Home » academic freedom, Intellectual freedom » Is Amazon now enforcing review standards?

Is Amazon now enforcing review standards?

At Cannuckian Yankee’s comment 14 on UD Contest post “Why do people refuse to read books they are attacking?” (now being judged), we learn,

There’s a guy on Amazon who’s extremely anti-ID. He comments on or reviews just about every ID book, but it’s quite obvious that he never reads the books. He goes by “sillysilly” sometimes, and other names, but you can tell it’s him.Sillysilly’s “reviews” and comments are pretty much the same – “ID is religion and not science, and you’re a lying jerk if you believe otherwise.”

But then we learn, at 22,

BTW, sillysilly now goes by Creationist_Nonesense_Ignored_by_Scientists, and most of his comments have been deleted by Amazon, which is not surprising.

To some, it is surprising. Many had despaired of the ‘Zon ever getting the message that customers are not well served by a huge barrage of noise by non-readers against anyone who would read and seriously consider a book.

Also: Has anyone heard recently from Misshelver or A Man for Misshelver? Perhaps these anti-design folk have got together and started a family dedicated to complicating the lives of locally owned bookstores and their customers.  ;)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

46 Responses to Is Amazon now enforcing review standards?

  1. On a similar note, Wikipedia now features the ability to rate certain articles, on a scale of 1-5, in trustworthiness, objectiveness, completeness and the quality of the writing. There’s also a check-box for those who are “highly knowledgeable” on the topic, which, if check, expands a few more options.

    Who knows how serious it’s being taken, but it could be a step in the right direction. Any I.D. related article there is biased to the point of being nauseating.

    Example of Wikipedia Article Ratings System

  2. 2
    CannuckianYankee

    I think the issue with sillysilly is more in his tone. People complained about him, and so his comments were deleted. In the comments section there’s also a selection click for “Did this comment contribute to the discussion?” I think sillysilly simply got clicked out of the discussion because most people – not just ID supporters were tired of his “silly” comments. I personally believe he’s just a troll, trying to drum up some attention.

  3. 3
    CannuckianYankee

    Jammer,

    Interesting. Maybe they’ve been getting complaints about the quality of their articles. There are really some excellent articles there, but when they’re dealing with a controversial subject, they do tend to get rather ideological, which I think is a shame.

    It’s good to know that their offering this quality feature, but I wonder if it will really help – if it will open up the site more to public opinion rather than to scholarship.

    I hope it doesn’t come down to people editing articles based on the ratings they get.

  4. 4
    CannuckianYankee

    Wikipedia is a work in progress, and there are people contributing to it, who share the philosophical views of ID friendly people. Unfortunately the way it was designed is to allow anyone to contribute provided that they follow a certain format – such as giving references to factual statements.

    In my view, those standards are not enough. While they do state that writers are to be balanced and objective in their articles, it’s quite easy to inject opinion by citing the opinions of others who agree with you as if that has any bearing on the facts of the subject matter. This is particularly apparent in the articles covering ID and its proponents, where we get a lot of coverage regarding Dover more from the opinions and POV of the plaintiffs than with the defense. There’s also a lot of coverage on the Wedge document with citations slanted towards an ideological basis for ID. Interesting since it’s ok to interject your own ideology into an article, but it’s not ok, apparently for ID to have an ideological basis (as if it did). Double standard?

    But there are Wiki forums where people discuss the objectivity of articles. It might be to ID’s benefit for ID supporters to get involved in those forums if they are not already involved.

    Is anyone here involved?

  5. 5

    Some behind the scenes Wiki bias.

    This is an expert from the talk page of the Shroud of Turin article. The problem here was that too many atheists were complaining that the Shroud article was too “pro-authentic”, and had to be changed. The re-butt to this claim was that all the “pro-authentic” info was from peer reviewed journals, and that if the scientific evidence pointed more towards authentic than not, than that is that. But the atheists would not have it. Scientific evidence is apparently only gospel if it fits with their dogma.

    So what did the lead editor have to say about the weight of peer review articles vs. “skeptic websites”?

    “Wikipedia does not work that way my friend. If the readers at large feel the article is too pro-authenticity, it does not matter what the academics think. At the moment there
    is just one IP complaining, the key is not to get to the point where 20 IPs complain.
    Then we will need a rewrite. And I must say the complaints of this IP are not all empty.
    He has some valid points. I do not see Joe Nickle as respectable, but he has 1,000 times more readers than all the other academics combined, so he can not be ignored and must be mentioned. Wikipedia is a “public” item, not an academic item.” History2007 (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

    Again: Wikipedia is a “public” item, not an academic item.”

    Remember this is a response to the overwhelming peer reviewed papers that support the Shroud’s authenticity. So to combat the peer reviewed papers, the science and reason police simply state that the academics do not matter more or less than a popular writer. The number of “readers” someone has now apparently holds as much weight than a Phd in the field. Perez Hilton can therefore weigh in on string theory. As long as the evidence goes against their dogma, then any BS is apparently allowed to hold as much water as peer review. And not just allowed but mandatory.

    Now go to any ID related article and compare.

  6. 6
    CannuckianYankee

    Junkdnaforlife (great name)

    Thanks for a very revealing post. A huge issue here is that Christians for the most part do not depend on relics like the shroud of Turin to substantiate the claims of Christianity. It’s not an issue whereby it must be authentic for Christianity to be true, so there’s really nothing to be gained by insisting that it IS authentic if it is not.

    So I doubt if most Christians would insist that it is without good evidence. History has shown many relics in the past to eventually prove inauthentic, which hasn’t really affected the claims of Christianity, nor the faith of those who believe it. They are really separate issues.

    But the real issue here seems to be in defending the integrity of peer reviewed articles; which for the most part, do uphold it’s authenticity, and those involved in those forums at Wiki need to take a good hard look at how this affects the integrity of the entire Wiki network.

    So there are peer reviewed articles, which uphold the authenticity of the Shroud. (BA77 has shared several of them in other posts) Does this mean that it is in fact the burial cloth of Jesus? Perhaps, but there’s still room for debate on this. It sounds to me like the atheist objectors to this are more interested in not allowing any evidence for Christianity, even if such evidence does not necessarily prove anything other than that the circumstances surrounding the shroud are unusual and difficult to explain away, as many other relics have been; while lending some interesting parallels to the passion and resurrection stories in the gospels.

    It is a very valid position to accept the shroud as the authentic burial cloth of Christ, but that doesn’t mean that an atheist is therefore obligated to accept it as such; but when they are involved in suppressing scholarship for the sake of their ideology, they have nothing to gain by it, and it only goes to demonstrate some of the pettiness by which some atheists (not all) uphold their views at the expense of others.

  7. 7
    CannuckianYankee

    Oh, and junkdnaforlife,

    You may find this amusing:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

  8. As to peer-review and the Shroud;

    The high-points;

    ‘if we focus only on what is published in peer-reviewed scientific journals then we know certain facts. The Shroud of Turin is at least 1300 to as much as 3000 years old. The images are unexplained. As Philip Ball wrote in Nature, in commenting on a 2005 article in Thermochimica Acta that showed that previous carbon 14 dating was invalid, “It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made” If we turn to a 2003 article in Melanoidins we find that the images on the Shroud of Turin are a chemical caramel-like darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the shroud’s fibers It is not paint.

    There is the enigma of the second face on the reverse side of the Shroud as reported in 2004 in the Journal of Optics published by the Institute of Physics. Other peer-reviewed evidence is clear: The bloodstains are from real human blood. The images have peculiar 3D properties. The Shroud was bleached by methods used in the first century and not later in the medieval.

    Add in some history, and given what is known scientifically, and there is ample reason to infer that the Shroud of Turin is genuine.’,,,
    http://www.skepticalspectacle.com/description.htm

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    Moreover, if we focus on the proposition that Christ actually did defeat death on the cross, then many pieces of evidence from physics, like a giant universe wide puzzle, far from making the resurrection event of Christ impossible, all, ‘serendipitously’, fall in place and add very strong support of plausibility that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God who actually did defeat death (and sin) on the cross for our behalf:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – overview notes
    http://bornagain77.livejournal.com/

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    etc.. etc..

  9. 9

    Cannuk: It’s not an issue whereby it must be authentic for Christianity to be true,

    I absolutely agree. It is more importantly a piece of empirical evidence for the historical Jesus. Also, this evidence overlaps into the gospel accounts. The various aspects of the shroud, the wounds etc, corroborate perfectly with the gospel accounts of the passion. This is important, because it supports the written record with archeological evidence thereby reinforcing the credibility of the gospels. The shroud is dangerous to the atheists because it is a smoking gun. This is why Wiki goes to great lengths to muddy the water on this issue.

    You are correct that the atheist does not have to accept it. Of course not. But many of the atheists most effective arguments against Christianity crumble based on the Shrouds authenticity. And they know this. How well does the Jesus was a myth, Jesus was the product of legend etc hold up against empirical archeological evidence? It doesn’t. Not only do those arguments crumble, but then the prodding question of what exactly was the “mysterious” event that created the image on the Shroud begins to surface. Science has failed to explain the image formation process.

    This is a nightmare for an atheist: Archeological evidence for the historical Jesus coupled with a scientifically documented unexplainable image formation process that took place at the very moment that the gospels claim the resurrection happened. This is not proof, but it is a tough hill to climb. The shroud does for Christianity what the big bang did for theism.
    This is why the wiki Shroud page is ground zero in the Christianity debate.

  10. 10

    Actually, the most outstanding historical evidence for Christianity is its own existence. Not a few hundred, but thousands and then ten thousands, including entire families, risked terrible persecution to preach the good news. How many people would risk their lives that way for a story?
    This is reasonable if not scientific evidence that many witnessed his ministry, death, and resurrection and passed the account on.

  11. 11

    As for the shroud of Turin – couldn’t it be from anyone executed anywhere over a broad period? Weren’t lots of people executed? Where are the other shrouds? It’s like finding one and only one fossil when you know there were thousands of specimens. Isn’t it a little suspicious that exactly one shows up, and it happens to be from Jesus?
    In Jude, Michael and Satan disputed Moses’ body, apparently because it could have become an object of worship. Would Jesus really deliberately leave behind what for many has become an idol? Don’t Christians walk by faith and not by sight? No one should need a shroud to in any way enhance or verify their faith. There’s no mention of those in the first century requiring physical evidence to live and die for their faith. The idea of a relic that verifies Jesus’ existence runs contrary to the Bible.

  12. 12

    Sorry, don’t mean to spam multiple posts. But the Jews, from early on, were taught that idols must be no part of their worship. Theirs was an enlightened relationship with God. For them, the use of relics, icons, and idols was beneath them, the realm of pagan religions. (The only physical objects involved in worship were explicitly specified by God.)
    Paul, a well-educated Jew, was irritated by the many idols in Athens. Can we even imagine him kissing or praying before a shroud? It would have sickened him. If he saw someone else doing it, he would have put a stop to it. He left his previous practice for something superior, not something inferior.
    Relics, icons, and idols are all anathema to Christianity,

  13. ScottAndrews whether you need the Shroud to bolster your personal faith or not, whether you think it is Idol worship or not, the scientific evidence itself speaks very strongly to its authenticity of the Shroud, and strictly, from a scientific point of view, the completely mysterious issue of image formation should be given respect, especially since the image formation has repeatedly defied plausible explanation by peer review;

    Part 1 of 13 Rebuttal to Luigi Garlischelli Shroud Forgery – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7vw7LU13U

    PROOF SHROUD OF TURIN CANNOT BE A FAKE – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfDdbxMKZRw

    please note the 3:20 minute mark of the following video;

    Shroud Of Turin – Sewn From Two Pieces – 2000 Years Old – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109101/

    New Evidence Overturns Shroud Of Turin Carbon Dating – Joseph G. Marino and M. Sue Benford – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4222339

    THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE – Evidence of Authenticity
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    The Sudarium of Oviedo
    http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Front and Back 3-D images – articles and videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    Shroud Of Turin’s Unique 3 Dimensionality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182

    This following recent video revealed a very surprising holographic image that was found on the Shroud that was only made possible very recently by advances in modern imaging technology:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words ‘The Lamb’ – short video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041205

  14. 14
    CannuckianYankee

    Scott: “The idea of a relic that verifies Jesus’ existence runs contrary to the Bible.”

    I don’t think that’s true. I don’t know where you stand on ID because I haven’t discussed anything with you before that I recall, but ID is essentially used as an inference to design, the same way the shroud can be used as an inference to the facts of the resurrection.

    If you use your argument, God would not have left any evidence for design, and neither would He have left a bible in the first place as evidence for His work among humans.

    You have to take that argument to it’s full logical boundaries, which render any evidence for the existence of God as unbiblical, even the bible itself. It’s self-refuting.

    I think the Shroud is legitimately representative of the facts of the resurrection; and that’s the only thing it should be used for – not for veneration or anything else. We don’t venerate the bible itself, but the words within it, because they are the immaterial Word of God.

    The only material that should be venerated is Christ Himself, because He is God in the flesh, and also bears the title the Word of God, because those words in the Bible are essentially about Him. But evidence and the veneration of material are really separate issues, as I believe that the shroud itself and what God has provided for us in his Word are separate issues. We have enough to go by in His Word to substantiate the claims of Christianity in my view, but that doesn’t suggest that there couldn’t be supplemental material that further substantiates it.

    The existence of a city called Jerusalem is material evidence for the claims of Christianity, and we don’t find too many people objecting to its use in support of those claims. It should’t be any different with an object such as the shroud.

    While I disagree with those in the Church who have venerated the shroud, I do agree with Pope John Paul II’s statement regarding the shroud when he last viewed it stating that it’s authenticity “we leave to science.” (that’s a paraphrase). So the church has remained neutral in this regard.

    It puzzles me still then, why if it remains a neutral issue it is accepted for veneration as the face of Christ. That is the one thing that to me doesn’t make sense, yet I’m sure that any Catholic could provide us an explanation for why it is so, and it might be something along the lines of what I stated about worshiping Christ as the only physical (material representation of God).

    I still think that shroud veneration is not the same thing. Christ is not present on the Earth physically, so we worship Him in spirit. We don’t worship church buildings or statues or religious relics, or anything else upon the Earth that is not the eternal Godhead. The shroud is material, vulnerable to decay. That should be obvious to anyone. In fact, it nearly was destroyed by fire in the late 1990s, so it does not physically represent the eternal Godhead. It only lends support to one particular event involving the eternal Godhead. One day we will worship Christ face to face. That’s my view.

  15. 15
    CannuckianYankee

    Junkdnaforlife. (Your name as a most unfortunate short version, so I’ll avoid using it) :>)

    When I said that there is room for debate regarding the shroud, I’m reflecting the Catholic Church’s official position. This does not mean that it is not empirical evidence. Empirical evidence always leaves room for debate ideally, but for some this rule is not always strictly followed, unfortunately. That does not mean that it isn’t strong evidence.

    I had to clarify that, not that I could find any disagreement with it on your part.

    I fully agree with your last post. Excellent points.

  16. 16
    CannuckianYankee

    Junkdnaforever and others,

    The only thing I would caution regarding the shroud and it’s related to my statement in reference to how Wiki treats it, which I repeat here…

    “A huge issue here is that Christians for the most part do not depend on relics like the shroud of Turin to substantiate the claims of Christianity. It’s not an issue whereby it must be authentic for Christianity to be true, so there’s really nothing to be gained by insisting that it IS authentic if it is not.

    So I doubt if most Christians would insist that it is without good evidence.’

    …would be in supposing that the shroud never surfaced in the 12th or 15th centuries. Suppose it still lay buried under layers of history in Jerusalem. The Christian doesn’t then say: “Oh, we have no shroud, therefore our faith has no evidential basis.” And I should also mention the city of Jerusalem. Let’s say that through thousands of years of history it too lay buried under rubble piled upon rubble without a present day trace of its existence. The Christian doesn’t then say: “Events in the Bible took place in a city called Jerusalem, and yet we have no evidence that it ever existed; therefore our faith has no basis.”

    The point being that evidence lends support to other evidences, which lend support to yet other evidences, and one missing piece of evidence neither renders invalid the Christian claims. The events still happened, while some evidence has disappeared. The absence of all evidences supportive of Christian claims would absolutely be problematic as they would also include the absence of the Bible itself; but I think God in His sovereignty has allowed certain evidences to surface as sufficient. I also believe that he allows new evidence from time to time as a means to render unfounded contrary claims. I think the shroud is an example of God’s sovereignty over the evidence in light of current doubts about the historicity of Jesus.

    We see further evidence of this in the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at the heyday of Higher criticism regarding the Old Testament.

    So with each new age there appears a new controversy regarding Christian belief, and God responds by bringing to light new evidences. That’s what I believe He does.

    This is why I caution that the shroud should not be depended upon as too strongly supporting those events without pointing to all the other supportive evidence, such as that presented in Morrison’s “Who Moved the stone” argument, or the evidence that exists in extra-biblical texts, or the testimony of the Early Church fathers, and so on and so forth. We should never defer to one piece of evidence, but rather to continually drive home the other supportive evidence.

    What the atheists on Wiki will not be able to do by suppressing the shroud evidence then, is to completely destroy or suppress the whole issue of evidence for Christianity’s claims.

    So when they’re busy suppressing evidence for the shroud, the Christians who contribute on there (and there are many of them); should be enhancing and drawing attention to the other evidences.

    BTW, I read the article recently, and it looks pretty good still. There are some minor issues that I found to be a bit slanted, but overall the article looks pretty solid and objective. Apparently they haven’t got around to their agenda as of yet, and it remains a discussion. I would say that a person reading the article who knew nothing about the shroud would be able to use the information present in the article as a guide for further study on both sides, and not just on the side of atheists; so i think the article is pretty balanced at this time. I personally think that the articles concerning ID are atrocious. If you noticed anything different; I would be surprised.

  17. 17

    I don’t see how the shroud can be empirical evidence. Was Jesus the only man alive, or the only one executed by the Romans? Why is the face automatically assumed to be his?

    I’m not saying that God didn’t provide the shroud because he deliberately wants to hold back evidence. The Bible has a great deal of corroboration from archaeology.

    But a big difference between the Jews at that time and pretty much everyone else was that the Jews worshiped an invisible God while everyone else used relics and statues and so forth. Their worship was elevated and they looked down on such practices.

    Every physical item used in worship (the temple, lampstands, etc.) was specifically commanded by God and served an illustrative purpose. But even those things did not enter into the everyday life of the Jews. Their worship involved prayer, reading, and above all, obedience.

    The writing of the Bible continued for over sixty years after Jesus’ death, and never is a single sacred relic mentioned. But even after the law of Moses was done with, the warning to avoid the snare of idols remained.

  18. ScottAndrews, to remove the Shroud from consideration as empirical evidence, you must explain how the image was formed, you cannot repeatedly appeal to your distaste for ‘idol worship’.,

    note:

    Is the Shroud of Turin Authentic?

    Excerpt: First, the provenance of the Shroud – its documented history of ownership – has now been completely established. There had been a gap of one and a half centuries, from 1204 to 1351 A.D. In 2009, the Vatican announced the discovery of a letter indicating the Knights Templar held the Shroud during that time. (That confirmed what many scholars had long thought was the case.) The discovery filled in the gap, giving an unbroken, documented history of the cloth.
    http://www.faqs.org/periodical.....77031.html

    THE SHROUD AS AN ANCIENT TEXTILE – Evidence of Authenticity
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html

    The Sudarium of Oviedo
    http://www.shroudstory.com/sudarium.htm

  19. 19

    ScottAndrews, to remove the Shroud from consideration as empirical evidence, you must explain how the image was formed

    Not really. This is the equivalent of finding a photograph of a bearded man that was apparently taken a few thousand years ago. I have no idea how it came about, but that doesn’t make it Jesus.

    I guess I just don’t get it. We all know the horrible persecution that Christians suffered in the first century. And yet the overwhelming majority never saw Jesus or heard him speak. It didn’t matter. I’ll try not to be too dogmatic about relics and idols. But all of that didn’t come along until way later.
    Christians were a shining lamp, a beacon. If Athena worshiper goes to one temple, bows and prays to Athena, and then the Christian goes to his temple and kneels before a statue and prays, except he’s praying to God, how would anyone know the difference? It sounds more like blending in than standing apart.

  20. ScottAndrews you state:

    ‘Not really. This is the equivalent of finding a photograph of a bearded man that was apparently taken a few thousand years ago.’

    LOL,,, And finding a 2000 year old ‘photograph’, with 3-Dimensional properties we still can’t replicate to this day, is not ‘scientifically interesting’ for exactly what reason???

  21. 21

    I think it would be extremely interesting. That still doesn’t make it Jesus.

  22. 22

    And I think 2,000 years is a bit too specific.

  23. 23
    CannuckianYankee

    Scott,

    I think you need to consider the characteristics of the shroud and the image that is on it. It isn’t just an image of a crucified Jew, but one who had:

    1) Nails through feet and hands
    2) some sort of piercing in the side
    3) wounds from some sort of sharp object around the head – like thorns.

    So it’s not simply any crucified Jew, but it parallels very closely the gospel narratives.

    Plus, an argument that it is not the burial cloth of Jesus but that of any other Jew seems more incredible. One would have to explain how and why it was preserved, for one thing. With the shroud as Jesus’ burial cloth it is quite easy to explain, because the early Christians held onto things associated with Jesus.

    It doesn’t make sense that the burial cloth of a common criminal – which most crucifixion victims were, would have been carefully preserved, but it does make sense that the burial cloth of Jesus would be.

    And as BA stated, consider how the image got there. The only real explanation that makes any sense whatsoever is that it was the result of an incredible amount of energy and light, such as with the resurrection.

    So your argument actually sounds more incredible, which is what makes the shroud so intriguing. It can’t be explained away so easily, as I mentioned earlier. There are many religious relics that can be easily explained away, but not the shroud. It’s quite compelling as evidence for one thing, and one thing only – the resurrection.

  24. ScottAndrews, at the very least you have to admit that the profound mystery of how the image was formed,,,

    How Did The Image Form On The Shroud? – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4045581

    “The shroud image is made from tiny fibres that are (each) 1/10th of a human hair. The picture elements are actually randomly distributed like the dots in your newspaper, photograph or magazine photograph. To do this you would need an incredibly accurate atomic laser. This technology does NOT exist (even to this day).”
    Kevin Moran – Optical Engineer

    Shroud Of Turin’s Unique 3 Dimensionality – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4041182
    etc.. etc..

    ,,,as far as the science is concerned, leaves open the very real possibility that this clothe is a authentic testament to the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself, and since no ‘naturalistic explanation, is forthcoming, should be investigated as to ascertain plausibility as such a scenario,,, i.e. from a scientific perspective, since the shroud, and all its unique properties of being a photographic negative with inexplicable 3-Dimensional holographic properties, which were only possible for us to discover by our advances in modern science, certainly warrants the investigation into its plausibility of being authentic from the standpoint of our understanding of the foundational physics of the universe. i.e. Does our foundational understanding in physics of the universe rule out the shroud as impossible??? or does our foundational understanding of the physics of the universe leave the door open to its plausibility??? When investigated from this starting point we find out some very interesting things.

    notes:

    I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe:

    Psalm 33:13-15
    The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works.

    The expansion of every 3D point in the universe, and the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe to each point of conscious observation in the universe, is obviously a very interesting congruence in science between the very large (relativity) and the very small (quantum mechanics). A congruence that Physicists, and Mathematicians, seem to be having a extremely difficult time ‘unifying’ into a ‘theory of everything’.(Einstein, Penrose).

    The conflict of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics appears to arise from the inability of either theory to successfully deal with the Zero/Infinity problem that crops up in different places of each theory:

    THE MYSTERIOUS ZERO/INFINITY
    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.
    http://www.fmbr.org/editoral/e....._mar02.htm

    please note where the zero/infinity conflict specifically resides in the 4-D space-time of general relativity,,,

    “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely’

    ,,,and black holes are also known to be the largest contributors of entropy to the 4-D space-time of this universe,,,

    Entropy of the Universe – Hugh Ross – May 2010
    Excerpt: Egan and Lineweaver found that supermassive black holes are the largest contributor to the observable universe’s entropy. They showed that these supermassive black holes contribute about 30 times more entropy than what the previous research teams estimated.
    http://www.reasons.org/entropy-universe

    ,, moreover, the effects of entropy is the primary reason that we all grow old and eventually die, and is also the reason why the universe, left to its own present course of ‘accelerating expansion’, without ‘supernatural intervention, will eventually fulfill the second law to its fullest extent in the ‘entropic heat death’ of this universe,,,

    Yet, though unification of 4-D space-time and quantum mechanics resists all attempts at successful ‘unification’, the unification, into a ‘theory of everything’, between what is in essence the ‘infinite world of Quantum Mechanics’ and the ‘finite world of the space-time of General Relativity’ seems to be directly related to what Jesus apparently joined together with His resurrection, i.e. related to the unification of infinite God with finite man.,,, Dr. William Dembski in this following comment, though not directly addressing the Zero/Infinity conflict in General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, offers insight into this ‘unification’ of the infinite and the finite:

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”
    http://www.designinference.com.....of_xty.pdf

    Moreover there actually is physical evidence that lends strong support to the position that the ‘Zero/Infinity conflict’, we find between the entropic 4-D space-time of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, was successfully dealt with by Christ:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355

    Turin Shroud Enters 3D Age – Pictures, Articles and Videos
    https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1gDY4CJkoFedewMG94gdUk1Z1jexestdy5fh87RwWAfg

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.
    http://www.khouse.org/articles/2008/847

    “Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature, but only in contradiction to that which is known to us of nature.”
    St. Augustine

    Philippians 2: 5-11
    Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    While I agree with a criticism, from a Christian, that was leveled against the preceding Shroud of Turin video, that God indeed needed no help from the universe in the resurrection event of Christ since all things are possible with God, I am none-the-less very happy to see that what is considered the number one problem of Physicists and Mathematicians in physics today, of a ‘unification into a theory of everything’ for what is in essence the finite world of General Relativity and the infinite world of Quantum Mechanics, does in fact seem to find a successful resolution for ‘unification’ within the resurrection event of Jesus Christ Himself. It seems almost overwhelmingly apparent to me from the ‘scientific evidence’ we now have that Christ literally ripped a hole in the finite entropic space-time of this universe to reunite infinite God with finite man. That modern science would even offer such a almost tangible glimpse into the mechanics of what happened in the tomb of Christ should be a source of great wonder and comfort for the Christian heart.

    Psalms 16:10
    because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay.

    I think it should be fairly clear by now that, much contrary to the mediocrity of earth and of humans brought about by the heliocentric discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus, the findings of modern science are very comforting to Theistic postulations in general, and even lends strong support of plausibility to the main tenet of Christianity which holds Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God.

    Matthew 28:18
    And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and upon earth.”

    more detailed notes:

    General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin
    http://bornagain77.livejournal.com/

  25. 25

    I believe in miracles = the flood, the Red Sea, the resurrection – anything named in the Bible.

    I believe that a man could be judged for many things. But if I’m wrong and the shroud isn’t something made up to draw crowds and money, I won’t be held accountable for thinking so. Because real or not, the shroud is irrelevant. The Christian faith is contained in the Bible.

  26. ScottAndrews you state;

    ‘But if I’m wrong and the shroud isn’t something made up to draw crowds and money’,,,

    And once again Scott, to prove your assertion that the Shroud is a fake, the burden is on you as to provide a plausible naturalistic explanation,,, Your ‘suspicion’ that it is a fake is simply irrelevant to the science of explaining how the image was formed:

    further notes on plausibility:

    Scientific Evidence That Mind Effects Matter – Random Number Generators – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4198007

    I once asked a evolutionist, after showing him the preceding experiment, “Since you ultimately believe that the ‘god of random chance’ produced everything we see around us, what in the world is my mind doing pushing your god around?”

    The following Physicist offers a very interesting insight into this issue of ‘reconciling’ the mental universe of Quantum Mechanics with the space-time of General Relativity:

    How the Power of Intention Alters Matter – Dr. William A. Tiller
    Excerpt: Quantum mechanics and relativity theory are the two prime theoretical constructs of modern physics, and for quantum mechanics and relativity theory to be internally self-consistent, their calculations require that the vacuum must contain an energy density 10^94 grams per cubic centimeter. How much energy is that? To find out you simply use Einstein’s equation: E=MC2. Here’s how this comes out in practical terms. You could take the volume of, say, a single hydrogen atom (which is incredibly small, an infinitesimally small fraction of a cubic centimeter), and multiply that by the average mass density of the cosmos, a number which is known to astronomers. And what you find out is that within the amount of vacuum contained in this hydrogen atom there is, according to this calculation, “almost a trillion times as much energy as in all of the stars and all of the planets out to a radius of 20 billion light years!” If human consciousness can interact with that even a little bit, it can change things in matter. Because the ground state energies of all particles have that energy level due to their interaction with this stuff of the vacuum. So if you can shift that stuff of the vacuum, change its degree of order or coherence even a little bit, you can change the ground state energies of particles, atoms, molecules, and chemical equations.,,,, In conclusion Tiller states, “despite our attachment to it and our feeling of its solidity and persistence, what we think of as the physical universe is an almost incomprehensibly minuscule part of the immensity of All That Is.” “Matter as we know it,” Tiller concludes poetically, “is hardly a fragrance of a whisper.”
    http://www.spiritofmaat.com/ar.....tiller.htm

    =====================

    “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Eugene Wigner (1902 -1995) from his collection of essays “Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays”; Eugene Wigner laid the foundation for the theory of symmetries in quantum mechanics, for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1963.
    http://eugene-wigner.co.tv/

    Here is the key experiment that led Wigner to his Nobel Prize winning work on quantum symmetries:

    Eugene Wigner
    Excerpt: To express this basic experience in a more direct way: the world does not have a privileged center, there is no absolute rest, preferred direction, unique origin of calendar time, even left and right seem to be rather symmetric. The interference of electrons, photons, neutrons has indicated that the state of a particle can be described by a vector possessing a certain number of components. As the observer is replaced by another observer (working elsewhere, looking at a different direction, using another clock, perhaps being left-handed), the state of the very same particle is described by another vector, obtained from the previous vector by multiplying it with a matrix. This matrix transfers from one observer to another.
    http://www.reak.bme.hu/Wigner_.....io/wb1.htm

    i.e. In the experiment the ‘world’ (i.e. the universe) does not have a ‘privileged center’. Yet strangely, the conscious observer does exhibit a ‘privileged center’. This is since the ‘matrix’, which determines which vector will be used to describe the particle in the experiment, is ‘observer-centric’ in its origination! Thus explaining Wigner’s dramatic statement, “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”

  27. 27

    Scott: As for the shroud of Turin – couldn’t it be from anyone executed anywhere over a broad period? Weren’t lots of people executed?

    Of course a lot of people were executed. But not many had a crown of thorns stuck to their head. Or were whipped over 100 times with a Roman flagrum. Also, crucifixion victims generally had there legs broken to hasten death. The image on the shroud does not have broken legs. The image also shows a severe contusion on the trap muscle on the back by the shoulder. Meaning the victim had something very heavy resting on his shoulder, or was hit by something very heavy. This forensic evidence is consistent with the story that Christ carried or dragged the cross. The shroud also shows a wound on the side, from some type of stabbing. This is of course is consistent with the gospel detail of the Roman centurion piercing Christ with a spear.

    So just these five forensic details alone: crown of thorns, torture with a Roman flagrum, unbroken legs, shoulder wounding and a side stab wound narrows the field quite a bit. And these details just begin to scratch the surface.

    Scott: No one should need a shroud to in any way enhance or verify their faith.

    I agree also with this. This is not to validate faith, but to invalidate many of the arguments against Christianity.

    Cannuck: “So with each new age there appears a new controversy regarding Christian belief, and God responds by bringing to light new evidences. That’s what I believe He does.”

    Exactly. Studying this artifact is not to mean worship the Shroud, but rather to reinforce the argument for Christianity.

  28. 28

    So just these five forensic details alone: crown of thorns, torture with a Roman flagrum, unbroken legs, shoulder wounding and a side stab wound narrows the field quite a bit. And these details just begin to scratch the surface.

    All of that is quite impressive if we assume that the marks all came from the shroud wrapping a body to which those things had happened. Or it could be a clever work of art.
    There’s no burden on me to prove that the shroud isn’t what it is said to be. Its origin was and is highly questionable. And its suggested origin implies that God deliberately created a relic, despite such things being anathema to his expressed commandments. My faith in the Bible is what tells me that this thing isn’t real.
    What would it accomplish? Has anyone who didn’t believe in Jesus started because of the shroud? If that’s the tipping point, as opposed to 100 better reasons, then what sort of faith is that?

  29. ScottAndrews you state:

    ‘There’s no burden on me to prove that the shroud isn’t what it is said to be.’

    No there isn’t any burden on you unless you try to claim the image on the shroud was produced naturalistically, which, just so happens, to be exactly what you claim in the very next statement you make,,,

    ‘Its origin was and is highly questionable.’

    ,,,yet, rather than produce actual empirical evidence to show how a ancient linen can inexplicably have a photographic negative, 3-D hologram, on it, You appeal, much like neo-Darwinists, to questionable theology to try to make your case i.e. You are making a ‘God would not have done it that way’ theological claim when you state,,,

    ‘And its suggested origin implies that God deliberately created a relic, despite such things being anathema to his expressed commandments. My faith in the Bible is what tells me that this thing isn’t real.’

    Scott, I’m not here to argue theology with you, but, once again, I point out that as far as the science itself is concerned, you simply cannot appeal to theology to explain how the image was formed on the shroud.

    As to this question of yours;

    ‘Has anyone who didn’t believe in Jesus started because of the shroud?’

    Turin Shroud 3-D Hologram – Face And Body – Dr. Petrus Soons – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5889891/

    quote from video;

    “When I saw the results for the first time it really touched me emotionally very much. People start crying spontaneously when they stand in front of these images, and I have seen people change their life completely. It changed my life. – Dr. Petrus Soons

  30. Greatness of Our God – Hillsong Live – music video
    http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=7GDKGLNX

  31. 31

    You are making a ‘God would not have done it that way’ theological claim when you state,,,

    ‘And its suggested origin implies that God deliberately created a relic, despite such things being anathema to his expressed commandments. My faith in the Bible is what tells me that this thing isn’t real.’

    Yes, that is what I am doing. That God would create such a relic is inconsistent with what the scriptures say of Him and what He says to us. And it’s not mentioned in the Bible.

    The history of Israel shows that many people are easily inclined to idol worship. That’s why, before telling them not to worship images, God told them not even to make them. You don’t worship the shrine, but I guarantee you there are people who would bow to it and kiss it and pray to it if they could. If God made this relic, then he acted inconsistently with his own commandments to provide something that no one needs.

    Jesus said, ‘Happy are those who have not seen but believe.’ Most who would eventually believe would never see. Peter later wrote, ‘Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him…’ What would be the point of saying this if everyone had seen him?

    What good would the shroud do back in the first century when most disciples would never see it (and apparently didn’t know about it?) If they had faith without it, what use do we have for it?

    To say that the shroud’s origins are questionable does not imply that that it occurred naturally. I’m sure it wasn’t natural. But it’s not a choice between it being natural or being an image of Jesus.

  32. 32

    Scott: And it’s not mentioned in the Bible.

    The burial cloth of Jesus is mentioned in all four gospels. It is not called the “Shroud of Turin” in gospel accounts becaues Turin, Italy as we understand Turin, Italy did not exist in the first century. The burial cloth of Jesus was given to him by Joseph [of] Arimathea, who is mentioned in all four gospels as a rich man, or man of wealth. The shroud itself is a 3-over-l herringbone weave. This is not only consistent with 1st century Syrian design, but it is a high quality weave that generally only a 1st century wealthy person would be able to procure.

    So here you have a high end 1st century Syrian cloth given to Christ for burial by a wealthy 1st century man, and this is mentioned in all four gospel accounts, and completely consistent with forensic and textile examination of the Shroud.

  33. 33

    Ok, it’s consistent. That doesn’t make it an image of Jesus.
    Just because the Bible says Jesus was wrapped in shroud that doesn’t mean this is his shroud. That’s a huge leap.
    I’m not being selectively hyperskeptical. It’s just not very conclusive.
    View it through the lens of the scriptures, as I’ve tried to do in all my previous posts, and there’s every reason to be suspicious and skeptical. If you believe the words from Jesus’ own mouth, miracles alone mean nothing. A shroud with the image of a bearded man’s face means nothing. The devil performs miracles. The devil will heal one man if it misleads two. The shroud is treated by many as a holy relic, an idol. Connect the dots.

  34. Scott, to be blunt, that is just plain severely twisted logic. So you actually believe the devil made a replication of the resurrection event of Christ to fool people into believing that Christ actually resurrected from the dead???,,, Buddy, you simply can’t debate with someone who will use anything whatsoever to try to prove his point!!!!!!!

  35. 35

    I don’t mind blunt. I like to be tactful, but tactful doesn’t do well in an internet forum where no one can see your face or hear the tone of your voice.
    True worship has apostasized numerous times. How many times in the days of Israel did they turn to false gods and idolatry?
    The same is true today. After the first century the Christian congregation turned to idolatry, assimilated pagan festivals, and polluted the teachings of Christ and the apostles with Greek philosophy.
    Is this a surprise? Didn’t Paul state that savage wolves would enter into the congregation?
    Did’t Jesus himself foretell that some would ask, ‘Lord, you planted what, why are there weeds instead?’
    By the time the shroud became known, the church had co-opted pagan teachings, become married to governments and politics, and, a telling sign, had started wearing giant hats.
    Yes, I believe that the devil, having defiled and corrupted Christianity until it was indistinguishable from pagan worship, just as Jesus said he would, would perform a miracle to mislead even more. That’s exactly what Jesus and the apostles said he would do.

  36. After the first century the Christian congregation turned to idolatry, assimilated pagan festivals, and polluted the teachings of Christ and the apostles with Greek philosophy.
    Is this a surprise? Didn’t Paul state that savage wolves would enter into the congregation?

    ScottAndrews,

    It’s my understanding that Paul himself resorted to Greek philosophy.

    Didn’t Paul state that savage wolves would enter into the congregation?

    I’m going to say no.

    Do you have a reference?

    I seem to recall Jesus talking about wolves in sheep’s clothing. Perhaps Paul was just expounding on that.

  37. 37

    Didn’t Paul state that savage wolves would enter into the congregation?

    I’m going to say no.

    It’s odd, but in this setting quoting from scripture seems so out of place, which is why I usually paraphrase.
    But here’s the quote. I don’t have a preference for the NIV, but it’s widely accepted.
    Acts 29:29-31

    I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31 So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears.

    What have I said inaccurately?

  38. 38
    CannuckianYankee

    Scott,

    Is there a difference between God making a graven image of himself in the shroud in order to clear up some doubts about Him, and humans making graven images of God made of stone, wood, painting of icons, etc?

    I think there is.

    If the shroud is what it’s purported to be it does not violate the command not to make gråven images. It would clearly be a creation of God Himself; so there is no conflict with scripture in this regård.

    As I stated earlier and I repeat here, the purpose of the shroud is not for worship but for evidence in light of current doubt about the resurrection and the historicity of Jesus. That’s how I interpret it.

    I agree with you that for we who believe the shroud is not necessary; but it could be necessary in upholding the integrity of scripture when it is doubted.

    God seems ås much concerned that people come to belief in him ås He is concerned about graven images. The commånd regårding gråven imåges is for believers. Evidence is for non-believers so they cån believe; which lends credence to John 3: 16-21.

    I’m not persuaded by your arguments regarding the shroud, but I do agree with you in certain respects regarding people who treat it like some sort of holy relic. It isn’t holy at all; but neither is it a work of Satan.

    (Is anyone else experiencing weird anomalies in the letters as they type? Curious to see if that little circle over the “a” shows up when I post.)

  39. 39
    CannuckianYankee

    Scott,

    It also appears as though the shroud was meant for modern people who doubt. What we know about the shroud has come to light over the last 100 years more so than in the past. It would seem that our ability to do precise analysis on it’s various materials and such is a way to get through to skeptics, who believe that science is the only avenue to truth. So science is investigating the shroud and coming to some very interesting conclusions; which will undoubtedly be communicated to skeptics. So I do think that it will bear fruit if it hasn’t already.

  40. What does the shroud of turin have to do with ID?

  41. 41

    Nothing. Sometimes I’m annoyed by all the religious stuff on the site, but now I’m guilty.

    My last $.02 – people believed in Jesus before the shroud. People believe in Jesus now without the shroud. Does anyone believe because of the shroud? Doesn’t that mean that they doubt the really important evidence if they need the shroud to push them over the edge?
    First it’s inconsistent for God to produce such a thing. Second, it adds no value. Third, it has become an object of veneration for many. Fourth, it seems to have escaped the notice of every Bible writer since Jesus. That’s three strikes plus one extra.
    It has been a pleasure discussing the subject. I try not to come across as too dogmatic and assertive, but I’m sure I fail.

  42. ScottAndrews:

    What have I said inaccurately?

    Taking it out of context.

    30 Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them.

    He was talking to people in the first century about things that would happen in the first century.

  43. 43

    In that case throw out the whole Bible – it only applies in the first century.
    Or, are we to understand that an apostasy in the first century would be limited to the generation alive at that time? Didn’t Paul say that in the last days evildoers and impostors would go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived?
    Jesus said that he was planting a field of wheat, but weeds would grow up, and for a time it would be difficult to distinguish between the two. Nothing has happened that wasn’t clearly spelled out in advance.
    Now I’ve lied – that’s $.04.

  44. In that case throw out the whole Bible – it only applies in the first century.

    What about the parts that were written before the first century?

    Didn’t Paul say that in the last days evildoers and impostors would go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived?

    Didn’t the writers of the New Testament say they were living in the last days?

    esus said that he was planting a field of wheat, but weeds would grow up, and for a time it would be difficult to distinguish between the two.

    Context.

    Or, are we to understand that an apostasy in the first century would be limited to the generation alive at that time?

    You don’t think it’s a stretch to claim that Paul was speaking of some apostasy some 2000 years later?

  45. 45

    Scott: “Second, it adds no value.”

    Chopping out the legs of the most popular and widely held arguments against Christianity adds value to Christianity.

  46. 46

    You don’t think it’s a stretch to claim that Paul was speaking of some apostasy some 2000 years later?

    No. It didn’t take nearly 2000 years for people who called themselves Christians to adopt pagan philosophies and festivals and urge their members to slaughter one another in every war fought in Europe. They sold permission to commit sins to finance huge cathedrals.
    That’s not a blemish, a minor deviation. It’s night and day. There wasn’t even a resemblance to the teachings of Jesus. Read the Bible and then imagine Barnabas going to war against Paul and the rest taking sides and killing each other. After Jesus taught his disciples to be humble like him, imagine Peter putting on a giant hat and having the others kiss his ring. Is any of that what Jesus sowed?

Leave a Reply