tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Sad, really sad.
Miracle of the Shroud II: The Second Coming
- Thread starter tsig
- Start date
-
- Tags
- shroud of turin
- Status
Sad, really sad.
ferd burfle
Graduate Poster
Indeed, the last thing Jabbaa wants in this thread is progress or, heaven forbid, some resolution. It's similar to the situation when there's a public debate between a scientist and a Creationsist; creationism is perceived by the faithful and the uninformed as having eqaul scientifc validity as science.
Hence the glacial pace, the fringe resets and endless quibbling, all to draw attention away from the elephant in the room.
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
This thread has been resolved.
Jabba stated that he would present his evidence for the Shroud being two thousand years old, then backpedaled madly when he realized that he had none. Without this evidence, there is nothing else to say, because the Shroud cannot possibly be shown to be the burial cloth of a man from two thousand years ago if you cannot show that it is from two thousand years ago.
The argument is over. The thread is done. Everything past Jabba's backpedaling post is just the crowd wandering out of their seats and muttering to themselves.
Jabba, your argument has collapsed. The Shroud is a fake. There is no evidence to the contrary, and your constant running about in circles trying to pretend otherwise has lost its charm.
I'm done with this thread until such time as you actually present something in the way of evidence.
So, essentially, I'm just done.
If that were a reason for stopping, we would have back in 2013, when we first demonstrated that Jabba's arguments were nonexistent and that all of the evidence proved the shroud to not be the burial cloth of Christ.Nonpareil said:
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist., Moderator
Slowvehicle -
At first I found your endless repetition annoying. But your incessant nagging has convinced me: I put Bright Earth on my library list.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Rincewind
Philosopher
SezMe
post-pre-born
It'll be 2000 years old by the time this thread has some evidence it is 2000 years old.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wouldn't it then be 4,000 years old?
Jabba
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2012
- Messages
- 5,613
Painting?/Gesso?
- I interpreted wrongly the little bit I read.
- Note that "going off half cocked" can be much quicker than going off fully cocked, and you guys can very quickly point out how I'm wrong. If I had taken the time to be sure I was right, our progress would be much slower -- as I'm the one who holds us up, and our pace would be much more on my shoulders.
- Agreed.
- I interpreted wrongly the little bit I read.
- Note that "going off half cocked" can be much quicker than going off fully cocked, and you guys can very quickly point out how I'm wrong. If I had taken the time to be sure I was right, our progress would be much slower -- as I'm the one who holds us up, and our pace would be much more on my shoulders.
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Why did you read only a little bit?
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
The pace couldn't go any slower. This conversation hasn't moved a millimeter in 2+ years.
How about some evidence that the CIQ is old enough to be authentic (~2000 years old)?
This is a lie. No interpretation was required for that Wiki article; it's simple sraight-forward language.
What you are saying is the following: If we want you to actually examine the evidence--including the evidence YOU provide--we should expect even further delays. What THAT means is that you are not, currently, examining the evidence. Which in turn means that you cannot come to ANY of the conclusions you come to, because they are literally not based on anything. To be based on anything would mean being based on the evidence, after all.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
Good Morning, Mr. Savage.
If you were a student in one of my classes, and tried to say something like this, I would point out that it is not because of the blistering pace of the richly intellectual give-and-take that your opinion about the CIQ is demonstrably wrong...it is because your opinion is, in fact, demonstrably wrong.
The actual content of the wiki about gesso was just a sentence or two past the "little bit" that you read.
This is precisely why I asked you if you had, in fact read the Piczek article you posted. Never mind that I have explained about gesso to you more than once--had you , in fact, read all of the article you posted, you would have seen that the author's misstatements about gesso are among the very least of her flights of fancy. This is only one of the problems with cherry-picking, quote-mining, and research-by-headline.
Suppose we sidestep this attempted derail, and you continue with all (or even any) of your evidence that the CIQ is, in fact, 2000 years old?
Last edited:
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
If you can't show the rag is 2000ish years old then we aren't going at a pace;we are standing still. No date, no authenticity.
Although, why you tie this to your belief about Jesus is beyond me. The holy tablecloth or whatever the hell it really is does not feature in any doctrines of faith that I'm aware of. If believing in this Jesus fellow brings you comfort then just believe that and ignore the rag. You must realize that your imprinted bed sheet isn't what you want it to be. If it were, you'd have provided evidence by now. All your ancillary topics and hiding behind "effective debate" is nothing more than you putting off the inevitable realization that what you want to be true, isn't.
It's our fault! If we just stopped pressuring Jabba to provide at least some evidence for his views, the thread would all go faster. Because Jabba's views are not based on evidence, and it will take him time to try to find some. A lot of time. If you want accurate evidence (beyond that obtained by quickly scanning without comprehension the first few words of a Wikipedia article), it will take even more time.
While I have great sympathy for Doubting Thomas (the only apostle to say "Hey, maybe this is a trick"), it's worth noting Jesus' response to him: "Blessed are they who have not seen, and believe." Jabba--and all believers in sacred relics--are going against their god's explicite advice. Granted, it's not a commandment, but advice from a god is generally considered advisable to follow when you say you follow that god.Craig4 said:
Christianity's god explicitely and directly told his followers NOT to look for such signs. Faith, in Christianity, is internal, not based on relics, artifacts, or the rest. If Gibbon is to be beleived (not the best historian these days, but I'm not terribly well-versed in this time period) the rise of such things as the cult of saints, worship of relics, and the like were due to paganizing influences acting on Christianity; essentially, the culture warped the religion to suite itself. At any rate, the proliferation of relics, saints, and the like was a common criticism of Christianity in the 1800s it seems. Gibbon isn't the only one to comment on it; Franklin and a few other authors comment on it.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
What? You only read "a little bit" and you even got that wrong?
Progress? You have made no progress.
Nope. It is wholly and entirely upon your shoulders.
Not only will you not respond here, you have proudly proclaimed that you will misrepresent the statements of those here on some other website over which you have totalitarian control and which nobody but you reads. This does not seem to me to be any form of honest or open debate.
In fact, as the evidence demonstrates, it seems that you are not in the least interested in open debate. You seek to divert any conversation away from any such debate.
- Status