Carbon Dating & The Shroud of Turin

BlackTyranny writes "The Shroud of Turin, carbon dated in 1978 by a team of scientists, may be far older than originally thought. Raymond N. Rogers, a retired chemist from the University of California-operated Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, part of the original team, used samples given to him in 2003 from the Cardinal of Turin's scientific advisor. Roger's contends that the carbon dating might be faulty because "the people who cut the sample didn't do a very good job of characterizing the samples," that is, taking samples from many areas of the cloth." I think the shroud 'Patch' may be made of the big foot suit. ;)

Comments

And on the back...

[Faust7]

"Made in Taiwan,
80% Cotton,
20% Polyester,
Dry Clean Only."

dating

[dankelley]

Yeah, most of my dating is faulty also. Oh, carbon, you say. Nevermind.

Authenticity

[milohanrahan]

It's pretty generally accepted already by all those without blind faith that the piece of fabric known as the Turin Shroud is not what Jesus was wrapped in. Further experimentation with and investigation of it seems to me an extraordinary waste of money.

Re:Authenticity

[hey!]

Well, I don't see it as a waste of money, if this is important to people.

Science is not a set of conclusions, it is a set of procedures. As such if the original tests were worth doing, then questioning the results of the original test are potentially worth doing. If the original tests are not be questioned in principle then the conclusions of those test can't be regarded as scientific, can they?

From a purely scientific standpoint, the scientific value of retesting this artifact lies in the basis for doubting the original conclusions. Naturally, if the basis for doubting that is religious faith, then there is no scientific value in doing so. But if there are technical reasons to believe that the original procedure was incorrect, then there is certainly merit in reexamining the conclusions.

By way of analogy, there is no scientific merit in reexaming work done to trace the antiquity of our mitochondrial DNA heritage based on an extrapolation of the world's age in the Bible. But, doing so on the basis that the original work may have overestimated the rate of mutation is a totally different kettle of loaves and fishes.

Naturally, the fact that this process would be of great interest to Young Earthers is, or at least should be, irrelevant.

Re:Authenticity

[Fred_A]

There is strong experimental evidence against your theory :)

Re:Authenticity

[Bitsy Boffin]

Yes, the procedure for creating the shroud as being a photographic image has been duplicated successfully.

Near the bottom http://www.petech.ac.za/shroud/isthe.htm

Damn! That means I have to accept the possibility.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

...that God made the entire universe universe, impregnated some woman on a the third planet from a very insignificant star and then let the resulting offspring get killed. I'd come to the conclusion this story wasn't true but now the Turin shroud dating is in question I have to revise my view of the entire universe again. Really, can't these archaeologists get their act together. The indecision is killing me.

patch

[rigelstar]

Who decided to patch the shroud along the way?

1978?

[Anonymous Coward]

The carbon dating was done in 1988, not in 1978. The article is wrong.

Re:1978?

[damiangerous]

No, the article is correct. It states that carbon-dating was done in 1988, but that the samples used for all the different tests (including the carbon dating and the vanillin testing that is the subject of the article) were taken from the shroud in 1978.

uh...What year is it?

[apparently]

First:

A chemist who worked on testing of the Shroud of Turin says new analysis of the fiber indicates the cloth that some say was the burial linen of Jesus could be up to 3,000 years old.

Then:

The Shroud of Turin, the 14-foot linen revered by some as the burial cloth of Jesus, may have been woven around the time of his death. ...
Give or take a thousand years, eh?

Cautionary note ...

[fygment]

... Raymond N. Rogers has been a long time believer of the authenticity of the shroud. A Google on his name will show a long involvement. It is doubtful he will ever have findings that will be contrary to his own beliefs. This does not mean he is wrong nor a fraud. It would just be more believable if the findings were from an unbiased third party.

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[gl4ss]

...and there really isn't any proof on it having been the one that some guy 2000 years ago was in.

relics were a big business, and still are.

there were literally tons of wood that was supposedly from the cross that jesus was supposedly nailed to.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Biggs Driut]

As an agnostic and a humanist, I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs. That goes for everyone, including CmdrTaco and the person offended by CmdrTaco. Though I admist that CmdrTaco's comment is a statement of opinion and not chastisment (but it could very well be interpretted as that), whilst the anoynmous coward's above statement is a blatant attack. so, to the autor of "Dumbest. Editor. Evar.", thus spake Zarathustra: "STFU".

Face imprint gives away the fake

[TheMediaWrangler]

All you have to do is look at the face image on the shroud. It is a completely orthogonal image. If the shroud was wrapped in any way around a person's face, there is no way that the image could have been generated.

Hey kids, you can try this at home. Just wet your face and lightly wrap a paper towel around it for a second and then see if you recognize yourself in the image.

Re: Face imprint gives away the fake

[Black Parrot]

> What about the genitalia? If the face image is preserved, why not the genitalia.

Apparently even dead people are ashamed of their unmentionables. So much so that they cover themselves with their hands, even underneath their shrouds.

Re:Face imprint gives away the fake

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey kids, you can try this at home. Just wet your face and lightly wrap a paper towel around it for a second and then see if you recognize yourself in the image.

There seems to be a problem with this. With the paper towel around my face, I couldn't see anything.

Please provide better directions.

Re:Face imprint gives away the fake

[RadagastTheMagician]

Actually it's the other way round. The image is definitely warped, but such that it's more anatomically correct if draped. Some icons (paintings on curved wax and wood, such as this icon ) show a marked resemeblance to the shroud image, because the underlying wood is curved in the same way (the medieval idea of "3D", only you don't need red & blue glasses).

There are several books on the Shroud that purport that the overwhelming majority of religious art shows a high degree of influence from the shroud image. The paintings have a lot of anatomical weirdness due to the fact that they were copying basically a photographic negative (whether you think it's a fake or not, the image is definitely a photo-negative) without realizing the concept. In the image above, see the wide-apart large staring eyes, misshappen right cheek, and basically the hair. The hair in that painting is the artist's impression of what was more likely the cloth bound around the shroud man's head to hold his chin closed.

Here's an image from someone who's trying to prove that theory : shroud vs icon (if you disregard the coins for the moment, it does seem to show that medieval artists around Europe and Asia basically tried to copy the shroud as closely as possible even where it didn't look human.) (sorry about the partisan source for that image, first link on google).

That doesn't show it's fake, nor that it's real, but that at least the artists felt it was authentic, and many of them dated from before the carbon dating from the British museum; so it's another piece of evidence that the Brits really screwed that one up, ensuring controversy for another dozen years.

Re:Face imprint gives away the fake

[RadagastTheMagician]

actually that second image isn't a good example of my point, sorry! The website showed the *positive* (reversed) image against the icon. You'd see much more resemblance in the original (negative) and the icon.

Here's a website that describes the basic theory. I think they have a good point, but since they're true believers, they take it way too far and dilute the original point by trying to show how even modern day art is shroud influenced. Modern day art is much more influenced by the renaissance, which probably has no shroud influence at all (I mean seriously guys, if anybody faked it, it certainly wasn't Da Vinci or Raphael, they had WAY better things to do.)

All carbon dating can show

[Zachary Kessin]

Is that the item is from about the right time period or not. In truth if you could show that it is about 2000 years old it doesn't prove much. Lots of people died back then and where wrapped in a cloth. And the Romans used crusafiction as a standard form of capital punishment. So at best you can show that it was the death shroud of someone who died 2000 years ago via a more or less standard way of executing someone.

Re:All carbon dating can show

[Trurl's Machine]

Lots of people died back then and where wrapped in a cloth

...yet their bodies left no visible image on the cloth. This one somehow did. I'm afraid you're missing this point now.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[DoofusOfDeath]

Um, aren't you chastising Cmdr Taco's belief that he has a right to chastise Christian's beliefs?

I'm all for being nice to people, but I think you're logic is a little self-defeating.

A Lament

[milohanrahan]

It's a pity that this sort of uninteresting pseudo-science keeps cropping up on /.

I'm not a scientist, but surely there are more interesting things going in the world than this?

Re:A Lament

[Attaturk]

It's a pity that this sort of uninteresting pseudo-science keeps cropping up on /.

I'm not a scientist, but surely there are more interesting things going in the world than this?

I couldn't agree more. And I'm pretty confident that Jesus would also agree wholeheartedly if he were alive today. I suspect he'd be dumbfounded as to why God's children still seem to be mesmerised by idols and symbols when they should really be focussing on all the death, torture, war and oppression in the world. We'll spend money on investigating a dirty old piece of cloth but we're not prepared to stop all the prejudices and greed-fuelled, self-interested warmongers in the world. I'm not a Christian btw (far from it in fact) - but I have zero time for anyone claiming to be a Christian that actually has no idea what Jesus Christ's own ideals were.

Please excuse the rant but really - even Jesus himself would mod this story down.

Physicists vs Chemists

[Anonymous Coward]

"But there was virtually no vanillin left in the shroud, leading the chemist to calculate it could be far older than the radiocarbon testing indicated".

This is a chemical analysis along the lines of the fact that all the vanillin has disappeared, assuming it was there to start with, and that it disappears at a predictable rate (without knowing the temperature and other conditions it was stored in).

The carbon dating on the other hand measures the ratios of isotopes of carbon. The ratio of isotopes of carbon in all living matter is known, and it produces other isotopes at a predictable rate dependent only on time after death or harvest of the matter (cotton, bone, etc). This is a nuclear process that is independent of temperature, humidity, chemical environment, etc.

My money is on the physicists.

time to get over it

[aminorex]

the british museum's dating was patheticly incompetent, failing to account for the role of accumulating bioplastic coating on the fibers, the preservation of the shroud in oil during the late renaissance, and now, as has been demonstrated by use of other dating methods, the selection of repair materials for the dating. the only reason it was ever accepted was that it's results were pleasing to the rejectionist viewpoint.

vanillin decay products demonstrate that the shroud is composed of materials of two distinct periods, one consistent with it's documented provenance (to the 13th century), and one consistent with its physical characteristics (1000 BC to 700AD).

given that it is the only proposed physical artifact of a pivotal event in human history, with profound import, compentent pursuit of an accurate and factual account of its characteristics is a very worthwhile endeavour, and entirely undeserving of the deceitful mockery of the poster.

Vanillin

[BarryNorton]

Summary completely misses the point of the article that the new analysis was carried out on vanillin content of the fibres rather than carbon isotopes.

Religious View vs. Scientific View

[reporter]

For the religiously inclined, click on this link to go to a relatively good (i.e. moderate) viewpoint on the Shroud, by an Epicopalian who thinks like John Shelby Spong (one of the very few Christians whom I respect).

For those (like myself) who are secular, I wish to point out the single greatest problem in the religious view of the Shroud. The clerics simply assume that the shroud belongs to Jesus (assuming that he existed at all) and then direct their scientists to prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus. This type of reasoning is "Assume the conclusion to be true. Then prove the conclusion." I thought that scientific inquiry is "We don't know what to expect. Let's probe and collect the scientifically provable facts. Then, we draw a conclusion from the facts."

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[BeatlesForum.com]

Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.

Christians hate unmarried mothers and adultery and women who have children with men who aren't their husbands otherwise

Christians aren't supposed to hate anyone, but rather hate the sin. We're all sinners in this world. Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less. I'm sorry if your view of Christianity has been skewed by those who don't hold to true beliefs.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Anonymous Coward]

As an agnostic and a humanist, I feel nobody has the right to chastise other's for their beliefs.

Incorrect. This is covered by the first amendment. In the case of religious beliefs, the government has no right to interfere, but everyone else has a fundamental right to the freedom to make fun of the crap other people believe in.

The real mystery of the Shroud of Turin...

[rednip]

Is how the image was produced in the first place. As best as I know, it's unique to (at least) medievil tech. Does anyone out there have a good scientific explaination for it? Perhaps it could be a History Channel show, "God Tech".

Re:The real mystery of the Shroud of Turin...

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC TV popular science strand QED did a number of programmes on the Shroud over the years. One subjected the shroud to computer-generated image analysis and conculuded that yes, it had been draped over a body. A later programme speculated that it might be the work of Leonardo da Vinci (who was demonstrated to be at least available at around the time that the shroud was dated to), but puzzled over the presence of egg white in the dark areas of the image. This suggests to me (though no-one put these facts together at the time) that Leonardo da Vinci actually made the world's earliest photograph! Egg white is an important element of crude photographic emulsions; so it is not too far-fetched to imagine Leonardo creating this image by coating a piece of cloth and then draping over a suitable volunteer (probably even himself!); and then standing in the sunlight for a time until the image formed - a sort of holy wet t-shirt picture!
Robert Day, Coventry, UK

From here.
Possibly the first photograph.

Actually, that would be a sin.

[Anonymous Coward]

Leviticus 19:19

King James Bible: Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed. Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Good News Bible: Obey my orders. Do not crossbreed your cattle. Do not plant two kinds of seed in the same field. Do not wear clothing made from two kinds of fiber.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Catbeller]

Most of the religious justification for hating gays comes from Leviticus, but damn few people ever read the whole text. The people who wrote it were freaking nuts. It's like a read from Rev. Moon's writings -- control for its own sake. Superstition and common sense mixed together with a massive dash of fanaticism.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[jayratch]

Not at all. The Hebrew codes specified in Leviticus et al specify a code of life that is extremely survival oriented, efficiency oriented, and family oriented. The end result of this is a nation that managed to thrive and grow to eventually produce movements which now dominate most of the world. Control for its own sake though it is not:
1) The kosher laws effectively prevent food poisoning and obesity. Much of what is forbidden, under available food preparation techniques (which were also specified at a high standard of sanitation), would have been either a bacterial risk or unhealthy in general.
2) Other laws, such as those governing clothing and housewares, prescribe a level of quality control that may have increased initial costs on many items, but probably resulted in better durability and a lower long term TCO.
3) Sex laws served two purposes. They held the family units together and guaranteed growth of the nation (more offspring than parents) as well as preserving the purity of the group. This may not make sense biologically but it avoided the cultural confusion which we Americans are so fond of.
4) The entirety of the code gave the Hebrews a sense of "something different" from their neighbors, as it continues to for those who follow it. Hence serving to unify the people and enhance a sense of nation, which is why they are just about the only cultural group of that period to have survived to the modern day.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed. Neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen com upon thee.

a nation that managed to thrive and grow to eventually produce movements which now dominate most of the world.

I'm really confused by the "mingled seed" comment.

Civilizations which planted multiple crops on one field, used crop rotation and cross-bred plants were very successful in agriculture, and I don't see how that would be unsanitary.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[chialea]

>Sex laws served two purposes. They held the family units together and guaranteed growth of the nation (more offspring than parents) as well as preserving the purity of the group.

Have you looked at the family purity laws? What is so terrible about touching your wife while she's in labour? What's so terrible about touching her only 6 days after she's had a midcyle spot? Even if she's having her period, I think that passing the salt is probably not so bad.

Lea

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[smchris]

Whenever I want a warm, family-oriented moment I stop by that passage in Leviticus on how to do slavery up right in the eyes of the Lord. That one centainly did give "the Hebrews a sense of 'something different' from their neighbors".

Actually, I've been extremely annoyed recently to see how many of my acquaintances have "gone biblical" and decided (probably without ever reading a bit of it in the original authors) that several hundred years of the Enlightenment were worthless.

Now let's get out that bible and see what Jesus says about stem cells.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[jwilcox154]

Most of the religious justification for hating gays comes from Leviticus, but damn few people ever read the whole text. The people who wrote it were freaking nuts. It's like a read from Rev. Moon's writings -- control for its own sake. Superstition and common sense mixed together with a massive dash of fanaticism.

Tell me, where in the bible does it say to hate people that are homosexual?

Yes, in Leviticus, it talks against homosexuality. If it were only in the old testament, then it most likely wouldn't apply today because it would be considered under the Mosaic law of which Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice that we don't have to live under it anymore.

But, homosexuality is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Which is

"9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

also in 1 Corinthians

7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

and again in Romans 1:24-28 which is

"24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

But, I have to agree about the religious right"Which in my opinion are the modern day pharisees.", they often quote these scriptures as well as Leviticus, but fail to recognize the scripture after Romans 1:28. Quite a few of these so called "Christians", when I say so called, I mean that they claim they're Christian, but turn around and back-bite, gossip, judge, etc and what Romans 1:29-32 says

"29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Back to judgmental behaviour, Jesus himself said "Judge not, lest ye be judged.". And Christians are supposed to have a forgiving attitude. Jesus himself said in Matthew 18:21

21 Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22 Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven.

That means a Christian must forgive someone if wrong was done to the Christian, or if Joe Schmoe decides to try to kill me, but fails, I really have no choice but to forgive him, to do otherwise would be saying that I'm better than Jesus

To summarize what I have just said, no Christian is allowed to be hateful to anyone. To do otherwise would be going against the Christian teachings, which is to have a "Christ-Like Walk"

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Paladin128]

Interesting. However, you do not become ritually impure if the blood can be attributed to non-uterine or wound causes, from what I read. You do not become impure if your nose bleeds, for example.

I don't remember any specific references to nosebleeds and the like, but I could be wrong. It probably depends on the cause of the nosebleed (i.e., being punched is a wound, whereas spontaneous nosebleeds may have been).

A woman is also ritually impure from menarche until just before she gets married. If she's contagous, she can pass it to other women, just not men.

Probably just a rule to enforce chastity, which frankly is practical. No chance of pregnancy out of wedlock (unless you are visited by an angel...) and no chance of STD's if you didn't have sex!

There are certainly purity laws that make sense from a hygene point of view. However, these ones are somewhat difficult to justify.

Agreed. But some rituals and customs and rubrics and the like are just for flavor -- for rich tradition. Such as a Catholic woman vieling her head in front of the Blessed Sacrament (still a requirement in canon law -- despite its unobservance, this rule was NEVER abrogated). This rule is largely for a symbolic gesture of humility, but has no real practical side.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[FCAdcock]

Then how come my neighbor's dog only humps other male dogs? I'd consider him evidence that other species have homosexual members.

Boy that dog's a fag...

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[MutantHamster]

I thought it was the word of God. Are you trying to tell me that God had a lacking scientific understanding? I thought he was omniscient.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Klowner]

Nothing like removing all context from a passage and making it sound like total jibberish.

Keep in mind, that would be Old Testament, and God is speaking to Moses (the guy leading the Israelites around at the time) providing him with a rather lengthy list of stuff they shouldn't do. Such as sacraficing babies to idols (Leviticus 20:2), hot hot man love (Lev. 20:13), and of course bestiality (Lev. 20:15-16), and other things of that sort...

Although the mixed seeds and the fiber blended clothing thing seems odd, and I doubt they had GMO seeds at the time. Most of the strict rules being enforced in those chapters comes after the Israelites had been screwing themselves over on a few occasions and defying rather simple to follow guidelines which were specified before all this stuff.

I wouldn't consider regular crop rotation methods as "mixed seed", sure you have some voluntary growth from the previous year but that's undesired and unintentional.. Agreed, it does seem weird, it could have been intended simply to make the Israelites a visual example of being "set apart"(holy) to the other people they encountered along the way.

Although, harddrive manufacturers need to read this one..

(Lev. 19:35 KJV) Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.

Go ahead, mod me down for doing a little research before I post.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Paladin128]

The bible wasn't transcribed by God, but by man. It contains within it an image of the Word of God, but the Bible itself is not the whole of the Word; the whole of the Word is the living Christ. Much of the Bible (such as much of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) is history.

God dictated many laws to the prophets, and some were derived. It was the job of the Aaronic priesthood to determine what meant "clean" and "unclean". As we are imperfect beings, we cannot always discern God's commands perfectly.

DISCLAIMER: this is from a Roman Catholic, not Jewish, perspective. I am not, and have never been a Jew, so I can't speak much on Jewish theology.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[JonathanBoyd]

Well Paul spoke with the authority of Jesus in 2 Timothy 3:16, saying that all scripture is God breathed, therefore we can trust the original autographical version of the Bible to be exactly the words that God intended to be conveyed. God often spoke and acted through history and certainly was also responsible for the laws found in the Mosaic books. One of the purposes of them was to show just how impossible it is to remain clean through human effort, thereby pointing the way to the need for a redeemer i.e. Jesus.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Evil Pete]

You know every time I hear something like this I am reminded of the psychological phenomenon of 'rationalisation' ... whereby we make excuses for things we want to believe.

Sure there is bound to be local wisdom in these ideas, there is in every society when you look close enough. Nothing special there. But there is almost certainly ignorance, and we should remember that in hindsight one can concoct an almost infinite number of reasons to explain something independent of whether it is true. This is the reason Karl Popper thought History was unscientific.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[wrf3]

At least eleven events are considered to be knowable history by virtually all scholars, and a twelfth event is considered to be knowable history by many scholars.
(1) Jesus died due to the rigors of crufixion and (2) was buried. (3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope. (4) Although not as frequently recognized, many scholars hold that Jesus was buried in a tomb that was discovered to be empty a few days later.
Critical scholars even agree that (5) at this time the disciples had real experiences that they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus. Because of these experiences, (6) the disciples were transformed from doubters who were afraid to identify themselves with Jesus to bold proclaimers of his death and Resurrection, even to be willing to die for this belief. (7) This message was central in the early church preaching and (8) was especially proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had died early before.
As a result of this message, (9) the church was born and grew, (10) with Sunday as the primary day of worship. (11) James, the brother of Jesus and a skeptic, was converted to the faith when he believed he saw the resurrected Jesus. (12) A few years later Paul the persecutor of Christians was also converted by an experience that he, similarly, believed to be an appearance of the risen Jesus.

From: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead: The Resurrection Debate, with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (who recently made news).

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[duffahtolla]

Ticks have a genetic basis for homosexuality. At least I think it was ticks..

They reproduce in a wierd way. The males "penis" is nothing more than a spike that pierces the cuticle of the female. The female has a soft spot in the cuticle for such mating. The male then deposits its sperm directly into the females blood where they migrate towards the females ovaries and fertilze the eggs that are there.

This technique of sperm migrating towards reproductive organs has allowed male ticks to "rape" other male ticks. With a larger, stronger "spike" the gay ticks pierce the male ticks and the rapists gametes migrate towards the male victims own testicles, where they stay until he subsequently mates. The sperm which the victim deposits into a female tick is now a mixture of his own and that of the gay ticks. So the gay tick can have offspring by raping males.

The raping ticks themselves can get raped. So a mating session could involve a female mounted by a male, mounted by male, mounted by yet another male, etc.

A female tick can be picky, so a gay tick doesn't need to court her, it just waits till a straight tick is accepted and mounts her. Once mounted, the straight tick is easy prey for the the gay ones since it's now immobile.

Only the gay ticks have superior schlongs. The straight ones don't need them since females have that soft spot, so there was no evoulutionary pressure to get bigger ones. So basically you have three distinct populations. Female, Straight Male, and Gay Male. If I remember right there are no bisexual ones.

I don't remember where I read this, but I do remember that it was a book and not a web site.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

If it weren't for Paul glomming onto the nascent Christian sect (power hunger thugs know a good thing when they see one) it might have died off as a historical footnote.

I guess we'd be in a nation "under Zeus", Mormons swearing Zeus had visited the Southwest, African Americans singing gospel, err, uh, Zeusal songs, everyone Thankgsiving to Zeus, Zeus on the money...

I guess only TV preachers would be slightly different, as they wouldn't have to apologize for being caught with prostitutes, after all, What Would Zeus Do is pretty obvious.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

That Old Testament stuff doesn't apply anymore. We're bound by the New Testament new covenant, wherein the omnipotent, omnibenevolent, perfect God changed his mind and we are to turn the other cheek and lead by example rather than execute someone who fucks a man's or a horse's ass.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Well, his engineering sure sucks.

From the comical (nipples for men) to the irritating (large neural cluster prone to "head aches") to the legally actionable sloppy engineering (lack of redundant blood supplies to vital areas, esp. brain and heart, inability for modern bodies to handle a wealth of food supply once capitalism slapped "by the sweat of your brow shall you till the soil" down like a redheadded stepchild.)

Fuck Yaweh and the scapegoat he rode in on. Grow some (cancer prone) balls, people.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Catbeller]

" I have read the whole text."

I meant Leviticus, not the Bible. The christian bible, as a whole, really doesn't lend itself to analysis. It's too many pieces from too many times written by too many different types of people. On top of all that, it was sliced, editted, and rebuilt constantly. There is no overall theme that you can sink your teeth into. A theme can be chosen for you, taking on the aspects supporting whatever they like while they toss whatever they like. Hence the American Christians/Baptists, who believe in a Warrior Jesus rather than a teaching Jesus, etc., blending Old and New Testaments to support the worldview that Bush believes in -- America as Jesus's warrior army, taming evil around the world in preparation for the Apocalypse. YMMV for INRI.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

While the science of "born with it" may be more driven by politics than real (isn't it sad people have to say they were born with something just not to be thrown in jail?) nevertheless there's no reason to suggest it is something that needs to be "treated".

In a free society, the people do not grant the government the power to regulate sexual activity.

Re:Actually, that would be a sin.

[freemacmini]

"Your second statement wasn't a sentence; I don't understand what you are saying."

Simple. The hebrews of today bear little resembelence to the hebrews of 4000 year ago. In fact the mongols of today live pretty much like the mongols of 4000 years ago but hebrews of today eat pizza and watch porn.

The chinese, japanese, mongols, hindus, turks, arabs, all have a longer history then the hebrews do.

For sake of argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just say for the sake of argument that the shroud is the cloth that jesus was wrapped in when he was buried. What exactly does that prove, anyway?

Maybe if intact DNA could be found on the cloth, they could clone it, and get the resulting guy to reason with christians.

Hm...

[HackNack]

Scientific method:

1. Characterization
2. Hypothesis (a theoretical, hypothetical explanation)
3. Prediction (logical deduction from the hypothesis)
4. Experiment (test of all of the above)
5. Conclusion (an objective conclusion based on #4)

Dr. Raymond Rogers's Method

1. Conclusion (It was Jesus's burial shroud)
2. Characterization (What's that?)
3. Hypothesis (Huh?)
4. Prediction (We all know it was Jesus's)
5. Experiment (Hmmm, let's pick a method that will ballpark the age better. 100,000 BC to 2005 CE GOOD! Hey, it's all good.)

Geez

[hey!]

Um, aren't you chastising Cmdr Taco's belief that he has a right to chastise Christian's beliefs?

Uh, no. Taco is allowed to believe he has the right to chastise Christians' beliefs, he's just not allowed to actually do it.

Of course, mainly it's just gauche. It's like a Jewish friend of mine who went out of her way to help a person who was having a spot of trouble at work. The person told my friend that it was "awfully Christian of her." Of course, my friend knew what she meant was something like "Your actions are in accord with ideals that I was taught by Christianity, and which are held by other religions such as Judaism." But it's rather like a segregationist telling W.E.B. DuBois that it was "awfully white of him."

The downside of the death of the idea of propiety is that it has stripped our culture of language and tools to describe situations like this. There is a great gaping whole on the continuum that starts at "OK" and runs through "morally wrong", "should be illegal" ending up at "downright evil". Between "OK" and "morally wrong", there is a whole range of qualities, including: gauche, impolite, rude, and offensive.

Mocking somebody's beliefs, depending on the context, falls somewhere in this range.

Fires

[Anonymous Coward]

The shroud was stored in a church that caught fire, centuries ago.

It was folded up, and one corner caught fire or got charred (moltern lead from the roof?). That explains the triangular and diamond patches that have been sewn on at a later time.

Turin..

[mechsoph]

Anybody else read that as the "Shroud of Turing"?

Re:Bad for Science

[the_2nd_coming]

why? just because someone uses it to show that there is or is not evidence that faith in something super natural has merit does not hurt the scientific method. I mean, it either discovers that there is a god or there is not a god or we do not know.... how are any of those outcomes harmful to the scientific method?

I think you are just an idiot.

Ah yes... when it's global warming

[the_skywise]

The scientific evidence is "overwhelmingly" true and we should not deny the "scientific" evidence. When the scientific evidence shows the carbon dating was potentially done on a patch of the shroud of turin, it's because it was made from the "bigfoot" suit (happy face).

But then it just goes to show you that there's more to religious beliefs than religion...

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Trurl's Machine]

especially the right to insult someone who has beliefs that are not based on anything real

Let me insult you now, because you clearly mistake "beliefs" with "knowledge". By definition, beliefs do not need to be based on anything real. If you want to base something on "anything real" - you need to have a certain belief, namely believe that there is actually something which is both real and accessible to your senses. It's a common belief, but still a belief - you might as well be a classic "brain in a jar" and see only simulacra. This belief is NOT based on anything real, because you base your perception of reality on this belief, so if you'd try to do it otherwise, you'd have a typical fool's circle.

there's nothing DUMB about joking about a piece of cloth that shouldn't really be worth anything to you if you believed it to be real.

Well, if you take the assumption that the Shroud is a medieval counterfeit (and this is also my belief, if you ask) - you'd have to assume that someone in Middle Ages was tortured to death and his dead body was somehow proto-photographed on the linen, which might be possible technically even then. Anatomical details are just too accurate for the Shroud to be merely a paintwork coming from the artist's imagination (medieval painters in the era of Giotto di Bondone simply did not know how to paint human body accurately, this knowledge was rediscovered in late Renaissance). So watching the Shroud, you watch a recording of someone's pain and death. If you find someone's torment and agony funny, I'd say that you are dumb indeed (that's for the insult).

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[EvilCabbage]

Damn, and I usually double check all my post's to, be sure gramma. Is correct. I must, be using the "sydlecix". setting's.

Re:Bad for Science

[Vellmont]

Faith and science are two totally different and incompatible methods of acquiring knowledge.

Faith is not a method of aquiring knowledge, it's a method of retaining a belief.

USA Today: Not fit for the bottom of a birdcage.

[uncoveror]

An article about the Shroud of Turin is in the Science/Space section of USA Today. Even with carbon dating a Shroud believer wants to cast doubt upon, it belongs in the religion section, or something to that effect. USA today is McNewspaper. It is not fit for the bottom of a birdcage.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[TheCoop1984]

So me, as a computer scientist who has studied the pros and cons of Christianity as much as I can, and have come to the conclusion that God is real, is deluded?
Have you ever actually read and studied the gospels? If you havent, how can you possibly say your opinion is right when you havent even studied the evidence?

Radiocarbon Dating the Shroud of Turin

[6800]

Here, Remi Van Haelst, says he's a carbon dating expert, wrote a detailed critique of the Nature article that presented carbon dating results for the shroud. "A Critical Review of the Nature report (authored by Damon et al) with a complete unbiased statistical analysis" It is also an eye opener on the vageries of carbon dating.

http://xoomer.virgilio.it/bachm/VHAELST6.PDF

Religious "Proof"

[MajorBlunder]

First, let me say that I am a Christian, and I hold my faith to be a guiding and supporting influence in my life. As to the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, I personaly have doubts about its authenticity, but I refuse to pass final judgment on the matter as I doubt we will ever have all the facts. In the final analysis however no proof, scientific or other wise will matter.

"For those who do not believe no proof is sufficient. For those who do believe no proof is necessary." -- Unknown source

Re:Religious "Proof"

[de Selby]

"As to the authenticity of Shroud of Turin, I personaly have doubts about its authenticity, but I refuse to pass final judgment on the matter as I doubt we will ever have all the facts."

A good attitude. These are some of the facts I've picked up:

* A forger confessed to the Church for having created it.
* The history of the shroud is not known before the mid-1300s.
* The weave is not like that of Jesus' time.
* It's the wrong size and shape according to the Bible. It should be be strips, not one large piece.
* It was not supposed to have been draped over the body according to the Bible, but wrapped around.
* In order create the undistorted 2D image, it would have to have been suspended flat, not wrapped or draped over a body.
* If the image was burned onto the shroud with some holy light, why did the beard burn darker than the skin?
* The height of the man shown on the front is different from the height shown on the back. The head is also out of proportion and shown in more detail than the rest of the body.
* Three labs in 1988 tested samples selected by the holder of the shroud to be accurate samples all found with 95% confidence it was from 1260-1390, the age which theories already put the forgery or materials.

I don't need any more to conclude it's a fake.

Re:Religious View vs. Scientific View

[cloudwilliam]

It isn't a strictly scientific view, but I think we can safely assume that someone named Jesus did live and die in Judea 2000 years ago. While we don't have any physical evidence, the circumstantial evidence is pretty good. The earliest Christian writings we have are from Paul of Tarsus, penned around A.D. 50. And while Paul never actually met Jesus, his writings, as well as that of the Gospel of Mark (circ. A.D. 70), were still recent enough after the crucifixion (circ. A.D. 30 or so) for there to still be people alive who had either known Jesus or been around when he died. His assault on the temple moneychangers, trial and execution was pretty heady stuff, kind of like O.J. Simpson and Scott Peterson. If People Magazine had been around in ancient Judea, we'd probably have some good pictures as well as an exclusive interview with Peter on why he denied his lord three times. :) That said, like you, I am not a Christian, largely because Christianity makes no sense and has nothing to do with Jesus. Christians these days go apoplectic over forcing the Ten Commandments into public spaces and institutionalizing bigotry, yet seem to care little for the Beatitudes from the Sermon on the Mount. They're the first to justify violence for whatever end despite Jesus exhorting them to "turn the other cheek" and promising "the meek shall inherit the Earth."

Go crawl back under your rock..

[fmaxwell]

You've provided links to religious nut-case web sites, a non-peer-reviewed article by someone named "Anita Moon" with no apparent credentials, and an uncredited essay hosted on the site of an English Instructor from Spokane Community College. That uncredited essay actually cites, as one of its sources an "article" on www.christiananswers.net! Yeah, that's real, unbiased, peer-reviewed science, isn't it?

If it upsets you when science effectively disproves the 2000 year old fables, fairy tales, and myths that you need as a psychological crutch, then stay away from web sites which are pro-science.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Vellmont]

I'd remind the readers that science is fallible.

Of course. But you sound like you're using the fallibility of science to justify what you already believe. In other words "it MUST be the real Jesus shrowd, not that I have any evidence it is.. but eventually science will show the counter-evidence is wrong because.. well it MUST be". That's not how science works. Sure, it's possible the science is faulty.. but you don't just assume it is because the evidence doesn't back up your own, unsubstatiated beliefs. That's just patently dishonest.

In science you take all the evidence and make a conclusion based on that with the understanding that it's not the final word on the matter. In other words, you don't get to use science only when it backs up what you want to believe, but claim faulty science when it doesn't.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[pyro_dude]

As an atheist I believe that religion is based on no factual basis whatsoever and exists purely as a fantasy in which religious people choose to believe.

Ever consider that maybe this belief is based less on fact than some of those who apprehend or believe spiritual or religious truths?

Re:Where's the controversy?

[ubertoober]

Really? I've searched for credible evidence. I've found a lot of people claiming that's there's evidence, but I've never been able to find anyone that could actually cite legitimate evidence. No one. If you've got real proof that actually holds up under scrutiny, then don't hide it under a bushel, no--let it shine, let it shine, let it shine!

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[LinuxGeek]

CmdrTaco went to Hope College, which is an excellent Christian based institution. He also attended Christian school all the way through high school.

What you really missed was CmdrTaco flaunting his contempt for not only the college, but his parents beliefs and one of their strongest reasons for paying to send their son to very excellent schools. That means he can realate to about much of the ./ crowd that have similar thoughts on the matter.

In this context, I would also have to consider Taco's comments to be a blantant attack.

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[wealthychef]

Somehow I think bearing the Son of Man in your womb is a little different than coveting your neighbor.

Well, maybe not really. :-) In both cases, the woman is following a primal need to reproduce and found a mate based on ability to provide and stability. It's actuallyl a story right out of a Harlequin romance, if you ask me.

Becoming a Christian doesn't make one sinless - but hopefully makes them sin less.

Aha, finally a Christian comes up with a testable theory! Let's see. Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers? :-)

If true, then this one fact would justify the religion in my view. If not, well, just another crazy fad.

Leonardo Da Vinci Created the Shroud

[Samuel_Colorado]

The National Geographic channel last night aired an hour-long investigation into the mystery of the shroud of turin. NG was made the argument that Leonardo Da Vinci created the shroud. Anyone who's interested should check it out.

NG claimed that Da Vinci had family ties to the church that housed the shroud, thus creating a link between how the shroud could have been obtained by the church.

NG made other intereresting links and arguments.

I found it particuarly amusing that the image on the shroud is extremely similar to Da Vinci's own self portrait. It seems well within Leonardo's personality to pull such a prank that has lasted for centuries.

As for the actual age of the shroud, as long as it was *before* Leonardo's time, he could have obtained the material. If his goal was to trick the people of his time with the shroud he probably would have sought an older-looking one anyway.

From nationalgeographic.com: Behind the Mysteries Week: "Da Vinci and the Mystery of the Shroud" at 8P et/pt Jesus's image, believers say, was burned into the Shroud of Turin by the intense heat of resurrection. But is it genuine? Or was it created by someone with extraordinary skills, like the great Leonardo Da Vinci?

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[CmdrGravy]

No, it's a position based on known facts and evidence of how the world and the universe work.

Depsite the fact that there are dozens of religions which believe in various kinds of gods and deities not one of them have proved the existence or provided any evidence at all for the existence of the god or deity which they believe in.

As soon as one does provide some credible evidence I will be willing to re-appraise my position.

Until then I will continue to believe that religion exists because every one alive has wondered at some point "why am I here ?" and "what happens when I die ?" and it's easier to believe that nice things which you have some control over happen and that we are here thanks to a creator we can understand and talk to through prayer. That is easier to believe than us being here through a fantastically complicated series of interactions which we will probably never understand and have no control over and when we die that's it.

science

[Deanalator]

"The chemistry says it was a real shroud, the blood spots on it are real blood"

"It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus,"

So am I to believe then, that noone else here has seen jurassic park?

Re:There are Arab Christians

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Um, "Arab" is an ethnicity, not a religion. The majority of Arabs are Muslims, of course, but there are also Christian Arabs, Jewish Arabs (yes, really!), Zoroastrian Arabs, Hindu Arabs, and, one assumes, atheist Arabs, although those who live surrounded by the aforementioned groups probably tend to keep pretty quiet about it.

And you know, while it's almost certainly true that most Arabs are Muslims, I'm not sure that the reverse is true. Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim country; there's also Bangladesh, Pakistan, and large portions of India. That's a hell of a lot of people, almost none of them speaking Arabic as a native tongue.

Get it right

[KontinMonet]

First, the British Museum did no dating. They simply coordinated the results from three labs in the US, UK and Switzerland.

Second, this 'bioplastic coating' was simply a hypothesis from Stephen Mattingly of the University of Texas. STURPS Joan L. Rogers took authentic Shroud fibers, which she laboriously extracted from the STURP sampling tapes by washing them free of adhesive with xylene (not a solvent for any "bioplastic polymers"), to Metuchen, NJ, for laser-microprobe Raman analysis. The analysis is extremely sensitive, but nothing was observed that would indicate a "bioplastic polymer."

Third, even at the time, scientists in the dating lab in the UK were skeptical: P.H South, while examining threads from the sample on behalf of the Oxford University Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory found indications of cotton. To him it seemed like material intrusion. In an article entitled "Rogue Fibers Found in Shroud," published in Textile Horizons in 1988, South write of his discovery of "a fine dark yellow strand [of cotton] possibly of Egyptian origin, and quite old . . . it may have been used for repairs at some time in the past, or simply bound in when the linen fabric was woven."

I well remember that, at the time, no one (except the odd spin doctor) thought these results conclusive and asked for more material. This was denied.

Re:carbon dating..

[KontinMonet]

The margin of error depends on the age of the sample (amongst other things). It is not fixed at 2000 years: see RC dating

Re:Damn Priests

[Inti]

Actually, the Catholic church does not hold the shroud to be authentic, and church officials have made no comment on the new anaysis reported in this article. This new analysis was not performed by "the church", but rather by an independent researcher.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Catbeller]

Well, it's a semantic win for theists when you call yourself and "a-theist", a person who, as they define it, "doesn't believe in God".

Do you call yourself an a-Hinduist or a non-believer in the Norse gods? You don't have to, because people don't believe in such, for the most part, in the U.S. and don't feel compelled to define themselves by naming themselves non-believers in the Hindu, Norse, etc. pantheons.

The term "atheist" has been semantically hijacked to mean "unbeliever in the christian god" To apply it to yourself puts a rhetorical bullet in your head before the argument even starts.

"Agnostic" is better, one, because it doesn't have the semantic disadvantage, and secondly because it more accurately defines who you are: a person who declares that he hasn't any special knowledge (a-gnostic) and can't possibly have any answers. It's a "who-knows?" category which better suits a reasonable person. It also implies nobody else has the answers either. :)

My one peeve about the word is that it's mispronounced! It should be: AAY-NOSTIK, not AG-NOSTIK. We pronounce gnostic NOSTIK, not G'NOSTIK. Sheesh.

Take your own advice!

[Tau Zero]

the british museum's dating was patheticly incompetent

Scientifically or religiously?

failing to account for the role of accumulating bioplastic coating on the fibers

Which makes the Shroud unique among all ancient textiles? (If you can't properly date the Shroud, how could you date anything else? Do you think that scientists don't test their methods for reliability before using them for any work of importance?)

the preservation of the shroud in oil during the late renaissance

Are you saying that cellulose cannot be purified from the material? If you cannot obtain guaranteed-original material for radiocarbon dating, you can't get it for any other analysis either. That includes the vanillin that Rogers is using for his claims... claims which are highly suspect because they make assumptions about rates of chemical reactions under the uncontrolled storage conditions.

and now, as has been demonstrated by use of other dating methods, the selection of repair materials for the dating.

You're not making sense here. Are you telling me that

• The very people who maintain the Shroud as a holy artifact
• Who by definition believe in its authenticity
• Who have every reason to want it to be proven authentic
• Who control access to it, and
• Who only permitted research on it after a long and difficult negotiation with the scientists involved,

didn't allow anyone to have the proper things to test?

Isn't it easier just to believe that the claims of authenticity are false, and that people are clinging to it because of what they want to be true?

Rogers looks like someone who will believe regardless of the evidence, and is thus someone whose "scientific" results are not trustworthy. The McPaper article quotes Rogers saying " the blood spots on it are real blood", when the actual material of the "blood stains" has been proven to be red ochre. Am I also being asked to believe that Jesus bled red ochre?

given that it is the only proposed physical artifact of a pivotal event in human history, with profound import, compentent pursuit of an accurate and factual account of its characteristics is a very worthwhile endeavour, and entirely undeserving of the deceitful mockery of the poster.

Refusing to accept the reality that the "artifact" is a 14th-century creation says nothing about the dating process, and everything about your prejudices. It's not what its keepers think it is. Get over it.

Nature Magazine Comments on Carbon 14 1/28/05

[drporter]

This is a good editorial comment on Rogers' debunking of the carbon 14 dating, by Philip Ball in Nature Magazine .

Nature, of course, was the prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal that carried the story of the 1988 carbon 14 dating.

This article addresses most of the comments that have been posted in this thread.

Dan

Extreme Christianity and statistical behaviours

[Sara Chan]

This isn't quite crime statistics, but perhaps it's relevant:

______________________________________

The Sunday Times [28 November 2004]
Andrew Sullivan: Where the Bible bashers are sinful and the liberals pure

. . .

Take two iconic states: Texas and Massachusetts. In some ways they were the two states competing in the last election. One is the home of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes and social permissiveness.

The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional and gun-toting. Massachusetts voted for John Kerry over George W Bush 62% to 37%; Texas voted for Bush over Kerry 61% to 38%.

Ask yourself a simple question: which state has the highest divorce rate? Marriage was a key issue in the last election, with Massachusetts' gay marriages becoming a symbol of alleged blue state decadence and moral decay. But in fact Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country at 2.4 divorces per 1,000 inhabitants. Texas, which until recently made private gay sex a crime, has a divorce rate of 4.1.

A fluke? Not at all. The states with the highest divorce rates are Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas. The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont. Every one of the high divorce rate states went for Bush. Every one of the low divorce rate states went for Kerry. The Bible Belt divorce rate is roughly 50% higher than the national average.

Some of this discrepancy can be accounted for by the fact that couples tend to marry younger in the Bible Belt and many do not have the maturity to know what they are getting into. There is some correlation, too, between rates of college education and stable marriages, with the Bible Belt lagging behind a highly educated state such as Massachusetts.

The irony still holds, however. Those parts of America that most fiercely uphold what they believe are traditional values are not those parts where traditional values are healthiest. Hypocrisy? Perhaps. A more insightful explanation is that socially troubled communities cling to absolutes in the abstract because they cannot live up to them in practice.

Doesn't being born again help to bring down divorce rates? Jesus was clear about divorce, declaring it a sin unless adultery was involved. A recent study found no measurable difference in divorce rates between those who are "born again" and those who are not; 29% of Baptists have been divorced, compared with 21% of Catholics. Moreover, a staggering 23% of married born agains have been divorced twice or more.

Teenage births? Again, the contrast is striking. In a state such as Texas where the religious right is strong and the rhetoric against teenage sex is gale-force strong, teen births as a percentage of all births are 16.1%. In liberal, secular Massachusetts they are 7.4%, less than half. Marriage itself is less popular in Texas than in Massachusetts. In Texas the proportion of people unmarried is 32.4%; in Massachusetts it is 26.8%. So even with a higher marriage rate, Massachusetts has a divorce rate almost half of its "conservative" rival.

Take abortion. America is one of the few western countries where the legality of abortion is still ferociously disputed. It is a country where the religious right is arguably the strongest single voting bloc and in which abortion is a constant feature of cultural politics. Compare it with a country such as Holland, perhaps the epitome of social liberalism. Which country has the highest rate of abortion? It is not even close. America has a rate of 21 abortions per 1,000 women aged between 15 and 44. Holland has a rate of 6.8. Americans, in other words, have three times as many abortions as the Dutch. Remind me again: which country is the most socially conservative?

. . .

More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-13782 27,00.html

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[b-baggins]

. This is covered by the first amendment.

The public education system strikes again. The first amendment was designed to prevent the restriction of criticism of government. The idea that it preserves rudeness, mockery, and shouting fire in a crowded theater is simply wrong.

Geometry doesn't work out

[starsong]

The simplest argument I've ever heard against the shroud being real (i.e. an actual burial cloth) is the image of Jesus supposedly imprinted on it. The face/body have roughly the same dimensions as a normal human face, except for some blurring. However, this is NOT what you would expect on a piece of cloth wrapped around someone! If the "imprint" came from an actual body then when the shroud was removed the image, in particular the face, should be severely stretched horizontally. It should definitely NOT look like a photograph or a painting. This is because the cloth has to wrap around the face and actually cover the whole thing.

Take a soda bottle and a piece of paper. Cover the front half of the bottle (i.e. a 180-degree slice cylindrically). This represents the face. Mark the edges with pencil. Now hold up the paper and compare the "wrapped" length of the image (between the pencil marks) with the "visible" image (how wide the bottle looks when viewed straight-on). Photographs, paintings, and the image on the shroud have the "straight-on" dimensions. Regardless of how old the cloth is, the image is way too narrow. It's fake.

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Fallen Kell]

Well, ok lets think about this logically. We already have several possible reasons for the inaccuracy of the carbon dating. This is just yet another look at the dating method used to show that is has flaws.

To me, the most blatent flaw is the know fact that the shroud has/had a bacterial infestation in its long history. Enough so that any dating method used would and should clean the cloth before attempting to date it, but it was not cleaned, and might not be possible to clean before dating. This new look wants to take samples from multiple places on the shroud, which makes much more sense knowing that there is contamination that will skew any and all results to a newer creation date (as the bacterial mass would was living on the shroud after its actual creation and thus have giving a possitive time shift to the data collected which still includes this added mass to the testing mass, the shroud fibers themselves, not the shroud and bacteria that is on the shroud.

There was a similar issue with the dead sea scrolls. But with those, a solution was found to get more accurate readings by measuring the age a one of the scrolls which had were dated and cross-referenced with other known sources to be known accurate to the particular dates/time frame, and compairing that result with the result found on the other scrolls. In those cases, there was a 200-300 year difference resolved. By compairing the resulting carbon date output range in those cases, it was found that the lowest possible number in the carbon dating was the true date. It was still within the margin of error of data in that particular case(s), but it was the extreme low end which was a 200-300 year shift from the nominal value of the range.

In the shroud's case, there is no other documentation found with the shroud, no other similar objects which have dates associated with them, at least not until the 16th century when it passed into the hands of the church. And thus no way to use the same methods used to date the dead sea scrolls in this case. What is known, is that there is contamination. How much is up for debate simply because more tests have not been performed, and because science does not want to expose the known flaws with carbon dating. I say known as they are known to scientists and intelligent people, but not known to the general public who have been lead to believe that it is the be-all-end-all method and that the results never lie, but when in reality, the results can easily be skewed to the possitive timeframe by contamination (this is why other objects that are dated try to use material that is not exposed to the direct elements, but this is not possible in this case).

All I am saying is that there are many known reasons for the dating to be skewed. Is it possible that the dating was skewed 1100 years or so, I do not know. It could be if the bacterial infestation was extrememly pervasive in the area from where the sample was taken.

Personnally, I believe that it may be a fake, but the fact that we have yet to prove it one way or the other keeps my mind open. The real question should be if it is a fake, how was it made? We still have yet to answer that. There is speculation that it was painted by an artist, but if that was the case, the paint should have been absorbed by the fibers and penetrated them, when the coloring is only on the extreme edges of the fibers. Another suggestion was that it was "burned" on by a massive bronze/iron statue being heated and the cloth being draped over the statue. This too has been disprooven as the photographic negative effect would not have been created with this method (emperical tests were done to test this and the resulting works did not withstand the photographic negative test). When after almost 700 years no one has been able to show how it was made, especially with all the advances in science and technology only showing how much more there is to the shroud, I keep a open mind that it could be authentic, but a skeptical mind given the nature of the time in which it came into existance...

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[dasunt]

Aha, finally a Christian comes up with a testable theory! Let's see. Theory: Christians do less crime than others. Let's consult the stats. Any takers? :-)

Considering that Christianity tends to include a support network and a structured framework, I'd be a little leary of questioning if Christians committed less crime than non-Christians.

Many Christians don't even drink, or consider drinking to drunkeness a sin, another factor in criminal behavior.

There are only two factors that I could see pushing the Christian crime rate up: Prison ministries, and hate speech and other crimes against gays and abortion-right activists. Other than a few nutcases, Christians tend to be strongly outspoken against homosexuality and abortions, but not to the point of committing crimes. The prison ministries may be a huge factor though.

The other problem is how to define Christian? There are many self-described "Christians" out there that I don't consider Christian due to their lapse of practicing Christianity. They are as much Christian as they are Germans or Swedes or English: It may have been the belief/country of their ancestors, but they no longer practice the customers. Its like "Wiccans" who convert to their faith after watching "The Craft", yet have very little grasp of the Wiccan theology.

Unfortunately, googling is turning up no useful statistics, such as the percentage of criminals at the time of their crime who regularly participated in religious acts (praying, church participation, etc) vs the population on average. :(

If you don't understand religion, don't write it off as some strange cult. Without considering the supernatural, religion has some rather big benefits, which may be one of the reasons why atheistic cultures are relatively rare in history. Religion can help bind a culture together, and provide rules in order to increase the chances of survival. Look at the Islamic rules on bodily hygiene: Most of them make a lot of sense. Its similar to the US dietary guidelines: While parts of it are probably mistaken, following them should improve your chances of survival. The difference is that the US dietary guidelines are based on science, while strict religious laws are based upon which tribes and religions or subsects of religion survived.

Even today, in the age of science, those who regularily participate in religious customs (solitarily or in groups) tend to be healthier than those who don't. Stress is unhealthy: forgiving others and believing that God is in charge reduces a lot of stress. I had a religious family member be diagnosed with cancer several years ago. In addition to the support network her church gave her, she had a lot less stress because she believed that whatever happened was God's will. She had biopsies and went to radiation therapy and drug therapy[1], and has been cancer free for several years. While we can credit modern science with killing the cancer, her lower levels of stress probably played a factor in recovery.

[1] Yes, God helps those who helps themselves. Religion has already answered the question of "If I have faith in God, why should I do anything at all?" centuries ago. You aren't being witty by bringing it up: You are showing your ignorance of Christian theology.

Another Explanation?

[lax-goalie]

One is the home of Harvard, gay marriage, high taxes and social permissiveness.
The other is Bush country, solidly Republican, traditional and gun-toting.

--- snip ---

The states with the lowest divorce rates are: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Anyone else notice that these are better characterized as predominantly Catholic states? Perhaps these stats aren't so surprising given that divorce is recognized as OK by Protestants and is doctrinally proscribed in Catholicism.

Methinks that that the author of referenced article (and the parent's poster) didn't consider all the available data.

Viewpoint from a Science-obsessed Christian

[benbry]

First to makes things clear: I am a Christian, and personally have many doubts about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. I'm really nervous when many extreme Christians, or fanatics for that matter will try to use the Shroud of Turin as proof for anything. We Christians absolutely DON'T need this artifact to be of any proof of our faith. If it turns out to be consistant with the time-frame that my personal savior was killed on the cross, then that that's great, hopefully there would be more believers, but if it isn't...so what? It is just an artifact. This message board has placed too many emphasis on the relation between the Shroud of Turin and Christianity as a religious whole. I really hope everyone, nonbelievers and believers can sever this relationship.

And in news from the future...

[fyngyrz]

...today, scientists report that carbon dating of the "Toast of the Virgin Mary" was likely in error. Professor Egon Frushkup said that "previous attempts to date the toast were flawed in that too many of the samples were taken from the crust." Popular urban legends attribute the toast to a 20th-century Ebay hoax; the pope, Pontificus Maximus Jerod XV, has stated that "the Toast is a sign from God which dates from the very first days of Christ."

We would like to thank Professor Frushkup for taking a few minutes out of his 7.0 day worshihp services to speak with 28th Century News.

Would you like to know more? Click Here

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[CaptainCarrot]

there were literally tons of wood that was supposedly from the cross that jesus was supposedly nailed to.

This is a popular fiction with no evidence whatsoever to back it up. As someone else mentioned, most relics of the True Cross are smaller than a splinter. The total volume of all known True Cross relics is about .004 cu. m out of an estimated volume for the entire Cross of .174 cu. m. See both Wikipedia and The Catholic Encyclopedia.

Other Problems For Carbon Dating

[DarkKnightRadick]

I've actually watched several shows on the Shroud both on the History channel and the Discovery and Science channels, and all three sources (two of which are run by the same parent company) both claim that carbon dating is going to be inaccurate no matter what because of layers of caked on pollen and other microscopic life from over the centuries. All other evidence aside, I'd like to see an accurate dating of the Shroud (I'm a science buff and ardent Catholic-converted-to-Pagan) just to see the Pope choke as he tries to explain this "mystery".

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[calculadoru]

Here we go then, wielding that book as if it were a metaphorical weapon to slay all ideas that contradict it.
Why run away from it? Because it's masochistic self-delusion and it prevents me from doing better things with my time - such as spending time with wife and my child and my friends, or reading a good book. Preferably fiction - not fiction disguised as holy writ.

it's revelation from God, not man-made philosophy

Is it now. You are absolutely, positively sure it is the revealed word of your god (who, incidentally, favours only those who worship him and damns all the others - a more fiendish idea of a deity, I have never heard), and not the translation of another translation of yet another translation of some scrolls on which a race surrounded by enemies tried to record its identity and traditions? Then again, of course you are sure, because you have decided to surrender your reasoning abilities (judging by the way you write you are fully capable of rational thought) and pray instead of think. To each his own, but still - I call that a waste.

Do you love God with all of your being? Do you worship him above all else? Is your entire live summarised by glorifying him and enjoying him? If not, then you're not giving God what he deserves and therefore sinning, by the Bible definition of it.

Er...no, no, and no. If that makes me a sinner, then tough tit for me. Any god who demands worship and respect, rather than earn them, is a fallacy I would never choose to indulge in, if only because it offends my intellectual abilities and makes a mockery of my IQ.

I've never seen a belief go round killing people. I also recall that Jesus told people to love their neighbours. People's sinfulness and ineptitude in following this doesn't change the fact that this was his teaching.

OK, I'll bite. By that reasoning, fascism, national-socialism, and communism were not inherently evil, they were but simple ideologies people abused and twisted, right? Think about it for a second: any ideology that claims its superiority over all the others contains the seeds for violence. As long as your - or anybody else's - religion lays claim to the absolute, revealed truth, it takes the first step on the road to violence. Two examples for you: the Crusaders sacking both Constantinople and Jerusalem (their horses waded through blood up to their chests, it is said), and the Spanish baptising South American babies before slitting their throats.
THINK about the things religion DOES. Simply blaming people for its effects is not a solution, it is but refusing to admit the reality of what it does.

Nice sound bite, but what makes it in any way true?

Not a sound bite, silly, a fragment of a quote from one of the most beautiful books in the English language. It goes
"My God died young. Theolatry I found
Degrading, and its premises, unsound.
No free man needs a God [...]"
You should give it a try, great read.

Besides, there are non free men.

You lost me there.

Can you do anything you want?

As long as it's not illegal, yes. What is your point again?

Can you forgive your own sins?

Ah, an easy one at last. Yes I can. Mostly because I haven't sinned, really, but if I did, I'm sure I could find it in my heart to forgive me. Isn't forgiveness the big thing?

Why, if that source is an omniscient, infinite God? Surely he would be the very best source, rendering others unnecessary?

You are committing the sin of pride. You should never assume that that which you believe in is the absolute and only truth, it's just bad style and horrendously bad logic. Besides, omniscience and omnipotence might be very nifty ideas to toy around with, but they do tend to contradict each other. Really, they do. Think about it.

the shroud

[coaxial]

The shroud isn't authentic. It's physically impossible for a 3d object to have made the entire image. The face, back and front all have slightly different dimensions, meaning they were created at three seperate times. I don't necessarily believe it, but an intersting theory that explains this is that the shroud is actually a primitive photograph. Camera obscuras and light sensitive chemicals were known at the time of the shrouds creation in medieval times. It is conceivable, however unlikely, that someone could have put all the pieces together to create the shroud through photographic techniques.

This theoretical photographer could then have used his camera obscura to creat the front and back seperately. A thrid image would be needed for the face since lenses at the time did not have the focal range needed to show enough detail at the range needed to show the entire body. The photographer couldn't simply leave the face blurry, because that's where everyone looks.

Not "mingling" was an allegory for purity of purpo

[Fished]

By the time Leviticus was written (general scholarly acceptance is that it was set to something like its current form sometime around 550, but based on older material) the major threat to Israelite identity was intermarriage and mingling of customs with gentiles. Many of the really wacky regulations in leviticus (like not mixing flax and cotton) were ways for the Israelites to remind themselves of their call to be a people set apart to Yahweh.

To modern ears, this whole notion of purity seems offensive, but in the case of the Hebrews it was really a matter of cultural survival as a subjugated race. If they were to continue as a viable nation-in-captivity and/or religion, they had to find ways to be distinctively different and cut down on intermarriage and mingling with the gentiles. It is more like the sort of cultural distinctiveness taken on by all sorts of oppressed groups (think Africa Americans or contemporary homosexuals) than racism or classism.

There are a lot more believers here than I thought

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised there are so many religious people here on Slashdot...

How sad that we sit here in front of our computers -- and at least in my case: dozens of other miracles of modern technology. We have access at our fingertips to photographs from other moons and planets, great works of science and mathematics, etc. -- and we're still apparently obsessed with these poorly written, contradictory, illogical, primitive belief-systems.

And before you mod this as "flame-bait", I'll say this: discussing religion as if it *isn't* 'primitive' is an affront to *my* belief system -- a system which is open and accepting of all that is provable, and questions baseless tenets that are spread by fear, force and ignorance. So this isn't intended as flamebait -- Why must I sit back and be polite when my beliefs are being insulted? Its not that I just don't agree with you -- its that your beliefs are an affront to mine. So this discussion of religion (from any and all perspectives other than history and social relevance) is flamebait to me.

That's all.. carry on... resume "discussion" ...

Errors, Accuracy, and the Shroud

[PoolDoc]

Few of the possible ways to mistate, misrepresent, or mischaracterize the history of research on the Shroud have been overlooked here. One would have hoped, regardless of the attitudes held by various posters toward Catholic relics generally, or the Shroud particularly, that they would have had a greater regard for truth and accuracy then has here been displayed.

Lest there be any misunderstanding: I'm not Catholic, and have never venerated a relic of any sort, whether Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or even a SETI moonrock!

1. "The clerics simply assume that the shroud belongs to Jesus (assuming that he existed at all) and then direct their scientists to prove that the shroud belonged to Jesus."

While there may well be a case where this occurred, the Catholic church does not now, nor has it ever in the past, recognized or authenticated the Shroud as an official relic. It's been the subject of some intense disputes with in the RC church, to the point that Pope Clement VII ordered that in the case of all future exhibitions, a priest present should "declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ." In fact, the theory that Shroud was only a painting -- whether forgery or 'representation' -- was advanced WITHIN the Catholic church over 600 years ago!

As an apparent result of these and other dispures, the Shroud seems to have been treated more as an embarrassment, than a relic the church wished to display or advertise.

See the Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) article for details: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13762a.htm

2. "It is doubtful he (Rogers) will ever have findings that will be contrary to his own beliefs."

Raymond Rogers, who authored the study, published in "Thermochimica Acta", that has generated all the hubbabaloo does NOT now claim that he, or anyone else has proved that the Shroud of Turin is the Shroud of Christ. To the contrary, he's been quoted as saying that "It's a shroud from the right time, but you're never going to find out (through science) if it was used on a person named Jesus".
http://tinyurl.com/68jfl (www.smh.com.au)

ABSTRACT OF THE ROGERS ARTICLE:
In 1988, radiocarbon laboratories at Arizona, Cambridge, and Zurich determined the age of a sample from the Shroud of Turin. They reported that the date of the cloth's production lay between A.D. 1260 and 1390 with 95% confidence. This came as a surprise in view of the technology used to produce the cloth, its chemical composition, and the lack of vanillin in its lignin. The results prompted questions about the validity of the sample.

Preliminary estimates of the kinetics constants for the loss of vanillin from lignin indicate a much older age for the cloth than the radiocarbon analyses. The radiocarbon sampling area is uniquely coated with a yellow-brown plant gum containing dye lakes. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin. The radiocarbon date was thus not valid for determining the true age of the shroud.
"Thermochimica Acta", Volume 425, Issues 1-2
http://tinyurl.com/4vy6r (www.sciencedirect.com)

3.Results of comprehensive STURP study of the Shroud, the consortium of scientists who physically examined the Shroud in 1978, was NOT sponsored or encouraged by the Catholic church, did NOT include many Catholics, and did NOT conclude that the Shroud of Turin was the Shroud of Christ. Raymond Rogers, who was a member of that team, was quoted at that time, when asked that question at a public press conference, as saying, "We do not have test for Jesus Christ. So, we can't hypothesize or test for that question."

"Report on the Shroud of Turin", Heller, 1983
used copies from Amazon - http://tinyurl.com/46fln

4. "So at best you can show that it was the death shroud of someone who died 2000 years ago via a mo

Taking into account non-formalized relationships

[Frans Faase]

Of course, it is quite possible that in Massachusetts many more people have sexual relationships without being married, so in the end it may turn out that are actually more people staying with their initial partner in Texas then there are in Massachusetts. Here in the Netherlands there has been a time when it was not done to get married. You simply lived together. The law even came up with special rules for people who did not want to marry out of rebellion against the concept to marriage being a life long bond. Nowadays many people live together several years before they get married. So divorce rates being lower does not say a damn thing about the number of people that break up after having sexual relationship with someone else.

Re:Dumbest. Editor. Evar.

[Tatarize]

>>Why does one have to assume that someone was 'tortured to death' ?

Well how would four drops of what looks like blood get on the cloth? Only tortured people have small drops of blood right?

Also, with cloth over the face, you wouldn't get a picture. Try this yourself. Rub something on your face and put cloth on your face and try to make something that looks even vaguely face like. It's a fake. And a bad one at that.

The first confirmed sighting of the shroud is low and behold the same date that it carbon dated to. Well, as I live and breath...

Re:Bible lesson!

[JonathanBoyd]

When the original king james version translators did their thing, they took care to note which parts were literal translations of the greek, and which parts were put in by them to make it proper english. They did this with itallics Anything in itallics is a word inserted by the translators.

I don't use the King James. Given that its language is a little archaic and it worked off less reliable manuscripts than we now have, I prefer to use a modern literal translation such as the English Standard Version. I augment it with a Greek New Testament and the New International Version as well.

Also, for the new testament, there in no punctuation of any sort in the original greek. All letters are capitalized, and not as much as spaces between the words, Like this: THENEWTESTAMENTWASWRITTENWITHCAPSLOCKONANDABUSTESS PACEBAR

My job is to study and teach the Bible, so I already know, thanks :^)

So let's look at the verse again. Notice how your interpretation of the verse depends on that first 'is' being there. Also notice how it is in itallics. Take it out and reread the verse. Now it only says that those parts of scripture that are given by inspiration of god are profitable, etc. It allows for some scripture to not be given by god, and says nothing about the profitablity etc. of those scriptures

That's a poor interpretation. The Greek, literally translated into English goes along the lines of:
ALL SCRIPTURE GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING FOR REPROOF FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS THAT PROFICIENT MAY BE THE OF GOD MAN FOR EVERY GOOD WORK HAVING BEEN EQUIPPED.
Now it's quite obvious that without an 'is' in there, the sentence makes no sense. Given that 'is' does not have to be in the sentence, but can be implied, we can drop it in in the most logical place that will give us a readable sentence. i.e. between 'scripture' and 'God-breathed.' It makes more sense of the first half of the sentence and gives reason for 'that' being there.

There are many passages in the Bible that have greatly changed meanings when you move a comma around, or put in those itallic words etc. Other than looking at context or other passages, we no longer have the abillity to determine the correct meaning of these passages.

But we can look at the context and get a very good idea of what it should be in 99.9% of the cases. Or by simply applying rules of grammar, as in this case.

Please try to understand the book that you are using, failure to do so will (as possibly in this example) lead to incorrect assumptions

Paul is encouraging Timothy to remain faithful to God's word and preach it. The interpretation accepted by leading Biblical scholars, that appears in English translations of the Bible and that obeys the rules of grammar, fits with the context of the book and is much more likely to be right that your interpretation. Given that there are other passages validating scripture as being from God, this is quite logical.

Ray Rogers' Honest Science

[drporter]

Before jumping to conclusions one should read an FAQ that Ray Rogers wrote. It is technical, and ONLY technical.

I should state at the outset that I think the Shroud is the real thing. Rogers and I have had numerous discussions on this. He won't agree with me and won't disagree with me (even privately). As a scientist he is excellent and he adheres to scientific principles, as the editorial in Nature makes clear. I trust him even as I disagree with him on some aspects of the Shroud of Turin.

Ray Rogers is a Fellow of the University of California, Los Alamos National Laboratory and a charter member of the Coalition for Excellence in Science Education. He has published many scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. In 1978, together with several other scientists, he personally examined the Shroud of Turin in Italy for several days and collected numerous samples of fibers and particle materials for further study.

Rogers HAS NEVER STATED that the Shroud is authentic or not. He has never promoted a particular religious view. He does not believe that the images are miraculous for scientific readsons. He has amply shown that the carbon 14 dating of 1988 was invalid and if you read his report, that is all that it addresses. Rogers' FAQ includes these topics:

The Shroud of Turin images are not painted

The bloodstains are real blood

Why radiation did not cause images

Why scorching did not cause images

Why the carbon 14 samples are not valid

The 1532 fire and autocatalytic process

The meaning of variegated bands

Cellulose decomposition and image formation

Superficiality of the images on the Shroud

Double superficiality and what it means

Body decomposition rates

Why fibers are not involved in image formation

Other dating methods useful for the Shroud

The 1532 fire and image properties

The 2002 restoration consequences

Optical and physical properties of flax

Image properties and the scientific method

Unconfirmed bioplastic polymer coating

Why a bioplastic did not affect carbon 14 tests

Dan

You're wrong about the slavery.

[guybarr]

I stop by that passage in Leviticus on how to do slavery up right in the eyes of the Lord.

Are you kidding ? The slavery laws were way advanced for the age. An age when slavery was as common economical practice as being an employer today.

The ancient israelites insistence on freeing slaves every 50 years ensured that whole FAMILIES will not have to stay in slavery, and lack of freedom was so frowned on that a slave choosing to REMAIN a slave would be branded in shame. Again, this is the old world - compare this to the neighbours, even to the later, relatively tolerant, Romans, where slavery was practially the only game in town.

No Scientific Test For Christness

[FireIron]

My father-in-law, Dr. Alan Adler, was on the STRP team and did the original blood work on the Shroud.
Before he died, his two favorite statements about the Shroud were, "It's BLOOD! B-L-U-D!" and "There is no test for Christness."

Re:Damn! That means I have to accept the possibili

[JonathanBoyd]

Here we go then, wielding that book as if it were a metaphorical weapon to slay all ideas that contradict it.

Of course. If it is the revelation of God then nothing can contradict it. If it is not the revelation of God, then it is a lie. If I do not believe in it, then it is not worth arguing from, but if I do believe in it, then I must debate from it.

Why run away from it? Because it's masochistic self-delusion and it prevents me from doing better things with my time - such as spending time with wife and my child and my friends, or reading a good book. Preferably fiction - not fiction disguised as holy writ.

That would be true if the Bible was a lie. But if it is the revelation of God, then you must agree that it would be foolishness in the extreme to do anything but embrace it?

Is it now. You are absolutely, positively sure it is the revealed word of your god, and not the translation of another translation of yet another translation of some scrolls on which a race surrounded by enemies tried to record its identity and traditions? Then again, of course you are sure, because you have decided to surrender your reasoning abilities (judging by the way you write you are fully capable of rational thought) and pray instead of think. To each his own, but still - I call that a waste.

I am sure, yes. The Bible is not built up upon successive translations. I have a compilation of the most reliable Greek manuscripts beside me. The English translations I use are based direct from the most reliable Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts. We know how the languages work pretty well, so translations are 99.9% reliable. The bits we're not sure about make no difference to a major doctrine. Even if I only had the New Testament, which is of more historical reliability (in terms of the documents we have being what was originally written) then any other document from that era, I would have enough to know saving faith that is entirely consistent with the Old Testament scriptures.

(who, incidentally, favours only those who worship him and damns all the others - a more fiendish idea of a deity, I have never heard)

He doesn't favour those who worship him. No-one can earn his favour. Out of love, he shows mercy to some and saves them, enabling them to worship him. There is nothing special about any Christian, no merit of their own that they can claim to be responsible for their salvation. The claim of the Bible is that God is infinitely glorious and infinitely deserving of worship. Both because of who he is and what he has done (creation, salvation, etc.). Ih he is, then it is the worst crime imaginable to not worship him. As an utterly righteous and just God, he is compelled to punish such a crime with Hell. Christianity hinges on this. If he is not worth it, then the Bible is a lie. Though, from a pragmatic point of view, if God is the one who can judge, then to call him immoral is ultimately futile as his morality is the one that will ultimately be enforced. It is his justice that will dominate.

Er...no, no, and no. If that makes me a sinner, then tough tit for me. Any god who demands worship and respect, rather than earn them, is a fallacy I would never choose to indulge in, if only because it offends my intellectual abilities and makes a mockery of my IQ

What if he deserves it inherently? And surely the act of creation, of creating us with the purpose of worshipping him and the act of saving us all deserve worship? Are you so proud as to say that none of that matters?

OK, I'll bite. By that reasoning, fascism, national-socialism, and communism were not inherently evil, they were but simple ideologies people abused and twisted, right?

Actually, I'm saying that the teachings of a belief and the actions of those claiming to follow