The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: franksolich on June 24, 2008, 10:20:03 AM
-
In case no one knew this, the children's novelist Laura Ingalls Wilder (of the Little Home on the Prairie fame) was also a crackerjack journalist, a professional woman journalist, well-paid and taken seriously by her male colleagues, long before "affirmative" action.
From 1911 until 1924, she wrote for some newspaper down in the Ozarks down in Missouri.
This, from June 5, 1920; one assumes back then that Quakers acknowledged God.
.....there is an old story about an argument between a Quaker and an infidel, in which the infidel, denying the existence of God and all things spiritual, exclaimed, "I don't believe in anything I can't see!"
To which the Quaker calmly replied, "Friend, does thee believe thee has any brains?".....
This is a good one to sic on the nocturnally foul one the next time one sees him.
-
Do you have any links about her journalist career? I must admit to really being a big fan.
-
In case no one knew this, the children's novelist Laura Ingalls Wilder (of the Little Home on the Prairie fame) was also a crackerjack journalist, a professional woman journalist, well-paid and taken seriously by her male colleagues, long before "affirmative" action.
From 1911 until 1924, she wrote for some newspaper down in the Ozarks down in Missouri.
This, from June 5, 1920; one assumes back then that Quakers acknowledged God.
.....there is an old story about an argument between a Quaker and an infidel, in which the infidel, denying the existence of God and all things spiritual, exclaimed, "I don't believe in anything I can't see!"
To which the Quaker calmly replied, "Friend, does thee believe thee has any brains?".....
This is a good one to sic on the nocturnally foul one the next time one sees him.
The story is humorous, but it isn't a good argument in favor of belief. The fact of the matter is that medical imaging makes it possible for anyone to see his or her brain.
-
In case no one knew this, the children's novelist Laura Ingalls Wilder (of the Little Home on the Prairie fame) was also a crackerjack journalist, a professional woman journalist, well-paid and taken seriously by her male colleagues, long before "affirmative" action.
From 1911 until 1924, she wrote for some newspaper down in the Ozarks down in Missouri.
This, from June 5, 1920; one assumes back then that Quakers acknowledged God.
.....there is an old story about an argument between a Quaker and an infidel, in which the infidel, denying the existence of God and all things spiritual, exclaimed, "I don't believe in anything I can't see!"
To which the Quaker calmly replied, "Friend, does thee believe thee has any brains?".....
This is a good one to sic on the nocturnally foul one the next time one sees him.
The story is humorous, but it isn't a good argument in favor of belief. The fact of the matter is that medical imaging makes it possible for anyone to see his or her brain.
Nope. All you see is a image that someone says is your brain. :whatever:
-
Nope. All you see is a image that someone says is your brain. :whatever:
That's what I'm thinking too.
-
Nope. All you see is a image that someone says is your brain. :whatever:
That's what I'm thinking too.
....like shootin' fish in a rain barrel. Just way too easy.
-
Do you have any links about her journalist career? I must admit to really being a big fan.
I got this out of real life, not on the internet.
There's a new book that came out, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Farm Journalist: Writings from the Ozarks (edited by Stephen Hines, 2007, University of Missouri Press), and it's well worth paying the full price.
It's her complete newspaper stories from 1911-1924.
This lady was a serious journalist.
It gives much illumination--although that's the not point of the book, or the point of the news she covered--about the status of women in Missouri during that era.
Apparently women in rural rustic backwoods Missouri were liberated long before the Democrats, liberals, and primitives passed laws to ensure women's liberation.
-
Nope. All you see is a image that someone says is your brain. :whatever:
Someone who wants to see an image of his or her brain but doesn't trust medical professionals to make one can seek the credentials required for operating medical imaging technology. Of course, attaining the credentials to work in a medical field is difficult, but one can do it.
-
Nope. All you see is a image that someone says is your brain. :whatever:
Someone who wants to see an image of his or her brain but doesn't trust medical professionals to make one can seek the credentials required for operating medical imaging technology. Of course, attaining the credentials to work in a medical field is difficult, but one can do it.
It still requires faith in what someone else says. ::)
-
Do you have any links about her journalist career? I must admit to really being a big fan.
I got this out of real life, not on the internet.
There's a new book that came out, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Farm Journalist: Writings from the Ozarks (edited by Stephen Hines, 2007, University of Missouri Press), and it's well worth paying the full price.
It's her complete newspaper stories from 1911-1924.
This lady was a serious journalist.
It gives much illumination--although that's the not point of the book, or the point of the news she covered--about the status of women in Missouri during that era.
Apparently women in rural rustic backwoods Missouri were liberated long before the Democrats, liberals, and primitives passed laws to ensure women's liberation.
I've never read anything by Laura Wilder, but I did once drive past the Almanzo Wilder farm.
-
Do you have any links about her journalist career? I must admit to really being a big fan.
I got this out of real life, not on the internet.
There's a new book that came out, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Farm Journalist: Writings from the Ozarks (edited by Stephen Hines, 2007, University of Missouri Press), and it's well worth paying the full price.
It's her complete newspaper stories from 1911-1924.
This lady was a serious journalist.
It gives much illumination--although that's the not point of the book, or the point of the news she covered--about the status of women in Missouri during that era.
Apparently women in rural rustic backwoods Missouri were liberated long before the Democrats, liberals, and primitives passed laws to ensure women's liberation.
I've never read anything by Laura Wilder, but I did once drive past the Almanzo Wilder farm.
But you didn't even stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
-
Someone who wants to see an image of his or her brain but doesn't trust medical professionals to make one can seek the credentials required for operating medical imaging technology. Of course, attaining the credentials to work in a medical field is difficult, but one can do it.
That's still no guarantee that what one sees, is the real thing.
Hard-of-hearing people constantly complain of their mechanical instruments not truly conveying sound.
And I guess it's true, based upon my personal speculation that no mechanical device, no matter how state-of-the-art, can accurately reflect sound as it really is.
What these people are getting, apparently, is a mechanical "interpretation" of sound, not sound itself.
And so when looking at a digital (or whatever) image of a brain, it's entirely possible one is seeing a mechanical interpretation of the brain, and not the brain itself.
Surely you follow me here.
Appearances are deceiving; oftentimes what seems real isn't real, and what seems unreal is real.
-
That's still no guarantee that what one sees, is the real thing.
I don't need guarantees. Sufficient evidence is good enough for me.
Appearances are deceiving; oftentimes what seems real isn't real, and what seems unreal is real.
Truer words have not been written.
-
I can't see my eyes. Oh yes, I can look in a mirror but I am not seeing my eyes but what is reflected in the mirror. Having no idea what I look like how can I ever be sure the mirror reflects what I might actually look like properly unless I take it on faith. Having been in amusement park fun houses from time to time, I know mirrors can grossly distort their subjects. So who's assurance do I have that my bathroom mirror reflects reality?
People who don't believe in anything they can't see or more broadly, sense, either with the natural senses or the extensions of the natural senses (as all senses are the same sense) have it just backward.
The real world is a lie, hence, anything one uses to measure that illusory world has to be made up from that same lie and therefore cannot be relied on to give an accurate assessment. For the most part, the world only tells us what we already believe because while you may not believe a word I have just written, you will hardly ever question your own assumptions. So it is just much easier to feed you what you already beleive.
This is exactly why, in whatever point in history, the axiom "Everything you know is wrong" has mostly been true. The only reality ever is God. Everything in the world is only an echo, an effect, which is why we end up making bigger messes when we try to solve problems at the level of effects.
-
Do you have any links about her journalist career? I must admit to really being a big fan.
I got this out of real life, not on the internet.
There's a new book that came out, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Farm Journalist: Writings from the Ozarks (edited by Stephen Hines, 2007, University of Missouri Press), and it's well worth paying the full price.
It's her complete newspaper stories from 1911-1924.
This lady was a serious journalist.
It gives much illumination--although that's the not point of the book, or the point of the news she covered--about the status of women in Missouri during that era.
Apparently women in rural rustic backwoods Missouri were liberated long before the Democrats, liberals, and primitives passed laws to ensure women's liberation.
I saw the book for sale online. I'll have to pick it up.
-
I saw the book for sale online. I'll have to pick it up.
Trust me; you'll love it.
You'll find it good reading, lots of meat and potatoes, humorous and serious.
It's nothing like her Little House on the Prairie series, although she maintains the same warm writing style, even when covering a story about something controversial.
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
Proven fake.
-
I can't see my eyes. Oh yes, I can look in a mirror but I am not seeing my eyes but what is reflected in the mirror. Having no idea what I look like how can I ever be sure the mirror reflects what I might actually look like properly unless I take it on faith. Having been in amusement park fun houses from time to time, I know mirrors can grossly distort their subjects. So who's assurance do I have that my bathroom mirror reflects reality?
Do you need a perfect reflection to get a sense for what you look like? Of course not. You use a mirror because it is a reasonably trustworthy means of seeing your reflection. In other words, a mirror provides a person looking into one sufficient evidence of what one looks like. And, that evidence can be verified through other means.
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
Proven fake.
March 21, 2008 -- The Shroud of Turin, the 14- by 4-foot linen believed by some to have been wrapped around Jesus after the crucifixion, might not be a fake after all, according to new research.
The director of one of three laboratories that dismissed the shroud as a medieval artifact 20 years ago has called for the science community to reinvestigate the linen's authenticity.
"With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence," said Christopher Ramsey, director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which carried out radiocarbon dating tests on the cloth in 1988.
Venerated by many Catholics as proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave, the yellowing cloth is kept rolled up in a silver casket in Turin's Cathedral.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html)
The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.
Frank Tribbe writes: "The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to 'authenticity,' we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were 'imprinted' on the Shroud."
http://www.shroudstory.com/ (http://www.shroudstory.com/)
-
I can't see my eyes. Oh yes, I can look in a mirror but I am not seeing my eyes but what is reflected in the mirror. Having no idea what I look like how can I ever be sure the mirror reflects what I might actually look like properly unless I take it on faith. Having been in amusement park fun houses from time to time, I know mirrors can grossly distort their subjects. So who's assurance do I have that my bathroom mirror reflects reality?
Do you need a perfect reflection to get a sense for what you look like? Of course not. You use a mirror because it is a reasonably trustworthy means of seeing your reflection. In other words, a mirror provides a person looking into one sufficient evidence of what one looks like. And, that evidence can be verified through other means.
Still waiting for proof you have a brain.
-
I can't see my eyes. Oh yes, I can look in a mirror but I am not seeing my eyes but what is reflected in the mirror. Having no idea what I look like how can I ever be sure the mirror reflects what I might actually look like properly unless I take it on faith. Having been in amusement park fun houses from time to time, I know mirrors can grossly distort their subjects. So who's assurance do I have that my bathroom mirror reflects reality?
Do you need a perfect reflection to get a sense for what you look like? Of course not. You use a mirror because it is a reasonably trustworthy means of seeing your reflection. In other words, a mirror provides a person looking into one sufficient evidence of what one looks like. And, that evidence can be verified through other means.
If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. --William Blake
The mirror is just an effect. So trying to use a mirror to prove anything is messing around in the world of effects and it ends up not really proving anything because you are still allowing the world to feed you your own assumptions. All the mirror provides is sufficient evidence of what you expect to see.
It is preferable to lead the mirror than to be led by the mirror.
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
Proven fake.
March 21, 2008 -- The Shroud of Turin, the 14- by 4-foot linen believed by some to have been wrapped around Jesus after the crucifixion, might not be a fake after all, according to new research.
The director of one of three laboratories that dismissed the shroud as a medieval artifact 20 years ago has called for the science community to reinvestigate the linen's authenticity.
"With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence," said Christopher Ramsey, director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which carried out radiocarbon dating tests on the cloth in 1988.
Venerated by many Catholics as proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave, the yellowing cloth is kept rolled up in a silver casket in Turin's Cathedral.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html)
The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.
Frank Tribbe writes: "The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to 'authenticity,' we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were 'imprinted' on the Shroud."
http://www.shroudstory.com/ (http://www.shroudstory.com/)
There is one small problem with the shroud. At one time it was inspected (for the life of me I cant remember the guys name) by a, I believe, forensics specialist. He was able to study the "blood" and other stains (scrapings) on the shroud. It was iron oxide. It is essentially a "painting", though very well done. Considering the date of the shroud (I may be wrong here, 13-14th cen?) there were a plethoria of religious "artifacts" being "found", many of which were found to be man-made.
Besides, I don't need the shroud for my faith.
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
Proven fake.
March 21, 2008 -- The Shroud of Turin, the 14- by 4-foot linen believed by some to have been wrapped around Jesus after the crucifixion, might not be a fake after all, according to new research.
The director of one of three laboratories that dismissed the shroud as a medieval artifact 20 years ago has called for the science community to reinvestigate the linen's authenticity.
"With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence," said Christopher Ramsey, director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which carried out radiocarbon dating tests on the cloth in 1988.
Venerated by many Catholics as proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave, the yellowing cloth is kept rolled up in a silver casket in Turin's Cathedral.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html)
The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.
Frank Tribbe writes: "The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to 'authenticity,' we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were 'imprinted' on the Shroud."
http://www.shroudstory.com/ (http://www.shroudstory.com/)
There is one small problem with the shroud. At one time it was inspected (for the life of me I cant remember the guys name) by a, I believe, forensics specialist. He was able to study the "blood" and other stains (scrapings) on the shroud. It was iron oxide. It is essentially a "painting", though very well done. Considering the date of the shroud (I may be wrong here, 13-14th cen?) there were a plethoria of religious "artifacts" being "found", many of which were found to be man-made.
Besides, I don't need the shroud for my faith.
Well if one needs proof then it's not faith is it. The shroud is just another in a long line of religious artifacts scientists have used to Disprove and have moved the conversation more towards the truth of the word than the ego & banality of man.
-
There is one small problem with the shroud. At one time it was inspected (for the life of me I cant remember the guys name) by a, I believe, forensics specialist. He was able to study the "blood" and other stains (scrapings) on the shroud. It was iron oxide. It is essentially a "painting", though very well done. Considering the date of the shroud (I may be wrong here, 13-14th cen?) there were a plethoria of religious "artifacts" being "found", many of which were found to be man-made.
Besides, I don't need the shroud for my faith.
Indeed. The Shroud is obviously a painting of sorts. The proportions of the face depicted in the Shroud are peculiar and seem like the work of an amateur.
The eyes on the human head are normally at the halfway point between the top of the head and the bottom of the chin. On the Shroud, the position of the eyes is way too high on the head... the kind of mistake untrained artists make. If Jesus Christ looked like what is depicted in the Shroud, he would have looked abnormal... like a person with a very small cranium, an elongated nose, and a huge chin. Sort of like...
(http://www.alifetimeofcolor.com/img/td_faceproportions/img3.jpg)
http://www.alifetimeofcolor.com/main.taf?p=2,1,1,5
-
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/images/050127_pin_shroud.jpg)
Proven fake.
March 21, 2008 -- The Shroud of Turin, the 14- by 4-foot linen believed by some to have been wrapped around Jesus after the crucifixion, might not be a fake after all, according to new research.
The director of one of three laboratories that dismissed the shroud as a medieval artifact 20 years ago has called for the science community to reinvestigate the linen's authenticity.
"With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence," said Christopher Ramsey, director of England's Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, which carried out radiocarbon dating tests on the cloth in 1988.
Venerated by many Catholics as proof that Christ was resurrected from the grave, the yellowing cloth is kept rolled up in a silver casket in Turin's Cathedral.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html)
The Shroud of Turin images may not be the direct result of a miracle, at least not in a traditional sense of the word. But they are not manmade either. These seem to be the contradictory conclusions from an article in the peer-reviewed, scientific Journal of Optics (April 14, 2004) of the Institute of Physics in London. Using mathematical image enhancement technology, Giulio Fanti and Roberto Maggiolo, researchers at the University of Padua in Italy, discovered a faint image of a second face on the back of the Shroud of Turin. This has since been confirmed with other software. The implications are explosive and exciting.
Frank Tribbe writes: "The scientific, historical, and other technical data that I refer to as supporting authenticity do unequivocally support the probability of a first-century or very early date for this Shroud and its enigmatic images, and as having originated in the Near East (likely Palestine). Science has not proven (and in my opinion will never categorically prove) this to be specifically the Shroud of Jesus of Galilee. Believers will always need a small leap of faith from the pedestal of knowledge Shroud research has provided. But that research has established that the Shroud image cannot have been man-made by any technique of art or science recorded throughout history, nor by any natural process ever observed or deduced. And all alternative theoretical or suspected methods of image-creation suggested by critics have been carefully and totally demolished by Shroud scientists as not possible. As to 'authenticity,' we know this Shroud with its images is not a phony, a fake, a fraud, an imitation, a copy, to any degree or in any respect; it was not made in the past thousand years; a fourteenth-century origin is virtually impossible. Science still does not know how the images were 'imprinted' on the Shroud."
http://www.shroudstory.com/ (http://www.shroudstory.com/)
There is one small problem with the shroud. At one time it was inspected (for the life of me I cant remember the guys name) by a, I believe, forensics specialist. He was able to study the "blood" and other stains (scrapings) on the shroud. It was iron oxide. It is essentially a "painting", though very well done. Considering the date of the shroud (I may be wrong here, 13-14th cen?) there were a plethoria of religious "artifacts" being "found", many of which were found to be man-made.
Besides, I don't need the shroud for my faith.
Well if one needs proof then it's not faith is it. The shroud is just another in a long line of religious artifacts scientists have used to Disprove and have moved the conversation more towards the truth of the word than the ego & banality of man.
Agreed. I don't like the scientific community using the past "relics" that were obviously used to "keep the faith", as pointers to "disprove" God.
Sadly, I think the "relics" are being used just as Jesus said we should not.