Shroud of Turin - New Findings!!!!!

[mommymilkies]

Well, there were 7 books written about Harry Potter, and some of them are quite long. They are popular worldwide (argumentum ad populum). Therefore, the entire wizarding world must be real.

I can only hope! My kids are still waiting for their acceptance letters!

Having read the Bible from cover to cover more than once, I found the claims of "goodness" and "love" to be at odds with the documented actions of this supposed god. If we're to believe the Bible, this so-called god is a murderous psychopath. Killing children wholesale, demanding that a parent murder his child, encouraging incest, praising a father for forcing his daughters into prostitution, and so on. Not someone I'd care to spend any time at all with, let alone eternity.

 

I actually agree with you. That's one of my biggest problems. I've gone through many confused times where I feel very compelled to convert and then I read something in the Bible about impaling children on stakes or whatever and I feel nauseated. I don't care if it's a time/place or war thing. That's just not something I can ever, ever, ever be accepting of. There's no way that I can reconcile that with my beliefs. I'm sorry, but it really confuses me when I hear talk about a loving God when his actions are so evidently anything but. I am not trying to insult anyone, but this has been a point of contention in my own beliefs for a long time and I have yet to understand this.

[Teachin'Mine]

When I had started to read the Old Testament on my own, it had confused me too. For me, it's not something I've struggled with since because there are so many things in life that I don't understand, and I was okay with not knowing. I know that's not good enough for someone who really has a need to know and understand, but I chose to delve deeper into other areas and leave that alone.

 

This link has some interesting comments on this, and some suggestions on further reading, etc..

 

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=556076

 

This argument is one I hear from my friends, who are atheists, too. One of these days I'll probably spend some time on this.

 

Would love any input from those who had struggled with this in the past and came to answers which helped them in their belief. :)

[Iucounu]

http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/an-open-letter-from-russ-breault-on-the-enea-report/

 

What did (ENEA) prove? That one can achieve both the coloration and the extreme superficiality of the Shroud image using UV lasers. It doesn’t prove that the image is the result of light or radiation. It does however prove that a certain kind of light, ie, UV laser, can indeed create the same effect as what we see on the Shroud. Did they replicate the entire Shroud? No. Do we know if that is possible using this means? No. But it at least shows us that light indeed can account for some of what we see on the Shroud.

[WishboneDawn]

Well, I would say no. As Billy Joel said, "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints; the sinners are much more fun..."

 

Having read the Bible from cover to cover more than once, I found the claims of "goodness" and "love" to be at odds with the documented actions of this supposed god. If we're to believe the Bible, this so-called god is a murderous psychopath. Killing children wholesale, demanding that a parent murder his child, encouraging incest, praising a father for forcing his daughters into prostitution, and so on. Not someone I'd care to spend any time at all with, let alone eternity.

 

Wait a minute. I'm getting a little off track but if you're disputing the internal consistency of the Bible then you sort of can't make a sweeping claim about the nature of the god it presents because, as you pointed out, it's not consistent. There are some nasty bits but there are also some very wonderful bits. And frankly, even many of the nasty bits aren't so bad. In an age when human sacrifice wasn't so unusual here was a story (Abraham and Isaac - one of my favourites actually) about a god who made the point, after a fashion, that he did not require it.

[Iucounu]

If the quotes in this excerpt are accurate, what seems to be happening is that Italian researcher di Lazzaro has formed the opinion that some source of radiation is more likely to be responsible for the Shroud image than any cause based on pigmentation or the like. He thus feels it's unlikely to be a medieval (intentional) fake, since no one from that time would have been likely to use light instead of, say, painting to create a fake; and if he's honestly presenting his results, without the benefit of reading his study yet, that seems rational enough. He seems to carefully stay away from declaring it "authentic" in the sense of "actual burial cloth of Christ"-- but some bloggers are obviously eager to report that science has validated the Shroud as being Christ's burial cloth.

 

http://www.sci-news.com/physics/scientists-suggest-turin-shroud-authentic

 

“Our research proves that it is very difficult (almost impossible) replicating today all the main physical and chemical characteristics of the body image embedded into the Shroud of Turin,” says Dr. Paolo Di Lazzaro, lead author on the report...

 

“As a consequence, it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the middle Age or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a fake is really very very low. On the other hand, our results, taken alone, cannot prove the Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. One should add our results to all the other historical, medical, palinilogical, textile evidences accumulated in the last 35 years.”

 

“It is possible that the body image was formed by a sort of electromagnetic source of energy. Our experiments show that many (not all) the peculiar properties of the body image of the Shroud are produced by a burst of photons in a very narrow range of parameters (pulse duration, intensity, number of shots). In particular, vacuum ultraviolet photons account for the very thin coloration depth, the hue of color and the presence of image in linen parts not in contact with the body. Obviously, it does not mean the image was produced by a laser. Rather, the laser is a powerful tool to test and obtain the light parameters suitable for a shroud-like coloration.”

 

Answering to the question on when and how the image on the Shroud of Turin was made, Dr. Di Lazzaro comments: “Our research does not address the problem of when, it gives some hints on how. In fact, in our opinion, the most important question is not when the Shroud was made. Independent of its age, middle age or first century, the most important question, the “question of questions” is how it is possible to do an image like the Shroud body image.”

 

“For sure, none of the hundreds (of) attempts to obtain a shroud-like image by using chemical contact techniques – i.e. adding chemical substances like colors, powders, etc. – has achieved good results. Usually, the chemical approach gives similar macroscopic results, but it fails when analyzing the coloration with a microscope. At the microscopic level, the contact chemical approach does not give Shroud-like results. On the contrary, attempts using various radiations (vacuum ultraviolet photons, electrons from a corona discharge) give a coloration that looks shroud-like even at the microscopic level,” concludes Dr. Di Lazzaro.

Obviously, duplicating some of the Shroud effects via laser doesn't prove it was even made with radiation, let alone that it is the burial cloth of Jesus. Still, I'm more interested than ever to read the actual study-- translated into English. Edited December 27, 2011 by Iucounu

[Ipsey]

Wait a minute. I'm getting a little off track but if you're disputing the internal consistency of the Bible then you sort of can't make a sweeping claim about the nature of the god it presents because, as you pointed out, it's not consistent. There are some nasty bits but there are also some very wonderful bits. And frankly, even many of the nasty bits aren't so bad. In an age when human sacrifice wasn't so unusual here was a story (Abraham and Isaac - one of my favourites actually) about a god who made the point, after a fashion, that he did not require it.

 

The Biblical god claims perfection, holiness, perfect love, etc. He does some things that appear loving. He then turns and does and demands actions that certainly do not seem lovely--in fact, they seem horrific. Demanding the slaughter of the Midianites, for example.

 

If a being said, "I'm perfect and holy," and then always acted like it, that would be one thing. If a being said that and then accepted the sacrifice that Jephthah made of his daughter, or required that women marry their rapist well, I think I'd be ok calling that being evil, no matter what other lovely things it had done. No matter how much that deity insisted it was perfect.

 

Wicked people can do some loving things. To put it charitably, if we can't claim they're downright even, we can say their evil actions mean they're not perfect. . . so where does that leave a deity?

 

The other day I asked a friend, a pastor's wife and a colleague of mine where I teach, to pray that I got a different job that I was hoping for. It was an emotional impulse. I was feeling giddy and close to her and a wee bit superstitious. Not to mention sentimental--being near Christmas and all. She was surprised because she's clear that I used to be a Christian missionary and am no longer a theist/deist/believer, whatever. She didn't bat an eye though, and that was kind.

 

I mentally slapped myself in the forehead a few minutes later though. ARGH!

 

I considered what had caused me to ask for prayer, and I came up with several reasons, the final one being--to cover my bases. :( Reason did not win the day, clearly.

 

At the same time, I was disgusted with myself for another reason. The god of the Bible promotes despicable, grotesque actions that I object strenuously to. I, essentially, asked favors of a genocidal, misogynistic, megalomaniacal, and ruthless (not to mention non-existent) deity! For the first time in 2 years I let my emotions get the better of me, and asked a friend to make religious petition for me to a being who, if it actually existed, would be a nightmare villain of the highest order.

 

*shudders*

[Iucounu]

More shoddy journalism by Nick Squires at the Telegraph UK:

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

 

ETA: ... and the misinformation grows; here's a sample: http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/12/29/63126661.html

 

In other news, readers and bloggers declared that this sock was authentic-- yes, it was in fact truly a sock.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Iucounu

[KidsHappen]

The people with the Da Vinci hypothesis actually recreated the shroud using the method they described and yet their hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked. The shroud has been carbon dated a few times now and has always come up with a date of between 1200 & 1300 BC give or take a bit. Current science doesn't know exactly how it was created but they are pretty confident of the dated which would definitively discount it as the burial cloth of Jesus. There is another book called The Second Messiah that posits a hypothesis for that time period that I have never actually seen disputed or even debated. Doesn't mean it is correct, only brings up another possibility.

[Teachin'Mine]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1105075.htm

[funschooler5]

Wait a minute. I'm getting a little off track but if you're disputing the internal consistency of the Bible then you sort of can't make a sweeping claim about the nature of the god it presents because, as you pointed out, it's not consistent. There are some nasty bits but there are also some very wonderful bits. And frankly, even many of the nasty bits aren't so bad. In an age when human sacrifice wasn't so unusual here was a story (Abraham and Isaac - one of my favourites actually) about a god who made the point, after a fashion, that he did not require it.

 

That's funny....the Abraham and Isaac story was one of the ones that tipped the scales for me when I was a teenager (away from believing, that is). That and Lot's wife getting turned into a pillar of salt for just being curious.

 

It wasn't just the "meanness" of God, it was how arbitrary it was. It made absolutely no sense to me.

[Iucounu]

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1105075.htm

That's not bad! I've been liking this blog, even though it's not by a skeptic: http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/

[ThisIsTheDay]

That's funny....the Abraham and Isaac story was one of the ones that tipped the scales for me when I was a teenager (away from believing, that is). That and Lot's wife getting turned into a pillar of salt for just being curious.

 

It wasn't just the "meanness" of God, it was how arbitrary it was. It made absolutely no sense to me.

 

It didn't make sense because you read it without understanding.

 

Abraham and Isaac? God never told Abraham to kill Isaac. He was told to prepare him as a sacrifice, a burnt offering to atone for sin. Was Abraham willing to listen to God? Of course, it's more involved, and I'm not attempting to change your mind--it's a picture of what was to come, when God sacrificed His own son as payment for our sin.

 

Lot's wife? She wasn't "just curious." She wanted Sodom more than she wanted things of the Lord.

 

Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I want anyone else reading who has doubt that know there *are* answers. If something doesn't make sense, dig deeper, just like you would do with anything else in your life.

[Teachin'Mine]

That's not bad! I've been liking this blog, even though it's not by a skeptic: http://shroudofturin.wordpress.com/

 

Thanks for posting the blog! :)

[WishboneDawn]

That's funny....the Abraham and Isaac story was one of the ones that tipped the scales for me when I was a teenager (away from believing, that is). That and Lot's wife getting turned into a pillar of salt for just being curious.

 

It wasn't just the "meanness" of God, it was how arbitrary it was. It made absolutely no sense to me.

 

It's funnierr because the Abraham/Isaac story is one of my faves. :D I know lots of people dislike it but it led me to Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling and is a story I keep going back to and turning over in my mind. It has differet meanings and different interpretations depending on what a person brings to it...It can be horrible for some and redeeming for others.

 

My faith is in flux these days and I may come out the other side an agnostic but I'll stil love the Abraham/Isaac story. :)

[Iucounu]

Paolo di Lazzaro clarifies further:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100126480/the-shroud-of-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/

[TheHomeScientist]

I don't know what this guy's science qualifications are, but they don't really matter. He's neither working nor speaking as a scientist here; he's a religious apologist. He set out to prove something he'd decided in advance and proceeds to make extraordinary claims that are not supported by his evidence.

 

Consider this FTA:

 

"When I spoke to Prof Ramsey, he said that the radiocarbon dating results putting it at 1260 – 1390AD were reliable, and that the suggestions of contamination or medieval repair were unlikely. Do you agree with that?

I have no experience of radiocarbon dating. As a consequence, I have to accept the opinion of Prof Ramsey. However, I note we have a problem: there is an object dated 1260AD that has a microscopic complexity such that it cannot be made by a forger in 1260AD. Does Prof Ramsey have any idea how to solve this contradiction? Can we collaborate to find a solution? Is it possible to organise a team of experts that reconsider both dating and microscopic characteristics of this extraordinary image?"

He departed the realm of science when he stated "... it cannot be made by a forger in 1260AD." No scientist would make that statement. If he'd said something like, "We do not know how this could have been made by a forger in 1260AD", fine. (Actually, a scientist would probably have said "1260CE", but that's a minor issue.) But what he actually said amounts to claiming supernatural causes for an event simply because he has not figured out how a forger in 1260CE could have manufactured the artifact. No scientist would make that claim.

 

As Dara Ó Briain remarked in one of his comedy skits, "Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you."

[TheHomeScientist]

Oh, yeah. When did we start assuming a "forger"? As I said earlier in the thread, it's quite possible that the artifact arose from natural causes, with no attempt by anyone to deceive anyone.

[simka2]

The Biblical god claims perfection, holiness, perfect love, etc. He does some things that appear loving. He then turns and does and demands actions that certainly do not seem lovely--in fact, they seem horrific. Demanding the slaughter of the Midianites, for example.

 

If a being said, "I'm perfect and holy," and then always acted like it, that would be one thing. If a being said that and then accepted the sacrifice that Jephthah made of his daughter, or required that women marry their rapist well, I think I'd be ok calling that being evil, no matter what other lovely things it had done. No matter how much that deity insisted it was perfect.

 

Wicked people can do some loving things. To put it charitably, if we can't claim they're downright even, we can say their evil actions mean they're not perfect. . . so where does that leave a deity?

 

The other day I asked a friend, a pastor's wife and a colleague of mine where I teach, to pray that I got a different job that I was hoping for. It was an emotional impulse. I was feeling giddy and close to her and a wee bit superstitious. Not to mention sentimental--being near Christmas and all. She was surprised because she's clear that I used to be a Christian missionary and am no longer a theist/deist/believer, whatever. She didn't bat an eye though, and that was kind.

 

I mentally slapped myself in the forehead a few minutes later though. ARGH!

 

I considered what had caused me to ask for prayer, and I came up with several reasons, the final one being--to cover my bases. :( Reason did not win the day, clearly.

 

At the same time, I was disgusted with myself for another reason. The god of the Bible promotes despicable, grotesque actions that I object strenuously to. I, essentially, asked favors of a genocidal, misogynistic, megalomaniacal, and ruthless (not to mention non-existent) deity! For the first time in 2 years I let my emotions get the better of me, and asked a friend to make religious petition for me to a being who, if it actually existed, would be a nightmare villain of the highest order.

 

*shudders*

 

Ipsey, you are absolutely right. The God you are describing would be despicable. I know you know what I am about to write, but I am going to be a doof and do it anyway. ;)

 

I was watching a news program the other day on young woman in the Sudan. These young woman were having baby after baby, all of them were lacking in pre-and post-natal care. As they were interviewed I noticed there was no discussion about the fathers. I am absolutely certain that many of these pregnancies were the result of rape or promiscuity (lacking the correct term here. I use the previous word to describe an acceptable life choice, not in a shaming religious way.)

 

This way of life was the norm for them. It was not questioned. There was not a concept that it was different elsewhere. There are things they accept as normal (rape or at the least sex on unequal terms)that seem horrific to me for different reasons. My values are different.

 

If I place my current values on the Old testament writings there is going to be problems. Take your example of the woman being required to marry her rapist. Well if sex itself is viewed differently (sorry to be blunt, but more naturally) and if what I value is authentic motherhood with a matriarchal lineage intact, then marrying (a contract) my rapist makes some sense. We often view this as, "great now her rapist is going to have the right to rape her legally for the rest of her life." That is not my understanding. In a real sense she gains provision, standing, and often a child that will grow up to provide for her in her old age. There were many worse fates for a woman at that time. Slavery being one.

 

Granted, I read the Old Testament through the lens of very human writers. Meaning, I do think there are times when God's endorsement is placed on things that were common practice...as if He told them to.

 

Like I said, I know you have already considered all of this. Just know that I think about it as well. ;)

[Hannah C.]

I've found that most of the horrible things in the Bible are a) justified/make more sense in context (the cultures of the OT were *collectivist* so an entire family being punished for one person's sin would not be so shocking; child sacrifice was common, so God *rejecting* Abraham's sacrifice was the shocking thing, not that he was told to sacrifice Isaac in the first place), b) not condoned but simply recorded (Jephthah's daughter - which also falls into the "debated meanings"), or c) have debated meanings (e.g. forcing a woman to marry her rapist - other translations use the word "seduced" which implies that the woman was consenting).

 

Context is *EXTREMELY* important when reading a book that is 2000-3000+ years old. If one reads it straight from today's worldview, without any allowances for different cultural norms and ways of viewing the world, it does both the person reading it and the book itself a disservice. This also goes for old books in general, not just for the Bible. ;)

 

After getting the context, if one wants to reject the Bible/the god it represents/or whatever else (or if one wants to reject the Bible before learning the context, for that matter), that is their prerogative and they should feel free to do that. :)

[Ipsey]

I've found that most of the horrible things in the Bible are a) justified/make more sense in context (the cultures of the OT were *collectivist* so an entire family being punished for one person's sin would not be so shocking; child sacrifice was common, so God *rejecting* Abraham's sacrifice was the shocking thing, not that he was told to sacrifice Isaac in the first place), b) not condoned but simply recorded (Jephthah's daughter - which also falls into the "debated meanings"), or c) have debated meanings (e.g. forcing a woman to marry her rapist - other translations use the word "seduced" which implies that the woman was consenting).

 

Context is *EXTREMELY* important when reading a book that is 2000-3000+ years old. If one reads it straight from today's worldview, without any allowances for different cultural norms and ways of viewing the world, it does both the person reading it and the book itself a disservice. This also goes for old books in general, not just for the Bible. ;)

 

After getting the context, if one wants to reject the Bible/the god it represents/or whatever else (or if one wants to reject the Bible before learning the context, for that matter), that is their prerogative and they should feel free to do that. :)

 

I have studied the context. I was a missionary for years.

I spent a lot of time trying to explain to people the "context", which is basically to say, "yes, genocide is bad, but not when God does/commands it. Yes, it's terrible for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist, but only because there was no other way for her to be maintained--because the culture that God was creating basically said a woman was no more than her virginity." (The word used in the phrase that says a woman who is raped must marry her rapist is the same word used to talk about Tamar's rape, so whether one wants to translate it as "seduce" to excuse this or not, still disgusting! How many women on this board ought to have been executed by this standard?

 

So, kindly do not presume I don't know the context. I know the context. And frankly, I don't think any context makes it ok. If a supposedly perfect being told me to go out and murder the children in the next town, I'd say that was evil. But some people need "context". And that would make it all ok.

 

Pish-tosh!

[AmericanMom]

I have studied the context. I was a missionary for years.

I spent a lot of time trying to explain to people the "context", which is basically to say, "yes, genocide is bad, but not when God does/commands it. Yes, it's terrible for a woman to be forced to marry her rapist, but only because there was no other way for her to be maintained--because the culture that God was creating basically said a woman was no more than her virginity."

 

What kind of organization were you a missionary with? No offense, but if someone said this to me, I would be horrified. And I am a Christian.

 

I don't know how to deal with the OT, honestly. (Just being real here.) But I do know I have experienced an unexplained physical Presence that was totally unexpected and totally not emotionalism. I have only experienced that Presence twice in my life. And I knew that this was Someone, and that Someone was all powerful and cared about me. I can't convince someone else that there wasn't emotionalism or wishful thinking, but I know it was not. There have been plenty of times in my life that I felt "my heart strangely warmed" that someone could convince me might have been wishful thinking or emotion. But these 2 times, no way. I was not expecting it and had to look around to see who came in, it was so physical. And one of those times what I heard was not at all what I wanted to hear or even thought was reasonable. It was a little scary, to be honest. But I knew that Someone was good, too. I'm not sure how, I just knew, just like I knew Someone was there.

 

Again, I don't know how to take the OT. But I look at Jesus's life and teachings and know that He was the Word of God made flesh, and He didn't say those kinds of things.

 

I just wanted to say that not all Christians try to lay it all out pat like that. Yes, some of it sounds awful. And I think it is a slander of God's character to say, "Well, if He did it, it by definition has to be good." If He is good and set a moral law for us all, I don't think He would break it Himself. As Aslan told Lucy in The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, "Did you think I wouldn't obey my own laws?" I think sometimes in our insecurity, we try to explain difficult things away. But God is bigger than our explanations, I think. Just my 2 cents...

[Iucounu]

I don't know what this guy's science qualifications are, but they don't really matter. He's neither working nor speaking as a scientist here; he's a religious apologist. He set out to prove something he'd decided in advance and proceeds to make extraordinary claims that are not supported by his evidence.

 

Consider this FTA:

 

"When I spoke to Prof Ramsey, he said that the radiocarbon dating results putting it at 1260 – 1390AD were reliable, and that the suggestions of contamination or medieval repair were unlikely. Do you agree with that?

I have no experience of radiocarbon dating. As a consequence, I have to accept the opinion of Prof Ramsey. However, I note we have a problem: there is an object dated 1260AD that has a microscopic complexity such that it cannot be made by a forger in 1260AD. Does Prof Ramsey have any idea how to solve this contradiction? Can we collaborate to find a solution? Is it possible to organise a team of experts that reconsider both dating and microscopic characteristics of this extraordinary image?"

He departed the realm of science when he stated "... it cannot be made by a forger in 1260AD." No scientist would make that statement. If he'd said something like, "We do not know how this could have been made by a forger in 1260AD", fine. (Actually, a scientist would probably have said "1260CE", but that's a minor issue.) But what he actually said amounts to claiming supernatural causes for an event simply because he has not figured out how a forger in 1260CE could have manufactured the artifact. No scientist would make that claim.

I agree. He's stepped over the border into pseudoscience, or at least in speaking to journalists and bloggers is not speaking as a scientist. He seems to be trying to suggest supernatural causes without coming out and saying it (instead saying that the probability of a fake is "really low", that he's leaving up to the "conscience of individuals" how to interpret his results, etc.).

 

I do think it's interesting that he and his colleagues have more closely replicated certain features of the Shroud (shallow depth of coloration, etc.), but his results have been overstated by others, or he's overstated them himself. He hasn't shown that it's impossible for the Shroud to be a fake; he's merely shown that he doesn't know how it could be faked. In this sort of situation, it seems like the evidence should be able to speak for itself, without a scientist voicing his non-scientific opinion in conjunction with the release of his results, and obfuscating things.

[Hannah C.]

So, kindly do not presume I don't know the context. I know the context. And frankly, I don't think any context makes it ok. If a supposedly perfect being told me to go out and murder the children in the next town, I'd say that was evil. But some people need "context". And that would make it all ok.

 

Pish-tosh!

 

:grouphug: My post wasn't directed at you or anyone specific - it was intended a general statement. I'm sorry if you found it offensive - that wasn't my intent.

 

(I also have trouble sometimes remembering who's posted what, so it's quite possible you're the only person my post could have been seen as replying to, and I just didn't realize it....)

[funschooler5]

It didn't make sense because you read it without understanding.

 

Abraham and Isaac? God never told Abraham to kill Isaac. He was told to prepare him as a sacrifice, a burnt offering to atone for sin. Was Abraham willing to listen to God? Of course, it's more involved, and I'm not attempting to change your mind--it's a picture of what was to come, when God sacrificed His own son as payment for our sin.

 

Yeah, I don't understand a lot of it. I don't understand the concept of killing something (be it an animal or a person) to atone for something bad that I did. That makes no sense to me.

 

Lot's wife? She wasn't "just curious." She wanted Sodom more than she wanted things of the Lord.

 

Again, I'm not trying to convince you. I want anyone else reading who has doubt that know there *are* answers. If something doesn't make sense, dig deeper, just like you would do with anything else in your life.

 

I can understand that, but her punishment still seems awfully harsh. There were other people in the Bible that did things that were far worse (murder, etc) that weren't punished by death.

 

It's funnierr because the Abraham/Isaac story is one of my faves. :D I know lots of people dislike it but it led me to Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling and is a story I keep going back to and turning over in my mind. It has differet meanings and different interpretations depending on what a person brings to it...It can be horrible for some and redeeming for others.

 

My faith is in flux these days and I may come out the other side an agnostic but I'll stil love the Abraham/Isaac story. :)

 

Yeah, I don't know why, it just always made me wonder how Isaac felt, knowing that his father was all ready to kill him. And it seemed like he was supposed to feel grateful that God stopped it from happening...it was just really dark to me.

[Mergath]

Ipsey, you are absolutely right. The God you are describing would be despicable. I know you know what I am about to write, but I am going to be a doof and do it anyway. ;)

 

I was watching a news program the other day on young woman in the Sudan. These young woman were having baby after baby, all of them were lacking in pre-and post-natal care. As they were interviewed I noticed there was no discussion about the fathers. I am absolutely certain that many of these pregnancies were the result of rape or promiscuity (lacking the correct term here. I use the previous word to describe an acceptable life choice, not in a shaming religious way.)

 

This way of life was the norm for them. It was not questioned. There was not a concept that it was different elsewhere. There are things they accept as normal (rape or at the least sex on unequal terms)that seem horrific to me for different reasons. My values are different.

 

If I place my current values on the Old testament writings there is going to be problems. Take your example of the woman being required to marry her rapist. Well if sex itself is viewed differently (sorry to be blunt, but more naturally) and if what I value is authentic motherhood with a matriarchal lineage intact, then marrying (a contract) my rapist makes some sense. We often view this as, "great now her rapist is going to have the right to rape her legally for the rest of her life." That is not my understanding. In a real sense she gains provision, standing, and often a child that will grow up to provide for her in her old age. There were many worse fates for a woman at that time. Slavery being one.

 

Granted, I read the Old Testament through the lens of very human writers. Meaning, I do think there are times when God's endorsement is placed on things that were common practice...as if He told them to.

 

Like I said, I know you have already considered all of this. Just know that I think about it as well. ;)

 

What really gets under my skin about all of this is that so many fundamentalist Christians today are so quick to criticize moral relativism. Good and bad are very clear, they say, if you just read the bible. God spells everything out. We need to have clear cut, black and white morals to save our society.

 

Unless, apparently, you're reading the bible. Then, it's all about cultural context, and you have to completely ignore the fact that your moral code tells you everything about the OT is wrong. But if an Islamic society, for example, tries to justify their differences by citing their cultural norms, well, they're just "evil."

 

A lot of hypocrisy there, I think.

[ereks mom]

OK, I'm not entering the primary discussion of this thread, but your post raises a side issue. Surely you realize that most Christian denominations don't teach this. So when you assert it as a fact, it raises hackles unnecessarily. All you have to do to avoid this is start by saying 'Roman Catholics teach that...' It still asserts your primary point, and does it respectfully.

 

:iagree:

[Iucounu]

(obviously the wrong thread there)

Edited January 8, 2012 by Iucounu
wrong thread

[annandatje]

What really gets under my skin about all of this is that so many fundamentalist Christians today are so quick to criticize moral relativism. Good and bad are very clear, they say, if you just read the bible. God spells everything out. We need to have clear cut, black and white morals to save our society.

 

Unless, apparently, you're reading the bible. Then, it's all about cultural context, and you have to completely ignore the fact that your moral code tells you everything about the OT is wrong. But if an Islamic society, for example, tries to justify their differences by citing their cultural norms, well, they're just "evil."

 

A lot of hypocrisy there, I think.

 

:iagree:

[Tea Time]

Ipsey, you are absolutely right. The God you are describing would be despicable. I know you know what I am about to write, but I am going to be a doof and do it anyway. ;)

 

I was watching a news program the other day on young woman in the Sudan. These young woman were having baby after baby, all of them were lacking in pre-and post-natal care. As they were interviewed I noticed there was no discussion about the fathers. I am absolutely certain that many of these pregnancies were the result of rape or promiscuity (lacking the correct term here. I use the previous word to describe an acceptable life choice, not in a shaming religious way.)

 

This way of life was the norm for them. It was not questioned. There was not a concept that it was different elsewhere. There are things they accept as normal (rape or at the least sex on unequal terms)that seem horrific to me for different reasons. My values are different.

 

If I place my current values on the Old testament writings there is going to be problems. Take your example of the woman being required to marry her rapist. Well if sex itself is viewed differently (sorry to be blunt, but more naturally) and if what I value is authentic motherhood with a matriarchal lineage intact, then marrying (a contract) my rapist makes some sense. We often view this as, "great now her rapist is going to have the right to rape her legally for the rest of her life." That is not my understanding. In a real sense she gains provision, standing, and often a child that will grow up to provide for her in her old age. There were many worse fates for a woman at that time. Slavery being one.

 

Granted, I read the Old Testament through the lens of very human writers. Meaning, I do think there are times when God's endorsement is placed on things that were common practice...as if He told them to.

 

Like I said, I know you have already considered all of this. Just know that I think about it as well. ;)

 

I don't think you are a doof, and I think you make a very good point.

 

What really gets under my skin about all of this is that so many fundamentalist Christians today are so quick to criticize moral relativism. Good and bad are very clear, they say, if you just read the bible. God spells everything out. We need to have clear cut, black and white morals to save our society.

 

Unless, apparently, you're reading the bible. Then, it's all about cultural context, and you have to completely ignore the fact that your moral code tells you everything about the OT is wrong. But if an Islamic society, for example, tries to justify their differences by citing their cultural norms, well, they're just "evil."

 

A lot of hypocrisy there, I think.

 

Did you read the post above? I think it comes from a perspective of respect for other cultural values and is quite the opposite of the attitude you seem to project on all Christians by way of the few that might be that way. It should be a good thing for people to learn about how powerfully we are influenced by culture, yes, even if we learn that from reading the Old Testament. However, do you think secular culture, Islam or other cultures should be given a pass on truly evil things for no other reason than to spite Christians? Because your post gives me that impression. This forum has become a place where many of you seem to vent against the type of Christians who might be like this, even though there really aren't any on this forum. So many folks won't even come here anymore because of it.

 

I think there is a TON of consideration and compassion from most Christians toward other cultures, and there has been a slowing evolving amount for centuries, which is largely why there has been so much progress on things that would have been viewed so very differently 2000 years ago. This is predictive from the underlying Christian message of healing brought by Christ. You don't want to see it that way, and that is fine. But hypocrisy is the norm for people; figuring out how to mature beyond the hypocrisy that we ALL have is breaking out of that norm. Everyone struggles with it, and being a non-believer does not give you the magic bullet defense against hypocrisy. Nothing does. It is a character battle every day for everyone.

 

There is hypocrisy in complaining that the explanation about the Old Testament is too complex when you would also complain if it was overly simple. We all argue it in our minds to fit our paradigm. Only individually can we determine if we have really kept an open mind in looking at it, and only then if we are honest with ourselves. We can't see that about others.

[KidsHappen]

What claims are you talking about? Are you saying that no religion has ever provided any evidence for any of its claims? The existance of four books about Jesus is definitely evidence that he existed.

 

I have 7 books about Harry Potter and I am fairly certain that he never really existed. Actually, I have seven books telling his story and an inumrable number of other books of the same time period talking about him. The historic evidence for HP is much stronger that Jesus' in the repsect to writings proving someone's exhistance and miracles.

[Ipsey]

:grouphug: My post wasn't directed at you or anyone specific - it was intended a general statement. I'm sorry if you found it offensive - that wasn't my intent.

 

(I also have trouble sometimes remembering who's posted what, so it's quite possible you're the only person my post could have been seen as replying to, and I just didn't realize it....)

 

Oh, dear. It might not have been you who offered the "context" argument and that I was lacking in suitable Biblical background. If it wasn't you, my apologies.

I can't keep track either.

 

Thanks for being so gracious if, in fact, I was all confuddled. :)

[Tea Time]

I have 7 books about Harry Potter and I am fairly certain that he never really existed. Actually, I have seven books telling his story and an inumrable number of other books of the same time period talking about him. The historic evidence for HP is much stronger that Jesus' in the repsect to writings proving someone's exhistance and miracles.

 

I'm sure the real people that gave testimony would be amused at being considered fictional characters. Perhaps we had better shut down the courts if we cannot tell the difference, and if the testimony of humans is of zero value when it does not line up with someone's predetermined beliefs.

 

This really is nothing more than purposeful obfuscation. I see it all the time coming from non-believers who don't want to work very hard, comments referring to a "spaghetti monster" and nonsense like that. As if the greatest minds in history are dumber than they are because they entertained the idea of a God. Simple and complete propaganda with no other purpose than to un-inform the already un-informed to their point of view by demeaning and shaming believers. In a culture that is rapidly not very intellectual adept, this method of influence truly is very powerful. But it is what it is. Nonsense.

[justamouse]

I have 7 books about Harry Potter and I am fairly certain that he never really existed. Actually, I have seven books telling his story and an inumrable number of other books of the same time period talking about him. The historic evidence for HP is much stronger that Jesus' in the repsect to writings proving someone's exhistance and miracles.

 

So, Priests who come up with the big bang theory, monks who make calendars so accurate they're still used today, (Catholicism is Filled with great scientists and thinkers-the list is very, very long) astrophysicist priests who are more brilliant than I would ever hope to be, believe in a totally fictional character. Heh, that's funny.

 

I would SO not want to be the one telling them how they all got it wrong. :001_smile:

 

But, I have to admit, I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. We have all of these printed words around us these days, we take them for granted. We have so many books that we need to throw them out. So we think there's this New Testament thing and think it's just fictional, too.

Edited January 9, 2012 by justamouse

[Iucounu]

With so many people worldwide with science degrees, one could probably find at least one to espouse any particular view, perhaps from a bed at an asyloum somewhere. Is religiosity on the increase or the decline among the best scientific minds on the planet? See, the argument from long-past authority is not a compelling argument at all.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Iucounu

[Tea Time]

So, Priests who come up with the big bang theory, monks who make calendars so accurate they're still used today, (Catholicism is Filled with great scientists and thinkers-the list is very, very long) astrophysicist priests who are more brilliant than I would ever hope to be, believe in a totally fictional character. Heh, that's funny.

 

I would SO not want to be the one telling them how they all got it wrong. :001_smile:

 

But, I have to admit, I think there are a lot of people who feel the same way. We have all of these printed words around us these days, we take them for granted. We have so many books that we need to throw them out. So we think there's this New Testament thing and think it's just fictional, too.

 

I can't think of the author, but someone said something to the effect that the average comprehension of written history today is not very good. Most people really do believe we know more about and understand pre-historic man better than people living in the time of Christ.

 

Hey, are you subscribed to the Catholic Laboratory on facebook? Great stuff! The scientific history of the Church is overwhelming and very interesting. And it ain't over by any means! ;)

[Tea Time]

With so many people worldwide with science degrees, one could probably find at least one to espouse any particular view, perhaps from a bed at an asyloum somewhere. Is religiosity on the increase or the decline among the best scientific minds on the planet? See, the argument from long-past authority is not a compelling argument at all.

 

More proof of the NEED for unbelievers to rely on shame to make headway.

 

Do you have proof that religiosity is on the decline among scientists? And if it is, can you say why? Perhaps fear, shame, intimidation? See, we would have to be very, very honest to look at it empirically, wouldn't we? We could not harbor a hatred for religion and look honestly, now, could we?

 

Arguments from zero authority are not very compelling either, and scientists are making less and less headway in being believable due to their declining ethical underpinnings. Sand is not a good foundation.

Edited January 9, 2012 by Tea Time

[justamouse]

With so many people worldwide with science degrees, one could probably find at least one to espouse any particular view, perhaps from a bed at an asyloum somewhere. Is religiosity on the increase or the decline among the best scientific minds on the planet? See, the argument from long-past authority is not a compelling argument at all.

 

You need to do a little googling on Catholic and science/ scientists.

 

Or, if you want to read a great book, read How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, esp the chapter on science.

 

It's by Professor Thomas E Woods, who has 4 Ivy League degrees, an AB from Harvard and a PhD from Columbia. Just in case you want to make sure he's qualified to write it. Perhaps he had time while he was lying in the asylum? Nice one, there.

Edited January 9, 2012 by justamouse

[justamouse]

 

Hey, are you subscribed to the Catholic Laboratory on facebook? Great stuff! The scientific history of the Church is overwhelming and very interesting. And it ain't over by any means! ;)

 

No, but I will! Thanks.

[Iucounu]

More proof of the NEED for unbelievers to rely on shame to make headway.

 

Do you have proof that religiosity is on the decline among scientists? And if it is, can you say why? Perhaps fear, shame, intimidation? See, we would have to be very, very honest to look at it empirically, wouldn't we? We could not harbor a hatred for religion and look honestly, now, could we?

 

Arguments from zero authority are not very compelling either, and scientists are making less and less headway in being believable due to their declining ethical underpinnings. Sand is not a good foundation.

Empty rhetoric is certainly not going to win any arguments for you either. A search engine might help you in the future-- I'll get you started:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

"Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer."

 

I guess you'd have to ask those best scientific minds on the planet why they're increasingly atheistic. I am guessing you'd find a host of reasons, but we need not delve into them here

Edited January 9, 2012 by Iucounu

[mommaduck]

*sigh* You know, if you want to believe it, believe it. If you don't, then don't. I don't know why, when one group is happy, another has to come in and bash it. I saw this thread as a JAWM type thread, by the wording.

 

However, here's my two cents: I don't have an opinion on the shroud. It's not here nor there with me. It neither makes nor breaks my faith. My faith is beyond such. But this is not to say that I haven't had other experiences that I acknowledge...and those experiences simply add to my faith. If the shroud does that for some people then I see no reason to make an issue over it.

 

Jesus, regardless what one thinks of him, existed as much as Edison existed; it's history, people.

 

*rant off*

[justamouse]

Empty rhetoric is certainly not going to win any arguments for you either. A search engine might help you in the future-- I'll get you started:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

"Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer."

 

I guess you'd have to ask those best scientific minds on the planet why they're increasingly atheistic. I am guessing you'd find a host of reasons, but we need not delve into them here

 

You back yourself up with wiki? :001_huh:

 

hee.

[Tea Time]

Empty rhetoric is certainly not going to win any arguments for you either. A search engine might help you in the future-- I'll get you started:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science#Studies_of_scientists.27_belief_in_God

"Among members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7.0% expressed personal belief, while 72.2% expressed disbelief and another 20.8% were agnostic concerning the existence of a personal god who answers prayer."

 

I guess you'd have to ask those best scientific minds on the planet why they're increasingly atheistic. I am guessing you'd find a host of reasons, but we need not delve into them here

 

Thank you for describing my comments as "rhetoric." That truly is the nicest comment I have ever had on this board. God bless you for that. :D You can then note what part, exactly, was it that was "empty," in your view, because you did not respond to any of it except the one part I already conceded.

 

I have no doubt that many of the stats will come up with increasing atheism. It is the sect taught in public schools and in higher education, so it is perfectly logical that it would be the school of thought that is growing. Personally, I know a number of budding scientists who will definitely be keeping their beliefs to themselves. The growing number of closet theists will probably go unnumbered.

 

What you really need to answer to, however, about your post, is the slander of calling people who are believers "crazy," or otherwise implying as much. Scientists, if they are going to hold an atheist philosophy, must defend it in the arena of ideas without resorting to fear, intimidation, and shame as means of gaining believers. It is a poor method of convincing people of anything. How do I know that? Because the Catholic Church has been there, done that, and evolved. ;)

[Guest submarines]

I'm sure the real people that gave testimony would be amused at being considered fictional characters. Perhaps we had better shut down the courts if we cannot tell the difference, and if the testimony of humans is of zero value when it does not line up with someone's predetermined beliefs.

 

.

 

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially as the time passes, and this has been shown again and again by various psychological studies. In fact, the Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will make it easier to question eyewitness testimonies.

[justamouse]

Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, especially as the time passes, and this has been shown again and again by various psychological studies. In fact, the Supreme Court recently made a ruling that will make it easier to question eyewitness testimonies.

 

The Jews maintained their oral tradition impeccably until they wrote the Torah. Until not meaning that afterward they let it all fall apart.

 

The New Testament was written by Jews (who became Christians, but Jews, nonetheless). They didn't mess up.

 

Now, there are crumpy translations, I'll give you that.

[Iucounu]

You back yourself up with wiki? :001_huh: hee.

The problems with your bashing of Wikipedia in this context are your obvious dislike of the information I've presented more than the source, the fact that Wikipedia is highly accurate, and the fact that you can follow those links at the bottom of every well-written Wikipedia article to external sources. Give it a try-- it's quite helpful sometime.

 

In this case, evidence shows that top scientists are increasingly atheistic, which clearly shows the reverse of what you're claiming to be true. We're at the most scientifically and technologically advanced stage in history, with a greater population of scientists than ever before.

[justamouse]

The problems with your bashing of Wikipedia in this context are your obvious dislike of the information I've presented more than the source, the fact that Wikipedia is highly accurate, and the fact that you can follow those links at the bottom of every well-written Wikipedia article to external sources. Give it a try-- it's quite helpful sometime.

 

In this case, evidence shows that top scientists are increasingly atheistic, which clearly shows the reverse of what you're claiming to be true. We're at the most scientifically and technologically advanced stage in history, with a greater population of scientists than ever before.

 

No, it's that at lest when I back myself up with wiki, I apologize and know that it's going to be not a strong argument.

 

And it's neither here nor there. The foundations of science as we know it was laid by the Church. Full stop. Read your history.

 

Calling people who are religious crazy doesn't help your argument.

Edited January 9, 2012 by justamouse

[Iucounu]

Thank you for describing my comments as "rhetoric." That truly is the nicest comment I have ever had on this board.

Wow! I really wasn't going for a compliment there by saying you were using empty rhetoric. A lot really is lost in translation on the web. In this case, vaguely mentioning sandy foundations doesn't translate to a winning argument, and it can't sum up what doesn't exist.

 

you did not respond to any of it except the one part I already conceded

Ignoring words on a discussion board doesn't make them disappear. You can believe that if you like, but my words and yours are there for all to read.

 

What you really need to answer to, however, about your post, is the slander of calling people who are believers "crazy," or otherwise implying as much.

I have nothing to answer for, and certainly not slander (for future reference, slander must be spoken). I think again we are victims either of miscommunication or of willful avoidance. What I actually wrote was that one could find someone with a science degree to espouse just about any viewpoint, even if it be from a bed in an asylum. What this means is that one can't draw conclusions about the truth of an assertion by an isolated person with a science degree-- the assertion might be false for reasons ranging from mistake to even insanity. Picking and choosing statements from a few people, and presenting them as some sort of proof that science actually supports the existence of God or some such malarkey, despite the quite overwhelming weight of scientific opinion to the contrary, is simply fallacious.

 

That's not fear-mongering, it's simply shutting down a fallacy on a discussion board.

[Iucounu]

No, it's that at lest when I back myself up with wiki, I apologize and know that it's going to be not a strong argument.

You can follow the Wikipedia article and do your own searching to confirm what I've written is true. {shrug} In the meantime, with the links right down there at the foot of those pages to some studies to get you started, it seems like you're just choosing to ignore the evidence. Don't shoot me-- I'm just the messenger.

 

The foundations of science as we know it was laid by the Church. Full stop. Read your history.

That's laughable.

[Guest submarines]

The Jews maintained their oral tradition impeccably until they wrote the Torah. Until not meaning that afterward they let it all fall apart.

 

The New Testament was written by Jews (who became Christians, but Jews, nonetheless). They didn't mess up.

 

Now, there are crumpy translations, I'll give you that.

 

You didn't address the fact that eye witness testimony is unreliable.

[Tea Time]

The problems with your bashing of Wikipedia in this context are your obvious dislike of the information I've presented more than the source, the fact that Wikipedia is highly accurate, and the fact that you can follow those links at the bottom of every well-written Wikipedia article to external sources. Give it a try-- it's quite helpful sometime.

 

In this case, evidence shows that top scientists are increasingly atheistic, which clearly shows the reverse of what you're claiming to be true. We're at the most scientifically and technologically advanced stage in history, with a greater population of scientists than ever before.

 

What is anyone claiming to be true that this is the reverse of? :confused:

 

The trend toward atheism is very obvious. It is the reasons that matter, and you don't want to ponder those very deeply, I see. But there are other issues to consider, and given that the best scientific minds in history did come from inside the Church, in fact, the scientific method came into being within the context of a deeply religious world, suggesting that being religious and being scientific is some kind of impossibility is rather... unscientific.

 

Here is my point again. Which you will likely ignore again.

 

Atheists do not own the scientific method, and keeping theist out of science circles is a growing threat because more and more atheists are resorting to fear, intimidation, and shame (which you can clearly see in this and every similar thread) as a way of influencing the beliefs of up and coming scientists and the population. This method of influence is nothing new, and it always ends BADLY.