People that have a larger Oreo to milk ratio are r****ds. At least from what I've heard. I'll fund a study...
It's called curiosity and investigation fatty, been around forever, working just peachy, no luck needed. Good luck with your intellectual lethargy, that apparently has served you just fine as well.
We all learn, but how exactly did you learn more than I did by reading the original article? Seriously, nothing these people research is going to change my beliefs one iota. I choose to learn about different things. If what you choose to research is something that disproves a religious theory, I think you are waaaay too wrapped up in your own belief being justified.
Me neither, honestly. You're just not making any sense, or being consistent. This is a common theme in threads where you posit an opinion. That's not what you said. You said: Proving the shroud fake != proving religion false. There is no relation. None. Nada. Zip. Yes, really. Let's run through some reasons (most of them already mentioned) again: 1) The shroud has nothing to do with religion. Proving it fake, even if possible, would do nothing for believers or nonbelievers in terms of relevance. To believers, even if they bought the "fake" line, it's not a large enough issue to cast doubt. For nonbelievers, proving it fake only revalidates their previous position. Net shift of zero. 2) One researcher claiming his work "proves something fake" is hardly concrete evidence. Only an idiot would take that at face value given the details in the article. 3) The article does not mention the goals or motivations of the atheist group. You have postulated it was to "prove religion false", which, if true, makes them incredibly stupid for the above two reasons. However, I will submit that it is possible this was their goal, since this thread has illuminated that people of that intellectual caliber do, in fact, exist. I am very proud of you fatty. Quibble about the funding, fine. But I just don't see the issue of the research. The ironic silliness of chrisitian "persecution" aside, we are in agreement. I blame Al Gore - he's a major member of the vast liberal science conspiracy. His new movie, An Inconveniant Truth About Fatty: He's a Bitter A-Hole, comes out next year.
The Shroud, like most of the tenets of the Catholic Church are about maintaining control over power and money. Debunking myths is about freeing people from theocratic hegemony.
He is above average on abrasive and inflammatory. I wouldn't say I've never done that, but I'm generally not abrasive. But, you can be abrasive and still contribute to the conversation (which is why I said I could say that without being reproached for attention-whoring). When posters talk about other posters instead of the subject, like SF did, and FFB does a bit here (later retracted), it doesn't contribute to the conversation. Obviously, FFB does devolve into talking about himself after provocation and sends the thread into the gutter. That's the formula: FFB strongly states his opinion on a subject, SF calls him an attention-w****, others pile on attributing self-aggrandizing motivations to him, FFB defends himself by characterizing himself as a likeable guy. FFB could be the bigger man and just ignore the personal attacks, but obviously he can't. It doesn't matter if he's an attention-w****. Debunk his opinion or ignore it. The ad hominum attacks are just a bore.
I don't think they do. I think they view it as an interesting artifact that has helped many Christians to remember Christ's suffering. Maybe authentic, maybe not. They are ambiguous about a lot of these artifacts because many Catholics put such confidence in them yet the church doesn't exactly endorse them. It seems to me that the Catholic church takes a more inclusive rather than exclusive position with regard to the faith of their members. While many Catholics believe a lot of things that the church officially disputes, they would regard most of these people as saved members of their church. Many protestant churches that I am used to are more concerned with where to draw the line theologically. I think both approaches have their good and bad points.
i would agree with you...i tend to favor a more generous inclusive theology, myself, because I think God's capacity for mercy is bigger than the dogmatic boxes I might put Him in otherwise. i'd say the Cross is exhibit "a" to prove that up.
Right, it's all me enabling, that's why FFB was carrying on 4 simultaneous "look at me!" threads yesterday (including: starting a battle over Radiohead/his reputation in a thread about last week's SNL (radiohead was not on SNL)....his running battle with UH fans that has lasted over a week, and of course his melodramatic D&D farewell thread). LOL, Like I said before, the circus was coming to town regardless of whether or not I post. I generally try not to perpetuate it excessively as it just gives him the attention he craves. But somtimes I falter. Well, let's see - his opening salvo was a bizarre-o attack on the threadstarter for taking a lot of time to find this purportedly obscure story (posted on the front page of Yahoo!), and then a straw man tirade about how this does not necessarily disprove all of organized religion. It's all kind of a bore. Again I don't really care that much, I guess I could ignore which I largely did yesterday for at least 3 out of 4 episodes. Whatever, I don't think it really makes a ton of difference.
"Well, he started it!" Goodness, JV, don't you get enough of that at home not to want to get involved in parenting on the BBS?
In the history of the Catholic Church, myths such as shards of the original cross or bones of saints were used as money making religious 'tourist attractions'. The shroud is no different. Lending credence to the authenticity of these types of items is a self empowering exercise. The religion is true as proven by these articles, the articles are authentic as proven by their certification by the church. The history of the church is maintaining it's authority in it's infallibility and it's infallibility by challenging opposition as heresy against god. It's becoming harder and harder to fight the tide of real information so , yes, the church has begun to loosen it's grip; like recognizing Galileo was right 400 years later, and admitting the shroud was a typical medieval fake. All religions rely on the faith of their believers. The very fact that proof is not a requirement makes the believers subject to deception by those who seek to exploit them for the typical reasons: money and power.
