Lourdes

Tim Robbins

Hello All!
I was just wondering what do Christians, who are not Roman Catholic think about Lourdes? Is it all a big Roman Catholic delusion or scam? Do you think it only works for Christians who are Roman Catholics?

Would you be curious in going and do you think if you saw it working would you convert to be Roman Catholic?

Kind Regards

PDN

I think it is unbiblical and based on a mishmash of tradition, superstition, and good old fashioned capitalism.

I believe a small number of claimed healings may well be genuine, partly because God often answers prayers when they are offered in faith - even if that faith is expressed in ways that are theologically incorrect.

I have no desire to visit Lourdes, and even if I did and saw a bucketful of genuine miracles it would not be enough to convert me to Roman Catholicism.

Galvasean

I always found the back story to Lourdes to be a bit ludicrous. Two young girls claim to have seen the virgin Mary appearing before them. Despite the fact that they had no proof everyone believed them anyway.
Bigfoot must be reeling in his grave.

kelly1

Galvasean wrote: »

I always found the back story to Lourdes to be a bit ludicrous. Two young girls claim to have seen the virgin Mary appearing before them. Despite the fact that they had no proof everyone believed them anyway.
Bigfoot must be reeling in his grave.

2 girls? It was only Bernadette afaik. She was grilled harshly by several authorities and never changed her story at all. That's what eventually convinced people.

See http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=417&id_rubrique=417

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I think it is unbiblical and based on a mishmash of tradition, superstition, and good old fashioned capitalism.

I believe a small number of claimed healings may well be genuine, partly because God often answers prayers when they are offered in faith - even if that faith is expressed in ways that are theologically incorrect.

I have no desire to visit Lourdes, and even if I did and saw a bucketful of genuine miracles it would not be enough to convert me to Roman Catholicism.

But surely, there's better evidence for Lourdes than anything in the Gospel?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

But surely, there's better evidence for Lourdes than anything in the Gospel?

No, I don't believe there is. The events in the Gospels obviously occurred at a different point in time, but that is hardly determinative in deciding whether something is true or not. They were witnessed by many more eye witnesses and those witnesses stuck to their stories under a much worse 'grilling' than anything endured by little Bernadette.

Fratton Fred

I've been there and it amazing. There are an awful lot of people looking for a miracle, the procession is a site to see.

its all hype and commercialism though in my opinion.

Why, for example Lourdes and not this place? http://tapinu.org/history/history.html#top

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No, I don't believe there is. The events in the Gospels obviously occurred at a different point in time, but that is hardly determinative in deciding whether something is true or not. They were witnessed by many more eye witnesses and those witnesses stuck to their stories under a much worse 'grilling' than anything endured by little Bernadette.

The Gospels were written 30 years apres the events, in another language when literacy rates were very low. Lourdes would have a better record here.

If we could just examine this a bit more. I see two proprties where you think the accuracy of Gospels surpasses the accuracy of Lourdes: namely
1. Number of witnesses.
2. Level of grilling.

As for number of witnesses, how can that be quantified?
Also the level of grilling, how can that be quantified?

Rgds

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The Gospels were written 30 years apres the events, in another language when literacy rates were very low. Lourdes would have a better record here.

Not so. Lower literary rates are irrelevant to whether the evidence is good or not, as is the language used.

As for the dates of the Gospels, are you suggesting that Bernadette wrote an eye witness account of her visions? I understood that she simply reported what she had seen orally, as did the early Christians in the months immediately following the death and resurrection of Christ.

As for number of witnesses, how can that be quantified?

Four Gospels, two of them purporting to be written by eye-witnesses. In the case of the Resurrection over 500 witnesses are cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.

Level of grilling.

Ten of the eleven apostles were executed on account of their testimony. They chose not to recant even though doing so would probably have saved their lives. I think that slightly exceeds whatever questioning Bernadette received.

Flamed Diving

I was at Lourdes. Although I was in my mothers womb at the time!

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Not so. Lower literary rates are irrelevant to whether the evidence is good or not, as is the language used.

I disagree. If literacy rates are low, the chances are the less people there are that can read and think for themselves.

Ten of the eleven apostles were executed on account of their testimony. They chose not to recant even though doing so would probably have saved their lives. I think that slightly exceeds whatever questioning Bernadette received.

Again I'd have to disagree to that. People are prepared to give their life to flow airplanes into buildings, doesn't mean they'd ever seriously had their metaphysical views grilled or questioned.

Furthermore, what evidence do we have of that actually happening to the apostles?

That all said, I'd be very skeptical of Lourdes myself, so we agree on something :-)

PS Excuse my ignorance, but do we have any names for the 500 witnesses Paul talks about?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I think that slightly exceeds whatever questioning Bernadette received.

I don't know, having oneself burnt for 15 minutes wouldn't exactly be a barrel of laughs for a 14 year old.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That all said, I'd be very skeptical of Lourdes myself, so we agree on something :-)

Tim, which part of Lourdes are you most sceptical about? The apparitions or the miracles or both? Or is the commercialism of Lourdes town?

As an aside, I was in Lourdes about 4 years ago and I can easily say it was the best week of my life. The town itself is quite tacky with all the souvenier shops but inside the gates of the grotto things are a lot more serene.

Some info about authentication of the miracles:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=488

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't know, having oneself burnt for 15 minutes wouldn't exactly be a barrel of laughs for a 14 year old.

So when Noel says Bernadette was 'grilled' he was speaking literally? I thought he was using the phrase metaphorically. They actually grilled (as in grilling a kebab) a 14-year old?

kelly1

PDN wrote: »

So when Noel says Bernadette was 'grilled' he was speaking literally? I thought he was using the phrase metaphorically. They actually grilled (as in grilling a kebab) a 14-year old?

LOL Yes, I meant it metaphorically.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I disagree. If literacy rates are low, the chances are the less people there are that can read and think for themselves.

That is a very parochial view. People from societies with strong traditions of oral history and memorisation, but low literacy rates, are well able to think for themselves.

Again I'd have to disagree to that. People are prepared to give their life to flow airplanes into buildings, doesn't mean they'd ever seriously had their metaphysical views grilled or questioned.

You're missing the point. As we've pointed out on this board several times, the compelling thing is not that the apostles were willing to die for their beliefs, but that they were willing to die rather than recant their eye-witness testimony. Those are two entirely different concepts.

The fact that a person is prepared to fly an aeroplane into a building is evidence that they believe what somebody else told them to be true. It does not address the issue of whether the person who told them that stuff was actually speaking the truth. Someone who is willing to die rather than deny their eye-witness testimony is evidence that they believe their own testimony to be true. Of course you can still clutch at straws by arguing that they were crazy, or suffering from false memories, but the eye-witness martyr is stronger evidence than the brainwashed suicide bomber.

Furthermore, what evidence do we have of that actually happening to the apostles?

The same evidence we have for any events of that time in history, or indeed of little Bernadette, - the written records of other people.

PS Excuse my ignorance, but do we have any names for the 500 witnesses Paul talks about?

No, Paul names some of the other witnesses to the Resurrection, but of the 500 he simply says that most of them were still alive. That would be an extraordinarily rash claim to make if he couldn't actually back it up by producing them when challenged.

Galvasean

An extraordinary claim in the Bible?
I'll get my coat

Fanny Cradock

Let me show you the door :pac:

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

That is a very parochial view. People from societies with strong traditions of oral history and memorisation, but low literacy rates, are well able to think for themselves.

What's the point in educating people then? To get everyone working in IT?
It's not a parochial view. It's harder to get information if you can't read, quite simple logic really.

You're missing the point. As we've pointed out on this board several times, the compelling thing is not that the apostles were willing to die for their beliefs, but that they were willing to die rather than recant their eye-witness testimony. Those are two entirely different concepts.

I don't see any point there.

The fact that a person is prepared to fly an aeroplane into a building is evidence that they believe what somebody else told them to be true. It does not address the issue of whether the person who told them that stuff was actually speaking the truth. Someone who is willing to die rather than deny their eye-witness testimony is evidence that they believe their own testimony to be true. Of course you can still clutch at straws by arguing that they were crazy, or suffering from false memories, but the eye-witness martyr is stronger evidence than the brainwashed suicide bomber.

In terms of the facts, I see very little difference. You are either correct or incorrect. The suicide bomber could actually be correct. Unlikely.

The same evidence we have for any events of that time in history, or indeed of little Bernadette, - the written records of other people.

Well this is where me and Christians who think they have accurate history will never agree. I believe the further we go back, the more unlikely it is we have an accurate picture of what happened. We have less technology, less evidence, lower literacy rates and the probability of inaccuracy just goes way up.

No, Paul names some of the other witnesses to the Resurrection, but of the 500 he simply says that most of them were still alive. That would be an extraordinarily rash claim to make if he couldn't actually back it up by producing them when challenged.

Well I doubt it was spot on 500. Do you?
But let's say he made the claim, yes he could have been very rash or got a bit carried away somewhere along the way or just made a mistake. Someone could have looked like Jesus, Jesus could have never have died. There are just a tonnee of possibilities, unless we have some very good evidence, it makes no sense to favour one over another. Even if the entire NT is true, you still somehow have to measure the role of evolution, the problem of evil and tonnes of other problems.

I'd only change my opinions if there's reliable evidence. Folk tales, letters, narratives just ain't enough for me.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

Tim, which part of Lourdes are you most sceptical about? The apparitions or the miracles or both? Or is the commercialism of Lourdes town?

As an aside, I was in Lourdes about 4 years ago and I can easily say it was the best week of my life. The town itself is quite tacky with all the souvenier shops but inside the gates of the grotto things are a lot more serene.

Some info about authentication of the miracles:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes_Medical_Bureau
http://www.lourdes-france.org/index.php?goto_centre=ru&contexte=en&id=491&id_rubrique=488

I think people just belief what they want, whatever makes them feel good and are subject to huge cultural biases. Sorry.

Galvasean

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'd only change my opinions if there's reliable evidence. Folk tales, letters, narratives just ain't enough for me.

A wise man once said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What's the point in educating people then? To get everyone working in IT?
It's not a parochial view. It's harder to get information if you can't read, quite simple logic really.

There's lots of reasons why we educate people, but illiterate people are well able to think for themselves.

I don't see any point there.

That sort of proves my point above. You are literate but you can't seem to grasp a pretty simple concept.

Let's try to restate the point so you can see it. It's not really that complicated.

An eye-witness (Person A) who is prepared to die rather than recant his testimony to having seen X is a more convincing witness to the truthfulness of X than Person B who is prepared to die for a belief in X that was inculcated into him as a child.

The reason, of course, is that if X is not true then Person A would be dying for something that he knows to be false. Person B is dying for something he believes to be true irrespective of whether X is actually true or false.

Are some people prepared to die for something they know to be false? Possibly. Is it credible than a whole bunch of people would consistently do so? Probably not. Therefore it is logical to conclude that many of the early Christians actually believed they had seen that to which they testified.

Well I doubt it was spot on 500. Do you?

No it wasn't. Paul's exact words are "more than five hundred" (1 Corinthians 15:6).

Even if the entire NT is true, you still somehow have to measure the role of evolution, the problem of evil and tonnes of other problems.

Maybe you could keep your evolution bee in your bonnet or take it to the Creationism thread? It is certainly irrelevant to the current discussion here.

I'd only change my opinions if there's reliable evidence. Folk tales, letters, narratives just ain't enough for me.

So, I presume you're sceptical about the story of Galileo being opposed by the Catholic Church? Or are 400 year old folk tales, letters, and narratives young enough to be considered reliable evidence?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

There's lots of reasons why we educate people, but illiterate people are well able to think for themselves.

I don't know what you mean by thinking for yourself. Take World Wor II, every historian gives a slightly different angle, some starkly different. Dito Irish History. Dito any History. Dito Current affairs. The more you read, the wider your base is. So a literate person has a better chance to think objectively. Doesn't mean they will though.

An eye-witness (Person A) who is prepared to die rather than recant his testimony to having seen X is a more convincing witness to the truthfulness of X than Person B who is prepared to die for a belief in X that was inculcated into him as a child.
The reason, of course, is that if X is not true then Person A would be dying for something that he knows to be false. Person B is dying for something he believes to be true irrespective of whether X is actually true or false.

No. Person A may be mistaken. In which case he thinks its true but he's made a mistake.

Are some people prepared to die for something they know to be false? Possibly. Is it credible than a whole bunch of people would consistently do so? Probably not. Therefore it is logical to conclude that many of the early Christians actually believed they had seen that to which they testified.

Negative. Not logical.
Fallacies include:
1. Omission of possibilities. Person could be mistaken. The author of the narratives could have got facts wrong.
2. Begging the question. Premise does not imply conclusion.

So, I presume you're sceptical about the story of Galileo being opposed by the Catholic Church? Or are 400 year old folk tales, letters, and narratives young enough to be considered reliable evidence?

I wouldn't be skeptical of the fact the Catholic Church admit they did. As I have spoken to many Priests who admitted it.

They might just be admitting that though for a laugh though.

Tim Robbins

Galvasean wrote: »

A wise man once said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Exactly. People want to believe in something supernatural. All evidence of every culture shows an attempt and a pattern of doing this. We need objective evidence immune from bias and confabulation. Otherwise it's clutching at straws.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No. Person A may be mistaken. In which case he thinks its true but he's made a mistake.

Yes, he may be mistaken, but on a balance of probability he is less likely to be so. We are not arguing a deductive or inescapable conclusion. We are assessing the relative ikelihood of somthing being true or not.

Of course, the more Person A's there are, the less plausible it is that they all made the same mistake.

Negative. Not logical.
Fallacies include:
1. Omission of possibilities. Person could be mistaken. The author of the narratives could have got facts wrong.
2. Begging the question. Premise does not imply conclusion.

Maybe we could discuss this in normal English rather than you throwing out inappropriate terms from a formal logic text book tourette-style?

I wouldn't be skeptical of the fact the Catholic Church admit they did. As I have spoken to many Priests who admitted it.

So were these priests you spoke to actually present at Galileo's trial? Or are they relying on folk tales, letters and narratives?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Yes, he may be mistaken, but on a balance of probability he is less likely to be so. We are not arguing a deductive or inescapable conclusion. We are assessing the relative ikelihood of somthing being true or not.

Agree it's not deductive where we disagree is onthe probability. I studied probability at college and I don't know where you are getting the idea that it's probable.

Of course, the more Person A's there are, the less plausible it is that they all made the same mistake.

I really don't think so. It's quite easy for people to make the same mistake. Papal infallability for example.

Maybe we could discuss this in normal English rather than you throwing out inappropriate terms from a formal logic text book tourette-style?

The way I see it is, if you value truth, you must go through logic, as annoying and pedantic that may be. The devil is in detail.

So were these priests you spoke to actually present at Galileo's trial? Or are they relying on folk tales, letters and narratives?

They're admitting error. I find that easier to belief.
Of course it be all made up and Galileo could have been a front for Italian mafia or some sort of penne pasta monster.

Galvasean

PDN wrote: »

Maybe we could discuss this in normal English rather than you throwing out inappropriate terms from a formal logic text book tourette-style?

I think Tim had a bit of a Shockwave moment there.
Anyone who gets that reference gets my love for the day.

santing

Did I miss something? We have moved away from the original question!

I am not skeptic about Lourdes, I just think it has nothing to do with Christianity. The appariton could have been true, but it was not the mother of our Lord Jesus who appeared.

Christianity is about not seeing but believing.

Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory (1Pe 1:8 ESV)

Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
(Joh 20:29 ESV)

In the parable of the Lazarus and the rich man, Abraham indicates that Lazarus couldn't go back to warn the brothers of the rich man.

He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.' (Luk 16:31 ESV)

PDN

santing wrote: »

Did I miss something? We have moved away from the original question!

The original question was how non-Catholics viewed Lourdes. I don't know if the OP genuinely wanted to know the answer, or if he just wanted to make the point that he believes there is more evidence for Lourdes than for the Gospel, a belief that appears to be based solely on the fact that one event was more recent than the other.

Tim Robbins

santing wrote: »

Christianity is about not seeing but believing.

In which case all talk about Paul and Gospels having eye witness accounts is all moot.

Dog Fan

I am a catholic, and have never been to Lourdes - but

My mother died 13 years ago this summer, and in the weeks before she died went to lourdes with my father and sister. There was no physical cure in lourdes, however, when she came home, the focus of life in our home was different.
Where we had fought the cancer, we now accepted it,
where we lived in tension we now looked for peace. Our relationships grew, our peace grew - and my mother didn't suffer physically before she died, and she had a peaceful passing.
Lourdes as an experience isn't something that greatly appeals to my spirituality, but I will never rubbish another's belief in it.

panda100

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Hello All!
I was just wondering what do Christians, who are not Roman Catholic think about Lourdes? Is it all a big Roman Catholic delusion or scam? Do you think it only works for Christians who are Roman Catholics?

Would you be curious in going and do you think if you saw it working would you convert to be Roman Catholic?

I can honestly say Lourdes is my favourite place to go on earth!

I went first when I was in school and a few times after that when I still was a practiscing catholic. I am not a practising catholic anymore and am what I like to call a spiritual atheist.

In my opinion, I think people of all religions would enjoy Lourdes.Im pretty sure I saw a Hindu week on the calender for this years festivities! And I definatly saw many Asian women wearing Burkas in the shrine.Its not an uber Catholic shrine like Medjugorie,Knock or Fatima. The emphasis is 100% on peace,tranquility,reflection and enjoyment!

Ive never gone there beacuse I feel miracles are perfomed,as a medic I have huge doubts over these so called 'miracles'. I think what keeps me and thousands of others returning is the sheer wonderfullness of the place.

I went back for a few days last summer by myself. I always stay in the youth camp which is a huge grassy campus overlooking the town. Its a great place to go,recharge the battries,meet new people and restore your faith in human kind. Lourdes is full of people young and old of all nationalities talking,singing and praying together and its a nice sight to see.
Its also refreshing to meet clergy members who are so differnet from the priests I comes across in Ireland who quash debate and discussion and dont allow individual thought. Last year I ended up sitting beside an Italian priest in a coffeshop and we had the most wonderful discussion for about two hours on everything from women priests to the Iraq war to Big Brother!

santing

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In which case all talk about Paul and Gospels having eye witness accounts is all moot.

You could say that. In the passage where Paul speaks about the eye witnesses, he starts with:

Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you--unless you believed in vain.
(1Co 15:1-2 ESV)

He is emphasizing that he is saying nothing they didn't already believe. He does this as an introduction to his real subject of that chapter: the resurrection of the dead:

Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
(1Co 15:12-15 ESV)

Now regarding Lourdes or apparitions in general, I think the following statements of Paul are applicable:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
(1Ti 4:1-2 ESV)

and:

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head...
(Col 2:18-19 ESV)

kelly1

santing wrote: »

Now regarding Lourdes or apparitions in general, I think the following statements of Paul are applicable:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared,
(1Ti 4:1-2 ESV)

and:

Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head...
(Col 2:18-19 ESV)

Santing I understand your concern. However I believe God in His providence has sent Jesus' mother and our mother to us to give us warnings and guidance. In Fatima and Lourdes Our Lady repeatedly urged sinners to conversion, penance and holiness.

Discernment of spirits is vitally important so as not to be deceived and the two main criteria are faithfulness to the teachings of the Church and obedience to the Church (local Bishop). If any spirit contradicts Church teaching or suggests disobedience to the wishes of the Bishop, then that spirit can be immediately dismissed as demonic.

In the case of Church approved apparitions these two criteria were satisfied. In the cause of false apparitions such as Christina Gallagher and Medjugorje, both criteria weren't met. The fruits in each case are very different. In the case of true apparitions, religious vocations and devotions flourished while in case of the false ones, there were no vocations and disobedience to the Bishop caused division among the faithful, some remaining obedient to the Bishop and other going against Bishop by continuing to place their trust in the apparition.

While Jesus was dying on the cross, He gave Mary to us as our Mother and she does this by praying for us and where God wills it, to appear on earth to give us warnings about the dangers we face if we don't turn back to God. That surely is something the devil would oppose? However Satan gains when division occurs in the Church as a result of a false apparition.

santing

Thanks Kelly,

kelly1 wrote: »

Discernment of spirits is vitally important so as not to be deceived and the two main criteria are faithfulness to the teachings of the Church and obedience to the Church (local Bishop). If any spirit contradicts Church teaching or suggests disobedience to the wishes of the Bishop, then that spirit can be immediately dismissed as demonic.

The criteria you give are twofold, the Bible however gives us different criteria:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
(1Jn 4:2-3 ESV)

and

You know that when you were pagans you were often led astray by speechless idols, however you were led. So I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.
(1Co 12:2-3 NET)

So a true apparitions (if such a thing does exist!) must speak about the Lord Jesus Christ, failing that according to these two verses, the spirit/apparition did not come from God. While browsing through the text of the apparition in Lourdes, I can not find this.

santing

I think the following is not really part of this threat, but it is a foundations for apparitions:

kelly1 wrote: »

While Jesus was dying on the cross, He gave Mary to us as our Mother and she does this by praying for us and where God wills it, to appear on earth to give us warnings about the dangers we face if we don't turn back to God. That surely is something the devil would oppose? However Satan gains when division occurs in the Church as a result of a false apparition.

Let me call out some doubts I have about this statement:

kelly1 wrote: »

While Jesus was dying on the cross, He gave Mary to us as our Mother.

This is good RC teaching, but has very little basis in Scripture. 1) The Church didn't exist yet when the Lord Jesus spoke these words. 2) The Lord Jesus explicitly made a one - one relation, John with Mary, whereas there were many others (women) who should have been included if the Lord Jesus wanted a generic or spiritual relationship, such as tradition made of this.

kelly1 wrote: »

she does this by praying for us and where God wills it, to appear on earth

Where do we find an example that God wants the dead to return to earth? We only find the opposite in the OT - that anyone who would be involved with this must be considered meddling with darkness - for which a capital punishment was due. So unless the opposite can be proven, I will stick with the generic revelation og God, meaning that apparitions are not send by Him, but by deceiving spirits.

kelly1 wrote: »

to appear on earth to give us warnings about the dangers we face if we don't turn back to God.

This is exactly what the Lord Jesus said (in the story of Lazarus and the rich man, through the mouth of Abraham) what would not / could not happen. "They have the Scriptures ... let them listen to that."

kelly1 wrote: »

However Satan gains when division occurs in the Church as a result of a false apparition.

I could not say it better.

Flamed Diving

How about Queen Spider? How does that work within a Christian context?