• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If I were the devil...

Is it? Can you show any other shroud that has more focus and a cult like following that the Shroud of Turin?

It sounds like a dishonest dodge to deny it.

What's dishonest is what you're doing right here. I offered no opinion at all of the authenticity of the Shroud. The Shroud isn't even the topic, and I've made no claims one way or another. You’re pretending that I did and using my post to somebody else to push forward your beliefs. This is called a “strawman,” and, yes, it’s very dishonest.

To someone else who'd said he'd be interested in just one verified account, I asked, 'What about one Shroud? Would you be interested in that?” Please note that these are two questions, that the words “authenticity” and “accepting” don’t appear in either sentence, and that no opinion is expressed.

Your reply to my post to someone else was, "You mean you actually take the 'shroud seriously, even though it has been proven to be a 14th century fake," and I posted back, “I can't imagine how you've extracted an opinion from a question.” That's because I didn't express an opinion at all. But I apparently didn’t express myself plainly, so let me try again: I did not express an opinion one way or another. Look at the ten words/two sentences within quote marks. There is no opinion expressed.

And then you doubled down because you’re so eager and just had to express your naysaying opinion. Again, I did not express an opinion. Only you have. That’s why I described your post as a dishonest dodge. Better to have said that you confused my post with somebody else’s or acknowledge that you misread. Or something other than this.

And although this is a minor point, I don’t need to show that there is any other shroud. I capitalized the word, which you were too lazy to do, and you obviously knew to which shroud I was referring. You're just trying to start an argument where there will be none. I've expressed no opinion and am going to continue not to. I hope my use of bold has helped clarify what obviously confused you.
 
What's dishonest is what you're doing right here. I offered no opinion at all of the authenticity of the Shroud. The Shroud isn't even the topic, and I've made no claims one way or another. You’re pretending that I did and using my post to somebody else to push forward your beliefs. This is called a “strawman,” and, yes, it’s very dishonest.

To someone else who'd said he'd be interested in just one verified account, I asked, 'What about one Shroud? Would you be interested in that?” Please note that these are two questions, that the words “authenticity” and “accepting” don’t appear in either sentence, and that no opinion is expressed.

Your reply to my post to someone else was, "You mean you actually take the 'shroud seriously, even though it has been proven to be a 14th century fake," and I posted back, “I can't imagine how you've extracted an opinion from a question.” That's because I didn't express an opinion at all. But I apparently didn’t express myself plainly, so let me try again: I did not express an opinion one way or another. Look at the ten words/two sentences within quote marks. There is no opinion expressed.

And then you doubled down because you’re so eager and just had to express your naysaying opinion. Again, I did not express an opinion. Only you have. That’s why I described your post as a dishonest dodge. Better to have said that you confused my post with somebody else’s or acknowledge that you misread. Or something other than this.

And although this is a minor point, I don’t need to show that there is any other shroud. I capitalized the word, which you were too lazy to do, and you obviously knew to which shroud I was referring. You're just trying to start an argument where there will be none. I've expressed no opinion and am going to continue not to. I hope my use of bold has helped clarify what obviously confused you.

Come on now, it is an obvious conclusion. To say it is not is just plain dishonest.
 
If I were the Devil...

I'd make sure that that believers in God forsook the Old Testament
I'd invent fried shrimp and comfortable, stretchy clothes from mixed fabrics so they could satisfy their gluttony
I'd turn the teachers of scripture into greedy attention-seekers who rob their churchgoers and preach the gospel of money
I'd use politicians to exploit the fears of the sheep to work against all that Jesus taught

and most importantly...

I'd not exist, because it's all horse****.
 
No sir. I felt it in my spirit body. Sorry you can't understand. What sin did you commit that turned you against Christ?

I understand entirely; been there, done that. As I do not subscribe to your ideology, I therefore have committed no sin.


OM
 
Spirit body? The feeling was caused by your brain.

Precisely. Nothing quite like an ideologically-induced surge of dopamine to convince you that some invisible spirit filled your body.


OM
 
What's dishonest is what you're doing right here. I offered no opinion at all of the authenticity of the Shroud. The Shroud isn't even the topic, and I've made no claims one way or another. You’re pretending that I did and using my post to somebody else to push forward your beliefs. This is called a “strawman,” and, yes, it’s very dishonest.

Nope; not so much a strawman on his part (not at all, really), but more or less an actual fallacy on your part known as begging the question. Though you didn't come right out and state the the shroud is real, you strongly inferred it.


OM
 
Certainly you're not referring to that infamous medieval forgery?


OM

There's an interesting story (yes the video is probably on YouTube) that the Turin shroud is actually a self photograph of Leonardo de Vinci.
 
Not at all there's a wealth of good information put on you tube that would be otherwise unseen.

99 44/100% of YouTube videos of the "informational" variety are utter garbage. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good info out there, it just means that the sheer numbers of garbage you have to wade thru make that whole prompting of "check out this YouTube video" a bit dubious.


OM
 
99 44/100% of YouTube videos of the "informational" variety are utter garbage. That doesn't mean there isn't a lot of good info out there, it just means that the sheer numbers of garbage you have to wade thru make that whole prompting of "check out this YouTube video" a bit dubious.


OM

A YouTube video is a personal POV the validity of the points made reflect the validity of the poster. Many give hard facts, many make good points. You can easily say that there are many absolute garbage books out there.

There are a lot of TV shows on YT as well.
 
A YouTube video is a personal POV the validity of the points made reflect the validity of the poster. Many give hard facts, many make good points. You can easily say that there are many absolute garbage books out there.

There are a lot of TV shows on YT as well.

The point I'm attempting to get across is that people nowadays post ideological garbage video links so pervasively, that it's no longer even worth the effort of throwing away your time.


OM
 
If I were the Devil...

I'd make sure that that believers in God forsook the Old Testament
I'd invent fried shrimp and comfortable, stretchy clothes from mixed fabrics so they could satisfy their gluttony
I'd turn the teachers of scripture into greedy attention-seekers who rob their churchgoers and preach the gospel of money
I'd use politicians to exploit the fears of the sheep to work against all that Jesus taught

and most importantly...

I'd not exist, because it's all horse****.

Also, you would invent BACON>
 
The point I'm attempting to get across is that people nowadays post ideological garbage video links so pervasively, that it's no longer even worth the effort of throwing away your time.


OM

Yes, you have to examine the evidence.

Being part of a YT video doesn't prove a case but if a picture paints a thousand words, a video can paint many more and save so much typing.
 
...but if a picture paints a thousand words, a video can paint many more and save so much typing.

Too bad that process has become completely undermined by dubiousness. Posting You Tube links prompting others to watch has become just like posting political garbage on Facebook; instant scroll past.


OM
 
Too bad that process has become completely undermined by dubiousness. Posting You Tube links prompting others to watch has become just like posting political garbage on Facebook; instant scroll past.


OM

Well certain members do refer to religious web pages that way.
 
Certainly you're not referring to that infamous medieval forgery?

OM

I asked if you would be interested in the Shroud as evidence. Clearly not.
 
I asked if you would be interested in the Shroud as evidence. Clearly not.

I've already gone through all that; same as every one else. Why would anyone suggest being interested in a Medieval forgery?


OM
 
How could a fake be evidence of a god?
 
How could a fake be evidence of a god?

And how could a lack of interest in medieval fakery as some sort of evidence of a god be considered a bad thing?


OM
 
Back
Top Bottom