The MI6 Community Religion and Faith Discussion Space (for members of all faiths - and none!)

16465676970108

Comments

  • LeonardPineLeonardPine The Bar on the Beach
    Posts: 3,985
    Risico007 wrote: »
    [
    And yet people follow Darwinian evolution with not a question because instead of a man in a white robe it’s a man in a white coat saying it... I mean I guess lab coats are snazzier


    Actually Darwin's theory of evolution comes with lots of questions. You'll find Atheists and agnostics ask a lot of questions regarding the origin of Earth and how we got here. We don't just blindly follow a faith that's thousands of years old and a little suspect in the facts & proof department.

    I've got nothing against people that want to be sheep until they start using their beliefs to harm people.

    Thankfully I'm in a committed relationship with reality....
  • Posts: 9,730
    Risico007 wrote: »
    The ATHEIST CAN PROVIDE NO REASON FOR WHY WE EXIST AND NO MEANING TO LIFE.
    What is this supposed to be exactly? Some sort of glorious proclamation of victory?

    It's getting to the point where even I am starting to feel pity for you now. At least if you're going to rant at the top of your voice like Hitler in a Munich bierkeller then type the whole sentence in capitals rather than have it come across like the fevered delusions of a rabies victim.

    I can't even be arsed to counter such an intellectually vaccuous statement, especially given @LeonardPine does such an eloquent job below:
    What an arrogant and narcissistic way to think that human life has to 'mean something'

    Why should it? We're no different to any other life form on this planet. We're born, we exist, we die. Whether we're rich or poor, we're all going to the same place.

    Terrifying thought isn't it, to think that one day you'll cease to exist? Don't you think this is why religion was created in the first place? Our poor old ancestors must of thought the same, "Is this it?!!! Surely there's something else?!!!" It all stems from fear of the unknown. I wonder how scary a lightning storm was to our cavemen ancestors?

    Little by little Gods are created in the minds of men and gradually some bright sparks realize that its a way of controlling the masses. And how powerful a tool has it proved when in the 21st century feckless folk are STILL being brainwashed into believing the most absurd and ridiculous things just because they've been told its so.

    I don't understand how adults can follow so blindly something they've merely been told is true. I went to a church school as a child and was questioning everything I was told regarding Christ because even at 8 years old I was skeptical about the stuff I was being told. Needless to say I wasn't popular with the teachers there.

    As for all that meaning of life bollocks, my own personal feelings are that we're here for a very short time, so be a decent person, have fun and enjoy the incredible nature of this amazing planet. Simple!
    Fine words Sir and your last paragraph does a far better job of providing a philosophy for humans to live by than any of the thousands of pages of drivel you find in the religious texts.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Again Wiz's stupidity of maybe Jesus didn't die on the cross (which again the amount of blood loss and the wounds yet being in a dank tomb in first century AD heals him magically?
    Could you be so good as to point me to the passage in the bible that delineates precisely how much blood Jesus lost?
    "Risico007 wrote: »
    what is this real life or the latest Marvel movie?
    You tell me son - you're the one who considers all this credible not me. Personally I find the notion of a billionaire developing a suit with jet engines on it that allows him to fly infinitely more plausible than the fairy tale you're trying to peddle.
    Risico007 wrote: »
    I promised my brother in Christ Dragonpol I would come back here to defend the faith so sorry Wiz this is not the doctoral thesis I promised you
    Isn't strange how the atheists manage to outline their arguments quite easily but the believers, despite having absolute mountains of proof apparently, after promising it to us in the cold depths of winter still haven't managed to deliver anything coherent as the clocks go forwards for British Summer Time and the first buds of spring start to bloom? Too busy they claim but not so busy, it seems, that they can't manage to to find the time to churn out paragraph after paragraph of confused desperation.

    And come on Draggers you're better than looking for help here. You're a decent bloke - OK you have some rather fundamental character flaws such as believing in God and thinking NSF is a good book, but dont demean yourself by thinking Risico007 is a lifebelt of intellectual prowess you can cling to as he leaves us all chastened with his mind blowing arguments.

    https://strangenotions.com/rejecting-the-swoon-theory-9-reasons-why-jesus-did-not-just-faint-on-the-cross/

    Find me one medical expert who can refute this just one and I will rethink thecswoon theory

    Until then ... since you all think I have a kindergartner knowledge in this... I will write out the lyrics to reading rainbow

    Take a look
    It’s in a book
    A reading rainbow
  • Posts: 4,599
    Beyond parody, a medical expert willing to comment on something that allegedly happened 2000 years ago with no evidence other than the hearsay evidence of some who claim to be there?

    The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.

  • edited March 2018 Posts: 9,730
    patb wrote: »
    Beyond parody, a medical expert willing to comment on something that allegedly happened 2000 years ago with no evidence other than the hearsay evidence of some who claim to be there?

    The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.

    So you are saying every historian is wrong... now who is bending reality Patb
  • MayDayDiVicenzoMayDayDiVicenzo Here and there
    Posts: 5,080
    Well since the theist argument will be at the bottom of the Atlantic in an hour or so, let’s lighten things up.

  • Posts: 14,798
    Risico007 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Beyond parody, a medical expert willing to comment on something that allegedly happened 2000 years ago with no evidence other than the hearsay evidence of some who claim to be there?

    The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.

    So you are saying every historian is wrong... now who is bending reality Patb

    Not every historian, just the phoney historians that truly are apologists that you keep bringing up. You fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge that the Bible makes claims... Which cannot be used as evidence for themselves.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Not even the great Quincy would be able to take the weakest of evidence from 2000 years ago and come to any useful conclusion. Its remarkable how those of faith can take the tiniest, weakest things and turn them into a fully fledged reality.

    other sectors of society are openly ridiculed for doing the same thing.
  • Posts: 14,798
    I still find hilarious that someone could seriously go from the Great Fire of Rome to Jesus resurrected... Me think someone may not be the historian he says he is. Unless he's from Trump University of course.
  • edited March 2018 Posts: 9,730
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Beyond parody, a medical expert willing to comment on something that allegedly happened 2000 years ago with no evidence other than the hearsay evidence of some who claim to be there?

    The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.

    So you are saying every historian is wrong... now who is bending reality Patb

    Not every historian, just the phoney historians that truly are apologists that you keep bringing up. You fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge that the Bible makes claims... Which cannot be used as evidence for themselves.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

    Please explain how Dr Simon Gathercole Is wrong

    As he points out even pagan contemporaries point out how Jesus lived...


    And the theist argument starts floating back to the surface

    Also Dr Bart Erhman who I believe is agnostic wrote a book pointing out how Jesus indeed exist

    https://books.google.com/books/about/Did_Jesus_Exist.html?id=hf5Rj8EtsPkC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button

    Shall I bring in more historians... some of which are atheists.. who no doubt believe Jesus actually existed.
  • Posts: 14,798
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    Beyond parody, a medical expert willing to comment on something that allegedly happened 2000 years ago with no evidence other than the hearsay evidence of some who claim to be there?

    The only proof here is proof of how those of faith are willing to bend reality in an attempt to support their own framework of "reality". That, in itself, is very educational.

    So you are saying every historian is wrong... now who is bending reality Patb

    Not every historian, just the phoney historians that truly are apologists that you keep bringing up. You fail to understand or refuse to acknowledge that the Bible makes claims... Which cannot be used as evidence for themselves.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/14/what-is-the-historical-evidence-that-jesus-christ-lived-and-died

    Please explain how Dr Simon Gathercole Is wrong

    As he points out even pagan contemporaries point out how Jesus lived...


    And the theist argument starts floating back to the surface

    That's actually up to him to demonstrate that Jesus was real. You know you cannot prove a negative one has to demonstrate the positive claim beyond doubt. But I'd happily say that I find Jesus's existence plausible and even likely. Or to be more precise: that there was a historical Jewish philosopher named Jesus on which the Biblical Jesus is based on. That doesn't make it certain beyond any doubt, mind you, neither does it mean any extraordinary claims regarding him are even remotely true... Or that his doctrine is moral (I'd argue that it's in many aspects amoral but I digress). I'd also say that a warlord named Arthur might have existed who inspired the Arthurian legend and the mythical King Arthur. But Merlin I'm afraid is complete fiction even though I have seen Merlin's tomb (and took pictures of it).

    Funny thing that the article is accompanied by a picture of Robert Powell in Jesus of Nazareth. Powell deserves to receive royalties for every Church that use his image to promote Jesus. He's made a more compelling portrait and likeable of Jesus than the Bible itself!
  • Posts: 14,798
    @Risico007 Since you edited your answer, Bart Ehrmann is an atheist. He does think that Jesus existed although his whole academic work debunks the Biblical claims about Jesus's divinity. I think that's a big distinction which you fail to make.

    And I never denied Jesus's existence.I'm not entirely convinced that he did exist but I'd personally place the odd in favour of his existence than against. But I'm NOT a mythicist and never claimed to be. The issue with your posts is that you go from "many people believe Jesus was a real person" to "therefore he was God and all the rest of the Bible is true". It's a ludicrous jump and an asinine argument.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Until then ... since you all think I have a kindergartner knowledge in this... I will write out the lyrics to reading rainbow

    Take a look
    It’s in a book
    A reading rainbow

    Err does anyone know how you go about getting someone sectioned?

    You seem convinced that if you can disprove a hypothesis I casually tossed out there months ago, that Jesus might not have even been dead when they took him down, then you have proven everything in the bible is true.

    I never said I believed Jesus was alive when they took him down just that it's not impossible. Stories like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2032591/Woman-comes-back-to-life-after-being-dead-for-17-hours.html are ten a penny so in the absence of anything resembling definitive proof my mind is open.

    In any event, and to repeat @Ludovico's points above, why do you think proving that Jesus existed solves anything?

    In fact none of us even mentioned Jesus we asked for proof of the existence of God but you immediately swerve that tricky one and latch onto sketchy historical accounts of a bloke called Jesus living around that time who probably did exist and probably was crucified.

    Forget Jesus the monkey and let's see you wheel out some 'scientists/historians' (I use those words extremely loosely here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-simon-gathercole-on-the-gospel-of-judas-and-the-gospel-of-thomas/) who can demonstrate the historical veracity of his organ grinder father. Surely there must be some world renowned 'scientists' out there who have proven the existence of talking snakes?

    'An asinine argument' very succinctly put @Ludovico and actually sounds like an almost Flemingesque title that would be absolutely perfect for your upcoming thesis @Risico007 (that we're all still waiting for).

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    91Jjs97qiLL._UY500_.jpg
    Peace.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,727
    91Jjs97qiLL._UY500_.jpg
    Peace.

    I've always wondered what you look like. I can wonder no more!

    Plus, I think @TheWizardOfIce has been watching The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) recently. However, it does specifically say at the start that it is not based on Scripture.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    That isn t me.It s someone else (pbuh).
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    That isn t me.It s someone else (pbuh).

    I wonder who?
  • Posts: 14,798
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Until then ... since you all think I have a kindergartner knowledge in this... I will write out the lyrics to reading rainbow

    Take a look
    It’s in a book
    A reading rainbow

    Err does anyone know how you go about getting someone sectioned?

    You seem convinced that if you can disprove a hypothesis I casually tossed out there months ago, that Jesus might not have even been dead when they took him down, then you have proven everything in the bible is true.

    I never said I believed Jesus was alive when they took him down just that it's not impossible. Stories like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2032591/Woman-comes-back-to-life-after-being-dead-for-17-hours.html are ten a penny so in the absence of anything resembling definitive proof my mind is open.

    In any event, and to repeat @Ludovico's points above, why do you think proving that Jesus existed solves anything?

    In fact none of us even mentioned Jesus we asked for proof of the existence of God but you immediately swerve that tricky one and latch onto sketchy historical accounts of a bloke called Jesus living around that time who probably did exist and probably was crucified.

    Forget Jesus the monkey and let's see you wheel out some 'scientists/historians' (I use those words extremely loosely here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-simon-gathercole-on-the-gospel-of-judas-and-the-gospel-of-thomas/) who can demonstrate the historical veracity of his organ grinder father. Surely there must be some world renowned 'scientists' out there who have proven the existence of talking snakes?

    'An asinine argument' very succinctly put @Ludovico and actually sounds like an almost Flemingesque title that would be absolutely perfect for your upcoming thesis @Risico007 (that we're all still waiting for).

    If his thesis research is as good as it is in this thread... he's doomed. Unless he's at Trump University.

    @Dragonpol Last Temptation is based on the Scriptures. At least it's inspired by it. Freely but still.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Risico007 wrote: »
    Until then ... since you all think I have a kindergartner knowledge in this... I will write out the lyrics to reading rainbow

    Take a look
    It’s in a book
    A reading rainbow

    Err does anyone know how you go about getting someone sectioned?

    You seem convinced that if you can disprove a hypothesis I casually tossed out there months ago, that Jesus might not have even been dead when they took him down, then you have proven everything in the bible is true.

    I never said I believed Jesus was alive when they took him down just that it's not impossible. Stories like this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2032591/Woman-comes-back-to-life-after-being-dead-for-17-hours.html are ten a penny so in the absence of anything resembling definitive proof my mind is open.

    In any event, and to repeat @Ludovico's points above, why do you think proving that Jesus existed solves anything?

    In fact none of us even mentioned Jesus we asked for proof of the existence of God but you immediately swerve that tricky one and latch onto sketchy historical accounts of a bloke called Jesus living around that time who probably did exist and probably was crucified.

    Forget Jesus the monkey and let's see you wheel out some 'scientists/historians' (I use those words extremely loosely here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/interview-with-simon-gathercole-on-the-gospel-of-judas-and-the-gospel-of-thomas/) who can demonstrate the historical veracity of his organ grinder father. Surely there must be some world renowned 'scientists' out there who have proven the existence of talking snakes?

    'An asinine argument' very succinctly put @Ludovico and actually sounds like an almost Flemingesque title that would be absolutely perfect for your upcoming thesis @Risico007 (that we're all still waiting for).

    If his thesis research is as good as it is in this thread... he's doomed. Unless he's at Trump University.

    @Dragonpol Last Temptation is based on the Scriptures. At least it's inspired by it. Freely but still.

    Very freely at the end I would say when he comes off the cross and goes off with Mary Magdalene. The film was controversial for good enough reason after all!

    It's a pedantic argument to make though. That part has no basis in the Scriptures at all. Unless we're reading from different Bibles here?
  • Posts: 14,798
    What I mean is that TLTOC is basically rewriting and spinning an existing narrative. Text B (the novel/movie) would not exist without text A (the Bible). It's true of every Biblical movie, even... Life of Bryan.

    And I'd also argue that many Christians know more and identify themselves more with these adaptations than the Bible. They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited March 2018 Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.
  • Posts: 14,798
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
  • Posts: 14,798
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Sometimes it's difficult to make the difference. Back when I was a devout Catholic Jesus of Nazareth did more to keep my faith strong than the Bible. Reading it afterwards I thought it was just weak source material.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,655
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    I thought only the other Chuck was God.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
    Hence I bolded the words 'overblown, pompous and empty' as that was the point I was making. I'd assume a poor eye for detail as being a mandatory requirement for a believer and you've conveniently just proved the point.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,727
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
    Hence I bolded the words 'overblown, pompous and empty' as that was the point I was making. I'd assume a poor eye for detail as being a mandatory requirement for a believer and you've conveniently just proved the point.

    Or is it like that disappearing lab scene in Moonraker and you had bolded it but you later removed it just to make me look silly? ;)
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
    Hence I bolded the words 'overblown, pompous and empty' as that was the point I was making. I'd assume a poor eye for detail as being a mandatory requirement for a believer and you've conveniently just proved the point.

    Or is it like that disappearing lab scene in Moonraker and you had bolded it but you later removed it just to make me look silly? ;)
    Well given that when one goes back and edits a comment it says 'Edited at x o'clock' and my original comment has no such 'Edited' comment we can deduce through a keen eye for detail and the deployment of logic and reason that the answer to your question is no.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited March 2018 Posts: 17,727
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    Ludovico wrote: »
    They worship more the God of Charlton Heston and the God of Robert Powell.
    Well Chuck was both Moses and president of the NRA. For large swathes of bible bashing America that basically means you are God.

    True. He also played both roles as a barking madman. Which makes sense when the character is in direct communication with God.

    On a side note I far prefer Moses the Lawgiver to The Ten Commandments. The latter is an overblown, pompous, empty blockbuster. The other is a deconstruction of the Exodus where even Moses question the moral validity of God's law.
    Are you talking about a film here or are we back on religion?

    Blockbuster isn't a term I've seen used for religion much, I have to say.
    Hence I bolded the words 'overblown, pompous and empty' as that was the point I was making. I'd assume a poor eye for detail as being a mandatory requirement for a believer and you've conveniently just proved the point.

    Or is it like that disappearing lab scene in Moonraker and you had bolded it but you later removed it just to make me look silly? ;)
    Well given that when one goes back and edits a comment it says 'Edited at x o'clock' and my original comment has no such 'Edited' comment we can deduce through a keen eye for detail and the deployment of logic and reason that the answer to your question is no.

    I'll have to give in and say I was distracted as I was replying on my phone and only took a cursory glance at the highlighted words. I was having a little joke at my own expense there of course, hence the wink eye emoji. I find a little humour eases the tensions on this thread now and then.
  • Posts: 14,798
    The Catholic Church explaining the Holy Shroud (and it works for every religious claims: they accept the evidence debunking them but refuse their conclusions):
This discussion has been closed.