Question:
This isn’t really examining Padre Pio’s trustworthiness as a witness, but rather testing the evidence. Something that you credulous types seem so unwilling to do. In fact, it does test Pio’s trustworthiness. If the wounds go away when he doesn’t
have the possibility to work on them, he says a lot. You are confusing two issues. If someone makes a claim we can test the evidence (were they near enough to hear the gunshot, for example). We can also discuss their credibility as a witness (does the person have criminal convictions, has he lied in the past, does he come from a culture that vlaues truthfulness). Now whoever caused Pio’s stigmata has engineered a situation in which his credibility as a witness is absolutely crucial. Did anyone ever bother to do it? Or was everyone like you, automatically set to assume some supernatural event?
The archbishop opposed Pio and accused him of fraud. So no, not everyone automatically assumed the stigmata were supernatural. Pio’s stigmata lasted for fifty years and then disappeared shortly before death. This is a bit suspicious, as though whatever caused the stigmata is trying to shield it from investigation, More likely he got too sick, or the nurses were around too much, or his stigmatizing instruments weren’t available.
He didn’t die in hospital but in his monastary. It is possible he was too sick to continue with the fraud. though Pio himself wouldn’t have had a selfish motive for continuing the fraud beyond the grave. Of course he had a motive to continue it. He was a salesman for catholicism and this was a good sales gimmick for the especially gullible customers.
If he was just motivated by fame then there wouldn’t have been much point in continuing the fraud after death. So what? I can’t believe anyone would fall for such a story without any skepticism or any investigation.
I post a sceptical link and you write that? If this was your best example, then we have to conclude: Case closed.
If that’s your standard of argument, then we have to conclude that you are not competent to determine what is and what isn’t evidence. Obviously every atheist is going to say "I don’t believe that miracle was genuine", or else he would no .longer be an atheist. There are no verified examples of miracles.
Of course. This is the writing on the moon argument. What we have is an example of an alleged miracle which is fairly compelling, and forces the atheist into not-too convincing positions, namely that Pio was a fraud and the Vatican were fools. No I can’t absolutely disprove this assertion, but I personally don’t believe it. Read the link. What do you reckon about the strength of the sceptical case?
Response:
It isn’t compelling to anyone except someone who assumes supernatural events in the first place. How the hell is it compelling when you have nothing but third hand claims that this clown even had wounds?
The idea that anyone would claim to have received miraculous wounds, when in fact by examination anyone could see that no wounds were present, is a bit far-fetched. I think it is pretty well established that there were wounds, the question is, self-inflicted or miraculously inflicted. Read the link. What do you reckon about the strength of the sceptical case? Pretty good. The dorsal stigmata picture is clearly forged from the other photograph.
This is the single best part of his case. One of the pictures of Pio with the stigmata may have been forged from another photograph. I couldn’t comment on how strong the photographic evidence is. If there is a forgery it casts a cloud of supicion over the whole thing, but note that there is no suggestion that Pio was involved in the forgery. Someone may have taken a picture of him and added stigmata. The other photos are too crappy (isn’t it odd that there isn’t better documentation of this wondrous miracle? Is there a reason for this?) to tell what the hell is going on.
The photos establish (or at least a really good evidence) that there were wounds. I agree it is surprising that Pio had the stigmata for fifty years but no-one took a really good close-up photograph that has been released to the public. They look less like stigmata than some skin disease. If this is the best miracle you can find, then it’s no surprise that only the truly gullible (even among catholics) buy this stuff.
It is interesting that this was an anti-Pio link, and the best that they could come up with is that someone doctored a picture of him. There is also the total red herring of the wound faked up with jam and cherries. Yes it is possible to fake a picture of a wound, but Pio didn’t present pictures as evidence, and the idea that his stigmata were jam is ridiculous. If Pio was a fraud, then he was a very clever one, because the author has provided absolutely nothing to suggest he was less than honest. And ultimately the credibility of the miracle hinges largely on Pio’s credibility as a witness.
Response:
Trivial superficial wounds at best. The one on his chest wasn’t a wound.
Thank you. The wound on the chest was extremely shallow and didn’t even penetrate the skin. Now the side wound was given to Jesus to ensure that He was dead, so it is reasonable to suppose that the original would have been fatal. Clearly if the stigmata was miraculous God couldn’t have inflicted the actual wound without either killing Padre Pio or performing a second miracle to preserve him. So the wound had to be a token wound of some description, and the only question is how token? [ lots of stuff against Padre Pio ] Which you should read carefully, since you say his credibility is paramount. These reports indicate that he was a real scumbag.
I’ve read it. This was all in the public domain (I note that the skeptic’s dictionary (skeptdict.com) used to have an entry repeating these allegations about Pio, but it seems to have been removed). What’s so surprising about that? For most of his life, the vatican regarded him with the utmost suspicion. And clearly this was well founded. But every time they moved on him, his supporters put up a big row and they had to back off. Now, he’s safely dead and his frauds can’t be definitively shown. His supporters waged a big campaign to make him a saint. This fell on the receptive ears of Wojtyla, whose horrendous judgment, superstition and gullibility are legendary.
So the original case that the Vatican would jump on anything that seemed a good advertisment for the church has been modified. The Vatican is full of sceptics but Wojtyla is superstitous or at best naive . The truth is a bit messy and complicated, with sceptics and believers in the church. Nothing serious against Pio can have been substantiated, or the canonisation wouldn’t have gone ahead. Now that is hilarious! You mean the vatican wouldn’t move forward until they were convinced that no smoking gun would become public. Obviously, you credit the vatican with far more integrity than any rational person would. After all, this is the same pope who beatified a war criminal and awarded a papal knighthood to another. Nobody could ever claim that approval by the vatican is demonstration of a person’s good qualities.
Sometimes the church does something which goes against the spirit of the age, such as beatifying a "war criminal". Experience has shown that generally the popular prejudice changes quite quickly. First, none of the examinations were terribly exhaustive. Had they been, the fraud would have been conclusive. Even so, each examiner concluded that he was a fake.
If the examiner had concluded that the wounds were "inexplicable" you would have argued that the testimony was invalid because made by an obvious supporter. Two sceptical examiners couldn’t produce conclusive evidence of a fake. Yes, he was careful to keep investigators at bay.
You’d have to substantiate that. So ultimatley it comes down to Padre Pio’s credibility as a witness. Nobody could be so naive to give this guy even the benefit of a doubt. But, enough of this charlatan. You claimed he was the best case of catholic miracles. If that’s true, you need to drop miracles from your list of evidence for christianity.
Editor demanded the best evidence, on the grounds that he could reject that and then had effectively rejected all miracles. Of course no lawyer or scientist would accept such a demand. On the other hand there are thousands of alleged miracles, and you can’t expect an atheist to become an expert in every one of them before concluding that the whole thing is a waste of time. This, your best case, reeks of bullshit. It’s amazing that you would tout this embarassment as a high point of your religion.
It’s got several characteristics. It is recent, the chief witness is canonised, it is clearly Christian in character, and it is violation of known physical laws (as far as we can tell), not merely a miraculous coincidence, also there was objective physical evidence – the wounds were available for examination. However, to most of us, it certainly is emblematic: lies, fraud and gullibility.
Remember I posed this when the atheists were still using the "no evidence" argument. Now I deal with the issue of why God doesn’t simply make a miracle so spectacular that it is proof to the unconverted in the "writing on the moon" thread. As long you you admit that rejecting Pio’s stigmata commits you to a view of the church as full of "lies, fraud and gullibility", and that this is only one of many similar cases, then we can pretty much agree.
Response:
I respect the rights of my relatives and other Catholics to continue to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection/redemption story barring any evidence against it or any evidence that it is contributing to criminality, as long as they don’t force all others to follow it as well, which I don’t think they are trying to unlike some smaller and much newer Christian denominations (I think).
Whatever you think about atheists, at least they say that Christianity is objectively false. The more modern claim that "it might be true for you but don’t try to claim it is true for anyone else" is far more pernicious.
Response:
I respect the rights of my relatives and other Catholics to continue to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection/redemption story barring any evidence against it or any evidence that it is contributing to criminality, as long as they don’t force all others to follow it as well, which I don’t think they are trying to unlike some smaller and much newer Christian denominations (I think). Whatever you think about atheists, at least they say that Christianity is objectively false.
No, some atheists are cult atheists and believe religion is false whether there is evidence for it or not, others are like me and do not believe a religion is true without evidence. The more modern claim that "it might be true for you
What do mean by "true for you"? You mean believe it, I guess, but unless you have hard scientific evidence for it you must not try to force it on anyone else. but don’t try to claim it is true for anyone else" is far more pernicious.
No, it will lead to much more tolerance, globally, and less strife from militaristic proselytising, and less chance of nuclear holocaust. More is on my web page http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html and I will no doubt beautify that writing some in future and clarify it in response to feedback of which I have had very little, including from many academics who should know better. Love your neighbour includes loving neighbours in other religions that are also loving!!!!! David
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The more modern claim that "it might be true for you What do mean by "true for you"? You mean believe it, I guess, but unless you have hard scientific evidence for it you must not try to force it on anyone else. but don’t try to claim it is true for anyone else" is far more pernicious. No, it will lead to much more tolerance, globally, and less strife from militaristic proselytising, and less chance of nuclear holocaust. More is on my web page http://www.nfld.com/~dalton/dtales.html and I will no doubt beautify that writing some in future and clarify it in response to feedback of which I have had very little, including from many academics who should know better.
The statement: "The more modern claim that "it might be true for you but don’t try to claim it is true for anyone else" is far more pernicious." Is correct. The claim is part of the dangerous post modern mumbo jumbo philosophy that denies an independent objective reality. To these people everything (truth about the world) is subjective. Any description of the world can be justified on that basis. William
Response:
But it is not true for you either then unless you have solid scientific evidence that it is true, Faith does not mean you have proved it to be true, including to yourself, it means you have chosen to go with a certain set of working theories and believe in them even without knowing for sure if they are true or not.
Response:
The statement: "The more modern claim that "it might be true for you but don’t try to claim it is true for anyone else" is far more pernicious." Is correct. The claim is part of the dangerous post modern mumbo jumbo philosophy that denies an independent objective reality. To these people everything (truth about the world) is subjective. Any description of the world can be justified on that basis.
Why do you snip the bit you are responding to? It makes it difficult to follow. I have put it back in. But it is not true for you either then unless you have solid scientific evidence that it is true,
Correct. To be more precise, it is true for me if there is convincing objective evidence. The best evidence that would be that which would convince anyone else too. Faith does not mean you have proved it to be true, including to yourself, it means you have chosen to go with a certain set of working theories and believe in them even without knowing for sure if they are true or not.
If it is a well supported theory then it doesn’t need a lot of faith. The germ theory of disease is well supported and even those who would wish it not to be true have little choice but to accept it. Faith as an alternative to evidence is dangerous. William
Response:
Faith as an alternative to evidence is dangerous.
We’ve discussed this on the "no evidence argument" thread. Just claiming that something is true because I believe it, or because "God is telling" me it is so, is extremely dangerous. It can be established beyond any rational doubt that Padre Pio had wounds on his hands. Either these stigmata were caused spontaneously, as he claimed, or they were self-inflicted and a fraud. Which option you think is more likely does depend on faith, in a sense, because Pio’s trustworthiness can’t be measured by an objective process.
Response:
If it is a well supported theory then it doesn’t need a lot of faith.
True. The existence of God isn’t a matter of faith, but of evidence. The evidence is the universe itself. The existence of order is demonstration of an Orderer. The existence of design is demonstration of a Designer. The assumption that the universe is comprehensible and demonstrates patterns, the basic assumption of science, requires order and design. If I see a work of art or a building or some other thing of order and beauty, I ask, "Who made it?" The answer, "No one. It’s always been there.", is inherently unsatisfying. The natural answer is, "SOMEONE had to make it. Things like that don’t just happen."
Response:
Nonsense. His trustworthiness with regards to these wounds could have easily be evaluated by objective methods.
OK, so tell us how you would do it.
Response:
If it is a well supported theory then it doesn’t need a lot of faith. True. The existence of God isn’t a matter of faith, but of evidence. The evidence is the universe itself. The existence of order is demonstration of an Orderer. The existence of design is demonstration of a Designer. The assumption that the universe is comprehensible and demonstrates patterns, the basic assumption of science, requires order and design. If I see a work of art or a building or some other thing of order and beauty, I ask, "Who made it?" The answer, "No one. It’s always been there.", is inherently unsatisfying. The natural answer is, "SOMEONE had to make it. Things like that don’t just happen."
This has always seemed such a silly argument to me. By extension, some one had to have made your god too and then that some one would have to have a maker as well. The only way out of this situation is special pleading in the case of the god, and that’s such a weak argument it’s not an argument at all.
Response:
If it is a well supported theory then it doesn’t need a lot of faith. True. The existence of God isn’t a matter of faith, but of evidence. The evidence is the universe itself. The existence of order is demonstration of an Orderer. The existence of design is demonstration of a Designer. The assumption that the universe is comprehensible and demonstrates patterns, the basic assumption of science, requires order and design. If I see a work of art or a building or some other thing of order and beauty, I ask, "Who made it?" The answer, "No one. It’s always been there.", is inherently unsatisfying. The natural answer is, "SOMEONE had to make it. Things like that don’t just happen."
So who made your God. Applying your version of evidence, he is supposedly complex. The evidence that he exists therefore demonstrates a designer. Then who designed the designer? Just because you do not understand something is no reason to invent God’s. All you have really done is invent a God of Gaps. — Alan "Ferrit" Ferris ()’.’.’() ( (T) ) ( ) . ( ) (")_(")
Response:
Faith as an alternative to evidence is dangerous. We’ve discussed this on the "no evidence argument" thread. Just claiming that something is true because I believe it, or because "God is telling" me it is so, is extremely dangerous. It can be established beyond any rational doubt that Padre Pio had wounds on his hands. Either these stigmata were caused spontaneously, as he claimed, or they were self-inflicted and a fraud. Which option you think is more likely does depend on faith, in a sense, because Pio’s trustworthiness can’t be measured by an objective process.
The option that is more likely is determined by allowing proper scientific tests. That didn’t happen so the whole thing has little value outside ‘Faith’. William
Response:
Well, for starters, you could actually examine the wounds. Look at the margins and determine if an instrument made them. Determine if the wounds front and back of the hand actually go all the way through the hand. And finally, place him under observation and see if the wounds disappear when he doesn’t have the ability to mess with them.
This isn’t really examining Padre Pio’s trustworthiness as a witness, but rather testing the evidence. I agree that if there were cut marks on the wound, consistent with them being made by a knife or piece of glass, then it would be strong evidence against authenticity. Going through all the hand I’m not so sure about, since this might disable the hand, and force God to either knock Pio out of action or grant two miracles – the wound itself and then a miraculous ability to use a pierced hand. Similarly if you could place Pio under observation long enough for the wound to heal, and they did so, then it would be very damaging to his story. Pio’s stigmata lasted for fifty years and then disappeared shortly before death. This is a bit suspicious, as though whatever caused the stigmata is trying to shield it from investigation, though Pio himself wouldn’t have had a selfish motive for continuing the fraud beyond the grave. Here’s a sceptical link http://www.ukar.org/pope/pope01.html I can’t comment on the allegedly forged photograph since I am not competent in analysing photographs. There’s no suggestion that Padre Pio himself did the forgery, in fact
Response:
The Internet has been around maybe 30 years. Usenet (newsgroups) have been around, outside of local sites, maybe 20 years. The world wide web has been around, I don’t know, I guess at most 12 years. Google has been around maybe 6 years. Search engine databases are easily tampered with, and many are US based.
Now there are many country specific addresses for google, for example http://www.google.ca for Canada, and I bet http://www.google.ie for Ireland but (even though if you are on the web on a computer with .ca address and try to access http://www.google.com you get automatically redirected to http://www.google.ca ) I think all of those really point to the US headquarters of Google, but you just get a country-specific interface. But maybe the Southern Baptist leader can have a word with George Bush. David
Response:
Gemelli speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid. So now your quote says he had wounds. Trivial superficial wounds at best.
I’ll bet you’re one of those that sat through the entire length of Moore’s 9/11 campaign ad – just lapping it up. I’m not saying there aren’t conspiracies, everywhere – we read about them in the papers, and lawyers make a lot of money on the cases. But this conspiracy theory is really a whopper. What’s so surprising about that? For most of his life, the vatican regarded him with the utmost suspicion. And clearly this was well founded. But every time they moved on him
"They" . . . "moved on him"? receptive ears of Wojtyla, whose horrendous judgment, superstition and gullibility are legendary.
I’m not a fan of JP II, exactly. But even the canonization of St. Pio, will likely have to be scrapped and re-examined when a faithful and orthodox Pope comes in. They’ve canonized more ‘Saints’ under JP II than, I believe, in the entire history of The Catholic Church. They apparently dispensed with the normal checks and balances, and review. And so all declared such, even if deserving, have to be suspect, at this point – even St. Pio. But your complaint are simply ridiculous. papal knighthood to another. Nobody could ever claim that approval by the vatican is demonstration of a person’s good qualities.
Prior to the reign of the two PC Popes, that’s exactly what guarantee was intended in raising someone to Sainthood. These were the good examples for all Catholics, flawed as they were as people; especially for that. There were wounds there, but they weren’t so deep and serious as to rule out self-infliction. No-one kept Pio under controlled conditions for long enough to establish that the wounds were prevented from healing by miraculous means rather than carbolic acid, and we don’t know that the wounds were not allowed to heal for certain periods during the fifty years. There have been plenty of fraudulent stigmatics. If you read some of the sceptical literature you will see that Pio didn’t fall for any of the usual traps. Yes, he was careful to keep investigators at bay.
I don’t see how. The wounds were clearly evident, on the palms, and the back of his hands, like a spike had been driven on through. For decades he wore open-finger gloves. But sometimes he removed them, and photos were taken. But the evidence of the stigmata itself is not so much even his testimony, but that of many who saw and examined the same. The odd thing, that still strikes many, including myself, is that the stigmata healed – or disappeared – in his later years. It’s not evident in his final Mass, facing away from the altar (so it was not due to church design). And at that Mass, he no longer wore the gloves, but surprizingly seemed to want to conceal his hands, nonetheless. That’s suggested to some, many a conspiracy theory. So ultimatley it comes down to Padre Pio’s credibility as a witness. Nobody could be so naive to give this guy even the benefit of a doubt.
Or be as cynical and jaded as yourself, you mean? But, enough of this charlatan. You claimed he was the best case of catholic miracles.
I don’t know if _I_ said that. But many esteemed him a living Saint while he was alive. It was said he knew what was in your heart, and could tell if you had made a worthy Confession – or no. Just for that, people constantly sought him out. And Confession, more or less, became his full-time job, for such crowds. You can call it superstition. But if you’d had the chance, and believe that he caught something you had missed, you’d wonder how, I’m sure. Peace. to the only God our Saviour by JESUS Christ our Lord, be glory and magnificence, empire and power before all worlds, and now and for all worlds evermore. Amen.
Response:
This pretty much establishes that he had wounds, You obviously have a reading conmprehension problem. It says the exact opposite. Gemelli speculated that Padre Pio kept his wounds open with carbolic acid.
So now your quote says he had wounds. [ lots of stuff against Padre Pio ] A real saint.
So at one moment the Vatican is in on the fraud, or at least not investigating it, because Pio is good for business. The next minute we have all these allegations. The truth is a bit messy and complicated, with sceptics and believers in the church. Nothing serious against Pio can have been substantiated, or the canonisation wouldn’t have gone ahead. This is ultimately the issue. The evidence is mainly Pio’s testimony. It hasn’t been falsified, but it is not confirmed either. If you believe this, you’ll believe anything. I guess it’s a precondition of being catholic.
We don’t have anything really conclusive from the physical examinations. There were wounds there, but they weren’t so deep and serious as to rule out self-infliction. No-one kept Pio under controlled conditions for long enough to establish that the wounds were prevented from healing by miraculous means rather than carbolic acid, and we don’t know that the wounds were not allowed to heal for certain periods during the fifty years. There have been plenty of fraudulent stigmatics. If you read some of the sceptical literature you will see that Pio didn’t fall for any of the usual traps. So ultimatley it comes down to Padre Pio’s credibility as a witness.
Response:
The idea that anyone would claim to have received miraculous wounds, when in fact by examination anyone could see that no wounds were present, is a bit far-fetched. Was there ever any examination of them?
There’s a sceptical link here http://www.geocities.com/july9th_77/stigmata.htm "As to Padre Pio, the local Roman Catholic clergy accused his friary of putting him on display in order to make money. Certainly a cult grew up around him, and village hucksters sold his credulous disciples alleged relics in the form of pieces of cloth daubed with chicken blood. Some physicians believed his wounds superficial but the determination was made difficult by their supposed painfulness and their being covered by "thick crusts" of what was thought to be blood. A distinguished pathologist sent by the Holy See noted that beyond the scabs was a lack of "any sign of edema, of penetration, or of redness, even when examined with a good magnifying glass." Indeed, he concluded that the side "wound" had not penetrated the skin at all. And while in life Pio perpetually kept his "wounds" concealed (wearing fingerless gloves on his hands), at death there was only unblemished skin (Ruffin 1982, 146-154, 305)." That pretty much establishes that he had wounds, and in any case it is not credible that someone would claim to have suffered stigmata and then have no wound at all to show for it. What is not so clear is whether he kept the wounds open for fifty years – I’m not a doctor but I think it unlikely than anyone could have kept even a small skin wound open for fity years without infection and causing some permanent scarring. So what? Pio still would have to have been involved in the fraud.
No. Someone takes a picture of Padre Pio which shows his hands. A fraudster decides to paint on stigmata to make the picture a bit more interesting or valuable. Pio himself needn’t have been involved. They do no such thing. They show smudges on his hand. As they guy shows, they could be nothing more than ketchup.
This is pretty much a red herring. Yes it is possible to produce convincing-looking pictures of stigmata by means of jam and ketchup, but this is easily distinguished by physical examination. I agree it is surprising that Pio had the stigmata for fifty years but no-one took a really good close-up photograph that has been released to the public. How is that surprising? Since these photographs constitute the only evidence for this great miracle, showing that the photograph is a fraud is all that is necessary.
No. The photos are the best evidence that we can examine today, but written evidence is evidence. If someone produces a hoax picture of Diana naked with Dodi that doesn’t prove that Diana didn’t exist, it doesn’t even prove that she never slept with Dodi. It just fails to prove that she slept with him. And ultimately the credibility of the miracle hinges largely on Pio’s credibility as a witness. No, it hangs on whether he actually had any wounds and whether there is
a simple natural explanation for it. As a catholic priest, his credibility is automatically in serious doubt.
This is ultimately the issue. The evidence is mainly Pio’s testimony. It hasn’t been falsified, but it is not confirmed either.
Response:
Now my comments just now on talk.religion.misc on blood sacrifice remind me that I did once not long ago on some newsgroup comment that elements of blood sacrifice were built into the story of Jesus by his later followers for purposes of recruitment from some oldstyle pagan paths that practiced blood sacrifice. However it is more likely related to oldstyle traditions of the death and rebirth of a god, sometimes related to the cycles of the seasons, and that is discussed a lot in http://www.bartleby.com/196/ (though there is a much longer earlier edition) . But some of that is about Killing the god so it does have overtones of human sacrifice. Tales of Odin, Herne, Osiris, Mithras, Dionysus and others have some similarities though some of those hung on a tree but did not die. Now but you cannot, I think, say that in the tale of Jesus’s crucifixion and resurrection, whether it is true or not, that the Romans and few Jewish collaborators who in the story executed him were religiously sacrificing him — they were simply executing him. But his ordeal counts as a self sacrifice, which is different from sacrifice of a human by other humans, whether he died or not (he could have just gone into a coma for a while and then come out of it, e.g., I don’t know). So really I don’t believe he died and came back to life but can’t prove that. But in my theories the Christian tale of his death and resurrection could be a composite symbolic working of many aspects of his story (plus the cross symbol and death of the god stuff common with some earlier oldstyle pagan traditions). Now if he was similar to me, what elements from my story could be so composited: 1. my incredibly painful naked thorn hill climb, so a composite of "piercing of hands and feet" and the "crown of thorns" stuff, where my thorns are much closer to those in the classic Catholic Sacred Heart of Jesus picture than those in the Passion movie, which are spaced widely enough to get fingers between when climbing up the steep hill. 2. my trials during waxing gibbous moon with psychic resurrection at full moon, with the clearest example that at the end of July, 1993 in Banff, Alberta, Canada where I lay as dead on my brother John’s couch for several days and then came out of it at full moon at the beginning of August with no medication whatsoever. 3. my low years which began on Jan. 29, 1996 not long before I turned 32 and which were worst when I was almost 32 to when I was 33 and 5 months but moderately bad at times since too, and from which I hope to have "resurrection" soon, maybe again at full moon late the night of Canada Day (early on July 2 in 24 hour clock terms, but after midnight the night of Canada Day July 1 in bar hours terms). So that is my theory related to the resurrection, but I cannot prove for sure that Jesus did not die and come back to life, and if so do not consider it a form of human sacrifice of him by others (but if others do well it was one he escaped from), and I respect the rights of my relatives and other Catholics to continue to believe in the crucifixion/resurrection/redemption story barring any evidence against it or any evidence that it is contributing to criminality, as long as they don’t force all others to follow it as well, which I don’t think they are trying to unlike some smaller and much newer Christian denominations (I think). The Internet has been around maybe 30 years. Usenet (newsgroups) have been around, outside of local sites, maybe 20 years. The world wide web has been around, I don’t know, I guess at most 12 years. Google has been around maybe 6 years. Search engine databases are easily tampered with, and many are US based. Much, including material on Newfoundland, is still available in paper libraries, at least for now. Come visit, though some here who have come here recently and a few from here may have to leave, though others from here who are away may be coming back if they want to. David http://www.nfld.com/~dalton
Response:
Posted in Roman Catholic Priest | 
No Comments » |
nly reason He allows it is because of free will. :You think contraception is OK, so you make the argument the opposite direction :- that if G-d allows it to happen it must be permitted. :No one made such an argument, I simply challenged the idea that :there could exist a God who forbade contraception. And I clearly refuted the argument. 