Christian belief and the value of the study of the shroud of Turin

[Administrator note (Ninshub): the posts in this thread have been moved from the following thread: https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-s...d-of-turin]



I can't see any real motivation to put so much effort into proving the genuiness of a religious relic beyond members of that religion wanting to feel superior to others. If they really believed in all the love and forgiveness stuff they wouldn't care if itheir religion was real or not.

If they really believed in all the love and forgiveness stuff they wouldn't care if itheir religion was real or not.

Wouldn't it be compassionate and loving from their perspective to potentially provide evidence to others of "the truth" as they believe they have come to find it?

Wouldn't it be compassionate and loving from their perspective to potentially provide evidence to others of "the truth" as they believe they have come to find it?

No because it wouldn't matter. If those other people cared they wouldn't need the proof. They'd already be loving and etc. It would only prove that the religious people want to feel superior. It's not like the whole love thing is unique to any religion let alone religion at all.

:::EDIT:::

Besides these are the people who consider  rape, torture, murder, paedophilia and more "Loving" from their perspective. So, sorry if I don't give a fuck what their perspective is.

:::EDIT2:::

Oh and to be clear I'm not saying I don't care about "religious people's" perspective. I don't care about an individual person's perspective if they think that rape and etc are loving because by definition it means they don't care about their potential/real/hypothetical victim's perspective. So why should I care about theirs? Treat thy neighbor like thyself and all that. It just so happens that the vast majority of those types are religious and are doing it for religious reasons.

Wouldn't it be compassionate and loving from their perspective to potentially provide evidence to others of "the truth" as they believe they have come to find it?

That’s a good point imho. If a person really believes their faith, and that faith says that others are damned if they don’t follow it, why wouldn’t they be driven to convince others?

That’s a good point imho. If a person really believes their faith, and that faith says that others are damned if they don’t follow it, why wouldn’t they be driven to convince others?

Taking that as a hypothetical stance then, could it lead to any practice which might be considered as 'underhand' in order to achieve that aim? I think this line of thought tends to undermine a straightforward assessment of the shroud, since it makes it probable that all is not as it seems.

Taking that as a hypothetical stance then, could it lead to any practice which might be considered as 'underhand' in order to achieve that aim? I think this line of thought tends to undermine a straightforward assessment of the shroud, since it makes it probable that all is not as it seems.

That's exactly my point. I don't trust that the shroud is just being analyzed for pure historical interests sake. It's so intimately connected to the faith that that there's just no way.

That's exactly my point. I don't trust that the shroud is just being analyzed for pure historical interests sake. It's so intimately connected to the faith that that there's just no way.

I guess it depends who’s analysing it?

Taking that as a hypothetical stance then, could it lead to any practice which might be considered as 'underhand' in order to achieve that aim? I think this line of thought tends to undermine a straightforward assessment of the shroud, since it makes it probable that all is not as it seems.

Of course.

I guess it depends who’s analysing it?

Well let's put it this way. Let's say the shroud is legit. Let's say all the testing is good and that's what it shows. It's now a fact.

What then?

Well let's put it this way. Let's say the shroud is legit. Let's say all the testing is good and that's what it shows. It's now a fact.

What then?

When you say ‘legit’ what do you mean exactly?