For myself (and I suspect Hugh), it's just.. silly?RickD: The supernatural is defined as events or things that cannot be explained by nature or science and that are assumed to come from beyond or to originate from otherworldly forces.
How can anyone reject this? Could someone please explain what I'm missing? Seems simply obvious
Something we can't explain with current natural/scientific knowledge is miraculous? Man.. guess we all had miraculous healing abilities that went away when we figured out how the body heals itself..
And the underlined is silly, too, and presumptuous. Guess at one time light from the sun was a miracle that made things grow, too. There isn't a separation between physical and spiritual. There is spiritual without physical, though. Anyways, I see YHWH using Himself from 'thought to form' to work in our existence. No magic. There's a way He does things, we just don't know most of it. And that gets attributed to miraculous 'magic'.
..the mechanics of how the image came onto the shroud which went into natural vs supernatural and the importance of the resurrection. Wasn't everything related to each other..?hughfarey wrote:Hi, Mallz, good of you to drop in. The mechanics of what, precisely? We are not debating the mechanics because:Mallz wrote:I'm not sure why y'all are debating over the mechanics, either.
a) I don't know what the mechanics of the Resurrection are, and don't think it matters very much. There's not enough evidence to pursue anyway. I'm interested in the mechanics of how the Turin Shroud image was made, but we seem to have drifted away from that...
b) My interlocutors think the EXACT (their capitals) nature of the Resurrection is VITAL (their capitals), but they don't seem to want to investigate it. They think the word 'miracle' or 'divine' covers it.
For a) I see you are saying you don't believe the Turin Shroud to be evidence of the resurrection, right?
b) I just see too much confusion and equation, talking past each other. Different understandings of reality butting heads even though they are all on the same wavelength
Of course I've read much from 'the scientists involved'. I'm many things but I'm not a liar (and if you prove me one, I'll thank you). Didn't know you did anything on the shroud (obviously because I don't know you). Were you just compiling information or were you actually involved in anything? I'll give them a good read!Have you in fact read anything from the scientists involved? I recommend my own modest offering, at http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n78part9.pdf, The Mystery of the Invisible Patch, which gives all the 'scientists involved' paper in the references at the end, or even http://shroud.com/pdfs/n82part4.pdf, Invisible Weaving, which is illustrated by actual examples.