I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
I assume he only read the first post or page being as this is not the topic and the lack of direction points only to thepyro22 I'd imagine.
@ wolf - to the person that first posted this thread
Nevermind...
Under these conditions what happens to the soul?
Is it not the first commandment "Thou shall not take another God as I", inaccurately spoken? It is, in its own way, playing God if the Robot indeed has a soul. Whilst I doubt any of us have a soul and only a mere consciousness which is easily effected by external surroundings, I do think that in this case (God is real, and so are souls) the Christian would be punished anyway.
The Robot? I'm not sure whether he has free will or not. That would be the dictation of its outcome after "death", if it has one.
Is it not the first commandment "Thou shall not take another God as I", inaccurately spoken?
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
It is, in its own way, playing God if the Robot indeed has a soul.
If it supposedly has the soul of the person who made it, is it still playing god?
The Robot? I'm not sure whether he has free will or not. That would be the dictation of its outcome after "death", if it has one.
Given the qualities being associated with having a soul the robot being able to have free will would go along with that.
This also includes the case where one personality identifies him as a believer, and the other as atheist. So, only the ability of one's soul interacting with the body is harmed by this.
But wouldn't the half being atheist thus committing the unforgivable sin cause harm to the soul? If not then why would it in other cases?
Are you just making these rules up as you go along?
And basically all religions are freaking pathetic.. Did you know that more people have been killed in the name of an imaginary character than in any other cause ?
The whole "God" idea is MADE UP! to control people.
GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL!
GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL! GET REAL!
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need evidence to back up your assertion.
He's displeased for US to do this, so it's US who are in danger of going to Hell for committing IVF and stem children.
I have a question - I know you will say that one cannot know God's reasoning, yet somehow we can know God through faith.
However, the idea that "God creates His ethical theory" is false. Because the ethical theory God creates must have some basis to it. It must be logical in itself. But this fact implies that virtues would exist whether or not God exists. And this would also imply that God doesn't create His ethical theory, since ethics is independent of God. Thus, the idea that "this is wrong because God said so" is false - besides God's assertion that it is false, do you have any backup why it is false in the first place?
If you don't have any backup, how can you believe it yourself? If you do have backup, then how can you believe that God creates ethical theory if things are already good-in-themselves?
Then demonstrate it. Take the arguments being made by Christians and break them apart. Posting in a spam like fashion isn't going to help anyone realize this.
And basically all religions are freaking pathetic.. Did you know that more people have been killed in the name of an imaginary character than in any other cause ?
Yes I'm aware of that.
The whole "God" idea is MADE UP! to control people.
While it has been used in that fashion that may not have been the original intent. I think it very likely to be an early attempt to explain the world around us coupled with pareidolia to put a familiar face on powerful events we didn't understand in order to lessen our fear of those events. If a thunder storm is controlled by a couscous being then there is hope that we can reason or appease it, giving us some power to manipulate such powerful events.
Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope (meaning it is unbalanced) and degrades over time back to carbon 12.
E1337, I'm disappointed, quite honestly. You call yourself a "man of science" and seem to project an overly proud view of your scientific knowledge. Yet, this statement contains a HUGEfactualinaccuracy.
There is no type of radiation that makes it go down 2 in the atomic mass.
Small atoms undergo alpha radiation - meaning C14 goes to Nitrogen 14 because one of its neutrons becomes a proton and an electron, and the electron is released.
Think twice before chiding another user about his intellectual incompetence when you don't even know what you're talking about.
And the reason you can measure C14 date stuff is because the Nitrogen is still bonded in macromolecules where Carbon should be.
Then demonstrate it. Take the arguments being made by Christians and break them apart. Posting in a spam like fashion isn't going to help anyone realize this.
Die hard Christians will just ignore the logic or reasoning made. Imagination is an impossible thing to deal with. Like some giant flying purple octopus. No matter how hard to try to reason with it and then eventually destroy it, nothing will happen it will just re-generate.
You call yourself a "man of science" overly proud view of your scientific knowledge you don't even know what you're talking about.
Harsh and not necessary, I think people get it when you point out the error. No point hammering it in repeatedly.
While it has been used in that fashion that may not have been the original intent. I think it very likely to be an early attempt to explain the world around us coupled with pareidolia to put a familiar face on powerful events we didn't understand in order to lessen our fear of those events. If a thunder storm is controlled by a couscous being then there is hope that we can reason or appease it, giving us some power to manipulate such powerful events.
Why would someone create another religion to explain events? It probably started out as a more complete moral code/religion that then got twisted by the ages and is now just blindly followed.
Why would someone create another religion to explain events?
We have a great capacity to anthropomorphize things. Apply this to something very powerful that we were at the mercy of like a storm and you now have a powerful being. Carry this on further and we begin developing more and more complex personalities for these beings, coming up with things such beings like and dislike. These likes and dislikes eventually becomes rules and rituals for us to follow. Which then ends up being blindly followed over time.
But as I said even if the date does go back to the time Jesus supposedly lived how do we know it was in fact the one used on Jesus?
You have said that. But you haven't provided any suitable candidate for a person to be shrouded in this. You haven't yet explained how the image could ever appear on the surface. I have an explanation - this is a side-effect of Christ's resurrection, so far anything known coincides with this explanation.
since ethics is independent of God
This statement is false, there are (were?) cannibal tribes that have used ethics as "eating other tribes' members is good", contrary to current common morale of "killing a human is bad". You should also know that Christianity did a great impact on general morale, making the humanity "more good" altogether.
It must be logical in itself.
Why, there is logic in itself. "Do to others what you want to be done to yourself", or its weaker form originally placed before people, "Don't do to other what you don't want to be done to yourself" has basis of self-preservation and community care. And since a human is communal, this behavior is directed to species survival, thus is beneficial.
Small atoms undergo alpha radiation - meaning C14 goes to Nitrogen 14 because one of its neutrons becomes a proton and an electron, and the electron is released.
This is called beta radiation, not alpha - but the principle of 14C fragging is right. Alpha radiation is a release of an alpha particle (4He nucleus) out of a radioactive nucleus, resulting in mass loss of 4 and charge loss of 2.
You have said that. But you haven't provided any suitable candidate for a person to be shrouded in this.
Don't need to provide a candidate, can simply leave it an unknown.
You haven't yet explained how the image could ever appear on the surface. I have an explanation - this is a side-effect of Christ's resurrection, so far anything known coincides with this explanation.
The most likely explication proposed would not have been from a resurrection but from a decomposition. Basically the shroud was treated with a reactive substance that caused a browning effect (mallard reaction) as the body it was covering decomposed and released gases in the tomb environment resulting in the image of the body being left behind on the cloth. Testing of the shroud has shown all required compounds present on the cloth.
But you haven't provided any suitable candidate for a person to be shrouded in this.
Any Jew at the time would have been covered in a shroud. It was the common practice at the time, and indeed even before and after the 1st Century. As for the markings, it is likely that chemicals released by the body during decomposition, or a result of the bath given to the corpse prior to it's wrapping would have left a stain on the linen wrapping.
Any Jew at the time would have been covered in a shroud.
Yes, but you can also see that there are bloodstains over the head and body that signify the human in question was crucified, and also suffered a lot of beating, and his head was punctured in numerous places. One might leave it at unknown, but this will not disprove that this shroud can belong to Jesus.
About the paint - hmm, an interesting issue. But the main trouble with Maillard reactions is that they are slow at the temperatures Turin's shroud was exposed to, and if they would take place and that image will be the result of this reaction (which can form a similar image, indeed), this will take too long, so the body would start decomposing in its outer layers staining and damaging the cloth. The same set of investigations say there is no evidence of Turin's shroud suffering such a damage. From here
