Well, most of you saw the exorcist and you would know that it is based on a true story, well, what do you think about it? I read a story about how a man in a hospital after no one could cure the girl they asked for a priest and he tried to cure her, well he did, after that they jumped out of the room and they locked the room sealed it completely the exact same way as it was, blood throw up everywhere, and then they put a giant statue of saint. Michael in front of the door, there is no explanation AT ALL for what happened to the girl, other than that it was a demon, and it is a confirmed fact that the priest cured her. and about stigmata, there is no medical or scientific explanation for that either. the people spontanteously bleed, if any of you have heard of i think his name was Padre Pio, and he had stigmata, and his blood stained garment is in a museum. No matter what they did he kept on bleeding same places as christ, WIth a great amount of pain as well. Do any of you Athiest and skeptics have ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF OR VALID THEORY ON THIS NOT BEING THE WORKS OF GOD AND DEMONIC SPIRITS?!

the human mind.

how come christians never get possessed by angels and such?

how come those who practice voodoo never get possessed by demons with ulterior motives.

i think demonic spirits and stigmata are just another way to scare the sheep into the pen. i don't believe it, completely. i'll believe that there are some extremely odd coincidences that could be linked to whatever grand force there is out there, but...demonic spirits, hell, bleeding from places that christ bled from. it's all there to scare people onto the 'right path.' i'll believe it when i see it

I counter question you: do you have any proof that a demonic spirit gave the man the stigmata?

Most stigmatas appear on the palms. Too bad Christ was crusified in the wrists like everyone else. Their hands would have been torn from their bodies if all their weight was supported in such a manner.

A major reason why instances of it are either deliberately inflicted or psychosomatic.

You can burn someone with a simple ice cube if they believe strongly enough that the ice cube will burn them. It's been done under hypnosis. A person will place the ice cube at a spot on their body and the person will get burns and blisters at the site.

quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

Do any of you Athiest and skeptics have ANY CONCLUSIVE PROOF OR VALID THEORY ON THIS NOT BEING THE WORKS OF GOD AND DEMONIC SPIRITS?!

Do you have any conclusive proof that it is?

of course not, I'm just going for the benefit of the doubt, and let's get something straight, sorry if i worded it incorrectly i meant that the girl was possessed and that the man was some what blessed.

quote:Originally posted by DuctTape20:

Most stigmatas appear on the palms. Too bad Christ was crusified in the wrists like everyone else. Their hands would have been torn from their bodies if all their weight was supported in such a manner.

Actually the description of Jesus' death is different from everyone elses because he was not tied to a cross like everyone else, he was nailed, and yes his palms would have ripped if he had alot of weight like the humans of today, but research shows that a man could have been easily held up by his hands because of there weight was much lighter than today's and my other point is Stigmata is strange unstoppable bleeding where the marks of christ's wounds were, which include the palms and the feet. But isn't it strange that it only happens to christians? I found that odd

quote:Originally posted by LeBagelEstMort:

i think demonic spirits and stigmata are just another way to scare the sheep into the pen. i don't believe it, completely. i'll believe that there are some extremely odd coincidences that could be linked to whatever grand force there is out there, but...demonic spirits, hell, bleeding from places that christ bled from. it's all there to scare people onto the 'right path.' i'll believe it when i see it

Well, what if your eyes are wrong? for example "I" is that an I? you would say so...but everything is put into human context and what body parts we utilize. The fact is that that could be a secret T but just looks like an eye. Seeing is believing is not always true, the only way you can prove things for a fact is mathematics. At least that is what I believe. But I don't think I need to know something is a fact when by nature it is a belief.

The stigmata are wounds believed to duplicate the wounds of Christ's crucifixion that appear on the hands and feet, and sometimes on the side and head, of a person. The fact that the stigmata appear differently on its victims is strong evidence that the wounds are not genuinely miraculous.

St. Francis of Assisi (1182 - 1226), devoted to imitate Christ in all ways, apparently inflicted himself with wounds and perpetuated the first stigmatic fraud. There have been several hundred others since, including Magdalena de la Cruz (1487-1560) of Spain (who admitted her fraud when she became seriously ill) and Therese Neumann of Bavaria (1898-1962). The latter reportedly survived for 35 years eating only the "bread" of the Holy Eucharist at mass each morning. She was also said to be clairvoyant and capable of astral projection.

One of the more recent stigmatics, Fr. James Bruce, claimed not only to have Christ's wounds but also that religious statues wept in his presence. This was in 1992 in a suburb of Washington, D.C., where strange things are common. Needless to say, he packed the pews. He now runs a parish in rural Virginia where the miracles have ceased.

Self-inflicted wounds are common among people with certain kinds of brain disorders. Claiming that the wounds are miraculous is rare and is more likely due to excessive religiosity than to a diseased brain, though both could be at work in some cases.

The likelihood that the wounds are psychosomatic (psychogenic purpuras), manifested by tortured souls, seems less likely than hoaxing in most cases. There are two main reasons for believing the stigmata are usually self-inflicted, rather than psychosomatic or miraculous.

One, no stigmatic ever manifests these wounds from start to finish in the presence of others. Only when they are unwatched do they start to bleed. (There is one apparent exception to this rule: Catia Rivas.) And two, Hume's rule in "Of Miracles" is that when an alleged miracle occurs we ask ourselves which would be more miraculous, the alleged miracle or that we are being hoaxed?

Reasonableness requires us to go with the lesser of two miracles, the least improbable, and conclude that we are witnessing not miracles but pious frauds.

All 32 or so recorded cases of stigmata have been Roman Catholics and all but four of those cases were women. No case of stigmata is known to have occurred before the thirteenth century, when the crucified Jesus became a standard icon of Christianity in the west. Reasonableness seems to require the non-miraculous explanation.

One of the latest to be added to the list of alleged stigmatics is Audrey Santo, a child who has been in a coma since 1987 when she was three years old. What kind of people are inspired by the concept of a God who would render a child comatose and then inflict wounds on her? Joe Nickell thinks he has the answer.

People seem to hunger for some tangible religious experience, and wherever there is such profound want there is the opportunity for what may be called "pious fraud." Money is rarely the primary motive, the usual impetus being to seemingly triumph over adversity, renew the faith of believers, and confound the doubters.

People also don't want to think God would allow purposeless and gratuitous pain. They like to feel important and please those with power over them. What could be more special than being chosen to suffer the Savior's wounds and torments? What could please God more than being a living proof of God's existence? Well, being honest and truthful might be a good start.



quote:Originally posted by Hammer&Sickle:

of course not, I'm just going for the benefit of the doubt,



The doubt never has the benefit. Something has to confirm a claim in order for it to be valid. If your going to give one thing the benefit of the doubt, you should give all things the benefit of the doubt so as not to be a biased thinker. After all, they all have doubt.

If I gave everything the benefit of the doubt, I would have to seriously entertain the notion that Cthulhu, Leprechauns, and Goblins that designed my brain on a supercomputer 5 minutes ago are valid. This creates a stupendous amount of cognitive dissonance, is a drastic upheaval on all reality anchors, and induces flawed perceptions and gullibility.

two things that you didn't mention, 1. Is there proof of St. Francis of Assissi slef inflicting wounds? and if so what website or book did you find it in, and please I hope that it is written in a Scientific sense and not a skeptical one. 2. You didn't mention the incident of "Padre Pio"