> Please drop the condescending, patronising tone:
> it really is unbecoming.
LOL. So are indirect remarks to another poster, after the poster has been courteous and direct to you. Own your choices, Matt. No double standards, please.
Matt - The reason I did not discuss Fatima is because it
> is off-topic. I also think that the idea of a
> 'spinning sun' is not miraculous in nature. I do
> not have an explanation for it because I am not a
> scientist, I know nothing about meterology and
> weather phenomena - and, I suspect, nor do you.
> However, I think it muchh, much more likely to
> have a rational explanation than a supernatural
For starters, let us be clear about one thing, your use of the term 'rational' is also skewed and mildly offensive. What is rational is what's reasonable. The term is not confined to purely mundane explanations, as some might like to think. But thanks for making my point, which is that can't provide a 'mundane' explanation. As you may are may not know, the solar anomaly was called months in advance. There were tens of thousands of witnesses. This is one of the strangest episodes in modern history, and it doesn't necessarily follow that the Sun actually spun, just to be clear. My personal take is that the perceptual field was distorted, as such an explanation doesn't require the Sun to act strangely. The bottom line is that this episode is tied to the Christian narrative or legacy. It is one of those facts that can be ignored, but shouldn't be, at least by anybody who is truly interested in the origins of the Christian legacy.
Secondly, and for reasons I clearly laid out, this episode is on topic because many thinkers ignore things they can't explain, rather than acknowledge lingering mysteries, associated with Christian or spiritual events, because they they can't provide mundane explanations. Such willful ignorance sets the table, at least in certain circles, for there always being one possible explanation in all other matters, including the one you mentioned: the mundane one. The point you were making about the Egyptian-Jesus connection being likely mundane is reasonable, as I have said. However, but given the pervasive willful ignorance of many academics - not all - when it comes to their treatment of spiritual matters, my point stands. You played the scholar card, Matt. I simply reminded you of a widely noted, pervasive reality within academia: closed-mindedness.
Matt - In respect of the monk sitting in a tub of vinegar with a higher boiling point than water, it really is mundane. I expect that you imagine God is somehow intervening here to protect the faithful.
Now who's being condescending? You think wrongly. Actually Matt, I enjoy a good mundane explanation, if it's reasonable and well-thought out. I really do. One of the things I like about falsification is that it clears the discussion of noise. What are we left with when the falsies are reasonably excluded?
My take on this, if anything, is that it would be that this is an example of something more paranormal, if it is that. What's paranormal is not necessarily spiritual to me. I simply wanted to see if you would, or could answer. But you since you profess to know what accounts for this subject, as your language clearly infers, I might point out that while water has a boiling point of 100c, vinegar is not that much higher at 118c. Why are you presuming this is vinegar?! The better explanation would be to go with what was clearly written at the front-end of the video, which is that the tub is filled with oil, which has a boiling point of 300c. That would likely account for why the monk can set in the tub, even though the flames are clearly present. He's most likely buffered from the flames by all of the stuff they put in the tub beneath him.
> The shroud of Turin is also off-topic. I have no
> interest in discussing a piece of cloth - does it
> prove a man was crucified? Possibly. Does this
> mean the man was Jesus? Unlikely but I concede it
> is possible. Does this mean anything at all other
> than there was a man named Jesus who was
> crucified? No. Does it prove he died? No. Does it prove he was
> resurrected three days later? No.
To my earlier point: It becomes a lot harder to presume that the Egyptian-Jesus virgin birth connection must be mundane when corroborating evidence suggests that something non-mundane is a very real alternative possibility, if not the correct one. It's too bad, really, that you haven't take a look at some of the emerging forensics. Fascinating, to me anyway, that the image might actually be the face of Jesus of Nazareth.
No answer on what I asked about the Exodus, which is fine. It is very likely that no compelling mundane explanation can account for how this story became history, if it is fiction. Nonetheless, the skeptics' take is also very reasonable, in my opinion: How can a tribe of 2 million people wander around a desert for 40 years and leave no trace? I see a stalemate here.
Going forward Matt, if you want to be treated respectfully by me, kindly steer clear of addressing me indirectly. We were having a nice chat until then.