Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Offending the god botherers

I'm sure this was all just a result of the same kind of error that we encounter on Arrse, what with the thumb coordination of our ageing members.
Of course, his holiness merely intended to give her a "dislike" or "show again boobs".

1. Oi I resemble that comment!
2. AL1 for wishfull thinking.
 
Another little something to annoy the sky fairy worshiping brigade, in particular the Catholics. A few days ago I watched a German TV programme on the Shroud of Turin. Basically it was claimed that this was the shroud that covered JC after he had been taken down off the cross, it depicts the figure of JC and looks a bit like a faded black and white photograph on linen. There are however at least 2 errors, number one, the Romans left crucified victims on the cross to rot, more as a lesson to others to behave themselves, but also saved the effort of removal and burial. Number two and this is where the arguments really begin, the shroud is a forgery, it has been carbon dated to the middle ages. So who dunnit, and why? Some reckon that Leonardo da Vinci is the prime suspect as he was about the only one with the know how, time and money. The question as to why remains unsurprisingly unanswered, but there has been speculation.
There are of course those who dispute that the shroud is a forgery, claiming that the shroud had not been properly tested and that it had been contaminated by foreign material in the middle ages. It has also been shown that a cloth in prolonged intimate contact with the human body can produce an image thanks to the activities of bacteria that live on the skin. Other research confirms this, but states that the image as seen in the Turin Shroud is not compatible with what would be seen had the cloth really been in contact with a corpse.
So the evidence is in favour of a forgery. Leo nice try, no cigar.
 

Teeblerone

War Hero
Another little something to annoy the sky fairy worshiping brigade, in particular the Catholics. A few days ago I watched a German TV programme on the Shroud of Turin. Basically it was claimed that this was the shroud that covered JC after he had been taken down off the cross, it depicts the figure of JC and looks a bit like a faded black and white photograph on linen. There are however at least 2 errors, number one, the Romans left crucified victims on the cross to rot, more as a lesson to others to behave themselves, but also saved the effort of removal and burial. Number two and this is where the arguments really begin, the shroud is a forgery, it has been carbon dated to the middle ages. So who dunnit, and why? Some reckon that Leonardo da Vinci is the prime suspect as he was about the only one with the know how, time and money. The question as to why remains unsurprisingly unanswered, but there has been speculation.
There are of course those who dispute that the shroud is a forgery, claiming that the shroud had not been properly tested and that it had been contaminated by foreign material in the middle ages. It has also been shown that a cloth in prolonged intimate contact with the human body can produce an image thanks to the activities of bacteria that live on the skin. Other research confirms this, but states that the image as seen in the Turin Shroud is not compatible with what would be seen had the cloth really been in contact with a corpse.
So the evidence is in favour of a forgery. Leo nice try, no cigar.
It's still a neat thing, as 'art' or icon, like the reliquaries (sp?) of splinters of the cross, saints' fingers etc. Believing they're genuine is another thing altogether and delusional.
 
A god botherer bothering god and proving how it's all bollocks


Have to be honest spent the time since the election PMSL, since all this has appealed to my dislike of lunatics, ultra-conservatives and religious hypocrisy


And as to this bloke


I demand a vaccination to come immediately?

What a foreskin.

As ever, pray there's intelligent life up in space 'cos there's bugger all down here on earth.

 
@loofkar

Must admit my first thought watching that godbotherer was she has such a strong hand game there, a fine post-ministry career on Pornhub awaits.
 
A lightning bolt would be more effective, not just to silence her but as a warning to others.

The wonder of religion is that they would find a way to incorporate that into the narrative.

For example.


I am sure it is terribly sad?

I am more likely to think the world is one less moron in it.
 

ipso_facto

War Hero
Another little something to annoy the sky fairy worshiping brigade, in particular the Catholics. A few days ago I watched a German TV programme on the Shroud of Turin. Basically it was claimed that this was the shroud that covered JC after he had been taken down off the cross, it depicts the figure of JC and looks a bit like a faded black and white photograph on linen. There are however at least 2 errors, number one, the Romans left crucified victims on the cross to rot, more as a lesson to others to behave themselves, but also saved the effort of removal and burial. Number two and this is where the arguments really begin, the shroud is a forgery, it has been carbon dated to the middle ages. So who dunnit, and why? Some reckon that Leonardo da Vinci is the prime suspect as he was about the only one with the know how, time and money. The question as to why remains unsurprisingly unanswered, but there has been speculation.
There are of course those who dispute that the shroud is a forgery, claiming that the shroud had not been properly tested and that it had been contaminated by foreign material in the middle ages. It has also been shown that a cloth in prolonged intimate contact with the human body can produce an image thanks to the activities of bacteria that live on the skin. Other research confirms this, but states that the image as seen in the Turin Shroud is not compatible with what would be seen had the cloth really been in contact with a corpse.
So the evidence is in favour of a forgery. Leo nice try, no cigar.

I disagree for a number of reasons. Here is one of them: Ray Downing extracted the image from the shroud and in the process he discovered it was a coded 3d image in the two dimensional cloth. If you have the patience here is the original History Channel documentary.

 
Last edited:
Not correct. Ray Downing extracted the image from the shroud and in the process he discovered it was a coded 3d image in the two dimensional cloth. If you have the patience here is the original History Channel documentary.


Ah yes, the history channel - "where the truth is history"

But on which scientific sources is your determination (in bold) based?

 
Last edited:
I disagree for a number of reasons. Here is one of them: Ray Downing extracted the image from the shroud and in the process he discovered it was a coded 3d image in the two dimensional cloth. If you have the patience here is the original History Channel documentary.


Cheers for your hasty edit after I posted my question to you.

What are your other reasons for disagreeing?
 
I see you're using the same tactic as the far left. Attack the credibility of the channel (or person) rather than look at the evidence. Stupid!

Good you brought up the issue of stupidity since it's a rather apt description for the act of swallowing baseless Septic corporate bullshit churned out solely to fill airtime by exploiting the gullible to raise ratings.

So do tell us, What are your other reasons for disagreeing? (with Drlligaf's post on the bullshit "shroud of Turin")?
 
Last edited:
I disagree for a number of reasons. Here is one of them: Ray Downing extracted the image from the shroud and in the process he discovered it was a coded 3d image in the two dimensional cloth. If you have the patience here is the original History Channel documentary.

Are there no depths of gibbering fuckwittery you won't descend to?

What does the "coded 3d image" say? "Anyone who believes this should send their bank details to..."?
 
I see you're using the same tactic as the far left. Attack the credibility of the channel (or person) rather than look at the evidence. Stupid!

Well? We are waiting for you to prove your "credibility" by telling us your "other reasons" for ""disagreeing"" with Drlligaf's post on the bullshit "shroud of Turin".

How strange that you've gone silent all of a sudden. Are you too busy frantically Googling for answers?
 
Are there no depths of gibbering fuckwittery you won't descend to?

What does the "coded 3d image" say? "Anyone who believes this should send their bank details to..."?

Get off that fence, you equivocating weakling.

:)
 
Ah yes, the history channel - "where the truth is history"

But on which scientific sources is your determination (in bold) based?

I see that Ray Downing is an artist. Those who examined the shroud are scientists and technicians.
I wonder who is going to present the more credible account.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top