67 replies to this topic

[Sasun]

I mentioned David Copperfield on purpose, in case modern-day "miraculous" gurus are brought into play.  The audience for a top-notch magician's show know they are being served a trick, try hard to figure it out but few, if any, really make it. Houdini is still a legend. Now the same can be performed on stage by a "guru" not as a trick but a "miracle" before an exalted audience willing to buy just about anything.

Again you are going into the fallacy of skepticism according to which a doubtful line of thinking becomes the only explanation, while you have no evidence of anything. In other words the only reason you are "explaning" something is that you doubt. You don't really have material evidence, you are simply using the apparent similarity of two different things, but similar does not mean the same.

Sasun's stigmatists could have used some trickery or simple dexterity to cut themselves unnoticed, but that sort of petty pious fraud is harmless by and large (if you don't have a problem with exposing an aspect to Christian faith with a distinctly sadomasochistic flavour)  . There seems to be a "demand" for miracles and so there is more than adequate "supply".  But when belief in miracles is being exploited in a way that "miracle-making" trickery becomes a money-making "industry" and a brainwashing tool, then it certainly is a cause for concern…  

COULD BE and IS are different things. One has to investigate on a case by case bases before crying foul and making widespread accusations.

Edited by Sasun, 25 February 2005 - 10:54 AM.

[Sasun]

not a bad idea. may i suggest calling it Sasunism
and you can be the leader.

Hmm... let me think... but no thanks, somehow starting a new religion is not in my career plans

Edited by Sasun, 25 February 2005 - 10:57 AM.

[Solaris]

Again you are going into the fallacy of skepticism according to which a doubtful line of thinking becomes the only explanation, while you have no evidence of anything. In other words the only reason you are "explaning" something is that you doubt. You don't really have material evidence, you are simply using the apparent similarity of two different things, but similar does not mean the same.

Sasun, I'm about to question your bona fide on this. You're fighting some imaginary heartless "skeptic" who does nothing but offer "hoax" as the only explanation without any proof. With respect, this is a lil' absurd. I only said that if one of possible explanations casts strong enough suspicion of hoax, fraud, or mistake, then the phenomenon should not be taken at its face value (as a "miracle") and should be investigated.

COULD BE and IS are different things. One has to investigate on a case by case bases before crying foul and making widespread accusations.

Precisely. But it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation, while some lousy doctor (I personally know some who will tell anything if the price is right), or an old priest surely are not enough to clear the suspicion.

[Sasun]

Sasun, I'm about to question your bona fide on this.  You're fighting some imaginary heartless "skeptic" who does nothing but offer "hoax" as the only explanation without any proof. With respect, this is a lil' absurd.  I only said that if one of possible explanations casts strong enough suspicion of hoax, fraud, or mistake, then the phenomenon should not be taken at its face value (as a "miracle") and should be investigated.

Excuse me, but I have the impression that you are considering a stigmata an impossibility. Therefore it implies that for you all reported cases of stigmata are a hoax or a delusion. So tell me, am I understanding you correctly? If yes, then my "fight" is correct. If not then I have no argument as long as you can be also doubtful of all claims of hoax or delusion

Precisely. But it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation, while some lousy doctor (I personally know some who will tell anything if the price is right), or an old priest surely are not enough to clear the suspicion.

OK, so do we agree that before making a claim a serious investigation is necessary? If yes then I have no argument. And I am also inclined to think that "it is common to miracle-makers to dodge any serious investigation" because I believe charlatanism is widespread.
Again, just to be clear on the matter, I consider stigmata a possibility, as well as hoaxing stigmata a possibility and maybe even more common that real ones. Likewise, I believe true gurus exist, as well as fake gurus who may outnumber the real ones. True miracles exist, as well as false ones, etc. It is all a matter of case by case investigation. Comparing apparent similarities and claiming all to be the same is a wrong way. Do you agree?

Edited by Sasun, 25 February 2005 - 11:35 AM.

[DominO]

Solaris, more I read you and more I like you, of course I do not entirly agree with you, but your theses are better supported with arguments.

I think you could be a good Fadixist.

BTW, I have not forgotten to answer your PM.

[Arvestaked]

I think it was fundamentally immature of you to take my sarcasm directly. Your call for maturity was subjective enough not to be taken seriously.

"Fundamentally immature" seem like it doesn't really mean anything.

...even more, nothing has been observed as far as that theory goes.

That is not true. There were several things observed that led to the idea of the BBT and several things since that support it. The problem is that there are other models that can also explain the observations.

Physical or non - physical does not matter. The word paradox is there to conceal something unexplainable and move forward without explaining it because it is comfortable and easy.

No, it is not. You are not understanding. And nobody has moved forward. If you think anyone has "moved forward" from the idea, you are a fool. It is labeled a "paradox" because it is a paradox. Things that normally should not co-exist are theorized to have co-existed. It is not considered a paradox just so they can move on and forget about it. That is stupid. On the contrary, the community would be quite motivated to investigate a such a nature. Like black holes for example.

[Solaris]

Sasun, if we all are such Einstein fans, let's say I may share to certain extent his awe and wonder of an "orderly universe". But in this case it would be logical to assume that I don't believe in the supernatural character of stigmata since I also share his disbelief in the cult of a personal God and the religious built-up around it.

I also feel you're being somewhat inconsistent. You said you were not religious, but here you're keen on sustaining a belief in a "miracle" which links to the most rigid literal understanding of the New Testament. What do you think being religious is all about?

Above all, I don't consider stigmatism as a very good example of a Christian miracle. If the stigmata are the only "tangible" miracles, then the Church is indeed desperate. It creates some image of a sadomasochistic God "rewarding" the pious with suffering the heck knows why, perhaps to prove his existence? Aren't there better ways?

Theoretically in the case of certain extremely sensitive individuals the wounds may be psychosomatic, so some of them may not be cheats. But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the overall phenomenon is anything but supernatural. It indeed appears to be imitative. There had been no occurrences of stigmatism before the images of crucified Christ with wounds become common, and before St. Francis of Assisi apparently established the pattern as the first "true" stigmatist in thirteenth century. The fact that the stigmata appear differently on their victims – different shapes, sizes and locations, is another strong evidence that the wounds are not genuinely miraculous. Say, how come the shape of your Terese woman's wounds changed over time, apparently as she learned that Roman nails were a square-shaped? In fact even if I also took the Scriptures literally and believed that such things are theoretically possible, I would have very serious doubts as to genuine miraculous nature of stigmata.

One more thing: just like me, you have no first-hand knowledge of stigmatism. The Terese woman apparently died some twenty years prior to your birth, and you haven't seen her wounds nor any other stigmata. You have read certain accounts that were sympathetic, and chose to believe, without much consideration and questioning. Believing them is convenient to your position, 'cause by you doing so you seem to get a "tangible" proof of your religion.

Anyway discussing "stigmata" here seems a pretty insane idea to me. You definitely seem enamoured with the idea and pressed the issue to this point, but just consider what a sick, sadomasochistic cult is that. Bloody disgusting indeedy.

Edited by Solaris, 25 February 2005 - 03:58 PM.

[Solaris]

Solaris, more I read you and more I like you, of course I do not entirly agree with you, but your theses are better supported with arguments.

I think you could be a good Fadixist. 

BTW, I have not forgotten to answer your PM. 

[Armen]

"Fundamentally immature" seem like it doesn't really mean anything.

OK let me explain. When you use another symbol to make yours, you depend on some other simbol to create something yours. Like you depend on "cross" to create an "anti-cross". Dependence on someone to create something yours is the root of immaturity.

That is not true. There were several things observed that led to the idea of the BBT and several things since that support it. The problem is that there are other models that can also explain the observations.

Observation is a test of consequences anyway. OK they observed. That doesn't change anything.

you are a fool

Excuse me for taking this out of its context but ... do you realy want to find out when exactly I will take it to the next level and officially declare you "an idiot".

No, it is not. You are not understanding. And nobody has moved forward. If you think anyone has "moved forward" from the idea. It is labeled a "paradox" because it is a paradox. Things that normally should not co-exist are theorized to have co-existed. It is not considered a paradox just so they can move on and forget about it. That is stupid. On the contrary, the community would be quite motivated to investigate a such a nature. Like black holes for example.

The fact that they (and you) want to exclude creationism from the schools says that they want to comfortably forget about it no matter how "interested" they may seem to be. Exclusion is a sign of "non-interest".

Edited by Armen, 25 February 2005 - 02:18 PM.

[Arvestaked]

Dependence on someone to create something yours is the root of immaturity.

I am sorry, but that is the most thoughtless and ridiculous phrase I have read in a while. All creation is dependant on prior creation whether its is art or philosophy or technology, etc. And that has absolutely nothing to do with maturity!

Also, "fundamentally immature" still seems to have no actual meaning.

Observation is a test of consequences anyway. OK they observed. That doesn't change anything.

...um... yea.

Excuse me for taking this out of its context but ... do you realy want to find out when exactly I will take it to the next level and officially declare you "an idiot".

I will not excuse you for taking it out of context and I do not give a rat's colon what you do.

The fact that they (and you) want to exclude creationism from the schools says that they want to comfortably forget about it no matter how "interested" they may seem to be. Exclusion is a sign of "non-interest".

Oh, you got me there! You are right! I have no interest in it and I think it is a part of humanity that needs to be forgotten! You got me!

[Arvestaked]

I would like to catch the person who voted with this answer and slap macaroni and cheese to his face.

That would be me, oh ominous and powerful and mature genius armed with pasta.

[lara-chan]

i don't believe in it, so i laughed.

[Armen]

I am sorry, but that is the most thoughtless and ridiculous phrase I have read in a while. All creation is dependant on prior creation whether its is art or philosophy or technology, etc. And that has absolutely nothing to do with maturity!
Also, "fundamentally immature" still seems to have no actual meaning.

Yes, but you become mature when you do not depend on your parents anymore. Similarly when you find a simbol that is not dependent on "cross" it may be called mature. If you call what I do immature I can call what you do fundementally immature. What's wrong?

I will not excuse you for taking it out of context and I do not give a rat's colon what you do.

Well, I guess this is the end of my talk with you.

Oh, you got me there! You are right! I have no interest in it and I think it is a part of humanity that needs to be forgotten! You got me! 

Yup, I got you and I threw you to the trash bin as of now.

[Sasun]

That would be me, oh ominous and powerful and mature genius armed with pasta. 

Have some sense of humor you .... I am attemptiong to lighten up the situation, apparently you are keen to name calling. I was the one who made the poll and gave such an option to answer.

[Arvestaked]

Name calling?

I have a sense of humor. That is why I chose the option laughing at the notion of miracles.

[Sasun]

Sasun, if we all are such Einstein fans, let's say I may share to certain extent his awe and wonder of an "orderly universe".  But in this case it would be logical to assume that I don't believe in the supernatural character of stigmata since I also share his disbelief in the cult of a personal God and the religious built-up around it.

That is fine by me, I would like to record that you specifically called it a "disbelief".

I also feel you're being somewhat inconsistent. You said you were not religious, but here you're keen on sustaining a belief in a "miracle" which links to the most rigid literal understanding of the New Testament. What do you think being religious is all about?

Yeah, I believe in the New Testament, but am not religious. Belief in miracles does not make one religious. Like I said, I appreciate all religions.

Above all, I don't consider stigmatism as a very good example of a Christian miracle. If the stigmata are the only "tangible" miracles, then the Church is indeed desperate. It creates some image of a sadomasochistic God "rewarding" the pious with suffering the heck knows why, perhaps to prove his existence? Aren't there better ways?

It is not the only tangible example, it is only one example. Countless healing miracles have taken place. yeah, I know you don't believe...It has nothing to do with the church as an insititution. It would be good to recognise this distinction.

Theoretically in the case of certain extremely sensitive individuals the wounds may be psychosomatic, so they may not all of them may be cheats.

Well, maybe and maybe not. You still don't know if it is supernatural or not until you really know.

But there is a lot of evidence suggesting that the overall phenomenon is anything but supernatural. It indeed appears to be imitative. There had been no occurrences of stigmatism before the images of crucified Christ with wounds become common, and before St. Francis of Assisi apparently established the pattern as the first "true" stigmatist in thirteenth century. 

We don't know any cases befor St. Francis, maybe there were and maybe there were not. The article mentions about St. Paul possibly having the same. At any rate, it doesn't matter. There has to be a first time for anything, and let's assume St. Francis' case was the first time. Why would it be impossible?

The fact that the stigmata appear differently on their victims –  different shapes, sizes and locations, is another strong evidence that the wounds are not genuinely miraculous. Say, how come the shape of your Terese woman's wounds changed over time, apparently as she leaned that Roman nails were a square-shaped?

According to my information the wounds were always square. Let me get back to you a little later on Therese Newmann.
As for other cases, yes, sure if they were indeed inconsistent like the number of wounds, different places, they were most likely hoaxes, I am again saying that hoaxes are quite possible. But at any rate, you can't expect a very exact replication of the wounds, as different individuals have differences in bodily shapes and sizes.

One more thing: just like me, you have no first-hand knowledge of stigmatism. Your Terese woman apparently died some twenty years prior to your birth, and you haven't seen her wounds nor any other stigmata.  You have read certain accounts, some that were sympathetic, and chose to believe them, without questioning them much. Believing them is convenient to your position, 'cause by you doing so you seem to get a "tangible" proof of your religion.

It doesn't matter, I am sure if I was to witness and write accounts you would disbelieve the same way.

Anyway discussing "stigmata" here seems a pretty insane idea to me. You definitely seem enamoured with the idea and pressed the issue to this point, but just consider what a sick, sadomasochistic cult is that. Bloody disgusting indeedy.

All I care about is if something is true or not. You are giving your subjective opinion, it doesn't matter. All that matters is if stigmata is true or not.
As to your characterizations I view it differently. Jesus Christ didn't choose to be crucified, it was something done by others. The stigmata indeed appear disturbing and uncomfortable. But if you think about it, it is meant to suggest people that the story of Jesus Christ is real. What better way to show it rather than replicate the idiosyncretic parts of the story which undoubtedly point to only one story. Yeah, it is bad, but it is not sadomasochistic as you are saying.

Edited by Sasun, 25 February 2005 - 04:48 PM.

[Armen]

I will add that self-awarness is the only real miracle. 

Humor is a smaller miracle and probably the consequence of self-awarness but still it is an interesting paradox of mind ... I mean if you think of it subjectively ... it is kinda stupid

[DominO]

Humor is a smaller miracle and probably the consequence of self-awarness but still it is an interesting paradox of mind ... I mean if you think of it subjectively ... it is kinda stupid 

It`s funny you talk about that, the other day I was think of the "worthless" emotions we had that were not necessary, and humour was one of them, if we find out that an alien specy do have it... hmmm...

[DominO]

Here, you want a miracle? You get another one.

http://www.exosci.com/news/34.html

[Siamanto]

I always believed in you!
Deep inside, I knew that eventually you will grow up, because I knew that miracles happen!

Had I known it would make you so enthusiastic I would have grown up faster

But, you had to first grow up to realize it!

PS. I believed in the miracle before I witnessed it!

Perhaps it is time to organize a new religion?

How about "The Wiknesses of Sasun!"