|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Why??? Why would there be lines that wouldn’t get crossed? That’s a very specific point. What are these lines?>> I was referring to lines between species, though I don’t think species is the right word as it’s defined scientifically. For example, I don’t believe there are 4,000 species of fruit flies, though according to the scientific definition, apparently there are. The word “species” doesn’t appear in the creation account. The creation account uses the word “kind,” which is much broader than how scientists define species. I think this excerpt is a good summary of what I meant when I said certain lines can’t be crossed: <<The word translated in Genesis as "kind" is the Hebrew word min. It cannot be equated with our modern term species. This can be observed from the following passage in the Book of Leviticus where the following birds are mentioned: The ostrich, the short-eared owl, the seagull, and the hawk after its kind: the little owl, the fisher owl and the screech owl (Leviticus 11:16,17). Various Types From this passage we see that the Bible recognizes various types of owls, as well as various types of other living creatures. Therefore, the biblical word "kind" is not limited to our modern term "species." There are many varieties of fish, plants, cattle, as well as men and women. John Klotz comments further: We also need to recognize that the language of the Bible is the commonsense, everyday language of our newspapers. This language does not change; technical scientific language does change . . . . We may have new 'species' of tomatoes, but they are still the same 'kind.' There may be changes within the species, yet tomatoes have not developed into cantaloupes or watermelons. There may also have been changes within the dog 'kind,' but these have not developed into lions or bears (John Klotz, Studies in Creation, St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1985, p. 76). The Bible teaches "the fixity of the species" in that each biblical kind can only reproduce within certain fixed boundaries. Change within a kind, however, is consistent with the biblical teaching. Summary The Bible allows for change or variations within plants and animals. Scripture, however, limits the amount of change which can happen. Cats cannot mate with dogs, pigs with apes, etc. This limitation is exactly what we find in our world. Hence, the Bible is certainly not unscientific when its says that 'kinds' of plants and animals are limited in the degree in which they can change.>> www.blueletterbible.org |
|||||||||||||||
|
So Did you notice that you used the Bible as evidence? But your disbelief isn’t due to the Bible?? “We may have new 'species' of tomatoes, but they are still the same 'kind.'” No. All tomatoes are the same species. Solanum lycopersicum. “There may be changes within the species, yet tomatoes have not developed into cantaloupes or watermelons” Did you know kale, broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels Sprouts, collards, kohlrabi, romanesco and cabbage were all created from one plant? The wild mustard. Sinapis arvensis. And closely related turnip, arugula and water cress are grown for their leaves while rutabega and radish are famous for their edible roots and the related horseradish root. White mustard, black mustard and brown mustard are grown for their seeds, which are ground up into the eponymous spice that is a sine qua non for hot dog eaters. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Zorroloco |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 09:04 Both can't be right. My suspicion is that it is a very clever hoax, and the hoaxer used a 'projection' view of the image because it 'looks' right to humans who see in 'projection' mode. When was it produced? Nobody knows. How was it produced? there might be theories, but nobody knows. Does it make any difference to someone with a mature faith? Not at all, either way. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz Clarify. Tell me a bit about this earlier mention. I look at the link, but admit I didn’t read it all. But everything I’ve ever seen says earliest mention 1854 and earliest indisputable 1389/90 when it was called a hoax. I’ll look at that link again, but I’d appreciate your quick take. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz |
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic 10:17 I know literally (irony intended) hundreds of Christians on first-name terms, and speak regularly with several dozen. Not counting thousands in the last fifty years of my walk. This number includes many who are or were very pious, many very knowledgeable, and many who were both. One extraordinary point is that to most, the literal interpretation of Genesis ch. 1 was something that was helpful for children to understand the idea of God as Creator, not as a science lesson. There have been three people in my experience who I know to be Creationists in the literal sense. They believed that NOT because of the scientific evidence, but because they were persuaded by the 'slippery slope' argument. "If we doubt the literal meaning of Genesis One, then how can we be sure that the Gospels should be taken literally, or the Resurrection?" One of them, and I still meet with him and his wife in a small group once a month for a meal, prayer and a short study/devotion, is a Ph.D. in Science. He was one of fifty contributors to 'In Seven Days'. Sorry I can't give ISBN numbers; it was so long ago and didn't sell well enough to rank on Amazon. He held that Genesis One is literally true, and that God created all living things in such a way that our scientists would eventually be able to work out how to genetically-engineer animals and crops as part of the 'have dominion' command (verse 28). He even created fossils of 'transition species' to give further hints. But these similarities have been misunderstood by fallen men. You can see that this opinion is indistinguishable from an ancient Earth and Evolution; whatever evidence is found is interpreted as support for how God left hints. It also means that anyone who adopts Evolution as a working hypothesis will also be on the right tack, but for the wrong reasons. By-the-way, his Ph. D. is in meteorology, not biology or geology. He admits he doesn't have a clue about these other fields, he just knows what he believes and has found a way to fit his beliefs into modern science. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Bob |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Sep-22, 20:33 |
Vic <The theory of evolution, as I’m defining it on here (and anywhere else,) is the idea that one species of animal turned into another species of animal. > I see. I actually accept that - strictly speaking. Such a 'turn' would be very difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt! <Yes, I’m aware that the alleged transition of one animal species to another is presumed to take place over long periods of time and with numerous accumulated small changes. I just don’t think they lead to an entirely separate species. I think there are lines that don’t get crossed.> You think! That's quite alright, but please, please don't forget that evolution theory is just that - a THEORY. All the available fossil evidence and the more recent genetic evidence is quite nicely in line with this theory, supporting it (but - sure - not proving it right!). |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 19:17 Please, Thumper; if you want to make a point, then say it. Don't leave us with hints and allusions. That's the style of someone who clearly wants a specific conclusion to be drawn by the reader, while still leaving an escape hatch "I never said that!" Such would be cowardly and dishonest, and used by Trump all the time when he says "People tell me...". I know you can do better than that. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Sep-22, 21:24 |
Such would be cowardly and dishonest, and used by Trump all the time when he says "People tell me...". I know you can do better than that.> This is exactly right and corresponds very well with my experience also. Especially if it is added that when those 'real points' are extracted, the subject actively avoids them. And if you get frustrated about that, then you will be immediately accused of being 'insulting, bickering, etc etc' |
|||||||||||||||
|
Stål/Bob To repeat: I'm not a biologist but am pretty good at dissecting animals. This means, as you're obviously confused, that I have a very familiar understanding of many animal's biology and structure. Most hunters are. I have well over 50 years of hunting experience and a driving curiosity about how things work. This includes different animals. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 21:57 Your clarification 21:57 restates the original post at slightly greater length, but seems to lead nowhere. Yet the continuation dots at the end of your 19:17 post is usually an indication that a conclusion is to be drawn, either by the writer or to be inferred by the reader. This was the cause of my confusion. If all you wanted to tell us is that you're a handy amateur butcher, that's fine. Now I'm wondering why you would specifically address that random comment to me, out-of-context from any mention of anatomy by me in my preceding posts. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Bob I'm not one for long winded posts as you may have noted. Especially when I think my point is reasonably clear. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 22:43 Did you want me to infer no more than "Thumper has a good knowledge of the anatomy of several game animals.'? |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Thumper 23:54 What do you want to say about it? Or are you just playing "nudge, nudge; wink, wink"? As I said earlier, to use hints, innuendo and allusion without having the backbone to actually say what you mean is cowardly and dishonest. I would prefer to think that you are not such a person. |
|||||||||||||||
|
victoriasas 22-Sep-22, 08:55 |
Deleted by victoriasas on 22-Sep-22, 13:57.
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Please consider starting a thread for stuff like this. That’s totally acceptable. Thanks for considering |
|||||||||||||||
|
Btw Actually, millions have suffered far worse torture. His suffering wasn’t unique. He just had good PR. Far far too many not only can imagine it, they experienced it and worse. Frequently at the hands of Jesus’s followers (not that I blame him). Nor did he suffer for me. He suffered because he was a political disaster for the Romans. “He suffered so that you and I would not have to suffer the scourge of sickness in our bodies.” I’ve been sick. You have too. His suffering didn’t alleviate suffering in the world at all. But this doesn’t relate to the shroud except in the most tangential way. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I wasn’t proselytizing (at least not intentionally.) The Shroud of Turin bears the blood and blood patterns from Jesus Christ’s scourging and crucifixion (assuming the Shroud is His burial cloth.) I thought it was relevant to this thread. <<We all have our own beliefs and it’s respectful not to push them on others.>> Isn’t that what you’re doing with your Bokonon thread? <<This is a thread about the shroud - not for sermons. It derails the conversation.>> What I posted isn’t a sermon. It talks about what Jesus Christ went through as evidenced by blood and blood patterns on the Shroud (assuming the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.) <<Please consider starting a thread for stuff like this. That’s totally acceptable. Thanks for considering>> Sure. I hope you’re this strict with other threads that have tangentially-related posts. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Just saying. Nor do I intend nor did I threat to delete. It was a polite request As for Bokonon, as the one true religion, it deserves it’s own thread. If you’d care to discuss, I’d welcome it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Actually, millions have suffered far worse torture.>> Have they? Have literally millions been scourged with a Roman flagellum to within an inch of their lives and then been nailed to a cross and mocked while they died? <<His suffering wasn’t unique.>> I think it was pretty unique. People back then were either scourged or crucified. Not both. And Jesus Christ was certainly the most righteous and innocent to be crucified (and scourged beforehand.) <<He just had good PR. Far far too many not only can imagine it, they experienced it and worse.>> Are we talking about scourging and crucifixion here or some other torture? I don’t deny people have been tortured and some of them (especially children) were obviously innocent. But I suspect none of them willingly endured the torture when they could have escaped it. And none were as righteous and innocent as Jesus Christ. <<Frequently at the hands of Jesus’s followers (not that I blame him).>> Anyone who tortures someone is certainly not following the teachings of Jesus Christ nor the teachings in the New Testament. Maybe in the Old Testament. <<Nor did he suffer for me.>> He suffered for everyone. <<He suffered because he was a political disaster for the Romans.>> No, that is not the reason. He suffered because He claimed to be equal with God the Father. In the eyes of Jewish leaders, that was a crime worthy of death. Pontius Pilate, a Roman official and governor of the Roman province of Judaea, said he found no fault in Jesus and wanted to release Him, but the Jewish leaders insisted Jesus be crucified. <<“He suffered so that you and I would not have to suffer the scourge of sickness in our bodies.” I’ve been sick.>> Right. You’re not a Christian. The devotional is speaking to Christians. <<You have too.>> Since I became a Christian, I’ve experienced mild symptoms of sickness, but Jesus Christ has healed me every time. Of course, I ask Him to heal me and thank Him for it. And I take the Holy Communion as well. There is great healing power in the Holy Communion for believers. <<His suffering didn’t alleviate suffering in the world at all.>> It most certainly did. During His earthly ministry some 2,000 years ago and afterward as well. And He continues to heal today. <<But this doesn’t relate to the shroud except in the most tangential way.>> Yes, you made that point. And you should be this strict with other threads that have posts only related to the OP “in the most tangential way.” Otherwise, imo, you shouldn’t be a moderator. |
|||||||||||||||
|
I posted it, not because it was a devotional and not to proselytize, but because it spoke of the torture and crucifixion Jesus Christ went through, which is evident from the blood and blood patterns on the Shroud. <<So saying it wasn’t proselytizing appears a but disingenuous. And the shroud wasn’t mentioned once. Just saying.>> Once again, my motives and honesty are questioned by you. I suppose I should have taken the time to edit and remove anything that did not directly speak on the torture and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. I didn’t realize posting it in full would be so offensive. <<Nor do I intend nor did I threat to delete. It was a polite request >> Ok. <<As for Bokonon, as the one true religion, it deserves it’s own thread. If you’d care to discuss, I’d welcome it.>> No thanks. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Andrew Well of course. You post a Christian devotional with not mention of the shroud, no commentary and no explanation of why it’s relevant! Of course it looks like proselytizing to me! If you’d actually explained why it was topical, I’d get it. Be clearer if you don’t want to be misunderstood. As Bokonon teaches, “Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it.” |
|||||||||||||||
|
“ my motives and honesty are questioned by you. Well of course. You post a Christian devotional with not mention of the shroud, no commentary and no explanation of why it’s relevant! Of course it looks like proselytizing to me! If you’d actually explained why it was topical, I’d get it. Be clearer if you don’t want to be misunderstood.>> I didn’t think the relevance of the devotional to the Shroud needed to be explained. <<As Bokonon teaches, “Likes and dislikes have nothing to do with it.”>> I noticed you pinned your thread on bokonon, even though, last I checked, you’re the only one posting in it. Is that not proselytizing? Does that have nothing to do with your “likes and dislikes?” Having said that, I’m sure other atheists will start posting in your bokonon thread to contradict me. You’re welcome. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Many threads are sticky |
|||||||||||||||
|
Why |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
I think you’re proselytizing much more than I am with your bokonon thread, but I didn’t object to it. And I didn’t intend to proselytize at all. Am I supposed to remain silent when I see what I believe are hypocrisy and double standards that affect me? |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
