Using miracles in apologetics

[anon50218184]

then you can safely choose the “evil” action, and then repent and ask forgiveness.

Not sure what your point is, but wouldn’t this fall under the sin of presumption?

Ok. The answer is simple. There was NO proper chain of custody, there were no protocols involved. All you can say that some specimen was examined by some unknown people in some unknown laboratory. It is no surprise that there are very strict rules for keeping the evidence safe from tampering, intentional or otherwise.

When the samples were taken for analysis, the undissolved part of the consecrated host had become embedded in the cloth. However, the red blood clot was as clear as ever. This transformed part of the host was dry and fragile, inextricably interwoven with the rest of the fragment, which had kept the form of bread.

The specimen shows the transformed part and the untransformed host.

How do you explain that?

How do you explain that all Eucharistic miracles throughout the world and history arrive at the same conclusions? (ie matching DNA, bloid type, same signs of distress, etc)

The so-called Eucharistic miracle is supposed to be that the “accidents” of the host are unchanged, but the “essence” is now miraculously different.

No, that’s not the miracle in question. You are describing transubstantiation, which is also in itself a miracle, but not the one we’re refering to.

The miracle in question is that the accidents also changed.

 

[BlackFriar]

It has benn asserted here that all 70000 persons saw the miracle.
Has that assertion been reasonably evidenced?
Not it hasnt.
Stalemate.

As is always the case in allegedly miraculous phemonena there is enough data to cause people to investigate things more closely but never enough evidence to produce an irrefutable objective answer. There is always enough room for those unable to believe not to believe.

So when somebody makes an effort here to rationally substantiate their excessive claim that Fatima was seen by all I will make a reasonable effort to refind the credible media reports of the time this was not the case.

But the real point is do believers really want to seek the truth of the matter? The information I researched some years ago is out there to find if someone really wants to look. Are the “believers” really truthseekers or just of a set position and will only seek corroborating evidence and dont wont to seek contrary evidence? My gainsayers are so overconfident in their views they do not feel the need to find the truth of this small matter out for themselves.

I would think the burden is on miracle believers to well prove their case if they are going to make the miracle call.

I dont deny a strange wonder took place on the day of the sun. But there are lots of undeniable inconsistencies and even clerical censorship went on re the reports of the children to sanitise it for the faithful so that it was acceptable and in accord with Catholic sensibilities.

It helps nobody in the long run to oversimplify what actually happened.

Likewise I could produce evidence of wonders worked in other religions that are regularly used to identify holy men of God in Catholicism. But as I say what is the point?
There will always be enough wiggle room to deny the reality of any wonder, Catholic or not, for those in whatever religion who believe only their religion is backed by the supernatural.

Which is why wonders and miracles cannot reasonably be used to indicate any single religion is the only one supported by heaven.

Sure it may be used to demonstrate support from heaven…but exclusive monopoly on representing heaven…it seems not.

As for Aquinas…as I say it seems accepted that wonders are workable by the wicked and holy alike , those of the Catholic Church and those not. Just look up his writings if you do not believe me.

All the evidence is out there for my views if you cannot accept them on their own common sense merits.

The real issue here is … does anybody want to?
And if not why not?

 

[BoomerangToo]

All survivors from the 70,000? Come on.

Did I say ALL the survivors? Come on!

 

[BlackFriar]

You clearly attempted to deny my observation that credible witnesses stated they were there yet did not see no matter how much they tried.
I simply observe it is silly to believe you have made your case simply by some Portugese investigation many years later.

 

[BoomerangToo]

What exactly are you basing your opinion on (that some people did not see the miracle)? At least I quoted a person who actually interviewed eye witnesses. What sources do you have?

 

[BlackFriar]

The newspaper report from the journalists who went there and took many of the photos widely used in Fatima books.
The journalist himself was not Catholic but saw the wonder, his Cameraman who was Catholic was frustrated that he could not. It was observed the crowd dispersed very quickly. Journalists could only grab a few persons from the crowd to get an idea of how many confidently saw these things. Pro Catholic journalists interviewed the more histrionic witnesses and ignored those who left disgusted, disappointed or quietly having wasted their time in terms of work days lost, travel costs and discomfort in the mud and rain. It was evident that Catholics next to those friends or relatives who had seen were reluctant to admit they had not seen and invented vague affirmative comments if questioned.
So it was a mixed event at the very least. Nobody sane denies something happened…but clearly significant unknown numbers left disappointed.

Of course the sanitised pro Catholic books we all read never mention these facts. Fake news has been alive and well throughout history to support the views of either side.
Catholic wonders are exaggerated and censored/cherrypicked/sanitised by Catholic authorities for their own purposes … and they do the reverse for the wonders of other belief groups which are downplayed or demonised.

The same unimaginitive and self serving bias is evident in similar views replayed on this thread. If we werent there I suggest reported wonders have little evidential compulsion for any institution.

Yes wonders can serve an apologetic purpose for demonstrating a supernatural realm likely exists…but exclusively owned by the Catholic Church…I personally dont see the logic nor have I experienced same.

Wonders are most compelling when one actually witnesses it for oneself methinks. And as I say in my 60 years I have experienced few such wonders. None of them directly to do with the Catholic Church all all of them to do with extreme coincidences which could be ignored on that basis if one wanted to I suppose.

God clearly gives his charisms inside and outside of the Catholic Church for His own mysterious purposes. If inside the Church and those persons use them for good then they are regarded as saints. If they are used for bad we say they are possessed. If they are outside the Church and they are good we say they are not real miracles or coincidences (such as my experience in the nearby Buddhist temple), if they are bad then that religion is pagan or occult or of the devil and the miracles are just tricks or deceptions or manipulating occult forces of nature we dont quote understand yet.

If the miracle is neither good nor evil but just neutral or bizarre authorities will take it either way…St Cuppertino was mentally handicapped and levitated whenever he got scared. They tamed him in a monastery eventually labelling him a holy man.
Levitating Buddhist monks are common to that tradition but we poo poo that as impossible and the evidence is regarded as not compelling accordingly.
A well documented levitating Victorian era oddity who could not be exposed even by atheist scientists can be ignored due to “clever apparatus”.

 

[De_Maria]

It has benn asserted here that all 70000 persons saw the miracle.
Has that assertion been reasonably evidenced?
Not it hasnt.
Stalemate.

No.

1. You’re changing the subject.
2. We have produced more than one Catholic miracle.
3. You have yet to produce any non-Catholic miraculous phenomenon.

Please read my messages and respond to what I’m saying.

 

[BlackFriar]

It has benn asserted here that all 70000 persons saw the miracle.
Has that assertion been reasonably evidenced?
Not it hasnt.
Stalemate.

I have indicated a number.
They are easily found.

But of course you have a set position which will force you to deride the evidence yet accept on amazingly thin grounds that Catholic Aquinas reportedly produced fresh fish of some type out of season (even though unaware of this).
This approach is all very predictable and of the same pedigree as that of the flat-earthers who cannot be gainsayed due to their unrecognised subjective bias.
I think this could be called a case of invincible ignorance in Catholic theology. So no point engaging you further on this point either sorry. God bless.

 

[anon50218184]

I think this could be called a case of invincible ignorance in Catholic theology. So no point engaging you further on this point either sorry

Just curious, how many of your arguments end this way?

 

[BlackFriar]

I could just stop corresponding in mid discussion - but then my somewhat aggressive protaganists tend to start accusing me of not answering their questions. So that obviously comes across as a rude way to disengage so I obligingly opt for the robust but polite stiff handshake method of disengagement instead.

Obviously some “apologists” like to force a lose lose situation on anyone who dares disagree with their at times extreme and endlessly cyclic “flat-earther” type views and apriori set positions.

 

[anon50218184]

I mean how many of your arguments end with you realizing your opponents are beneath you?

 

[BlackFriar]

As per post #70:

Obviously some “apologists” like to force a lose lose situation on anyone who dares disagree…

Counterproductive apologetics I suggest.

God bless.

 

[anon50218184]

So… what is it? 50%? 60%? 70?