7 Comments

  1. Bob Vance on April 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm

    I see where the Shroud of Turin is back in the news.

    I find it interesting that scientists have figured out not only how it could have been created but have also created it, yet still skeptics try to find fault. I guess it works for those who want to belief in the myth.

    Because of it’s carbon dating, it ties it in with one of the greatest geniuses of all time. One who could have actually pulled it off back in those days. Of course, even if it wasn’t DaVinci himself does not prove that it is not what it is portrayed to be.

    Instead of admitting that the Shroud may be a fabrication to perpetuate a hoax, they lock it away and keep pushing the lie.

    I don’t believe in a Biblical God because I don’t believe in the supernatural. But if Jesus appeared to me here as I sit, believe me, I would become a believer.

    A thiest can have the evidence right in front of them, yet if it contradicts with their faith, they will stand firm, and will go out of their way to cause others to doubt the facts. That is probably the main reasons people like Dawkins have such a problem with Christianity and won’t just leave it alone.

    Is the faith so weak that you have to count on parlor tricks? For decades now The Amazing Randy has had a standing offer of a million dollars to anyone who can show proof of the supernatural. None have collected.

    • quinersdiner on April 1, 2013 at 3:02 pm

      My understanding is that the latest carbon dating on the Shroud takes it back to the first century. Here’s the fascinating thing about the Shroud, Bob. The image is a “negative” image, like we’d see in a piece of film. We know the Shroud dates back to at least the 1400s, and now evidence suggests even earlier. Whichever, no one would think of a “negative” image in those days. It wouldn’t have been on their radar to do a negative image instead of a positive one. I may develop a special report on the Shroud simply because it is such an interesting topic. Thanks for weighing in.

  2. Bob Vance on April 1, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    No one but a genius like DaVinci. Scholars now think he was able to make his paintings so life-like because he was experimenting with what would become photography centuries before others would figure it out. It’s not like he would tell too many. Back then, scientists had a way of being burned to death as heretics by the church.

    How did they come up with this new dating? Any links to that would be appreciated.

    • quinersdiner on April 1, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      Hi Bob: I have a friend who has been giving a presentation on the Shroud for years. I have asked him to prepare a special report. I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for your interest.

      • Bob Vance on April 1, 2013 at 11:37 pm

        I would definitely read it.

  3. Karen Quiner on April 1, 2013 at 3:18 pm

    Are you so unsure of your faith Bob that you have to practically break your back to prove the non-existance of God? By the way, the shroud’s authenticity or lack of doesn’t have any bearing on my faith or any others I know. If the shroud is proven a hoax, it wouldn’t affect a thing. As a human, I simply love a good mystery.

    You said it a recent post that you are a theist, and that you just don’t believe in a Biblical God. Are you saying that you think that your god can’t work outside of the natural realm?

    • Bob Vance on April 1, 2013 at 11:35 pm

      I love a mystery also – especially when science is concerned.

      Regarding me being a theist, I must have mispoke, I think there is still plenty of room for God, I just haven’t seen any evidence to define what that is for me personally. That should make it clear as mud for you. 🙂

      My “battle” with religious types such as yourself is for you to at least give in to the possibility that perhaps your wrong on your interpretation of the Bible when it comes to things such as “gay marriage”, because what happens if you get to the pearly gates and you find out you are wrong?

Leave a Comment