The shroud of Turin

[pe7erpark3r]

@Cat-gif said in The shroud of Turin:

I remind a scene from a movie where they try to steal shroud of Turin. That's only reason I know that without googling about it lol

Yeah, there are interesting things in the world lots of people don't know about.

I for one would like to know much more about the eastern world, I bet in china or india, there are incredible stories going round.

But then again, only in the west do you get reliable information about such things like the shroud of turin... in the east I've only ever heard legends, hearsay about miracles and supernatural stuff and the like. I wish they'd go at it all in a more sciencey way.

However on the other side, I'm pretty sure christianity's miracles are the only ones where there is evidence that is so physically tangible... That of course might be an information bias on my side, because I do believe in Christ. On the other hand I also have never heard of anything even remotely similar to the shroud or the eucharistic miracles in any other religion :shrug:

[pe7erpark3r]

@sarah_the_magpie said in The shroud of Turin:

@pe7erpark3r
i don't personally think that it's real, but it's definitely the most interesting piece of cloth in the world. i think that everyone can agree on that :D

Yeah it is the most curious thing, so much is for sure. There is another also quite interesting piece of cloth, the tilma of guadalupe:

Another inexplicably created image (irreproducible so far) on a cloth that should have rot away in 25 years and is now 500 years old.

[Indrid Cold]

Why are you so into the Turin Shroud, @pe7erpark3r? I agree with @sarah_the_magpie that it's definitely the most interesting piece of cloth in the world, but at the same time, it's just a piece of cloth, image of Jesus or not (does that make me sound disrespectful? - I blame it on The Stotts:

I mean, if it started doing shinnanegans like Dr Strange's cloak, or the bedsheets in 'Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad', then I'd reappraise m opinion.
What about that spear that that centurion stabbed Jesus' side with? I seem to remember there's a cool story behind that.
But

@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:

However on the other side, I'm pretty sure christianity's miracles are the only ones where there is evidence that is so physically tangible

I seem to remember reading about yogis who can materialise rose petals from thin air, behind the glass of framed photos of Buddha, etc. That's pretty cool. Also, there was that case study of the little lad who was the reincarnation of a Nazi pilot, and remembered the crash that killed him, and all the facts checked out when they later dug up his crashed bomber. That's some solid evidence.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:

Why are you so into the Turin Shroud, @pe7erpark3r? I agree with @sarah_the_magpie that it's definitely the most interesting piece of cloth in the world, but at the same time, it's just a piece of cloth, image of Jesus or not (does that make me sound disrespectful? - I blame it on The Stotts:

Look I for one am an intellectual, and that means I like to think. Thinking requires you to hypothesize and to say the things you believe, and to speak. Thinking is not a thing you can do alone. Ergo I'm absolutely for free-speech!

And thus I'm okay with people thinking what I think is nonsense, or saying that the things I find significant are not significant to them. If you didn't do that, especially if you didn't give me the reasons why you don't think it is very significant, we cannot advance in understanding and learning.

So let me state it clearly: thinking is offensive! Whoever is offended by what someone thinks – as long as it's not a clear/direct insult – is not a real thinker and also works on banning thinking.

So yeah, be of the opinion you are, do not hide it. It's not disrespectful to think and have your own opinion IMHO.

I mean, if it started doing shinnanegans like Dr Strange's cloak, or the bedsheets in 'Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad', then I'd reappraise m opinion.

Well I find forensic evidence quite a bit more tangible than other miracles. I mean a healing for example happens once. And if you're lucky it is documented. But you cannot re-examine it. And videos can be fake, and so can images. But something that remains tangible (like the shroud) and testable is of a different nature.

What about that spear that that centurion stabbed Jesus' side with? I seem to remember there's a cool story behind that.

I might look into that :joy:

But

@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:

However on the other side, I'm pretty sure christianity's miracles are the only ones where there is evidence that is so physically tangible

I seem to remember reading about yogis who can materialise rose petals from thin air, behind the glass of framed photos of Buddha, etc. That's pretty cool.

That's the problem with seemingly magical powers like that: You never know if they are real, you never know if it's just hearsay. You don't know the conditions of the test – if there is even a test. You don't know if you can believe the authors of the articles. It's hard to do this in a scientifically credible way. But I think it might be doable. Needs to be reproduced however, by different labs on different continents to gain some credibility. And the image needs to be created/prepared by the scientists ofc, not the monks.

Also, there was that case study of the little lad who was the reincarnation of a Nazi pilot, and remembered the crash that killed him, and all the facts checked out when they later dug up his crashed bomber. That's some solid evidence.

That is on another level, true. What does it tell us though? This is what I conclude – assuming the facts are true:

• knowledge can be acquired from the past facts in a supernatural way (this is 99% sure if the facts are true)
• since the boy remembers events in the pilot's life, we have evidence (but not prove), that people have souls which can survive after death

now the important question is: can we conclude safely that there is reincarnation? I don't think we can. I think the only thing we can conclude with some security (if the facts are true and other explanations are unlikely) is that a human being can receive information (memories/visions) from a soul that lived in the past. We'd need more information, we'd need some kind of excluding factor, that makes reincarnation the only explanation for this phenomenon.

Because this phenomenon is in concordance with the christian world view, in which the souls of the dead do not disappear, they are either in heaven, hell or purgatory, and can communicate with the living (as the virgin mary frequently seems to do in the past 5 centuries :joy:).

[Indrid Cold]

@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:

So let me state it clearly: thinking is offensive! Whoever is offended by what someone thinks – as long as it's not a clear/direct insult – is not a real thinker and also works on banning thinking.
So yeah, be of the opinion you are, do not hide it. It's not disrespectful to think and have your own opinion IMHO.

We-ell, I get where you're coming from, but I kind of disagree. My belief is that thinking is the pinnacle of either evolution or supernatural, God-style intervention (maybe both?), and as such, we shouldn't be afraid of picking fights, either on the criteria that people are underusing their consciousness or may not be conscious at all. If we don't do that, what's the point of human progress? It's why I've got such a high tolerance (while still not supporting them) of such unpopular political standpoints as pro-life lobby, the death penalty lobby, unrepentant terrorists, etc.

But yeah. I agree with you about reincarnation, that it might be more about the transmission of consciousness just -- trapped in the system (in fact, I think that's the conclusion the author came to in that book about the Nazi bomber I was talking about). I keep meaning to re-read 'The Transmigration of Timothy Archer' by Philip K Dick (his own Christian take on reincarnation) - BUT THERE JUST AIN'T ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY BWOY.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:

@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:

So let me state it clearly: thinking is offensive! Whoever is offended by what someone thinks – as long as it's not a clear/direct insult – is not a real thinker and also works on banning thinking.
So yeah, be of the opinion you are, do not hide it. It's not disrespectful to think and have your own opinion IMHO.

We-ell, I get where you're coming from, but I kind of disagree. My belief is that thinking is the pinnacle of either evolution or supernatural, God-style intervention (maybe both?), and as such, we shouldn't be afraid of picking fights, either on the criteria that people are underusing their consciousness or may not be conscious at all. If we don't do that, what's the point of human progress? It's why I've got such a high tolerance (while still not supporting them) of such unpopular political standpoints as pro-life lobby, the death penalty lobby, unrepentant terrorists, etc.

That rather sounds like you are agreeing with me :thinking_face:. I for one agree with everything you just said (except your position on pro-life) :yum:

Ah maybe it's this: thinking is offensive, and it must be offensive. And I think we should think, and pick those fights, and I think we should offend people who do not know what thinking is :joy:

But yeah. I agree with you about reincarnation, that it might be more about the transmission of consciousness just -- trapped in the system (in fact, I think that's the conclusion the author came to in that book about the Nazi bomber I was talking about). I keep meaning to re-read 'The Transmigration of Timothy Archer' by Philip K Dick (his own Christian take on reincarnation) - BUT THERE JUST AIN'T ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY BWOY.

Lol, I disagree with this being a christian take on reincarnation – albeit only having read the summary though. The christian take on reincarnation is as follows: does not happen. dead people do communicate sometimes, but they are not reborn, they stay dead :joy:

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold about reincarnation, I can add a personal account.

My great grandfather was a hypnotist. He helped people who came back from the second world war overcome their trauma. For example he helped some people move their limbs again (Paralyzation may have psychological reasons, or may be resolved psychosymatically).

Once he hypnotized a german soldier, and in his hypnotized state this guy spoke to him, in perfect french, and claimed to be a french soldier from the first world war. The respective soldier had never learned french and could not speak french.

After this episode, and I think another similar one, my great-grandfather stopped hypnotizing people.

About the christian world view, I might add another thing: dead people cannot only communicate, they are supposed to also be able to posses people, which might – and I have no idea if there is even a single case of this ever being reported – then look like reincarnation from the outside... But yeah, lets stop here alright, I don't actually want to go into the occult anymore than this :sweat_smile:

[Indrid Cold]

@pe7erpark3r It's all fascinating stuff. Your great grandfather sounds like a trailblazing guy.

But ...don't you think that a lot of this occult-style stuff might be compatible with Christianity in quite a wholesome way? I've often thought that Jesus' teachings might be less about charity and fellowship for their own sake (although there is that, and it's cool), as much as about death bringing us all together in some kind of collective-unconscious-made-conscious -- exactly the stuff cases of reincarnation deal with? Or does that make me sound like a stupid, idealistic hippy?

[Kaho]

@pe7erpark3r
Have u ever heard about haunted city/town in Rajasthan, India ? Its basically abandoned city , people left it at once donno why tho
.
.
.
Part 1 of 2

[Kaho]

@pe7erpark3r
And what was u talking about Christianity's miracles ?

.
.
.
Part 2 or 2

[pe7erpark3r]

@Dolphin-mp3 said in The shroud of Turin:

@pe7erpark3r
And what was u talking about Christianity's miracles ?
Part 2 or 2

If you had read what I wrote you might have known that I wasn't talking about miraculous healings, they are the less interesting kind of miracles. The video is kinda fun, but that is not a christian event and this is not a christian healer. There is not a single christian symbol present, nobody is wearing a cross, they are even wearing traditional indian symbols so yeah...

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:

@pe7erpark3r It's all fascinating stuff. Your great grandfather sounds like a trailblazing guy.

But ...don't you think that a lot of this occult-style stuff might be compatible with Christianity in quite a wholesome way? I've often thought that Jesus' teachings might be less about charity and fellowship for their own sake (although there is that, and it's cool), as much as about death bringing us all together in some kind of collective-unconscious-made-conscious -- exactly the stuff cases of reincarnation deal with? Or does that make me sound like a stupid, idealistic hippy?

By occult I meant the deat possessing the living. This is not something that those who live in God (died and are in Heaven) do :shrug:. But you are right, this stuffs hints at this reality too...

Jesus teachings are about the Kingdom of God, about being united in God, living a true life in God. This shows through the charity of people and through their acts, but also through their community in love. And this kingdom is here now, on earth. Heaven is in people's hearts (if He is!). God is alive and on the cross with everybody who's on the cross. It will continue after death and you'll feel it a bit more intense I guess, but what matters is this life, what matters is that you begin to live in God here, and that just never ends. Just wanted to say that.

[pe7erpark3r]

@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:

political standpoints as pro-life lobby

This is the first time, that I've heard the term pro-life lobby. Seems a bit odd to me, for the term lobby usually denotes a group of people who try to further their own interests over other people's interests.

Most pro-lifers however seem to be worried about the innocent children. Maybe I'm missinformed, but I haven't been able to make out a single monetary advantage for them.

The pro-choice lobby on the other hand concists of people who make billions from killing the unborn, even selling body parts for research, and of the people who make billions from selling the pill (pro-choicers are for the pill, while pro-lifers are against it, since it might cause early abortions). And then of course they consist of all the people who want to be able to get rid of a baby that doesn't come at the right moment... Did you know that 80% of all abortions (at least in the west) are done because the baby is just inconvenient right now?

Also since we are talking about souls here already: a soul seems to be able to live on after death, that is without a body. If a soul needs no body, it certainly does not need a functioning brain or a heartbeat. So if a baby has a soul, then certainly from the moment of conception on...