sierra wrote:

---No, I do not know how many, I am new here. So, many have traveled through here barking a message? I am not like them. My message is different. In fact 179 or so posts in a little over 24 hours, not bad a for a new guy eh? Granted, about a 1/3 of those were mine. Anyway, my message has struck a nerve here.

Borderline argumentum ad populum. And a damn arrogant too.

---like you, was just trying to stir things up a bit, I guess we both missed.

I liked your answer by the way, it was well thought out and rational.

Regarding Matthew 6;5-6. I said get on your knees and pray in private, not publicly. I said that for a reason, powerful stuff happens!

  GOD is a word for AWE

, so keep the awe, as in science and stop GODMA, or usually written DOGMA ..... of making shit up, and lying to my kids of the world ..... A better answer to our kids is,  "I Don't Know , no one does ....... and certainly not the religious freaking out on the AWE" ......    

I AM getting mad now , geezzz,  people lying to my kids ......  

Must I trash the temple of religion, as Jesus did ? again and again and again ..... YUP. Thanks for the clue, big J ..... and the SWORD ! 

Some ancients said the old Temple would be destroyed, to be eventually rebuilt ..... Ummm , yes ,  as we are ..... !  The temple of GOOGLE ! Consciousness , Science and Awaking !

You may want to read the rules before you continue your proselytizing. You are not permitted to start two threads with identical subject matter, no what the virgin Mary tells you. This thread is locked, and if you do this again you will be suspended or banned.

This is an official warning!

---Here is my response to you Kelly for your insulting welcome for a simple mistake:

Deleted by sierra out of consideration for the other curious minds on here.

Allrighty then. First source: as you might have seen, it recounts many references of La virgen in ancient texts, 31 references to be exact. Keyword, of course, is references, many of them dating way, way after the event is reported to take place (12 Dic. 1531), and many of them being nothing more than personal accounts with no proof in them, other than the mere mention of a myth.

Of the 31 references: 6 are last wills and testaments and one is a letter of payment, the earliest of them dating 1559. All of them include references to the Virgin Mary or her Temple at the Hill of Tepeyac. No proof of her existence.

7 are annals whose historical accuracy must be called into question for two reasons: one, because they were writen by mexica scribes (tlacuilos) who were quite prone of mistaking their calendar with the Gregorian calendar. And two, because they were writen by tlacuilos who, as it was shown in the book Las Cronicas del Mexico Perdido (The chronicles of Lost Mexico, sorry if I can't post a link, there isn't one) mexican (mexica is a different, more specific term referring to a person from the Mexica tribe) scribes were also prone of embelishment and mixing their own cultural references into the texts. Also, as I have stated, VoG is most likely a sincretic deity of the spanish Guadalupe of Extremadura, and Tonantzin/Cuatlicue, mother of Huitziloposchtli. therefore, highly questionable to be considered conclusive proof.

Two of them are ex post facto testimonies, the Testimony of Andres de Tapia and Deposition by Juana de la Concepción, the second one is a sworn testimony taken in 1666. Suposedly important since her testimony "verifies" her relatives knew Juan Diego. Hear say and word of mouth for more than 130 years after the event is alleged to have taken place. Highly questionable.  Someone can sworn me in to testify if Plato really had big omoplates, and my "personal testimony" would be worth jack, since I haven't seen the guy personally.

The INVENTORY FROM LORENZO BOTURINI.  Recounts several canticles of a miraculous aparition, all of them consistent with bot the Guadalupan apparition, and the mith of Tonantzin, so, again, highly questionable.

CURIOUS NEWS OF BARTOLACHE.  Reference, no witness account of any kind.

Nican Mopohua.- Nothing but the translated story of the Guadalupan folk tale. Yet the site you mention claims that: "This document alone would be the one that provides all authenticity of the Guadalupan Event". By that logic, If I ever get my hands on a translated version of the Iliad, as taken from some ancient original scroll, then it must mean it was all true.

Most if not all of the rest fall into the same categories (hear say, not witness account, ex post facto testimonies and references), and/or are highly questionable as to bear any proof for the Guadalupan account. Interestingly enough, the guy who posted all this list finalized with this: Conclusion: Any historical discussion regarding the authenticity of Guadalupe will come to a stalemate.

If we were to take his word for it, then a stalemate would simply mean ""We don't know, and there is no way we can be 100% sure". Accepting this and still believe in the VoG would be an argument from ignorance, and that's a no-no as any rational person could confirm.

Regarding your second link, that's nothing but a bio on Juan de Zumarraga, and the only thing it contributes to this subject is that it calls into question my affirmation that he was in Spain being ordained Bishop when the alleged apparition took place. I remember seeing this argument debunked somewhere on a book I had, but it would take me some time to locate it, so in the meantime and until I can locate it I grant you this point.

However, those two links doesn't refute all I've said about La Virgen, you still haven't addressed the issue of the authenticity of the tilma. I'll repost what I said about it:

Well, what people don't take into account is the fact that the tilma being shown in the Basilica is only about 100 years old, and it was made by more modern means. Yep, the damn rag is a fake. As taken from this source: http://www.vrg.us/luevano/Escritos/Fraudevir..htm (Sorry it's in spanish) and as covered in the mexican newspaper El Universal, in 1895, the Abad Don Jose Antonio Plancarte y Labastida, called Father Plancarte (I just call him asshole) replaced the heavily decayed, fungus eaten tilma (miracles aren't made to last, apparently) with a newer version of it. Here's the punch line. He was in charge of amplifying the whole Basilica and organizing the upcoming ceremony to crown the Virgen of Guadalupe as the queen of Mexico. It seems he was in a bit of a hurry coning people off their money for doing this and whatnot, cuz he forgot one little detail of the tilma: the "original" showed the VoG wearing a crown. The Plancarte version was crownless! (and she was to be crowned in the upcomming ceremony, for geezus sake!!!)

In the coverage of El Universal of December 3, 1895, Plancarte's comments about the crownless Virgen were --wait for it-- "the crown disappeared by a miracle", and MOST of the people bought it up!!!!!! Yep, we have some dumbass fucking idiots down here in Mexico. --This last part I repost not because it adds to the argument, but just because it's true.

Of course not. That's why Ratzenburger was the head of what is STILL the Inquisition (albet, under a different name).

LC >;-}>

In your study and immersion in Marian doctrine, perhaps you've encountered the answer to something that's puzzled me for decades...

Did Mary come?

LC >;-}>

Somehow I seem to end up on these threads with silly theists like 1-24, Paisley, and now Sierra. They all seem to follow the same method, when cornered with proof they ignore you. This one has serious lack of info on his own belief as well. If you don't have the instructions don't try to operate the machinery.

OK, I'll play along for a second: yes, if given actual proof (not "proof for you", but actual "supportive evidence" like a scientist would want), I think I probably would.  That's the thing about agnostic atheists: if you give us actual, falsifiable, testable proof of something and it holds up, we'd have no recourse but to agree with you.  The trick is those three adjectives: actual, falsifiable, testable; that's where every theist who has ever existed has tripped up.

Remember, when you make a claim "X is a miracle" it is up to YOU to support your position in the face of all rational objection.  When someone asks you for proof, you say: the miracles of the eucharist, the stigmata of Pio, etc.  The problem is, these do not count as proof.  Wounds on the hands and feet can occur for a variety of explainable reasons (carbolic acid), and the eyewitness accounts of a bunch of pre-scientific, probably illiterate peasants carry practically no weight.

On the other hand, if you gave us the sort of proof science works with, belief wouldn't come into it; that's just the way things would be, regardless of how we feel about it.

Now I have to say, you asked what's called a loaded question: the question itself asserts something specific that may or may not be true and it's structured so that nothing other than an elicited answer can be given.  It's the theological equivalent of have you stopped beating your wife?

So let me throw it back at you: if you finally accepted that what you call proof is worthless and that you've believed the greatest lie ever told, would you stop lying to yourself by admitting that god does not exist, or would you carry on in your comforting delusion?

See?  It's easy to ask loaded questions.  A better one would be: what would it take to convince you that your beliefs are wrong?

If you knew 100% without a doubt that all you have been taught, believed, and professed was based on myths. legends, and ficitional stories would you immediately admit God doesn't exist and deny Jesus or would you continue to spread misconceptions and false information?

PaulJohn wrote:

"If you knew 100% without a doubt that all you have been taught, believed, and professed was based on myths. legends, and ficitional stories would you immediately admit God doesn't exist and deny Jesus or would you continue to spread misconceptions and false information?"

---100%? No, I would not continue pursuing something that I knew was false. I am not as dumb as I look...haha, and I am certainly not a crazy person. With that said, I am at 100% now on the other end, without doubt. My only challenges currently are obedience and having faith when faced with challenges. Faith in God's existence is no longer the issue for me. Here is a quote that sums it up pretty well for me by Mother Teresa:

"To fall in love with God is the greatest of all romances; to seek Him, the greatest adventure, to find Him, the greatest human achievement"

I'm surprised you would quote Mother Teresa, do you just not listen to the news or read it on the Internet?

Letters to be published written by Mother Teresa indicate she had no faith or belief.

See: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/23/eveningnews/main3199062.shtml

Quotes from her letters:

"Where is my faith?" she wrote. "Even deep down… there is nothing but emptiness and darkness... If there be God — please forgive me."

"Such deep longing for God… Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal," she said.

"What do I labor for?" she asked in one letter. "If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true."

According to her letters, Mother Teresa died with her doubts. She had even stopped praying, she once said.

So if soon to be Saint Mother Teresa didn't believe anymore, what of you?

As I was originally Lutheran, then Catholic, now atheist my take is this. Most of the reported miracles, sightings are of Mary or a Saint. Protestants believe Catholics are idolators, therefore Satan must be responsible. That is what I learned as a Lutheran. In our case, we don't accept reported miracles without evidence, scientific proof, testing and consider them to not be true or misconceived reality. Why is that surprising. If a miracle can be of Satan it supports the mythology of religion. Since atheists don't believe in either Satan or God why would we see anything other than its not supernatural and must not be a real event?

"If a miracle can be of Satan it supports the mythology of religion. Since atheists don't believe in either Satan or God why would we see anything other than its not supernatural and must not be a real event?"

---Misses the point, that is a Protestant would come to the same conclusion as an atheist if it were possible. My point: Protestants have researched many of these events, and have been unable to declare them as you say, "not supernatural" or fake. Therefore, they have concluded they are of Satanic origin.

Just trying to get across the point and question that why are Protestants able to see these as supernatural, and atheists are not? My point once again: the Protestant should agree with you that these are fake/false events-not supernatural, but they do not, puzzling?

---Sorry jread, I should have explained myself there! Mother Teresa is a perfect example of a living faith. Although she struggled, she did not give up, remained faithful to her core beliefs. Mother Teresa did what was right whether she felt like it, thought like it, or not. Hard to explain, other than she did not lose hope, did not despair. Granted, if she renounced everything, and ended up at the black jack tables at the Bellagio spending charitable contributions, that would be a problem. However, she persisted until the end, giving up her entire life for love of others. Does anyone sincerely have a problem with that?

No part of this report is credible.  The reference to "testing" is so vague as to be useless; what was done?  Methods?  Results?  Were they repeated?

At best, you could consider it a local legend with religious overtones.

So if even you, the self-described 100% theist, aren't sure it's authentic, why offer it as evidence?

Your faith has shaped your expectations in what you see.  I am willing to bet that anyone unfamiliar with catholic mythology would not explain what they saw the same way you did.  I can see someone describing it as looking like fire, but to me, it looks more like bright red-orange cloth reflected in glass or metal than anything.

What material is the thing that looks like it's burning made out of?

This is the problem with faith: it works backwards from science and reason.  You have come to a conclusion and now go looking for things to support it.  Reason states that you look at the available evidence, come up with a hypothesis and then test it.  Debaters call what you do "cherry-picking", because you count only the hits and ignore the misses.

It's no wonder you see the mysteries of god everywhere you look; you've made up your mind that's what you're seeing.

My apologies again to all of the victims (including me) who clicked on that link.

you believe in 2000 year plageurised superstitions and WE'RE irrational?

why should mother teresa be respected here, she didn't believe in what she was doing, why should anyone else?

you expected to get something meaningful to come out of trolling an atheist site with your rediculous superstitions, now thats irrational.

Why am I not surprised.

Unless you can refute any of his information, what you think of his motivations mean nothing.

He is not critical of her for "not doing enough". He is critical of her because her concern was not with helping people with their health at all. It's one thing to comfort a person before they die when they are past the point of all help, but even the people that she COULD have actually helped, she did not. As he pointed out, given the amount of funding she actually received, she could have built hospitals in Calcutta that actually SAVED LIVES, but instead she chose to spread her funding out very thin, setting up convents that only "comforted" (unethically, I might add).

She could have saved lives, but she didn't. Not because she couldn't, but because she chose not to.

Per above, no she didn't. She did next to nothing for a lot of people rather than everything she could for a few less. The videos explained why this is, but you don't seem like you were thinking about the videos all that critically. I understand. You knew what you thought of the videos before you even pressed play. You smiled, you counted your hits, and you gracefully failed to notice (read: ignored while maintaining that you weren't ignoring) your misses. I understand. Confirmation bias is common.

So being mixed up in politics requires a person to have possessions and a large amount of wealth?

Politics is about influence. After she was made a media spectacle, she was used in that way. To influence. Specifically, to influence politicians. Therefore, politics.

Read:

1) Atheist offers argument.

2) "Ugh, I am insulted."

3) Therefore, God exists.

Read:

1) You're stupid, atheist.

2) Therefore, God exists.

Nice meeting you, Sierra.

if the the investigations did not discredit these "real" apparitions, would you still consider them nonsense? it sounds as if you will only approve of scientific examination of such events if it they validate your personal belief, and that combined with the church's refusal to allow the events in Betania to be properly studied are precisely why i have to consider this just one more case of overzealous religious fraud. on to the next..

  I like your wit sierre, and karma

, here from your other POST, "The Unforgivable Sin! "

Is me, post # 46 to you,

Basics: OT /  Have no god before >ME< , the I AM, and have no Idols as well.

NT: / Cool atheist Jesus says,  I  (we)  are ONE with the Cosmos (father),  Ye are gods too, This is the kingdom/Heaven NOW, I AM as YOU , god.

Simple , but the ancient superstitious religious loons killed him, to later make J an idol  ...... that's the basic epic story.

Religion is poison idol worship of separation, all is ONE, eternal.  Thanks atheists Jesus/Buddha !  Boy did bible Paul screw up that simple J message ? .....   

and my J still weeps with me ..... yes the christ in me !  All Xians REPENT NOW ! The I AM demands, so that you will be 100% free (salvation) My way or the hiway !  There is no other way than the I AM !  

Doing the Dr. Jesus thing ,  I AM IS !!!!!!!   an atheist non-superstitious idea  

For instance: You failed to address the verified documentation that more than somewhat suggests Padre Pio was a mountebank who used a carbolic acid solution to cause the wounds he claimed to be stigmata.

JillSwift,

nothing hotter than a woman saying "duplicitous"!