response 178 of 432:

Feb 8 22:20 UTC 2006

richard, learn to read and comprehend English.  These are your words:

> the Christian world, where the image of Jesus on the
> cross is a key of the faith.

The image is *NOT* a "key of the faith".  Maybe it is a good "marketing tool",
but that's not what you wrote, is it?

response 180 of 432:

Feb 8 22:33 UTC 2006

re #178 if it is a good marketing tool, a great marketing tool, it is in MY
OPINION, a key to the faith.  Albaugh I am entitled to that opinion and you
are entitled to disagree.

response 182 of 432:

Feb 9 03:08 UTC 2006

Re #173: the web discussions appear to assume that *either* the SoT is the 
burial cloth of JC or a medieval hoax. However those are not the only 
alternatives. It could be a medieval burial cloth for a medieval person. 
Can you cite a site for absolutely certain evidence that the shroud was 
prepared with the purpose of being a hoax in medieval times rather than as 
being simply the shroud for a human body from that period? Certainly even 
if it is nothing more than the latter it could have subsequently be 
*claimed* to be the shroud for JC. Making such a claim would then be a 
hoax, but not the shroud itself.

response 184 of 432:

Feb 9 06:11 UTC 2006

Well, that is problematic. There are huge controversies over all aspects
of this. Would  you please cite a site giving well-documented and agreed upon
evidence for that alleged flaw in the C14 dating? There are sites that
ridicule the fire story. 

response 186 of 432:

Feb 9 16:51 UTC 2006

They traced the mitochondria (maternal lineage) DNA back to Ireland.  Its
quite possible that its a Sean Penn's bath towel.

response 188 of 432:

Feb 10 18:29 UTC 2006

so what you are saying is that god is a sadist!

why do you hate the baby jesus, blast-femurrr?!

response 190 of 432:

Feb 14 02:02 UTC 2006

Re resp:187: See, that's one of the problems I have with Creationism. 
To believe it, you have to believe that God did stuff specifically to 
mislead us and cause some of us to end up in Hell. It's hard to square 
that with a loving God. 
 
I gave up on religion when I realized that there were only two ways to 
explain how things happened in the world: Either God doesn't exist, or 
God is a mean, arbitrary bastard. In the first case there's nothing to 
believe in, and in the second case He doesn't seem like someone I'd 
want to worship. 

response 192 of 432:

Feb 14 03:16 UTC 2006

Jon, why do you believe in God?

response 194 of 432:

Feb 14 03:26 UTC 2006

In which case where did God come from?

response 196 of 432:

Feb 14 04:05 UTC 2006

Why not try a belief system based on what beliefs are useful, or based on
what beliefs seem most likely to be true, rather than on what beliefs are
easiest?  That seems kinda lazy.

response 198 of 432:

Feb 14 04:27 UTC 2006

So it's the epistemological version of sitting on a Lay-Z-Boy in your
underwear watching talk shows and eating Pop-Tarts.  Awesome!

response 200 of 432:

Feb 14 07:00 UTC 2006

In a recent book ("Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon") 
Daniel C. Dennett suggests that ideas of gods arose in humans because of 
the appearance by evolution of what is called "theory of mind". This is 
the awareness in humans that other humans are aware, and they respond 
accordingly. Thus, first having attributed awareness to others, it was an 
easy step to attribute awareness to trees and rocks (Animism), which leads 
to polytheism which leads to monotheism. Or, put the way a reviewer of the 
book did, "theory of mind" lead to a "hyperactive agent detection device" 
that not only alerts us to real dangers, but also generates false 
positives, such as believing rocks and trees are imbuded with intentional 
minds or spirits".