Discussion about Religious Beliefs

[Carol]

LOL! You must be speaking of the blue turbans of the Nihangs! They are something else.

I think you'll find Kabir to be much easier to read. He has a very...practical way of writing, and it is a line from one of his poems that gives Sikh scripture the closest equivalent to the Golden Rule when he writes "As thou deemest thyself, so deem others"

The poem that the line is from is even more powerful. Here is its context:

The Temple of Mecca is hidden within your mind, if you only knew it. ||2||

That should be your prayer, to administer justice. Let your Kalma be the knowledge of the unknowable Lord.

Spread your prayer mat by conquering your five desires, and you shall recognize the true religion. ||3||

Recognize Your Lord and Master, and fear Him within your heart; conquer your egotism, and make it worthless.

As you see yourself, see others as well; only then will you become a partner in heaven. ||4||
Source: Sri Guru Granth Sahib, ang 480.


There is a poet by the name of Robert Bly who has assembled a lot of Kabir's translated works. They are available on Amazon and they are wonderful. The Ecstatic Poems of Kabir is very highly recommended.

Kabir has this wonderfully vulnerable way of writing that seems so easy to identify with.


"When my friend is away from me, I am depressed;
nothing in the daylight delights me,
sleep at night gives no rest,
who can I tell about this?


"The night is dark, and long...hours go by...
because I am alone, I sit up suddenly,
fear goes through me.... "Kabir says: Listen, my friend
there is one thing in the world that satisfies,
and that is a meeting with the Guest."

 

[tellner]

The Nihangs. That's them. No offense meant but for a religion that truly values peace and kindness the Sikhs are the baddest of bad-asses. And the Nihang are the scariest mofos of the lot. If those are pacifists I don't want to meet the mean ones One thing that's really impressive is the way that knight errantry, which is what it amounts to, isn't a matter of birth or wealth but committment, choice and discipline. It's darned near unique.

I will definitely check out Kabir. There's so much wonderful poetry of the spirit from that part of the world. So little of it is translated and so little of that is translated well.

 

[Carol]

The Nihangs. That's them. No offense meant but for a religion that truly values peace and kindness the Sikhs are the baddest of bad-asses. And the Nihang are the scariest mofos of the lot. If those are pacifists I don't want to meet the mean ones

I don't think there is a Sikh in the world worth his/her kesh that would be offended by that. :lol:

 

[Last Fearner]

LF - I'm not out to insult or convert anyone with my comments in this thread. I'm only trying to express my opinion on the subject matter...and that is that I prefer a naturalistic/scientific/rationalist approach to interpretting our world rather then a religious one.

That's cool, kyosa. I can understand your point. Although, I do object to the type of demeaning inferences created by Carl Sagan's words in Pale Blue Dot. I strive to avoid the kind of argument that says God cannot exist because it seem impossible, or illogical, or it sounds "made up" and since you can't prove God exists, that's proof that he doesn't.

Sagan's words outline an opposition to any belief in God simply because those who believe in God are ignorant fools who can't see the apparent truth that the rest of the enlightened and educated population sees. His argument is arrogant, demeaning, and has no basis in scientific fact to refute the possibility of a God. It sounds like a five year old on a playground saying, "you're ugly, and stupid, and you dress funny so everything you say is wrong!"

All I care about hearing is, "The theory of a God says this, and that can not be true, and here is why..." Not, it sounds absurd, far-fetched, and thus it has to be fiction made up by people who want a God that looks like them.

Lets think about this for a moment. If Christianity is NOT removed from the Earth, then it is limited to our tiny little corner of this universe. And this presents a problem, how can our God matter at all to intelligent beings on the other side of the universe? Isn't it presumptuous to believe that an Iron Age deity from a tiny tribe of clever simian beings is responsible for them too?

Ok, first of all, I did not say that "Christianity is NOT removed from Earth." Christianity is a belief in a messiah; the Christ; the anointed one, meaning that a person born of bone, flesh, and blood - like any other man - would be anointed by the spirit of God to be able to communicate in thought and prayer with God, and speak on behalf of God with the full power and authority of God. Those who believe that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is the Christ, are of this planet, thus Christianity is a faith among people of Earth.

What I said before was that God is not removed from Earth. My statement is in rebuttal of Sagan's perspective that this insignificant "pale blue dot" of a planet in nowheresville, an obscure corner of space, could not possibly be of any importance to a God - if in fact there were one. This kind of logic is so backward in that it tries to deny the logic of there being a God by saying that if there were a God, why would he care about us insignificant people on Earth when there is such a vast universe, thus God cannot exist because we are not that important! This is circular logic that makes no sense whatsoever!!!

If God does, in fact exist, and did create all things, then we did not make him up - - he made us up. Therefore, we are important to him, and this Earth would be significant to him regardless of where he chose to put it in his vast universe. If God does NOT exist, then yes, we made him up, and he would be a fictitious creation of our imagination that we arrogantly designed to look like us - - we are special in our own minds. However, if that is the ONLY way you look at it, then you will never be able to even consider another possibility of being true - - one which might very well be true.

If an unknown artist paints a self-portrait, it might look somewhat like himself. If I have the painting and hang it in my home, I can say it is a piece of artwork created by this artist who gave me the painting for free. Others could dispute it saying there is no such person, and I created the painting myself. They might argue that the painting looks suspiciously like me, therefore I am the one who painted it, and I am trying to create this mysterious artist that does not exist. Others further argue that this is clearly a masterpiece by a skilled artist, so why would he give it to me for free. They argue that the fact that it looks like me, it is too valuable to just give away, and I am a nobody in some hick town so this proves that it was not created by another artist.

Then, I could explain that the unknown artist was my father who died many years ago, thus a portrait of himself is going to bear some resemblance to me. He gave it to me because I am his son, and this hick town was special to him because this is where I was born. I am special to him, therefore I feel special in his eyes - - does this make me arrogant? If you only view things from the perspective of the person in possession of the portrait saying that they must have created it, then you are missing the perspective of the true creator of the artwork who would have reason to bestow a gift to his children, and would care about the place where they live.

Look - I could be completely wrong in my beliefs, but at least I have a pretty sound understanding that proof that God does not exist, does NOT lie in the fact that the universe is big, and we are small and insignificant. If you think there are other "intelligent beings" somewhere in all that vast space, then all I can say is "maybe you are right." I have considered that as a possibility too. However, since none have revealed themselves to us (no proof that I am aware has been confirmed), belief in any other planet with any life similar to ours is only a wild guess, and not even based on an educated guess. There are no statistics or odds that could possibly calculate that. If it were true, then fine, but the mere thought of this possibility in people's imagination does not make it true, and certainly does not count for any weighty evidence against the existence of a God.

If other beings exist in space, there still could be a God, that created them all. God could have sent Jesus to Earth, then went to take care of other planets (I don't happen to believe that, but this would be another theory that allows for both other intelligent beings and a God who created Earth).

My point is this. When seeking the truth, we have to play the roll of accepting all opposing points of view as being true while we trouble-shoot the theory to confirm or refute it. If I start with the premise that God is real (a supreme, all-powerful, intelligent being), then I can certainly grasp that all things could have been created by such a being (who am I to say this can't happen, and by what scientific proof). If God wanted to create a world with plants, animals, and intelligent people, where else would he do this?

If you are concerned about the vastness of space, and what might be out there, consider what would be here if there were no planets, stars, or any objects to occupy space. Where is all of this floating around, what are its boundaries, and what is beyond those boundaries? Take it ALL away, and what would exist? I can't answer those questions anymore than anyone else on Earth. If a God chose to make a planet with people, and give those people an opportunity to live a short life before returning to the spirit world (if that's the way it works), then what is so difficult to comprehend that he would have his main focus on this one little planet, yet be able to throw an entire universe of stars, and other celestial bodies out there for us to look at, wonder about, and even for his own amusement?

A waste of space??? What else would God do with the rest of space? Make it vanish so that we are right in the center, and we can feel even more important about ourselves? Maybe you think God would have made thousands of planets with people on them, or all kinds of different aliens like a Star Wars movie. Why? What is so unbelievable that God (going on the premise that God exists) would only need one little planet to accomplish his mission of our souls living in the flesh for a short time.

Again, I ask, isn't it presumptuous to assume that every intelligent being in this entire universe shares the same god? Much less even has a god?

Isn't it presumptuous to assume that other intelligent beings exist? Where is the proof of that? Again, even if there is other life out there, then still - either there is no God, or there are multiple Gods for each planet and species, or there is only one God. Any of these theories could be true, and no evidence exists to even remotely disprove the others.

If I believe in one God, and I happen to be correct, then yes, there is one God for all of the universe, which includes all creatures on all planets - regardless of what they believe. Maybe it is their one God that is real, and we are all creations of that God. Whoever is right is right! There might be multiple explanations that no one religion has gotten it right yet. But again, my belief could be correct, and this one God of Earth is the one and only God, and neither Carl Sagan, nor anyone else has offered any proof against that except to say that it is "arrogant" to think so highly of myself! Please!!!! Don't waste my time with such empty arguments. Find proof and present it!

I think that if we look at our own home as an example, we can see that this absolutely CANNOT be the case. We have a manifold diversity of religions on THIS planet that hold all manner of beliefs, from no gods at all to thousands and thousands.

"CANNOT be the case"???? Where is this absolute proof that makes the theory of ONE GOD an impossibility? Diverse religions, and varied beliefs in multiple Gods or even NO God, does not make those theories correct either. Just because those beliefs exist is not proof that the ONE GOD theory is wrong. It might be wrong, but a mixture of religious beliefs means nothing but a vast majority of the people might all be wrong. If there really are several Gods, then the ONE GOD theory people would be wrong, and the multiple God people can say "nah, nah - I told you so!" Just please don't offer to me as "proof" that a ONE GOD theory is not possible simply because so many other theories exist! No logic in that - in my opinion.

Last Fearner

 

[mrhnau]

Bottom line is that quantum mechanics don't entirely apply to objects larger than quanta-in fact

well, not exactly... I also think thats the whole nature of Schrodinger's cat, taking a quantum effect and making it an observable. But in principle, yes

 

[Ray]

Allow me to rephrase.

What you refer to as the Moon, as with all knowledge, is a construction. All knowledge is constructed. The Moon is a construction. The Sun is a construction. God is a construction. The self itself is a construction.

The very act of "observation" fundamentally modifies and shapes what can and cannot be observed in the first place, and this happens in ways that individual men and women cannot even begin to be consciously aware of (due to both biological and cultural constraints). This is the essential insight of philosophy over the past 100 years, that there is no such thing as "innocent" observing, no passive "map-making" of reality. The Myth of the Given has been laid open bare.

I'm beginning to understand why we can't end world hunger...we can't even agree on the moon.

 

[Makalakumu]

All I care about hearing is, "The theory of a God says this, and that can not be true, and here is why..." Not, it sounds absurd, far-fetched, and thus it has to be fiction made up by people who want a God that looks like them.

The problem with what you are asking is that you cannot PROVE 100% that anything exists or not. I can provide support for this or that theory or I can show how this or that theory, when weighed against the evidence is surely rediculous, but I cannot absolutely show you that one choice is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. (This is highly related to what Heretic and I are discussing in this thread.)

With that being said, the argument that there is a god, that he created the entire universe, created us in his own image, and sent his only son to a tiny corner of THIS planet is absurd. It is absurd simply because it does not explain all of the evidence. The scale of this universe and all of the things in it are simply too vast for this little provincial argument to encompass.

This is one of the reasons that I've been bringing up extra-terrestrials. If you look at the universe as we know it and you really weigh the odds, which are based simply on the conditions that we KNOW can support life, we approach the assumption that it is nearly a mathematical certainty that not only other life exists, but other intelligent life.

In fact, when we look at the sky, we see galaxies that look just like ours, with stars in it that are just like ours, presumebly with planets that are probably just like ours over 10 billion light years away. There are entire clusters of galaxies like this...billions...each with hundreds of billions of stars.

Civilizations that would have lived on these planets could have died out far before the Earth had ever coalesced. In fact, the very stars themselves would have died before humans had even evolved. We are only seeing the photons that are traveling through space, carrying history with them.

How can the theory that is posited by the Bible and Christianity possibly encompass that? This is real evidence, btw. These are real odds. If you were to place a bet on any of this stuff in a horse race, you would effectively have no chance of losing.

With that being said, does this argument preclude the existence of a God?

No. Even though it portrays the Christian Myths as most probably false, it doesn't handle the theory that there could have been another or other Gods that are responsible for the Creation of the universe.

Before I go on, I just want to point out that this explanation is markedly different then the Christian explanation that is posited in the Bible. In fact, this explanation is treading on all of the heresies that Christians were burning people for hundreds of years ago.

The main problem with the assertion that there is a God or Gods that were responsible for the creation of the universe is that no body can answer what exactly God did. We have all of these physical laws that explain almost everything in the universe and none of them imply any sort of supernatural explanation at all. So, either there is no God or Gods or It or They created the universe with all of its physical laws intact and then did nothing else.

That is Deism and that is the last truly defensible theistic explanation for the creation of the universe and our subsequent existance. Most of the scientists, who are also believers, are in effect, deists. They believe that their is a God, but that god is responsible for the physical laws of the universe and that it operates within those laws. God either does not or cannot do anything outside of those laws.

This is a very tenuous postulation.

Today, in our times, right now, scientists are supporting theories that explain the creation of our universe in naturalistic terms. They require no gods at all to explain the existence of the universe...and the evidence is mounting for these theories.

That's why I asked the question about the new partical accellerator. What happens if a particle or series of particles is created that basically shows that one of these theories really did happen? Alot of physicists think that it is a very distinct possibility.

So what happens? What did god (not the christian god btw) or gods do?

The answer is nothing.

So, what is the point?

This is where I'm at with my faith. From what I've learned as a scientists, from what I know that is currently being researched, a god or gods have very little or no bearing on our world what so ever.

So, whats the point?

The god hypothesis, when it comes to explaining anything at all about "why we are here" is essentially meaningless.

A far better explanation is that humans create their own meaning and that religions have meaning only in the context of other humans. We can value our myths for the lessons that they teach us, for the fact that even they are they product of our evolution, that in many ways, they shape who we are, but they are not responsible for the natural world around us. They do not explain the universe.

Rezu Aslan describes humans as being not only homo sapians, but homo religioso. This designation means that we have the capacity for faith. That we crave a reason for our existence and actively create those reasons. There's something special in this, I think. This is something that truly ties us all together. We all can have whatever beliefs we want and they all fullfill this basic human need and there is no real way to talk about which beliefs are better then others in this context.

Humans are still alone in this vast universe...separated by distances that most people cannot even imagine...but we have each other...we have our minds...and our imaginations...and that brings us all together.

upnorthkyosa

 

[Ray]

... This is real evidence, btw. These are real odds. If you were to place a bet on any of this stuff in a horse race, you would effectively have no chance of losing.

We can bet, but we won't live long enough to collect.

 

[Last Fearner]

The Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo​

When the topic of Jesus of Nazareth comes up, and there is speculation that Jesus was a fictitious person made up by the authors of the New Testament, I have to wonder if these doubters have done any in-depth research into the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, and what their opinion is of the historical and scientific evidence concerning these two items.

In the past couple of days, I watched a PBS special that discussed the most recent scientific evidence concerning the carbon dating of the Shroud. The Shroud is said to have been the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, and the other smaller cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, was believed to be the cloth that was placed over the face of Jesus after the crucifixion, but removed before the burial in the tomb.

The Shroud of Turin first appeared (to our modern records) in the medieval times of the 14th century. Those who believed it was a fake were initially vindicated when carbon dating in 1988 revealed that the cloth was no older than the 14th century. However, more recent tests, and scientific scrutiny has proven that the original results were invalid because it was discovered that the piece of the cloth which was tested was from a repair patch done in the 14the century, and does not match the rest of the Shroud. These newer findings have been held up to peer review and published in many scientific journals as absolute fact that the Shroud is much older, and could possibly date back as far as 2000 years.

I found the following website on the internet which covers this topic in great detail. I strongly recommend that everyone reads this entirely.

http://www.shroudstory.com/​

Be sure to scroll down and read the informative story on the first page, then start the five section story book at the top of the page. It is very informative, and enlightening. The main thing is that it presents the scientific research that has been published in scientific journals and subjected to peer review for those who are only compelled by scientific evidence of historical events. The total picture of this history is not complete, but it gives a compelling argument that lends much more credibility to the existence of Jesus rather than the notion that he never lived.

If the Shroud of Turin is, in truth, the burial cloth of Jesus (and that is not such a big "if" combined with all of the legends, stories, and biblical accounts, and coupled with the scientific evidence about the Shroud), then this shows that this man was beaten, scourged with whips, crucified, and died in the very same way as described in the Bible (nails in the wrists, wound in the side, and bleeding from the scalp caused by the crown of thorns).

This story is presented in the above website link in five sections

1. introduction
2. from edessa to turin
3. mysterious images & science
4. more topics
Sudarium of Oviedo
coins over the eyes?
5. open letter to journalists

I suggest that everyone view each section of the story in the order numbered above, and learn some fascinating things. One thing that just blew me away was the symmetry shown in comparison of the image on the shroud to the mosaic tile above the main gate to the city of Edessa, a Christian city in the 6th Century.

In 544, workers repairing the city found a cloth bearing the image of Jesus. This cloth confirmed the legend of Abgar, which told the story that a disciple named Thaddeus brought a cloth with the image of Jesus on it to Abgar V, King of Edessa (ruled 4BC to 7AD and again from 14 to 50AD). It is believed that the tile on the gate which depicts the face of Jesus was painted shortly after the discovery of the cloth in 544 AD.

The amazing thing you will see in this interactive storybook layout is that you can move your cursor over the portrait on the tile to reveal the image of the shroud with exactly the same positions of the mouth, nose, eyes, and hair as the face on the tile. There should be no doubt to your own mind, seeing it with your own eyes, that the painted tile on the city gate in 544 was taken precisely from the Shroud of Turin.

Thus the Shroud dates back, at least, to the 6th century, and when coupled with the earlier legend of Abgar as to how the mysterious cloth arrived in Edessa by the disciple Thaddeus, we must conclude that the Shroud dates to the early half of the 1st century AD.

This is clearly the burial cloth of someone who was scourged by Roman whips (as confirmed by the scientific data published), crucified on a cross with blood stains proving the arms were outstretched and raised when the blood dripped from the wrists, and matching in detailed stains and blood type to both the Shroud of Turin, and the face cloth of the Sudarium of Oviedo which has its own well documented history separate from that of the Shroud of Turin after they were each removed from Jerusalem.

The 3-D image on this website, showing the face of Jesus lifted from the cloth, is overwhelming as they explain the scientific evidence that proves the image was not painted on, nor created with any known photographic technology, but is actually a "proximity" image which provides information to produce a computer generated 3-D image in the same manner as modern radar and laser imaging. You can actually see what the face of Jesus looked like because of this preserved image on his burial cloth.

Please view this entire website, and comment on the scientific and historical findings which I believe confirms the fact that Jesus lived, and was crucified on the cross.

Last Fearner

 

[Makalakumu]

I was looking to see which journals in which this was published and could not find any. I'm actually familiar with the technique of radiocarbon dating, so I'd like to see what they did or even if it WAS published in a journal.

Meanwhile...

http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/as/schafersman.html

The Shroud's Medieval Radiocarbon Date

Without question, the most spectacular refutation of the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin was the determination that the linen on which the image lies dates from approximately 1325. The Shroud was sampled and the dates determined by the most scrupulous and scientifically-valid techniques and procedures that are possible. Sampling was carefully conducted and witnessed, the samples were properly cleaned and prepared, and three different laboratories performed the 14C dating using blind control samples in addition to the Shroud samples. All the dates were consistent among the labs. Since Robert E. M. Hedges has reviewed the radiometric dating analyses and results in this journal24, I need not repeat them here. I merely want to state that the quality of the radiometric data are so rigorous that no objective, rational person can reasonably deny them.

Naturally, believers in the Shroud's authenticity have thrown up numerous criticisms that are variously ludicrous, vacuous, and without merit. Contrary to pro-authenticity advocates, the linen samples were not deceptively switched, not taken from the wrong part of the Shroud material, not improperly cleaned and prepared, did not have a bioplastic coating, were not contaminated by modern bacteria and fungi that were not removed, the carbon-14 content of the cloth was not altered by the fire of 1532, the final results were not deliberately falsified by a conspiracy of anti-religious scientists, and so forth. As has been pointed out by others, modern material of approximately twice the mass as the Shroud samples would have to be added to the samples to bring authentic first-century linen up to radiocarbon dates of the fourteenth-century, and this would have been just too obvious to go unnoticed by so many independent investigators. Once again, the ad hoc excuses, criticisms, and counter-arguments of the radiocarbon dating by Shroud enthusiasts were put forward to preserve appearances at any cost, a classic characteristic of pseudoscience. In real science, legitimate and reliable data that falsify one's most treasured hypotheses and beliefs are accepted, and lead one to abandon one's former beliefs. But sindonology is a pseudoscience, not real science.

 

[Ray]

If a person wanted to experiment a little bit, it might help people see a problem with the shroud of turin.

Wet your face with some harmless liquid that will show up on cloth. Place a white cloth over your face so that you can transfer the image of your face onto the cloth (like by laying face up and draping the cloth). Don't rub, (patting might be okay to help the cloth completely cover your face), let the liquid transfer your features.

Remove the cloth and lay the cloth flat on a table. You will see that your face is distorted on the cloth. Because your face is wrapped on your somewhat spherical head it will not look the same on the flat cloth.

In my opinion, the face on the shroud of turin too neatly resembles a face as it would look if painted.

I wonder what others who try this think.

 

[tellner]

The Shroud of Turin was debunked freaking decades ago. It was a medieval forgery. The researchers were able to figure out the method.

 

[Last Fearner]

Meanwhile...

http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/as/schafersman.html

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]Unraveling the Shroud of Turin[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Verdana]STEVEN D. SCHAFERSMAN
Department of Science and Mathematics
The University of Texas of the Permian Basin
Odessa, Texas[/FONT]

Copyright © 1998


Since the research data, and modern scientific findings explained in the link I first provided in my previous post were of the 21st century, this outdated link from 1998 has little to no merit.

I went to the trouble of doing extensive reading through the website I mentioned. It is about the most recent scientific reports published on the Shroud of Turin, and I placed the link here in my earlier post with a strong urging that others read it entirely first, then comment after.

It would seem that those who have commented thus far failed to read this website at all, and therefore lacked the information needed before they posted links to old material, quoted outdated findings, and simply dismissed the Shroud as having been “debunked freaking decades ago.” Since it is apparent that the website I recommended was not thoroughly read, let me quote you some excerpts to think about.

“An Open Letter to Journalists​

​

A few weeks before he died in 1963, Washington Post publisher Philip Leslie Graham described journalism as the “first rough draft of history.” ...
...All of us can think of many instances when the first draft of history was wrong; from world events to science. It is a problem when journalists, by turning to dusty archives or online repositories, repeat an old story without taking the trouble to look for new information....​

...When it comes to the Shroud of Turin, journalists often fall into the first-draft trap. Some recent examples - that have become something of urban legends - will serve to illustrate this:

* John Blake in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution wrote: “The image of a bearded man was declared to be the image of the crucified Christ for centuries until carbon dating in 1988 suggested it was a medieval forger.” (March 2, 2007)

* Randi Kaye on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 said: “Forensics in the past 40 years didn't show blood, instead, something similar to paint.” (February 26, 2007)

Updated, peer reviewed science tells a completely different story, as we will see. Blake completely ignored the ongoing scrutiny of the shroud by scholars. Yes, ongoing. Yes, scholars...

...Look at the list of scientific journals. Read the articles (listed in an appendix to this letter). There is not a single religious assumption.... ...Controversy surrounding the possible authenticity of the shroud, as we will see, is a matter for real science, objective history and archeology.

Parnie Schwortz, one of the most prominent and objective shroud researchers of the last three decades, serves as a useful example. He once wrote:

'Frankly, I am still Jewish, yet I believe the Shroud of Turin is the cloth that wrapped the man Jesus after he was crucified. That is not meant as a religious statement, but one based on my privileged position of direct involvement with many of the serious Shroud researchers in the world, and a knowledge of the scientific data, unclouded by media exaggeration and hype. The only reason I am still involved with the Shroud of Turin is because knowing the unbiased facts has convinced me of its authenticity. And I believe only a handful of people have really ever had access to all the unbiased facts. Most of the public has had to depend on the media, who always seem to sensationalize the story or reduce the facts to two minute sound bites from so-called experts who have 'solved the mystery.'

...Towards the end of the CNN segment on the Shroud of Turin, Chetry said to Gallagher:

'The argument that the gentleman made in the piece is that they accidentally -- or they -- not accidentally, but they snipped a piece that ended up being a reconstructed part of the shroud....Do we buy that?'

Buy what?
That John L. Brown, formerly Principal Research Scientist at the Georgia Tech Research Institute's Energy and Materials Sciences Laboratory at the Georgia Institute of Technology confirmed Rogers' findings. Brown worked independently and with different methods, including a Scanning Electron Microscope. He wrote:

'This would appear to be obvious evidence of a medieval artisan's attempt to dye a newly added repair region of fabric to match the aged appearance of the remainder of the Shroud.'

Had the shroud been correctly carbon dated, the cloth should produce measurable amounts of vanillin. Found in medieval linen, but not in much older cloth, vanillin diminishes and disappears with time. Rogers, who initially accepted the carbon dating, discovered that there was no detectable vanillin in the flax fibers of the main part of the shroud just as there is no vanillin in the linen wrapping from the Dead Sea Scrolls. There was, however, vanillin in the corner from which the carbon 14 samples were taken. He demonstrated -- his methods and conclusions withstood the rigors of peer review - - that the main part of the shroud and the carbon dating sample had a different age. Had the cloth of the shroud been manufactured in 1260, the oldest date suggested by carbon dating, it should have retained about 37% of its vanillin.”​

The Shroud of Turin was debunked freaking decades ago. It was a medieval forgery. The researchers were able to figure out the method.

Ok, now let me introduce you to the 21st century of scientific findings.

The following are some of the journals listed on the last page of the above letter I quoted:

Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp. 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect online information site.

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Lloyd Currie.
NIST, Washington D.C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)

Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto.
“The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)
Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. “The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-

Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.” s vol. 4,
Ames, J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg,
(2003, pp. 106-113)

Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of
Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.”46:142-154(2002)


Here are my questions about the Shroud of Turin by itself, and the connection to the Sudarium of Oviedo:

1. It seems to me that there are three main pieces of contested evidence that is being used to claim the Shroud is a medieval artist rendering.

a. The carbon 14 dating:
- - Modern research has at least brought into question, if not adequately proven that the sample taken was from a patch of material which was added as a repair in the 14th century. This argument is not faulting the carbon 14 tests, or claiming the test was contaminated or gave false results. The newer evidence shows the test to be invalid because it was not of the material from the main section which scientific research shows is older than the sample.

b. The alleged presence of a paint-like substance:
- - Modern scientific methods has refuted this previously mistaken conclusion, and the researches have published new results that states there was no paint on the main section or used in the image.

c. The letter by the 14th Century Bishop:
- - It seems clear to me that this alleged claim by one man during a time of controversy over legitimate artifacts, would not hold up to the scrutiny of the skeptics own standards if this type of so-called “evidence” was offered on the other side of the debate. The Bishop can not be held as an unbiased witness, nor as an “expert” witness. His testimony was taken from an apparent draft of a letter that might not have ever been sent, thus makes no official, open declaration. His alleged knowledge of an artists claim to have created the shroud was hearsay which he claims originated with his deceased predecessor who never made any such noted claim in his lifetime, and cannot corroborate the Bishop's claim. Furthermore, it would appear that no one has ever identified the alleged artist who claimed to have made the shroud.

2. Each of the above points are pivotal to denying the Shrouds authenticity. Without them being true, the Shroud stands out as a very credible piece of history. Modern, 21st century, scientific research, peer reviewed and published, has brought each of these three key points into serious question, and further research has tipped the scales toward the likely-hood that the Shroud existed centuries before the alleged 14th century creation.

Consider the following five points and address them individually if you like:

1. Even if the type of image on the shroud could be theoretically reproduced, in parts, by methods available in the 14th century, where is the scientific and historical evidence that anyone of that time period knew of it. Why only one artistic item with this reverse negative image? If it were used then, why have not more been found. Why would an artist use anything resembling a negative image instead of just painting the figure as a normal image?

Also, the fact that the figure's thumbs were not visible raises the medical issue that a crucified man would have this physical reaction. How would a 14th century artist know this, and why would he think to make the image without visible thumbs? Only through advanced, modern technology are we able to examine details of the shroud, not visible to the naked eye, which reveals the amount of wounds from whipping on the back, buttocks, and legs, as well as other bleeding wounds. How would an artist think to include any of these details, how would he accomplish this process, and why would an artist forging an image of Christ on a cloth take time to create nearly invisible markings that would either go unnoticed, or if they were made more visible to the eye at that time, would clearly be fake marks to the 14th century observer.

2. The tile image at the main gate of Edessa in 544 A.D., is clearly an exact replica of the face on the shroud. If anyone has evidence to refute the existence of the tile, or that it does not exactly match the symmetry of the Shroud, let them post it here! To my eye (from my own perspective as an artist) there is not anywhere near likely that these two renditions could be so identical and not have one taken from the other.

Therefore, either the shroud was present in Edessa in the 6th century, or the alleged forged shroud was placed over the tile (or an exact duplicate of the image on the tile) in the 14th century. One was clearly taken directly, and precisely from the other. Does anyone have evidence that the tile was removed from Edessa, or that an exact replica of the Edessa tile was taken to where the Shroud was allegedly forged?

3. The historical account of workers repairing the gate of Edessa in 544 A.D. says that they found a cloth hidden in the gate which contained the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Is this story contested, and claimed that it never happened, or is the claim that this was a different cloth? If the story can be confirmed, then what cloth was it, and why wouldn't the image of Jesus on the new tile over the main gate of Edessa after 544 be taken from that cloth?

Unless people discount that story, and even prove it is false, it seems logical that when they found a hidden cloth with an image of Jesus on it, they would use that image to create the gate's tile image thereafter. If that were true, then it is clear that the cloth they found is the same Shroud that turned up later in Turin because the images are the same.

4. If there is no evidence to refute the story of the workers finding a cloth with the image of Jesus on it, where did that cloth come from? Would this not be supported by the earlier legend that a disciple brought such a cloth to King Abgar? Do others deny that King Abgar existed? Do they deny that the earlier legend of the disciple existed?

5. Finally, and of very high importance, what is the argument against the physical, scientific evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) contains the same type of human blood, and the markings match for the various blood stains? Science seems to suggest, rather convincingly, that these two cloths are related, and were together at one time when they were used on a crucified man.

Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?

To conclude, I don't have time to quote all of the current, 21st century evidence and its publications, so I ask that those who wish to simply dismiss the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin as proven during the last century to be a fraud, ignoring udated research, and further ignore the Sudarium of Oviedo, then please read the link that I posted earlier before you quote old, outdated, scientific first-draft findings.

Last Fearner

 

[pstarr]

Well put. The most recent research done on the shroud certainly seems to blow the "paint" and other forgery ideas out of the water. Whatever else it may be, it appears that it is certainly a shroud that was placed over a man who was, in fact, crucified. The "dried blood" was tested and found to be human blood - it was even typed.

Wish that the scientists could do a bit more work on the shroud...it'd be truly fascinating.

 

[Makalakumu]

Even if the Shroud was put around someone and absorbed the negative of their image, how do we know it's Jesus? It could be anyone.

Oh well, at least the dude's got a beard and thats close enough...

 

[Makalakumu]

Since the research data, and modern scientific findings explained in the link I first provided in my previous post were of the 21st century, this outdated link from 1998 has little to no merit.

Of course it has merit. If you are going to understand the arguments made against the shroud, then you have to read them, correct?

I went to the trouble of doing extensive reading through the website I mentioned. It is about the most recent scientific reports published on the Shroud of Turin, and I placed the link here in my earlier post with a strong urging that others read it entirely first, then comment after.

I read through the site and checked for a couple of things...mostly hoping that the journal articles cited would be linked.


Ok, now let me introduce you to the 21st century of scientific findings.

The following are some of the journals listed on the last page of the above letter I quoted:

Thermochimica Acta - Raymond N. Rogers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California (Volume 425 2005 Issue 1-2, pp. 189-194). The article is available on Elsevier BV's ScienceDirect online information site.

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology - Lloyd Currie. NIST, Washington D.C. (Volume 109, Number 2, March-April 2004 pp 185-217)

Journal of Optics A: Pure and Applied Optics - Fanti, Giulio and Maggiolo, Roberto. “The double superficiality of the frontal image of the Turin Shroud.” (2004: pp 491-503)

Melanoidin - Rogers, Raymond N and Arnoldi, Anna. “The Shroud of Turin: an Amino-Carbonyl Reaction (Maillard Reaction) May Explain the Image Formation.” s vol. 4, Ames, J.M. ed., Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, (2003, pp. 106-113)

Journal of Imaging Science and Technology - Fanti, G. and Moroni, M. “Comparison of Luminance Between Face of Turin Shroud Man and Experimental Results.”46:142-154(2002)

One of the salient questions here is how the researchers determined that the peice of cloth tested as taken from a patch. Another is which study actually outlines the "new" carbon 14 dates. As you can see, from the titles that I bolded, 3-5 that I listed apparently have nothing to do with carbon dating. So, that leaves only two that may have anything to do with carbon dating methods and which sample was taken. Both of these look like they may appear on online...

I'll check that later.

1. Even if the type of image on the shroud could be theoretically reproduced, in parts, by methods available in the 14th century, where is the scientific and historical evidence that anyone of that time period knew of it. Why only one artistic item with this reverse negative image? If it were used then, why have not more been found. Why would an artist use anything resembling a negative image instead of just painting the figure as a normal image?

Also, the fact that the figure's thumbs were not visible raises the medical issue that a crucified man would have this physical reaction. How would a 14th century artist know this, and why would he think to make the image without visible thumbs? Only through advanced, modern technology are we able to examine details of the shroud, not visible to the naked eye, which reveals the amount of wounds from whipping on the back, buttocks, and legs, as well as other bleeding wounds. How would an artist think to include any of these details, how would he accomplish this process, and why would an artist forging an image of Christ on a cloth take time to create nearly invisible markings that would either go unnoticed, or if they were made more visible to the eye at that time, would clearly be fake marks to the 14th century observer.

I don't think you want to plead to the ignorance of 14th century artists. Any trip through Europe to visit the exquisite detail and workmanship of said people is sure land one with crow in the mouth.

If you really look at the work of any of the great rennaiscance artists, you'll see the same sort of brilliance that exists nowdays. Except, there was much less opportunity for that greatness to be expressed.

So, why wouldn't an accomplished artist think of all those things?

2. The tile image at the main gate of Edessa in 544 A.D., is clearly an exact replica of the face on the shroud. If anyone has evidence to refute the existence of the tile, or that it does not exactly match the symmetry of the Shroud, let them post it here! To my eye (from my own perspective as an artist) there is not anywhere near likely that these two renditions could be so identical and not have one taken from the other.

Therefore, either the shroud was present in Edessa in the 6th century, or the alleged forged shroud was placed over the tile (or an exact duplicate of the image on the tile) in the 14th century. One was clearly taken directly, and precisely from the other. Does anyone have evidence that the tile was removed from Edessa, or that an exact replica of the Edessa tile was taken to where the Shroud was allegedly forged?

Is this the image you were talking about?

It certainly isn't a negative if it is...

3. The historical account of workers repairing the gate of Edessa in 544 A.D. says that they found a cloth hidden in the gate which contained the image of Jesus of Nazareth. Is this story contested, and claimed that it never happened, or is the claim that this was a different cloth? If the story can be confirmed, then what cloth was it, and why wouldn't the image of Jesus on the new tile over the main gate of Edessa after 544 be taken from that cloth?

Unless people discount that story, and even prove it is false, it seems logical that when they found a hidden cloth with an image of Jesus on it, they would use that image to create the gate's tile image thereafter. If that were true, then it is clear that the cloth they found is the same Shroud that turned up later in Turin because the images are the same.

Or maybe this is the historical origin of the Shroud of Turin story and the forgers were trying to substantiate it with a hoax?

4. If there is no evidence to refute the story of the workers finding a cloth with the image of Jesus on it, where did that cloth come from? Would this not be supported by the earlier legend that a disciple brought such a cloth to King Abgar? Do others deny that King Abgar existed? Do they deny that the earlier legend of the disciple existed?

Where is the evidence that they found a cloth? How do we know that this "historical account" is credible?

5. Finally, and of very high importance, what is the argument against the physical, scientific evidence that the Sudarium of Oviedo (believed to be the face cloth of Jesus) contains the same type of human blood, and the markings match for the various blood stains? Science seems to suggest, rather convincingly, that these two cloths are related, and were together at one time when they were used on a crucified man.

I have yet to check the "evidence" in questions, but lets assume for a minute that both of these are authentic in that they both were associated with a man who was crucified. How could we ever know that this man was Jesus? What tests could ever be done to show that both of these actually wiped the forhead of Jesus or that they shrouded the body of Jesus? Why couldn't the Church have procured both of these items and then arbitrarily claimed that they came from Jesus of Nazareth?

Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?

 

[Last Fearner]

Wish that the scientists could do a bit more work on the shroud...it'd be truly fascinating.

I agree! From what I understand, the examination of the shroud and any evidence, old or new, is constant and on-going.

The last page of that "Open Letter to Journalists" in the link I posted said, "Before finalizing this letter, I sent a draft to over one hundred people who are well informed about the shroud. Most are academics. Most are scientists. Most are members of the international Shroud Science Group, an organization that will be hosting a very much secular, scholarly conference on the shroud at Ohio State University in August of 2008."

I am looking forward to what they might find between now and then!

Even if the Shroud was put around someone and absorbed the negative of their image, how do we know it's Jesus?

You're right, kyosa, we don't know! It might not be the shroud of Jesus but someone else. We might never find out. I guess the first step is to determine, with reasonable certainty, if it is older than the 14th century, then take it from there.

Of course it has merit. If you are going to understand the arguments made against the shroud, then you have to read them, correct?

Again, you are correct! It is good to read all of the evidence, and theories, past and present. My point was that, once new evidence is discovered which seems to refute and nullify old findings, it has no real merit to answer the new findings by referring to statements from the former, incorrect findings. The only valid argument, in my opinion, would be to show that the new findings were somehow flawed (with evidence to prove that allegation), which we could then revert back to the original findings. Does that make sense???

So, that leaves only two that may have anything to do with carbon dating methods and which sample was taken. Both of these look like they may appear on online...

I'll check that later.

Thanks for checking into this! I am having limited time to do all the research I want to on this, So I appreciate your posting anything you find.

I don't think you want to plead to the ignorance of 14th century artists.

I don't! I want to plead to my ignorance! I don't know much about 14th century artists.

So, why wouldn't an accomplished artist think of all those things?

I don't know - - maybe he could have. It's just that I have studied for several years in High School, and am a bit of an artist as well (drawings, paintings, pottery and ceramic sculptures), and I don't see the logic or the likely-hood of an artist conceiving the notion of a negative image for an imprint of a crucified man, and planning out every detail that wouldn't be discovered for centuries, and not until the invention of highly technical equipment which did not exist then. Why would he try so hard to fool a 14th century audience with details they could not detect, and how could he conceive that future scientists would be able to find these details?

Is this the image you were talking about?

It certainly isn't a negative if it is...

I don't know! Where did you get that one? The link I provided had that experiment on one of the pages where you move your cursor over the image of the tile, and reveal the symmetry to the Shroud. I don't even know where their image came from, or if it is verified as being legit. I'll have to look into it further.

Or maybe this is the historical origin of the Shroud of Turin story and the forgers were trying to substantiate it with a hoax?

Could be!?! This is why I'm very interested in the connection between the Shroud and the Tile, if they were ever together in one place, where and when. Also the connection between the Shroud and the Sudarium of Oviedo to see if they actually are linked by blood and other evidence.

Where is the evidence that they found a cloth? How do we know that this "historical account" is credible?

I don't know!!! You're asking the same questions I'm asking.
I want answers to these things too!

I have yet to check the "evidence" in questions, but lets assume for a minute that both of these are authentic in that they both were associated with a man who was crucified. How could we ever know that this man was Jesus? What tests could ever be done to show that both of these actually wiped the forhead of Jesus or that they shrouded the body of Jesus? Why couldn't the Church have procured both of these items and then arbitrarily claimed that they came from Jesus of Nazareth?

We might never find out if this was the shroud of Jesus, and even if we do, it won't likely prove that he was the Son of God, or the resurrected Messiah. That might have to be left to faith, but it might help to prove that Jesus was a real man, and really did live (which is why we have a "B.C./A.D" calendar, and why we celebrate Christmas, Easter, and have so many "Churches of Jesus Christ," "The Virgin Mary," and "The holy trinity" - )

Even if people are not convinced about the Shroud of Turin, how do they deny the connection of physical evidence between these two. Then, how can you further deny that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times?

I'm not sure what you meant by this one?? I am not denying that the Sudarium of Oviedo is clearly documented as having existed in much earlier times. I believe there is evidence that it was held as a relic from the 6th century or earlier, but I have not confirmed that research yet.

Let's keep up the pursuit of knowledge and work together to reveal the results - - whatever they are!

Last Fearner