You need to read both lines of the headline

I sort through a lot of nutty, robot-generated stuff every day; and some non-robot stuff that is just as nutty. I think, however, this blog entry in Men Dating Badly, this morning, is robotic. The real story is not about the shroud but the stories linked from the left:


If you must, you can click on the screen clipping to see it in full size.

Like I said, some nutty material is not robot generated. The best example comes from Ray Rogers. I remember conversing by email with him on some of the craziness. He wrote back:

Yes. I get lots of lunatic-fringe mail too – – – and telephone calls. Some of the calls come in the middle of the night…perhaps catalyzed by too much Pinot Noir. My favorite was a guy who pointed out that when you cover a "daid boddie" with a cloth, the flies come to the smell. "They poke their little noses through the cloth. And you know what flies leave – – – little black specks. "Jest look at that image real close, and you will see that it is made up of a whole bunch of fly specks." By that time I was rolling on the floor, and I couldn’t answer him.

You get the picture!

9 thoughts on “You need to read both lines of the headline”

  1. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you. Matt 7;6.

    Maybe we need to think a lot more about that verse than we have in the past. The early Christians took it to heart, and had their ‘disciplina arcana’. They kept them secret. These days anything holy is anybody’s free target. Muslims don’t tolerate it; they declare a fatwah! Where are the guardians of Christianity’s holy objects? Or are the legal eagles of free speech correct and we have no right “not to be insulted”??!!

      1. O/K/ In that case perhaps we ought to reintroduce it with its priority being monitoring blogs about the Shroud- do you think it should still keep burning as a last option for those who remain sceptics?

    1. I agree with the sentiment but what does one expect when some Christians use their beliefs to mock the unbelief of others. I’ve seen the ‘alleged’ authenticity of the Shroud proclaimed triumphantly to be a proof of Christ’s divinity and woe to those who choose not to believe now in Him. Any wonder then that skeptics trample the Shroud under foot?

      The minute we start using the Shroud as a proof we are the ones trampling it underfoot. It is a sign — not a propoganda poster.

  2. Charles Freeman :
    O/K/ In that case perhaps we ought to reintroduce it with its priority being monitoring blogs about the Shroud- do you think it should still keep burning as a last option for those who remain sceptics?

    Tell you what: let’s make a rule. No one shall ever be subjected to any punishment than that endured by the man on the Shroud.

    Yeah. Perspective.

  3. The media bias seems to be highly selective in targeting Christianity in particular. Despite the extremes of Islamic fundamentalists, some lessons in caution have been taken on board when it comes to criticising aspects of Islam. Fatwah are invoked against those who burn copies of the Koran for instance. Bible burning goes unnoticed. In N Korea, several Christians were recently executed for merely owning a Bible.

    I should like to know what happens in USA, when First Nation sensitivies are offended. An expressway is being constructed north of Wellington on the Kapiti coast. A headline in this morning’s newspaper proclaims that “Workers eating at ‘sacred’ site offend Maori”. There is an archaeological dig in the area, which has revealed an ancient burial site, and there is also a ‘sacred’ tree, a macrocarpa (an exotic, not native). A few local Maori have stated that “They understood the site was tapu until the archaeologists had finished their work, yet we found workers having lunch on-site which was extremely offensive to local Maori.” Curiously another comment states: “… people should treat it like you’d treat a church, the sacredness of the church. The land is sacred in the same way to us.” Such comments are not at all uncommon in NZ media, when it comes to offending (usually unintentional) the sensibilities of local Maori.

    However it seems to be an open season, when it comes to offending the sensibilities of Christians, usually deliberate and not unintentional. It is condoned on the specious grounds that we live in a secular society. Yet when it comes to offending recently imported cultures, a certain precious coyness is suddenly found, and respect for ethnic sensitivities is discovered.

    There is a holiness about certain objects, practices and beliefs, which demand as much respect, but which is totally diregarded throughout the western world.

    1. One man’s holy treasure is another man’s knick knack.Even the Shroud, as precious an ‘icon’ that it is, and seen as holy by believers — is still but a sign pointing at that which is truly holy. Jesus urges us to see the holiness within ourselves and each other, first and foremost. I often ask myself, when confronted by the latest brazen anti-Christian offence, “would Jesus be offended by this or am I projecting my self-righteous indignation onto it?”

      For example, if someone vandalized my church would that be an offense against Christ? It is certainly a slap in the face to those that worship there (reason enough to decry it) but even the darkest acts cannot overcome the light — for in the end the light will dispel every patch of darkness. In the end God gets the last laugh, so who am I to appropriate His anger?

Comments are closed.