A
adgloriam
Guest
You are right about this.
- Status
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Thank you for letting me know. I wasn’t sure.
P
pocaracas
Guest
blah blah blahpocaracas:
How about quoting sources rather than your own paraphrasing?
"
3ª APARIÇÃO – 13 de Julho de 1917.
Escreve a Irmã Lúcia
Momentos depois de termos chegado à Cova da Iria, junto da carrasqueira, entre numerosa multidão de povo, estando a rezar o terço, vimos o reflexo da costumada luz e em seguida Nossa Senhora sobre a carrasqueira.
– Vossemecê que me quer? Perguntei.
– Quero que venham aqui no dia 13 do mês que vem, que continuem o rezar o terço todos os dias, em honra de Nossa Senhora do Rosário para obter a paz do mundo e o fim da guerra, porque só ela Lhes poderá valer
– Queria pedir-Lhe para nos dizer quem é, para fazer um milagre com que todos acreditem que Vossemecê nos aparece.
– Continuem a vir aqui todos os meses, em Outubro direi quem sou, o que quero, e farei um milagre que todos hão de ver para acreditar.
"
This last sentence was supposedly uttered by the virgin lady, it translates (by me) to
- Keep coming here every month, in October I will tell who I am, what I want and I will make a miracle that all will see to believe.
Part 3 was a clearly not seen by all.
Otoh, if there isn’t a god, all those are just coincidences and totally not impossible.
So, given all we know, what is more likely? Natural event coincidence, or actual god intervening just a tiny bit?
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Not quite sure what this is about. May I ask how old you are?
Well I put this in a number of online translators which disagree with your somewhat self-serving “translation”.
They come back with:
You conclude “Part 3 was a clearly not seen by all.”
Well yes that is of course true, but that does not contradict what the Lady stated: “all might see…”
You don’t seem to get the point. The very nature and beauty of a “coincidence” allows people the freedom not to believe because there is no overwhelming logical and evidential coercion to rape the mind. I agree with you.
Again you’ve missed the point. It is not about “god intervening”, it is a natural event.
There is no contradiction between the two. Surely a god, if one exists, can use rare natural events to signal his/her reality by predicting it? That is not intervening in nature.
So explaining prediction of rare events is where a person reveals their heart and their willingness to trust others. Hardened atheists notoriously have trust issues - not simply religious but secular and familial as well.
Intellect and reason is paralysed by extreme coincidences, because it cannot easily grasp the import of singularities. Reason tends to work from universals.
What is more likely? That is the problem…“likely” relies on repeated experiences.
I suggest that if someone months in advance accurately predicts something wholly unpredictable and rare occurring at a certain place at a certain time simply on the basis of a spiritual communication…then yes I am willing to posit the reality of that spiritual communication.
That is quite a reasonable thing to conclude.
Of course its not rock solid evidence, but it is just as reasonable as believing that the sun will rise tomorrow at 7am.
But if one has a pre-set view that such spiritual communications can never take place or that god does not exist then of course one can try and formulate all sorts of “objective” excuses for denying the facts…like saying the Lady lied.
Last edited:
K
Kei
Guest
Something to see so all may believe…what is odd is that many Catholics did not see the miracle, but there were those of differing persuasion who did.
I recall reading that they saw not only the sun but many saw saints, etc., and that afterwards the clothes were dry despite raining prior and clearing up right before.
I recall reading that they saw not only the sun but many saw saints, etc., and that afterwards the clothes were dry despite raining prior and clearing up right before.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
If it was a natural phenomenon relying on unstable lensing of the air and moving refractions then obviously some patches of people will see colours and others will not…just as some people get full shade and others do not when irregular clouds scud overhead.
That is highly unreliable “evidence.” Obviously some family members would not want to admit they didn’t really see anything next to those senior members who did when the reporters confronted them.
The only reliable witnesses I have read of who saw apparitions (not the Sun) were the Seers themselves that day.
There no evidence that I am aware of that states the duration between the last bout of drenching rain and the time people quitted the field. A great number had umbrellas.
I found reports of the land being dry more compelling.
Last edited:
J
JimG
Guest
If they had overactive imaginations, there were thousands of others present that day who had similar imaginations. And does imagination account for the fact that their rain soaked clothing was suddenly dry after the miracle of the sun?
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
I really don’t know enough about their clothing to comment.
P
pocaracas
Guest
You may ask.pocaracas:
Not quite sure what this is about. May I ask how old you are?
That was about suppressing all the chatter that happened before any promise was made for that one day in October.
•Keep coming here every month, in October I will tell who I am, what I want and I will make a miracle that all will see to believe.
Well I put this in a number of online translators which disagree with your somewhat self-serving “translation”.
They come back with:
Well… there’s no “might” in the portuguese version.
I gave you the straightforward translation… if you think it’s self serving, then just ask the catholic Portuguese guy that populates this thread. Maybe the quote in Portuguese that I found in some religious site is itself wrong… I don’t know… I wasn’t there to hear what was said… all we have are the accounts of a kid that was whisked away to a convent after the ordeal and never again saw the outside, so I’m biased to take it with a pinch of salt, anyway…
Hardened
And yes, I do have trouble trusting in whatever people claim to have happened at that time. The reporter himself only reported on what other people at the site claimed to see… as if he saw nothing out of the ordinary. And it’s known to be so easy to manipulate a crowd…
Also, was it really a rare event in that location? There isn’t any evidence that it was a common thing, but that’s to be expected of most places in the world. The ordinary (within people’s experience, which usually extended only a few tens of miles away from their homes) becomes unworthy of mention.
Or the girl lied.
Or the lady was not who she claimed to be to the girl.
Or a combination of these and others…
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Ok, its clear you have a preset position and your stance of an unbiased, dispassionare objective and intelligent observer no longer washes well.
Rather than accept that a very rare natural event was predicted months in advance (though not explicitly) you will grasp at any silly prevarication to deny this…and without any evidence to back up your alleged unlikely counterclaim. eg such phenomenon occur regularly at the Fatima site so its no rare coincidence or prediction.
That is not a reasonable thing to claim given its only speculation on your part. It is clear it seems reasonable only because you hold a systemic preset position there must be a non spritual explanation. In short you are flat-earthing the conversation…there is always an explanation, however unlikely, to deny the more likely facts.
You do realise the site is now a major pilgrimage sanctuary receiving 100s of thousands of visitors every year dont you.
I have never heard any further substantiated claims that sun miracles happen there regularly in October. One would even expect many such reports by pilgrimage hysteria alone wouldnt we? But nada. So much for the silly counter claim above.
Sorry, you are not the fair, neutral, reasoning detective you think you are on this one.
Rather than accept that a very rare natural event was predicted months in advance (though not explicitly) you will grasp at any silly prevarication to deny this…and without any evidence to back up your alleged unlikely counterclaim. eg such phenomenon occur regularly at the Fatima site so its no rare coincidence or prediction.
That is not a reasonable thing to claim given its only speculation on your part. It is clear it seems reasonable only because you hold a systemic preset position there must be a non spritual explanation. In short you are flat-earthing the conversation…there is always an explanation, however unlikely, to deny the more likely facts.
You do realise the site is now a major pilgrimage sanctuary receiving 100s of thousands of visitors every year dont you.
I have never heard any further substantiated claims that sun miracles happen there regularly in October. One would even expect many such reports by pilgrimage hysteria alone wouldnt we? But nada. So much for the silly counter claim above.
Sorry, you are not the fair, neutral, reasoning detective you think you are on this one.
P
Peebo
Guest
When I was about 6-7 I remember mom took us kids out onto the back porch to watch the sun rise…Easter Sunday morn…(that was many decades ago)…we lived at the base of the foothills…mom would tell us when the sun reached the top of the hills we could see it dance for joy because Jesus had risen from the grave…and…I did just that…I watched the sun rise and dance on the top of the hills…now of course it would be just recognized as some atmospheric distortion I saw…it wasn’t that to me as a kid…it was real…and it didn’t affect my eyesight…I still believe what I saw way back then
Last edited:
P
pocaracas
Guest
I don’t remember contending that it was a remarkable feat, taken at face value, to predict something would happen on that particular day. It was and you are right to think of it as too amazing a coincidence to be a coincidence.
Where we differ is on the interpretation.
While you are happy to take it at face value, I am not.
Given the socio-political setting, it seems to have been a deliberately manufactured event.
So one must try to determine what would cause the reports that we have.
If this is bias, then so be it.
I did throw a potential explanation out in the air, I admit it.
But, under the scenario that this was all fabricated, and having the extra information just provided by our friend Peebo, it is not an unreasonable explanation.
Locals would know about those events, but outsiders - the crowd - would be completely ignorant of them.
The more likely facts?!
Any natural explanation is far more likely than any “spiritual” one.
Of course, the people in the know, the potential fabricators, would never have come up to explain what was done nor how.
I do… and none of those 100s of thousands saw it. They, like you, merely believe.
Maybe… because people are now a bit wiser and not looking at the sun?
Maybe… all the construction that has happened there after that, most of it to accommodate the pilgrims, has altered the terrain just enough to render the lensing effect much less noticeable?
You are forgiven! Go in peace.
In every human endeavor, follow the money.
B
BlackFriar
Guest
As I say this is clear evidence you have taken a pre-set, non-falsifiable “flat earth” type stance.
No evidence will ever be strong enough to demonstrate your stance is unreasonable.
Nothing more to say.
God bless.
Last edited:
P
pocaracas
Guest
You think you’re cleverly insulting me with that “flat-earth” thing… but flat-earthers are the ones who take things at face value - look around you, the buildings stand at right angles with the ground - the ground is flat, the Earth is flat! durrrpocaracas:
As I say this is clear evidence you have taken a pre-set, non-falsifiable “flat earth” type stance.
No evidence will ever be strong enough to demonstrate your stance is unreasonable.
Nothing more to say.
God bless.
Excuse me while I use the known human nature when I throw in a bucket of salt at the little girl’s allegations of talking with someone who no one else saw and also at whatever “predictions” were made.
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
One of my problems with Fatima and other like instances is that things are always a “secret.” Tell no one. The public is not to know of what is said. Then why bother? This thing in Medjugorje is the same. Tell no one but the priest. “Revelations” are “secret.” But a sign, which no one will doubt, will eventually be left. I don’t believe any of them. I’m not calling anyone a liar. A religious hysteric, maybe, overy-pious, but not an out-and-out liar. The mind can do very odd things. Look at the people with multiple personality disorder. The mind can make us believe anything. It can even make some people, and some people of very high intelligence, see dancing suns.
Last edited:
B
BlackFriar
Guest
Noone denies a rare phenomenon happened.
Noone denies the alleged apparition predicted something very rare to happen on that day.
Whence the secret here?
Yes there is still always lots of “static” in any Church approved apparition. Fatima is no exception.
But for all that the above cannot be denied, it does coerce reason for those who are truly open to the possibility of such a world existing.
Personally I believe most of Medjogorge is now self-deception and hysteria.
The first appearances do seem to be reasonably judged authentic.
The one that nobody mentions, Garabandal, I believe to be even more reasonably authentic than Fatima. I suggest the only reason the Church has not yet approved it for cultus is the outstanding prediction by the Lady remains to be fulfilled. It will be within the lifetime of the remaining seer who is now close to 70. Could be another 30 years to go. I have been to the location to check it out. I found nothing amiss myself.
Noone denies the alleged apparition predicted something very rare to happen on that day.
Whence the secret here?
Yes there is still always lots of “static” in any Church approved apparition. Fatima is no exception.
But for all that the above cannot be denied, it does coerce reason for those who are truly open to the possibility of such a world existing.
Personally I believe most of Medjogorge is now self-deception and hysteria.
The first appearances do seem to be reasonably judged authentic.
The one that nobody mentions, Garabandal, I believe to be even more reasonably authentic than Fatima. I suggest the only reason the Church has not yet approved it for cultus is the outstanding prediction by the Lady remains to be fulfilled. It will be within the lifetime of the remaining seer who is now close to 70. Could be another 30 years to go. I have been to the location to check it out. I found nothing amiss myself.
Last edited:
C
ConstantLearner
Guest
Thank you, BlackFriar!
- Status