20 Dec 05
Originally posted by lioyankWhy would someone need to be an atheist to believe that a
How do atheists explain this?
stigmatic appearance was a hoax? The Roman Catholic Church
Herself denies the existence of the vast majority of stigmatas that
claim the wounds came from God.
Which stigmatic were you thinking of? Padre Pio?
Nemesio
20 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesDoes it matter? Would you deny it if it occurred on someone's hands rather than on the wrists? Why do you ask this? Because Jesus' wrists were (supposedly) nailed to the cross, and not his hands?
Do purported stigmata bleed from the hands or the wrists?
20 Dec 05
4 edits
Originally posted by lioyankI deny it out of hand, regardless of where the bleeding is from.
Does it matter? Would you deny it if it occurred on someone's hands rather than on the wrists? Why do you ask this? Because Jesus' wrists were (supposedly) nailed to the cross, and not his hands?
But as a logical exercise, what needs to be reconciled is:
A) The physics of crucifixation pertaining to the placement of the nails.
B) The account of Thomas observing holes in Jesus' hands.
C) The location of stigamata bleeding.
Until one has a coherent explanation that accounts for each of these, one cannot believe in all three.
D) The blood stains on the Turin shroud
can be incorporated into the explanation for bonus points.
20 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by lioyankFirst, give me a coherent explanation of A, B and C. This is a necessary condition for having a theory that Padre Pio exhibited genuine stigmata. Until you construct one, I have nothing to refute.
Would this include the Padre Pio accounts? How would you explain what was seen there by numerous different people?
20 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat's the point? You already said you deny it, so what would I prove even if I had an argument for A,B,C?
First, give me a coherent explanation of A, B and C. This is a necessary condition for having a theory that Padre Pio exhibited genuine stigmata. Until you construct one, I have nothing to refute.
Besides, something as trivial as whether Jesus was nailed through his hands or wrists doesn't matter. The fact remains, there are unexplained events that occurred in San Giovanni Rotondo that were of a supernatural nature, therefore proving that God exists.
20 Dec 05
Originally posted by lioyank?????? Your conclusion certainly doesn't follow from your premises.
What's the point? You already said you deny it, so what would I prove even if I had an argument for A,B,C?
Besides, something as trivial as whether Jesus was nailed through his hands or wrists doesn't matter. The fact remains, there are unexplained events that occurred in San Giovanni Rotondo that were of a supernatural nature, therefore proving that God exists.
20 Dec 05
Originally posted by lioyankUntil you define the criteria you believe should be in place to
What's the point? You already said you deny it, so what would I prove even if I had an argument for A,B,C?
Besides, something as trivial as whether Jesus was nailed through his hands or wrists doesn't matter. The fact remains, there are unexplained events that occurred in San Giovanni Rotondo that were of a supernatural nature, therefore proving that God exists.
authenticate a stigmatic -- which will entail defining what happened
to Jesus -- a discussion cannot take place because there is no
foundation upon which to rest a solid argument.
You also ignored my question: there are many non-atheists and
even Christians who deny the existence of stigmatics. Why would
someone need to be an atheist to deny a stigmata appearance?
And, I'll add, what does their disbelief say about them as theists?
Nemesio
20 Dec 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOk. Let's for a second pretend I agree with you.
It's not a trivial matter. If he had nails put in his wrists, why would Thomas have seen holes in his hands, and why would stigmata bleed from the hands?
If you don't believe in it, what do you propose causes it?
("It" being Padre Pio's "stigmata/bleeding/whatever the hell you wanna call it"😉
20 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by lioyankI don't believe that it actually occurred. That is, there is no physical phenomenon to explain. He was also purported to be able to be in two distinct physical locations simultaneously, such as in Paris and in Rome at the same instant. Do you believe this actually happened? I don't.
Ok. Let's for a second pretend I agree with you.
If you don't believe in it, what do you propose causes it?
("It" being Padre Pio's "stigmata/bleeding/whatever the hell you wanna call it"😉