M
Marilena
Guest
Just wondering because this issue has come up alot.
Do you think it would be nice if the Shroud was declared authentic?
- Status
S
Scott_Waddell
Guest
Other which is, “No, because like apparitions, the Church only rules whether they are worthy of belief, not on their factuality.”
P
puzzleannie
Guest
I think it is immaterial. Our faith does not rest on artifacts and created objects, no matter how precious, it rests on Jesus Christ and the reality of his incarnation, life, suffering death and resurrection.
R
RPConover
Guest
No, I have a really hard time believing that one for some reason… I dunno, I’m an artist, and I can see how it could be made…
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
If we ever have the science to understand how it was caused, which we currently do not, the world would be a very different place. I doubt we will ever see that level of science within the next thousand years.
J
JimG
Guest
No, because it would just cause more controversy; and the Church should not be making determinations on scientific matters.
J
JimG
Guest
Nevertheless, this book by Ian Wilson gives some pretty good evidence about the shroud, from a historical and scientific point of view.
Wilson also wrote a later book , but I still like the earlier one.
And, if you’re interested, check these websites:
shroudstory.com/
shroud.com/
Wilson also wrote a later book , but I still like the earlier one.
And, if you’re interested, check these websites:
shroudstory.com/
shroud.com/
S
sadie2723
Guest
It would be wonderful.
M
Mike_D30
Guest
If the Shroud was declared authentic by the Church, and then later found to be a bad fake, it would be damaging.
Think about all the damage the Mormon Church is in with DNA showing that American Indians are in fact Asians and not Middle Eastern like the Book of Mormon says. They can’t scramble fast enough to explain that one. I would like to avoid any tap dancing by the Church becasue of an over-zealous authenticity declaration.
I would want the Shroud to truly be studied and only verified if it was 100%.
Think about all the damage the Mormon Church is in with DNA showing that American Indians are in fact Asians and not Middle Eastern like the Book of Mormon says. They can’t scramble fast enough to explain that one. I would like to avoid any tap dancing by the Church becasue of an over-zealous authenticity declaration.
I would want the Shroud to truly be studied and only verified if it was 100%.
T
Trevelyan
Guest
No (other):
What Scott Waddell & JimG said.
What Scott Waddell & JimG said.
C
coyote
Guest
Ultimately it doesn’t matter if it is “authentic” or ever “authenticated”.
A
AlanFromWichita
Guest
At first I assumed we were talking about declared authentic by the Church.
I voted “other” because I don’t think it will matter much to the faithful. I almost voted “no” because I think if the Church declares it authentic (even if ruled “worthy of belief” it will be mistaken) that may actually cause the Church to appear more arrogant in the eyes of many. She will not be more arrogant, but will be perceived as such and I don’t think it would serve her well. Of course, whether it serves her well doesn’t alter the truth of her findings.
On the other hand, if it is declared authentic by a scientific authority, I think it would be good news, and I’d be curious to see how it is handled in the press. I doubt “science” will ever consider it proven, because to do so would be to have found scientific evidence of Christ and that just doesn’t compute. :whacky: I think it would be hilarious hearing the hysterical cries of the politicians especially here in Kansas, the international epicenter of creationism stupidity. This would really give them a bone to fight over.
Alan
I voted “other” because I don’t think it will matter much to the faithful. I almost voted “no” because I think if the Church declares it authentic (even if ruled “worthy of belief” it will be mistaken) that may actually cause the Church to appear more arrogant in the eyes of many. She will not be more arrogant, but will be perceived as such and I don’t think it would serve her well. Of course, whether it serves her well doesn’t alter the truth of her findings.
On the other hand, if it is declared authentic by a scientific authority, I think it would be good news, and I’d be curious to see how it is handled in the press. I doubt “science” will ever consider it proven, because to do so would be to have found scientific evidence of Christ and that just doesn’t compute. :whacky: I think it would be hilarious hearing the hysterical cries of the politicians especially here in Kansas, the international epicenter of creationism stupidity. This would really give them a bone to fight over.
Alan
S
seagal
Guest
I voted “what does it matter” because, to sum up what others have already said:
- The faith of a true Christian doesn’t depend on physical evidence.
- Even if scientists can never determine how it was created, they would simply say “we don’t know how it was done YET”.
- Even if scientists CAN determine how it was created, those who choose to believe it is real will be undeterred.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I have always believed that the tilma of Juan Diego and the shroud at Turin are authentic physical manifestations of genuine miraculous events. I also believe the bones under the high altar in St Peter’s basilica are actually those of Saint Peter himself.
Knowing these things is a great comfort to me, but I do not think the church should authoritatively pronounce on any of them. It is out of place for the church hierarchy to claim to “know” such things, and there is always a possibility of error.
Science today has revealed some things about the ancient world that people even two hundred years ago would have thought impossible to know. In the future our understanding of chemistry and physics should open up even greater vistas for humankind. We do not need or want an authoritative declaration on something that will become an obvious target for refutation with every new scientific method clamoring for a shot at it for generations to come. It would be like the ‘Donation of Constantine’ all over again, and the Christian world could not stand more of that kind of nonsense.
Knowing these things is a great comfort to me, but I do not think the church should authoritatively pronounce on any of them. It is out of place for the church hierarchy to claim to “know” such things, and there is always a possibility of error.
Science today has revealed some things about the ancient world that people even two hundred years ago would have thought impossible to know. In the future our understanding of chemistry and physics should open up even greater vistas for humankind. We do not need or want an authoritative declaration on something that will become an obvious target for refutation with every new scientific method clamoring for a shot at it for generations to come. It would be like the ‘Donation of Constantine’ all over again, and the Christian world could not stand more of that kind of nonsense.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
Scientifically speaking, since we can’t duplicate the Shroud, then by definition, it falls outside the realm of science. Strictly speaking, the scientific method depends on repetitive results.
Which is why some alleged scientific things that depend on computer modeling are so controversial.
My opinion is that nice is nice, but it would be better for the Shroud to remain a mystery… constantly subject to debate and tests and discussion… a reinforcement for believers and a source of puzzlement for those who aren’t quite there yet.
Which is why some alleged scientific things that depend on computer modeling are so controversial.
My opinion is that nice is nice, but it would be better for the Shroud to remain a mystery… constantly subject to debate and tests and discussion… a reinforcement for believers and a source of puzzlement for those who aren’t quite there yet.
- Status