- Your question shouldn’t have surprised me, but it did. After all, I’m the one who titled this thread: “To Gary Habermas Fans”. I only did that because I know already from previous responses, "The Shroud of Turin is not "of burning interest to Biologos folk. In fact, if anything, it’s viewed with negative suspicion ranging from “restrained skepticism” to “rabid rejection” bordering on, IMO, hilarious rejection. The funniest assessment came from a senior forum member who asserted that “The Shroud” was a product of “the second oldest profession”: “relic” production among Christians.
- So I knew, coming out of the starting gate, that anything positive or informative I wanted to say about it would evoke more negative comments than positive, or even just curious comments.
- So the challenge was to introduce a substantially lengthy interview between two Catholics–one a priest and the other not–about a subject that interests me but is not necessary to salvation. Given a choice between waking a horde of nay-sayers and potentially inspiring mild curiosity among a few, I chose the latter route.
- Little did I realize how off-topic responses could become. Too late now, but at least I got the actual subject matter out on the stage, didn’t I?
- “Epistemic humility” constrains my laughter, but your question and the 'trash Habernas and inerrancy" Rational Wiki article that you linked to demand a comment; so here’s my response:
- Newsflash! “Biblical inerrancy” is not a Christian invention. It started with the Jews: and I, for one, am not surprised that there are a good number of them who still affirm it. Good luck trying to persuade them to give it up.
2 Likes