File :-(, x, )
Shroud of turin Anonymous
this shit freaks me out
>> Anonymous
Oh God (no pun intended lulz) in b4 shitfest.
Which will commence in 5, 4, 3, 2...
>> Anonymous
Yeah but its not Jesus. Jesus did not have long hair and probably no beard.
>> Anonymous
>>249972
Says who?
>> Anonymous
in b4 religious arguments that will last a lifetime.
>> Anonymous
>>249967
RELIGIOUS ARGUMENTS! lol, but all religion aside its a pretty baller death shroud.
>> Anonymous
>>249988
Did you just say it's a pretty baller death shroud? Baller?

Kill yourself.
>> Anonymous
>>249990
ive considered this, but i still stand by baller. i may or may not be the first, and possibly only, person to refer to the shroud of turn as "baller", or "balla" if you prefer.
>> Anonymous
>>249995
um, I'm not a nigger, but shouldn't it be "ballin'"?

As in, "that death shroud is ballin'"?
>> Anonymous
Experiments have shown the Shroud of Turin is not a "death shroud" but an early photo-negative. It's been theorized that da Vinci, or someone of his caliber, created the shroud with basic photo techniques to become a royal relic.
>> Anonymous
>>250044
experiments have shown that it is a death shroud from the 1st century and that the blood on it is type ab. but no you're right, you can read wikipedia thus disproving anything to the contrary of what you want to believe
>> Anonymous
>>250044
lol "basic photo techniques" oh im sorry, please explain to me how thats possible for someone in the middle ages to do. so apparently having knowledge of negatives, which nobody had until the camera was invented, somehow got stuck in a renaissance or medieval artist's head somehow, and via "basic" means, he created something that nobody could see for over a thousand years until cameras came around? omg your logic is so fucking flawless, go give yourself a fucking blowjob because youre so incredibly awesome!
>> Anonymous
Its been radio carbon dated to the middle ages, and is clearly an artist's impression in any case.
>> Anonymous
in during shitfest
>> sage sage
>>250080

Disregard the photo negative bullshit. The shroud isn't nearly old enough to be jesus' and it merely stained with a bleach or dye.
>> Anonymous
>>250077
>wikipedia

LOL.
>> Anonymous
>>250090
tits or it didnt happen
>> Anonymous
>>249982

Says the man from earth.


go see it.
>> Anonymous
a jew that didnt have a beard?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>250080
A "basic" camera is a box with a hole, aka "camer obscura", was known to science by the 10th century. To take a picture, you take a photo-sensitive material (silver bromide, if memory serves) place in box and expose to light via small opening in oposite end of box. The fabric is older than the image upon it, so someone in Midevil times could have used ancient cloth, apply silver, and expose to light. The subject of the "photo" would likely be a sculpture, since the development of the image might take hours.

You may not believe it was a "photo" and it doesn't matter who made it. But it's clearly not a death shroud, the lateral proportions are off (it would appear more flattened where the cloth draped down, like pic).
>> Anonymous
>>250126
you do realize that it is one of the biggest mysteries in the world right? you all seem so full of yourselves. two thousand years of mystery get pwned in 2 seconds. 4chan figured it all out. oh its so simple. thank you internets. sage.
>> Anonymous
>>249967

picture is the supposed cloth the laid over Jesus and it was imprinted with his face and body but i think it's bullshit.
>> Anonymous
the thing is, it hasnt been figured out yet. so nobody really knows whether or not its what it actually is or a hoax, thats the whole point gaiz. sage sage sage newfags sage sage sage tits gtfo ur choice sage sage sage
>> Anonymous
godfags are so pathetic.
>> Knight
Jacques de Molay. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>250158
atheists proclaim that there is no such think as an all powerful intellect, because using their all powerful intellect, they have figured this out. sage
>> Anonymous
>>250158
Agreed. But then so are atheistfags.
>> Anonymous
it is not a negative. the light spots would be dark and the dark spots light. his shadows are dark so it isnt a negative.
>> Anonymous
>>250161
No, they think God doesn't exist because they use simple logic to prove his described attributes are incompatible with the world that we observe. In particular, the existence of evil when an all powerful all good all knowing God could easily prevent it.
>> Anonymous
i thought Anon was god?
>> Anonymous
>>250133
We know for sure it's not a real shroud, because the image is incorrect. Suppose you covered someone's face with ink and then wrapped them up in a shroud. The ink would then mark the shroud everywhere it touched. Since the shroud is wrapped around the entire head there should be ink marks from where it touched the cheeks and neck, yet these are missing. We should be able to see BOTH side of the head at the same time on the cloth, yet here we can see NEITHER.
>> Anonymous
>>250200
While there is nothing wrong with the first part of your post, I have to disagree with the second part. Evil and suffering are apart of the world. The Bible doesn't contradict that, in fact it does the exact opposite. That argument against belief fails hard.

And yeah... sage for religious debate on 4chan of all places.
>> Anonymous
>>250205
But WHY do evil and suffering exist? God with his powers can easily prevent it, and if he is "all good" then he HAS to oppose ALL evil. Yet evil exists, so if God exists then he lacks one (or more) of those three traits.
>> Anonymous
OMG! God was a sock you ignorant newfags!
>> Anonymous
I still don't get how a face proves jesus exited, its just a face, nobody knew what he looked like
>> Anonymous
evil is the absence of God
>> Anonymous
>>250212
First of all, God doesn't have "powers", moron. Secondly, no one ever said God has to take all the suffering out of the world simply because he can. You listen to too many retarded "Christians" and don't read enough books. Suffering is an important part of our existence and even the Bible supports this.
>> Anonymous
http://sco.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ

haha, the scottish article about jesus on wiki... what a mental language they have.
>> Anonymous
>>250218
Um, it doesn't? Who said it proves that Jesus existed? Anyone with a brain knows it's very probable that Jesus existed (as a man).
>> Anonymous
>>250229
lol wtf made you decide to look through the scottish wikipedia? Just trying to read that makes my head hurt.
>> Anonymous
>>250227
"Powers" is just a word, the important fact is that an "all powerful" God can do anything.

>>Secondly, no one ever said God has to take all the suffering out of the world simply because he can.

But if he doesn't oppose ALL evil then he isn't pure good, so is he really God? Why should we worship a being that allows evil to happen to us when he has the power and knowledge to prevent it?

To put it another way, if you had the power to prevent a murder, yet you stood by and did nothing, would you be good or evil?
>> Anonymous
>>250212
Sorry, I'm an agnostic, and I tend to lean towards atheism, but I have to agree with>>250227.

Suffering is what makes this reality work. Pain alerts us. It tells us that something is wrong. How would we learn not to touch a hot stove because it burns us? Or how would we learn that physically or mentally abusing someone is wrong if the person didn't feel pain?

But suffering doesn't only support an atheistic worldview but a theistic one as well. Suffering is an integral part of Christianity. One of it's main ideas is that we have the choice to be good or evil. And if choose to be good, when we die, we will go to a place that is free of suffering.

I mean, this is pretty basic stuff. There are a lot better arguments against Christianity.
>> Anonymous
>>250233
Simply put, it is not God's job to stop suffering. And without evil to contrast good we would not know what to be good truly means. The only way we are able to discern that watching a murder and not preventing it is wrong, is because there is evil and suffering.

Also, see my points above.
>> Anonymous
>>250233
You'd be neutral.
>> Anonymous
piss
>> Anonymous
>>250236
>>...we have the choice to be good or evil.
That's the essence of the problem. An all powerful all knowing all good God (pkgGod for short) HAS to oppose ALL evil, so our ability to choose raises serious questions, especially if he created us.
>> Anonymous
>>250241
>>...it is not God's job to stop suffering.

Then why should we worship him, or even call him God? It's not the Devil's job to stop suffering either, yet he too is very powerful and has great knowledge, so why not call him God? Santa Claus knows much and has much power, and it isn't his job to stop suffering, why not call him God?

>>...without evil to contrast good we would not know what to be good truly means.

No, for a pkgGod has every power, and so could simply WILL us to know what good and evil are, without requiring us to learn it through the suffering of ourselves and others. If he can't WILL us to know that, then either he lacks the power to do so, the knowledge to do so, or the "goodness" to do so.
>> Peoplefag
>>250158
>>250172
>>250215

we're all peoplefags, stop making sub categories for it, it only makes you more of a fag
>> Peoplefag
awwww, whered everyone go?
>> Anonymous
>>250258
>That's the essence of the problem. An all powerful all knowing all good God (pkgGod for short) HAS to oppose ALL evil.
lol no he doesn't. Says who? Who says he's all good? Not even the Bible says God is all good. I'm doubting the fact that you've ever opened a Bible so I'm not sure where you are drawing your assumptions from. Ignorant Christians?

>Then why should we worship him, or even call him God? It's not the Devil's job to stop suffering either, yet he too is very powerful and has great knowledge, so why not call him God?
The devil's job is to tempt people into doing evil. God gives us the choice to choose. Big difference.
>> Peoplefag
hmm, id like to know how many of you have actually read the bible. alot of you may lie, and just to say this, i have only read genesis. i stopped becuz i found it comepletely annoying and stupid. i understood everything it said, but really? i am going to finish it, but i mean my chaos, man.
>> Anonymous
>>250294
Fascinating, tell us more.
>> Peoplefag
>>250296

what would you like to know?
>> Anonymous
>>250283
But if he's not all good (or even moderately good) they why worship him? If he's only moderately good, then there are likely some humans that surpass him in goodness, in which case shouldn't we ignore God and instead follow the teachings of "more good" human? But wouldn't that be a violation of commandment #1?

And yes, I have read the Bible, cover to cover, several times, although the last time was some years ago.
>> Peoplefag
>>250300

i think we should all just stop with the rhetorical questions and just cut to the chase.

people believe, becuz they feel they need something to believe in. they need hope, without it, we'd be lost. whoever created any of the religions was either a lunatic, or a genius. it doesnt matter if its real or not. go with whatever you feel is right, just dont get so proud about it.
>> Peoplefag
mmm, for now, i will shower, and think more on the subject. when i return i shall join back in, or start a new thread of the same thing
>> Anonymous
>>250300
>But if he's not all good (or even moderately good) they why worship him? If he's only moderately good, then there are likely some humans that surpass him in goodness, in which case shouldn't we ignore God and instead follow the teachings of "more good" human?
lol are you serious? I'm sorry, but that question is just laughable. Your logic is seriously flawed. Going by the assumption that he exists, he CREATED us, knows all the secrets of the universe, is all powerful and knowing and forgiving, and offers ALL of us a spot in his kingdom for all of eternity if we are simply good people. Why the fuck would I worship any mere human over him? And hey, in your 3 times reading the bible *snort* did you happen to read about that guy named Jesus?

>And yes, I have read the Bible, cover to cover, several times
I find that extremely hard to believe and would probably bet most of my material possessions that you are lying. Surprisingly, 'Peoplefag' called it.
>> Anonymous
>>250302
Ah, some incredible insight from Peoplefag. If you start a new thread I'm just going to sage it like I've been doing in this one. 4chan is full of ignorant, dumbass trolls, and is the very last place on should try to have an intelligent discussion on.

I suggest you and the other guy go to theologyweb.com if you want a good discussion from both atheists and theists. There are some incredibly intelligent people on there from both sides of the spectrum.
>> Anonymous
>>250302
Ah, some incredible insight from Peoplefag. If you start a new thread I'm just going to sage it like I've been doing in this one. 4chan is full of ignorant, dumbass trolls, and is the very last place one should try to have an intelligent discussion on.

I suggest you and the other guy go to theologyweb.com if you want a good discussion from both atheists and theists. There are some incredibly intelligent people on there from both sides of the spectrum. (not to mention that every aspect of religion imaginable has been argued thoroughly to death there)
>> Anonymous
>>250308
>But if he's not all good (or even moderately good) they why worship him? If he's only moderately good, then there are likely some humans that surpass him in goodness, in which case shouldn't we ignore God and instead follow the teachings of "more good" human?

>>Going by the assumption that he exists, he CREATED us...
That does not follow. Just because one God exists doesn't mean a second one may not ALSO exist. Alternatively, perhaps God created something that then created us. In short, it "God created us" does not follow from the assumption "God exists".
>>knows all the secrets of the universe...
This also does not follow from "God exists." It was one of the four assumptions I made in the original argument.
>>is all powerful and knowing...
Also does not follow from "God exists." These are the other two assumptions I made in the original argument.

>>Why the fuck would I worship any mere human over him?
You never said anything about him being GOOD, merely that he requires US to be good. Why should we worship something, even a powerful and forgiving something if it's not good?

>>happen to read about that guy named Jesus?
Son of God yet really God himself, born of a virgin, come not to overthrow the 10 commandments but to add to them, etc, etc? Jesus is God is Jesus, so he doesn't really have any effect on this argument.

>>I find that extremely hard to believe and would probably bet most of my material possessions
that you are lying.
If you had done so I'd be a bit richer now.
>> Peoplefag
>>250313

haha, quite a good point.
but see, those who debate on that site are more than likely more educated than i, seeing as how im still a minor.

i would thank you for the site, but im not here to argue about religion. im just here to try and spread my opinion to see if i can find people who agree,

ex: "people believe, becuz they feel they need something to believe in. they need hope, without it, we'd be lost. whoever created any of the religions was either a lunatic, or a genius. it doesnt matter if its real or not. go with whatever you feel is right, just dont get so proud about it."
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Peoplefag
>>250337

old. seen it. read it. forgot about it.
:]
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>250133
spoiler: jesus wasn't white
>> Anonymous
You people are idiots. God is named Chuck. And he played Guitar.
>> Anonymous
Roll over my children, and dig these rhythms and blues.
>> Anonymous
If it's not the Nazis it's Da Vinci's fault.
>> Anonymous
The Bible should be placed in the Fiction sections of bookstores and libraries.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>250417
No U.
>> Anonymous
>>250530
Yup, along with the Koran and other fairy tales.
>> Anonymous
Why waste them in that way? They are a carbon-neutral source of fuel.
>> Anonymous
>>250530
you think that's real clever don't you?

did it ever occur to you that there are things in the Bible that are historic accurate and that the "fiction" parts are allegorical?

Don't blame the book just because there are numb nutzes in the world that don't know how to read & think at the same time.
>> Peoplefag
hahahahahaha the KORAN!!
oh my my
you should learn at least how to spell it before you join in on this thread
>> Anonymous
>>250551
Oh, really? How do you decide a part of the bible is allegorical or historically accurate?

If you didn't read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. If you'd like to explain why the story of Lot and his family is allegorical then I'm all ears.
>> Anonymous
>>250570
>If you didn't read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah then read it.
fixed
>> Anonymous
>>250569
Well you still understood it, faggot.
>> Anonymous
>>250551

So it's all historical, until science can prove it didn't happen, at which point it becomes allegorical.
>> Anonymous
>>249988
>>249990
>>249995
>>249997
None of that made any damn sense.

>>250077
Hey! I have type AB blood. I are Jebus!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Not so hard to do
>> Anonymous
>>250623
My god you are ugly
>> Anonymous
>>250623
God, why did I lol so hard?
>> n
>>250200
um what about the bit in the first chapter of the bible where God hands over the earth to humanity and says 'IT'S YOUR RESPONSABILITY NOW'.
Humans do evil, if god were to intervene everytime, we wouldn't have free will. Stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>250623
fukken lol'd
>> Anonymous
Sup faggots. It's the Anon from yesterday. Like I said, if you want an intelligent discussion, go somewhere else.

And dear God, THAT>>250623is fuckin' scary.
>> Anonymous
>>249982

Says historical evidence that most Jewish males cut their hair short in the 1st century.

Jesus is considered the High Priest. High Priests were to not have long hair.

Paul after meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus and knowing what he looked like. Later wrote that it is shameful for a man to have long hair.

He was a carpenter. Worked in the elements. Moving heavy wood and stone. Long hair was not common in blue collar jobs. It got in the way. Again back to most Jewish males having short hair.

Contrary to popular belief he never took the Nazarite Oath. It was never written anywhere in the Bible he did. If you take the oath you cannot touch dead bodies or drink or eat anything with grapes. You also could not cut your hair. Jesus, touched dead bodies and also drank Wine. This shows he did not take the Oath.

Scripture states it look like an average male of the day. Judas has to kiss him for the Soldiers to know which one he was. This means he looked a lot like everyone else. Who more than likely had short hair.

So look at the evidence.
>> Anonymous
>>250547
>>250530

Well, look at the free thinkers! You totally put it to all those silly religious folk with that one.
>> Anonymous
>>250777
Hm, interesting. But what about after he stopped working as a carpenter and started preaching? Also, where is the support for the claim that Jesus never took the Nazarite Oath?
>> Anonymous
>>250786
This is why I'm against any kind of intelligent conversation in 4chan. Too many 12 year old trolls.
>> Anonymous
>>250791

I guess my own words were not plain enough. I apologize. I'll do a cut and paste from someone who wrote it in more plain language.

esus was not a Nazarite! According to Numbers 6:1-27, a Nazarite did wear long hair. However, Jesus was a Nazarene and not a Nazarite. While the two words look similar in English, they are entirely different in looks and meaning in the original language of the Bible. A Nazarene was one that lived in Nazareth, according to Matthew 2:23. A Nazarite was one who took a Nazarite vow, according to Numbers 6.

The Nazarite vow was usually temporary. (Samson and Samuel seem to be notable exceptions, for their vow was for life. See I Samuel 1:11 and Judges 13:5; 16:17).

The Nazarite vow was a vow of separation. Three things were forbidden as long as he was under the vow. (1) "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried." Num. 6:3. (2) He could not cut his hair. (3) He could not touch or come near a dead body. Num. 6:6-9.

A Nazarite could not have used any product of the vine, and thus Jesus could not have instituted the Lord's supper if he had been a Nazarite. For in this, he used the fruit of the vine.

If He had been a Nazarite, He could not have touched the funeral "bier" (open coffin) of the dead man in Luke 7:11-18.

If He had been a Nazarite, it is doubtful that the Holy Spirit would have caused Paul to write, "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him." I Cor. 11:14.

If He had been a Nazarite, Judas would not have needed to identify Him in Gethsemane, since Jesus would have been the only long haired man there. Everything in the New Testament seems to indicate that Jesus looked much like the other Jewish men of His age. If there had been any radical difference in His appearance, we believe that it would have been mentioned in the Bible.
>> Anonymous
>>250805
Cool. I did a search of my own and came across this which reiterated a few of the same points.

http://www.ucg.org/booklets/JC/humanbeing_longhair.htm