I am not sure which is more disturbing, that explainable things are deemed miracles or the low caliber of what’s claimed to be a miracle.
A miracle is supposed to be something that cannot be explained – and not in a we just haven’t figured out the trick yet way.
Babies being born is not a miracle. It’s a well documented and explainable process – and with over 6 billion people on the planet, it’s far too common.
Diseases go into remission all the time and too often, people who claim a miraculous healing lack any documentation that they were ever sick to begin with.
I can’t fathom how anyone could claim Mary or Jesus’ face on toasted bread products, wood grain, the faces of broken rocks, mold, clouds or a host of other locations as a miracle. Is that really the best that these alleged holy people can pull off? Peek a boo I see you?
How about using that miracle power for something meaningful? Save a life, end a war or disease, or clean up some environmental disaster.
Don’t even get me started on disasters where the handful of survivors say they felt god keeping them safe when others were allowed to perish. If this god character was really looking out for them, why not avert the disaster or save everyone? Seems pretty ineffectual a god to me and more likely a justification in the brain to deal with survivor guilt.
But I’d like to know how one of those survivors could look into the faces of the family of one of the dead and make that claim. God saved me because it wasn’t my time and I have a purpose yet to fulfill. Right, like their relative was so done with life.
It’s appalling how frequently the stories of weeping or bleeding statues or paintings of holy figures make the news on page 1 and the story that reveals the fraud is on the back page.
The worst one of course is the Shroud of Turin. A centuries old fake that even the Vatican isn’t dumb enough to claim as authentic – focussing instead that the devotion and belief of the sheeple as more important for it’s symbolic meaning than the reality that it’s a clear hoax.
Even without going to the carbon dating and the history of textiles – just look at the image itself.
It appears to be a man – but the proportions of the face and body are incorrect.
The first area of concern is the head. The image is the front and back of what appears to be a man.
Here’s a close up of the head – you see the front of the head and the back of the head.
The placement of the eyes relative to the head is wrong, there’s no sides of the body and the limb to body ratio is wrong. If this was a person, it was a very malformed person.
The carbon dating by several independent labs also dates the shroud so the 1200-1300’s. And let’s be serious, they didn’t take the same from the later patches, but the actual cloth. Nor would whatever smoke residue be an issue.
Which, incidentally is 1300’s textiles, as the woven pattern was not seen in the 1st century.
There’s been two re-creations of a shroud. The first was in 2005 using sunlight and painted glass.
Then there’s the recreation of it by Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli in 2009.
Check here for a side by side comparison:
Does all the evidence that this cloth is a hoax change anyone’s religion?
No, and really why should it?
Religious belief has never been grounded in evidence but is essentially a rejection of evidence.
This cloth won’t change anyone’s faith, in either direction.
People who are convinced that this is proof that there was a Jesus who rose from the dead, transferred this image to the cloth as evidence of his passion… to them I say it’s time to put this Tissue of Turin away.