Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


A REPORT SAYING THE TURIN SHROUD IS A TRICK

The Turin Shroud is the most famous relic in the world. Millions believe that it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ bearing his crucified and bloodied image. The cloth is kept at Turin in Italy. The cloth is an enigma. Many say it is a miracle.

Here is an article challenging its authenticity. We may remember that if it is a miracle that does not make it authentic.  Some say that it may not have been meant to be taken for authentic.

Turin Shroud 'confirmed as fake'

From: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15693406-401,00.html

See also http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

From correspondents in Paris
June 22, 2005
From: Agence France-Presse

A FRENCH magazine has said it had carried out experiments that proved the Shroud of Turin, believed by some Christians to be their religion's holiest relic, was a fraud.

"A medieval technique helped us to make a Shroud," Science & Vie (Science and Life) said in its July issue.

The Shroud is claimed by its defenders to be the cloth in which the body of Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion.

It bears the faint image of a blood-covered man with holes in his hand and wounds in his body and head, the apparent result of being crucified, stabbed by a Roman spear and forced to wear a crown of thorns.

In 1988, scientists carried out carbon-14 dating of the delicate linen cloth and concluded that the material was made some time between 1260 and 1390. Their study prompted the then archbishop of Turin, where the Shroud is stored, to admit that the garment was a hoax. But the debate sharply revived in January this year.

Drawing on a method previously used by sceptics to attack authenticity claims about the Shroud, the magazine got an artist to do a bas-relief - a sculpture that stands out from the surrounding background - of a Christ-like face.

A scientist then laid out a damp linen sheet over the bas-relief and let it dry, so that the thin cloth was moulded onto the face.

Using cotton wool, he then carefully dabbed ferric oxide, mixed with gelatine, onto the cloth to make blood-like marks. When the cloth was turned inside-out, the reversed marks resulted in the famous image of the crucified Christ.

Gelatine, an animal by-product rich in collagen, was frequently used by Middle Age painters as a fixative to bind pigments to canvas or wood.

The imprinted image turned out to be wash-resistant, impervious to temperatures of 250 C (482 F) and was undamaged by exposure to a range of harsh chemicals, including bisulphite which, without the help of the gelatine, would normally have degraded ferric oxide to the compound ferrous oxide.

The experiments, said the magazine, answer several claims made by the pro-Shroud camp, which says the marks could not have been painted onto the cloth.

www.unisa.ac.za/dept/press/dearte/52/shroud2.html
How Leonardo Did not Fake the Shroud of Turin, Nicholas Legh Allen

www.appollonius.net/bust-shroud.html
Apollonius of Tyana & the Shroud of Turin, Robertino Solarion

www.shroud.com/piczek2.htm
Alice and Wonderland and the Shroud of Turin, Isabel Piczek,
This page gives some good factual material but as for its attempt to support the authenticity of the Shroud it is bad and twisted in the extreme. How twisted this Christian fanatic is we shall soon see.

She argues that if the Shroud really shows that Jesus never died on the cross it would not be among us. That is like Mormons saying that if the Book of Mormon was a fake they would not be believing in it. She perversely argues that Leonardo wrote down everything he got and never mentioned the Shroud as if he would!

She says that the creator of the Shroud did not use a camera obscura for though the camera was used by the Romans it was reinvented after the Turin Shroud was made. She should not dare to be so dogmatic. She should be starting with proving the Shroud is not a photograph rather than making assumptions like that.

She says the man in the cloth was laid out with his legs hunched up. Sounds like he was laid out on a soft bed to me. Clearly he could not have been Jesus who was supposed to be too dead to need any medical attention.

The lady knows that the Shroud might not be supernatural for a key in 1896 in Paris was found to have left an inexplicable image of itself like the Shroud though it was in a drawer. It put an image on a photoplate which is impossible without light and yet it did it and attempts to replicate the effect failed.