QUOTE (Solaris @ Feb 25 2005, 03:01 PM)
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".
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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?
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.
QUOTE
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.