MAN OF THE SHROUD

Various ^ | August 2002

[NYer]

The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man. A man that millions believe to be Jesus of Nazareth. Is it really the cloth that wrapped his crucified body, or is it simply a medieval forgery, a hoax perpetrated by some clever artist? Modern, twentieth century science has completed hundreds of thousands of hours of detailed study and intense research on the Shroud. It is, in fact, the single most studied artifact in human history, and we know more about it today than we ever have before. And yet, the controversy still rages.

Arguments against the Shroud's authenticity are prima facia, supported by carbon 14 dating and a prevailing view of the way things are in the world. On the other hand, the case for authenticity is a compelling preponderance of scientific and historic evidence. So daunting is the evidence that we can only wonder if, as  postmodernists suggest, "no such thing as objective truth exists, that historic reality is an inherently enigmatic and endlessly negotiable bundle of free-floating perceptions."1 The alternative is to consider, as C. S. Lewis contends: rare exceptions to nature are possible. 

On this hot and sultry day in August, I decided to post this thread for those who enjoy mystery, adventure and the thrill of discovery. There are many web sites devoted to this topic. I suggest you begin here:

SHROUD OF TURIN

[Jean Chauvin]

Naw, I just mentioned them once.

Jean

[Wrigley]

Never really tilted enough. Unless of course you happen to be connectthedots.

[RnMomof7]

Never really tilted enough. Unless of course you happen to be connectthedots.

You guys wanna dance or something ? I think the kid has folded.....but he has earned a spot on the bump list:>)

[Wrigley]

Put him on. Couldn't hurt and he might learn a few things.

[RnMomof7]

I will not impose on a biblical apologetics thread to discuss doctrine. The truth is you do not understand reform doctrine.

Now I do not care if you ever agree with me...BUT at least understand WHAT you are disagreeing with ..do not make it up as you go along

I am linking this to the other thread so if you wish to learn what "calvinists" do really believe you can come here

If you wish to shadow box with straw men ..that is your choice ...but it would prove that you are afraid of it for some reason if you do not even want to understand it..

[RnMomof7]

What if he chooses not to?

Most men will choose not to..why do you think some men do and some do not?

[HumanaeVitae]

Shadow box with straw men? That's the pot calling the kettle black.

Again, define "predestination" for me.

Here's what's going through your mind right now--you know I'm right and that your position is illogical. However, you have some "need" to have your position validated so you fight on and avoid answering the question.

As to why I won't post Scripture, it's simple. You Protestants redefine scripture to suit your needs whenever you wish. That's why there's 27,000 different versions of Protestant Christianity. I'm surprised there's not more.

If men are predestined, there is no free will. If men aren't predestined, then there is free will and you're agreeing with me. Everything else you post is semantics and nonsense.

Confront that question. Of course, you won't, because you've been dancing around it for a few days.

[HumanaeVitae]

From whom?

RNMom? Doubtful.

[HumanaeVitae]

I doubt this will register with you, but you just refuted your own argument.

"Most men will choose not to..why do you think some men do and some do not?"

If people can choose salvation, there is free will. If there is free will, then there is no predestination.

You are dangerously close to winning the Homer Simpson Intellectual Boxing Award.

[RnMomof7]

Why do some men choose and not others? What is the difference?

That is the answer to predestination...when you understand that you will understand predestination

BTW you do not post scripture because you are Biblically illiterate..

[RnMomof7]

You can learn reform doctrine from me ..even if you never agree with it at least you will know what it is..(not what you THINK it is:>)

HV..how free is your will?

[HumanaeVitae]

It's not a silly argument at all. First of all, few Christians believe in predestination.

Second of all, apparently you don't understand human nature.

If a rich kid gets set up in business by his rich father, will he work really hard to make the business work, or will he become a profligate? Sure, some will attempt to "make good". Most won't. Similarly, people who believe that their ticket is already punched by God no matter what they do aren't likely to "toe the line" in terms of ethical behavior.

Apparently you guys want to have it both ways. The doctrine of "predestination" and "free will". But you can't have both. By the way, this is not difficult to point out. I wonder why predestination is not a more popular doctrine. Hmmm....

[HumanaeVitae]

How predestined is your predestination?

What about me? Was I predestined to reject the doctrine of predestination?

[RnMomof7]

HV..one of the thing that make men so mad about the thought of predestination is they assume that it is ruling them out..I always work from the premesis that if some one is seeking Christ God is drawing him..because man does not seek God by nature

HV How free is your will? Is it totally free?

[Wrigley]

It is easier to argue from what you think something teaches, than to actually do the work and learn what is actually taught.

I didn't do well in my Spanish classes because I didn't do the work to learn what I had a difficult time with. It was easier to go over the things I thought I knew well. I didn't learn that lesson until the class was over, and by that time, it was too late.

The point that HV is arguing from is where I was in that Spanish class. HV, I would suggest you step back and learn what Reformed theology actually teaches.

[HumanaeVitae]

Again, you won't answer my question--how predestined is your predestination?

"..I always work from the premesis that if some one is seeking Christ God is drawing him..because man does not seek God by nature."

Really. So God doesn't draw certain people. He lets them stay in sin. Only the "elect". Then man has no free will and thus no reason to behave ethically. Again, you've proven my case over and over.

By the way, free will, to a point, is provable by science. In the same way in which we cannot accurately pinpoint a quantum particle in the decay of say, Uranium 238, we cannot say certain actions lead inextricably to other actions. Scientific determinism has been refuted. But you probably don't understand the implications of this. In fact I'm sure I just wasted my time typing that, but FWIW. I won't even bother pulling out Karl Popper.

[HumanaeVitae]

"The point that HV is arguing from is where I was in that Spanish class. HV, I would suggest you step back and learn what Reformed theology actually teaches."

If you can't adequately defend it in a public forum, maybe it's not worth learning.

[Wrigley]

We have been defending it. You just haven't liked the answers.

[HumanaeVitae]

No, the answers haven't made sense. At all.

RNMom talks about "predestination", and then she states that she believes in "free will", on the born-again thread. I don't think she even knows what she's arguing. In fact, I'd bet on it.

[RnMomof7]

HV in your mind why do men make the choices they make ? Why do some become Christians and others not? How does free will work?