PDA

View Full Version : Vatican's official newspaper says science cannot explain Turin Shroud



Pages : [1] 2

Tylerdurden
12-31-2011, 07:56 AM
The Vatican's official newspaper has given strong endorsement to research by Italian scientists which suggests that the Turin Shroud cannot be a medieval fake and may be the authentic burial cloth of Christ.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02095/tur_2095813b.jpg The Turin Shroud pictured in 1978 Photo: REUTERS





"For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' – impossible to falsify," L'Osservatore Romano said in a lengthy article on Thursday.

After conducting five years of advanced laser experiments, a team of experts from Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded that the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html) by modern scientific techniques.

The 14-ft-long, 3.5-ft-wide cloth was therefore not a medieval fake, the team said.

They concluded that the iconic image was created by "some form of electromagnetic energy (such as a flash of light at short wavelength)".

The researchers presented their results with "extreme caution" and had stopped short of putting forward theories that "strayed from science", the Vatican daily said.


But the implication of their work was that the enigmatic marks on the cloth were created at the moment of Christ's Resurrection by some sort of miracle.
Kept in a bulletproof, climate-controlled case in Turin Cathedral, the shroud is imprinted with the figure of a crucified man, complete with wounds to his hands and feet.
Monsignor Giuseppe Ghiberti, the president of the Turin commission responsible for the relic, told the newspaper: "Revelations about the shroud easily assume a sensational tone, but in this case the measured way the scientists speak of their research is to be appreciated. It's a rare thing that gives the news added seriousness".
He said the Catholic Church would welcome more tests being conducted on the holy relic.
"New technologies will enable non-invasive experiments to be conducted on the fabric. But it will be important to respect scientific rigour and procedures, in order to avoid sensationalism and to respect the great religious meaning that the shroud has for Christians."
The results obtained by the Italian scientific team were credible, L'Osservatore Romano insisted, in contrast with the many outlandish theories that have emerged about how the shroud may have formed.
"In recent years the announcements of 'new discoveries' and 'surprising revelations' about the shroud have become a veritable industry – it has been linked to the Knights Templar or Martians, and there are those who claim that it was created by Leonardo da Vinci," the newspaper, the daily gazette of the Holy See, said.
The experiments carried out by the Enea team contradicted carbon-dating tests conducted by laboratories in Oxford, Zurich and Arizona in 1988 which suggested that the shroud dated from between 1260 and 1390 and was indeed a medieval forgery, the paper said.
Although the Vatican has never asserted that the shroud is incontestably genuine, Pope Benedict XVI came close to endorsing its authenticity during a visit to Turin in May 2010.
"This is a burial cloth that wrapped the remains of a crucified man in full correspondence with what the Gospels tell us of Jesus," he said.
The relic was "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and injured on his right side," the Pope said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8982757/Vaticans-official-newspaper-says-science-cannot-explain-Turin-Shroud.html

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 08:19 AM
Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.

The only method that the researchers found that created a similar imprint was by the use of laser light. So the jury is still out as we still do not know how it was created. Due to the care taken of the artefact, it is unlikely that permission will be given to continue the analysis that would establish its age and method of production.

Chris Coose
12-31-2011, 08:27 AM
Right. The Catholic Church as a source speaking for science?

Zlong as that leap- of- faith is included in the formulaic consideration, truth is not found.

Find the leap of Faith in the Pope's statement:
"This is a burial cloth that wrapped the remains of a crucified man in full correspondence with what the Gospels tell us of Jesus," he said.
The relic was "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified and injured on his right side," the Pope said.

It might take a decoder ring for those who weren't raised Pre Vat II Catholic..
Or a review of the Monty Python witch identification ritual.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-31-2011, 08:28 AM
A carbon-14 dating would be nice.

Paul Pless
12-31-2011, 08:44 AM
http://images.spoof-media.com/thespoof/pdi/7308-5846mancartramp.jpg

A Typical Older Woman From The Middle East looks a lot like Jamie.:D

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 08:44 AM
Carbon dating destroys the sample. Much of the Shroud has been repaired over the years, especially in the Middle Ages making selection of a sample problematic at best. Because the Roman Church forbids carbon dating or any chemical testing of portions of the Shroud with the magic stain, it will always be possible to attack findings that do not conform to whatever the attacker believes. Thus the carbon dating of the late 1980's is now under spirited attack from people who raise questions sans evidence. For these people, it's the absence of evidence that proves the miraculous.

skuthorp
12-31-2011, 09:07 AM
A 'true' religion should be able to stand on it's own, not rely on 'relics', statues, archaic language or any other of the artifices used to dupe the vulnerable into funding it.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
12-31-2011, 09:08 AM
As Calvin remarked, there are two little problems.

First, St John's Gospel, chapter 20, vv6-7, makes it clear that there were two cloths, one for the head, one for the body. "6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. "

The other little problem that Calvin mentions is that St John's account of the empty tomb is very detailed - surely the imprint of Jesus' face on the linen cloth would have been recorded?

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 09:14 AM
Ah, but since the Pope's inerrant teaching of the inerrant Bible cannot conflict with the miraculous truth, it must be that Calvin failed to present proofs . . .

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-31-2011, 09:27 AM
http://www.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/images/2009/11/jesus_dinosaur.jpg

SMARTINSEN
12-31-2011, 09:35 AM
How can you lend credulity to a 6 year old French Reformation theologian who hung out with a 17th century English stuffed tiger?

Calvinball!

======

The latest here does not refute the previous carbon dating finding that the cloth is from the middle ages.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-31-2011, 09:51 AM
I love Calvin and Hobbes...


http://www.funnybizblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/2.jpg

Nicholas Scheuer
12-31-2011, 10:06 AM
Can we assume they've done DNA tests? Maybe compared them with random samples exhumed from old tombs in Nazareth?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-31-2011, 10:23 AM
They carbon dated it. It's a fake.

G.Sherman
12-31-2011, 10:36 AM
The last time I checked in with the Shroud.... it was 13th century fabric. What did Jesus use to stain it? Mr. Peabody's "Way-back" machine?

Gerarddm
12-31-2011, 11:39 AM
So much nonsense.

Tylerdurden
12-31-2011, 12:01 PM
Well past the obvious dense heads I would say I am still on the fence just like the standing science is today. Of those who are honest and open minded there are some big questions as of yet undecided. I tend to laugh at those all knowing and all seeing and so sure of themselves when accepted science has made a fool of itself over time too many times to count.
I base my opinion on the thought that though we have come far we really don't know jack in the big scheme of things.

Here is a decent site based on the latest understanding to date.

http://www.shroudstory.com/

L.W. Baxter
12-31-2011, 12:06 PM
The "standing science" has not been "on the fence" since 1979, at the latest. I like Shroud of Turin stories, though, and always read them when they come up. It is a very interesting 800 year old artifact.

Tylerdurden
12-31-2011, 12:09 PM
The "standing science" has not been "on the fence" since 1979, at the latest. I like Shroud of Turin stories, though, and always read them when they come up. It is a very interesting 800 year old artifact.

You might be mistaken. The science date you describe was turned on its head by the same scientist when he revisited his data. A lot of recent science has been done since.

Chris Coose
12-31-2011, 12:16 PM
Well past the obvious dense heads I would say......

The guy just can't help himself.
Then he goes on to believe in miracles, angels and the Pope.

Chris Coose
12-31-2011, 12:24 PM
Alex Jones will create for the seasoned listener a broad highway into believing absolutely anything you want to, unfettered by the reasoning of mear mortals.

Just make it up and it's yours to believe.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 12:29 PM
Has anyone succeeded in 'reproducing' the Shroud, using todays technology?

I had thought the dating was in question, as well.

I'd leave it at 'we're not sure'.

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 12:31 PM
When it comes down to it, it is only important to those whose faith requires a veneration of relics. That is another topic entirely, try researching the number of saints teeth, or as referred to on QI this week, the number of Christ's foreskins.
According to the author David Farley, "Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages."[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce#cite_note-s2155753-5) In addition to the Holy Foreskin of Rome (later Calcata), other claimants included the Cathedral of Le Puy-en-Velay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Puy-en-Velay), Santiago de Compostela (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiago_de_Compostela), the city of Antwerp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerp_(city)), Coulombs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulombs,_Eure-et-Loir) in the diocese of Chartres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Chartres), France as well as Chartres itself, and churches in Besançon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besançon), Newport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], Metz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metz), Hildesheim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildesheim), Charroux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charroux), Conques (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conques), Langres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langres), Fécamp (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fécamp), Stoke-on-Trent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent)[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], Calcata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcata), and two in Auvergne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auvergne_(region)).[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce#cite_note-s2155753-5)The shroud serves no other function as there is no realistic dispute that Jesus existed, nor that he preached in Judea. There were lots of proto messiahs around at the time, it was a feature of Judea under Roman rule, so there is no historical reason to doubt the existence of the preacher Jesus of Galilee and his band of disciples.

L.W. Baxter
12-31-2011, 12:39 PM
You might be mistaken. The science date you describe was turned on its head by the same scientist when he revisited his data. A lot of recent science has been done since.

Allow me to put on my James McMullen hat.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The only direct scientific analysis ever done on the Shroud point to an origin of the 13th and 14th century, which matches the historical record. Later claims that the sample was contaminated do not actually indicate any possibility that the material dates from the time of Christ. If you understand how carbon dating works, you will know that, even with a contaminated sample, the likelihood of a dramatically older origin going undetected is almost zero.

Yes, there is doubt surrounding the origins of the Shroud--like many artifacts we can never know who made it, or exactly how, or exactly where--but there is no evidence that it was the burial cloth of Jesus Christ.

Nanoose
12-31-2011, 12:41 PM
Thanks for the post and link, TD.

One night I stumbled on a documentary regarding what has happened re shroud investigations since the late 80's, and the merely fun, but interesting, project of using computer tech to render the flat image into a 3D image.

Nothing convinces nay-sayers, for they have already reached their conclusions. Hardly an enlightened or scientific attitude, but be that as it may, we continue to learn many things that challenge us and for those willing to be open to what the world has to teach us, enquiry and discovery about the cosmos are exciting and rewarding.

While there are a number of questions that remain regarding the shroud, this is another bit of info we can add to what we already have to consider, and I think that is a good thing.

But it is rather curious how those generally open to some things can be so unreservedly closed to others.
Yet the cartoons added a lot of 'color' to the thread. ;)

Chris Coose
12-31-2011, 12:55 PM
Nothing convinces nay-sayers, for they have already reached their conclusions.

Not speaking for all the nay sayers but this is a bold, false and sterotypical statement.
I'll quote from L.W. Baxter, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Let's say, we'll remain as we are while you guys get someplace near proof. Otherwise, this stained piece of cloth with a lot of history remains, just that. No conclusions.

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 12:59 PM
Biblical evidence and such scientific evidence as exists points to the Shroud not being one of the coverings. Just as non-believers take that as great evidence that the fabric did not cover an historical Jesus, so also believers are sure that the slim level of doubt of either the science of the biblical interpretation must prove the historicity of the Shroud. Unfortunatly, all further testing known now would involve destruction of the sample and believers will attack any sample, just as they do the last carbon testing.

Based on such scientific debate as there is, the Vatican's announcement of magical properties in the shroud seems a bit intemperate.

SMARTINSEN
12-31-2011, 01:20 PM
Nothing convinces nay-sayers, for they have already reached their conclusions.

Along a similar line of reasoning, cannot we also say that nothing convinces those of faith, for they have already reached their conclusions?

Nicholas Scheuer
12-31-2011, 01:27 PM
And another thing; what ever happened to that message the Virgin at Lourdes left for the Pope to disclose at some date long past? Curious minds want to know, ya'know?

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 01:35 PM
Based on such scientific debate as there is, the Vatican's announcement of magical properties in the shroud seems a bit intemperate.
Any one actually seen the Vatican's statement in context? All I have been able to google are journalists c&p.

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 02:08 PM
Italian state experts create similar colorations seen on Turin shroud

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Using high-tech lasers shooting pulses of ultraviolet light, Italy's national research agency succeeded in reproducing on linen cloth colorations similar to those seen on the Shroud of Turin.

The enormous technical difficulty in achieving the positive results also makes it highly unlikely that the shroud is a fake from medieval times, the agency said.

The Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, or ENEA, spent five years looking for ways to recreate the micro-thin, yellow-sepia toned colorations that form the image of a man on the Turin shroud, said the Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Dec. 29.

According to tradition, the 14-foot by 4-foot Shroud of Turin is the linen burial shroud of Jesus. The shroud has a full-length photonegative image of a man, front and back, bearing signs of wounds that correspond to the Gospel accounts of the torture Jesus endured in his passion and death.

The church has never officially ruled on the shroud's authenticity, saying judgments about its age and origin belonged to scientific investigation.

Scientists who conducted on-site tests of the shroud in 1978 discovered that the image was not painted, drawn, printed or transferred on by heat and that the depth of coloration of the linen fibers is extremely thin -- equivalent to the top cellular layer of each linen fiber, according to ENEA's scientific report released in December.

The ENEA report said science has been unable to explain how the image on the shroud was created and attempts to recreate a similar image by chemical methods had failed "until now."

The five-person ENEA team used a laser to shoot nanosecond-fast pulsating beams of vacuum ultraviolet radiation or "extreme ultraviolet radiation" on a piece of linen cloth to create the same characteristics of coloration observed on the shroud -- that is, the same sepia tonalities and the same superficial depth of coloration, the report said.

The experiments also achieved the same peculiar trait observed on the shroud with the irradiated cloth no longer being phosphorescent under ultraviolet light, it said.

Another interesting find, the report said, was what happened when a hot iron was passed over pieces of cloth that had undergone just a small number of ultraviolet pulses and revealed no coloration: The dehydrating or artificial aging effect of the ironing ended up producing the same desired coloration seen on the shroud.

Similar pieces of cloth that showed no coloration because they, too, were not exposed to enough total intensity of UV radiation also developed the same coloration after they had been stored in a dark drawer for a year, it said.

This last result is particularly important, it said, because it introduces the possibility that the image created on the shroud could have become visible over time.

"We succeeded in getting a coloration of the linen that has both the tonality of color and the thickness of coloration that approaches (the properties seen) in the image formed on the Shroud of Turin," the report said. The coloration was also achieved without heat, which is compatible to findings discovered from the shroud, it added.

As a result, the researchers said, they have uncovered what could be the "distinct physical and photo-chemical processes that account for both coloration and latent coloration" due to dehydration from time or heat.

However, the ENEA experiments could only produce small dots of coloration on small swaths of cloth, it said.

No machine or energy source is currently capable of providing the total amount of power that would be needed to instantaneously color the entire image of an adult on a 14- by 4-foot piece of cloth, it said.

Also, they were unable to create the kind of color gradations that the shroud possesses, it said.

Given the "great technological and scientific difficulties" in producing similar colorations, the hypothesis that the shroud is a medieval fake "does not seem reasonable," said the report.

END


Copyright (c) 2011 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed.
CNS · 3211 Fourth St NE · Washington DC 20017 · 202.541.3250

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 02:18 PM
Thanks Ian.
The Vatican is silent, but the scientists are reported as getting a little over exited.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 02:21 PM
So.... is the Church making unsubstantiated claims? I don't see it here....

Sounds like Science at work, doesn't it? Intriguing, but no final answer.

A 'work in progress'.

edit: 'Over exited'.... may be spot on!

Hwyl
12-31-2011, 02:25 PM
A worthy attempt at the funniest thread of 2011.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 02:29 PM
What I find humorous is the 'headline'. Is that from the Vatican, or is the newspaper trying to gin up circulation? Reading the story, the headline really isn't

faithful to the intent.

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 02:38 PM
According to the Mail OnLine:

The official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano said this week that, 'For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' – impossible to falsify.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2080304/Vatican-says-Turin-Shroud-impossible-falsify--lending-weight-experiment-showed-blinding-flash.html#ixzz1i8uzrvhg

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-31-2011, 03:00 PM
Here is another face of Jesus that science has been unable to explain:


http://cooltoast.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Jesus_Toast_Pan-300x251.jpg

purri
12-31-2011, 03:02 PM
So.... is the Church making unsubstantiated claims? I don't see it here....

Sounds like Science at work, doesn't it? Intriguing, but no final answer.

A 'work in progress'.

edit: 'Over exited'.... may be spot on!
more likely a transubstantiated claim

pefjr
12-31-2011, 03:11 PM
[QUOTE=George Jung;3252103]So.... is the Church making unsubstantiated claims? I don't see it here....

/QUOTE]Do you see it anywhere? The church was built on unsubstantiated claims, why do they now need to prove any of their nonsense. The beatification of John Paul is an example of modern day shamanism, seance , and vatican claimed miracles, what's one more voo doo to the catholics?

skuthorp
12-31-2011, 03:13 PM
Ian's post 36.
Using modern high tech methods to attempt to reproduce an approximately 13th century artifact does seem a little strange to me. But even if it is 'genuine', there is something strange about the human condition that it requires a souvenir of a religion's founder to reinforce it's legitimacy.
What is important is that people do believe in a higher power and the effect that has on the direction of their lives and the way they live them, not whether one actually exists.

Bob Cleek
12-31-2011, 03:39 PM
As Calvin remarked, there are two little problems.

First, St John's Gospel, chapter 20, vv6-7, makes it clear that there were two cloths, one for the head, one for the body. "6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. "

The other little problem that Calvin mentions is that St John's account of the empty tomb is very detailed - surely the imprint of Jesus' face on the linen cloth would have been recorded?

Objection! Inadmissible hearsay. Whoever wrote St. John's Gospel around 100 AD (it's believed by many biblical scholars to have been written in three phases by a number of different authors), it certainly wasn't the Apostle John, or Peter, who was executed by Nero probably around 64 AD.

Did Calvin comment on the fact that John's Gospel was not synoptic, as were the first three other gospels, which give a DIFFERENT account of the facts entirely? Only "John" relates that the Apostles John and Peter went into the tomb and discovered it empty save for the burial cloths. The other synoptic Gospels relate the story that it was the "three Mary's" who went to the tomb first after the Sabath had ended to finish the burial arrangements and the Resurrection was revealed to them first. When they went back and told the Apostles, they weren't believed. By the time Peter and John (not the writer of "John's Gospel") arrived on the scene, anybody could have "tampered with the evidence." Could it have been that the authors of John were putting a "spin" on the facts to enhance Peter's authority as the first Pope by making him the "authority" on what the bomb looked like?

I'm joking here, of course, but with all respect to John Calvin, biblical accounts are even less historically reliable than Italian relics, most of which are simply Medieval tourist attractions. (All of the stories in the Bible are true. Some of them actually happened.)

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 03:41 PM
You bet the Roman Catholic Church has walked right outside all science while pretending to respect science. Saying that the Shroud is impossible to falsify rather misses the point since it's also impossible to verify. While there is "controversial" scientific evidence showing a Shroud origin about a millenium after Jesus, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that it's not about two thousand years old. The Roman Church's unscientific pretension that this manufactured controversy establishes any authenticity for the Shroud is a very dramatic insult to scientific evidence.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 03:41 PM
Talking right past one another, I see.

I don't see the Church making any claims - other than to note the science, to date, trying to explain this phenomenon. Given their origins, the degree of restraint seems

... scientific. What's humorous, and fascinating, is the 'take away' most here arrived at!

AFA 'using modern .... methods', that is the science. An explanation of origin seems a reasonable, even scientific, question. The answers, by todays science, should be
fascinating to those who claim to be of the secular, science mind. In that light, the responses are hilarious!

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 03:48 PM
A question for those who think the Roman Catholic Church has any scientific point at all on this matter: How come they are so into whether the authenticity of the Shroud is "impossible" to falsify and they manage in all the reports to express no interest in any scientific effort to verify the shroud. For instance, there is no test that shows the Shroud to be about 2,000 years old. None.

Bob Cleek
12-31-2011, 03:50 PM
Ian's post 36.
Using modern high tech methods to attempt to reproduce an approximately 13th century artifact does seem a little strange to me. But even if it is 'genuine', there is something strange about the human condition that it requires a souvenir of a religion's founder to reinforce it's legitimacy.
What is important is that people do believe in a higher power and the effect that has on the direction of their lives and the way they live them, not whether one actually exists.

I believe they've pretty much tossed out the earlier carbon-14 results that put the cloth in the 13th century or so as accurately dating a repair patch. Subsequent testing puts the original fabric as froM the 1st century. Electron micrography also identified pollen spores in the internal weave (dating them from the time the weaving was done) which were unique to Palestine. If you are a "Shroud wonk," you can google up all the scientifc stuff that's been done in the last thirty years. In any event, the scientists aren't hanging their hats on the carbon-14 tests done in the 1980's anymore. These studies are being done by reputable scientists. It isn't a "History Channel" expose, that's for sure.

On the conrary, souvenirs are a common human fascination. Just look at the "sports memorabilia" industry, Lenin in his tomb, or George Washington's dentures in the Smithsonian. What is somewhat unique to the Catholic Church is its inherent suspicion of claimed "miracles." It takes no position on the religious authenticity of any of these artifacts like the Shroud of Turin or the image of "Our Lady of Guadalupe," but rather encourages scientific examination open to debunking them. Most claimed "miracles" end up being proven pious frauds, but there remain a few, shuch as the Shroud and Guadalupe, that seem to keep the scientists stumped and intrigued. The Church only classifies such things as "explainable" and thus bogus, or "unexplainable." The unexplainable remain just that, and not "miraculous," just "scientifically unexplainable." As science progresses, more and more becomes "explainable." As for the Shroud, it's just an inexplicable artifact of a crucified human man. It may have been Christ, or it could have been some First Century pick pocket for all we know.

skuthorp
12-31-2011, 03:54 PM
George I come from a position of curiosity on this matter, it matters not to me whether it is genuine or not as to me it has no relevance as to the existence of a creator or not. I have no interest in proving or disproving either, or influencing anybody else. My private position is of course disbelief in the latter, the former is just a curiosity.

Bob Cleek
"On the conrary, souvenirs are a common human fascination. Just look at the "sports memorabilia" industry, Lenin in his tomb, or George Washington's dentures in the Smithsonian."
I had 25 years in advertising and marketing, you can sell the human animal anything if you pitch it right. People like to clump together, even if the reason is ridiculous and the cause harmful. It's part of our evolution. One outs and dissenters are the exception.

Hwyl
12-31-2011, 03:58 PM
Talking right past one another, I see.

I don't see the Church making any claims - other than to note the science, to date, trying to explain this phenomenon. Given their origins, the degree of restraint seems

... scientific. What's humorous, and fascinating, is the 'take away' most here arrived at!

AFA 'using modern .... methods', that is the science. An explanation of origin seems a reasonable, even scientific, question. The answers, by todays science, should be
fascinating to those who claim to be of the secular, science mind. In that light, the responses are hilarious!

I understand none of this, you've been learniing sentence construction from Jamie.

What is irrefutable is the the Shroud has been carbon dated to the 13C, if you want to say "well that's because with God all things are possible" I'm O.K. with that.

There are countless reproductions of the shroud, I've never seen the original,(if it is the original) but I've heard from a reputable person that their reproduction was indiscernible from the original and I believe them, I find it hard to believe the Vaticans claim that the latest scientific methods make it hard to reproduce.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 04:04 PM
It's unclear what part of my posting you're having trouble understanding or comprehending. It seems rather straightforward, and easily understood, to me.

AFA (as far as) carbon dating is concerned, it has been my understanding that the methodology used may have arrived at an erroneous date. But I have not read anything
lately about this, and don't have a link to it. Perhaps you do?

As regards the 'countless reproductions', I find that interesting, though a link would be useful. From the article referenced in this thread, the impression is that this is the first
instance in which an 'identical process' has been identified/reproduced. This would lead me to think the 'countless reproductions' were, in fact, not. Perhaps they appear similar, at first glance. Interesting to me that you doubt the science outlined in this paper. On what basis might that be?

Bob Cleek
12-31-2011, 04:32 PM
You bet the Roman Catholic Church has walked right outside all science while pretending to respect science. Saying that the Shroud is impossible to falsify rather misses the point since it's also impossible to verify. While there is "controversial" scientific evidence showing a Shroud origin about a millenium after Jesus, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that it's not about two thousand years old. The Roman Church's unscientific pretension that this manufactured controversy establishes any authenticity for the Shroud is a very dramatic insult to scientific evidence.

Ian, the Roman Catholic Church has never claimed the artifact was "authentic" and I can't imagine it ever will.

Ian McColgin
12-31-2011, 04:38 PM
Bob is correct. Benedict simply asserted that the Shroud is "an icon written in blood; the blood of a man who was whipped, crowned with thorns, crucified, and injured on his right side."

George Jung
12-31-2011, 04:47 PM
Which is all true, is it not?

Bob Cleek
12-31-2011, 04:48 PM
There's not a lot of point in going crazy over all this, but for the sake of those who take comfort in the "scientific proof" that the cloth in the shroud was carbon-14 dated to the 1200's, here's the URL to a research paper that will bust yer bubble.

http://www.shroudofturin4journalists.com/Shroud-of-Turin-Carbon-14-Dating-Mistake.pdf

It was apparently US government nuclear scientists at Los Alamos that concluded the carbon-14 testing was flawed, not "the Vatican."

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 04:56 PM
The RCC has always relished its relics. So what? Is the Shroud of Turin any more or less authentic than various pieces of the true cross or vials of blood, bits of flesh, or the body parts of various saints?

It is a silly issue for anyone to get all wound up about. Personally, I have never understood the psychology behind "veneration." But other people's beliefs are their own business. I reserve the right to debate alleged fact.

I would be more concerned about contemporary pronouncements emanating from visions of the Virgin and healing claims attached to relics, locations, etc. It seems to me these sort of claims are much more likely to lead people astray.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 05:01 PM
The interesting point in this thread is that the 'true believers' appear to 1)agree with that and 2) be focusing on the science of determining the age of the Shroud.
From all appearances, it's the secularists who are focused on the religiosity.

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 05:10 PM
The "religiosity?"

You are not, and have never been a Roman Catholic, are you George Jung?

If not, I submit you have no conception of the degree of "religiosity" - I would call it "popular piety" - attached to the Shroud of Turin and other relics.

If you think the RCC hierarchy is objective with regard to the possible scientific validation or debunking of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin, you are mistaken.

Tylerdurden
12-31-2011, 05:18 PM
I just post these things to make sure those who need to be exposed are. It works every time. :)

George Jung
12-31-2011, 05:19 PM
The RCC should be as interested in the Shroud, as anyone in the world. It's unclear to me what they would have to do, further, to 'prove' their scientific objectivity.
That said, what did you think of the link listed by Mr. Cleek?

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 05:22 PM
I just post these things to make sure those who need to be exposed are. It works every time. :)

Exposed to what, pray?

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 05:23 PM
The RCC should be as interested in the Shroud, as anyone in the world. It's unclear to me what they would have to do, further, to 'prove' their scientific objectivity.
That said, what did you think of the link listed by Mr. Cleek?

Allow the scientists to select the bit that the scientists think would be best part to subject to testing?

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 05:27 PM
It's unclear what part of my posting you're having trouble understanding or comprehending. It seems rather straightforward, and easily understood, to me.

AFA (as far as) carbon dating is concerned, it has been my understanding that the methodology used may have arrived at an erroneous date. But I have not read anything
lately about this, and don't have a link to it. Perhaps you do?

As regards the 'countless reproductions', I find that interesting, though a link would be useful. From the article referenced in this thread, the impression is that this is the first
instance in which an 'identical process' has been identified/reproduced. This would lead me to think the 'countless reproductions' were, in fact, not. Perhaps they appear similar, at first glance. Interesting to me that you doubt the science outlined in this paper. On what basis might that be?

You're right, George. There was a TV special some time ago yhat pulled the story together. After the shroud was placed into its new box there were serious concerns raised about the sample used in C14 dating. Turns out it was a patch. By that time, the new box had contaminated the shroud for further testing (I forget the chemical in question). I don't know of any true and accurate reproductions and now the date is again suspect.

Of course, after all that, the figure on the shroud just doesn't look very Jewish.

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 05:28 PM
The RCC should be as interested in the Shroud, as anyone in the world. It's unclear to me what they would have to do, further, to 'prove' their scientific objectivity.
They could allow scientists to repeat a radiocarbon dating analysis of the cloth.

That said, what did you think of the link listed by Mr. Cleek?
I think the RCC is unreasonably preventing a definitive scientific conclusion regarding the age of the shroud.

The RCC argues that allowing further destructive tests is unreasonable. I say their objection is unreasonable.

Gerarddm
12-31-2011, 05:32 PM
I just post these things to make sure those who need to be exposed are. It works every time. :)


About as useful as the Delphic oracle.

The Bigfella
12-31-2011, 05:37 PM
I just post these things to make sure those who need to be exposed are. It works every time. :)

I will be polite.

I will be polite.


I will be polite.



I will be polite.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 05:46 PM
Taking a sample of the shroud (actually, they'd like to take several, from different parts of the shroud), as the scientists wish, would at least help clarify the age of the material.
Unfortunately, this sampling destroys a part of the relic, and I can understand why the RCC might be reluctant to allow that. AFA the shroud being contaminated, I am unaware
of that development, and whether it presents yet another wrinkle to this controversy. As some have noted previously, this topic offers many considerations, allowing us to
acknowledge our prejudices and preconceived notions (and we all have them), as well as the simple historical interest aspect. I've been aware of the controversy since I was a kid, and have to admit I enjoy the 'about face's' science has had to do, over the decades, concerning what we 'know'. That should allow us all a bit of humility, as well as a nod
to science. It is able to evaluate our world, in principle unemotionally, and admit its failings, without embarrassment. Re-evaluating what we 'know', and recanting when we've discovered it is wrong, is what science is all about. And as others have noted, whether this is Christs' shroud, or not, should have no effect on anyones faith or lack thereof. With that in mind, I'd point out discussions such as this should be fun.

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 06:04 PM
Better George, but still not there yet. :)

George Jung
12-31-2011, 06:18 PM
What, the irritation factor, or the diction? :p

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 06:24 PM
The web site www.shroudstory.com (http://www.shroudstory.com) has a very nice and clear discussion of why the C14 dating is not correct for the fabric as a whole.

Hwyl
12-31-2011, 06:27 PM
Get your own http://www.ebay.com/itm/SHROUD-TURIN-Framed-image-Jesus-Christ-cloth-/150725451580?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2317efdf3c

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 06:43 PM
Taking a sample of the shroud (actually, they'd like to take several, from different parts of the shroud), as the scientists wish, would at least help clarify the age of the material.

Unfortunately, this sampling destroys a part of the relic, and I can understand why the RCC might be reluctant to allow that.
I do not understand the RCC's objection.

This is either a fraud or it is authentic. The RCC claims to have come to no conclusion one way or the other.

How much material would be required to provide for a definitive radiocarbon testing? I suspect far less than the RCC objections are intended to have us believe.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 06:50 PM
Consider this: A lil' snip here, a clip/clip there, and pretty quick we're talking the Bikini of Turin. Because you and I both know that, regardless the outcome, someone will always
want to re-test. As I see it, from the RCC's perspective, the controversy is good for business. As long as people are talking about it.....

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 06:55 PM
As I see it, from the RCC's perspective, the controversy is good for business. As long as people are talking about it.....

EXACTLY!

Enuff said.

George Jung
12-31-2011, 07:01 PM
What? You didn't appreciate the Bikini of Turin observation? I thought it was insightful....

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 07:02 PM
Consider this: A lil' snip here, a clip/clip there, and pretty quick we're talking the Bikini of Turin.

:)


Because you and I both know that, regardless the outcome, someone will alwayswant to re-test. As I see it, from the RCC's perspective, the controversy is good for business. As long as people are talking about it.....

Add to that the obvious fact that the RCC does not wish to become subject to science (and that is not unreasonable).

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 07:19 PM
Add to that the obvious fact that the RCC does not wish to become subject to science (and that is not unreasonable).

Well... I think that is obvious. The problem is that the RCC seems to want it both ways. On the one hand the RCC claims to have no opinion regarding the authenticity of the shroud. On the other hand they behave as if they have an investment in retaining ambiguity regarding its authenticity.

Don't conflate relics with the essential beliefs of Roman Catholicism. In this case science is not challenging Roman Catholic belief, only the authenticity of a relic.

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 07:25 PM
Well... I think that is obvious. The problem is that the RCC seems to want it both ways. On the one hand the RCC claims to have no opinion regarding the authenticity of the shroud. On the other hand they behave as if they have an investment in retaining ambiguity regarding its authenticity.

Don't conflate relics with the essential beliefs of Roman Catholicism. In this case science is not challenging Roman Catholic belief, only the authenticity of a relic.

I'm a Catholic scientist - believe me, I understand. The point is that the RCC is willing to have a discussion with science, but it must be a discussion between equals and I get that. I think the RCC would like to know the truth, but thet won't destroy and debase a relic to seek the approval of science since the fundamental ideas of the RCC (divinity, resurection, etc.) will not be confirmed in any event.

fishrswim
12-31-2011, 07:28 PM
Jeeze, the whole thing is a fake. Give it up. God is Not Great.
Damn!! now I gotta look out for lightning.

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 07:30 PM
Jeeze, the whole thing is a fake. Give it up. God is Not Great.
Damn!! now I gotta look out for lightning.

Please, don't stand too close. :)

Tom Montgomery
12-31-2011, 07:35 PM
I'm a Catholic scientist - believe me, I understand. The point is that the RCC is willing to have a discussion with science, but it must be a discussion between equals and I get that. I think the RCC would like to know the truth, but they won't destroy and debase a relic to seek the approval of science since the fundamental ideas of the RCC (divinity, ressurection, etc.) will not be confirmed in any event.

If it is NOT authentic then it is NOT a relic. If it IS authentic then it becomes established as a true relic.

Further radiocarbon testing of the shroud would neither "destroy" it or "debase" it.

I still do not understand the objection of the RCC.

seanz
12-31-2011, 07:40 PM
Mark posted a religious thread, is this an improvement?

Peerie Maa
12-31-2011, 07:52 PM
Mark posted a religious thread, is this an improvement?



The Vatican's official newspaper has given strong endorsement to research by Italian scientists which suggests that the Turin Shroud cannot be a medieval fake and may be the authentic burial cloth of Christ.


Well past the obvious dense heads I would say I am still on the fence just like the standing science is today. Of those who are honest and open minded there are some big questions as of yet undecided. I tend to laugh at those all knowing and all seeing and so sure of themselves when accepted science has made a fool of itself over time too many times to count.
I base my opinion on the thought that though we have come far we really don't know jack in the big scheme of things.

Here is a decent site based on the latest understanding to date.

http://www.shroudstory.com/


You might be mistaken. The science date you describe was turned on its head by the same scientist when he revisited his data. A lot of recent science has been done since.


I just post these things to make sure those who need to be exposed are. It works every time. :)
Do three posts out of 84 make it a thread or a troll?

stevebaby
12-31-2011, 07:56 PM
Consider this: A lil' snip here, a clip/clip there, and pretty quick we're talking the Bikini of Turin. Bikinis? You have my undivided attention now.

CWSmith
12-31-2011, 08:12 PM
If it is NOT authentic then it is NOT a relic. If it IS authentic then it becomes established as a true relic.

There will always be doubt, but that's not really the point.


Further radiocarbon testing of the shroud would neither "destroy" it or "debase" it. I still do not understand the objection of the RCC.

Destroy? Only partly and a small part at that. Debase? Moreso. Imagine someone wanted to cut a piece of your wife's wedding dress to determine whether your marriage was legit and you know the debate will only go forward after the test? imagine the dress was a family heirloom handed down through generations. At what point do you get tired of people (half of whom routinely call you a fraud) offering to judge your authenticity?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
12-31-2011, 10:13 PM
Some more from Daniel Porter, who is the author of the piece posted above...



My name is Dan Porter. I have always believed in God. And I have always been a Christian, which means I have always believed, at some level of understanding, Christian assertions about Christ. But during all of my adult life—I am now 68—I have struggled with many seeds of doubt brought on by modern science, objective history, the question of why a loving God would allow so much suffering in the world and difficulties with seemingly conflicting moral precepts.
Observation: No proof that the Shroud of Turin is not real survives scientific and historical scrutiny. That leave only conventional wisdom or common sense or worldview or whatever you want to call it as a reason to believe it is not authentic. Maybe someone will figure it out someday. In the meantime all of us, skeptics and believers alike, are stuck with leaps of faith



There is a great deal of desire by the church to make the shroud a mystery, even if it cannot be proved that it is the real thing. Discredit the science using whoever you need to use to question the methods. What we have not seen is a definitive second scientific process regarding the shroud, and we probably won't. I am not confused about why that second process is not upcoming. The church has nothing to gain.

seanz
12-31-2011, 11:06 PM
Do three posts out of 84 make it a thread or a troll?

Hmmm......internet forum ephemera and trivial nomenclature......should I?
:)

It's both, I suppose. The initial subject was bound to get interest but 3 posts isn't exactly energetic stirring of the pot.

Is it an improvement from his usual subjects?

Mark, what did you promise Santa?

purri
01-01-2012, 02:01 AM
So who has the bris of Torino? (a mere snip of a thing wouldn't hurt)

Farfalla
01-01-2012, 04:27 AM
This started off so well, I was in tears reading some of that stuff that Donn posted. I take it back Donn, you may yet prove to be human, that was some funny stuff.
But then sadly it all slid into the ridiculous religious debate stuff that is so predictable.
The church makes money out of the "mystery of the Shroud" and it cons a lot of needy, gullible and ignorant people with that mystery.
There is no way it's interested in actually establishing the validity of the relic.
Not only does it not want to risk losing all those benefits it gets, there is the whole pseudo scientific cloud that it has managed to weave around it that allows it to indirectly hint at credibility. The whole "wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more". God it really could be straight out of a Monty Python sketch!

purri
01-01-2012, 04:34 AM
^ If historical trends are correct the next thing they'll be spruiking will be the clitorectomy of Santa Maria. (if not already)

Farfalla
01-01-2012, 04:38 AM
^ If historical trends are correct the next thing they'll be spruiking will be the clitorectomy of Santa Maria. (if not already)

Well that would explain why she wasn't big on regular sex!!

purri
01-01-2012, 04:48 AM
^ No doubt Saul of Tarsus set the philosophical trend of church doctrine (apropos vagina dentata)

Farfalla
01-01-2012, 04:52 AM
^ No doubt Saul of Tarsus set the philosophical trend of church doctrine (apropos vagina dentata)

That's why so many of them are scared of women and they have this whole demeaning misogynist trip happening.


vagina dentata they get confused and think that it has teeth!

Bob Cleek
01-01-2012, 12:23 PM
they get confused and think that it has teeth!

I'm a divorce attorney. A lot of my clients believe they do!

pefjr
01-01-2012, 02:47 PM
Of course, after all that, the figure on the shroud just doesn't look very Jewish.Hmmmm....interesting. There is some intended humor there somewhere, but unless it's just dry as this LV desert, damn if I can figure it out. Don't explain it, that would kill the funny, give me some more time, and if I can't figure it out in another day I am gonna PM Sam F or Jung and see if they got it. I'm betting it's dry as a sun bleached bone, but a good one CW.:d

skuthorp
01-01-2012, 02:51 PM
I don't think european christianity has ever been comfortable with a Palestinian Jesus, look at all that art. Maybe that's what CW was getting at.

CWSmith
01-01-2012, 06:09 PM
Hmmmm....interesting. There is some intended humor there somewhere, but unless it's just dry as this LV desert, damn if I can figure it out. Don't explain it, that would kill the funny, give me some more time, and if I can't figure it out in another day I am gonna PM Sam F or Jung and see if they got it. I'm betting it's dry as a sun bleached bone, but a good one CW.:d


I don't think european christianity has ever been comfortable with a Palestinian Jesus, look at all that art. Maybe that's what CW was getting at.

Skuthorp is right.

The shroud has been a major source for western artists depicting the face of Christ, or so I'm told. Knowledge of the shroud goes back a long ways. I have long heard it said, and I tend to agree, that the face looks more northern European than Palestinian. There was also a documentary some years ago that tried to imagine the face of Jesus based on population groups and he looked very different - shorter, strongly built, more rounded face.

So, not entirely humor and not at all serious. No insult. As for my own Christian belief, I find it interesting, but not essential. Since I have not yet read a serious explanation for how the image was formed, I have never discarded the traditional assertion of a devine source.

Christ was a Jew - simple fact. We usually depict him as German. Want to speculate why? I think I know.

pefjr
01-01-2012, 06:19 PM
Skuthorp is right.

The shroud has been a major source for western artists depicting the face of Christ, or so I'm told. Knowledge of the shroud goes back a long ways. I have long heard it said, and I tend to agree, that the face looks more northern European than Palestinian. There was also a documentary some years ago that tried to imagine the face of Jesus based on population groups and he looked very different - shorter, strongly built, more rounded face.

So, not entirely humor and not at all serious. No insult. As for my own Christian belief, I find it interesting, but not essential. Since I have not yet read a serious explanation for how the image was formed, I have never discarded the traditional assertion of a devine source.

Christ was a Jew - simple fact. We usually depict him as German. Want to speculate why? I think I know.Cause the "We" you speak of is of European decent. My father a very religious man, in spite of all the conflicts of reason and religion, would often talk of the facts that this prophet was jewish, but all his peer group(south Georgia) would be offended when he reminded them. He used that fact as a prod to get "a rise" out of prudes, he said.

CWSmith
01-01-2012, 06:28 PM
Cause the "We" you speak of is of European decent. My father a very religious man, in spite of all the conflicts of reason and religion, would often talk of the facts that this prophet was jewish, but all his peer group(south Georgia) would be offended when he reminded them. He used that fact as a prod to get "a rise" out of prudes, he said.

Very true. We tend to see Jesus in our own image (ironic, no?). Consider the black Jesus. It's too insignificant to object to, until it combines with anti-semetism (or any other form of racism less ironic). Then, well, it's just plain ugly on any level.

I must say I am amused by the ulterior motives assigned to the RCC on this issue. Science will get another shot at it, but the RCC is not a fast-moving organization. It's also not as anti-science as some would claim.

pefjr
01-01-2012, 07:21 PM
Very true. We tend to see Jesus in our own image (ironic, no?). Consider the black Jesus. It's too insignificant to object to, until it combines with anti-semetism (or any other form of racism less ironic). Then, well, it's just plain ugly on any level.

I must say I am amused by the ulterior motives assigned to the RCC on this issue. Science will get another shot at it, but the RCC is not a fast-moving organization. It's also not as anti-science as some would claim.Well the shroud is a joke to me, jesus is a hoax, and the RCC will of course will not do anything fast, or anything at all to upset the cash flow. why should they, the flock is dumb and fat, and the money is rolling in. Tax free.

CWSmith
01-01-2012, 08:01 PM
Well the shroud is a joke to me, jesus is a hoax, and the RCC will of course will not do anything fast, or anything at all to upset the cash flow. why should they, the flock is dumb and fat, and the money is rolling in. Tax free.

Heck of a neat joke - an image formed as a photographic negative in a very thin film possibly of microbial activity on the surface of the shroud with a complimentary image on the other side while no image passes through the cloth? Pretty slick joke. I wish I could pull it off.

Jesus a hoax - well, quite an inspired hoax. Most hoaxes possess some sort of self-promotion or financial benefit. It didn't work out so well and the church was anything but rich for several hundred years when death was a likely end to participation. Certainly a patient hoax.

The flock is mostly thin and poor. It's the poor of the world that practice this religion. Think Central and South America, Africa, etc.

You have a lot of anger and I pray you can leave it behind at some point and move forward without the added burden. Be well.

James McMullen
01-01-2012, 08:46 PM
Here is an interesting essay (http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html) about the proportions and features of the image portrayed on the Shroud of Turin written by the renowned paleontologist and artist Gregory S. Paul, a man who has made a career from interpreting and portraying the true shapes of ancient animals from the flattened and distorted fossil remains according to biometric analysis and other scientific methods of investigation.

Uhh. . .you true believers ain't gonna like the evidence he demonstrates, but I guess you'll find a way to continue believing anyways if it suits you.

The figure on the Shroud of Turin has a very small head in proportion to his overall height, something absolutely freakishly proportioned compared to normal human averages. What's more, it is pathologically hypocephalic above the face, and its arms are far too long in proportion in order to preserve the modesty of the image. Try it yourself by laying down on a flat surface and assuming the pose. There's no possible way you can reach your hands down to cover your genitals without hunching your shoulders forward and stretching your arms straight, not shoulders back and elbows bent like the figure on the shroud. Clearly it's either the prudishness of the artist not wishing to commit to portraying the Holy Junk, or it's a rather less publicized Miracle of Unequal Forearm Elongation that's at work here.

Try it. Don't take my word for it. Lie on the floor and try it yourself. It's impossible to mimic that pose exactly.

These sorts of elongated proportions are not at all uncommon under a certain artistic convention, however.

http://cdn2.all-art.org/images_hist192/n3.jpg

Sorry, True Believers, but wouldn't you really rather put your trust in demonstrable evidence rather than wishful thinking?

pefjr
01-01-2012, 08:48 PM
Heck of a neat joke - an image formed as a photographic negative in a very thin film possibly of microbial activity on the surface of the shroud with a complimentary image on the other side while no image passes through the cloth? Pretty slick joke. I wish I could pull it off.

Jesus a hoax - well, quite an inspired hoax. Most hoaxes possess some sort of self-promotion or financial benefit. It didn't work out so well and the church was anything but rich for several hundred years when death was a likely end to participation. Certainly a patient hoax.

The flock is mostly thin and poor. It's the poor of the world that practice this religion. Think Central and South America, Africa, etc.

You have a lot of anger and I pray you can leave it behind at some point and move forward without the added burden. Be well.You are wrong, I have no anger toward anyone, just call um as I see um. BTW, if you are wanna pray for me, get in line, I have a large extended family and every last one of them are christians, and they all pray for me, in fact I should have a condo in heaven paid for and you are welcome to it , my gift to you. It's doubtful that I would have any friends there.

CWSmith
01-01-2012, 08:58 PM
Here is an interesting essay (http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article815.html) about the proportions and features of the image portrayed on the Shroud of Turin written by the renowned paleontologist and artist Gregory S. Paul, a man who has made a career from interpreting and portraying the true shapes of ancient animals from the flattened and distorted fossil remains according to biometric analysis and other scientific methods of investigation.

Uhh. . .you true believers ain't gonna like the evidence he demonstrates, but I guess you'll find a way to continue believing anyways if it suits you.

The figure on the Shroud of Turin has a very small head in proportion to his overall height, something absolutely freakishly proportioned compared to normal human averages. What's more, it is pathologically hypocephalic above the face, and its arms are far too long in proportion in order to preserve the modesty of the image. Try it yourself by laying down on a flat surface and assuming the pose. There's no possible way you can reach your hands down to cover your genitals without hunching your shoulders forward and stretching your arms straight, not shoulders back and elbows bent like the figure on the shroud. Clearly it's either the prudishness of the artist not wishing to commit to portraying the Holy Junk, or it's a rather less publicized Miracle of Unequal Forearm Elongation that's at work here.

Try it. Don't take my word for it. Lie on the floor and try it yourself. It's impossible to mimic that pose exactly.

These sorts of elongated proportions are not at all uncommon under a certain artistic convention, however.

Sorry, True Believers, but wouldn't you really rather put your trust in demonstrable evidence rather than wishful thinking?

My faith is not dependent on the authenticity of the shroud, although I don't ignore it. I also don't know what position a body was laid in on that stone shelf cut for someone else while your analysis does seem to assume he was laid flat. As for proportions, I am surprised the image seems so undistorted when I know my bed linens are far from smooth and unwrinkled. It's a curious thing.


You are wrong, I have no anger toward anyone, just call um as I see um. BTW, if you are wanna pray for me, get in line, I have a large extended family and every last one of them are christians, and they all pray for me, in fact I should have a condo in heaven paid for and you are welcome to it , my gift to you. It's doubtful that I would have any friends there.

I think you'll be surprised, but good for you! Be well and be happy.

James McMullen
01-01-2012, 09:18 PM
CW, the arm thing alone is conclusive. Don't take my word for it. You cannot make a human body assume that hand position with shoulders back and elbows bent as is clearly portrayed in the shroud image. If the body were hunched forward to allow the hands to reach the crotch area, this would show up in a foreshortening of the proportions of the torso and upper thighs, and the way the shoulders are held. Seriously, don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. Print off a picture of the shroud and try and get into the identical pose with your back against a wall, elbows bent and your hands perfectly shielding your genitals from view in front of a full-length mirror. Try it. I am not asking you to take anything whatsoever on faith. Try it! Try it on your own self!

http://www.shroud.com/shrdbig2.jpg

The fact that the two forearms are of unequal length, the super-low forehead and the narrowness of the facial features is also damning of an artistic rather than photographical image. There is no possible cloth fold or fabric distortion that can account for the amount of discrepancy. If that is truly a representation of Jesus, then Jesus was deformed with unequal forearms and a hypocephalic cranium, both inconsistent with a theory that he was the Perfect Man. This shroud image really doesn't match human proportions.

There's just no reason to continue to be fooled by a medieval forgery. You can appreciate its rich history as a hugely successful scam and proven money-maker without being a mark yourself.

The Bigfella
01-01-2012, 09:25 PM
Um... I reckon I just managed it. Don't call me Jesus though, OK?

James McMullen
01-01-2012, 09:31 PM
No you didn't. Elbows out to the sides. Shoulders squared. Like in the picture.

It's not impossible to cradle your business. It's impossible to do it with your arms and shoulders and hands matching the position of the image on that shroud.

Ian McColgin
01-01-2012, 09:33 PM
We need a picture.

The Bigfella
01-01-2012, 09:34 PM
I reckon I did it - but its just as easy to come up a few inches short. You'd need some assistance and measuring devices to make sure though.

James McMullen
01-01-2012, 09:36 PM
Read the actual link, Bigfella. I only wrote a very abbreviated overview, Paul does a thorough job of it. The proportions of the shroud figure do not correspond to that of a human.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 12:03 AM
hehehe.... you seem heavily invested in this one, James. I like that! Just one question, since you've obviously figured this one out (and isn't it curious that none of the
researchers have?). How was the image made?

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 09:15 AM
hehehe.... you seem heavily invested in this one, James. I like that! Just one question, since you've obviously figured this one out (and isn't it curious that none of the
researchers have?). How was the image made?

You would think the Luciferarians would have been more rock solid in the debunking than that. :)

Farfalla
01-02-2012, 09:24 AM
What does it matter how the forgery is done than as a minor piece of art history.
It's clearly not the real thing and even the Church is smart enough not to claim it openly. They just profit from the origin of the thing being ambiguous.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 09:26 AM
[QUOTE=George Jung;3253971 How was the image made?[/QUOTE]Made in the same factory, using the same method as the Golden Plates were made.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 09:30 AM
Don't be absurd, George. You don't have to know exactly how the stage magician managed to pull a rabbit out of his hat without being able to come to the reasoned conclusion that it probably wasn't through the use of magical teleportation.

If we don't yet know exactly what pigments or processes were used, then the proper answer is, "we don't know yet". You don't get to go automatically from "we don't know yet" to "therefore it must have been some supernatural process which defies the known laws of physics."

By the way, have you tried out the pose thing yet? Get out your bevel gauge and set it to the angle that the upper arm and forearm are bent in the image and then try to 'preserve your modesty' with your own arms bent to that same angle. If you'd just do yourself a favor and go check this out on your own, then maybe you wouldn't need to be pulling out this last ditch fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam so much. You could even save some time on coming up with more convoluted rationalizations of why you should continue to suspend disbelief that way.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 09:53 AM
Don't you care whether or not the things you believe are true, Norman?

That's why this sort of thing matters.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 10:07 AM
Bingo. You are exactly right. What I find humorous, is that a few here, while professing atheism, don't seem to feel that way.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:10 AM
Don't you care whether or not the things you believe are true, Norman?

That's why this sort of thing matters.Whatsa matter you? You haven't developed that ability to selectively turn on and off your cerebrum yet?

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:16 AM
That's because atheists and true believers are far more alike than they are different. Both are people of 'faith', and both want to prove the validity of their faith to others.

It's rather a shame that agnostics like me get lumped into the 'atheist' column, because we couldn't be more different. I have no reason to press my belief, or disbelief, on anyone else.... whereas, atheists and the faithful are nearly always proselytizing, one way or the other.:d poor Norm, he got lumped

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:18 AM
That's because atheists and true believers are far more alike than they are different. Both are people of 'faith', and both want to prove the validity of their faith to others.

What is it that Atheists have to prove , Norm?

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:21 AM
I will deny something for you Norm, while you are up there on that fence holding that umbilical cord to god (just in case), but damn if I can think of a thing I need to prove.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 10:25 AM
Nonsense, Norman. You are misusing the term "faith" to try and make it seem like you are the only open-minded and fair sort of person. The demand for sufficient evidence that an atheist asks for before believing an extraordinary claim has nothing whatsoever in common with the dogmatic certainty that a devout theist has in a claim he believes. One party asks for verification and evidence, the other demands credulity and conformity. These are not two sides of the same coin.

And you proselytize plenty, amigo. I more often agree with what you preach than with what you don't, but don't get all holier-than-thou with your faux impartialism. You often press your political beliefs to the tune of several threads per day.

Peerie Maa
01-02-2012, 10:26 AM
I will deny something for you Norm, while you are up there on that fence holding that umbilical cord to god (just in case), but damn if I can think of a thing I need to prove.
That your point of view is the only correct one?

varadero
01-02-2012, 10:27 AM
Um... I reckon I just managed it. Don't call me Jesus though, OK?
So did I, my wife and kids thought I had gone dufus for a moment, naked on the floor saying "can you guys see my junk", but my hands are big.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:28 AM
That your point of view is the only correct one?Yeah right, I've had these discussions for 50 yrs. now , doubt I ever convinced any person that has that ability to turn off the cerebrum. That must be a gift from god.

varadero
01-02-2012, 10:29 AM
As Calvin remarked, there are two little problems.

First, St John's Gospel, chapter 20, vv6-7, makes it clear that there were two cloths, one for the head, one for the body. "6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying, 7 and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. "

The other little problem that Calvin mentions is that St John's account of the empty tomb is very detailed - surely the imprint of Jesus' face on the linen cloth would have been recorded?

I believe the napkin is the relic that became known as the Mandylion which was kept be the Templars

Peerie Maa
01-02-2012, 10:34 AM
I reckon I did it - but its just as easy to come up a few inches short. You'd need some assistance and measuring devices to make sure though.


So did I, my wife and kids thought I had gone dufus for a moment, naked on the floor saying "can you guys see my junk", but my hands are big.
Were you both "dead" relaxed though?
The point about the differing length of the forearms is a killer though. We must assume that the shroud would lay in contact along both arms recording their true length, in which case one arm is considerably longer, about 27% longer than the other.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 10:35 AM
Norman, do you really not understand why those billboards were put up? The fundamentalist evangelical Christians comprise a huge voting block, and they have been hammering away at the separation of Church and State for years now. The FFRF and other groups that have put up those billboards are trying to organize some political influence to push back against the fundies assault on the Constitution. C'mon, you're a political junkie, amigo. Surely this isn't news to you.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 10:37 AM
Hmmmm.... atheists are organized... have a 'club', a magazine, and spend money to put up billboards and posters to convey their message that 'there is no God'.

I've yet to see an agnostic magazine... or organization... or billboard. Us agnostics don't have a message to publicize. We fly? Avict because there is always doubt?aren't contemptuous of religious people, even if we are contemptuous of religion.What would an agnostic say? Come sit on the fence with me? You just said you were the one that was right and Atheists and religious were faithful.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 10:38 AM
The trouble with an attempt to demonstrate a miracle using empirical evidence (i.e. the shroud is really Jesus, and analysis of the image supposedly shows it to be produced by methods unknown to science) is that it's not possible to falsify a miracle. All you need is one more miracle. The arms are way too long (and they are)? God did it!

FWIW, the Shroud of Turin has been dated by radiocarbon analysis. It showed a date of AD 1260-1390, with at least a 95% confidence interval. Here's the paper. http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm Some people have argued that the samples were from a medieval repair rather than the original fabric.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 10:40 AM
You seem a bit 'prickly', James; was it something I said? If so, I'm 'faux sorry'!
:p
FWIW, I am not attempting to proselytize, convert or otherwise convince you or anyone else that there is a God. Figure that one out for yourself. But the mystery of the Shroud
is interesting, even fascinating, regardless your beliefs. How was it made? You'd think that with todays science, that would be an easy discernment (and if you read the article,
it apparently is, now) - but in the process, a whole new can of worms gets opened. Reproducible by todays technology, unavailable and unknown in the mid to far past. Is it a fake? How was it done? The Scientist in you should be very curious about that, while ignoring the implications you feel the Church is making. No convoluted new 'theories' are
necessary; what does the science tell you? AFA the Church profiting from this - sure. Anytime people are talking about you, your 'product' is at least up for consideration. The worst outcome is when nobody mentions you at all.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 11:04 AM
You seem a bit 'prickly', James;

Oh, you're probably right, George. I just get exasperated when people believe absurd things for insufficiently studied reasons, whether it's the latest republican talking points or the best rig for a sailing dory. And religion is certainly an amazingly target-rich environment for that sort of thing.

Peerie Maa
01-02-2012, 11:16 AM
This is why I never disparage faith itself; it's disrespectful of the people who hold it.

Religions themselves, on the other hand, deserve disparagement.... in my opinion, at least.

​In agreement with this, except for the sweeping generalisation. Not all religions, or sects of religions are worthy of disparagement, for example I have a lot of time for the Society of Friends, and for the Sally Army.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 11:29 AM
Your problem then, James, is with the very concept of faith itself. If you're not religious, and not a true believer, then, of course, the tenets of faith will seem absurd, to you... but they aren't absurd to the believers. This is why I never disparage faith itself; it's disrespectful of the people who hold it.
Religions themselves, on the other hand, deserve disparagement.... in my opinion, at least.James does not have a problem. He expressed his reasoned opinion. Do you want to restrict intelligent reasoning and stating a conclusion from that thought process? Sounds exactly like the what the vatican wants to do. They encourage thought , but when thought produces conflict with faith, they threaten you and block you from heaven. Of course you are right Norm, never disparage a person's religion but instead attack the very foundation of their beliefs. Yeah, that will help make them feel better.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 11:40 AM
Ya lost me there, in that stream of consciousness reasoning.....
Where is the Vatican attempting to restrict intelligent reasoning? Where are they threatening, and pray tell, how are they / could they 'block you from Heaven' (which, btw,
seems a rather empty threat to an Atheist, doesn't it?)? I thought Normans and James' exchanges have been insightful and quite respectful. Maybe I didn't read it right.

Gerarddm
01-02-2012, 12:11 PM
George, it took the Vatican 400 years to sort of apologize to Galileo, that is evidence of a systemic attack on reasoning.

Papal infallibility? INVENTED in the mid-1800s, not a core Catholic belief.

I will acknowledge, gladly, that at the deepest levels of physics there may be a convergence of faith and science. Maybe that is why they call it the God Particle.

But the historical record shows us, as BTW the recent Republican debates, that there is a serious disconnect between faith and reasoning. I can think of no more contemptuous song lyric than "give me that old time religion/it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me". Dangerous stuff, that. And absurd.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 12:13 PM
Ya lost me there, in that stream of consciousness reasoning.....
Where is the Vatican attempting to restrict intelligent reasoning? Where are they threatening, and pray tell, how are they / could they 'block you from Heaven' (which, btw,
seems a rather empty threat to an Atheist, doesn't it?)? I thought Normans and James' exchanges have been insightful and quite respectful. Maybe I didn't read it right.I don't know where you got lost? Are you catholic? Whenever peb's or Sam F's blind faith gets questioned, they tell me the catholic religion encourages thought. When the thought brings out a question about this god and whether it's real the catholics are quickly reminded that denying that god existence, by logic, is the only unpardonable sin and will block any afterlife in the glory land. It is an empty threat to me, I am just pointing it out to that poor man with the target on his back that got lumped in with us. I think the truth is he really wants our company but is afraid to cut the cord.

Gerarddm
01-02-2012, 12:24 PM
Norman, regarding your post 148, undoubtedly so.

In that regard, I am willing to bet cash that a scientific study of conspiracy theorists would show that an overwhelming majority of them, if not all, are persons of faith.

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 12:29 PM
In this day and age there are very few true atheists. Many who identify as atheist are in fact luciferians calling themselves atheists. Pretty easy to pick up by their fanatical chauvinistic approach to faith and religion in general. They are clear to see by their enlightened attitude and general need to wizz on anything or anyone with faith. They are superior because they are enlightened beyond the rest of us.
One of the best kept secrets in life is these people. You will find their most to a man supportive of eugenics cleverly disguised as for the good of something or another and most often praise peace will in actuality supporting force in any other area. The world would not be in the condition it is if not for these people having us fooled that their is no such thing as organized evil. It's all around us just cleverly disguised.

Ian McColgin
01-02-2012, 12:56 PM
Yep, and they designed the dollar bill with all that Masonic idolatry to addict people to dollars . . . Lucifarians? Aren't they like Rastafarians but they worship Herbert Hoover, use Prozac and have short hair?

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 01:02 PM
Yep, and they designed the dollar bill with all that Masonic idolatry to addict people to dollars . . . Lucifarians? Aren't they like Rastafarians but they worship Herbert Hoover, use Prozac and have short hair?

Its a great story Ian to make people believe there is such a thing as organized good while no chance for organized evil. Everything has its counterpart and its not rational to think otherwise.

Ian McColgin
01-02-2012, 01:05 PM
That's why our flag has five points and the Pentagon has its shape . . . Some symbology is so wonderful that you have to figure God and the Devil cowrote history's script with Dan Brown.

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 01:08 PM
Well you know what i always say Ian. If there is a devil he is hiding in the law and academia. If you were the devil what better place to hide to accomplish a mission such as his.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 01:35 PM
It doesn't strike me that the authenticity of the shroud should be that meaningful.... but Catholicism does seem to place a heavy emphasis on the importance of relics. All over the globe, there are churches with bits and peices of saints stored in lovely silver and glass boxes, revered as holy objects... a finger here, skull there... but are they 'holy'? Is the water in the basin at the church entrance any different than tap water, because some priest blessed it? Is the communion wafer, or the wine used in the sacrament, REALLY the body and blood of Christ?

These are issues of faith, not fact. Looking for 'fact' in an article of 'faith' seems rather silly, to me. Maybe the shroud is real, maybe it's not.... how does it make a difference?

I do wish the RCC had less of the relic thing, but it really has no more meaning than keeping a treasured keep-sake that was your father's or grandmother's. Slicing into the shroud to conduct tests is only the equivalent of cutting into your wife's or mother's wedding dress while most people would want to preserve such a thing.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 01:43 PM
FWIW, the Shroud of Turin has been dated by radiocarbon analysis. It showed a date of AD 1260-1390, with at least a 95% confidence interval. Here's the paper. http://www.shroud.com/nature.htm Some people have argued that the samples were from a medieval repair rather than the original fabric.

From what I've read, this is pretty conclusively wrong. It was a repair job. The fibers were of a different type and dyed (sp?). However, I think this is an excellent example of why the RCC is slow to do it again - they want the noise to die down so a rational and unbiased job can be done. There is way too much confusion right now.

Bob Cleek
01-02-2012, 01:48 PM
I do wish the RCC had less of the relic thing, but it really has no more meaning than keeping a treasured keep-sake that was your father's or grandmother's. Slicing into the shroud to conduct tests is only the equivalent of cutting into your wife's or mother's wedding dress while most people would want to preserve such a thing.

I think most theologians would agree that the "relic thing" is a cultural abberation that has nothing to do with Catholic theology. It's Southern European, primarily Italian, although in the Middle Ages it spread throughout Europe. Relics may direct people's thoughts to the spiritual, but beyond that, they are simply mementos that have nothing to do with sound theology and much, too much, to do with magical thinking. This is why the Church doesn't "authenticate" them despite the wishes of the ignorantly pious. If your faith depends upon the authenticity of artifacts, you're in the wrong zip code.

Peerie Maa
01-02-2012, 01:50 PM
From what I've read, this is pretty conclusively wrong. It was a repair job. The fibers were of a different type and dyed (sp?). However, I think this is an excellent example of why the RCC is slow to do it again - they want the noise to die down so a rational and unbiased job can be done. There is way too much confusion right now.
I find it truly unbelievable that the scientists were not aware that they were taking a sample from a repair, rather than from the 14 feet of available original textile.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 01:52 PM
I think most theologians would agree that the "relic thing" is a cultural abberation that has nothing to do with Catholic theology. It's Southern European, primarily Italian, although in the Middle Ages it spread throughout Europe. Relics may direct people's thoughts to the spiritual, but beyond that, they are simply mementos that have nothing to do with sound theology and much, too much, to do with magical thinking. This is why the Church doesn't "authenticate" them despite the wishes of the ignorantly pious. If your faith depends upon the authenticity of artifacts, you're in the wrong zip code.

Exactly correct and wonderfully said. Now, I have some relatives I'd like you to convince...

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 01:54 PM
I find it truly unbelievable that the scientists were not aware that they were taking a sample from a repair, rather than from the 14 feet of available original textile.

I've seen the photos. Those medieval artisans could do an amazing job of weaving a patch. Add to that centuries of age and a limited amount of time to perform the examination and it does not seem so hard to believe to me. In any event, the paper was published in the same journal, reviewed and everything, and my reading is that it is widely accepted as correct. But I'm no expert in the field.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 01:56 PM
If your faith depends upon the authenticity of artifacts, you're in the wrong zip code.


I completely agree, and on the basis of that statement, the Christian church should stay away from trying to prove that Jesus Christ was divine, and let it remain an act of faith. The Christian church has constantly battled science every step of the way throughout history, and still does. One only has to look at the intelligent design versus evolution fight in American schools to see that the church very seriously looks at these things as battles about fact, not faith. Christians can't, on the one hand, conclude it is all about faith, and then claim facts without making them subject to scientific scrutiny. I am not fooled about the shroud of turin controversy. It has been scientifically examined, and the facts are not in keeping with what the church wants to hear, so it makes up whatever mystery suits it. So it goes.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 02:01 PM
I completely agree, and on the basis of that statement, the Christian church should stay away from trying to prove that Jesus Christ was divine, and let it remain an act of faith. The Christian church has constantly battled science every step of the way throughout history, and still does. One only has to look at the intelligent design versus evolution fight in American schools to see that the church very seriously looks at these things as battles about fact, not faith. Christians can't, on the one hand, conclude it is all about faith, and then claim facts without making them subject to scientific scrutiny. I am not fooled about the shroud of turin controversy. It has been scientifically examined, and the facts are not in keeping with what the church wants to hear, so it makes up whatever mystery suits it. So it goes.

I know of no attempt to prove Jesus was divine other than the examination of miracles. It is a basic tenant (sp?) of faith in any Christian church. (Actually, Mormons claim to be Christian, but don't accept Jesus as divine, which is the source of friction between Christian fundamentalists and the Mormon church, but I offer that without trying to start a shooting war.)

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 02:07 PM
The Christian church has long stated the miracles of Christ as if they were commonly accepted facts.The miracles are attached to the righteousness and power of God. Not only that, the artifacts of the christian faith have long been attached to the divinity of the faith. The Ark, the Holy grail, all have myths of power associated with them. These powers, mysterious and unexplained, could only then be explained as divine. The Shroud is no different. It's a piece of cloth with a picture of a man on it, from 600 years ago.A very nice antique.

Make no mistake, I have absolutely no problem with people believing God or Jesus Christ, or any other deity they see fit to worship. I only have a problem with this belief being claimed as fact while giving these facts a bye to scientific scutiny or conclusion.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 02:08 PM
I never doubt your sincerity.

Go back and read your very own post #123 then you have the nerve to tell James he has a problem for using his reasoning power. Your never disparage a person's religion you say, yet you claim the Atheists are believers and only you and agnostics are correct. I don't understand why you do not see yourself as a conceited bigot, because that is the way you come across to me.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 02:13 PM
I have a general impression of you, as well... but I don't make it my job to constantly point it out.


Whooooaaa, and Norman wins, hands down :D:D

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 02:18 PM
The Christian church has long stated the miracles of Christ as if they were commonly accepted facts.The miracles are attached to the righteousness and power of God. Not only that, the artifacts of the christian faith have long been attached to the divinity of the faith. The Ark, the Holy grail, all have myths of power associated with them. These powers, mysterious and unexplained, could only then be explained as divine. The Shroud is no different. It's a piece of cloth with a picture of a man on it, from 600 years ago.A very nice antique.

Make no mistake, I have absolutely no problem with people believing God or Jesus Christ, or any other deity they see fit to worship. I only have a problem with this belief being claimed as fact while giving these facts a bye to scientific scutiny or conclusion.

I think we agree, but the language is getting off track. The RCC did not submit the Shroud to testing in the hope of proving Jesus was divine. That is simply a matter of faith.

But you are right that many Christians confuse faith and relicry. The myth surrounding the Ark of the Covenant is something I don't accept, but I admit the language is tough to work with. The myth surrounding the Holy Grail is much easier - the phrase "eternal life" is perverted to mean life on Earth.

To the best of my knowledge, no one is dismissing the scientific examination of the Shroud. However, there are genuine questions and doubts about their correctness within the scientific community.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 02:34 PM
If you read the link from the OP, they discuss how the shroud sample was obtained (and its limitations), as well as examine the evidence supporting that this is, in fact, taken from an area repaired. They also discuss how effective that 'hidden' repair is, in terms of being readily identified.

There's also an incredible amount of anti-christian bias masquerading as 'fact' (PMJ). I don't believe the RCC has 'battled science throughout history' (perhaps we should resurrect one of the God/Darwin threads, if you wish to revisit and educate yourself). Unfortunately, anyone bringing that type of blatant bias immediately invalidates whatever perspective they're intent on presenting. That's unfortunate, as it has a tendency to derail an otherwise good discussion.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 02:37 PM
The article by D. R. Porter is a purposeful denial of the science intended to boost the mystery of the shroud. The author himself is a professed christian, and a professor of Theology. I am not saying that people of faith cannot accept scientific fact, but needless to say, it sometimes gets cherrypicked depending on how it relates to their individual faith.

As I previously stated, if there is real problems with the quality of the last test on the shroud, do another one. The size of the sample required is small. Why would the church have any objection to another test that could lay this 'mystery' to rest? I'll tell you why: It serves to diminish the mystery of Christ overall, and that does not serve a church already diminished by modern science.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 02:41 PM
If you read the link from the OP, they discuss how the shroud sample was obtained (and its limitations), as well as examine the evidence supporting that this is, in fact, taken from an area repaired. They also discuss how effective that 'hidden' repair is, in terms of being readily identified.

There's also an incredible amount of anti-christian bias masquerading as 'fact' (PMJ). I don't believe the RCC has 'battled science throughout history' (perhaps we should resurrect one of the God/Darwin threads, if you wish to revisit and educate yourself). Unfortunately, anyone bringing that type of blatant bias immediately invalidates whatever perspective they're intent on presenting. That's unfortunate, as it has a tendency to derail an otherwise good discussion.


Sorry, but my thought that the RCC has battled science is well documented. Scientists who were at odds with the church suffered a lot of persecution over the ages. The number of times that the Christian church has rebuffed science over the ages is too many to even list here.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RELIGIOUS FAITH.

I have a problem with faith being confused with fact.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 02:43 PM
In this day and age there are very few true atheists. Many who identify as atheist are in fact luciferians calling themselves atheists. Pretty easy to pick up by their fanatical chauvinistic approach to faith and religion in general. They are clear to see by their enlightened attitude and general need to wizz on anything or anyone with faith. They are superior because they are enlightened beyond the rest of us.
One of the best kept secrets in life is these people. You will find their most to a man supportive of eugenics cleverly disguised as for the good of something or another and most often praise peace will in actuality supporting force in any other area. The world would not be in the condition it is if not for these people having us fooled that their is no such thing as organized evil. It's all around us just cleverly disguised.This is a pile of shinola. A reasoned approach to wild religious claims is fanatical chavanistic yadda yadda? It's not hard for me to fell superior and enlightened too when I read this post of yours. We are superior because we do not limit our capacity to reason. Whose fault is that?
.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 02:54 PM
Guys, you are getting off track.

Wikipedia did an uncommonly thorough job of discussing the Shroud tests even to the point of linking to the Chemistry Today article that discuss the samples and patches. One quote reads "an uncommonly bad job of selecting sample sites" or some such thing. Seriously, anyone's ability to believe that the wrong samples were taken is irrelevant to the facts.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 03:25 PM
The samples were selected by the branch of the Catholic Church that takes care of the shroud. Yes, I suppose it's possible they goofed and picked a non-representative part. The samples they provided were very carefully tested, and were found to be about 700 years old. OTOH, if God is capable of causing an image to miraculously appear on a piece of fabric, he's certainly capable of making carbon nuclei decay more slowly, right? Testing a miracle by empirical methods is a logical contradiction.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 03:51 PM
Seriously, Keith, this is being discussed in the scientific literature by responsible people. "Suppose it's possible" really has nothing to do with what is established. If you read the published literature, there is a lot of meat here to digest and the best experts are far less certain than your "were found to be about 700 years old" statement would suggest.

I'm not picking a fight, but this thing is being discussed by too many people as if to say "we all know" and the simple truth is "we" don't.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 03:58 PM
The samples that the Vatican provided to be tested were very conclusively found to be about 700 years old. (See the article in Nature I linked.) There is some doubt about whether they were representative of the rest of the fabric, but none whatsoever about the tests themselves.

But again, my larger point is that it is impossible to empirically falsify a miracle. If God intervenes on earth to perform miracles, he is perfectly capable of making carbon nuclei decay more slowly to make the shroud appear only 700 years old. Who are we to tell God what to do?

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 04:36 PM
The samples that the Vatican provided to be tested were very conclusively found to be about 700 years old. (See the article in Nature I linked.) There is some doubt about whether they were representative of the rest of the fabric, but none whatsoever about the tests themselves.

Actually, there remain doubts about the tests. You need to read beyond the one publication. But that is not as important as whether the samples were representative of the Shroud or a patch.

I've read the article in Nature. IT ISN'T THE LAST WORD ON THE SUBJECT. The patch was discovered after that paper was published and is generally upheld in the literature. Read Benford and Marino (Chemistry Today, 26, 4, 2008).


But again, my larger point is that it is impossible to empirically falsify a miracle. If God intervenes on earth to perform miracles, he is perfectly capable of making carbon nuclei decay more slowly to make the shroud appear only 700 years old. Who are we to tell God what to do?

Certainly, but my understanding of miracles is that they are sourced outside human understanding, but not contrived to mislead.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 04:44 PM
Seriously, Keith, this is being discussed in the scientific literature by responsible people. Responsible people? Can we consider the source of your links? Bigfoot is discussed also, even on The History Channel.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 04:53 PM
Responsible people? Can we consider the source of your links? Bigfoot is discussed also, even on The History Channel.

You equate TV shows for the stupid and The History Channel with a refereed scientific journal like Chemistry Today?

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 04:55 PM
You equate TV shows for the stupid and The History Channel with a refereed scientific journal like Chemistry Today?

He is superior and feels that way you know.

Bruce Taylor
01-02-2012, 04:55 PM
That carbon 14 date lines up quite well with the career of Chaucer's Pardoner. ;)


Ne was ther swich another pardoner,
For in his male he hadde a pilwe-beer,
Which that, he seyde, was oure lady veyl;
He seyde he hadde a gobet of the seyl
That Seïnt Peter hadde whan that he wente
Upon the see til Jhesu Crist hym hente.
He hadde a croys of latoun ful of stones,
And in a glas he hadde pigges bones.
But with thise relikes, whan that he fond
A poure person dwellynge upon lond,
Upon a day he gat hym moore moneye
Than that the person gat in monthes tweye;
And thus with feyned flaterye and japes
He made the person and the peple his apes.

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 05:01 PM
My understanding of miracles is that when they are thoroughly investigated, they don't stand up to scrutiny any more than UFO's or astrology or dowsing or homeopathy does. This never seems to matter to the true believers, though. Whether it's Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate or the Shroud of Turin, there's always somone so invested in his belief that he is utterly immune to contrary evidence.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 05:15 PM
A buffoonish rebuttal does little to buttress your case! (how'd ya like that one?):p
Miracles aside, Mr. Wilson, try reading some of the science on this, something beyond what you 'already know to be true', which may not be. It's always struck me you prided yourself on your objectivity; demonstrate it.
AFA re-testing the Shroud, the area desirable for testing likely is the area with the image, and one the Church will absolutely refuse to sacrifice for this study. Review Mr. Smiths posts on this. He addresses it nicely.
I find it telling, that those so anxious to ignore the science but deny the possibilities, are also those seemingly so desperate to link age determination with Miracles. One is the
realm of Faith; the other, that of Science. Ironic how that works out, eh?

George Jung
01-02-2012, 05:22 PM
I do believe that's the point I, and a few others (believers, if not TB) have been trying to make. The Shroud of Turin is not the lynchpin of Christianity; it's provenance is incredibly interesting, and the discussion should be about it's age and origin. That those self-professed atheists seemingly wish to muddy the waters, says volumes!

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 05:33 PM
. . . but my understanding of miracles is that they are sourced outside human understanding, but not contrived to mislead.How do you know this? Once the normal physical laws of this universe are suspended, how can we have any idea what can and can't happen? Again, who are we to tell God what to do?

Benford and Marin (you can read their article here (http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf)) accept the accuracy of the radiocarbon tests. Their article is about whether the samples tested may have been part of a medieval repair.


. . . the area desirable for testing likely is the area with the image, and one the Church will absolutely refuse to sacrifice for this study. If I were being cynical, I'd say that's very convenient. There are other plausible explanations, however.

Any idea why the arms are too long?

James McMullen
01-02-2012, 05:40 PM
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!


http://youtu.be/zq4t_DjeF_k

pefjr
01-02-2012, 05:55 PM
You equate TV shows for the stupid and The History Channel with a refereed scientific journal like Chemistry Today?You want to furnish the link, I promise to use only reason, no miracles to study it.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 05:58 PM
He is superior and feels that way you know.My 10 yr old nephew is capable of using enough reason to be superior to what you have posted in this thread. Stick to C&P, then you won't hurt yourself.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 06:05 PM
OK, I'll play, but not forever.


How do you know this? Once the normal physical laws of this universe are suspended, how can we have any idea what can and can't happen? Again, who are we to tell God what to do?

I "know" this because I see no evidence that God tries to mislead. We mislead ourselves all the time, but those who think that dinosaur fossils were put into the ground to confuse or test us are simply not people that make sense to me. Likewise, I don't know how or when the image on the Shroud was formed, but I don't believe it was done by God to mislead us (maybe a human, but not the divine). You want proof? Ask someone else.


Benford and Marin (you can read their article here (http://ohioshroudconference.com/papers/p09.pdf)) accept the accuracy of the radiocarbon tests. Their article is about whether the samples tested may have been part of a medieval repair.

Like I said - read more. The Wikipedia article has surprisingly good links.


If I were being cynical, I'd say that's very convenient. There are other plausible explanations, however.

If???


Any idea why the arms are too long?

Nope. I don't make kneejerk decisions on incomplete information.

As I said, I don't know if the Shroud is real. I only know that a lot of "facts" being offered are very incomplete.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 06:07 PM
You want to furnish the link, I promise to use only reason, no miracles to study it.

Well, I did cite the article, but the Wikipedia article contains the link (cite 58 I think).

George Jung
01-02-2012, 06:14 PM
Uhhhh, perhaps I don't find it all THAT interesting. We are talking here about a story whose outcome has no meaningful import, whatsoever. Some church in rural Italy has a relic which is presumed to be the mummified finger of some long-dead saint; I suppose science could run a DNA analysis on it, but what possible difference would it make, and what light would it shed on history?

No matter WHAT science might determine about the shroud, it won't shake the faith of those of faith who revere it... nor those of no faith who disparage it... and it certainly will never be 'proven' to be the burial shroud of the historic figure of Jesus Christ.

*sigh*
I feel as if I'm talking to myself, Norman!
1) It makes no difference, in terms of faith
2) It must be interesting - look at who is posting to this thread (and you are still here!), as well as the emotion this subject evokes.

(apologies to PM for indexing each sentence - but it seemed necessary)

pefjr
01-02-2012, 06:25 PM
Well, I did cite the article, but the Wikipedia article contains the link (cite 58 I think).I looked at the article, What does it prove?


You equate TV shows for the stupid and The History Channel with a refereed scientific journal like Chemistry Today?You dismiss Bigfoot but believe strongly in a god? Interesting. Which people are more stupid?, those that believe in bigfoot(the flock) or those that produce shows for profit knowing that bigfoot is fictional.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 06:30 PM
2) It must be interesting - look at who is posting to this thread (and you are still here!), as well as the emotion this subject evokes.

What's interesting about this thread to me, is who is so interested in the shroud, you , TD, CW. Where is Sam F?, peb? That is what is interesting.

Tylerdurden
01-02-2012, 06:36 PM
What's interesting about this thread to me, is who is so interested in the shroud, you , TD, CW. Where is Sam F?, peb? That is what is interesting.

Thank god for the indefinite detentions bill!

brad9798
01-02-2012, 06:40 PM
I love you Jeff, but this kind of ... well ...


A 'true' religion should be able to stand on it's own, not rely on 'relics', statues, archaic language or any other of the artifices used to dupe the vulnerable into funding it.

I guess we can forget about history too, then, eh? What history is NOT based on what you belittle?

And that is okay with me ... different points of view, that is ... but let's not pick solely on religion.
_______________________________

What I have always found HILARIOUS is that after 9/11 (and I have moved on from you, Jeff ... seriously, and with a well-deserved respect) ...

Well, it is just that folks FLOCKED to churches in RECORD numbers ... Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, whatever ... this tells me that when push comes to shove, that folks look to a higher power (WHATEVER THAT MAY BE) in times of desperation or need or ... whatever.

Churches had their BEST financial years in the couple of years after 9/11 ...

This can mean a couple of things: folks are religious phonies ... or, folks really felt guilty about their nonchalance prior to 9/11!

I am curious to find out what is the real deal.

I, as you know, may miss a Sunday or two per year ... but then again, I am in the band that plays every Sunday.

Not trying to argue ... just trying to understand some things.

B

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 06:46 PM
A buffoonish rebuttal does little to buttress your case! (how'd ya like that one?):p
Miracles aside, Mr. Wilson, try reading some of the science on this, something beyond what you 'already know to be true', which may not be. It's always struck me you prided yourself on your objectivity; demonstrate it.
AFA re-testing the Shroud, the area desirable for testing likely is the area with the image, and one the Church will absolutely refuse to sacrifice for this study. Review Mr. Smiths posts on this. He addresses it nicely.
I find it telling, that those so anxious to ignore the science but deny the possibilities, are also those seemingly so desperate to link age determination with Miracles. One is the
realm of Faith; the other, that of Science. Ironic how that works out, eh?


Why would the church object to a testing of the cloth where the image is if it served to put this "controversy" to bed? If it is simply a piece of cloth that has been painted or charcoaled or whatever 700 years ago, then while it is an interesting artifact, it would not be the Shroud of Turin. It would be a 700 year old image of some man. There, in that statment, you have the reason they won't test it again.

Peerie Maa
01-02-2012, 06:50 PM
No matter WHAT science might determine about the shroud, it won't shake the faith of those of faith who revere it... nor those of no faith who disparage it... and it certainly will never be 'proven' to be the burial shroud of the historic figure of Jesus Christ.
If it is shown to be a fake, as were most of the teeth of St.
Apollonia,





The authors cite the ten churches listed by Walsh as having relics of St Apollonia. There are, however, numerous other relics purported to be those of the saint. She must have been a remarkable person if even a small fraction of these are correct. It is said that Philip II of Spain, an avid collector of relics, managed 'to amass all 290 holy teeth from the mouth of Saint Apollonia'.



1 (http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v208/n4/full/sj.bdj.2010.165.html#B1) and many other relics flogged off by the mediaeval fraudsters in the holy relic trade, then it will be put away in the archives and buried. In a generation or two the faithful will have forgotten it. Life goes on.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 07:12 PM
Maybe you (PMJ) could actually read the science article at the start of this OP? That way, you won't continue talking about 'painted or charcoaled (sic) 700 yo images', and might be in
a position to contribute to this discussion.
AFA 'wouldn't be the Shroud of Turin' goes, well, actually - it would. The implications, such as you wish to read into it, might. But the name, would not.
AFA 'testing the image' - that's been covered several times already in this thread.

George Jung
01-02-2012, 07:15 PM
If it is shown to be a fake, as were most of the teeth of St.
Apollonia,and many other relics flogged off by the mediaeval fraudsters in the holy relic trade, then it will be put away in the archives and buried. In a generation or two the faithful will have forgotten it. Life goes on.

That's pretty funny, in a cynical but probably too accurate way. I'm amazed at how short community attention span can be. That said, do you have any examples of that actually happening?

Peter Malcolm Jardine
01-02-2012, 07:19 PM
I did read the article, and researched the author of the article.

You're absolutely right about one thing.... arguing with christians about articles of faith, relics etc, is a waste of time.
My maternal grandfather was an Canon of the Anglican church... and loved by his congregation. He was a fine man, and a man of faith. I respect people of faith, and I have many clergy I call friends, and some that I regularly have coffee with and discuss spiritual and moral issues in the news. That said, I find the Catholic church very resistant to change, and that rigidity has been the reason for it's massive decline in influence in the world today. I predict that by the end of this century, the Catholic church will be almost out of business.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 08:18 PM
I looked at the article, What does it prove?

It argues (not proves) that the sample subjected to C14 testing was not original. That's all. So debate, but take down the rhetoric a notch (everyone).


You dismiss Bigfoot but believe strongly in a god? Interesting. Which people are more stupid?, those that believe in bigfoot(the flock) or those that produce shows for profit knowing that bigfoot is fictional.

Bye.

Gerarddm
01-02-2012, 08:33 PM
Isn't heaven a form of indefinite detention? ;-)

pefjr
01-02-2012, 08:38 PM
Bye.Yeah, just before I lay the hammer down, good timing.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 08:45 PM
Yeah, just before I lay the hammer down, good timing.

:) I have a hammer like that. It's teeny tiny and used for driving tacks in upholstery.

Be well, but let's not confuse a show about Big Foot with a refereed journal reporting careful scientific studies.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 09:22 PM
:) I have a hammer like that. It's teeny tiny and used for driving tacks in upholstery.

Be well, but let's not confuse a show about Big Foot with a refereed journal reporting careful scientific studies.I appreciate careful scientific studies, only I don't see any that you are talking about that mean anything. What's your important point that you are trying to make about this shroud. Heck, I don't even need your source, I will give you whatever you are saying about the shroud. It still only matters about as much as bigfoot, or the Bermuda Triangle. The shroud is just a tool for minipulation purposes of the vatican.

brad9798
01-02-2012, 09:40 PM
PMJ is a true Brit, WADR! Not an OUNCE of difference b/t the two other than Henry the XIII ... and subsequent stuff.

PMJ, brother, the nature of faith is to be RESISTANT to change ... that is what it is about ...

Afterall, if it was fact 2,000 years ago, why would they be willing to change? Do you not get the direct correlation?

C'mon, PMJ, et al, ...

WOW!

Glen Longino
01-02-2012, 09:44 PM
Isn't heaven a form of indefinite detention? ;-)

Nope, it's interminable detention! See the subtle difference?:)

bobbys
01-02-2012, 09:59 PM
Our "tolerant" liberals are really Muslims, Nothing wrong with that its just they do not admit it.

When a idiot Preacher threatened to burn a Koran all of a sudden it was a Holy book and a fundraiser was set in motion here without any thought of which Mosque would get the money.

Verbally the libs here burned the Shroud and mocked it just because., Well because there is only one religion they hate. If Islam had a shroud in New York the same libs here would guard it and post thread after thread about Islamaphobia

Now that's Hypocrisy.

Although i roll wit the pope i see no reason for a Shroud, Rosary beads or a Statue of ST Chris on the dash of my Dodge.{well maybe my jeep}

In the Old Testament the Hebrew Children had a ark and manifestations from God and still they rebelled..

Now its Faith, Sorta like sending ones money to a unknown mosque...

skuthorp
01-02-2012, 10:03 PM
The muslims, jews and old testament christians are all in the same boat/book. I think that is the nub of the problem actually, franchise wars.
bobbys the christians get the most attention here because culturally we all live in western christian societies. I really should find out a bit more about the copts and the differences and when the schisms begun to occur.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 10:20 PM
I appreciate careful scientific studies, only I don't see any that you are talking about that mean anything. What's your important point that you are trying to make about this shroud. Heck, I don't even need your source, I will give you whatever you are saying about the shroud. It still only matters about as much as bigfoot, or the Bermuda Triangle. The shroud is just a tool for minipulation purposes of the vatican.

We're fighting different battles. I want people to understand there isn't one uniform scientific voice on the date of the Shroud (date does not equal authenticity). You seem to be fighting religion at any level.

And then there is the other side of the coin:


Our "tolerant" liberals are really Muslims, Nothing wrong with that its just they do not admit it.

Darn. I'm a liberal, but I'm still Christian. I never got the memo.


Verbally the libs here burned the Shroud and mocked it just because.

Again, no.

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-02-2012, 11:00 PM
Very true. We tend to see Jesus in our own image (ironic, no?). Consider the black Jesus. It's too insignificant to object to...

LOL! It's funny how ignorant people will try to make the ancient Israelites fit their own image. I'm just glad we have iconographic proof to set the record straight.


Acts 13:1

New International Version (NIV)

Acts 13

1 Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger,

Can you believe that some idots try to twist that passage to mean that one of the early Israelite apostles was a black man!?! Morans.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 11:03 PM
[QUOTE=CWSmith;3255053] You seem to be fighting religion at any level. [QUOTE] No, not fighting religion. I would be the fool that TD mentioned, if I was fighting religion. The religious would kick my @ss and probably behead me in some countries. I know I am in the minority, but I am proud to be there. All I am doing is just describing religion to you religious folks, because you don't know what religion is. You get offended when I compare apples to apples because you don't know that religion is just many different fairy tales, you think yours is holy. Now that gives you a huge advantage doesn't it? Your fair tale is holy, therefore not free game to critical thought. Your co-mingling of faith with the facts can not ever be questioned. No, I am not fighting religion, but it would be nice if some more of you(besides Bob Cleek) would admit that
your religion must be taken on faith, and quit trying to mix science with it.

Nanoose
01-02-2012, 11:10 PM
A common and oft repeated error has raised it's ugly little head a number of times in this thread....James, Norman, puffy....and others (not pointing any fingers; it's a common error, but I'm hoping you guys can step it up a notch, please).

It appears the common understanding of faith is that it is based on nothing, or faith in spite of something. Further faith is presented as that which is contra reason, or contra evidence. This is incorrect.

For the record, Biblical faith is about trusting in what you have reason to believe is true.
It is not a blind, irrational leap into the dark.
In the biblical view, faith and reason cooperate; they are not intrinsically hostile.

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 11:15 PM
faith and reason cooperate; they are not intrinsically hostile.Quite true, but only some kinds of faith. Other kinds don't work that way; examples are, alas, all too common.


. . . faith is about trusting in what you have reason to believe is true.OK - but if you have sufficient reason (evidence) to believe it's true, then why would it be called faith?

pefjr
01-02-2012, 11:19 PM
faith and reason cooperate; Like oil and water, explain god using biology and logic

Nanoose
01-02-2012, 11:21 PM
OK - but if you have sufficient reason (evidence) to believe it's true, then why would it be called faith?

Dunno. For me it wouldn't be.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 11:23 PM
All I am doing is just describing religion to you religious folks, because you don't know what religion is. You get offended when I compare apples to apples because you don't know that religion is ... Your fair tale is holy, therefore not free game to critical thought. Your co-mingling of faith with the facts can not ever be questioned. No, I am not fighting religion, but it would be nice if some more of you(besides Bob Cleek) would admit that your religion must be taken on faith, and quit trying to mix science with it.

First, I am not offended by your opinions. I am offended (mildly) when you behave in such a condescending manner as you do above.

Second, I have never attempted to comingle faith and science. I examine science with my head and I consider faith with my heart. Believe me, I bring critical thought to my faith on a daily basis. I just don't burden science with the need to prove what lies outside the realm of science. Getting back to the thread, I don't rely on relics, either.

Nanoose, above, is correct. There is reason to believe, but it isn't handed to us by science. You must find it elsewhere.

For a guy who's not angry about something, you aren't doing the best job of listening.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 11:27 PM
you aren't doing the best job of listening.Play me some music. Gospel will be fine. I love it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f76vG-gGlqw

Keith Wilson
01-02-2012, 11:27 PM
Pefjr tends to judge all religions by the worst of them. I can't blame him, but "religion" covers a lot of territory, and much of it is not like he thinks.

CWSmith
01-02-2012, 11:30 PM
Play me some music. Gospel will be fine. I love it.

Find yourself another monkey (no offense Dr. Trollingson).

Nanoose
01-02-2012, 11:38 PM
Like oil and water, explain god using biology and logic
RE: faith & reason cooperate

I have what I consider good reasons for holding the faith I do.
I understand others do not consider those reasons sufficient.
I don't agree with their conclusions; they don't agree with mine.
But you are in error to think faith is some blind leap.

pefjr
01-02-2012, 11:49 PM
RE: faith & reason cooperate

I have what I consider good reasons for holding the faith I do.
childhood indoctrination, we have danced around this mulberry bush a couple times before Nanny and you will leave mad the same as CW.

Nanoose
01-02-2012, 11:57 PM
First, I am not offended by your opinions. I am offended (mildly) when you behave in such a condescending manner as you do above.

Second, I have never attempted to comingle faith and science. I examine science with my head and I consider faith with my heart. Believe me, I bring critical thought to my faith on a daily basis. I just don't burden science with the need to prove what lies outside the realm of science. Getting back to the thread, I don't rely on relics, either.




And for a different perspective, many do consider science and faith together, and here's why. They hold that if this is God's cosmos, and if God is truth as he has portrayed himself to be, there won't be a disconnect between science and faith, between science and God. If what geneticists have learnt and tell us is true, how could that threaten faith? and why on earth would one need to declare it 'wrong'? Either because they don't overlap (below) or because we have compelling evidence that we cannot deny, regardless of one's faith position (theist or a-theist).

And for an "I agree" perspective: science cannot speak to, cannot address, does not 'operate' outside the material realm; the 'rules' of science work, and work excellently, as far as they go. The issue is they do not address the totality of what is/can be, and 'science', or more accurately scientism, gets into trouble when it is portrayed as being the sole source/basis of knowledge.

Last, the Christian faith is primarily about relationship. And relationship is something someone experiences. Those with a common relationship, a shared experience, understand and can talk about it, validate it, etc. Norman's family all knew Norm's dad - they had a relationship with him that they can tell others (outside the relationship) about. Those outside the relationship will be unable to get it. Simple fact. But their not getting it does not invalidate Norm's family's experience, testimony about that relationship. Just because I never met Norm's dad doesn't mean he didn't exist. And just because we can't sit Norm's family down today and scientifically test their relationship with his dad doesn't mean he didn't exist, nor that their testimony to the relationship is not true.

Nanoose
01-02-2012, 11:58 PM
childhood indoctrination, we have danced around this mulberry bush a couple times before Nanny and you will leave mad the same as CW.

For some yes, and many of those are now a-theists like you, eh puffy?

And in my particular case, no. Sorry to disappoint.
And in many other particular cases, also no. Sorry to disappoint.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 12:00 AM
Pefjr tends to judge all religions by the worst of them. I can't blame him, but "religion" covers a lot of territory, and much of it is not like he thinks.The worst religion? hmmm.... which. I only look at the basics, and there all pretty much the same basics. Now Buddhism, it's debated whether it's a religion and I don't consider it a religion, but to those that do, I would say it's the best religion. I don't know the worst. I have heard a lot of people say mormons are the worst, but I would consider them to be better than most, based on my association with them. I like Jews too, but the ones I base that on are not very religious. So......

Dr. Arthur Trollingson
01-03-2012, 12:01 AM
Find yourself another monkey (no offense Dr. Trollingson).


None taken. For what it's worth. Peffy's wrong here. Science and religion aren't totally opposed.

Indians have been opining about a perpetually expanding and collapsing universe, and the conservation of energy for thousands of years.

The bronze age tribesman who wrote Genesis 1 would get a D in my remedial science class, not an F. He knew that first matter came from energy, in the sound of a bang no less, from the lips of God himself. There was light and dark, or stars and not stars, if you will. Then came firmament and water, from the sky, likely comet delivery. Next up were plants, fish, then birds, then animals, and then mankind which reproduced and spread out from the place of creation. Finally there were the giant evil aliens who dug earth chicks. Not a bad synopsis for a guy with no telescope, who had to devise a language to even convey his ideas, and didn't know about Xenu or the galactic battles. Yup, he'd pass.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 12:03 AM
For some yes, and many of those are now a-theists like you, eh puffy?

And in my particular case, no. Sorry to disappoint.
And in many other particular cases, also no. Sorry to disappoint.I may be wrong, but as I remember, you are the same religion as your parents, no?

Nanoose
01-03-2012, 12:05 AM
No. But it's irrelevant anyway. Your contention was "childhood indoctrination."

Glen Longino
01-03-2012, 12:07 AM
"But you are in error to think faith is some kind of blind leap."

How so?
If there is evidence and reason behind your faith, then why is it called faith and not reason?
I assume you base your "faith" on some real life experiences that are part of your reality, so why would you need faith?
Faith in what?
Just asking, not a challenge.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 12:09 AM
No.Sorry then, I am sleepy now, but sometime I would like to hear more about your choice and why you picked it.

Glen Longino
01-03-2012, 12:11 AM
None taken. For what it's worth. Peffy's wrong here. Science and religion aren't totally opposed.

Indians have been opining about a perpetually expanding and collapsing universe, and the conservation of energy for thousands of years.

The bronze age tribesman who wrote Genesis 1 would get a D in my remedial science class, not an F. He knew that first matter came from energy, in the sound of a bang no less, from the lips of God himself. There was light and dark, or stars and not stars, if you will. Then came firmament and water, from the sky, likely comet delivery. Next up were plants, fish, then birds, then animals, and then mankind which reproduced and spread out from the place of creation. Finally there were the giant evil aliens who dug earth chicks. Not a bad synopsis for a guy with no telescope, who had to devise a language to even convey his ideas, and didn't know about Xenu or the galactic battles. Yup, he'd pass.

Robbitybob? Is that you Robbitybob?:D

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 12:14 AM
...you will leave mad the same as CW.

I didn't leave and I'm not mad (by either definition). I just won't dance for your amusement.


And for a different perspective,...

We're not so different. I look for overlap between science and religion and it's pleasing when I find them, but I find truth in a moral code that seems to me unlikely to lie to elevate itself. That's where I start and I try to evolve from there.

(Boy, I can hear the comments already!)

Nanoose
01-03-2012, 12:32 AM
I have what I consider good reasons to believe the resurrection of Christ, and other events, occurred. We had a fairly lengthy thread on that a couple of years back. The Christian faith (which, incidentally, lives or dies on the resurrection) is based on good reason(s; ing). I find it convincing reason; I would even call it 'proven' in the sense that any event (picture a law court) can be proven, i.e. a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning - inference to the best explanation.

So it is not some blind leap. It is a thoughtful consideration of available data. It is a conclusion reached on the basis of available evidence and reason.

Further, and perhaps more helpful, the biblical view of faith includes 3 components: 1) notitia (understanding the content of the faith), 2) fiducia (trust), and 3) assensus (the assent of the intellect to the truth of some proposition). One is called to trust in what he/she has reason to give intellectual assent to. In Scripture, faith involves placing trust in what you have reason to believe is true. I like the example of the little girl in her second floor bedroom who, with the house on fire around her, can hear her father's voice telling her to jump out the window and into his arms. She can't see him through all the smoke, but she can hear him. She has reason to believe it truly is her dad and that he is strong enough to and will actually choose to catch her should she jump. The placing trust in one's belief involves action. Biblical faith is not merely what one believes "in their head."

Nanoose
01-03-2012, 12:34 AM
Once more, for those who think there must be a disconnect between reason and faith, I recommend http://biologos.org/ - 'Science and Faith in Dialogue.'

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 01:04 AM
This thread began with the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and evolved into a discussion of faith. I suppose that was bound to happen.

It's late and before I hit the sack, let me see if I can build a bridge (or bring one down):

What I like about the Shroud: If you believe in the divinity of Jesus, then here is a cloth that may be so intimately tied to his life, death and resurrection that one can not help but be excited and inspired. It isn't essential to faith, but it would be very nice.

What I dislike about the Shroud: Too many Christians revere the Shroud, but gossip about their neighbors. To many people love to talk about angels, but won't give money to the poor. It's a distraction from what we are called to do and the life we are called to live.

I think if Christ could be heard today, he'd say "Burn the cloth and live the life I asked of you."

Good night.

Nanoose
01-03-2012, 01:39 AM
Well said, CW. Thanks.

skuthorp
01-03-2012, 05:51 AM
Nanoose, "The Christian faith (which, incidentally, lives or dies on the resurrection)"
I find this statement rather sad for Christianity has a great deal to offer the world, despite human frailties and the old testament it's guiding principles are an excellent pattern for living a useful and sustaining life. God or no god.
I have often said to friends that I could imagine myself belonging to a congregation solely for the good a like minded group of people can do in any community. A belief in a 'god' being not essential to belonging to the group. Sadly I suspect most congregations may not be so tolerant, maybe viewing an 'outsider' as a disturbance in the force.

Ian McColgin
01-03-2012, 08:20 AM
skuthorp, you are right as a matter of sociological fact and to the despair of many preachers and ernest communicants. Imagine the scandal to such if archeologists ever found the Body?!?!?! Dan Brown time. But really, shouldn't folk who not only find the literal ressurection a bit simplistic, like those Mormon home movies of years ago, and who attend churches that don't go for a more spiritual and poetic understanding . . . shouldn't such folk just throw in the dogmatic towel and become Unitarian or Ethical Culturist or some such?

Tylerdurden
01-03-2012, 08:32 AM
This thread began with the question of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin and evolved into a discussion of faith. I suppose that was bound to happen.

It's late and before I hit the sack, let me see if I can build a bridge (or bring one down):

What I like about the Shroud: If you believe in the divinity of Jesus, then here is a cloth that may be so intimately tied to his life, death and resurrection that one can not help but be excited and inspired. It isn't essential to faith, but it would be very nice.

What I dislike about the Shroud: Too many Christians revere the Shroud, but gossip about their neighbors. To many people love to talk about angels, but won't give money to the poor. It's a distraction from what we are called to do and the life we are called to live.

I think if Christ could be heard today, he'd say "Burn the cloth and live the life I asked of you."

Good night.

Awesome post. Thanks.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 09:08 AM
skuthorp, you are right as a matter of sociological fact and to the despair of many preachers and ernest communicants. Imagine the scandal to such if archeologists ever found the Body?!?!?! Dan Brown time. But really, shouldn't folk who not only find the literal ressurection a bit simplistic, like those Mormon home movies of years ago, and who attend churches that don't go for a more spiritual and poetic understanding . . . shouldn't such folk just throw in the dogmatic towel and become Unitarian or Ethical Culturist or some such?The EC is what skuthorp is describing or maybe Buddhism. Unitarians have a god and fully qualify as a religion. The tax free status of a religion is a consideration, not sure the EC gets the tax break. Again, Religion is a belief in the supernatural. I always wonder........if the cultural pressure of religion was lifted, would an army of Atheists scrabble out from under the blanket for a bit of fresh air?

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 11:52 AM
Nanoose, "The Christian faith (which, incidentally, lives or dies on the resurrection)"
I find this statement rather sad for Christianity has a great deal to offer the world, despite human frailties and the old testament it's guiding principles are an excellent pattern for living a useful and sustaining life. God or no god.
I have often said to friends that I could imagine myself belonging to a congregation solely for the good a like minded group of people can do in any community. A belief in a 'god' being not essential to belonging to the group. Sadly I suspect most congregations may not be so tolerant, maybe viewing an 'outsider' as a disturbance in the force.

There is such a congregation. They are called Unitarian Universalists and they do not require members to believe in any theology. (I hope I don't offend anyone with this.)

I knew a retired minister who substituted at a "Uni-Uni" church for a time while they searched for a new pastor. He gave his first sermon and afterwards a woman walked up to him with a scowl on her face and said "We don't use that word here!" As he tried to recall what he might have said, she said "God." The had a coven of new-age witches in the church. :) Truth.

Other like groups that practice good deeds without theology are the Elks, Rotaries,...

I think the reason that Nanoose says that the resurrection is critical is because it shows God's power over death, thereby validating the promise of eternal life. I didn't used to place so much importance in it, but now that I'm getting older... This is, in very large part, what separates a religion from a society dedicated to doing good deeds. Some may not like it, but this is where the rubber meets the road.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 12:10 PM
but this is where the rubber meets the road. and free taxes begins.

Ian McColgin
01-03-2012, 12:27 PM
Returning perhaps futilely to the OP, ""For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' – impossible to falsify," L'Osservatore Romano. Trying to understand this dance step is an open exercise. The article is temperate in that it does not claim the Shroud's authenticity has been proven or even that the age has been shown to be two millennia. Yet, by attending to the notion that science had not established the Shroud as a medieval fraud, the article certainly seems meant to give comfort to whose who love the idea of physical evidence of a physical resurrection of the body. At the same time, given the wild pseudo-science that surrounds the Shroud debate, the article can also be the Roman Catholic Church staking a temperate faith is above the battle sort of ground.

It must be said that jumping from the failure to make similar marks in a lab using some wizbang lasers as showing that the marks were left behind by some chemical reaction to the body resurrecting out from inside the Shroud - like why did it not pass through in a radiant manner rather than ascend straight up? - is a jump being made by folk who are transfigurativly confused.

Peerie Maa
01-03-2012, 01:23 PM
Returning perhaps futilely to the OP, ""For science, the shroud continues to be an 'impossible object' – impossible to falsify," L'Osservatore Romano. Trying to understand this dance step is an open exercise. The article is temperate in that it does not claim the Shroud's authenticity has been proven or even that the age has been shown to be two millennia. Yet, by attending to the notion that science had not established the Shroud as a medieval fraud, the article certainly seems meant to give comfort to whose who love the idea of physical evidence of a physical resurrection of the body. At the same time, given the wild pseudo-science that surrounds the Shroud debate, the article can also be the Roman Catholic Church staking a temperate faith is above the battle sort of ground.

It must be said that jumping from the failure to make similar marks in a lab using some wizbang lasers as showing that the marks were left behind by some chemical reaction to the body resurrecting out from inside the Shroud - like why did it not pass through in a radiant manner rather than ascend straight up? - is a jump being made by folk who are transfigurativly confused.

I have to wonder whether stuff has been lost in translation, or spun by English speaking journalists, or whether the scientists were really that sloppy/over exited in reporting their findings.

George Jung
01-03-2012, 01:28 PM
Perhaps I misread the science paper; I took it they were successful in making similar markings with their 'wizbang' lasers, and that this is the first time any method has enjoyed such success. And yes, there is certainly an implication they've given a nod to. But certainly no pronouncements; I also didn't understand your last comment, Ian. Can you
clarify, please?

Ian McColgin
01-03-2012, 01:54 PM
I just took the summary as accurate. I’ve not read detailed papers, but all the summaries I read agree with this.

“After conducting five years of advanced laser experiments, a team of experts from Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies and Energy, concluded that the imprint of a bearded man's face and crucified body could not be reproduced by modern scientific techniques.”

That’s all I had in mind in the somewhat convoluted: “ It must be said that jumping from the failure to make similar marks in a lab . . .” [#249] Thought I was being fair by using the word ‘failure', but perhaps I have a problem with english comprehension.

My central point, which is a bit of a revision of my earlier impression of this whole bit, is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to both provide emotional sustenance for those who reverently hold the Shroud as at least somewhat holy if not yet confirmed miraculous, as Benedict the mariologist rather openly does, while at the same time welcoming more scientific inquiry regardless of the outcome. If the Shroud is ever proven a fraud, that will not bother those who are not, to repeat my perhaps overly colorful neologism, the transfigurativly confused.

Nanoose
01-03-2012, 02:36 PM
I think the reason that Nanoose says that the resurrection is critical ...

...I was loosely 'quoting' Paul (1Cor15), who's thought was that if Christ is not raised, we are 'to be pitied more than all men.'

George Jung
01-03-2012, 02:42 PM
There's an entertaining article in Donns favorite paper, concerning vintage musical instruments, which nicely parallels what we've discussed here. Of course, my computer won't let me paste the addy. Look under 'In classic vs modern violins'. Perhaps someone with a functioning computer could paste an addy?

George Jung
01-03-2012, 02:42 PM
Interesting that for so many, 'eternal life' holds no appeal, and the basis of Christianity fails to strike a chord.

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 02:49 PM
My central point, which is a bit of a revision of my earlier impression of this whole bit, is that the Roman Catholic Church is trying to both provide emotional sustenance for those who reverently hold the Shroud as at least somewhat holy if not yet confirmed miraculous, as Benedict the mariologist rather openly does, while at the same time welcoming more scientific inquiry regardless of the outcome. If the Shroud is ever proven a fraud, that will not bother those who are not, to repeat my perhaps overly colorful neologism, the transfigurativly confused.

I think this is very accurate. The two things I would ask people to keep in mind while debating this is (1) science moves forward in fitful steps with many missteps, debates, and more confusion than is often recognized, and (2) the RCC is a CONSERVATIVE organization, yes? Science wants more, more, more right now and the RCC will not be rushed. Where the RCC views itself as timeless, science will get better and new methods will evolve. So, the RCC is not afraid to wait.

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 03:05 PM
Why would you find this unusual? I'd argue that people who find the notion of eternal life appealing would be the 'unusual' ones.

I have reached an age where there is something I greatly, greatly miss. For whatever reason, I don't have the friends who meet once each week for breakfast before work, talk over the events of the week, tell jokes, and then go on their way. I have those friends, but not that situation. Everyone works. No one has time.

I am hoping that in the next life there is time and a place to sit and talk with my friends. Given all the people born in the world, I doubt we will ever run out of jokes to tell. I guess that makes me one of the "unusual ones".

pefjr
01-03-2012, 04:12 PM
There's an entertaining article in Donns favorite paper, concerning vintage musical instruments, which nicely parallels what we've discussed here. Of course, my computer won't let me paste the addy. Look under 'In classic vs modern violins'. Perhaps someone with a functioning computer could paste an addy?What's Donn's favorite paper?

George Jung
01-03-2012, 04:30 PM
Norman, I question that position. You're a talker, inquisitive, and enjoy the lively discussion. I could see you 'enjoying' for an eternity.

JR - The Grey Lady (NYTimes). It's my attempt at humor.

George Jung
01-03-2012, 04:44 PM
As will we all, eh?

It strikes me - there could be some nice Gary Larsen-esque FarSide cartoons depicting Norman in Hell.... that might even make a fun thread! (presumably you're familiar with
Mr. Larsens work?). One variation - endless threads, with just you and (name your nemesis here) exchanging 'thoughts'.

Could be fun!

George Jung
01-03-2012, 04:51 PM
Lets consider the evidence, in that light.

By all appearances, you're already dead!

Welcome to Hell!

Bruce Taylor
01-03-2012, 04:54 PM
There's an entertaining article in Donns favorite paper, concerning vintage musical instruments, which nicely parallels what we've discussed here. Of course, my computer won't let me paste the addy. Look under 'In classic vs modern violins'. Perhaps someone with a functioning computer could paste an addy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins-stradivarius-lags.html?ref=science

An interesting article (though I wish newspapers would link to the original studies, so informed readers can properly evaluate the protocols, etc.)

Sadly, it's unlikely to reduce Old Fiddle Idolatry. There have been double-blind studies of this kind before, and results are usually similar, but the value of old Cremonese instruments keeps going up. ;) And within a few months the same newspaper that printed this story will publish another piece, tooting the horn for some kook who claims to have discovered "Strad's Secret." :D

George Jung
01-03-2012, 04:57 PM
:D:p:D

Bruce Taylor
01-03-2012, 05:15 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/03/science/in-play-off-between-old-and-new-violins-stradivarius-lags.html?ref=science

An interesting article (though I wish newspapers would link to the original studies, so informed readers can properly evaluate the protocols, etc.)

Sadly, it's unlikely to reduce Old Fiddle Idolatry. There have been double-blind studies of this kind before, and results are usually similar, but the value of old Cremonese instruments keeps going up. ;) And within a few months the same newspaper that printed this story will publish another piece, tooting the horn for some kook who claims to have discovered "Strad's Secret." :D

OK, the study by Claudia Fritz et al. is available here: http://www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=Claudia+Fritz&submit=yes

I don't know if it's behind a paywall...I had an academic library resolver running when I went to the site and downloaded the .pdf with no problem.

(I also did a quick search for the original study that prompted this weird thread, but can't find it. Anyone got a link?)

George Jung
01-03-2012, 05:26 PM
Fun, isn't it? Also interesting how each of us handles such news about ourselves.

My daughters have all enjoyed a good musical education, and can discern differences that I oftentimes can't appreciate. I have some hearing loss, as well, and suppose that
might contribute, as well as my lack of a music background.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 05:32 PM
George, about the after life you mention. If it's so good, why do I only see a few crazies in a hurry to get there? And would not suicide send them in the opposite direction anyway. Looking around and observing, you might notice lots of folks that do not care enough in this life to keep their bodies fit and trim. They're gluttons, only interested in more food. Now, somewhere in the bible IIRC, that is labeled a sin, but completely ignored by today fatties. So.... don't you suppose that a lot of folks that are looking forward to a nice buffet upstairs might instead, be a part of a roast downstairs? Wonder if the pope even knows? Maybe he is giving out passes for a little extra donation, or a two for one at Sonny's BBQ.

Another thought. I think I would have already left if there was a guarantee of this promise land. I don't think the folks have pain up there do they? Plus they have lots of music, gospel I hear. If Jerry Garcia is anywhere around there I want front row seats.

Bruce Taylor
01-03-2012, 05:38 PM
So, has anyone here read the original ENEA study? A quick pass through Google scholar turns up bupkis.

JimD
01-03-2012, 05:40 PM
Couldn't be bothered to read all six pages but it is no ordinary fake. Possibly not even an extraordinary one. Which is not to say it was Mr Christ's, either.

George Jung
01-03-2012, 05:41 PM
JR, I have few answers for you! Surprised?

For even the 'best' of us, 'the spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak' probably sums it up as well as any.

CWSmith
01-03-2012, 06:13 PM
JR, I have few answers for you! Surprised?

For even the 'best' of us, 'the spirit is strong, but the flesh is weak' probably sums it up as well as any.

I've often heard of people who didn't fear death, but never known any. Pretty natural - big unknown, the real leap of faith. The closest I've seen is (some) long-term sufferers of pain. I'm not in a hurry - too much sailing to do.

George Jung
01-03-2012, 06:34 PM
My dad seemed to fear death - right up until crunch time. Then he was fearless. It was impressive.

And for some, being dead isn't something they're afraid of - it's the dying it takes to get 'there'. Rather like falling from a great height isn't a problem-- but the stopping is.

pefjr
01-03-2012, 08:57 PM
I have a duty to die and get out of the way. You can stay if you want to, but the prospect of growing old in a old folks home ain't for me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7IqGM1c33U&list=LLrWAXx41ZLx_0sfikuJINUw&index=46&feature=plpp_video