Is it wrong to have sex for fun, knowing it might possibly lead to an abortion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SetiAlpha6 said:
The image on the cloth, is a negative, but is not a photographic negative. It has 3d information imbedded in the image itself. It is also not a painted image either.

How then was it forged?

There were other copies made of it that were indeed paintings. But the original was not.

Correct, the dating of the cloth was a problem for a while but has been explained, according to the main scientist involved with that aspect of it.

Look at the data from the studies that were done.

Weigh both sides, and use your own brain, you are clearly a brilliant person. Decide for yourself.

Check out videos of lectures given by Barry Swartz on YouTube, if you really want to evaluate it carefully.

Barry is the expert on it because he was there, at the time it was being studied. I was not.

Trying to help as much as I can, but obviously you should not rely on me.
Click to expand...
I already granted you the assumption that this cloth was wrapped around the body of Jesus. How does it prove anything but that Jesus died from a crucifixion and bled on it? How does it prove the resurrection?

Bonus question, if it were proven to be forged, would you stop being a Christian?
 
billvon said:
It's not a forgery, since there was no claim of an original before the artist created it. Nor was it mentioned by any account of Christ's death before 1300 or so. The artist likely painted it with dissolved iron oxide, a common pigment used around 1300.
Click to expand...

There are two cloths mentioned in the Gospel accounts in the first century.

One was a head covering only and the other was a full body covering.

Both have been found and they both match each other in blood distribution very closely. They both have real blood on them not paint.

Check the studies and see if they found any iron oxide for us and report back, if you would be so kind.
 
So what? A book written after his death mentions a cloth and you found the cloth? How does this prove the Bible's supernatural claims?
 
spidergoat said:
I already granted you the assumption that this cloth was wrapped around the body of Jesus. How does it prove anything but that Jesus died from a crucifixion and bled on it? How does it prove the resurrection?

Bonus question, if it were proven to be forged, would you stop being a Christian?
Click to expand...

How was it created according to the findings of the scientific study. They should have been able to debunk it in minutes.

Bonus Question = Go ahead and try!
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
How was it created according to the findings of the scientific study. They should have been able to debunk it in minutes.

Bonus Question = Go ahead and try!
Click to expand...
Not my argument. Try debating the argument proposed. I already granted the shroud was real, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm trying to make it easy for you. How does it prove the resurrection? I'm starting to think you have no idea.
 
Neddy Bate said:
Okay, so we can agree that if the circumstances were not appropriate, then you and I probably wouldn't risk/give our lives for another. There are circumstances to be considered, after all.
Click to expand...

Why would it not be wise to protect life as much as possible, and only allow the killing of innocent human life when it is absolutely necessary, when there is no other way?
 
spidergoat said:
Not my argument. Try debating the argument proposed. I already granted the shroud was real, for the purposes of this discussion. I'm trying to make it easy for you. How does it prove the resurrection? I'm starting to think you have no idea.
Click to expand...

You have to study it for yourself. I cannot make you study the scientific studies for yourself. You are on your own spider. It is your choice.
 
About now would be a good time for you to, not really study the evidence, and then declare to all that once again, evidence does not exist for the resurrection. Or something similar.

Go ahead... It is always so moving!
 
SetiAlpha6 said:
There are two cloths mentioned in the Gospel accounts in the first century.
Click to expand...
And yet none of them mentioned that Christ's image was embedded in them. For 1300 years.
Check the studies and see if they found any iron oxide for us and report back, if you would be so kind.
Click to expand...
They have never studied any of that material - only material from the edges.
Why would it not be wise to protect life as much as possible, and only allow the killing of innocent human life when it is absolutely necessary, when there is no other way?
Click to expand...
And yet you said you might not protect life if it inconvenienced you. Strange. It's almost as if you hold others to a standard you yourself are unwilling to meet. There's a word for that . . .
 
billvon said:
And yet none of them mentioned that Christ's image was embedded in them. For 1300 years.

They have never studied any of that material - only material from the edges.

And yet you said you might not protect life if it inconvenienced you. Strange. It's almost as if you hold others to a standard you yourself are unwilling to meet. There's a word for that . . .
Click to expand...

That is not what I said.
 
billvon said:
And yet none of them mentioned that Christ's image was embedded in them. For 1300 years.

They have never studied any of that material - only material from the edges.
Click to expand...

Both of these are incorrect.

These scientists wanted to debunk the Shroud, how inept at their jobs do you think they were?

And they did find iron oxide on the cloth. What were the conclusions by the team that worked on it, look it up and let the world know your findings.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
SetiAlpha6 said:
And yet you said you might not protect life if it inconvenienced you.
Click to expand...
That is not what I said.
Click to expand...
You said you would donate organs to save another life "if appropriate." So some times you might not protect life, because it wouldn't be appropriate.

Next question - who should decide when it's appropriate? You or the government?
 
billvon said:
You said you would donate organs to save another life "if appropriate." So some times you might not protect life, because it wouldn't be appropriate.

Next question - who should decide when it's appropriate? You or the government?
Click to expand...

Well we do have laws all over the place that protect life. Are you against those?

Like... Is it legal for a father to kick the stomach of his pregnant wife to attempt to cause an abortion on the spot?

Should the government decide that? The father has rights to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top