Welcome message

Man has been trying to improve himself by his own power since the beginning. The results speak for themselves.
ABOUT ADS: Please keep in mind that there is only limited control over ads that appear here. If you find something inappropriate, let me know and I'll endeavor to block it. Thanks.

Friday, April 6, 2012

Annual Anti-Easter Shenanigans - Updated

Every year, the secular press has stories about how Christ's resurrection did not really occur. Today on FoxNews is a story about an art historian's take on the Shroud of Turin.

An art historian. Note: Not any kind of scientist or theologian or biblical archaeologist. An art historian.

With an imagination. And a hypothesis based on his imaginings.
According to de Wesselow, there's no need to invoke a miracle when simple chemistry could explain the imprint. It's likely, he says, that Jesus' female followers returned to his tomb to finish anointing his body for burial three days after his death. When they lifted the shroud to complete their work, they would have seen the outline of the body and interpreted it as a sign of Jesus' spiritual revival.
From there, de Wesselow suspects, the shroud went on tour around the Holy Land, providing physical proof of the resurrection to Jesus' followers. When the Bible talks about people meeting Jesus post-resurrection, de Wesselow said, what it really means is that they saw the shroud. He cites the early writings of Saint Paul, which focus on a spiritual resurrection, over the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, which were written later and invoke physical resurrection.
There is a theory apparently that a decomposing body could emit chemicals that interact with carbohydrates in the cloth, much like bread browning in an oven. That chemical reaction, though, pertains to carbohydrates being burned. Browning is the same as charring but not as intense. Decomposing bodies cause a burning effect with photographic details? Remember, it is only a theory, and one that is advanced to explain the Shroud, not one based on any kind of empirical data. Given the number of bodies wrapped in cloth much like Jesus was, you would think that the Shroud would not be the only one in existence, indeed, the only one that has ever been even reported on. Uncanny, isn't it, that the only example in the whole world is one that depicts a crucified man?

Of course this Wesselow person is no chemist or biologist with any kind of specialty in decomposing bodies, the chemical they emit, and the propensity of these chemicals to interact with carbohydrates on adjacent linen cloth. He is an art historian.

Neither is he a biblical scholar. Based on his conjectures, which themselves are based on unproven theories, we are supposed to believe that Jesus' disciples went to the tomb, found his dead body and an image on the cloth and concluded.... what? "Oh, Jesus is resurrected, just like he said!" My GOD, the disciples were stupid. You would think that some of these people meeting "Jesus" post-resurrection would have said, "It's just a picture of a man. I want to see Jesus himself." And all the post-resurrection meetings where Jesus actually said something? Ate fish? Was lifted up into heaven? All lies. Have to be.

So, this is just par for the course for this time of year. Reasons not to believe.

As St. Paul said, "If there is no resurrection, we are the most pitiable of men." Not just Christians who believe something untrue. All of the human race is most pitiable. Because if there is no resurrection, then human life is futile.

The reasoning employed by Wesselow also appears in bioethics, by the way. First, determine what you want to do or believe. Next, craft a plausible rationale to fit the facts as best you can. Then, make people who disagree with you look like fools. Whether it is rounding up homeless people to harvest their organs, genetically engineering a quasi-human with octopus tentacles, or giving yourself a reason to reject God, it is all the same. Plausible rationales to justify your desires and inclinations, to placate or ridicule the opposition into silence.

Well, I'm not gonna fall for it.

UPDATE: Fr. Mullady at the NCRegister ponders the denial of the resurrection in his column, in which he says, "Death is not natural to man, but a result of sin." I say, EXACTLY. If bioethics wants to determine the right and wrong of dealing with human bodily suffering and improvement, then it has to deal with SIN, or at least keep sin in its view. And that means, no bioethical system can be authentic if it denies or marginalizes God.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/christs-triumph#ixzz1rZhQrZ6t

No comments:

Post a Comment