What's It Going To Take - pipTalk Forums

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

0 posted 2005-01-27 12:36 PM

Turin shroud 'older than thought'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4210369.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/411366.stm

I saw a PBS program that had a expert on weaves
also dispute the 1988 findings.

You would think it important enough to do
whatever is necessary.

[This message has been edited by Ron (01-27-2005 11:16 PM).]

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

1 posted 2005-01-27 02:15 AM

quote:
You would think it important enough to do whatever is necessary.

Important? It's a piece of cloth, John. What possible difference can it matter, beyond idle curiosity, how old it is or who it might have touched in the past? It can prove nothing, change nothing, affect nothing.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

2 posted 2005-01-27 04:04 PM

Ron,

I'm in total agreement with you on this one. (such a rarity lately that I thought we should relish the moment)

Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

3 posted 2005-01-27 07:59 PM

Let’s ask this; would the same hold true
for the Grail?

If it can prove nothing, then what is it
that is already proven, that there should
be indifference?

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

4 posted 2005-01-27 09:58 PM

quote:
Let’s ask this; would the same hold true for the Grail?

If there was no way to know if it was the Grail? Sure.

But you're mixing apples and orange, John, because the nature of the Grail, were the legends true, would make carbon dating a bit superfluous.

quote:
If it can prove nothing, then what is it that is already proven, that there should be indifference?

Uh? Your question implies a cause and effect that makes no sense.

I have a pen on my desk that proves nothing, too. So, what is it that is "already proven" by my indifference to the pen? Sorry, but I see no correlation.

You're the one who claims the Shroud holds importance, John. Tell us why.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

5 posted 2005-01-27 10:21 PM

Ron,

“You're the one who claims the Shroud holds importance, John. Tell us why.”

It doesn’t take my opinion.
Make a threat toward it in a crowd
viewing it and see what happens.

“But you're mixing apples and orange”

Both purport to be relics from the life
and in particular death of Christ, for whom
many doubt there is any contemporary evidence
of his existence.

Such things are important to many of faith,
otherwise they would have cut up the
shroud for dish rags long ago.

Your stance is one the presumes its unimportance,
and yet men and women more talented than you or
I devote their lives to its preservation and authentication.
The article cited is evidence of that.

Ron

Administrator

Member Rara Avis

since 1999-05-19

Posts 8669
Michigan, US

6 posted 2005-01-27 11:33 PM

If someone wants to collect Elvis memorabilia, I have no problem with that. If someone wants to worship a piece of cloth, I have no problem with that, either. Both, I think, flow from the same wellspring.

However, if someone thinks either is "important enough to do whatever is necessary," I'm inclined to leave them to their own devices. I can find better causes to support, I think, and more fruitful ways to spend resources.

Please note, too, John, there's a difference between unimportant, which I never said, and not "important enough to do whatever is necessary." Even Elvis memorabilia has importance. Within reason.

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

7 posted 2005-01-28 12:33 PM

John,

I too think the Shroud of Turin, and other such relicly interesting things, are superfluous when it comes to reasonable proof.  I personally am convinced that the ressurrection of Jesus stands on sturdier ground than a mere cloth.

But like Ron, I don't think that means it has to be false.  I just don't know.  I DO know in the history of Christendom, there has been an unhealthy fascination with relics.  How many skulls of John the Baptist are there anyway?  There's been enough beams of wood said to be from the cross of Jesus to build a modest sized house.  When something smells like that mood and mindset, I tend to keep a distance, and refrain from embracing it.

I don't know what it is.  But it's certainly no linch pin for or against the Christian faith.

Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

8 posted 2005-01-28 12:41 PM

Stephen

“I personally am convinced that the ressurrection of Jesus stands on sturdier ground than a mere cloth.”

What might that be?

Stephanos

Member Elite

since 2000-07-31

Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA

9 posted 2005-01-28 12:51 PM

As the ground is made up of many layers, I'll have to start with one.

Historical Veracity.

Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant

since 2004-10-12

Posts 6688
Waukegan

10 posted 2005-01-28 02:04 AM

Stephen

"Historical Veracity."

What conformity to facts, accuracy, habitual truthfulness,
unwillingness to tell lies, are you relying on?

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.