Fake shroud marches on

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Shroud of Turin has gone on display for a special TV appearance amid new research purporting to date the linen some say was Jesus' burial cloth to around the time of his death. 

Jeebus. A "special TV appearance" by the Shroud! It almost makes you wonder if the Shroud has an agent (Scott Boras, perhaps). Even the new popeyguy sent a message to the Shroud's fans. Alas, he didn't say what they wanted to hear.

The Vatican has tiptoed around just what the cloth is, calling it a powerful symbol of Christ's suffering while making no claim to its authenticity. 

Francis toed that line Saturday, calling the cloth an "icon" — not a relic.

Many experts stand by carbon-dating of scraps of the cloth that date it to the 13th or 14th century. 

Ahem. Repeat after me: sideshow attraction. There you go!

Hallelujah! The Shroud is (not) real!!!

So let's see. It's Good Friday and suddenly a report comes out saying that the Shroud of Turin is real. Praise Jeebus! And lookee, there's a TV special about it and it's almost Easter! That must mean it's really, really real!

A viewing of the The Shroud of Turin, thought by many to be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ, will reportedly be televised Saturday on Italian State TV in what is said to be former Pope Benedict XVI’s parting gift to the Catholic Church.

That popeyguy emeritus! He's always doing things for us. What a guy.

“There was no portrait made of Jesus so, really, the shroud still remains the best single thing that we have,” said Russ Breault, president of the Shroud of Turin Education Project Inc., an organization “dedicated to raising awareness and understanding” of the shroud, according to its website.

Well, that makes perfect sense. We have no clue what Jesus looked like...and then this piece of cloth turns up...so obviously it's an image of Jesus himself. How could anyone doubt this logic?

More ironclad logic from the linked article:

“When you consider that there are no substances on the cloth that were conceivably used by an artist, and the fact that the blood on the cloth is human blood, it would suggest that the cloth is probably authentic,” Breault said.

Of course, of course. This points directly to Jesus as the source. Why, anyone could see this if he wasn't blinded by New Atheism. Sigh.

I look forward to the next debunking. The Shroud of Turin is a scam, nothing more than a sideshow attraction for gullible rubes. Note the new TV show centered on the Shroud and the new book based on this "scientific" result. Repeat after me: sideshow attraction.

The Shroud of Turin, Part II

This is my reply to the fool from the Shroud of Turin site. If you enjoy smack-downs of religious loons, read on.

What gets hits

It's always weird to look at your blog stats. Lots of people are visiting my site but I don't think they're very happy when they get here.

I say this because my derisive post about the Shroud of Turin is getting the most hits by far. It seems people google "Shroud of Turin" and somehow end up here. Something tells me these folks might not like what I said about the infamous fake shroud.

Which brings me to the other odd thing: they never comment. Never. Just this week, 260 people visited that post. Were they incensed to learn that the shroud is a fake? Did they huffily retreat and click on over to the Vatican's site? Are they praying for me now?

I have no idea because no one ever posts a comment. I think I sort of understand. There was a time in the past when I hesitated to comment on blogs, but I got over it. These people should, too. It would be fun to get some wingnut comments.

PS: The second most popular post is the one I wrote about Brian Wilson's sexuality. I wish the popey guy posts were the most popular. Maybe someday, huh?

The Shroud of Turnin -- and nitwits

There's an article at MSN today about the Shroud of Turin, the cloth that believers think shows the face of jeebus. It's so strange that people believe this nonsense when it's been debunked by science. The shroud was made in medieval times. End of story.

But evidence is never enough for these folks. So I was amused to see an article about a new book's theory regarding the shroud. The book is called "The Sign" and it's by Thomas de Wesselow. Much to the church's horror, he says the shroud is real -- it's really from jeebus' tomb -- but the resurrection never happened. The stories about people seeing jeebus after he died are, according to the author, merely mentions of people seeing the shroud. He says people used to think that images contained the essence of a person. Here's an outtake from the article:

"I've studied images, what they mean and how they affect people," de Wesselow said. "In the old days, people saw images as potentially alive. They had potentially a consciousness. ... That type of thinking was absolutely standard before the modern age. It has nothing to do with an optical illusion, and it has nothing to do with people being stupid."

Duh. Made in medieval times. Repeat after me: "Made in medieval times." The shroud is nonsense. But I'm happy this guy has come up with an idea the church will hate. The popey guy's head must be exploding.

Meanwhile, in a column about the shroud, the Catholic Herald's Francis Phillips basically brushed off de Wesselow's views, saying they were "too eccentric to reproduce here."

C'mon kids, say it with me: "Made in medieval times." These people are major dimwits. If it was made in the 14th century (or around that time) how can it be real?! Oy.