Ok, but if he was laying flat and the shroud was laid on him, gravity would still pull the top part down and you'd have some kind of distortion on the top half so that it wouldn't match the bottom half.

I don't really get what about your evidence means it's not a painting. That's what I was hoping you would explain. Like, have you tried this same technique on a painting and gotten a result we can compare?

I was raised Christian, but I am not sure I would call myself Christian. I sort of feel it's presumptuous for me to say, definitively, that one religion is correct (or any for that matter) because I am just a person and I have no evidence, so I don't really have a religion anymore. I just try to be as nice to everyone as I can and try to also be as logical as I can.

[/quote]


As far as evidence, you have the testimony of witnesses of the whole time. They are credible witnesses, because they all died (except John) because of their testimony. Logical is not compatible with faith. All the best.

This is interesting. I dont want to look too far into this, but from what little I do know- the shroud has markings around the head to show a crown of thorns had been worn. Also, with regard to the 'flash' that left the imprint- It may be impossible to re-create the effect. However, as far as I know the shroud is locked up and under heavy guard, so any investigation would be near impossible.

I also understand, that the event and the stories behind it- whether witnessed or not, we cannot know for sure as we cannot just ask them what happened.. this happened many many hundreds of years ago. But for the faithfull, it's all about the beliefs that they hold thats most important to them

I agree wholeheartedly "Logical is not compatible with faith" is very true

_________________

Ok...tell that to St. Augustine. He was quite faithful and very logical.

Also, how about any scientist who believes in god?

In a way, logic actually is a kind of faith.

There's a fundamental formulation of logic which everyone takes on faith.

I equals I
I does not equal not I

Meaning something is itself and is not something that is not itself.
The only reason to believe this is based in logic so, at base, you have to have faith in logic for it to be a valid system.

Faith actually comes from logic. If there was no logical thinking nobody would be able to justify their own belief.

I assume you guys will agree with me that you believe you will, in your lifetime, not spontaneously turn into a stratocaster. What is that belief based in? The logical conclusion that comes from the fact that we have never observed anyone turning into a stratocaster. It doesn't happen so logic lets us believe that it will continue to be impossible (unless we get new evidence that it can somehow happen).

Any faithful person has an answer for why they believe what they believe. That, too, is logic. Like you say. Your reason for believing is that you find the Bible to be written by reliable witnesses. That is a logical conclusion to which you've come.

It might be true that, if someone were to bring evidence to you that showed the gospels were not credible you would change your mind, but more likely you would keep your current belief because there would be a logical explanation within your belief system as to why that evidence could possibly be the incredible evidence (for example, it was created to tempt you away from God perhaps, or as a test of faith, or simply the evidence was based on faulty logic or any number of reasons). But that would be a logical conclusion you came to as well based on a premise you have.

I respect that you and i probably have different beliefs, but mine are not necessarily the opposite of yours or incompatible with them. There's no opposition between belief and logic. They are interdependent.

As far as evidence, you have the testimony of witnesses of the whole time. They are credible witnesses, because they all died (except John) because of their testimony. Logical is not compatible with faith. All the best.[/quote]

Actually, truthfully, you have NO testimony of witnesses. The books in the bible were written literally hundreds of years afterwards. Did you ever play a 'Chinese Whispers' game in school, where a sentence was passed from person to person around the class and bore no resemblance to the original when the last person got it? Ever see a misquote in a newspaper? Now, add hundreds of years of oral tradition to it, and what is original anymore? None of this would be accepted as testimony in court. Hence the need for a strong faith because no religious precepts can be proven by logic. You accept it as part of your faith or you don't, but logic and 'proof' are not parts of the equation.

V its not a painting simple.....science proves it to be unexplainable so all we have left is to call it a miracle cloth impression. People did think it was a painting by DaVinci or some medevil artist. But now I have made life uncomfortable for them. You see the unseen left foot has revealed toe nails in my xray imagery, its no painting and the ripped toes OMG it is a photograph of a true crucified man. Artists painted Christ on the cross thousands of times but have you ever seen a Christ painting with toes ripped off laying next to his feet.....never search the net. I have also revealed and rewritten biblical history Joseph of Aramathea picked the toes up and layed them next to his feet. Its just a small point.

Some parts were written hundreds of years before "christ", because they are very old tales passed on for centuries. When the religion was founded, those old tales were used again. Just look at Christmas, that's the old "Sol Invictus" a blessing of the sun (sol).

And if you look at the history of the Bible, you see that it's like a huge patchwork. Parts coming, parts being erased, and there is no absolutely no trace of coherence.

Cheers

David

_________________
"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

Anyway, anyone who believes that cause and effect exist believes in logic to some degree, so you guys aren't out of the boat entirely, (I don't think).



Here's an example. If you believe God is eternal you don't find it accurate to say that he will suddenly stop existing, right? This belief is founded in logic. If something is eternal, it will never stop existing because, by definition, it cannot stop existing and be eternal. This would be like expecting the laws of the universe to suddenly change without cause.

There is quite a lot of logic in theology, guys. It's your friend.

Causality? Maybe on a very superficial level. But read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect


David

_________________
"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

Ok, but how did you prove that it's not a painting? That's the part i don't understand. Have you shown that a painting can't create the results you got?

I just want to understand the steps you used and you just keep telling me that it's true...

I don't want you to just tell me your own conclusions. I want to see what the scientific observations are so I can see if I can come to the same conclusions.

The butterfly effect is completely based on causality. It's the idea that small changes can create exponentially larger and larger consequences over time.


Like, for example, say Hitler's grandmother never went to a certain location where she met Hitler's grandfather, which caused Hitler's mother to never be born, Hitler never to be born, WWII never to happen, the Holocaust never to happen, consequently a lot more people to have never died as a result of the war and genocide and as a consequence of that you'd have millions of extra people having millions more children who would never have been born.

That's causality.

Of course you can also go in the opposite direction and say that, because of what state we're currently in, the past could not have been different because it could never have gotten to this point if things had been otherwise, so that there is no possibility of an alternate past nor of an alternate future

I think we can pretty safely agree that nobody here believes that something can happen and have no result at all.

I think we are all looking too far into this..

_________________

One thing that catches my eye about the Shroud is the placement of the hands. They are directly over his privates. Assuming that I'm reasonably proportioned my arms cannot lay flat against my sides and reach far enough to cover my privates, best I can do is my waist. In order to copy the pose I have to lift my arms and straighten them. The figure on the shroud obviously not doing this and you can see the elbows far away from the body. The shroud shows the man right hand extending well past his privates and to his left thigh. Either my arms are short or the figures arms are VERY long. Lay down and give it a try.

_________________
Tune Low, Play Hard & Floor it!

I yield to your logic. You're too smart for me.

There are scads of writings in the first and second and third centuries regarding the books of the Bible. If you can find it, "The History of the Church," by Eusebius, written in about 310, explains it. They went through a selection process of what went in and what was left out.