Mediochre Wrote:How can you have a debate about christian issues when you can't even decide what christian is? I'd ask what a christian issue is but that would just be redundant.
Well in order for the shroud to be legit there had to be a Jesus and if there was a Jesus there's a god and if there's a god, etc etc.
Well that's my baseline which is what I have a problem with, deism, the very idea of a "supreme being", so apparently even according to you I've been just as specific I've been saying I was.
Oh really...
Not specific enough? Giant blanket accusation of an entire religious group rather than individuals within it? Sure it was an edit but it's more than old enough that surely you would've seen it if you'd bothered to look, check the last edited date too in case you're suspicious that I recently put it in there.
How about this...
Hmmm... arguments that apologise for and people who materially support? Yeah that sounds real blankety don't it? I mean it doesn't include people who support ideologies that aren't about deities, such as those that define god as a neutral energy field or Buddhists who says it's about personal development. It doesn't include people who believe that there is a god out there but do not follow it or pay into it's churches or anything. So that cuts out in incredible number of spiritualists right there. It only includes those that believe in and follow an all powerful being and more specifically one that they believe can and will punish and/or reward people or otherwise have any influence in this or any other possible plane of existence based on it's own personal preference, thus making it a tyrant. And thus making the ideology tyrannical.
No it isn't, if they're all powerful then they can take away your free will any time they please. Meaning you only have it until they whimsically decide to remove it one day. Furthermore there are examples of this sort of thing happening down here in the real world. Like banks who will shut off peoples bank accounts or ability to get one for having jobs that are legal but considered "High risk" or "immoral" such as pornstars and gun sellers. Why could this happen? Because the bank had the power to, nothing more nothing less. Try doing that with someone's cryptocurrency wallet. Thus anyone who believes that they are in control of their money when it's sitting in a bank are mistaken, they are only in control as long as the bank doesn't whimsically decide to take that control away. A god is infinity times worse, it requires no pretense, no justification, just a whim. Believing that a god is out there and could do that is one thing, actually desiring it for yourself and other people is sickening.
Funny because most reputable organizations down here in the real world do exactly that, they have policies and records and codes of conduct and will absolutely kick people out for not abiding by them. Are you telling me that Christianity, a religion so old and with so many members couldn't get that together when all these other groups can? I mean China has a billion people and it manages to have social insurance numbers, passports, and all that sort of stuff. But christianity couldn't keep track of a few things here and there like what a christian even is?
Or is that just too much work. Or maybe you just want it to be a disreputable organization? I mean, there's people running around with the same label as you causing drama and smearing the reputation of that label and you're telling me you can't be bothered to protect your own reputation? What do you just wanna sit back and soak up the praise from the guys giving out free surgeries in third world countries but then complain when someone asks you to deal with the guys throwing molotov cocktails at abortion centers? Sounds pretty lazy and self entitled to me.
How am I or anyone else supposed to take that other than you admitting complicity in the intents and actions of those people? And if so, why should I see you as any different from them?
I mean take a look at Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi, One of the guys trying to fix the problem of radical islam in Australia. I may dissagree with the whole Allah thing, I may see Islam as having even more severe structural problems than christianity or indeed most other deific religions, but I will absolutely respect this guy as a person for not handwaving the issue away and saying "we're not all like that" Especially since he's an Imam and is therefore extra vulnerable a a result.
Yeah I stated what I think, gave supporting evidence and examples of why with greater detail from people who did a better job than I could at explaining it. Even within what you said above about the base requirements of a christian that you stated those videos were more than relevant. I'll quote you again just to remind you
Hmmm sounds pretty deific to me, I mean there's guy who is a god. Pretty hard to say that doesn't meet the definition of a deity don't you think? So yes the videos were relevant and you just handwaved them. Pretty clear cut.
Ok so how many youtube channels does it take before it does? How many opinions? Because that's how we determine the validity of an argument right? By number of people who say it? Not analysis of the content or anything because that would be crazy!
Your subjective beliefs become everyone's business when they are the explicit or implicit basis for actions or inactions in the real world. How many atheists killed kids because they took them to faith healers instead of doctors. None, probably because they don't believe in that sort of thing. Hide behind your subjectivity all you want but it only proves my point. You could check the "Respecting beliefs | Why we should do no such thing" video I linked for a full explanation.
If a christian doesn't believe in a deity, I.e god, Yaweh, whatever, are they really a christian? Because according to you, no. At the base level, probably all christians believe in Jesus and god. So yeah it's pretty specific to what I'm talking about. If it happens that my specific definition hits a much larger amount of those who wear the christian label, that doesn't make it any less specific. It in fact makes me more accurate in my statements.
Yeah, see, that's the entire point here. I don't think there's any genuine historical value to the Shroud of Turin beyond it's claimed story and thus connection to the Christian religion. Therefore the only reasons someone would want to try so hard to prove it's legitimacy is because they want to shove christianity in other people faces, not any genuine historical interest. The implications of that are incredibly grim for those who aren't christian and not something that I at least would want to subject even my worst enemy to. To actually want that reality for others is pretty sick.
Because realistically, what else could we learn out of the Shroud of Tuirin that we couldn't learn from any other random piece of cloth that might be from that time period? Why does it have to be the Shroud and not one of those other cloths that has all this reanalysis happening? What, are we going to learn some cool new facts about middle eastern weaving patterns of whatever B.C? Is that really worth such an extensive reanalysis? Are we gonna learn the DNA of some random dude from back then maybe? I mean it'd be interesting but is it worth all this? No, if you study the Shroud of Turin, you're trying to prove a pretty specific type of christianity, you're trying to prove Jesus, god, heaven, hell, all of that. Not love, compassion or any of that since those didn't come from Christianity and aren't it's defining features. You're trying to prove that Jesus died, he was resurrected, and there's a god up there judging all of us. That is the only value the Shroud of Turin has to scientific study.
If you disagree then please give me some other possibility to why someone would want to go through all this effort to try and overturn the existing carbon dating results and blood analysis and so on and so forth.
I don't have time now but will respond to this.
From a glossing over it's clear that we aren't on the same page about what "specific" means. I also disagree with a variety of other things you've said, but I'll get to responding when I have time in the next few days.
Quick edit: upon another quick read through, it's remarkable how much you just did not understand about what I wrote. You seem to think that I suggested somewhere that I made some commentary on what Christians believe about the existence of god, etc. I gave a single potential, open-ended option. That wasn't the point of my post. You have really and truly missed the entire point, and if you somehow think that "belief in god" is the specificity which I was referring to, then you are completely reinforcing my point about painting with an incredibly, unreasonably large brush. There is very little you've written to suggest that you comprehended what I said. But again, I'll try to specifically address your response soon.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
