I will tell you why I am bored.

[ninja007]

heres a list of some false teachings of the rcc....



A list of false teachings in the Roman Catholic Church

 

[turzovka]

Fatima schmatima. The sun is fixed in its place and the earth in its orbit. If 50 billion eye witnesses 'saw' the sun dancing in the sky and zooming in and out from the earth the only possible explanation is that 50 billion people desperate for a 'miracle' hallucinated during some religiously inspired mass hysteria.

You might not know this but some of you religious people can be nuckin futz.

So says the fool who thinks there is no God, or that God is limited to what his miniscule human brain can muster.

Testimonies of scientists, medical doctors, communist journalists, former atheists, et al. who were present all lay waste to your ignorance.

More sad then ridiculous.

 

[zaangalewa]

No one says that scientists are not able to be idiots. Indeed I would say I met a lot of idiots coming from universities. But your argument here has nothing to do with the christian religion or would you say it is a sin to be a Christian because Chistians (like everyone else) are sinners? Surely not. If a baker tells you it's wrong to believe in god because he never saw god in his bread then you will be amused. If a scientists says he found no god in your brain then may be you will be upset. Why? What do you think will happen if someone really finds god as an object of this world here? - Or what will happen if god comes on his own free will to the people - for example in swaddling cloth in a manger? What will be his throne?

Science is the art to build good question with a provable character. So science is for example able to measure the IQ of someone - and science is able to say something about lots of facts - but science is not able to make someone to a wise man. On the other hand: wise men are often interested in the result of science too, because there are many perceptions of the truth but there's only one common truth.

As a Catholic I would say: If the shroud helps someone to believe in god - why not? I personally don't think it shows Jesus Christ - but maybe I'm wrong. I think everything is okay what helps someone to find a good way. Not every way is my way - but in the end every help comes from god. The strange thing: Everyone has a shroud but no one knows. For sure a scientist is in case of the own shroud not in a privileged position.

I am not disagreeing with you in that there are many various ways or situations that some may come to accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

or friend and brother

There are also many ways to serve God, not just how the “puritans” demand.

But as for me --- I have thoroughly examined the facts and events at Fatima, Lourdes, Zeitoun, Egypt, Akita, Japan, La Salette, et al.

Why?

As well as the Shroud of Turin. I am convinced that God has given us these manifestations as signs of hope for the faithful as well as cause for discernment for the doubters.

Or on other reasons we don't know in the moment.

I do not see these as some cheap trick by God

Sure not - god needs no cheap tricks - god is the truth.

or some less than dignified way of teaching the gospel. The Catholic Church is very clear on manifestations and apparitions. They have approved less than 10 in all of history as “worthy of belief.”

The world needs this authority of the catholic church. It is very important in case of other very confusing and wrong ideas and subjects.

In other words, there is nothing that contradicts or denies the gospels and the dogmas or doctrines of the Church. Therefore, they allow Catholics to pray at these shrines and hold them as truth.

"Allow Catholics" is not the right expression. They allow the church as an organisation not to do so. But the church is also a very complex community of more than a billion people. Whatever a Catholic is doing is in the own responsibility. The authority of the chruch is not an authority like the authority of a state with policemen and soldiers - their authority are words and teachings. The Church always tries to wake up love and rationality in everyone.
Let me tell you an old joke: In Africa someone answers to his priest, his catholic priest: "No, no, father - I and my three wives are very good Catholics". We Germans don't have any form of humor that's why this "rassistic" joke is not longer. Besides that I love this very short joke very much I guess it's even true what this man says: He speaks out of his own traditions. If he was for example married and afterwards he became a Catholic then I don't think he has any right to send two of his three wives away. The whole societies there are using completly other systems of welfare and responsibility so it would be not an act of love to do so. As strange as it sounds first it's indeed true: He and his three wives are good Catholics. (More exactly: Could be it is indeed in this way - do not forget: it's a joke!) But if a European or American would marry three wives and would try to force a christian baker with lawyers to make him a wedding pie for his third male wive, then I doubt about wether this has to do any longer anything with reasonability and responsibility. We are amusing us to death.

But they also are quick to add we are not required to accept them or give them any heed if we so choose. The Church has said all public revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle. What we have had since the Church has deemed to be private revelation which is not indispensable or as guarded as inspired Scripture or Church dogma. I am fine with all that.

I never heard such a nonsense. Is this really a doctrine of our church? Ah stop - it is - I remember something in this way - but not in such hard words. I guess this has to do with absurde things some people are saying on completly idiotic reasons. Sure we need authorities and watchdogs - shepards and sheep dogs. But nevertheless I hope one day everyone will be a prophet ... I'm even able to imagine only one single person is able to be right sometimes while the rest of all mankind is able to be wrong. In worst case the person who is right while all others are wrong could be an idiot. We need to listen everyone - and to search everywhere. But to listen means often also to misunderstand - and to search means also often to go a wrong way. But as long as a heart is pure and full of love no one is really able to go lost.

Oh - the shroud in Turin. I forgot. I don't need this shroud - it plays no role in my belief in god, but it's a fascinating messenger. Nevertheless the messages written in so many living hearts are the messages I love most. Perhaps we can see in things like the shroud of Turin a kind of lighter - lightening hearts.

 

[hobelim]

Fatima schmatima. The sun is fixed in its place and the earth in its orbit. If 50 billion eye witnesses 'saw' the sun dancing in the sky and zooming in and out from the earth the only possible explanation is that 50 billion people desperate for a 'miracle' hallucinated during some religiously inspired mass hysteria.

You might not know this but some of you religious people can be nuckin futz.

So says the fool who thinks there is no God, or that God is limited to what his miniscule human brain can muster.

Testimonies of scientists, medical doctors, communist journalists, former atheists, et al. who were present all lay waste to your ignorance.

More sad then ridiculous.

I have told you more than once that I am not an atheist.

However many doctors and scientists etc. were there the fact remains that it is impossible that the sun moved or danced around in the sky, ever. That your minuscule brain cannot muster the intelligence or faith to know that what they saw was either an atmospheric effect from thin and thick clouds passing by that made the sun look like it moved combined with the known effects on the eye from staring at the sun and mass religious hysteria is what is sad.

You citing this event as evidence of the supernatural and that God supports your irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices is pathetic.

 

[zaangalewa]

Fatima schmatima. The sun is fixed in its place and the earth in its orbit. If 50 billion eye witnesses 'saw' the sun dancing in the sky and zooming in and out from the earth the only possible explanation is that 50 billion people desperate for a 'miracle' hallucinated during some religiously inspired mass hysteria.

You might not know this but some of you religious people can be nuckin futz.

So says the fool who thinks there is no God, or that God is limited to what his miniscule human brain can muster.

Testimonies of scientists, medical doctors, communist journalists, former atheists, et al. who were present all lay waste to your ignorance.

More sad then ridiculous.

I have told you more than once that I am not an atheist.

However many doctors and scientists etc. were there the fact remains that it is impossible that the sun moved or danced around in the sky, ever. That your minuscule brain cannot muster the intelligence or faith to know that what they saw was either an atmospheric effect from thin and thick clouds passing by that made the sun look like it moved combined with the known effects on the eye from staring at the sun and mass religious hysteria is what is sad.

You citing this event as evidence of the supernatural and that God supports your irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices is pathetic.

If we watch only the physical side of this problem then a projection of light in the atmosphere of the Earth called "sun" moved on the retina of some thousand people in a way it was usually not moving. Did you ever see a "aurora borealis" for example? Or did you ever see a fata morgana? Or only a little reflex of light moving very fast from a point to another in a mirror? So why do you think you will not find a physical explanation for a dance of the sun in the sky? It could also be an electromagnetic impulse - or another force - what stimulated the electrochemical impulse of brains and so on and so on. So what do you know really about this phenomenon? It's only an illusion of knowledge if you think others are wrong without really to try to understand how thousands of people are able to see the same thing in the same time although it is impossible to see so. We call such a situation "wonder" because we don't have an explanation.

 

[turzovka]

I have told you more than once that I am not an atheist.

However many doctors and scientists etc. were there the fact remains that it is impossible that the sun moved or danced around in the sky, ever. That your minuscule brain cannot muster the intelligence or faith to know that what they saw was either an atmospheric effect from thin and thick clouds passing by that made the sun look like it moved combined with the known effects on the eye from staring at the sun and mass religious hysteria is what is sad.

You citing this event as evidence of the supernatural and that God supports your irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices is pathetic.

You may not be an atheist but you argue like one.
What you tried to explain above strikes as worthless. God is God. Nature is not God nor are the laws of nature or the universe God. God has bigger motives than to keep you or mankind comfortable in his own tiny world and wishes. If God wants to make the sun dance, guess what?... the sun dances! And it did. And the 70,000 present testified to it and were all terrified by it.

Believe whatever you want, but then do not ask for proof for God from me.

 

[turzovka]

If we watch only the physical side of this problem then a projection of light in the atmosphere of the Earth called "sun" moved on the retina of some thousand people in a way it was usually not moving. Did you ever see a "aurora borealis" for example? Or did you ever see a fata morgana? Or only a little reflex of light moving very fast from a point to another in a mirror? So why do you think you will not find a physical explanation for a dance of the sun in the sky? It could also be an electromagnetic impulse - or another force - what stimulated the electrochemical impulse of brains and so on and so on. So what do you know really about this phenomenon? It's only an illusion of knowledge if you think others are wrong without really to try to understand how thousands of people are able to see the same thing in the same time although it is impossible to see so. We call such a situation "wonder" because we don't have an explanation.

Sorry, but your suggestion of what may have occurred falls far short of the evidence. 70,000 people do not all mass hallucinate, nor are they all having the same trick played on them by the atmosphere. It was a dark rainy day and when the three shepherd children came to the sight the skies split open. And at the end of the phenomenon the sun turned blood red and charged the earth. Many very calm, intelligent, secular minds testified to this fact. And it all was prophesied it would happen on that exact day 90 days prior on July 13th! By three little children claiming the words came from the Blessed Virgin!

Mankind is so eager to try to look for reasons not to believe God is speaking to us. But the facts belie their wishes.

 

[zaangalewa]

If we watch only the physical side of this problem then a projection of light in the atmosphere of the Earth called "sun" moved on the retina of some thousand people in a way it was usually not moving. Did you ever see a "aurora borealis" for example? Or did you ever see a fata morgana? Or only a little reflex of light moving very fast from a point to another in a mirror? So why do you think you will not find a physical explanation for a dance of the sun in the sky? It could also be an electromagnetic impulse - or another force - what stimulated the electrochemical impulse of brains and so on and so on. So what do you know really about this phenomenon? It's only an illusion of knowledge if you think others are wrong without really to try to understand how thousands of people are able to see the same thing in the same time although it is impossible to see so. We call such a situation "wonder" because we don't have an explanation.

Sorry, but your suggestion of what may have occurred falls far short of the evidence. 70,000 people do not all mass hallucinate, nor are they all having the same trick played on them by the atmosphere. It was a dark rainy day and when the three shepherd children came to the sight the skies split open. And at the end of the phenomenon the sun turned blood red and charged the earth. Many very calm, intelligent, secular minds testified to this fact. And it all was prophesied it would happen on that exact day 90 days prior on July 13th! By three little children claiming the words came from the Blessed Virgin!

Mankind is so eager to try to look for reasons not to believe God is speaking to us. But the facts belie their wishes.

Tell me what god says to you. I say to you: You did not understand how I think. I don't need anything what has to do with a supernatural effect in physics to believe in god. The whole universe came far from physics meta-physically, super-naturally into the own existance. We are only able to say in a senseful way it came from nothing, because a first cause is uncaused and once was a first cause. But I don't think nothing was replaced by everythgin here in this world - we are not only the not existing nothing. We came from a transcendent world into this world here and the spirituality of this world is everywhere because everything is word - created and creating word - of god. So for me is supernaturality not important. For me is not only everything wonder-ful but a wonder in itselve. If I understand something then this means not something is not wonderful any longer. So although I am a Catholic I never was interested in my life in so called "supernatural" phenomenons. I'm for example a telepath by reading books or by doing a conversation with other telepaths by vibrating molecules of the air via vocal chords and lungs - and if I move something in a telekinetic way then I use my arms or some machines. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do so. And if god allows me to go to heaven one day then I will be happy to be in my body there. I don't know why so many people prefer to think materialism and spiritualism are a kind of contradiction.

 

[hobelim]

I have told you more than once that I am not an atheist.

However many doctors and scientists etc. were there the fact remains that it is impossible that the sun moved or danced around in the sky, ever. That your minuscule brain cannot muster the intelligence or faith to know that what they saw was either an atmospheric effect from thin and thick clouds passing by that made the sun look like it moved combined with the known effects on the eye from staring at the sun and mass religious hysteria is what is sad.

You citing this event as evidence of the supernatural and that God supports your irrational beliefs and degrading religious practices is pathetic.

You may not be an atheist but you argue like one.
What you tried to explain above strikes as worthless. God is God. Nature is not God nor are the laws of nature or the universe God. God has bigger motives than to keep you or mankind comfortable in his own tiny world and wishes. If God wants to make the sun dance, guess what?... the sun dances! And it did. And the 70,000 present testified to it and were all terrified by it.

Believe whatever you want, but then do not ask for proof for God from me.

I never asked you for proof of God. I read the Bible. It says that the consequence for worshipping a lifeless material object made by human hands is death. I read your irrational and superstitious claims that show that you have no life in you and so I believe.

If God wants the sun to dance, then it dances? LOL....

You do not believe in God, you believe in archaic superstitious lore that seems to support the delusional worship of a figment of your unrestrained imagination, an almighty, yet edible, capricious and puerile petty tyrant that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence, a god made man made matzo made by human hands that only the dead worship and eat for spiritual life.

 

[turzovka]

Tell me what god says to you. I say to you: You did not understand how I think. I don't need anything what has to do with a supernatural effect in physics to believe in god. The whole universe came far from physics meta-physically, super-naturally into the own existance. We are only able to say in a senseful way it came from nothing, because a first cause is uncaused and once was a first cause. But I don't think nothing was replaced by everythgin here in this world - we are not only the not existing nothing. We came from a transcendent world into this world here and the spirituality of this world is everywhere because everything is word - created and creating word - of god. So for me is supernaturality not important. For me is not only everything wonder-ful but a wonder in itselve. If I understand something then this means not something is not wonderful any longer. So although I am a Catholic I never was interested in my life in so called "supernatural" phenomenons. I'm for example a telepath by reading books or by doing a conversation with other telepaths by vibrating molecules of the air via vocal chords and lungs - and if I move something in a telekinetic way then I use my arms or some machines. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do so. And if god allows me to go to heaven one day then I will be happy to be in my body there. I don't know why so many people prefer to think materialism and spiritualism are a kind of contradiction.

>>I don't need anything what has to do with a supernatural effect in physics to believe in god. <<

I did not say that you did.

>>So for me is supernaturality not important. For me is not only everything wonder-ful but a wonder in itselve.<<

Except that Jesus last command to His apostles was to go to all corners of the world and preach the gospel and to baptize those in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is asking for much more from his faithful than just your confinement with being content with finding God abstractly in all things.

As for the rest of your testimony or “theology,” sorry, but it strikes me as too new age and too self centered or passive.

 

[zaangalewa]

Tell me what god says to you. I say to you: You did not understand how I think. I don't need anything what has to do with a supernatural effect in physics to believe in god. The whole universe came far from physics meta-physically, super-naturally into the own existance. We are only able to say in a senseful way it came from nothing, because a first cause is uncaused and once was a first cause. But I don't think nothing was replaced by everythgin here in this world - we are not only the not existing nothing. We came from a transcendent world into this world here and the spirituality of this world is everywhere because everything is word - created and creating word - of god. So for me is supernaturality not important. For me is not only everything wonder-ful but a wonder in itselve. If I understand something then this means not something is not wonderful any longer. So although I am a Catholic I never was interested in my life in so called "supernatural" phenomenons. I'm for example a telepath by reading books or by doing a conversation with other telepaths by vibrating molecules of the air via vocal chords and lungs - and if I move something in a telekinetic way then I use my arms or some machines. It's a wonderful thing to be able to do so. And if god allows me to go to heaven one day then I will be happy to be in my body there. I don't know why so many people prefer to think materialism and spiritualism are a kind of contradiction.

>>I don't need anything what has to do with a supernatural effect in physics to believe in god. <<

I did not say that you did.

>>So for me is supernaturality not important. For me is not only everything wonder-ful but a wonder in itselve.<<

Except that Jesus last command to His apostles was to go to all corners of the world and preach the gospel and to baptize those in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. That is asking for much more from his faithful than just your confinement with being content with finding God abstractly in all things.

As for the rest of your testimony or “theology,” sorry, but it strikes me as too new age and too self centered or passive.

Do you have any idea what you are speaking about? God is very concrete in front of your eyes - always! But it seems to me he's not in your heart and not in your words.

 

[zaangalewa]

... If God wants the sun to dance, then it dances? LOL....

You do not believe in God, you believe in archaic superstitious lore that seems to support the delusional worship of a figment of your unrestrained imagination, an almighty, yet edible, capricious and puerile petty tyrant that does not correspond to any real living being ever in existence, a god made man made matzo made by human hands that only the dead worship and eat for spiritual life.

I guess he never thought about what it really physically means, if the sun (not only the light of the sun) dances in the sky. For sure our planet would be destroyed and/or the whole solars system would lose a stable balance. But if "the [light of the] sun dances in the sky" then this is a moment of highest joy - I guess that's, what's the background. So if god says so he says so and if we see it this way we see it this way.

 

[The Professor]

To turzovka (OP)

You say that science cannot explain how the image on the Shroud was created. You are incorrect, sir. Creating the image you see on the Shroud is easy to do and it has been duplicated in modern times using materials which where available at around the time the image was actually created. The image on the Shroud is is a simple and crude photograph. Here's how it was done:

Step 1:
Create a camera obscura, a simple camera consisting of a box with a crude lens in the center of one side and a door on the opposite side..

Step 2:
Make a light sensitive mixture using egg white and chromium salt solution. Let the solution set for a few hours to bind.

Step 3:
Apply the coating mixture to a cloth (this is the cloth upon which the image will be created), and allow the cloth to dry

Step 4:
Stretch the cloth over a wooden frame and place the entire frame inside the camera.

Step 5:
Place the object to be photographed in front of the camera (you will have to experiment with distances to get the desired image size) and shine a bright light onto the object (you can use an UV lamp or even bright sunlight).

Step 6:
After an exposure of 6-12 hours, the image parts are hardened and are insoluble in water, whereas the the rest of the solution is still soluble. Washing the cloth in cold water removes the soluble mixture from the unexposed areas.

Step 7:
Next, the cloth is exposed to heat causing the mixture to scorch the underlying fabric. A second wash with hot water and detergent removes all traces of the mixture and only the scorched image remains. (Note: just before the cloth was exposed to heat, the “blood drippings” were painted on the cloth with the same mixture used to fix the image.)

This method is described in a book called Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. The authors photographed a man's head made of plaster using the the above method and the results were identical to the image of the shroud. The photograph, just like the image on the shroud, showed an unnatural thinness of the face and foreshortening of the forehead. And most important of all, at the exact center of the photograph, just like the exact center of the face on the shroud, there appeared a light circle surrounded by a dark corona where the lens had stopped the light from falling (this shows up even better in the positive image). As amazing as it sounds, the shroud is a crude photograph and the anomaly in the center of the face on the shroud is a photograph of the lens which was used to take the picture.

The book I cited is, in my opinion, the best book ever written about the shroud. I would urge you to get it if you can.

There are many reasons why the Shroud could not be the image of Christ but the explanations are lengthy and I don't have the time to deal with them. Further, I am a lousy typist to begin with and my left-hand ring finger is in a splint making typing extremely difficult. Get the book.

 

[zaangalewa]

To turzovka (OP)

You say that science cannot explain how the image on the Shroud was created. You are incorrect, sir. Creating the image you see on the Shroud is easy to do and it has been duplicated in modern times using materials which where available at around the time the image was actually created. The image on the Shroud is is a simple and crude photograph. Here's how it was done:

Step 1:
Create a camera obscura, a simple camera consisting of a box with a crude lens in the center of one side and a door on the opposite side..

Step 2:
Make a light sensitive mixture using egg white and chromium salt solution. Let the solution set for a few hours to bind.

Step 3:
Apply the coating mixture to a cloth (this is the cloth upon which the image will be created), and allow the cloth to dry

Step 4:
Stretch the cloth over a wooden frame and place the entire frame inside the camera.

Step 5:
Place the object to be photographed in front of the camera (you will have to experiment with distances to get the desired image size) and shine a bright light onto the object (you can use an UV lamp or even bright sunlight).

Step 6:
After an exposure of 6-12 hours, the image parts are hardened and are insoluble in water, whereas the the rest of the solution is still soluble. Washing the cloth in cold water removes the soluble mixture from the unexposed areas.

Step 7:
Next, the cloth is exposed to heat causing the mixture to scorch the underlying fabric. A second wash with hot water and detergent removes all traces of the mixture and only the scorched image remains. (Note: just before the cloth was exposed to heat, the “blood drippings” were painted on the cloth with the same mixture used to fix the image.)

This method is described in a book called Turin Shroud: In Whose Image? The Truth Behind the Centuries-Long Conspiracy of Silence by Lynn Picknett and Clive Prince. The authors photographed a man's head made of plaster using the the above method and the results were identical to the image of the shroud. The photograph, just like the image on the shroud, showed an unnatural thinness of the face and foreshortening of the forehead. And most important of all, at the exact center of the photograph, just like the exact center of the face on the shroud, there appeared a light circle surrounded by a dark corona where the lens had stopped the light from falling (this shows up even better in the positive image). As amazing as it sounds, the shroud is a crude photograph and the anomaly in the center of the face on the shroud is a photograph of the lens which was used to take the picture.

The book I cited is, in my opinion, the best book ever written about the shroud. I would urge you to get it if you can.

There are many reasons why the Shroud could not be the image of Christ but the explanations are lengthy and I don't have the time to deal with them. Further, I am a lousy typist to begin with and my left-hand ring finger is in a splint making typing extremely difficult. Get the book.

I don't see the point. I guess there are lots of methods how to produce an exact copy of the Shroud of Turin. But tell me whatelse was made in the same method like this shroud. If it was made in this way - why made someone only the Shroud of Turin with this method and not anything else? The people watched over this shroud a very very long time of history without being able to see this picture. The modern technique made it visible. Why is producing someone hundreds of years ago an invisible picture for the modern world of techniques today? What do you think is the message?