The Shroud Of Turin

[Tom_Wescott]

Ally,

Read Jonathan's post to understand what I mean when I say that smug intellectuals, or pseudo-intellectuals, feel it is 'enlightenment' to believe there is no God, and that such ideas fill them with a misguided sense of being 'in the now' and 'up with the times'. It just makes them feel powerful, in the way that a small child feels powerful when he first tells his parents 'no'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Jonathan H]

It is heroic and principled for a child to say 'no' to a cruel parent.

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm sorry to hear your parents were cruel, Jonathan, but that has no bearing on my statement.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

I could come up with a similar ad hominem argument about people of faith and talk about how smug christians do x, y and z , blah blah blah. But all blanket characterizations like that make it impossible to have a rational discussion. You have now blanketed both Belinda and Jonathon H with the idea that only smug intellectuals are atheists as if there is no other reason for being so.

I am a smug intellectual, I am also an atheist, but one has nothing to do with the other. Well I suppose as I am really a skeptic at heart, I must profess to being an agnostic, but I have ruled out all god mythologies that I have heard of or studied.

I base my decision on logic, and it has nothing to do with smugness or superiority. I have found there are very many intelligent christians who can argue their faith rationally, but I have yet to find one fundamentalist, who accepts the Bible as literal truth, who is able to do so. These tend to be the ones who get absolutely livid when their version of Faith is questioned, because their views leave no room for honest questioning. They are crippled by faith instead of supported by it.

The Bible was assembled by men. The books, the chapters, the verses were selected and rejected based on the biases and principles that are inherent in all men. How can it be the absolute Truth when parts of it contradict other parts, when the Gospels themselves differ one from the other, especially John, and when we don't even know who John was or what role he played in the tale at all and all we can speculate is that he was the unnamed beloved disciple, but we have no real idea? And the gospel of John, the one book there is the least known about its origin or authorship, this is the SOLE gospel that says Christ is the only path to salvation. So basically a good part of Christian dogma is based on a book of somewhat questionable origin and NONE of the other gospels say anything of the sort.

I do not consider questions such as these to be smug intellectualism. I consider them how I conduct my daily life in all things, I ask the obvious questions, search for the logical answer and conduct myself accordingly. This is not conducive to being a person of faith.

It is often hard for an atheist and a person of faith to have a reasonable discussion on the topic of religion because for most people of faith, that faith determines the core of them and questions on the faith is therefore perceived as being an attack on their core. Being an atheist does not dictate who I am at my core, the core of me dictates that I be an atheist, so I (and most atheists) are more able to have a removed conversation about our beliefs than the average Christian.

[Jonathan H]

I agree with Ally.

Tom, your 'smug' presumption that my own parents were cruel is simply despicable.

Ally, here Down Under, anecdotally speaking I know plenty of Christians who are rational, who see that 'Jesus Christ' is a flimsy historical figure -- in terms of historical methodology -- yet have a faith, one which does not preclude debate, without rancor.

Some are Catholics, some are Church of England [Anglicans] and just one is a Protestant fundamentalist. None are smug, or judgmental about either themselves, their faith, or what Christianity has, and has not done, to and for the world. All believe in practical action to help people.

[Tom_Wescott]

Tom, your 'smug' presumption that my own parents were cruel is simply despicable.

I'm sorry, but I figured an intellectual such as yourself would appreciate the Freudian slip in how you inserted 'cruel' before parents, when I had inferred no such thing.

Being an atheist does not dictate who I am at my core, the core of me dictates that I be an atheist

It's sad you feel that way, because I don't believe for a second that you are Godless at your core.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but I know me a bit better and the core of me is god-free definitively.

[Jonathan H]

I gave an even-handed opinion.

That a majority of historians do believe that Jesus of Nazareth is an historical figure.

Yet a strong arhument can be mounted that Christ is a figure who exists only in secondary sources.

That the Turin Shroud, whether fake or real, is incidental to such beliefs, one way or the other.

Some on the boards accept that these are opinions trying to be based on a reasoned and reasonable interpretation of the data. That does not make them correct.

Yet, a minority of reactionaries scream blaspheme. They labels us, attack us, attack my parents, attack anybody who dissents from their sacred wisdom, and then -- to use Freud -- project their own arrogant smugness onto those dissenters.

In character and tactics it is no different from the way they 'argue' about Jack the Ripper.

[Magpie]

While I think the Shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus, I do have a problem with dismissing it as a "hoax", "fake" or "forgery".

Whatever it is, it's a remarkable artifact.

[Jonathan H]

I think the Shroud is both:

A remarkable artifact and a remarkable forgery.

Except that, ironically, in its own time it fooled nobody and bombed.

Whereas, it has bedazzled a number of people six hundred or so years later.

Though not the Vatican, which has never claimed it is authentic.

[The Good Michael]

Though not the Vatican, which has never claimed it is authentic.

Actually, they once claimed the opposite. But they are the anti-christ aren't they?

Mike

[Jonathan H]

Really? When?

[The Good Michael]

Well, not exactly, but John Paul II said to leave it to the scientists to adequately decide answers to any questions, and that it wasn't a matter of faith. I translate that into something similar to his stance on evolution during Vatican II when he said it should be accepted. That was several years ago of course. The Vatican, despite all the negative one may suggest, at least has formally come to grips with accepting science while still keeping the faith. And, no, I am not a supporter of organized religion in any way, shape, or form.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

I am just trying to be accurate and precise.

To my knowledge, the Vatican has never claimed the Turin Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. They have said it might be and that it might not be. Therefore, it can be venerated as a depiction of the Lord's suffering and death, but not more than that.

Pope John Paul II was a very interesting person -- arguably a great person -- because, among other reasons, he could hold different and competing ideas in his head and still function. For example, that Charles Darwin was completely correct about evolution/natural selection AND that the Blessed Virgin is just as real, and spared his life from an assassin just as 'She' had foretold to peasant girls, at Fatima, decades before.

[The Good Michael]

To my knowledge, the Vatican has never claimed the Turin Shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. They have said it might be and that it might not be. Therefore, it can be venerated as a depiction of the Lord's suffering and death, but not more than that.

That's how I look at it as well. That's why he suggested leaving it to science to uncover the answers. JP II was pretty good guy, I think, or as much as it is possible for a Pope to be. I mean that politically speaking.

Mike