for his superstition-based world-view, this gives cover for the fundamentalists to demand respect and acceptance of their supernatural-based worldview.
I won’t do it!
By giving UnkleE and his brand of “evidence-based” liberal Christian superstition respect, you are aiding and abetting the fundamentalists. I suggest you stop. If not, I believe that you are complicit in perpetuating the religious discrimination and persecution of millions of people worldwide.
I have never asked UnkleE to concede that his worldview is false. I have only asked that he present his “strong” evidence for the Christian assertion of a bodily resurrection of a first century Jewish prophet.
Once he stops obfuscating and presents his “strong” evidence, we can debate it amicably. It is his manipulation, condescending attitude, and game playing that I find offensive.
I suggest you stop. If not, I believe that you are complicit in perpetuating the religious discrimination and persecution of millions of people worldwide.
lol, Gary, you do get carried away sometimes. Nate just wants a civil discussion on his blog. Let’s leave it at that. Otherwise we are just distracting from the points.
The point: Is there enough historical evidence to conclude that valid miracles occurred at the hand of Jesus?
UnkleE: “The New Testament miracles need to first be examined by seeing what the scholars write about them, as I have already mentioned. That information would be the basis of a personal choice whether to believe the stories or not, and that choice would be determined in part by our beliefs about Jesus and God, which would presumably lead you and I to different conclusions.”
UnkleE says we should start with what the scholars say. Fair enough. We’ve all done that to one extent or another. We all know the details and the kind of evidence we are dealing with. Does UnkleE have more knowledge on the subject of evidence? That remains to be shown.
I think the big admission is “and that choice would be determined in part by our beliefs about Jesus and God”. So much for staying neutral. This is no longer a historical discussion, it’s a theological discussion (no surprise to anyone).
Nate said: “Furthermore, I find the theology of Christianity to be too inconsistent to be believable.”
This is really what it boils down to. If not for the surrounding theology no one would care about some 1st century miracle claims (about as much as they care about Elvis sightings). What does everyone else think? Should theology count as evidence? Should it be used as the deciding factor? Can anyone agree on what the theology even is? These are the questions inside my head today.
“lol, Gary, you do get carried away sometimes. Nate just wants a civil discussion on his blog. Let’s leave it at that. Otherwise we are just distracting from the points.”
It’s not a laughing matter, Dave. By coddling moderate/liberal Christians and their appeals to “evidence” to support their superstitions, we enable fundamentalists like the late Jerry Falwell to garner enough social respectability that the social and foreign policy of a major world power has been dramatically changed. If in the 1970’s, religious supernatural claims had been seen as just as preposterous and foolish as the belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, Jerry Falwell would have been laughed at and ridiculed instead of dictating national policy for a major American political party. The effects of giving respectability to this superstitious religious nonsense is still with us today, here in the US, and across the world.
Ask the gays and lesbians in Uganda if they think I am “getting carried away” in attacking this superstition-fueled belief system.
without theology, no one may care, but I suspect even fewer people would believe the claimed miracles were true.
To me, it seems like UnkleE is saying that scholars believe there was a jesus, and a paul, and matthew, etc and that since the scholars think they were real, and since other real people think they performed miracles and/or we spokesman for god that we can find it all trustworthy.
I dont agree with that, and I realize it’s paraphrased, if close at all to his position.
but i think he doesnt apply these across the board. I don think he’s fair in his application of this. just consider other religions, etc.
I think it is the theology that makes people believe in this god over that god, in this miracle over that miracle, or martyr over martyr, book over book and on and on.
but what causes some people to believe in something and others not to? I dont know, but unkleE finds the evidence compelling to faith – i find it extremely lacking. unkleE admits he has faith and must make some leaps with it – I think his leaps are too big and generous, but he thinks they’re logical steps based on the evidence we’ve seen.
we may not be able to agree on much more. and in some ways that’s alright. if he believes it, fine. if this is all the evidence he has, then i feel better about my conclusion.
unkleE isn’t in uganda and isn’t attacking gays and lesbians.
he likes scholars and attributes too much to them and makes huge leaps based on what some of them think, but come on, that’s a far cry from persecuting anyone.
if you feel like unklee is being an underhanded jerk, okay, i wont dispute that; but it’s okay. call him out on it, rise above it, sink to it, whatever.
I dont think anyone here is persecuting anyone anywhere else. let’s not lump those here in with that lot over the smallest of correlation.
gary is right.
I’ve been viewing hatred and violent threats directed towards gays from christians on the internet all day, every day. and I take it very personally.
I never said that UnkleE or any other moderate/liberal Christian is persecuting gays,
What I said is that their continued insistence for the social acceptability, respectability, and rationality of their supernatural claims, serves as cover for fundamentalists to discriminate and commit atrocities in the name of the very same superstition.
Dave asks, should theology count as evidence? I say no.Theology is the study of the nature of god and in its long history it has given us nothing to go on.
Nate in trying to give unklee wiggle room misses my point completely and I will demonstrate. I believe there are black holes. If you ask me the evidence for it I will point you to NDT and Hawking. When I asked unklee for his evidence for miracles he said Sanders. How then am I wrong in concluding he believes in miracles because Sanders believes. I could given time do the math for black holes he can’t do the same for miracles.
And, Gary, when you go to that local mosque, tell them you have many friends coming over.
Once he stops obfuscating and presents his “strong” evidence, we can debate it amicably.
unklee is entitled to view such subjects in any way he chooses, including how he views truth and evidence.
Remember he has god on his side. How can he possibly be wrong?
In the game of cricket it is often considered better tactics to bat first, simply because the team batting first posts is the first team to post score on the board.
Now the onus is on the other team to best it.
What you must realise is that unklee already has a ”score on the board.” The Bible.
And if you come close to bettering it or ‘bowling him out’ this is what you face.
This was the last-but-one comment from a commenter called Bernard.
If you are up to it … read on. 🙂
I agree that our views differ in important points. I apply scientific methods, while you rely on one source. Let the readers decide which point of view is more convincing… 😉
There is a portion of this discussion I missed. Someone somewhere has the holy foreskin and here unklee is just talking about the shroud. In his position, I would be trying to find the damn piece wherever it could be. It still must have healing powers.
Those who think the shroud is evidence of something, what happened to their common sense? Who are the living relatives of jeebus who will donate DNA or some god is going to miraculously do this. I think what sometimes passes as research is similar to the ontological argument by Anslem.
Finding Truth 
UnkleE, nowhere did I say you should please me. I have tried in my responses to keep to your caveats. I said maybe my question was not well framed and as such you answered to a different question.
Ah so historians may believe miracles happened in the earlier times but at some point just became scarce. I am going to study history!
Ah far from it. They both died, that was just hypothetical.
Thanks for taking your time to answer my questions. I will let it rest.
Well played William.
Nate, I think, from the time Unklee gave his caveats for answering questions, there has been a lot of civility. It is not being rude or uncivil if from a comment I drew a conclusion. All Unklee need say is that conclusion is erroneous and in what way but to call us uncivil is trying to railroad this discussion so to speak.
LikeLike
Hi Mak,
Yes, I think most of the discussion has been civil. I think you and Ark have had some really good points of discussion with unkleE. I was mostly referring to some of Gary’s comments and maybe yours when you talked about unkleE’s reasons for believing in miracles.
Not trying to derail the discussion though… sorry if it came across that way.
LikeLike
I think much of the disagreement between our camp and unkleE’s comes down to what kind of evidence is good evidence for the miraculous. I’ve read his post on modern day miracles before, and I recommend it to anyone who hasn’t read it. And though I haven’t researched those stories as thoroughly as unkleE has, what I’ve read so far hasn’t made me think those events were actual miracles.
And even if I did believe miracles do occur, I doubt I would believe the miracles stories of the Bible. I just don’t find the gospels or Paul’s writings to be reliable enough to carry that claim. While I don’t know for sure if Jesus ever lived, or if there was an actual empty tomb, or if the disciples who personally knew him came to believe that he came back to life, I can imagine explanations for those things that don’t require the supernatural. Furthermore, I find the theology of Christianity to be too inconsistent to be believable.
But I understand that some people see it differently.
What I find interesting is the fact that most Christians don’t know much about the details of these issues. And if they did, I wonder how many of them would still be Christians. What does that say about the quality of their belief? If the Christian god were real, would he still consider them true Christians? Surely he would know the quality of their hearts and know that their belief stems from ignorance rather than knowledge… I just find the moral implications of that interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The majority of scholars (of the Koran) believe that Mohammad flew on a winged horse to Jerusalem, therefore since the majority of scholars believe this, I should too.
I am leaving my house at this very moment to go down to the local mosque to convert to Islam. The majority of scholars (of the Koran) say I should.
LikeLiked by 2 people
mohammad was a real man too. and his body is in the tomb, right where it should be. the true prophet knows that flesh does not reside in heaven, and that the soul is the true man, while the flesh is just a temporary vehicle made for earth.
it only makes sense that his earthly body be left on earth as mohammad is now tickling and playing magic and D&D with his 70 virgins in heaven… in his spiritual body.
hang on gary, I’m coming with you.
LikeLike
Nate,
UnkleE has made the assertion that the claims of the New Testament have strong historical evidence to support them. He has been asked to back up that claim regarding the most important claim of the NT, the resurrection of the Jewish prophet, Jesus.
Instead of directly answering that question, he has played the usual Christian game of appealing to assumptions, hearsay, and “scholarly” (Christian) opinion. In the process, he has been condescending, manipulative (debate by my rules or I’m taking my marbles and going home), and obfuscating. In one word, a prick.
I have no intention of stopping in calling him out for his insulting, condescending behavior and his refusal to answer a simple question. If that makes me a rude asshole, so be it. You will have to ban me from your blog to get me to stop.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Gary, why do we have to make such ultimatums? UnkleE hasn’t been a prick at all. His comments have been straightforward, and it seems to me that he’s been trying to answer specific questions. He hasn’t “spoken” to Ark in years, but he’s even put that aside in this thread, resulting in a decent, civil conversation between he and Ark.
Like I said in my last comment, there are some things unkleE views as evidence that the rest of us may not. That doesn’t mean he’s “playing games” or being “condescending” or “manipulative”. If anyone’s been condescending, it’s you. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
Look, I like you, and I like your contributions to the discussion. And chances are, you may not even realize how negatively some of your comments have come across. It’s easy for us to mock and make jokes about beliefs that we don’t agree with when we’re in a group of like-minded people. But I prefer to keep this blog open and welcoming to Christians, or people of any belief-set. I’m not saying we can’t show emotion, etc. But I just don’t see why we can’t be civil…
Does that make sense?
Thanks 🙂
LikeLike
I am fully aware that some of my comments have been mocking and negative towards UnkleE. That is my intent.. What I am surprised by, Nate, is that you do not see the manipulative behavior of UnkleE. He only agreed to speak with Ark if Ark would first agree to his ground rules. If you don’t abide by UnkleE’s ground rules he stops speaking to you. What UnkleE wants is for all of us to accept that the majority of “historians” (Christian NT scholars) believe that Jesus performed miracles. If he can get us to admit that, then the idea of Jesus performing a BIG miracle, like coming back from the dead, is a reasonable and rational conclusion, and therefore we must accept his first century superstition as a valid 21st century worldview.
Its baloney. That is what he is attempting to do by not addressing the Resurrection directly. I’m calling his game.
I make no apologies.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nate I have to disagree here a bit, unklee’s has been a bit bitchy himself.
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/frustration/#comment-25529
and gary is right, unklee does claim to have strong historical evidence,
but I haven’t seen any of that yet, either.
LikeLike
“What UnkleE wants is for all of us to accept that the majority of “historians” (Christian NT scholars) believe that Jesus performed miracles.” – As I’ve said, that is a subversive tactic used by both Unk and Brandon alike – get everyone to accept one small premise, then add a larger one, then a larger still, etc. – suddenly, you’re balancing an inverted pyramid.
LikeLiked by 1 person
From my bystander view, it appears to me Gary wants unkleE to concede certain things that Gary feels are true/untrue. It’s not going to happen. As unkleE has said, he’s been researching and reading for 50 years. Does anyone think a few comments on a blog are going to change his mind?
Having said that, I do feel unkleE can be condescending. We had a discussion on my own blog sometime back that I finally had to call to a halt because he continued to discount the research that I had done.
Nevertheless, I agree with Nate. We need to ask ourselves if we would say the same things if we were talking face-to-face.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nate,
If you look at my conversation with Josh above, once he admitted that his belief system is based on faith and not evidence, I complimented him and gave him respect. That is the difference between you and me. I can respect someone who believes in a superstition if he admits that his belief is based solely on his feelings and intuition (faith), AND, as long as he does not try to threaten others with his faith-based superstition. Keep your superstitions to yourself, and I have no issue with you. However, tell me that you have “strong” evidence for your superstition and I demand you give me that “strong” evidence for me to give your superstition even an ounce of respect. Why? Because if liberals like UnkleE can garner respect for his superstition-based world-view, this gives cover for the fundamentalists to demand respect and acceptance of their supernatural-based worldview.
I won’t do it!
By giving UnkleE and his brand of “evidence-based” liberal Christian superstition respect, you are aiding and abetting the fundamentalists. I suggest you stop. If not, I believe that you are complicit in perpetuating the religious discrimination and persecution of millions of people worldwide.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nan,
I have never asked UnkleE to concede that his worldview is false. I have only asked that he present his “strong” evidence for the Christian assertion of a bodily resurrection of a first century Jewish prophet.
Once he stops obfuscating and presents his “strong” evidence, we can debate it amicably. It is his manipulation, condescending attitude, and game playing that I find offensive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
gary, I’m reading the same thing you are.
LikeLike
lol, Gary, you do get carried away sometimes. Nate just wants a civil discussion on his blog. Let’s leave it at that. Otherwise we are just distracting from the points.
The point: Is there enough historical evidence to conclude that valid miracles occurred at the hand of Jesus?
UnkleE says we should start with what the scholars say. Fair enough. We’ve all done that to one extent or another. We all know the details and the kind of evidence we are dealing with. Does UnkleE have more knowledge on the subject of evidence? That remains to be shown.
I think the big admission is “and that choice would be determined in part by our beliefs about Jesus and God”. So much for staying neutral. This is no longer a historical discussion, it’s a theological discussion (no surprise to anyone).
Nate said: “Furthermore, I find the theology of Christianity to be too inconsistent to be believable.”
This is really what it boils down to. If not for the surrounding theology no one would care about some 1st century miracle claims (about as much as they care about Elvis sightings). What does everyone else think? Should theology count as evidence? Should it be used as the deciding factor? Can anyone agree on what the theology even is? These are the questions inside my head today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“lol, Gary, you do get carried away sometimes. Nate just wants a civil discussion on his blog. Let’s leave it at that. Otherwise we are just distracting from the points.”
It’s not a laughing matter, Dave. By coddling moderate/liberal Christians and their appeals to “evidence” to support their superstitions, we enable fundamentalists like the late Jerry Falwell to garner enough social respectability that the social and foreign policy of a major world power has been dramatically changed. If in the 1970’s, religious supernatural claims had been seen as just as preposterous and foolish as the belief in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, Jerry Falwell would have been laughed at and ridiculed instead of dictating national policy for a major American political party. The effects of giving respectability to this superstitious religious nonsense is still with us today, here in the US, and across the world.
Ask the gays and lesbians in Uganda if they think I am “getting carried away” in attacking this superstition-fueled belief system.
LikeLiked by 2 people
without theology, no one may care, but I suspect even fewer people would believe the claimed miracles were true.
To me, it seems like UnkleE is saying that scholars believe there was a jesus, and a paul, and matthew, etc and that since the scholars think they were real, and since other real people think they performed miracles and/or we spokesman for god that we can find it all trustworthy.
I dont agree with that, and I realize it’s paraphrased, if close at all to his position.
but i think he doesnt apply these across the board. I don think he’s fair in his application of this. just consider other religions, etc.
I think it is the theology that makes people believe in this god over that god, in this miracle over that miracle, or martyr over martyr, book over book and on and on.
but what causes some people to believe in something and others not to? I dont know, but unkleE finds the evidence compelling to faith – i find it extremely lacking. unkleE admits he has faith and must make some leaps with it – I think his leaps are too big and generous, but he thinks they’re logical steps based on the evidence we’ve seen.
we may not be able to agree on much more. and in some ways that’s alright. if he believes it, fine. if this is all the evidence he has, then i feel better about my conclusion.
LikeLike
unkleE isn’t in uganda and isn’t attacking gays and lesbians.
he likes scholars and attributes too much to them and makes huge leaps based on what some of them think, but come on, that’s a far cry from persecuting anyone.
if you feel like unklee is being an underhanded jerk, okay, i wont dispute that; but it’s okay. call him out on it, rise above it, sink to it, whatever.
I dont think anyone here is persecuting anyone anywhere else. let’s not lump those here in with that lot over the smallest of correlation.
LikeLike
gary is right.
I’ve been viewing hatred and violent threats directed towards gays from christians on the internet all day, every day. and I take it very personally.
LikeLike
William,
I never said that UnkleE or any other moderate/liberal Christian is persecuting gays,
What I said is that their continued insistence for the social acceptability, respectability, and rationality of their supernatural claims, serves as cover for fundamentalists to discriminate and commit atrocities in the name of the very same superstition.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Dave asks, should theology count as evidence? I say no.Theology is the study of the nature of god and in its long history it has given us nothing to go on.
Nate in trying to give unklee wiggle room misses my point completely and I will demonstrate. I believe there are black holes. If you ask me the evidence for it I will point you to NDT and Hawking. When I asked unklee for his evidence for miracles he said Sanders. How then am I wrong in concluding he believes in miracles because Sanders believes. I could given time do the math for black holes he can’t do the same for miracles.
And, Gary, when you go to that local mosque, tell them you have many friends coming over.
LikeLike
@ Gary and others
unklee is entitled to view such subjects in any way he chooses, including how he views truth and evidence.
Remember he has god on his side. How can he possibly be wrong?
In the game of cricket it is often considered better tactics to bat first, simply because the team batting first posts is the first team to post score on the board.
Now the onus is on the other team to best it.
What you must realise is that unklee already has a ”score on the board.” The Bible.
And if you come close to bettering it or ‘bowling him out’ this is what you face.
This was the last-but-one comment from a commenter called Bernard.
If you are up to it … read on. 🙂
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/nazareth-re-visited/
LikeLike
There is a portion of this discussion I missed. Someone somewhere has the holy foreskin and here unklee is just talking about the shroud. In his position, I would be trying to find the damn piece wherever it could be. It still must have healing powers.
Those who think the shroud is evidence of something, what happened to their common sense? Who are the living relatives of jeebus who will donate DNA or some god is going to miraculously do this. I think what sometimes passes as research is similar to the ontological argument by Anslem.
LikeLike
Gary if you have sometime drop me a line @ makagutu@yahoo.com
LikeLike
dont you see, this is what they want. us turning on ourselves.
dont let them do it.
i’m not really serious, although we are now arguing over arguing instead of really discussing the points.
i dont really like playing these games.
the bible is a mess.
are we discussing tone or theology?
LikeLike