What is your personal religious ideology

Interesting point. I'll hae to think about that.

Your example encounter had a specific purpose that I would suggest could actually be damaged by any discussion of philosophy or religion. Throughout the decades of my professonal career I've never gone down that rabbit hole even once with coworkers, customers or anyone else. I see clear are limits on that. And, I've faced the issues of a few others in my organization not seeing that - leaving me as a manager having to spend time on that.

Here, it's a little different in that this is a religious discussion board and a thread for discussion of this very topic. So, your suggestion that I should just go away seems off base.

Today, how we apply religion is a significant component of several of the hottest topics this nation faces.

The practical application of principles iimpacts how we acept information from science, how we think about government and abortion, how we treat those of the LGBTQ community, how we ensure those in the US get healthcare, whether it's legitimate to make partisan political headway by denying people equal access to vote, how we view the ethnic cleansin and perpetuaal war being carried out by Israel, etc., etc.

When it is proposed that only a subset of the population has any valid claim for participation in tthose questions, it is a very real problem.

But, I agree there certainly is a point of diminishing returns in any discussion.

 

I agree completely that interfaces between scientific research & the populace in general, & our political apparatus, are very relevant topics, & important issues to consciously address as a community, & as a nation. I didn't imagine your post to which I applied was suggesting anything so expansive, however. I was most focused on your description of rather closed-minded & insulting, to say the least, interactions in your conversations w/ people of religious faith. I must say I was glad to hear that these arguments only occur in the forum, since this wasn't clear in your complaint about the frequency of the utterly closed-off attitude you encounter. I have two points to make, regarding your response that, to paraphrase, it seemed to you that walking away from an aggressive or mildly abusive poster was contradictory to your whole intention of coming into a discussion-forum.

First, I can assure you, though I imagine you also realize, that not all people of faith react the way you describe. So it would seem to me more productive, & enjoyable, conversing w/ someone whose mind wasn't shut off from hearing anything you had to say; I wasn't suggesting leaving the forum, or even the discussion, only encouraging you to exercise more discretion as to which conversations you pursue & which might be better to just forego.

The second thing I wished to point out was that, while I understand your feeling that you are on PF because you want to have an open exchange of ideas, how open to that spirit is someone who presumes you must be amoral if you're an atheist? (BTW, would you prefer I used a capital, "A?").

Since I have to run, I won't press my luck right now, since we are having a polite conversation, despite our previous incident. But I do wonder if I misunderstood your seeming complaint. Do you relish the heated discussions more than the amiable ones? If so, had the complaint been more about tactics, or protocol; or had you not been complaining at all?

 

You're WAY too focused on me. My comments about Christianity reasonably focused on how it is applied to our issues of today. And like everyone else, I'm probably going to push back if someone assaults my belief system.

 

I agree with most of your post. It's a good one. But I'm wondering where you got the idea that the Shroud of Turin was proven fake?

 

When was a reverse onus put to those who make no claim to prove a lack of authenticity?

Reverse onus is illegal in most courts.

It is to religions to prove their claims. Not to the non-liars to prove they are lars, as the lairs hide truth behind their supernatural shields.

You can only see through that supernatural shield with defective eyes.

Regards
DL

 

The immoral do not push back.

Most god believers are moral cowards.

Have you noted how they dwindle, knowing that many call out their fantasies and morals?

Religious Interlocutors are getting hard to find. At least the ones who can do a decent apologie.

Regards
DL

 

Nice cop out.

 

You need to justify this comment.

It's only logical to require those who make extraordinary claims to defend those claims.

Suggesting that the claims of the thousands of religions must be accepted until someone proves them false is obviously absurd.

 

I never made such a claim.

 

You need to explain your cop out comment then.

I don't see an interpretation other than that religious claims should be accepted until proven false.

 

As I stated in a previous post, I don't disagree with your points or your logic. I simply asked, "where you got the idea that the Shroud of Turin was proven fake?" I was expecting some sort of fact based response, but got all the generalized philosophy instead. I don't disagree with your philosophy, but it didn't address my question. I simply want to know where you get the idea that the Shroud of Turin has been proven fake.

 

The cop out is reverse onus.

A child's reasoning.

Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL

 

I believe I may have confused my responses to you & to WillReadMore. At this point, even I am confused. My post #161 above comes closest to explaining my intent with my post. Sorry for the confusion.

 

No problem.

News Flash.

The Shroud of Turin, like all known religious artifacts, has never been shown to be authentic.

Most have been shown to be fakes or myth and faith based.

Regards
DL

 

I agree with your comment, but the Shroud of Turin may be the exception.

 

Only when the true likeness of the mythical Jesus is known.

Even if true; big deal.

It would mean that an immoral dead man was wrapped in a cloth that could not exist at the time, if the dating is correct.

If Jesus was real, and you saw him, kill him, as he has promised to use genocide against humanity.

That is the moral thing to do. Right?

Regards
DL

 

I was commenting on religious logic in general, not the Shroud in particular.

But ...

As I understand it, the Catholic Church doesn't claim it to be the cloth the body of Jesus was wrapped in.

Also, in the 1300's a local Christian bishop declared it to be fake. That might be considered especially interesting in that it is the time period that scientific dating methods say the shroud came from!

While dating isn't perfect, the difference in the age determined by science and the year 30ad (or whatever) is HUGE - something like 600 years vs nearly 2000 years. One would have to believe that dating was off by more than a factor of 3. Plus, more than one dating method has been used.

Some years back I read Annals by Tacitus, an important Roman historian. He mentions Jesus being executed by Pilot. I don't believe one needs the shroud of Turin as evidence that Jesus existed.

 

I am unfamiliar with any writings that say Jesus promised to use genocide against humanity. Would you kindly enlighten me on your sources?

 

Good post. I enjoyed it. Just to add a bit to your statement. . .The carbon 14 dating done on the Shroud in the 1970s, sampled a corner that was later discovered to have been repaired in the time period that measurement resulted in. The other portions of the Shroud are older, but it's never been dated. Researchers hope to do so someday, but the Catholic Church controls access. There are several other important aspects of the Shroud that can't be explained, but that's a long subject.

 

OK. I'd point out that the test samples were gathered by applying pieces of specially made adhesive tape to 30 different locations on the shroud. And, it's also the case that the shroud has been damaged, repaired and unrepaired a few times during the last hundreds of years. There are other kinds of testing that have been done. My own view is that the shroud doesn't stand up to the claims of being 2000 years old.

But, I'm not here to worry about this shroud. If you're interested in its history you could read about that. And, regardless of its origin it's a meaningful relic representating the Biblical resurection.

 

Meaningful how?
During the Middle Ages there was a lot of competition among various communities and Christian suborders to claim possession of religious relics given there were economic considerations for clawing to have ... enough so that there was a thriving trade in forgery. Many historic sources speculate the shroud is one such forgery and of course the Catholic Church has a stake in the claim the shroud is not a fake. Some even speculate it might have been created by Leonardo da Vinci.
I note how to me the shroud looks like a large Rorschach print. Without the providence of a chain of custody, it’s true nature may never be found.

 

Whether the shroud is real or not, it absolutely is a symbol of the resurection of Christ - a central theme of all Christianity.

Suggesting it is without meaning would be as insanely ridiculous as suggesting the Christian cross is without meaning, since NONE of those crosses are the actual implement used to execute Jesus.

My view is that we see crosses as the iconic Christian symbol because of the graphic design potential.

Surely the shroud, no longer needed by the risen Christ, claiming the conquering of death and sin, is at least as central a point. It just doesn't work as a graphic design element.

 

There are Youtube videos on the Shroud that cover the research already done. It couldn't have been Da Vinci, or any other artist, because there's no paint or stain or anything else placed on the cloth by any human hand. Whatever the negative image is, it doesn't penetrate into the fibers of the cloth itself more than the thickness of a human hair. No artist can do that. There are other factors that can't be explained. I was personally a total skeptic for many years, but the latest research changed my mind. I now regard it as unexplainable by current technological knowledge, & accept whatever that conclusion supports insofar as it can be interpreted.

 

Greatest I am was referring to the book of Revelation. In it, Jesus is transformed into Jason (of the Horror movies), w/ blood-soaked robes & swords coming out of his mouth, which he uses to do a lot of human-slaying (of those who stand w/ the Beast, who is worshipped & makes people get a tattoo in order to buy food, but who doesn't go on killing rampages, except in defense). I'm also imagining laser beam eyes for Jesus, but there I think I'm mixing up Revelation w/ Godzilla.

Just to connect this to our last exchange (about Thomas & the Gnostic gospel of T.), the writer of Revelation is John, but that doesn't mean he's thought to be the Apostle John. Another common name.

BTW, I'd still like to hear your ideological connections between Jesus's philosophy & that of India. Lastly, I wanted to mention that I don't think you meant to say the similarity was w/ Vedic texts. Hinduism & Vedism before it, are/were both polytheistic; I have a feeling you meant to say Buddhist texts. But maybe you'll surprise me.

 

Sure. Look up Armageddon.

Have you forgotten that Jesus is to bring world peace, by murdering all who will not follow him?

I have quotes if you need them.

Regards
DL