Comments by "PeterC" (@peterc4082) on "Metatron" channel.

  1. 19
  2. 17
  3. 13
  4.  @dorinpopa6962  Some people liked the USSR because of several reasons. 1. Nostalgia. They were younger. Things were rosier back then. 2. They were party members. Some were privileged. Same happened in Poland where PZPR people were very fond of the old communist system. 3. They came from WW2 and later Stalinist purges. Things looked up after those ended, comparitively speaking. Prior to that were the 20s and 30s which were just as bad. 4. They had few points of reference. They were isolated in the USSR and were told that conditions were terrible everywhere else, especially in the capitalist world. You only have to read what Lenin and Stalin wrote about the capitalist exploiters. 5. The period after the collapse of the USSR was very turbulent. There was crime. There was inflation. The currency became worthless. Savings became worthless. People lost their jobs. There was unrest. There were wars such as in Chechnya. All in all one can see why some pined for the old USSR. USSR gave them a sense of purpose. It was an ersatz religion. The space programme. The nuclear weapons. The defilades with the tanks and ICBMS. All the propaganda. All of that made people nostalgic and positive toward those years. It's true that Russia was very undedeveloped but so was much of the world. Europe had tremendous strides in literacy and development in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Development, progress and industrialisation would have eventually come to Russia. We saw it come to the west and that prevented communism from taking hold. Populations were growing but the infant mortality rate and life expectancy were significantly HIGHER. The authorities would lie about epidemics even of childhood diseases. Books and media were censored. It was a terrible place and time to live in. Currently populations decline because that happens in developed nations. People simply don't have more kids when things improve and education levels improve. Finally who industrialised the USSR? My great grandparents worked in St Petersburg before the revolution in a factory which built trains. It still functions to this day. The bread in those days had raisins in it. Food was plentiful. The tsars had already started to industrialise. But who industrialised the USSR more completely? The West. People like Henry Ford did. Lend Lease won the war for the Russians. The Russians looted also what they could from more industrial parts of their new empire, such as Poland. You pine for the USSR, but it were the capitalists who made the USSR industrial. The Russians copied so much western tech.
    7
  5. 5
  6. 5
  7. 5
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 5
  11.  @unarealtaragionevole  We have evidence that there was contamination because Raymond Rogers wrote that up, he wrote several publications about it several scientific journals. The sample was not representative and was in fact contaminated by the repair process. I think you're nitpicking here. I didn't imply there was laboratory contamination but it was contaminated nevertheless. The object which was under study was the original linen shroud and the image on it and not medieval cotton. The testing itself was not incorrect but the sampling was incorrect ergo the results are likely invalid. Also I don't think the technicians at the time knew about this because it took Rogers and several others some years to write various responses and publish their own findings. So no, the people who published the 1988 findings didn't know. It doesn't matter what Breault thinks, what matters is that the C14 testing was likely not carried out correctly, i.e. not sampled properly. Father Spitzer has stated he suspects there was some skullduggery involved in all of this. I very much doubt this priest with a PhD would openly lie in public, he and others think there was bias against the shroud being from the 1st century. If I remember correctly a reward had even been offered (of 1 million USD) to prove the shroud inauthentic. As for the testing apparently there were problems with the results too in terms of the deviations noted across the laboratories. Likewise the original data was not released for a long time despite requests to have it released. But all of this is moot. In science when we have results which could be contaminated we should redo the test and use true representative samples. Whatever this guy in the video said, and heck this is a touchy subject with people with biases on every side, peoples arguments have to stand on actual merit. As we shouldn't accuse the technologists who ran the original C14 testing of anti-shroud bias, so too we should not accuse this man of bias which would affect the matter of truth of this case.
    4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 3
  16. 3
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44. 1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49.  @unarealtaragionevole  I never claimed there were lies or deceits. My point is that that the material is contaminated with medieval material. I think you don't like the word contaminate but there's nothing ominous about using that word. There was medieval contamination of the shroud with cotton which had been weaved in. The errors are that the material was CONTAMINATED or was not representative hence the results may be biased by known organic material which differs from the material under study. It's like a crime scene. If you have other peoples' DNA there, you can't claim they are the culprit when you know they had a right to be there because they lived in the house. Now the rebuttals there are that - trust me bro we checked for contamination, we found some and we removed it or, trust me I checked for other fibers weaved in or not and nope they weren't there. But people can make mistakes and later not want to admit or maybe they were just not as thorough. The whole sample was taken from an area which had been handled and fixed and others have come forth to say that there would be cotton there. Now as to why the Church won't allow more testing - here we're going off course. As to how maybe Rogers got religion - we're also going of course. As to why protestant universities and often a naturalistic Richard Dawkins like clique may want to rubbish these results - no, that's not possible. Let's throw all the conspiracy stuff out. Point is that the material was contaminated or NOT REPRESENTATIVE (are you fine with that term) and hence C14 being the only thing which suggests this is medieval, we may have reasonable doubts about it. The Church doesn't claim the shroud is real or not real. They did allow its testing once and maybe they are happy with the medieval result. We can however say the shroud is unique and highly remarkable with many lines of evidence pointing to it being much older and its uncanny how it still eludes mass duplication utilising primitive means as as what the naturalists among us claim this was all along or some one in a billion natural phenomenon of just the right circumstances for a recently deceased body to leave such an image.
    1
  50. 1
  51. 1
  52. 1
  53. 1
  54. 1
  55. 1
  56. 1
  57. 1
  58. 1
  59. 1
  60. 1
  61. 1
  62. 1
  63. 1
  64. 1
  65. 1
  66. 1
  67. 1
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. 1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. As a Catholic, I can also say that we'd need to hear the entire speech and context here. Because saying all religions are a path to God, does not mean all religions are the correct way to reach God. All religions could be said to be attempts to reach God, well all honest religions, not fake ones created to get money or create armies of servants. But there is a teaching in the Roman Catholic faith or tradition that some of God's nature can be known by reason and that God has created or instilled in us a Sensus divinitatis, which is also found in Calvinism and even Islam. Catholic teaching says that primitive man and later on, even the pagans did have some sort of idea about God and hence there are religions, it's just that we need the Christian Revelation and so the Church to complete this. If we understand the Pope's words in terms of "All roads are an attempt to lead to Rome, but most fail, or perhaps all fail but one" without saying the last bit explicitly, we can understand that the Holy Father is not being heretical here. I would really need to know more context here. And while the Pope should be more prudent with his language because it can lead to different understandings and the idea that he believes in universalism, it may be that it's not the case that he believes that all religions really are the same but it's true that all religions are a way to try to understand God or get to God, (but there is only one correct way to achieve this). For example all methods of audio recording are a way to preserve music for posterity, but we know that wax disks, phono records, magentic tapes and digital media vary in the detail captured. We know also that all philosophical systems are attempts at understanding reality but it's not the case that all are actually correct. We know that there are many ways of interpreting Quantum Theory but it may be that there really is only one correct interpretation. It may that the Pope is just not using the language correctly here and may only mean that all religions are man's attempt to reach God, and he just said it in short-hand which sadly can be interpreted as heresy. This could be the starting point for further dialogue with other faiths. We all want one thing. We're all trying to know God. And God wants us to know Him. Thoughts?
    1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91.  @mariaavalon3730  I don't know where you get your ideas but you can find lists of these similar resurrected messiahs and you will find NONE are the same as Christ. Superficially there are some similarities but you have to remember that in terms of what people can do there are only a number of limited things which can happen. A deity can only do so many things. So superficially similar things occurring does not make them identical nor the evidence for them nor our evidence for knowing such a thing occurred supposedly. I don't know which historians or athropologists you speak about but the Bible is BIG. It has a NT and OT. In terms of the NT the Bible actually teaches history because previously historians had no idea that Pontius Pilate even existed until some years ago a stone with his name was found. I understand you have some emotional need to think Christianity is zero and you think it's all bunk because you're young and you probably cannot fathom out how people survived in the 90s without GPS or smartphones. You also have no idea how much evidence there is for major historical figures of the past. For example there is more evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ than there is for Alexander the Great or even Julius Caesar. When it comes to religion there is a sociological idea that the sciences are independent of religious belief. Science texts will not go and speak of religious teachings because it would be politically incorrect to do this, or offensive or blasphemous and so on. When it comes to Christianity it is very well documented. We have writings about the early Church and early traditions which are documented, we have archeological evidence, for example the tomb of St Peter was discovered under the Vatican some years ago. Look on YT for this video: "Jesus was NOT copied from pagan mythology (Zeitgeist REBUTTED)" because the guy goes over the different ersatz Christs amateurs bring up.
    1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1