Originally posted by DoctorScribblesA) I think there are very few people who maintain that the wounds
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.
D) The blood stains on the Turin shroud.
inflicted in the crucifixion actually were placed on the palms, as is
often depicted. There has been sufficient study of the physiology of
the human body to indicate that palm-wounds will not support the
weight of the crucified. Archeologically, they have found parts of
crucified remains which have the nail driven just above the wrist
between the ulna and radius (as I recall).
B) Let's set aside, for a moment, that the St John account is decidedly
different than the other post-Resurrection accounts and, from a
historical standpoint, is probably spurious (although, it makes for a
wonderful commentary on faith). Wulebgr touched briefly on the issue
of 'hand' as a translation issue. I've heard the same myself, though
I haven't looked into it. My understanding is that the word that is
rendered 'hand' doesn't precisely mean that, but I am not sure.
C) The Church does not take a stance on where the wounds should
occur; for example, Padre Pio's 'side wound' occurred on the left side,
whereas the most famous stigmatic, St Francis of Assisi, had the same
wound, but on the right side. The Church has acknowledge those
with wounds both in palms and wrists.
D) The Shroud of Turin has wounds through the wrists and on the
left side, if I recall correctly.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio"Why would someone need to be an atheist to deny a stigmata appearance?"
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
They don't. But I was directing the question specifically at atheists. Didn't know that was a crime.
"And, I'll add, what does their disbelief say about them as theists?"
Again, I wasn't asking theists or agnostics. I was asking atheists. Is that sooooooooooo hard to comprehend?
(Ok, that last question was just an ode to the marauder)
Originally posted by NemesioI don't understand why bleeding palms would qualify when Christ had no wounds on his palms.
C) The Church does not take a stance on where the wounds should
occur; for example, Padre Pio's 'side wound' occurred on the left side,
whereas the most famous stigmatic, St Francis of Assisi, had the same
wound, but on the right side. The Church has acknowledge those
with wounds both in palms and wrists.
Is it conceivable that a bloody nose could be deemed a stigmata? Is there a maximum distance threshold from the actual wounds of Christ within which the bleeding must occur in order to qualify as genuine?
Originally posted by lioyankBut your question is ill-formed. If you are saying that atheists
"Why would someone need to be an atheist to deny a stigmata appearance?"
They don't. But I was directing the question specifically at atheists. Didn't know that was a crime.
"And, I'll add, what does their disbelief say about them as theists?"
Again, I wasn't asking theists or agnostics. I was asking atheists. Is that sooooooooooo hard to comprehend?
(Ok, that last question was just an ode to the marauder)
should believe in God because of the existence of so-called
stigmatics, then the question about theists/Christians who disbelieve
the same event is a totally relevant one.
The question, in and of itself, is flawed. That is what makes it
difficult to comprehend. Accepting the question prima facie entails
accepting all sorts of problems. If you are trying to have a rational
debate, then you'll concede that it is important to iron out such
problems before proceeding.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAs I understand it, the Church does not have a dogmatic stance on
Is it conceivable that a bloody nose could be deemed a stigmata? Is there a maximum distance threshold from the actual wounds of Christ within which the bleeding must occur in order to qualify as genuine?
stigmatics and a believer is thoroughly entitled to disagree with the
Church's recognition of them. Consequently, I'm not sure that the
Church has a clearly-delineated set of criteria which can serve as a
checksheet for determining the authenticity of stigmatic claims. I
think recognition of 'legitimate' stigmata appearances has been
'subject to papal taste,' so to speak.
That having been said, such occurences do not pique my interest even
slightly, so I'm not an expert.
Nemesio
Originally posted by lioyankGee, that was pretty good.
"Why would someone need to be an atheist to deny a stigmata appearance?"
They don't. But I was directing the question specifically at atheists. Didn't know that was a crime.
"And, I'll add, what does their disbelief say about them as theists?"
Again, I wasn't asking theists or agnostics. I was asking atheists. Is that sooooooooooo hard to comprehend?
(Ok, that last question was just an ode to the marauder)
Don't know if this is what triggered the thread, but the National Geographic Channel's program Naked Science is doing a show on stigmata in about a half-hour. Check your local listings, kids.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesSpeaking of (doubting) Thomas...
I 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.
No, seriously, is there anything that you would believe without actually seeing for yourself firsthand? You believe that people exist a couple thousand miles away on a separate continent, with different languages and cultures. Obviously, you can't have experiences with ALL of these people at the same time. So is it that difficult to imagine that a few decades ago a man such as this existed, where hundreds of people witnessed it happen?!? What about Lourdes and Fatima? You also discredit these since you weren't alive yet? You couldn't be there for yourself, but since it doesn't sound rational to you, it's obviously false? What about the miracles and unexplained events that happened THERE? Also bull****? Thousands of people couldn't explain it, but knew what they were seeing was something beyond normal, yet you can discredit it so easily? What WOULD it take for you to believe in something greater? If a miracle happened before you would you even realize it to be one, or are you so brainwashed that you would tell yourself it was "just my imagination"?
Originally posted by lioyankThis is hardly an accurate depiction of my epistemology. Further, you don't give me any reason to believe that it would be worth my time expounding upon it. One thing that I do believe without seeing is that my time is short and ought not be wasted.
Speaking of (doubting) Thomas...
No, seriously, is there anything that you would believe without actually seeing for yourself firsthand?
Proverbs 14:7 is one verse that I believe in.
"Escape quickly from the company of fools; they're a waste of your time, a waste of your words."
Originally posted by Nemesio...... lol ......... 😀 😉
Until you define the criteria you believe should be in place to
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.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLMSO .............. 😀
I don't understand why bleeding palms would qualify when Christ had no wounds on his palms.
Is it conceivable that a bloody nose could be deemed a stigmata? Is there a maximum distance threshold from the actual wounds of Christ within which the bleeding must occur in order to qualify as genuine?