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

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

As in, for the purpose of the question, this hypothetical scenario assumes zero possible ambiguity. The story of the shroud is  true. We can know for certain that there was no possible fraud or mistakes of any kind in the testing and that the tests are absolutely perfect in their ability to determine the authenticity of the shroud.

Therefore, if that is the case, what are the implications? what are possible and probable reactions from what demographics? What can now be done with this knowledge? Etc.

I.E, Let's assume everything is legit, what then?

As in, for the purpose of the question, this hypothetical scenario assumes zero possible ambiguity. The story of the shroud is  true. We can know for certain that there was no possible fraud or mistakes of any kind in the testing and that the tests are absolutely perfect in their ability to determine the authenticity of the shroud.

Therefore, if that is the case, what are the implications? what are possible and probable reactions from what demographics? What can now be done with this knowledge? Etc.

I.E, Let's assume everything is legit, what then?

Do you mean what if it can be proved a) it was Jesus Christ and b) it occurred as he lay dead in the tomb and c) it was produced by some unknown energy emitted as he was resurrected etc? Sorry to be pedantic.

Do you mean what if it can be proved a) it was Jesus Christ and b) it occurred as he lay dead in the tomb and c) it was produced by some unknown energy emitted as he was resurrected etc? Sorry to be pedantic.

Yes.

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.

I'm not sure what this response has to do with your original question asking what reason folks would have to try and prove the "legitimacy" of the Shroud.  Again, I can think of a number of humble Christians that would see such proof as potentially helpful to others (i.e., not themselves) who are searching, in the spiritual sense.  Its pretty straightforward.

Yes.

Sorry for the delay Mediochre I've been moving house. 

I think it's hard to answer because it would mean there'd be some way to prove that the image was a) Jesus and b) was caused by the resurrection. I can't imagine how that might happen but it sounds similar to "what would you do if I proved xxxx". I'd probably have to accept it was true if I was being honest. The implications for the shroud aren't so clear cut for me. Even if it was Jesus and showed the resurrection it wouldn't tell me anything else about him or the teachings attributed to him.

I'm not sure what this response has to do with your original question asking what reason folks would have to try and prove the "legitimacy" of the Shroud.  Again, I can think of a number of humble Christians that would see such proof as potentially helpful to others (i.e., not themselves) who are searching, in the spiritual sense.  Its pretty straightforward.

I don't care that they would want to tell people their "truth" I care why they would want to do so in the first place what type of person does one have to be to believe that christianity, or indeed any deific religion, would be something worth promoting?

I've yet to meet even a single example of a "humble christian". Given that every single one I've met states that they believe in an all powerful being who rewards or punishes people for reasons ranging from obedience/disobedience to mere whims. And not only do they believe this but they believe that such a thing is "good" to believe, that it in fact makes them a better person.

Thus all christians I've met not only worship a totalitarian dictators but actually like the tactics of totalitarian dictatorships and think that other people need help if they don't think the same. All while claiming the contrary. The worst are those who cherry pick the nice parts of their respective belief systems while also still doing all of the former. As if they can genuinely believe that there really is this dictator but also believe they can decides what they are dictating. And then when members of their group inevitably acts like the dictator they believe in, the best they can do is say "oh well, we're not all like that."

They're not humble, they're pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards who couldn't be bothered to run their own lives so they outsourced it to someone else. And then claim that other people would be better if they outsourced their lives too.

But don't take my word for it. TheraminTrees and previously,  QualiaSoup have done extensive analyses of the psychology underlying deific religions.

For example:



And:



Once again, as far as I can logically tell, the only real reason a christian would have to want the shroud of turin proven is to feel special and probably go around acting like self righteous dicks to others since now they can justify it It's baked into the fundamental psychology of it and every other deific faith that I've ever come across. Love, acceptance, compassion, these things aren't.

Sorry for the delay Mediochre I've been moving house. 

I think it's hard to answer because it would mean there'd be some way to prove that the image was a) Jesus and b) was caused by the resurrection. I can't imagine how that might happen but it sounds similar to "what would you do if I proved xxxx". I'd probably have to accept it was true if I was being honest. The implications for the shroud aren't so clear cut for me. Even if it was Jesus and showed the resurrection it wouldn't tell me anything else about him or the teachings attributed to him.

To me that's pretty much the point. It doesn't actually give us much of any real useful information even if true because the problems inherent in the religion still exist. If anything it would paint an incredibly dark picture of existence, since it's possible that now there is a real all powerful tyrant out there.

But, if you're already a christian, and thus already value dictators, coercion and the like, that might be just the thing you need to justify, well...

I don't care that they would want to tell people their "truth" I care why they would want to do so in the first place what type of person does one have to be to believe that christianity, or indeed any deific religion, would be something worth promoting?

I've yet to meet even a single example of a "humble christian". Given that every single one I've met states that they believe in an all powerful being who rewards or punishes people for reasons ranging from obedience/disobedience to mere whims. And not only do they believe this but they believe that such a thing is "good" to believe, that it in fact makes them a better person.

Thus all christians I've met not only worship a totalitarian dictators but actually like the tactics of totalitarian dictatorships and think that other people need help if they don't think the same. All while claiming the contrary. The worst are those who cherry pick the nice parts of their respective belief systems while also still doing all of the former. As if they can genuinely believe that there really is this dictator but also believe they can decides what they are dictating. And then when members of their group inevitably acts like the dictator they believe in, the best they can do is say "oh well, we're not all like that."

They're not humble, they're pathetic, narcissistic, lazy cowards who couldn't be bothered to run their own lives so they outsourced it to someone else. And then claim that other people would be better if they outsourced their lives too.

But don't take my word for it. TheraminTrees and previously,  QualiaSoup have done extensive analyses of the psychology underlying deific religions.

For example:



And:



Once again, as far as I can logically tell, the only real reason a christian would have to want the shroud of turin proven is to feel special and probably go around acting like self righteous dicks to others since now they can justify it It's baked into the fundamental psychology of it and every other deific faith that I've ever come across. Love, acceptance, compassion, these things aren't.

Well, its quite clear you have an axe to grind my friend.  That's cool as its your first person experience.  Its just not mine when it comes to a ton of Christians that I know.  Quite frankly your words read much more like an angry, dogmatic, absolutist than most of the Christians I know.  Its just that you say tomatoe and they say tomahto I guess.

Well, its quite clear you have an axe to grind my friend.  That's cool as its your first person experience.  Its just not mine when it comes to a ton of Christians that I know.  Quite frankly your words read much more like an angry, dogmatic, absolutist than most of the Christians I know.  Its just that you say tomatoe and they say tomahto I guess.

It's also based on contemplating the base logic of the belief system itself, such as what is done in the videos that I assume you mustn'tve watched since even just those two paint a pretty definitive picture. So yeah there is some absolutism there. I will never respect any argument that apologizes for  and/or any person who materially supports such tyrannical ideologies and their proven detrimental effects on others, period. That's my answer to the intolerance paradox. I'm aware that it is, technically, hypocritical. But there is no way to live without bias. I'm just honest about it.

People don't need gods, objective morals, or universal purposes to have good self esteem, passion, or any of that stuff. Those who think they do are just lazy. They are more than capable of achieving that and many other things with better results themselves.

It's also based on contemplating the base logic of the belief system itself, such as what is done in the videos that I assume you mustn'tve watched since even just those two paint a pretty definitive picture. So yeah there is some absolutism there. I will never respect any argument that apologizes for  and/or any person who materially supports such tyrannical ideologies and their proven detrimental effects on others, period. That's my answer to the intolerance paradox. I'm aware that it is, technically, hypocritical. But there is no way to live without bias. I'm just honest about it.

People don't need gods, objective morals, or universal purposes to have good self esteem, passion, or any of that stuff. Those who think they do are just lazy. They are more than capable of achieving that and many other things with better results themselves.

It seems to me that some people do need gods , and the objective morals that religious traditions offer. I'm not suggesting that they are correct in anything other than a personal or subjective sense.
For anyone to state the converse.....Strikes me as extremly wrongheaded.