Atheist: "Do I take my child to church?"

[bippy123]

Jlay, wow great post. Are you sure your not William Lane Craig:)

[seveneyes]

ANSWER:

You know, I do not think that Church will hurt the child at all. The bible is not damaging to children whatsoever. I would say definitely allow church at any age, but you yourself need to find truthful and non contradictory ways to speak to your child on faith issues. One perhaps being that "The truth will set you free." I think that you can intelligently take a position of honesty with your child and proclaim when you are ignorant of something and also uphold a value of honest seeking in your childs life which will in no means damage his relationship with God, or your relationship with one another. I think he will find you to be a man of integrity if you accomplish this.

You need to do some research and be creative. Do all of it for the best interest of your child in honesty and honest self reflection. If you actually hope that there is a loving God and life after death, it would be better to say that to a child rather than proclaim that there is no meaning to life and when we die there is nothing. The latter will damage the child as it is a hopeless state of mind. He will become angry at life and act out because of it

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. As I stated before, I know the effects first hand of what being taught about eternal hellfire as a child does to ones psychi. Im not an isolated case either. Many children grow up with this fear, many with violent nightmares. As for telling my child there is no god and therefore no meaning to life is silly. I wouldn't tell my child there is no god, unless they ask me what I believe. And certainly this does not mean I have no meaning in life. Quite the contrary. I don't believe I need a deity to know a life dedicated to curing disease is more worth while than a life spent doing drugs. Why should we not find satisfaction in alleviating suffering or injustice, just because we’re all going to die one day? The very fact that this life is all I have makes it even more important to do everything possible to reduce the suffering caused by poverty, disease, injustice and ignorance. The rest of your post was a little hard to follow.


FL

[/quote]

I did not say that certain preachers approaches to bible teaching wouldn't necessarily effect the child. All I was pointing to was that the bible does not hurt children, nor does the message of salvation or of heaven and hell.
I am more speaking to you learning how to be a non-adversarial spiritual force that encourages truth seeking in your childs life. By all means check out different churches. Teaching today at church is different than the norm of say 30 years ago. As far as the issue of hell goes, if your child ever asked if hell was real, if you are honest you might say something like: "I dont know if hell is real, but there definitely are consequences to our actions that we must face."

All I wrote was an encouragement to you to be creative and stand in honesty and integrity with your child and he will honor you for it.

[Pierson5]

First, your assumption is that if your children go to a church they are going to have the same experience as you. Hellfire preaching has scarred a lot of people. It attempts to coerce people into a decision through fear tactics. That doesn't mean Hell is or isn't real. That is a consequential fallacy. It also doesn't mean that fear is necessarily bad. I want my child to have a healthy fear of water, strangers, and drugs. It is just that often times Hell is preached at the expense of the Gospel ,as opposed to in light of the gospel. Hellfire preaching is wrong and a huge setback for the Christian image. I can assure you that if your child came to my class, they would not be manipulated or coerced. That doesn't mean I would not present a strong case for Christ. Nor would I necesearily avoid the subject of Hell. I will and do teach on such things. But I will do so reasonably and logically, and in a loving manner.

I absolutely agree with you on many of your points. There is no guarantee that teaching my child about heaven and hell will have the same effects as it had on me, especially if I take time to explain my view on the subject afterward. It still seems like an unnecessary risk. When you compare the teachings of eternal damnation for committing "thought crimes" (for example), to the fear of water, strangers and drugs, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. We KNOW people drown, strangers abduct children and drugs have adverse affects on the body and mind. We don't necessarily know with absolute certainty that the Christian hell exists. I believe it's an unnecessary fear to bestow upon a child at a young age. Just as you would not let your younger child be exposed to overly violent video games, watch horror movies or explain the details of what the Greek god Hades does to it's "sinners." There are some things we decide are not appropriate for children at younger ages, I believe the teachings of hell is one of them.

-Based on your testimony I would question whether you actually lost your faith. No one 'loses' their faith. They intentionly reject something as true or not. True Christian faith, by definition, cannot be coerced. That may sound confusing, but let me offer this as an example. Can someone force you to truly love someone else? Absolutely not. I can put a gun to your head and force you to buy your spouse flowers, say nice things, etc. But I cannot coerce you to actually love them.
If you lost this 'faith' you testify to, then by definition, you did not have what we would define as faith. Faith in Christ is a knowing faith. One based on a relationship of knowing one's personal need of saving, and then trusting in the message and work of Christ as the provision. Much like love, it is a heart motive. Obviously you are welcome to provide more background as to what you mean by "lost my faith." As a Christian I would not want my child to have the experience you had either. This is the problem with religion. Religion is an opiate for the masses. If you are an 'atheist' because some religious zealot scarred you, then I say, welcome to the club. But that really isn't by definition an atheist at all. The existence of God and the truth of the Bible do not hinge on such things. I know a corrupt judge, but that doesn't make the legal system not exist.

That's a take I've never heard before. I was using the word "faith" with regards to the dictionary's definition: "Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension." I was using it to describe myself as being a believer in the past, but am no longer. If there is a better way to describe that situation than "losing one's faith," I'm open to preferred alternatives. I mentioned above that my loss of faith wasn't necessarily only due to this bad experience. That was one of many reasons. The main reason is due to a developed skepticism and love for science over the the years. This led me to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. This may help clear up some things. The hell situation is only a concern for future offspring, not my loss of faith.

You kind of lost me at your examples when you started comparing faith and love. You say it cannot be coerced. Is it possible that a person can have this same "knowing faith" and heart motive for something like an invisible pet dragon? Is it not possible through rational inquiry, education (and possibly professional help if were dealing with a grown person) that this person realizes this is not likely possible and lose this faith and love for something they once were so sure was real?

If I am misinterpreting your examples, I apologize and openly offer any corrections on my part.

Let me also try to offer some perspective in regards to the objections you mentioned above. That being the value and meaning of life. When we speak of 'meaning' we may be looking at it in a different way. Let's suppose for a minute that atheism is correct. The universe is not created, material and unguided. As such it is purposeless. There is no meaning or reason for the universe. Yet, we as humans do believe that life has meaning. Why? Obviously, the mind. We are self-aware, conscious and moral beings. The Christian believes that the universe does have purpose and meaning. And that the purpose of the universe focuses on the existance of mankind. This can be studied under something called the anthropic principle. It has its supporters and critics, but argues that the universe is finally tuned in a myriad of ways to support intelligent life on earth. You can read about it here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

I've heard about this principal before and have to side with the critics on this one. The universe is incomprehensibly large. It's almost impossible to imagine that there aren't other intelligent life forms on other planets. But, most of the universe is empty and lifeless. The majority of the species on our planet have died out and gone extinct (I think the number is somewhere along the lines of 98% of all living organisms). Hardly seems like a place designed for life (especially only human life).

Although the conditions for life similar to that on earth may still be improbable, realize that there are 400 billion stars in our milky way galaxy, and that there are 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. That doesn't even take into account hypothetical theories about multiverses or an oscillating big bang/big crunch universe. Of course the proper usage of the anthropic principle tells us that while it may be statistically improbable, its isn't statistically impossible given that we have at least one example of life in the universe occurring.

As an example, take the laws of logic. We are using them now to have a conversation. You are using them to argue that life has meaning even without God. The problem, is that to argue your point, you must first presume that logic has some basis outside of man. Otherwise you are using a logic, which is the result of an unguided, purposeless, material universe, to argue that your life which is also the result of an unguided, purposeless, material universe, actually has meaning. We would call that illusion or delusion. You perceive meaning, but the reality is that holding to atheism consistently allows for no such possibility. You may perceive meaning, but it is no more significant than say, digesting a hamburger. It is just an illuision of human consciousness. Afterall, your thoughts are just molecules in motion. The love and concern you feel for your child may seem real, but there is no basis for it. It is a cruel trick of nature. The Christian on the other hand sees the laws of logic and the other laws in the universe as divinely ordained and purposed, and thus human life has inherent meaning. It has objective value.

If an atheist is to argue that defeating cancer has any inherent value then he must smuggle in inherent meaning. If he smuggles in inherent meaning, then he also smuggles in some cause outside of man for that meaning. Some of the leading atheist today such as Richard Dawkins are at least honest about the implications of atheism. Dawkins says, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
If that is true, then you and I are the result of such. The hard core atheist mocks the Christian for trying to find meaning in a higher power. Yet how much more should the hard core atheist mock on of his own who says there is real meaning in life?

So, if I'm following this correctly, you are assuming that life without a god has no meaning? Curious then, what would you say the meaning of life actually is if my meaning is only an illusion? You are also assuming that there is a meaning to life at all. Even still, So what? Just because we might feel uncomfortable admitting that our life does not serve an eternal purpose, it doesn't necessarily mean that a god exists (I'm sure you're familiar with Pascal's Wager, as you seem pretty well informed of what you're talking about ). Are you then saying that I should believe in a god, even if it does not exist, so that I can feel the self esteem boost of my life having a higher meaning?

It seems as if the majority of your argument is based on an objective definition of the word meaning, while in reality a meaning of life is not objective but subjective. In which case, I think the meaning I defined for myself earlier is perfectly fine.

I did not say that certain preachers approaches to bible teaching wouldn't necessarily effect the child. All I was pointing to was that the bible does not hurt children, nor does the message of salvation or of heaven and hell.
I am more speaking to you learning how to be a non-adversarial spiritual force that encourages truth seeking in your childs life. By all means check out different churches. Teaching today at church is different than the norm of say 30 years ago. As far as the issue of hell goes, if your child ever asked if hell was real, if you are honest you might say something like: "I dont know if hell is real, but there definitely are consequences to our actions that we must face."

All I wrote was an encouragement to you to be creative and stand in honesty and integrity with your child and he will honor you for it.

I see. I would probably rephrase it slightly: "There is no current evidence for the existence of hell. Many grown ups believe hell exists, many do not. But grown ups aren't always right about everything, including myself. It's up to you to examine the information and come up with your own conclusion." I like your consequence part at the end, and would probably tack something like that on there as well. I value education and would do my best to encourage critical thinking in my child, not to just be a clone of mommy and daddy's beliefs. If your child asked you, would you give them a similar response? Or would you give them an absolute answer that coincides with your religious beliefs?

[bippy123]

Pierson I think whats being meant here is that without God there is no ultimate objective meaning. We live we die and we blink into nothingness. If this is true then why does anything we do have any meaning at all. This is what a nihilist told me when I asked about the difference between a nihilist and an atheist, but if Christianity is true (and we have historical, philosophical and inductive proofs of this) then we have every right to believe that we are special and that we are created in the image our creator.

It all depends on the proof that you are looking for. Maybe the shroud of turin can help you overcome some of the stumbling blocks? there is a good thread on this in the god and science section.

Mark Antonacci was an agnostic who thought christianity was a fairy tale. One day he got into an argument over this with his christian girlfriend and became determined to prove this to her. He started with the shroud. 20 years of shroud research later he converts to christianity after from his research.

You never know. Everyone has a different area through which they are brought into the faith.
wish you well

[Pierson5]

Pierson I think whats being meant here is that without God there is no ultimate objective meaning. We live we die and we blink into nothingness. If this is true then why does anything we do have any meaning at all. This is what a nihilist told me when I asked about the difference between a nihilist and an atheist, but if Christianity is true (and we have historical, philosophical and inductive proofs of this) then we have every right to believe that we are special and that we are created in the image our creator.

It all depends on the proof that you are looking for. Maybe the shroud of turin can help you overcome some of the stumbling blocks? there is a good thread on this in the god and science section.

Mark Antonacci was an agnostic who thought christianity was a fairy tale. One day he got into an argument over this with his christian girlfriend and became determined to prove this to her. He started with the shroud. 20 years of shroud research later he converts to christianity after from his research.

You never know. Everyone has a different area through which they are brought into the faith.
wish you well

It seems like you are saying because of your faith in god, there is this grander meaning. Some other intelligence out there that values us, and without this intelligence out there valuing us, we are worthless. There is no meaning. This is all irrelevant. I could just as easily say with regards to your belief, that the pain here is temporary. At some point you are going to leave this existence and move on to a better existence. What you suffered here is negligible and irrelevant. Christians are going through their whole lives simply waiting for death, so that they can get to a promised afterlife. For me, living a life in hopes of getting to a mythical world seems like a life wasted. And while on some levels it's fine to hope for more, on another level, it's not. Every minute you spend hoping for something more is a minute you're not spending appreciating something that you do have now.

To sort of repeat what I said earlier, just because something is eventually going to become meaningless, worthless, valueless, doesn't mean it's worthless now. It still matters AT THE MOMENT. I'm sitting here typing this up on my laptop. It was worth something when I bought it 2 years ago. It's worth something now. Eventually it will sit in a junk heap/recycling yard and it will be worth something to some junk collector/artist/what have you. And eventually it will return to the elements from wince it came and be essentially worth nothing. But what it is worth now is what is important. It's just the way it is. It isn't necessarily a pleasant or happy thought, but it doesn't have to be anything that ruins your day. To quote Mark Twain: “I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.”

Mr. Dawkins sums it up pretty well as he reads from "Unweaving the Rainbow."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOXMjCnKwb4

Thank you for the suggestion Bippy. When I originally lost my faith, I spent a LONG time (I guess you could say I'm still looking) for evidence which shows I am wrong. I have yet to find anything, including the shroud. Have you ever heard of, or do you accept, The Virgin of Guadalupe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe)(basically Mexico's Shroud of Turin) as fact? There are plenty of experts who claim its validity, very similar to the Shroud. But, what these 2 things also have in common, is they do not hold up to scientific scrutiny and are not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community.

Here are a few references if you are curious:

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shro ... rsman.html
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shro ... loney.html
http://mcri.org/CMSuploads/the_microscope_%20shroud.pdf
http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/s ... hole_cloth

The list goes on, but I don't think it's necessary to post them all. (I was thoroughly convinced after the first one)

[seveneyes]

Pierson5. I don't have any religious beliefs. Religion in the sense of a regimental dogmatic tradition for capitalistic spirituality. I truly believe that religion enslaves men, while the truth sets you free. True belief in Christ is not religion. in fact Christ was outspoken against religion. Having said that. I would tell my child that I believe hell is a real place.

Also, the kind of "faith" that true believers have can never and will never be lost because it first comes from an experience with God that is impossible to deny while telling the truth. You become aware of the presence of God. It would be like you losing the belief that your child exists. Will never happen until one of you passes from this world. God can never pass. What you evidently had was just some sort of human indoctrination and that is not what it means to be a Christian. Human indoctrination can be believed and then disbelieved for another set of views. It happens all the time. if you ever were a Christian though, you would still be. There is no other possibility. If you knew God, you would understand. -Peace

[Pierson5]

Pierson5. I don't have any religious beliefs. Religion in the sense of a regimental dogmatic tradition for capitalistic spirituality. I truly believe that religion enslaves men, while the truth sets you free. True belief in Christ is not religion. in fact Christ was outspoken against religion. Having said that. I would tell my child that I believe hell is a real place.

Also, the kind of "faith" that true believers have can never and will never be lost because it first comes from an experience with God that is impossible to deny while telling the truth. You become aware of the presence of God. It would be like you losing the belief that your child exists. Will never happen until one of you passes from this world. God can never pass. What you evidently had was just some sort of human indoctrination and that is not what it means to be a Christian. Human indoctrination can be believed and then disbelieved for another set of views. It happens all the time. if you ever were a Christian though, you would still be. There is no other possibility. If you knew God, you would understand. -Peace

I guess I do not understand. When I was a child, I went to church, I had the "feel good" feelings, I was connected with God, I prayed, I sang the hymns, heck, I was reading the children's version of the bible by elementary school. I would have considered myself a true Christian and that I knew God. I wouldn't compare it to believing a child exists though. That would be comparing a natural (child) to a supernatural (God) being.

[neo-x]

Hi Pierson,

Pierson5 » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:22 am

seveneyes wrote:
Pierson5. I don't have any religious beliefs. Religion in the sense of a regimental dogmatic tradition for capitalistic spirituality. I truly believe that religion enslaves men, while the truth sets you free. True belief in Christ is not religion. in fact Christ was outspoken against religion. Having said that. I would tell my child that I believe hell is a real place.

Also, the kind of "faith" that true believers have can never and will never be lost because it first comes from an experience with God that is impossible to deny while telling the truth. You become aware of the presence of God. It would be like you losing the belief that your child exists. Will never happen until one of you passes from this world. God can never pass. What you evidently had was just some sort of human indoctrination and that is not what it means to be a Christian. Human indoctrination can be believed and then disbelieved for another set of views. It happens all the time. if you ever were a Christian though, you would still be. There is no other possibility. If you knew God, you would understand. -Peace


I guess I do not understand. When I was a child, I went to church, I had the "feel good" feelings, I was connected with God, I prayed, I sang the hymns, heck, I was reading the children's version of the bible by elementary school. I would have considered myself a true Christian and that I knew God. I wouldn't compare it to believing a child exists though. That would be comparing a natural (child) to a supernatural (God) being.

Going to church is not equal to being a christian, same goes for reading the Bible, singing hymns, giving alms, etc. etc. This may be the byproduct of a religious lifestyle but nowhere does it equals to faith itself. Real Faith is not based on assumptions and doubts, it is based on a contact, a relationship. Thats what J and others have pointed out to you. What you experienced was not faith but a religious lifestyle. If you knew Christ, like you knew your family you would simply have faith. If you knew someone, you cant un-know them. Its impossible unless you delude yourself or lie (which I do not think you are doing).

So my friend, this is what I and the others are saying. You are not the only one scarred by religion. I was atheist up-til my teen years even though i was born in a very strict religious family. I did all what you said you were doing but I lacked real faith. Because what I believed at that age, as a child, was given to me with little or no choice. I knew nothing and so i just believed what I was told to believe, but I never knew Christ in reality. You turn away from religion like this, because there is no faith to begin with. Knowing God, is not a matter of assumptions. Either you know him or you don't.

As for your love for science, let me say that I love science, I am fascinated by it. Yet nowhere does it hampers my belief. I wonder what is in science that makes you think there is no God?

[domokunrox]

Pierson,

I am not particularly involved in any general evangelism discussions here. Rather, I am more engaged in the philosophical proofs.

I'll make myself short here because it is off topic.

If you actually believe that the scientific method can give you ALL positive confirmations on the existence or non existence of something, than you've made a critical mistake.

The scientific method AT BEST is merely a lens in which to view an INTERPRETATION of nature. There are quite a few things that are true and we all are rational to believe in that cannot be proven by the scientific method.

You've also mentioned that life's meaning isn't objective, but rather it is subjective. This violates the law of non contradiction. Any and all propositions are truthbearers. These propositions cannot be both be true at the same time and same sense. Saying that any proposition is subjective is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2= 4 & 5. If you would like to be further educated on that, than please feel free to drop by the philosophy section of the website and enter the discussion about truth : not subjective not plural.

Welcome to the boards!

[bippy123]

Pierson those links you posted are not from scientific peer reviewedresearch articles. They are basically from conspiracy sites. Is this your so called proof against the shroud. I would say that it's a good try but it's not even that, and to call into question the reputation of max frei is rediculous. Max was from the old school and though ray Rogers didn't approve of his methods they were very effective. Frei is no small man when it came to pollen samples as he pioneered the use of connecting pollen to criminals and the crime scene.

For fun I looked at the ciscop link and what caught my eye was one name Joe nickell.
Can you please share with the field of expertise of mr nickell?
I'll save you the trouble, he isn't a scientist and from my memory his phd is in either English or history. Your using his research as scientific proof against the shrouds authenticity.

I'll throw a couple of names out for ya, Los alamos and NASA to name a few.
I love to debunk these pseudoscience looney conspiracy theories against the shrouds authenticity but the links you gave me aren't even a challenge for me.

Your even using sites that still talk about goofy Walter mccrone and his anti scientific theories were debunked a longggg time ago. Mccrone with his primitive equipment said there was paint and no blood but professor Adler who was the world's most premier blood chemist determined that blood was on the shroud. Mccrone couldn't get one research paper passed through peer review and instead printed his findings in his own magazine in which he was the editor and owner of.

I believe you haven't looked at the peer reviewed research at all.
As I have said many times before if you want to see how fast atheists abandon their supposedly much beloved science and logic just mention the shroud of Turin to them and watch them resort to half baked conspiracy theories.

If you were truely seeking the truth with an open mind you wouldn't have brought a site to me that features the s I'd tific research of an English or history major. No wonder why no scientist who has truely studied the shroud would take these men or sites seriously.

I suggest www.shroud.com if you want to be really informed about the shroud and not these loony pseudo science sites that have no peer reviewed material .

We also have a good thread in this section. I keep saying the shroud of Turin is lethal to atheism.

Next thing is you will tell me that the man on the shroud is da vinci lol

[bippy123]

As far as the image of Guadalupe is concerned I haven't studies it much, but from what I have heard the remarkable hing about it is how it stayed well preserved. But as far as the shroud it is the most scientifically studied relic of all time, but as your links claimed Joe nickel who has a phd in no scientific field he has proven what no scientist on earth has proven.

I gotta say Pierson this is awesome science lololol
You have great Faith that the shroud is a forgery but science itself proves you wrong.
Later:)

[Pierson5]

Hi Pierson,

Pierson5 » Sat Mar 24, 2012 11:22 am

seveneyes wrote:
Pierson5. I don't have any religious beliefs. Religion in the sense of a regimental dogmatic tradition for capitalistic spirituality. I truly believe that religion enslaves men, while the truth sets you free. True belief in Christ is not religion. in fact Christ was outspoken against religion. Having said that. I would tell my child that I believe hell is a real place.

Also, the kind of "faith" that true believers have can never and will never be lost because it first comes from an experience with God that is impossible to deny while telling the truth. ....

Going to church is not equal to being a christian, same goes for reading the Bible, singing hymns, giving alms, etc. etc. This may be the byproduct of a religious lifestyle but nowhere does it equals to faith itself. Real Faith is not based on assumptions and doubts, it is based on a contact, a relationship. Thats what J and others have pointed out to you. What you experienced was not faith but a religious lifestyle. If you knew Christ, like you knew your family you would simply have faith. If you knew someone, you cant un-know them....

I don't really understand the argument that because I no longer have faith in God, that I wasn't a true Christian to begin with. There are a few pastors of 30 years out there that have also "lost their faith." How do you determine if someone is a "true Christian."? If they believe, they are. If they ever lose their faith, they are not? That's absurd. Are you saying there is nothing that could possibly happen that could change your mind on the subject? I may be atheist now, but I can assure if evidence presented itself, I would be first in line to admit I was wrong and change my mind.

Science is based upon verifiable evidence. I came to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. I reverted to the null hypothesis: There is no god. I have yet to find any convincing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Simple as that.

Pierson,
You've also mentioned that life's meaning isn't objective, but rather it is subjective. This violates the law of non contradiction. Any and all propositions are truthbearers. These propositions cannot be both be true at the same time and same sense. Saying that any proposition is subjective is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2= 4 & 5. If you would like to be further educated on that, than please feel free to drop by the philosophy section of the website and enter the discussion about truth : not subjective not plural.

Welcome to the boards!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I can't say any proposition is subjective? What if I were to propose Hawaiian Pizza is the best kind of pizza? Wouldn't that be a subjective proposition? You are making the assumption that the meaning of life is objective. How do you know? On what basis? Why have I not been given this information? I have offered my personal "meaning of life" but have yet to hear this one true meaning of life from the individuals who disagree with me. Comparing subjective matters such as pizza flavors and the meaning of life to objective matters (which can be tested and proven) like mathematics, doesn't seem logical.

And thankyou for the warm welcome. I have gotten some valuable information from you guys so far, and I'm enjoying my time here

Pierson those links you posted are not from scientific peer reviewedresearch articles. They are basically from conspiracy sites. Is this your so called proof against the shroud. I would say that it's a good try but it's not even that, and to call into question the reputation of max frei is rediculous. Max was from the old school ...

I suggest http://www.shroud.com if you want to be really informed about the shroud and not these loony pseudo science sites that have no peer reviewed material .

True, his area of expertise is in writing. Big deal. Writers can't examine scientific research and write an article about it? As you pointed out, one of his references were Mr. Raymond N. Rogers (an American chemist who was considered a leading expert in thermal analysis.) The very first link I gave you was written by Steven D. Schafersman (B.S. in Geology and Biology from Northern Illinois University, a M.S. in Geology, and a Ph.D. in Geology (1983) from Rice University).

I took a look at the shroud.com website and am unimpressed. Under their General Guidelines for submission:

The Editor of this website and the STERA, Inc. Editorial Review Committee reserve the right to reject or refuse at their discretion any papers or articles that are deemed inaccurate, irrelevant, inappropriate or inconsistent with the editorial standards subscribed to by this website.

This seems like there may be some biases involved. I'll be honest, I only looked at a couple of sources. These aren't peer reviewed articles. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. You seem to have done a lot of research on the subject. Why don't you give me your best couple of peer reviewed articles to support the idea that this is divinely inspired. I don't have "faith" that is isn't divinely inspired. If it was that blatantly obvious to the scientific community, this would be huge news, Nobel prize winning style news. There is probably a very good reason why it (and other "religious relics") isn't accepted by the majority of the scientific community. I'm a little skeptical, that's all.

[RickD]

I don't really understand the argument that because I no longer have faith in God, that I wasn't a true Christian to begin with. There are a few pastors of 30 years out there that have also "lost their faith." How do you determine if someone is a "true Christian."? If they believe, they are. If they ever lose their faith, they are not? That's absurd. Are you saying there is nothing that could possibly happen that could change your mind on the subject? I may be atheist now, but I can assure if evidence presented itself, I would be first in line to admit I was wrong and change my mind.

Pierson5, I'll try to keep this simple, and to the point. The way I see it, there are 2 possibilities.

1). You have a true, saving faith in Jesus Christ. You have the indwelling Holy Spirit of God inside you, sealing your salvation in Christ for eternity. You drifted away from God, and He is calling you back to His loving arms.

Or

2). You never had a saving faith in Christ, but maybe just a intellectual belief in Him.

You need to find out for yourself, where you are. If you ever had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, He will never leave you. Maybe God led you here, and is waiting patiently for you to come back to Him.

[bippy123]

Pierson, if your referencing ray Rogers you would have known that he later changed his mind and is on the side of authenticity. He is the one who did the chemical analysis on the c14 piece of the shroud that determined that the c14 test was invalidated. The c14 tests were a fiasco and any skeptic sight that still sights that isnt sighting real science.

Rogers vanillin test shows the shroud to be in between 1300 and 3000 years old as the vanillin tests came back negative. Of course the wide dating shows that vanillin tests can't be pinned down to a few hundred year scale, but there is no doubt that it's much older then the non experts on these links u present show.

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

There hundreds of peer reviewed research articles on the shroud.
I wonder why you didn't bother to study any of them. Is this the vaunted reason of atheism?
Did you ever ask yourself f you really gave god a real chance with an open mind and open heart?
Remember rogers ended up believing in the shrouds authenticity and was and remained an agnostic till the day he died and it wasn't because of the evidence, it was because of his world view as he statEd beforehand on video that becdoesnt believe in miracles.

Shroud.com has all of the peer reviewed articles if your truely interested in the shroud, but if your happy with your emotional non-reasoning atheism it's all good.

As far as science saying it's divinley you know it's beyond them to make that exact statement, but they can take you right near that edge, especially with the shroud.

The easiest way to get to that edge is to study the history of the shroud from the too historian experts on the shroud, and don't forget to research the sudarium of Oviedo which forensic experts link the same body on the shroud to the sudarium.

As far as thinking that if it was scientifically found out to be divinely inspired that people would be winning Nobel prizes that is a silly way of looking at it as science isn't equipped to detect resurrection, but they can tell you that there is soft xray information on the hands part of the femur and parts of the head, they can tell Ou definitely that it wasn't a painting, it wasn't a primitive photograph, that it wasn't a scorch and they haven't been able to replicate the amazingly unique aspects of the image.historians can tell you that it matches the scriptural account of the crucifixion to the letter.
The recent enea research results say that the only way they can duplicate even a few of the shroud image's aspects is through a short burst of uv laser light.
All of the information leads you on a journey to the resurrection and that is when you start saying to yourself "no wonder why the disciples willingly died for what they saw firsthand (the resurrection)"

But like I also said before the shroud isn't for dogmatic atheists who stubbornly cling to a worldview that has no ultimate purpose or meaning. It is for seekers and a open minded agnostics who aren't afraid to go where the evidence leads.

If you truely want to seek God you need to first ask him to open your mind and your heart, then you need to start on your journey of seeking. If not you can keep quoting the non scientist nickel and the laughing stock of shroud research Walter Mccrone.

Your right that I know alot about the shroud as I have studied it for 2 years andcas soon as I can afford to I will take the 1 year advanced course on sinology (shroud research) in Turin where we will be exposed to many of thevgreat scientists who have studied the shroud and actually handled it first hand.

If your happy being an atheist run as far away from the shroud as possible, if you are a seeker it's waiting for you .

[seveneyes]

Hi Pierson,

[

I don't really understand the argument that because I no longer have faith in God, that I wasn't a true Christian to begin with. There are a few pastors of 30 years out there that have also "lost their faith." How do you determine if someone is a "true Christian."? If they believe, they are. If they ever lose their faith, they are not? That's absurd. Are you saying there is nothing that could possibly happen that could change your mind on the subject? I may be atheist now, but I can assure if evidence presented itself, I would be first in line to admit I was wrong and change my mind.

Science is based upon verifiable evidence. I came to understand that my beliefs were without rational justification and without evidentiary support. I reverted to the null hypothesis: There is no god. I have yet to find any convincing evidence to reject the null hypothesis. Simple as that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote thing is acting weird...

There is nothing beside blunt force trauma resulting in complete memory loss that could keep me from knowing God. You are correct about believing, but this is a sticky subject because many people claim to believe, or even consciously believe parts of the Gospel, but do not admit to themselves or others their ultimate unbelief in Christ. This is demonstrated in how they deal with difficult situations that life throws their way. Even true believers make mistakes, but someone claiming to believe who actually doesn't will have the complete inability to see and respond to God appropriately in times of reckoning. There is also the issue of indoctrination. God can use the testimony of men to reach other men, but so often men merely indoctrinate other men. They teach a methodology, or a system (a religion) to the other, and that is all it really is. Doctrine, even sound true doctrine is meaningless and merely subjective to men, unless it is backed by experience.

Doctrine is a tool to teach of a reality, not the reality itself. So someone who believes in a system of thought or a religion as a doctrine has nothing. While the one who experienced the truth is enriched by it.

-Put it this way: Someone who for the first time handling a gun, knowing it is unloaded, carelessly points it at, and in the direction of people.
When someone protests he says, "Who cares, it's not loaded!"
Another man comes up and tells him: "The reason it is taught never to point a gun, whether you think it's loaded or not at anyone is because, that is how accidents happen and people can die." <---That would be the doctrine)
The man continues and says; " I shot my own brother when I was 10 years old that way, and if you point that thing again, I will break your arm."
Not saying anyone's arm is getting broken here or anything, but that is the difference between doctrine and reality. Believing in a doctrine is not the same as having the experience either, but is a valid way to come to know God.
The question is, do you really believe it, or do you wait until the guy who threatened to break your arm leaves and then call him a jackass and continue to point the unloaded gun wherever you want?

Many preachers today went to seminary school to learn to be preachers. Many of them are merely indoctrinated and often are teaching untrue doctrines or spin offs of true doctrines. The nonspiritual mind cannot divine the truth of God.

The analogy of unknowing your own child stands because knowing that God is real, is just as real as you knowing that your child lives on this earth. It is truly that concrete. God is active, and communicative in my life, and is family.