Shroud of Turin

[Ankhes]

And it hasn't even been reliably proven that Jesus, as portrayed in the bible, even existed.
Did Jesus exist?
That is a great site to see how anecdotal every scrap of Jesus info is, incredibly similar to previous legends, and how totally absent is any comtemporary account of him at all.
Still, I find the shroud interesting every once in a while. Genuine or forged, it is a striking image.

 

[DVS]

The same could be said for Alexander the Great. The absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. I would hardly conclude Jesus didnt exist or was a 'myth' from what I read on that site. I am not sure what to expect of any historical reference of Jesus' actual life while he was alive. I wouldnt say he was exactly 'world renowned' during his life and I wouldnt expect the Romans to document the life this man they viewed as a common criminal. Not to mention, I doubt the Roman anticipated Christianity and would think to write "we just crucified Christianity's saviour" in their journals. Obviously we have the gospels, but those are biased of course. And there are more references to Jesus in the Qu'ran than there is for Mohammed which that site fails to mention. It confirms Jesus as a man, a great prophet, not the son of God.

I guess this would be the opposite of the site you posted:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

So it doesnt matter as people have said, it comes down to believers and non-believers. Nothing would shake Christians faith if the shroud is a forgery. Maye people can prove and verify forensically that this man was Jesus as described in the crucifiction. Still, if it was found to be real I know it would bother the non-believers. Thats why they say 'even if its real, you can't prove its Jesus!" Like whew! NANANANANA!

My interest really is that it can be seen as the only scientific evidence of the afterlife and the paranormal. I dont see how others interested in this field wouldnt see the value in somethig like this. Again, religious beliefs stand in the way.

 

[Rick Deckard]

So it doesnt matter as people have said, it comes down to believers and non-believers. Nothing would shake Christians faith if the shroud is a forgery. Maye people can prove and verify forensically that this man was Jesus as described in the crucifiction.

I don't get it. Don't Christians 'speak to God/Jesus/Holy Ghost' all the time? Why do they need a piece of cloth to confirm their beliefs?

Still, if it was found to be real I know it would bother the non-believers. Thats why they say 'even if its real, you can't prove its Jesus!" Like whew! NANANANANA!

It seems to me that you've adopted a 'heads I win, tails you lose' strategy. Brilliant. Good luck with that.

I can assure you that the 'authentication' of this cloth would be a total 'non-event' in my eyes. It wouldn't 'bother' me at all. IMO, all organized religions are just 'control mechanisms for the masses'. Which religion is the 'true' religion, none, one or all of them?

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I don't get it. Don't Christians 'speak to God/Jesus/Holy Ghost' all the time? Why do they need a piece of cloth to confirm their beliefs?

Part of the reason is to convert others I think.

 

[Rick Deckard]

Part of the reason is to convert others I think.

You mean to convert people from other religions? What, they follow a religion based on the total number 'artifacts' that support it? That is fascinating.

I found a bottle cap in my garden. I'm pretty sure it's from a bottle of bud that JC cracked open in about AD 25...of course I can't prove that but you never know...

 

[Ankhes]

The same could be said for Alexander the Great. The absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. I would hardly conclude Jesus didnt exist or was a 'myth' from what I read on that site. I am not sure what to expect of any historical reference of Jesus' actual life while he was alive. I wouldnt say he was exactly 'world renowned' during his life and I wouldnt expect the Romans to document the life this man they viewed as a common criminal. Not to mention, I doubt the Roman anticipated Christianity and would think to write "we just crucified Christianity's saviour" in their journals. Obviously we have the gospels, but those are biased of course. And there are more references to Jesus in the Qu'ran than there is for Mohammed which that site fails to mention. It confirms Jesus as a man, a great prophet, not the son of God.

I guess this would be the opposite of the site you posted:

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

Not exactly, since it is all anecdotal (at times contradictory) and at best, third hand accounts. Still, I don't personally care if Jesus existed or not. I see no credible evidence that he does, so I just don't accept it. Simple as that. But, I would definately be intrigued if convincing evidence ever was brought forward. But the points in the third-hand or so generations after the "fact" gospels claim that Jesus was so popular he had "multitudes" or people with him at many times. Hardly someone a contemporary would overlook, I reasonably think.

Alexander the Great is proven as there are written letters and testimonials from contemporaries of the time. Not dubious claimes many generations removed.


Again, to me the shoud is an interesting relic. Just for me, personal beliefs in anything "greater than I" are definately not needed to appreciate it.

 

[Recon]

I don't get it. Don't Christians 'speak to God/Jesus/Holy Ghost' all the time? Why do they need a piece of cloth to confirm their beliefs?

They don't need proof, but it always helps to have something physical...
I have seen some more stuff on teh Shroud that brings up more questions... I would like to see more testing... Even though I don't like carbon dating, I would like to see another round of that.

 

[Rick Deckard]

They don't need proof, but it always helps to have something physical...
I have seen some more stuff on teh Shroud that brings up more questions... I would like to see more testing... Even though I don't like carbon dating, I would like to see another round of that.

The first carbon-dating tests were carried out by *3* independent labs and all 3 dated the cloth to about the 13th Century. At which point the shroud keepers say "oops, we gave you a piece of cloth that was used to restore the shroud, that's why the date is wrong". So, when a 'genuine' piece is requested for testing, the keepers say "no more testing, we don't want to damage the cloth any further".

I find that VERY suspicious - it seems to me that the only 'damage' done so far are the tests that clearly show that the cloth is indeed from the 13th century and the best that the keepers can do now is claim the results 'inconclusive'. In other words, a publics relations exercise in damage limitation.

 

[Recon]

that is what i'm saying.... if they still claim it to be genuine, they need to take samples from all around the shroud. Why limit it to a corner... Especially when they claim that is the reason for the "inaccurate" dating.

didn't they say the blood stains on the shroud matched another shroud with blood stains from another location that supposedly covered jesus's head?

 

[Raevenskye]

that is what i'm saying.... if they still claim it to be genuine, they need to take samples from all around the shroud. Why limit it to a corner... Especially when they claim that is the reason for the "inaccurate" dating.

didn't they say the blood stains on the shroud matched another shroud with blood stains from another location that supposedly covered jesus's head?

it's called the Sudarium of Oviedo, and yes, it's supposed to match the Shroud.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

You mean to convert people from other religions? What, they follow a religion based on the total number 'artifacts' that support it? That is fascinating.

I found a bottle cap in my garden. I'm pretty sure it's from a bottle of bud that JC cracked open in about AD 25...of course I can't prove that but you never know...

To convert non-believers. Agnostics too.

No, not the number. Usually what mommy and daddy conditions them to believe. Or due to whatever bible they like for whatever reason. Often it seems arbitrary.

The bottle cap could be proven if you have the $$$.

 

[Recon]

I find funny how people mock relgion and peoples belief in a god, but you can still come on a parnormal website and search for the parnormal/UFO/Alien truth... doesn't add up to me...

I'm no practicing christian, but I believe in god... or something... I don't believe we are here by chance... my proof is the world I walk in every day...

I have never seen a UFO, I frankly think 90% of the people that claim they see UFOs are liars, 9% are just mistaken, and there is that 1% that just might have something... I just find it hard to believe with our exponential increase in new technology, and the years that have passed since the UFOs hit mainstream, that there are still no hard proof.

I;m even starting to get bored with teh same repetitive claims and I bet most of you are too.

 

[Rick Deckard]

I find funny how people mock relgion and peoples belief in a god, but you can still come on a parnormal website and search for the parnormal/UFO/Alien truth... doesn't add up to me...

I'm no practicing christian, but I believe in god... or something... I don't believe we are here by chance... my proof is the world I walk in every day...

I don't subscribe to the 'all-seeing, all-knowing' idea of God. I accept the *possibility* that *something* may have influenced the development of the human race, but the 'creating the universe in 7 days' stories in the Bible just don't add up in my mind. If God exists then why don't I believe He does? Why create humans with skeptical minds and then expect them to believe something purely on faith? If God exists then he's not playing a very fair game, is He?

I have a problem with organized religion - I don't understand why people have to 'get together' to believe in a god. The god that organized religions push is supposed to be 'omnipotent' - so, in that case, why not stay at home and have your own relationship with your god rather than fund and support self-appointed 'representatives' who will 'speak' to him on your behalf? That sounds like exploitation to me.

Pushing your kids into practising your own beliefs is also a form of brainwashing, in my eyes. That's how religion is perpetuated.

I have never seen a UFO, I frankly think 90% of the people that claim they see UFOs are liars, 9% are just mistaken, and there is that 1% that just might have something...

Please don't confuse terminology - a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. If I'd never seen a plane before then pretty much any sort of craft in the sky would be a UFO to me. So the crux of the matter is what percentage of those UFO sightings are ET craft, what percentage are mundane objects and what percentage are 'something else'? So yeah, there are a lot of anecdotal UFO sightings and some of them may be pure fiction, but there's a vast amount of UFO cases with multiple eye-witnesses, radar traces, video, photos and sometimes physical evidence and while those things on their own are not proof of ETI-controlled craft, they are proof of *something out of the ordinary*, whatever that may turn out to be.

I just find it hard to believe with our exponential increase in new technology, and the years that have passed since the UFOs hit mainstream, that there are still no hard proof.

For all we know there could be literally tons of 'hard proof' in the hands of the military or some secret organization. If a 'disc' crashed in your back yard, how long do you think you could hang on to it?

 

[Recon]

I don't subscribe to the 'all-seeing, all-knowing' idea of God. I accept the *possibility* that *something* may have influenced the development of the human race, but the 'creating the universe in 7 days' stories in the Bible just don't add up in my mind. If God exists then why don't I believe He does? Why create humans with skeptical minds and then expect them to believe something purely on faith? If God exists then he's not playing a very fair game, is He?

Who says you have to take the bible has full truth? There are some hard core early-creationist out their, but I don't think they are as many these days...
Personally, I think the bible has been through the filter to many times to believe it fully... I really don't know why you don't beleive in god. Many don't. Life isn't fair, but to blame a god for our problems shouldn't be the solution. I still don't think god needs to be worshipped like most people think... I don't go to church, but I still believe in something...

I have a problem with organized religion - I don't understand why people have to 'get together' to believe in a god. The god that organized religions push is supposed to be 'omnipotent' - so, in that case, why not stay at home and have your own relationship with your god rather than fund and support self-appointed 'representatives' who will 'speak' to him on your behalf? That sounds like exploitation to me.

Pushing your kids into practising your own beliefs is also a form of brainwashing, in my eyes. That's how religion is perpetuated.

Like I said, I don't beleive you need to gather to pray to get to heaven. It is a personal thing to me... I just hate to believe we are here for no reason. to life for a few years, die and that's it... I also agree, there are TONS of exploitation in the field... They should be arrested for consumer fraud. miracle-workers fooling people with miracle water, and otehr lies should be met with jail time.

We are brainwashed our whole lives... I don't think there is anything wrong with inrtiducing faith on our kids, becucause when they get to a certain age, they will make that choice to continue following that religion, or make the choice to stop. Of cource there are EXTREME cases, but there are extreme cases in everything...

Please don't confuse terminology - a UFO is an Unidentified Flying Object. If I'd never seen a plane before then pretty much any sort of craft in the sky would be a UFO to me. So the crux of the matter is what percentage of those UFO sightings are ET craft, what percentage are mundane objects and what percentage are 'something else'? So yeah, there are a lot of anecdotal UFO sightings and some of them may be pure fiction, but there's a vast amount of UFO cases with multiple eye-witnesses, radar traces, video, photos and sometimes physical evidence and while those things on their own are not proof of ETI-controlled craft, they are proof of *something out of the ordinary*, whatever that may turn out to be.

I'm not confusing anything...
I;m pretty sure at this point, in the world, most people who file actual claims know what a Plane looks like, but some don't or are mistaken that is where my 9% came into play. My 1% comes into the mass sighting/radar/possible ET craft. I still have never seen any good footage or photos, I'll I see is grainy crap... So for the only clear photos and footage is from Meiers, LOL and we all know he holds the truth. BUT, that 1% is the reason why I still listen to the Paracast and C2C. I still think there is a chance there might be something out there...

For all we know there could be literally tons of 'hard proof' in the hands of the military or some secret organization. If a 'disc' crashed in your back yard, how long do you think you could hang on to it?

There may be tons, but all we need is ONE. Why has not ONE hard proof ever been leaked? If a disc crashed in my back yard, I don;t think the military could shut up a whole community... Maybe some paranoid people may believe this, but it just doesn't happen.

 

[DVS]

Recon made a good point. People do mock religion and they generalize 'religion' and confuse all 'religion' with 'fundamentalists' as if that is all there is out there. There are plenty of people that are not actually going to church or practicing religion. Although they might have been brought up a certain way, they still 'believe' there might be a God or some unknown force that we as humans do not understand. People confuse the establishment of religion and people who follow a religion, it's just like separating the American people with the American government. Big deal, people dont believe in God, they are nothing different. They still are 'believing' that no God exists, while others believe a God exists. Still, the fact remains that we cannot say of there is a "God" or not.

People come off as arrogant, thinking they know it all. The fact is that we don't know everything. We don't know all the answers in the universe. We just dont know and neither do scientists. Scientists have theories, they do not know the all encompassing truth. They can't even figure out the universe. So I really dont see a fundamental difference between a group of scientists figuring out dark matter and a group of people practising a religion. Both are striving to understand what they cannot and none really will get any final answers, just faith and theories.

We only use like 5% of our brains! We are capable of so much more, so why arent we doing it? I think our purpose as humans is to figure out why we exist and to achieve a complete understanding. That is why we have religion and science. I happen to BELIEVE that we are created to eventually have a complete spiritual and scientific understanding of the universe somehow. Hopefully someday everything will make sense and we can understand what we never could.

 

[Ankhes]

Just some thoughts, here. No offense to anyone here, I am just speaking for myself. And I respect everyone here whether our opinions differ or not. I, personally, am not religious, but I do not "mock" other people if they are. I have no "arrogance" about my not believing in what I see as fairy tales; I simply see no reason to believe them.

I wonder how many people are really arrogant and mocking, as the previous post states? I'm sure there are a few, but I hope not many. But I don't believe that those terms should be blanketed to cover the majority of people.

I definately sympathise with people who say they want to believe in something because they hate to think that they live, die, and that's it. Heck, I used to be one of those. I am not any longer. Again, and just for myself, I think that just because you want or need something doesn't mean that what you want or need is true. Just because no-one wants to die without some greater meaning doesn't mean there has to be any greater meaning out there to be had. I think the Universe is wonderful as it is and doesn't need any god or gods to make it wonderful. I don't think the Universe owes us a warm and fuzzy feeling inside. I think we should appreciate what we have here and now.

Sorry to run off at the keyboard here, but I do find the paranormal interesting and see possibilities in it. Just because I haven't yet seen evidence of everything doesn't mean I am not interested in learning about the experiences of others and the possibilities that exist. Just because I, as of yet, see no reason to believe in a god or gods doesn't mean I can't take an interest in UFO's and other things. I don't see how those things should be mutually exclusive. I like learning and seeking out the truth. If I don't cover as much as I can then I am missing out on some potentially wonderful stuff! And I appreciate life too much for that. : )

 

[Rick Deckard]

I don;t think the military could shut up a whole community... Maybe some paranoid people may believe this, but it just doesn't happen.

You don't think the military could shut up a whole community? They don't need to. They just take away all the physical evidence and warn the witnesses about 'national security' issues.

But then what if one of the witnesses breaks cover and tells a newspaper about 'a disc landing in their back yard'? Well, guess what? NOBODY BELIEVES THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

That wasn't too difficult, was it?

 

[Recon]

You don't think the military could shut up a whole community? They don't need to. They just take away all the physical evidence and warn the witnesses about 'national security' issues.

But then what if one of the witnesses breaks cover and tells a newspaper about 'a disc landing in their back yard'? Well, guess what? NOBODY BELIEVES THEM BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

That wasn't too difficult, was it?

It is just that easy right???
you actually think this happens...
people talk, no matter who is pressuring them... We are humans and don't follow directions or rules, it's our nature. YOU CAN"T SHUT UP MASS POPULATIONS. if you think this happens, then you are paranoid.

 

[Rick Deckard]

you actually think this happens...

Nope - you *categorically* stated that the military couldn't keep a community quiet about such an event as a 'disc' crashing into someone's back yard. You said "this just doesn't happen". How you know that, I've no idea but anyway, I offered a *hypothetical* explanation as to how this could be achieved without 'shutting them up'. I don't think you read my reply.

YOU CAN"T SHUT UP MASS POPULATIONS.

If you read my reply, you'll see that I said that you don't need to 'shut them up'.

..if you think this happens, then you are paranoid.

I've no idea what paranoia has to do with *accepting the possibility* that the military could retreive a crashed 'disc' and successfully 'keep the lid' on the situation.

 

[derekcbart]

We only use like 5% of our brains!

No, we don't. Unless you suffer from brain damage you use 100% of your brain.

The Ten-Percent Myth - CSI
Neuroscience For Kids - 10% of the Brain Myth
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
Scientology and the Great 10% Myth
The ten-percent myth
Lying with Statistics
Science News, Articles, and Information - Scientific American
Exploding the 10 percent myth | Science & Consciousness Review
}- The Two Percent Company [] The Score -{
http://www.theness.com/articles.asp?id=12
Health Library

There are actually many more links available. All you need to do is google "10% myth" or "ten percent myth" and you will find between 2,000 and 10,000 entries.