Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

A thread I've wanted to make for a very long time....Medugorje

135

Comments

  • #62
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    And why would they? Have they been elected? Is everyone a catholic?




    What, are all of them atheist? And I think you'll find that atheists are not influenced by beliefs. If you bother asking any.

    Think he may be getting it mixed up with secularist, it is a common mistake from people who dont understand it. Although even then I think Ruairi Quinn is the only part of the party that has actually tried to do anything in that area.


  • #63
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Maphisto wrote: »
    I know its a hobby-horse of mine but are any amputees included in the "Medical Miracles"?


    fg-shamus_480_poster.jpg

    "No, ya thick landlubber, why do you think we Pirates founded Pastafarianism?    "


  • #64
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    There would be no need for a message board if atheism was simply a lack of belief,if it were not a passionately,even zealously held world view, if it didn't engender a one sided community,much like religious beliefs tend to.

    Are you really that ignorant, in both senses of the word, or are you just trying to get a rise out of me?


  • #65
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    jimd2 wrote: »
    Is Medugorje still supposed to be happening? I had cousins travel there many years ago. It always seemed to be a strange phenomenon.

    It is not a strange phenomenon, it is a continuous series of fraudulent activities, just like any site where miracles are supposed to be taking place, like Lourdes. People who are in trouble and quite often serious medical illness are taken advantage of by snake oil salesmen in fish head hats because they are so desperate for a solution they cannot see that it is one giant fraud.


  • #66
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,955 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Are you really that ignorant, in both senses of the word, or are you just trying to get a rise out of me?

    It's not tough getting a rise out you. It's tempting to make a real effort and see with your knickers in a painful bunch . :)

    Once you're insulting people for just having an opinion contrary to yours you're losing the argument,stiffling debate and proving that you aren't capable of objective,coolheaded conversation. You're not the kind of person I'd be bothered engaging with.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    stevejazzx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,247 ✭✭✭stevejazzx


    Nodin wrote: »
    The world today - a small selection - The war in Syria. The war in Congo. The colonisation of West Papua, the conflicts in Sudan, Ukraine, tensions in Azerbaijan, Northern China, maoist Rebels in India, caste violence, sectarian pogroms in Burma. Rape in post civil war Latin American states, Africa. Child abuse, wherever it occurs.

    Cancer, AID's, outbreak of Ebola, hundreds of diseases unknown in the west, which take a vast toll in tropical and equatorial climes, children who are born with certain conditions, live a short pain filled existence and die.

    To which the lord has answered = "solid bronze statue of Jesus Christ on the cross (about 30ft high) that has been weeping warm salty water continously from the leg since the 20th anniversary of the appraitions on June 23, 1981".

    Seriously man, have a think.

    That was beautiful. Thank you.
    I think if we could sticky that in the read me charter it might help. Hell we should probably plaster the above on every wall in every city until people stop talking sh1te. Medugorje? Seriously?


  • #68
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Ken bryan wrote: »
    …

    The following are about two women who received a complete and instantaneous healing from multiple sclerosis. Their diseases had advanced far enough that they were paralyzed and in wheelchairs, with severe muscle deterioration. These two cases have been medically well-documented and submitted to the church.


    …


    This bit strikes me as odd (well the whole setup does, but this bit in particular). Why submit the medical evidence to the church, and not have it peer reviewed too? Did the doctors conclude that, in the light of an unprecedented, unexpected and unexplainable cure of a terrible medical condition, their first action must be to tell a clergyman?


    Nurse: Doctor, this patient has been cured of her multiple sclerosis! I cannot explain it!
    Doctor Benway: My God, you're right. I have never seen the likes of this before. Quick, get me a priest, the finest in the land!


  • #69
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    pauldla wrote: »
    This bit strikes me as odd (well the whole setup does, but this bit in particular). Why submit the medical evidence to the church, and not have it peer reviewed too? Did the doctors conclude that, in the light of an unprecedented, unexpected and unexplainable cure of a terrible medical condition, their first action must be to tell a clergyman?
    Yes, from our point of view it's all hogwash. But isn't the presentation to the Vatican meant to be about determining the theological significance of any particular event? I suspect the Vatican would argue that they've already established the physical facts of the matter. That seems to be the run of play in (just for example) the miracle ascribed to the Opus Dei founder that JPII canonised. http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

    That said, acceptance of miracles will always be subjective.



  • #70
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yes, from our point of view it's all hogwash. But isn't the presentation to the Vatican meant to be about determining the theological significance of any particular event? I suspect the Vatican would argue that they've already established the physical facts of the matter. That seems to be the run of play in (just for example) the miracle ascribed to the Opus Dei founder that JPII canonised. http://www.vatican.va/latest/documents/escriva_miracolo-canoniz_en.html

    That said, acceptance of miracles will always be subjective.
    No doubt that’s the way they would portray it. Hogwash it is, though, and there is a definite feel of ‘run it up the flagpole and see who salutes’ about the whole thing (‘We’ve had our top people on it. Top people! You can trust us on that. And they’re all satisfied. Why aren’t you?’).


  • #71
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Adamantium wrote: »
    I was at one of those night apparitions as well at 10pm. Literally hundreds of people on the mountain , and it was a sea of flashing cameras and journalists. She did show for us (if you take their word for it)

    That kind of thing always reminds me of this story.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    I suspect the Vatican would argue that they've already established the physical facts of the matter.

    Yes, the Vatican has been dismissing the whole sideshow since it began.


  • #73
    _Whimsical_
    Registered Users Posts: 7,955 ✭✭✭_Whimsical_


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, the Vatican has been dismissing the whole sideshow since it began.

    Actually it seems this isn't true. Google says they have recently finished an assessment/investigation into it and haven't reported their findings yet. So there's no official stance at this point on Medugorje .

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-commission-completes-medjugorje-investigation/


  • #74
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Yes, the Vatican has been dismissing the whole sideshow since it began.


    ....which will probably remain the case until those involved have passed away, at which stage a decision will be made.


  • #75
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Seriously you're trotting out this lie?

    Atheists don't have a belief, atheism is simply the non-belief in any god. Therefore they cant hold their beliefs re god staunchly because they have none.

    Ah yes, and Holocaust deniers don't have a belief either. Neither do people who say that 1-1=0 because there is nothing to believe in. Handy too. It means you can take pot shots at the target in the dark and the target can't fire back. I've just acquired a new belief. I believe in the existence of jesuitical atheists.


  • #76
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Non stamper collectors apparently collect non stamps now.

    Beliefs don't have to be binary. Believing someone isn't innocent doesn't necessarily mean you believe they're guilty. Not believing in God, doesn't necessarily mean you actively disbelieve in a God. Several people on this forum and on this planet have been raised independently of the theism. But, easier to illustrate are those people, humans, who live in remotes areas of this planet who never become aware of the concept of theism. You can't really say that because they don't believe in God they're actively believing in not believing in God.

    It's such a rubbish statement to make. Yes, I understand that religious types don't like that some people can abstain from belief and criticise others without believing anything but it's similar really to way some people cannot empathise with depression. Their minds, for whatever reason, seem to think that everyone must think and feel the same way they do.


  • #77
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    feargale wrote: »
    Handy too. It means you can take pot shots at the target in the dark and the target can't fire back.
    That's kinda the point isn't it?

    You're complaining that atheists aren't playing fair because they aren't being hypocrites.

    To me atheism is exactly the same as the lack of a belief in fairies or in the Loch Ness monster.
    The only reason atheism is a thing while afairyism or anessieism aren't is that there isn't a large section of society trying to interfere with people's lives because they believe in fairies or Nessie.

    Would you classify your non-belief in fairies or Nessie as the same kind of belief as belief in God?


  • #78
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's kinda the point isn't it?
    You're complaining that atheists aren't playing fair because they aren't being hypocrites.

    To me atheism is exactly the same as the lack of a belief in fairies or in the Loch Ness monster.
    The only reason atheism is a thing while afairyism or anessieism aren't is that there isn't a large section of society trying to interfere with people's lives because they believe in fairies or Nessie.

    Would you classify your non-belief in fairies or Nessie as the same kind of belief as belief in God?[/quote]

    I'm not complaining at all, and certainly not complaining about Atheists NOT being hypicrites in this instance. I'm agnostic and try to be fair to all sides. I'm just wondering why you need a name if you don't have a belief.
    I've no idea why the Nessyists and Fairyists don't hassle me because I'm an Anessyist and an Afairyist. Maybe they're more tolerant than either Christians or Atheists.
    Time to hit the pillow now. Only Beelzebub can afford to be up and about at this time. But you're not afraid of him!


  • #79
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,226 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    feargale wrote: »
    I'm not complaining at all, and certainly not complaining about Atheists NOT being hypicrites in this instance. I'm agnostic and try to be fair to all sides. I'm just wondering why you need a name if you don't have a belief.
    I've no idea why the Nessyists and Fairyists don't hassle me because I'm an Anessyist and an Afairyist. Maybe they're more tolerant than either Christians or Atheists.
    Because atheism is not seen as the norm and people who believe in other fictional creatures don't claim moral superiority or authority.

    Ascribing a "belief system" or dogma to afairyism or anessieism is just a ridiculous as doing the same to atheism. And it gets even sillier when you ascribe traits or other beliefs to all anessieists or afairyists.


  • #80
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    feargale wrote: »
    Ah yes, and Holocaust deniers don't have a belief either. Neither do people who say that 1-1=0 because there is nothing to believe in. Handy too. It means you can take pot shots at the target in the dark and the target can't fire back. I've just acquired a new belief. I believe in the existence of jesuitical atheists.

    First of all what a deeply offensive thing to do, to compare atheists with holocaust deniers, you should really be ashamed.

    Second, denying the holocaust is the belief statement because it is making a positive claim* with no evidence to support it, and in this case conclusive evidence to show that the position is wrong.

    Thirdly, atheists don't take pot shots in the dark, religious people do. That is essentially what picking a god or pantheon and believing in them is. You've absolutely no evidence for your claims (and quite a lot of evidence suggesting they're in fact false) but yet you call those who refrain from taking the blind leap as the ones taking the random pot shots.

    Fourth, there only jesuitical atheists are members of the SoJ who have no faith. If only they'd come out and admit it the world would be a better place (though the number of jesuitical atheists would revert to zero).

    Finally a question, if all your post is going to do is show how easily your position is shown to be wrong, why bother posting it?

    *A positive statement is simply a statement which has a material effect on the area containing the statement if it is true.


  • #81
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    _Whimsical_ wrote: »
    Actually it seems this isn't true. Google says they have recently finished an assessment/investigation into it and haven't reported their findings yet. So there's no official stance at this point on Medugorje .

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-commission-completes-medjugorje-investigation/
    Is it fair to say that the Vatican's problem with this sort of thing is political. On the one hand, reports of visions and such actually undermines their authority. What's the point of listening to this hierarchy, if God's just going to appear to a few randomers in the Balkans? And if physical laws can be ignored in such situations, why can't theological laws be similarly ignored?

    On the other hand, large amounts of people are obviously willing to dig into their pockets and fly to see such events. That demonstrates these things have considerable motivational power. Hence, don't RC authorities come out with carefully worded statements to the effect that they welcome the venerations inspired by this stuff, without ever making it a requirement of the faith to believe in Lourdes/Fatima/place with a "j" near the end, inviting you to mis-spell it.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Turtwig wrote: »
    Non stamper collectors apparently collect non stamps now.
    Again, we can't hide an ontological position in a discussion of grammar. The point is something like Descartes. Any statement about external reality requires us to make assertions.

    There's nothing especially right or wrong about this. It's just the situation we're in. What's interesting is the extent to which some seem so exercised when these points are raised. Life requires us to make unwarranted assumptions. We actually can't function without them, as we'd languish in a state of permanent indecision.


  • #83
    Sulla Felix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,442 ✭✭✭Sulla Felix


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Again, we can't hide an ontological position in a discussion of grammar. The point is something like Descartes. Any statement about external reality requires us to make assertions.

    There's nothing especially right or wrong about this. It's just the situation we're in. What's interesting is the extent to which some seem so exercised when these points are raised. Life requires us to make unwarranted assumptions. We actually can't function without them, as we'd languish in a state of permanent indecision.
    I don't think it's trying to hide the ontological position at all, if anything it's making the ontological position a lot clearer than theology usually allows. I'd argue that most atheists, or at least those that use the atheism isn't a belief argument fall somwhere >0 on a spectrum of nihilist beliefs. It ties in with the fact that a lot of us are moral relativists too.
    If there's one thing that our furthering knowledge demonstrates, it is that our senses and our intellect are not to be trusted. They can be tricked and manipulated, conciously and unconciously. On some level everything is under doubt. So no, I don't think anyone is trying to hide the ontological position. If anything the argument is trying to make gnostics reconsider it.


  • #84
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Sulla Felix wrote: »
    I don't think it's trying to hide the ontological position at all, if anything it's making the ontological position a lot clearer than theology usually allows.<...>
    I'm afraid I don't see how this addresses the point at all. Surely the point is that all ontological positions involve statements that cannot be proven.

    I'd also point out, in passing, that there are several threads on this very forum that illustrate folk actually do think there's an objective morality, notwithstanding their assertion of atheism. I certainly can't recall a flood of moral relativists contributing to those discussions. (Again, that's just an aside.)


  • #85
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    feargale wrote: »
    Ah yes, and Holocaust deniers don't have a belief either. Neither do people who say that 1-1=0 because there is nothing to believe in. Handy too. It means you can take pot shots at the target in the dark and the target can't fire back. I've just acquired a new belief. I believe in the existence of jesuitical atheists.

    Wtf?


  • #86
    Ken bryan
    Registered Users Posts: 117 ✭✭Ken bryan


    pauldla wrote: »
    This bit strikes me as odd (well the whole setup does, but this bit in particular). Why submit the medical evidence to the church, and not have it peer reviewed too? Did the doctors conclude that, in the light of an unprecedented, unexpected and unexplainable cure of a terrible medical condition, their first action must be to tell a clergyman?


    Nurse: Doctor, this patient has been cured of her multiple sclerosis! I cannot explain it!
    Doctor Benway: My God, you're right. I have never seen the likes of this before. Quick, get me a priest, the finest in the land!

    A miracle needed to be spontaneous, and lasting. This process of canonization, which began in the 1500's, required medical doctors to agree that there was no possible scientific explanation for what had occurred.

    Ref Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World [Hardcover] by Jacalyn Duffin
    Amazon .com

    Jacalyn Duffin, physician and historian, holds the Hannah Chair for the History of Medicine, Queen's University, Ontario

    Duffin also tells us something that will surprise many people unfamiliar with the workings of the Church, "To my surprise, both as a doctor and a historian, I quickly learned that the Vatican does not and never did recognize healing miracles in people who eschew orthodox medicine to rely solely on faith. The canonization officials strive to consider the latest in science; they do not want to be manipulated by the wiles of sensationalists or the aspirations of the gullible. Doctors provide an antidote to these problems with their medical knowledge, their ostensible objectivity, and even their skepticism." For a healing to be considered miraculous it must also be "Complete, durable and instantaneous."


  • #87
    feargale
    Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    First of all what a deeply offensive thing to do, to compare atheists with holocaust deniers, you should really be ashamed. [\quote]

    Don't be silly. You know perfectly well the context in which I compared Atheists to Holocaust deniers. I hate faux umbrage, especially from people who don't mince their words regarding others. Next we'll have the Nessie deniers and Fairy deniers taking offence here.
    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    Finally a question, if all your post is going to do is show how easily your position is shown to be wrong, why bother posting it?

    It seems you want to play the game and referee it at the same time. Does that remind you of any people who are the frequent objects of your condemnation? If that is the standard of debate here I bid you goodbye.


  • #88
    pauldla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭pauldla


    Ken bryan wrote: »
    A miracle needed to be spontaneous, and lasting. This process of canonization, which began in the 1500's, required medical doctors to agree that there was no possible scientific explanation for what had occurred.

    Ref Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World [Hardcover] by Jacalyn Duffin
    Amazon .com

    Jacalyn Duffin, physician and historian, holds the Hannah Chair for the History of Medicine, Queen's University, Ontario

    Duffin also tells us something that will surprise many people unfamiliar with the workings of the Church, "To my surprise, both as a doctor and a historian, I quickly learned that the Vatican does not and never did recognize healing miracles in people who eschew orthodox medicine to rely solely on faith. The canonization officials strive to consider the latest in science; they do not want to be manipulated by the wiles of sensationalists or the aspirations of the gullible. Doctors provide an antidote to these problems with their medical knowledge, their ostensible objectivity, and even their skepticism." For a healing to be considered miraculous it must also be "Complete, durable and instantaneous."

    My unease is not caused by the Catholic Church's rituals and observances concerning the recognition of miracles (in a nutshell, I care not), but by the medical professionals involved who seem to have found evidence of the unexpected suspension of the laws of nature by the Creator (which is how a miracle can be described, I believe), and yet who do not seek the opinion of the wider scientific community on the matter. Strange, is it not?


  • #89
    williambeach
    Registered Users Posts: 1 ✭williambeach


    I would take my time climbing, stopping at each plaque depicting the Joyful ...


  • #90
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    williambeach wrote: »
    I would take my time climbing, stopping at each plaque depicting the Joyful ...

    Glad we got that cleared up.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Adamantium wrote: »
    There seems to be little remarkably discourse on the supposed events, to point where I think, it seems non-believers are as baffled to a response as I am. There is hardly any discourse on either side. Almost as if it's being willingly ignored.

    On the contary. As turtwig says earlier in the thread, the Roman Catholic Church has repeatedly warned against believing what is going on at Medugorje. There are many Medugorje "fans" in Ireland and even RCC (parish level mainly) pilgramages to the places - despite the GRAVE misgivings of the RCC, including the local (in Medugorje) RCC bishop.


Advertisement