Oh my. I am so not obsessed with the shroud of turin and could care less. It, as with everything else you mention, are tools of oppression, obviously fakes and silly to believe. Incorrupt bodies of saints! Ha!!!! Please. Wax effigies and mummies! The only reason anyone is perplexed by the shroud is because nobody is allowed to actually closely examine the whole thing. There is zero evidence that Jesus existed – and given the fact that the Romans kept plenty of records of who they executed – wouldn’t you think that there would be some historian who wrote about his triumphant entry into Jerusalem. There is way more evidence of John the Baptist than Jesus. But there is none and all the evidence there is is at least 3rd hand and mostly from a Roman well aware that the empire was crumbling. There is zero evidence that there was ever a slave uprising that coincides with the Exodus. This is all just a tool that the powerful used in the past to keep the masses under their thumb. And all these ancient cultures that you revere so much oppressed and murdered to maintain power. All of religion seeks to keep from learning new things due to fear. Full stop.

And since you keep claiming the “Absolute” is so infinitely evident, please – present a little tiny bit of not easily falsified evidence. So far you have presented only “because I said so.” And in your mind, is this “Absolute” (why, btw, is this capitalized? I am not aware of a deity with this name) a volitional being? If so, how is he/she/it not malevolent if so?

And since you seem quite obsessed with the Shroud of Turin, perhaps I should ask you why this is so …. are you somehow going to insist that “science” debunked it? This is not of particular importance to me, but actually, quite the contrary. Science — independent, non-Catholic scientists — were baffled by it. The only point people like you lay claim to is the carbon dating tests of the 1980s, but there are very credible textile experts who have now shown that the weaves from the main cloth and that of the fringe from which the tiny samples were taken, are two different weaves, the former characteristic of Palestine 2000 years ago, and the latter characteristic of Medieval Europe.
It is of no importance to me, however. The Absolute is in itself so infinitely more evident and real than anything in this world — indeed than any of the contingent “gods” that people of your relativist ideology inevitably worship — that I have no need for miracles. But it is amusing to see “scientists” and people like you unable to account for things like the Shroud, or the sword of St Galgano, or the image of Guadalupe, or the incorrupt bodies of saints in various religions. But again, you would consign all of this to the age of superstition, which is why you have no problem with the destruction of such cultures and peoples.

You can’t get much more stupid. Again,

Once again, you are making claims about what I believe without a shred of evidence. I am quite sure that your shroud of Turin “facts” are just as easily dismissed as your “facts” about how wonderful the Spanish missionaries were to native Americans. When the only “historians” you read are those who agree with you and when you dismiss all contrary opinions and research as “biased” you have what is known as epistemic cloture and confirmation bias. One would expect a person who managed to get a BA in any social science to know this and to make an effort to adjust your thinking. Sadly, you don’t. As I have repeatedly stated, I don’t know what will happen to me when I die. You don’t either – and it is arrogant that you claim you do. You cannot ask anyone, you cannot test a hypothesis, and you cannot get a response from your “god.” So you don’t know. I don’t know how this is “denying the absolute.” There certainly may be a “god” – but I don’t know. And the god that the Christian bible and Talmud describe is not worthy of my worship or loyalty. That god is malevolent. The “god” of the Buddhists is a little easier to live with, depending on which traditions you chose. Jesus is easier to live with, but then again – according to Paul his dad and by some magic he are the same guy that murdered everyone in egypt’s first born son. Couple that with the fact that the canonical version of the Bible was decided upon some 3 centuries after the supposed life of Jesus and it makes the whole thing a little difficult to accept at face value (as does reading the text). You are free to “know” what you know. But the reality is that you cannot know at all – which scares the crap out of most people.

It is quite amusing to hear a man who denies the Absolute proclaim his opinions to be absolute. Every time you open your mouth, you contradict yourself.
Well did the psalmist say of you, “The fool says in his heart, there is no God.”. But as usual, you know better.

If you want to discuss the Shroud of Turin or various other historical matters, I would be happy to provide you plenty of facts. But like any good liberal/atheist, you don’t care about facts

Gee, I wonder why a theologian and Vatican funded person might rewrite history? I suppose you think the “scientists” that investigated the shroud of Turin were credible as well.

Once again breaking commandments. The missionaries themselves talked about subjugating and murdering natives. So I am supposed to believe an apologist over Junipero Sera himself? And the Spanish state was an arm of the Vatican when the worst atrocities happened! Someone is definitely ignorantly rewriting history!!! And arrogance? Me? Do you even care how transparent your projection is?

Glaring ignorance.
Firstly, I never even mentioned Catholicism and I am not Catholic. But your assertion about Catholic missionaries being responsible for the genocide of Indians is TOTALLY false. Not even close. In historian John Tracy Ellis’ book American Catholicism as in many other works, it is shown that it was the European states, NOT the Catholic Church, which mistreated the Indians. In fact, Pope Paul III in 1537 issued a bull expressly prohibiting Catholics from depriving non-Christian Indians of liberty or property, and many Catholic missionaries were persecuted by European states for standing up for the rights of Indians! — that is FACT sir, and not your ignorant rewriting of history. Good grief, are you actually going to sit there telling me, who’ve lived and studied culture and history in several countries, that I know nothing of history while you go about rewriting history according to your obvious biases?
From there it just gets worse; it would have been better if you could not read, to be honest, because obviously what you have read is just a heap of lies. And yes, your ideology is ultimately equivalent to those which have committed genocides all over the globe. Why? Because you, just like all modernists who take their ideology to its logical conclusion (Mao, Stalin, et al) look down on anything of the past as inferior and delusional, and in your ignorant pride, cannot see the hideous stupidity and self-contradictions in your assertions. Entirely a product of the time and place in which you live, you are a classic relativist who proudly proclaims that it is true that there is no truth,
So be it. I could have a more intelligent discussion of such matters with my cat.

Interesting take – I mean what with all of your holier-than-though protestations about how super awesome older religious beliefs are, especially Catholicism, and then you blame the murder of Native Americans on my “ideology?” Hint – I don’t have an ideology – you do! But just in case your idiocy is influencing one of the younger posters, let’s get this factually right.

1. The murder of Native Americans was primarily at the hands of Catholic Missionaries, followed by white supremacist Christians. Not sure how you are attaching those ideologies to me – because they are both abhorrent.

2. Tibetans were murdered by Maoists. Another ideology that I find abhorrent.

3. Hitler and the Nazi’s used a combination of Catholic Propaganda, mythologies from the Norse and Mesopotamians – which seem a lot more like the ideology that you like. Heavy emphasis on nationalism, overwrought focus on traditions (many manufactured like most of our national “traditions”). Hitler, by the way, hated modernity. So there’s that.

4. Stalin killed lots of people. Stalinism, as I addressed above, was really an extreme form of Oligarchy. Again, ideology I abhor.

5. I am betting that you are ignorantly lumping in the Khmer Rouge – which sought to restore the Khmer traditions. You know, the guys that built Angkor Wat… Sure, they were funded by the Chicom and USSR, but beyond that had very little resemblance of Soviet Stalinism or Maoism.

Of course, if you studied something other than mystic traditions and actually studied history, political economics and things you can actually measure and learn about reality from, you are likely to continue to get things wrong. You arrogantly assign what you think my ideology is – because you suffer from the severest forms of affinity fraud and epistemic cloture. Me – I just hate that I lowered myself to this level by responding to your idiotic rantings.

Yes. Say we owe him $3.5M next year but he gets a gig on ESPN or coaching for $1M then IU would owe him the difference of $2.5M. Glass pointed this language out last spring.

FACT!

I was only suggesting that learning coaching through Osmosis doesn’t always work and giving a case in point.

But Fife actually played basketball, and had a great defensive game at that.

Perhaps but they’re two different players and the coach had to realize that. Troy is more like Sheehey than Oladipo. When Vic drove to the basket you knew he was either going to finish at the rim, or take to the defender chest and get to the foul line. Not make some crazy jumping pass. Also we had a freshmen point guard and a really short two guard (Hulls) on that team. We have a four year starter who was named to the Wooden Award watch list this year.

Plus the Magic were in a position to gamble a bit with Vic. They knew Vic would be at least a solid two guard, but if they could teach him the point guard it could be special. I believe he was there first high draft pick post Dwight Howard. And he did a pretty decent job at it and now the Magic have the luxury of having one of the few good combo guards in the league. But they only did that project for a year. Crean does this year in and year out and he doesn’t have one pick. He brings in 5 new players every year.

Also I don’t think it was Vic being allowed to run the point is what boosted him so high. It was the fact that everyone knew he wouldn’t be a bust and all the intangible that come with knowing that (great leader and worker to name two). He had also improved in every single area of his game. His ball handling as a sophomore wasn’t even good enough to be a good two guard let alone point guard.

“unscientific theory of evolution”… you proved my point. moving on.

Perhaps, but once they have their LOIs signed I believe they are subject to the same rules as transfers if they aren’t released from it. But yea I mean if we get blown out by Duke (most likely), lose Notre Dame, and stumble out the gate in big ten play then by all means be merciful to the man and let him go. You know he isn’t going to quit, which is something I admire about Crean, but unless he pulls off a miracle then it’s time for him to leave.

It takes at least 10 years to build a program. That is unless it isn’t built by then and then it will be a 15 year process. Only at Indiana does it take this long to test drive a new coach. 8 years? All other programs would have been done with this failed project years ago. Indiana fans patience is to their detriment in this scenario.

That stuff is so 1980’s. Just like winning was.

Right now I wish you both were

Crean came from that same tree and look at all the Izzo stuff he teaches (zero).