"Sure beats arguing the points, eh?" Please, if you are a person of principle, Curtis, answer my five-part postyour only response to that was a brief Ebenezer which essentially shot the messenger. I make no claims about the Shroud of Turin Image; I do however, sense the extreme need of you to deny any evidence of what would constitute a refutation of your reductionist naturalistic view of reality and the universe. One would think from reading one of your posts, Curtis, that you are the last person to step away from a fight. But I have found you several times now unwilling to go to the front. I wrote that five-part post as an answer and challenge to your philosophy; you have chosen, in essence, to just blow it off. And then continue, as if you *have* answered me. And you haven't. That five-part post was a summing up of my own philosophy and a way to bring our 6 months comprehensive dialogue to its climactic point of necessary tension. I don't know that much about the Shroud of Turin Image, but I do know this: you would make of any writer or scientist who is impressed by the mystery (and therefore possible authenticity) of The Shroud an idiothaving the same creditability as the Tampa Bay housewife who sees Jesus's image on a piece of toast. Your dogmatism is unconscious, Curtis, but it sometimes drives and drives you. As it does here most certainly. Your analysis is ultra-Voltairian and ex parte. It is unreasonable. Your claim is too peremptory and imperious. Curtis ex cathedra. But hey, man! I still like the way you sing them blues. And I would be an idiot and moral monster if I denied that talking with youuntil about a month agowas one of the supreme adventures of my life. Have I made myself clear, dear boy? We shouldif you are not going to answer my 5-parterhave a formal debate: Lady Gaga will be the moderator. The resolution: "There are more things under heaven and earth than dreamed of in your philosophy, Curtis".
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > > Sure beats arguing the points,eh? Just shoot the messenger. But still time > to redeem yourself. Let's hear your view of what these "scientists"found and > how it relates to the claims. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > You are a very superstitious man, Curtisacting under the compulsion of > > your atheism. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't know who's image is on the shroud, though I find it amazing > > > > that such a thing persists in outfoxing the most delicate and > > > > sophisticated analysis our physical science can produce.> > > > > > > It isn't that it is outfoxing science. It is a work of art by any > > > standard and it isn't cool to destroy it because of a superstition. > > > Science came through on dating it, so unless Jesus lived in the middle > > > ages, it isn't him. > > > > > > < Its interesting from a perspective of what researchers continue to find > > > out about the cloth itself and its charismatic image. Who cares if > > > someone says its Jesus? Could be, but who cares? Not really the issue.> > > > > > > I think it really is. If it wasn't being protected as a relic they would > > > be able to take enough samples to answer more questions. Superstition is > > > protecting this work of art and it is being treated differently because > > > of that. It is really ONLY the superstition connection that makes it a > > > matter of interest at all. That period of history was full of relics > > > that just didn't get preserved to make it to our time. > > > > > > < They still cannot identify how the image was made. That is mysterious > > > and lively and interesting to me. Whether or not such an image is Jesus > > > is impossible to prove, and far less interesting. > > > > > > > > > > The whole idea fascinates me in a different way. It is a window into > > > human beliefs. Since it came from an age of relics being sold, it has > > > the mystical credibility of a sideshow three headed dog in a bottle of > > > formaldehyde in the back of a carnival tent. Step right up folks, Jesus' > > > burial shroud, with his image as clear as a painting of Elvis on velvet, > > > step right up. > > > > > > I saw some saint's relics in a monastery I visited. Some fingernails and > > > cloth of some saints. Leftovers from the time the rich paid for > > > indulgences to get out of purgatory quicker. This shroud has a context > > > of the flim flamery of an era of relics sold for cash. It is a version > > > of Jesus on the toast sold on ebay. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Excellent example of the misuse of science to promote a magical > > > > > agenda. > > > > > > > > > > These guys didn't examine the shroud at Oxford. What they are doing > > > > > is: > > > > > > > > > > "The results show a short and intense burst of UV directional > > > > > radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the > > > > > peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,' > > > > > the scientists said" > > > > > > > > > > OK, so lets take them at their word. Some of the "pecular > > > > > charactoristics" of the image on the shroud can be duplicated by > > > > > another process only found today. > > > > > > > > > > Real scientists might conclude that since ths technology was not > > > > > around either in Jesus' time or when the Shroud was probably made, > > > > > 12601390 AD, then this was probably not how the shroud was made. > > > > > > > > > > Oh wait, its Christmas time. Sorry. The need for Christmas miracle > > > > > stories to feed the hoards trumps all! > > > > > > > > > > Ok, I'm onboard now. We don't know what it was that caused the > > > > > image... so it was aliens. No sorry, it was magic Jesus. Jesus was > > > > > magic and made a magic cloth with his magicness and now we have > > > > > evidence of magical things happening at this magical time of the year. > > > > > > > > > > Long as I get my pfeffernuesse cookies I'll keep my mouth shut. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > There's probably another explanation. Maybe the body naturally > > > > > > releases chemicals or certain auras after death that appear to come > > > > > > from ultraviolet light. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "whynotnow7" <whynotnow7@> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The person under the shroud created light tuned to that > > > > > > > frequency, leaving its impression on the fabric. Sounds like a > > > > > > > sidha at work.:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "John" <jr_esq@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Scientists from Italy say the image was created by ultraviolet > > > > > > > > light. How can that be? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/scientists-turin-shroud-image-created-ultraviolet-lasers-182107870.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
