Shroud of Turin

Research on the Holy Shroud is ongoing. Most of the participants in the Shroud thread wanted it closed because they were feeling very uncomfortable with the scientific evidence that contradicted their own naturalist theologies. The debate here is far from settled, and the closing of the thread seems to be a censoring act by a moderator who himself does not like the idea that the Shroud is authentic.

Comments

  • Nope. Most people wanted it closed down (myself included) because it was going nowhere but round and round in ever decreasing circles.

    As you will know from the thread, I am interested in a reasoned discussion about some of the strange or unexplained aspects of the shroud. But when you clearly don't pay any attention to people who obviously know what they are talking about, it is hard to keep a reasoned discussion going. I am thankful that the thread is closed. Should have happened sooner.
  • Sir, in this context the word "Shroud" is the name of a specific relic and is therefore a proper noun which deserves to be capitalized. I have mentioned this issue before. Your continued use of the small "s" reveals a bias on your part and a lack of objectivity.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Everyone's biased except me and the meenister, and whiles ae hae me doots aboot the meenister.
  • Amanda B ReckondwythAmanda B Reckondwyth Mystery Worship Editor
    Is that a variant of "All the world is queer save thee and me . . . and sometimes even thee seem a trifle queer"?
  • A-fucking-GAIN?
  • The moderator (or host, as we call them hereabouts) had consulted with other hosts and admin before closing the thread.

    The closure of the thread was for one simple reason: there was no ongoing discussion, simply a circling of the same arguments, and indeed precious few of them. Often, when discussion ceases, the thread sinks and lies dormant. Other times, such as this, posters take the opportunity to well, muck around a bit, and the thread needs a bit of help being put to bed.

    Such course of events are entirely normal here. They are not done for censorship, or on a hostly whim. Purgatory is a place for serious discussion, and when the discussion becomes not serious, closing the thread is always an option.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Is that a variant of "All the world is queer save thee and me . . . and sometimes even thee seem a trifle queer"?

    We say "All the world is queer save thee and me, and I'm not too sure of thee".
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Apologies - just realised that this was in Styx rather than Hell.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The moderator (or host, as we call them hereabouts) had consulted with other hosts and admin before closing the thread.

    The closure of the thread was for one simple reason: there was no ongoing discussion, simply a circling of the same arguments, and indeed precious few of them. Often, when discussion ceases, the thread sinks and lies dormant. Other times, such as this, posters take the opportunity to well, muck around a bit, and the thread needs a bit of help being put to bed.

    Such course of events are entirely normal here. They are not done for censorship, or on a hostly whim. Purgatory is a place for serious discussion, and when the discussion becomes not serious, closing the thread is always an option.

    Prior to the closing the discussion was actually making some progress regarding the vanishing of the Messiah's corpse. At least five posts we made about other dimensions or higher realities. However, posters who were troubled by this development interjected repeated nonsensical posts in a successful attempt convince the moderator to shut the discussion down.

    The subject is a very important one and the thread should be reopened.
  • All the world is mad except me, and I'm an aeroplane. I still want to know quite how the Shroud was faked, very clever for that time.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 4
    The [gentleman] doth protest too much, methinks...

  • I didn't see any progression. But then the rose tint has long since faded from my spectacles.
  • Chorister wrote: »
    All the world is mad except me, and I'm an aeroplane. I still want to know quite how the Shroud was faked, very clever for that time.

    A better explanation than it was made by a 14th century artist is that aliens gave it to the de Charneys.

    Why not consider the possibility that the Holy Shroud is authentic?
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    However, posters who were troubled by this development interjected repeated nonsensical posts in a successful attempt convince the moderator to shut the discussion down.
    I don’t think the nonsensical posts had much if anything to do with anyone being “troubled” by any developments in the thread.

    The subject is a very important one . . . .
    It clearly is an important subject to you. It’s interesting if ultimately unimportant to some others who were participating in that thread, and completely unimportant, if not a distraction from things that are important, to others. Despite being asked numerous times by numerous people, you never put forth any reason for others to consider the subject important, much less convinced anyone else that it’s an important subject.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 4
    Perhaps it's wrong of me to even express the thought, but are we being preached or crusaded at?

    These ridiculous instructions to always spell *shroud* Shroud are beginning to sound like the rantings of an irascible, and unsuccessful, lecturer...who simply does NOT listen to his unfortunate students...
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Why not consider the possibility that the Holy Shroud is authentic?

    Just because it has been rejected doesn't mean it wasn't considered. Many of us gave it as much consideration as the evidence warrants.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »


    The subject is a very important one . . . .
    It clearly is an important subject to you. It’s interesting if ultimately unimportant to some others who were participating in that thread, and completely unimportant, if not a distraction from things that are important, to others. Despite being asked numerous times by numerous people, you never put forth any reason for others to consider the subject important, much less convinced anyone else that it’s an important subject.

    This.

    undead_rat, several of us have directly asked you for this, **repeatedly** We've asked if your Shroud studies help you, and how. We've asked what difference you think the Shroud (and your other topics) should make in our lives and faith.

    As I said on one of the threads: if your studies help you, that's great. Seriously. But most of the rest of us just aren't there about your topics, and don't see what good difference they should make in our lives, if true.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Chorister wrote: »
    All the world is mad except me, and I'm an aeroplane. I still want to know quite how the Shroud was faked, very clever for that time.

    A better explanation than it was made by a 14th century artist is that aliens gave it to the de Charneys.

    Why not consider the possibility that the Holy Shroud is authentic?

    It may indeed be authentic - but so far, there's not a scrap of evidence to support the contention.
  • orfeoorfeo Ship-mate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Sir, in this context the word "Shroud" is the name of a specific relic and is therefore a proper noun which deserves to be capitalized. I have mentioned this issue before. Your continued use of the small "s" reveals a bias on your part and a lack of objectivity.

    You are entitled to your own reactions, but you're not entitled to dictate how other people write on this website, nor is it appropriate to attribute motives in this way.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Sir, in this context the word "Shroud" is the name of a specific relic and is therefore a proper noun which deserves to be capitalized. I have mentioned this issue before. Your continued use of the small "s" reveals a bias on your part and a lack of objectivity.

    You are entitled to your own reactions, but you're not entitled to dictate how other people write on this website, nor is it appropriate to attribute motives in this way.
    Indeed. In addition, no noun, proper or otherwise, “deserves” to be capitalized, and one could argue that this insistence on calling out others who do not capitalize “Shroud” also reveals a bias and a lack of objectivity.

  • Gee D wrote: »
    It may indeed be authentic - but so far, there's not a scrap of evidence to support the contention.
    "Not a scrap of evidence. . ."? That's a good one. The Shroud is the by far most intensely examined relic in history. In 1978 the STuRP team spent five 24 hour days gathering evidence using several tons of modern scientific equipment. The summary of their scientific findings may be found on shroud.com.

    https://shroud.com/78conclu.htm
    (The image is not the work of an artist. It is the form a scourged, crucified man. How it was formed remains a mystery.)

    STuRP held a press conference in 1983 wherein its scientists were asked, "Did you find anything that would preclude that the Shroud was that which wrapped the body of Jesus. Their answer was "No!"

    If the Shroud and its image had been a man-man artifact of the 14th century, STuRP would have easily found that out. The team expected to do exactly that in just a few days, but it did not happen. STuRP has been repeatedly derided by the skeptics as being "religious fanatics" because its scientists did not conclude that the Shroud's image was the work of a human.
    This is a completely unfounded assertion. The "fanatics" are actually those who hold to the belief that miracles do not and cannot occur and approach the Shroud from that viewpoint.

    Then we have the 6th century icons and coins that bear Shroud-dependent images.
    The criticism has been made that the Shroud's image is dependent on these items, but it does not hold water. One would have to assume that the 14th century artist had managed to get hold of a scourged, crucified corpse whose features exactly matched those on the 6th century gold coins (which, btw, were not available until the 18th century.) Then that artist had to perform a incredible feat (which to this day has not been duplicated) in persuading that corpse to imprint its image (including certain skeletal features) onto its shroud.

    Did you know that STuRP found dirt in the Shroud's heel area? That dirt turned out to be travertine aragonite, a mineral that is found world wide. It has a "signature" in its trace elements which can be measured. One place in the world has been found to have aragonite with a matching signature. You get one guess as to where that place is, my friend.

  • This not the place to rehash the arguments on the thread.

    To be clear, the Shroud of Turin thread was closed because there was no ongoing discussion. Not because of censorship - there is no evidence for that. Not because of 'people' feeling uncomfortable about having to deny the science - there is no evidence for that.

    Your two OP assertions are not made out.

    No one is going to deny that 'research is ongoing', but unless it's done by actual scientists with access to the actual object, and peer reviewed, then no one is obligated to put any store by that research.
  • I move to close the thread.
  • Sir, the idea the posters did not like the thread is born out by their repeated expressions of glee that it might be closed. They then redoubled their efforts by making many irrelevant assertions. One even reposted the same paragraph several times.
    These skeptics hate the Shroud because its miraculous image contradicts their long-held theologies of naturalism and atheism. And they hate the Shroud thread because they are unable to contradict all of the incredible scientific research that has been done on the Shroud. I see no reason that the Shroud thread cannot continue on Purgatory, other that that its reality is confounding to persons that do not believe in miracles.

    Some posters are still interested in discussing the Shroud. Why are you insisting on denying them that opportunity?
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited February 5
    undead_rat wrote: »

    .... its reality is confounding to persons that do not believe in miracles.

    Some posters are still interested in discussing the Shroud. Why are you insisting on denying them that opportunity?

    I believe in miracles and have written about it at considerable length here (it’s just a PDF document):

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kYNeATbXH1l-Lxxbd7-9hYMc_1YdNxAD/view?usp=sharing

    You are free to read this or not. Equally I am free to read the words you have already written.

    The Shroud tells me nothing I do not already know. Jesus is alive and His Spirit, enabled by His sacrifice, continues the work of His earthly ministry today and everyday.

    For both of us, we cannot unknow what we know. Yes, we can share it with others to the best of our ability, but we cannot insist that anyone shares or agrees with our insights and conclusions.

    The challenge for both of us is straightforward: how do our individual insights help you and I to grow in Christ-likeness?
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Some posters are still interested in discussing the Shroud. Why are you insisting on denying them that opportunity?
    If others are interested in the subject, they're free to start a fresh thread and try to discuss their views about the piece of curiously stained medieval linen. You can join in to explain your view as well, including why you consider this piece of cloth to be important to your faith in the Resurrection. But, note that explaining your views means you need to express those views in your own words, quoting chunks of text where someone else expresses their views doesn't help much - we can't discuss the views of people who aren't here, we can only discuss the views of people here.
  • piece of curiously stained medieval linen.
    But, note that explaining your views means you need to express those views in your own words,

    Sir, how dare you, as an administrator, describe the Holy Shroud as a "piece of curiously stained medieval linen"? Such a comment reveals your own extreme prejudice against the idea of authenticity. If you would take the trouble of reading STuRP's conclusions, you would know that the image on Shroud is not composed of a "stain." If you would take an unbiased look at the Shroud's 14C evidence, you would know that this evidence does not pass the usual mathematical tests that are employed to certify 14C evidence for dating purposes. If you would consider Prof. Fanti's research into images of Christ that are found on 6th century gold coins, you would know that the Holy Shroud must have been extant in the sixth century.

    With all due respect, sir, I find that your attitude is prejudicial and that you are not the right person to be making a judgement on the continuation the Shroud thread.

    BTW, as evidenced by my last post, I am expressing my views in my own words.
    My quotes and references are to the science that supports them.

  • Do we have a second?
  • I'm not the person who will decide whether or not to start a fresh thread. So my views on a clever piece of medieval art aren't relevant to that decision. I'm not interested enough in the subject to start a thread myself. If there is a fresh thread and you decide to let people discuss your opinions I may follow it, and if there's discussion where my expertise is relevant I may chip in again.
  • Again, this isn't the place to rehash the arguments on the original thread.

    We are allowed our opinions as much as you are. That Alan believes the Shroud of Turin to be a piece of stained piece of medieval cloth is not a judgement on the utility of the thread - the question we're answering here is 'Was the thread closed for legitimate reasons?'

    In the opinion of the hosts, and after consultation with the admin, the thread was closed because of the lack of discussion. Since hosts have to read every post on their board, and they had grown weary of the mucking around on the thread (your belief that the shroud is a genuine relic is very much a minority one here: asking folk to take it seriously is, I'm sorry, a very big ask). Closing the thread was deemed to be the least worst choice.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited February 5
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Sir, the idea the posters did not like the thread is born out by their repeated expressions of glee that it might be closed. They then redoubled their efforts by making many irrelevant assertions. One even reposted the same paragraph several times.
    These skeptics hate the Shroud because its miraculous image contradicts their long-held theologies of naturalism and atheism. And they hate the Shroud thread because they are unable to contradict all of the incredible scientific research that has been done on the Shroud. I see no reason that the Shroud thread cannot continue on Purgatory, other that that its reality is confounding to persons that do not believe in miracles.

    (My bold)

    You seem unaware that some of those arguing against you are Christians.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    Do we have a second?

    Aye, brother mousethief, but I am afeared we will be playing whack-a-mole from here until Kingdom Come / Final Pope / collective loss of patience *

    *whichever comes first.
  • Many Christians are adherents of the theologies of rationalism and naturalism. The Shroud's 1898 photo negatives caused a violent reaction in rationalist European circles.
    Catholic theologians Chevalier and Thurston jumped on this bandwagon declaring that the negatives were a photographic accident.
    Positive reviews of Nicolotti's new book are posted by Catholic prelates. Being Christian is no obstacle to holding modern "rationalist" theology.

    https://amazon.com/Shroud-Turin-History-Legends-Worlds/dp/1481311476/ref=pd_lpo_14_img_1/132-2074995-9347841?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1481311476&pd_rd_r=0d97bff2-3bf6-45b4-82e0-f03f49c7cc00&pd_rd_w=VTb90&pd_rd_wg=Xk57k&pf_rd_p=16b28406-aa34-451d-8a2e-b3930ada000c&pf_rd_r=98Q7MPNM59250XH22KRM&psc=1&refRID=98Q7MPNM59250XH22KRM
  • Doc Tor wrote: »

    they had grown weary of the mucking around on the thread . . .Closing the thread was deemed to be the least worst choice.

    This sounds like an admission that those that hated the Holy Shroud (but were unable to counter its science) succeeded in censoring the discussion through spamming.
  • undead_rat wrote: »

    This sounds like an admission that those that hated the Holy Shroud (but were unable to counter its science) succeeded in censoring the discussion through spamming.

    Where's the wide-eyed-blinky shocked smiley when I need it? 😲 Aha! cut and paste is my friend.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »

    they had grown weary of the mucking around on the thread . . .Closing the thread was deemed to be the least worst choice.

    This sounds like an admission that those that hated the Holy Shroud (but were unable to counter its science) succeeded in censoring the discussion through spamming.

    Just because someone does not share your level of passion does not make them a hater. Other emotions are available and I encourage you to explore them starting with Hope.

  • For the third, and hopefully last time, this thread is not for continuing your arguments to the nature and origin of the Turin shroud.
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »

    they had grown weary of the mucking around on the thread . . .Closing the thread was deemed to be the least worst choice.

    This sounds like an admission that those that hated the Holy Shroud (but were unable to counter its science) succeeded in censoring the discussion through spamming.

    Sometimes a thread's subject is so off-the-wall (and yes, I include many of the topics you've started) that it attracts derision.

    You've started two in Hell: they're still open, and I suggest you review the responses you've had so far. That the Shroud of Turin thread has made it this far is the most miraculous thing there.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Your post of 4.26 this morning:

    Nothing, but nothing, in it, the link you've given in that post, or others you've been giving, has anything but guesswork that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus's burial cloth.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    Your post of 4.26 this morning:
    Remember that the time stamp on a post reflects the time zone the reader is in. People on different time zones will see a different time stamp. And the time is only shown on the day the post was posted. After that, only the date (again, according to the reader’s time zone) is shown. :wink:

  • edited February 6
    If you hover your mouse over the date it'll show the full date and time - but, still for your timezone. Right-click on the time/date and you can copy the link to a particular post, that can then be inserted into a post to link to a particular post.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited February 6
    If you hover your mouse over the date it'll show the full date and time - but, still for your timezone.
    If you’re using a device with a mouse. Is there a way to do that on a phone or tablet?
  • Not that I can find on my phone. A touch and hold on the time does the equivalent of right click to copy the URL so that a link can be inserted in a post though (which will also need typing the BBCode as, at least on my phone, the drop down menu for inserting a link is a real pain to use).
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I understand the issue. Perhaps each post on a thread could be numbered so as to allow easy identification, but imagine the programming issues would be considerable.
  • Gee D wrote: »
    I understand the issue. Perhaps each post on a thread could be numbered so as to allow easy identification, but imagine the programming issues would be considerable.
    Just quoting the post in question, or at least the relevant portion of it, is the easiest way to make clear what one is responding to. And it has the added benefits of (1) relieving readers of having to scroll back to find the post in question, and (2) being as easy to do on a tablet or phone as it is on a desktop or laptop.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    edited February 7
    I thought of that, and it's the course I usually use. Can't say why I didn't on this occasion, but it could well have been the length.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    The beauty of the Shroud is that it looks so plausible.
    As a forgery it is a master piece particularly because it looks better when reversed photographically.
    In the end, does it matter?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    It matters in that it's not "Ship's Business". Please take such discussion to an appropriate board - if you dare unclench this particular topic's cloaca.

    -RooK
    Styx Host
Sign In or Register to comment.