The Whole Story — Both Sides of it

  Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away, there lived a happy old couple with just ONE problem – there was an axe stuck in their ceiling. In truth, the couple wasn’t all THAT happy because they constantly worried that someday that axe would fall out of the ceiling and kill somebody.
      One day a tired and hungry stranger came along and the old couple invited him in for a rest and a meal. While eating, the couple told the stranger about their life together, pointing out that the one sour note in all their happy existence was that (damned) axe stuck in the ceiling. At which point, the stranger got up on his chair, and with a quick tug, dislodged the axe from the ceiling.

Our Purpose and How it Started

  1. “We” are a small team of ‘commentators’ imported from
  2. We believe – apparently, contrary to current popular opinion – that the preponderance of evidence regarding the Shroud of Turin somehow, but clearly, favors the Shroud’s authenticity…
  3. (“Authentic” meaning simply that the Shroud was, in fact, the burial cloth of Jesus — at this point, we are not claiming that there is anything supernatural about the Shroud…)
  4. We also believe that we will be doing a great public service if we can bring our conclusion to worldly consensus.  (Such a conclusion should give anyone serious pause – whether believer or nonbeliever, and whether the image on the Shroud is supernatural or not — and should also put any sarcastic skeptics into their rightful places… which would be a good thing.)
  5. 1.1.5. So, our purpose here is to show that the preponderance of evidence clearly favors shroud authenticity, and to bring that conclusion to a worldly consensus…
  6. 1.2. Our Plan
  7.  But then, how could we possibly bring our conclusion to a worldly consensus..?
    1. Well, we do have the Internet at our fingertips.  And what, for instance, if we could get Wikipedia to accept our conclusion?
    2. Not to worry, just a thought…
    3. But then, we do have a plan. As we see it, there are three basic requirements for advancing our cause:
      1. Actually effective debate (about the shroud),
      2. Between acknowledged experts,
      3. Hosted by a popular website…
    4. Given such a situation, we believe that our side would at least beginto develop a worldly consensus for authenticity.
    5. Note that what we have in mind is written debate.  (Don’t discourage yourself by trying to imagine actually effective oral debate.)
    6. For an extensive discussion of human debate, its problems and potential solutions, go to ***.
    7. If you wish to discuss the Shroud, and the debates here between the experts, just register for our audience (jury) forum.  Doing that, you will also have an opportunity to cast your votes as to which side you think is winning the overall debate, as well as to which side you think is winning each particular “sub-debate”…
    8. 2.      Why Debate?
      1. To effectively weigh the evidence, we (humans) need to ‘hear’ both sides of the story.
      2. In addition, we need to hear each side from the side itself – not both sides as represented by just one of the sides…
      3. But then, once we humans lean towards a particular side, listening to the other side becomes rather painful — so mostly, we avoid doing it…
      4. But that’s true until we can do more than listen – until we are given the chance to respond to the other side’s “foolishness”…
      5. Or even better, until we are given the chance to ‘listen’ to an expertfrom our side respond…
      6. Juxtaposed pro and con articles in the newspaper make for a good step in the right direction – but only a small step. Unfortunately, such attempts inevitably leave all sorts of “loose ends,” and change very few minds.
      7. What we need to hear is dialogue between the two sides as they respond back and forth to each other’s questions and comments.
      8. In other words, what we all need to hear is debate.
      9. But then, what we really need to hear is effective debate — and, effective debate hardly ever happens… 
    9. Why not?
      1. We humans hardly ever have effective debate, when a method for insuring effective debate should prove positively revolutionary… (For example, just think what the different legislatures could do if their legislators were able to keep their debates honest, objective, open-minded, fair and friendly. They could create a whole new world! Maybe, they could save this one!)
      2. Yet, no one seems to be looking for such a method (except our small team of commentators)…
      3.   Has this issue been carefully studied and discarded as insolvable? Probably not.
        1. We can’t find anything abo
%d bloggers like this: