Theology III

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That doesn't really make much sense, siscoz. Studies are supposed to be some sort of proof for a given point. There are numerous studies which support points contradictory to the points of other studies. Obviously, if the two points are contradictory, they can't both be right. I don't take somebody holding a doctrinal point as proof of its veracity, but the study is, theoretically, supposed to prove or support the point. There is just no relation between people believing different things calling God's existence into question, and contradictory studies calling the sanity (etymologically speaking) of the study method into question.

I shall forgive you the word 'sanity" in this post, since it's nonsensical, and chalk it up to your frustration.

However, as to your main point. You, and other believing Christians in this thread, have repeatedly said, "Yeah, well, Christians agree on all the important things, therefore the constancy of their belief is good evidence for its validity." But you're not extending the same courtesy to the process of science.

In science, a number of things may contribute to the weight of evidence. Being a double-blind peer reviewed study published in a professional journal is worth more in scientific terms than being a graduate student's notion. Likewise proofs regarding the Bible that are supported by scholarship and tradition in some cases and those are worth more than religious points of view held by one scary dude with a church in the hills.

Neither science nor religion has unanimity of opinion. And certainly, in a forum like this, either can be misrepresented, either through ignorance or intent.

But still, the balance of your reason falls on the side which rejects, not only bad science, but science as a method for evaluating reality.

Thats' why I say Coffeehouse may as well save his querty.

But bad religion stagnates and ossifies?

Absolutely. Religion which does not manifest in ways that are incense to God, and inspiring to mankind, aren't worth the verses they're wrapped in.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Azrael

ok I just had a talk with my youth pastor, chap(leif can i call you chap?) and he told me what I had wrong. Mary is Jesus's mother (my bad im new at this stuff remember) but heres my question. Chap do you believe Mary was just who God choose to be Jesus's mother or do you believe she has has divineness about her? like do you believe she was more then just human?

sorry for being wrong guys like I said im still new at this and some of it is over my head hehe)

It depends on what you mean by divineness. Well, I'm assuming that by divineness you mean divinity, but it depends on what you mean by divinity. If you mean, was she a goddess, both of us have been very clear on that matter, as is the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, and as both have been for all of their histories.

She was "more" than any other human, but not beyond humanity.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Hard to sell that to an old Methodist.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I shall forgive you the word 'sanity" in this post, since it's nonsensical, and chalk it up to your frustration.

I was using it etymologically, in the sense of "soundness". "Soundness" didn't sound right. Then again, I suppose neither did sanity, but hey, a donkey's gotta choose one of the piles of hay, eh?

However, as to your main point. You, and other believing Christians in this thread, have repeatedly said, "Yeah, well, Christians agree on all the important things, therefore the constancy of their belief is good evidence for its validity." But you're not extending the same courtesy to the process of science.

Actually, I haven't said that, to the best of my knowledge. I don't post on this thread that often. You must be confusing me with Lief. Understandable, since we have the same name.

But if I were to say it (which I wouldn't), I imagine that I would mean it would show the validity of what they agree on, not what they argue about.

But still, the balance of your reason falls on the side which rejects, not only bad science, but science as a method for evaluating reality.

Only insofar as I believe in the law of non-contradiction.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Hard to sell that to an old Methodist.

It's hard to sell a lot of stuff to you, siscoz. I bet if I came by your house peddling candy, you'd give me the boot.

But, both Lief and myself (and I think, Hector?) are old Evangelical Protestants. That's harder to sell.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It depends on what you mean by divineness. Well, I'm assuming that by divineness you mean divinity, but it depends on what you mean by divinity. If you mean, was she a goddess, both of us have been very clear on that matter, as is the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church, and as both have been for all of their histories.

She was "more" than any other human, but not beyond humanity.

so are you saying she was just a human or did she have a divine quality...as in do you think she was a god? what he told me is yes she found righteousness in God's eyes but as being more then a human she was not...she still had sin and needed to be saved like all of us

[Gwaimir Windgem]

No, she was not a goddess. Such a doctrine would transcend heresy. Yes, she was a human. Yes, she still needed to be saved. No, she did not have sin, through the grace of God; the merits of Christ's death and resurrection were applied to her before it occurred, when she was conceived. But it was Christ's salvific act that enabled her to be sinless.

[Azrael]

when i say she had sin i meant like you and me yes by the grace of God we don't....we still sin tho

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's hard to sell a lot of stuff to you, siscoz. I bet if I came by your house peddling candy, you'd give me the boot.

You betcha. But a glass of cold water with it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

when i say she had sin i meant like you and me yes by the grace of God we don't....we still sin tho

I would say she was born almost just like Eve. Eve was born without sin, but was not a goddess. It's the same way for Mary, because Christ's blood rescued her from sin from the instant of her conception, so that she was without Original Sin.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Actually, I haven't said that, to the best of my knowledge. I don't post on this thread that often. You must be confusing me with Lief. Understandable, since we have the same name.

I don't think I've said this since becoming Catholic either. Many Protestants do many share many crucial doctrines with Catholics, but the view of what's "important" has been changing amongst Protestants since the Reformation. More and more has lost its "crucial doctrine," status. Within Catholicism, however, there is enormous consistency from the origins of Christianity up to now.

[Azrael]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I would say she was born almost just like Eve. Eve was born without sin, but was not a goddess. It's the same way for Mary, because Christ's blood rescued her from sin from the instant of her conception, so that she was without Original Sin.

Mary was born with sin...if she wasn't then she would not be human...and if you remember Eve was the first one in the garden to bite the apple.... but mary was born with sin and did sin but she was righteous in God's eye and was part of the david blood line so Jesus became human as a little baby and through the holy spirit entered her but since he did not take her DNA he was not born with sin...so only Jesus was born without original sin.... plus your also saying Jesus was in her before she was born but in the bible it clearly says when Jesus entered her womb.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

Mary was born with sin...if she wasn't then she would not be human...

Eve was born without sin, but she was human. So being born without sin doesn't make you non-human. It just makes you sinless.

Originally Posted by Azrael

and if you remember Eve was the first one in the garden to bite the apple.... but mary was born with sin and did sin

Where does the scripture say that, and why do you believe it?

Originally Posted by Azrael

but she was righteous in God's eye and was part of the david blood line so Jesus became human as a little baby and through the holy spirit entered her but since he did not take her DNA he was not born with sin...so only Jesus was born without original sin....

I agree with you that she came from David's bloodline and was righteous in God's eyes, but where do you get, from the Bible, that Jesus didn't take in her DNA? And if it doesn't come from the Bible, why do you believe it?

Originally Posted by Azrael

plus your also saying Jesus was in her before she was born but in the bible it clearly says when Jesus entered her womb.

I'm not saying Jesus was in her before she was born. Sorry if I gave the impression that that's what I meant.

She was the Mother of Jesus, so she was the mother of God, because Jesus is God, but Jesus exists before she was born. Jesus exists from eternity, but he came into her and she conceived him by the Holy Spirit, and then she became the Mother of God. That wasn't the moment Jesus came to exist- it was the moment he became Incarnate. He exists before that, and he exists always.

[Azrael]

Eve was born without sin, but she was human. So being born without sin doesn't make you non-human. It just makes you sinless.

but they were where sin started...but i see your point

Where does the scripture say that, and why do you believe it?

Im seeing this in NIV but it Gen 3:6 it says she took a bite then gave it to adam they both sinned.

I agree with you that she came from David's bloodline and was righteous in God's eyes, but where do you get, from the Bible, that Jesus didn't take in her DNA? And if it doesn't come from the Bible, why do you believe it?

Well lets say her DNA became a part of Jesus would that not say that would be adding to the body of Christ there for adding to God making human becoming a part of God instead of vise versa (i hope i said that right)

I'm not saying Jesus was in her before she was born. Sorry if I gave the impression that that's what I meant.

She was the Mother of Jesus, so she was the mother of God, because Jesus is God, but Jesus exists before she was born. Jesus exists from eternity, but he came into her and she conceived him by the Holy Spirit, and then she became the Mother of God. That wasn't the moment Jesus came to exist- it was the moment he became Incarnate. He exists before that, and he exists always.

Mother of Jesus so that he could become Human yes but Mother of God the God head no because Jesus put himself in her through the holy spirit therefore he was made and ready to go...well cept for he had to do the hole growing and being born to become human but you get my point...there was no sex or DNA transferring going on..Jesus looked the same as he did before he went in...as Himself God

hey you never answered me...can i call you Chap?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

but they were where sin started...but i see your point

Yeah, and for that matter, all the righteous people in heaven are humans and yet they're all completely sinless. So being sinless definitely doesn't make you non-human.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Im seeing this in NIV but it Gen 3:6 it says she took a bite then gave it to adam they both sinned.

I mean where does it say in scripture that Mary was born with sin and that she sinned.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Well lets say her DNA became a part of Jesus would that not say that would be adding to the body of Christ there for adding to God making human becoming a part of God instead of vise versa (i hope i said that right)

It's hard to add anything to God, when anything you successfully "add" to him he already had from eternity. You might add it to him in a temporal timeframe, but God already eternally had it, because if it becomes a part of his being, it always was part of his identity. Because He's the I AM.

In fact, some of the apparitions of Mary have included her holding the infant Jesus. His body is from eternity, so the infant Christ body was eternal too. Christ at every stage of his existence was eternal. Anything added to him was only added to him from a human perspective, I think, but truly God was always that way. Probably Gwaimir could give you a much better answer.

But no, in Catholicism, it isn't humanity becoming God but God taking on flesh- which is partly Mary's flesh. The scripture says the Word became flesh.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Mother of Jesus so that he could become Human yes but Mother of God the God head no

Well, this gets a little tricky because of the existence of the Trinity, of which Jesus is a part. So if she's the mother of Jesus and Jesus is one with God the Father and the Spirit, in a sense she might be considered mother of the Godhead. God is one. But we Catholics primarily think of her in terms of her motherhood of Jesus. And Jesus is God, so yes, being mother of Jesus, she's Mother of God.

Originally Posted by Azrael

hey you never answered me...can i call you Chap?

Sure, call me chap or leaf, I don't mind at all . I actually rather like it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

You do know, don't you, that "DNA" is not a Biblical concept.

[Azrael]

two things all I know about cus again we entered over my head. Both DNA and Mary's sins are not in the bible for one reason. The bible (God's word) is not concerned with it the bible follows one thing only...our fall and jesus repairing it HisLessions he taught us. It also goes with dinosaurs yes their in the bible (labiathan) but it only metion thems one or two times...why because thats all the Bible was concerned with...it affect a person in the bible once or tice so it was mentioned but God really doesn't find that apart of his plan. As for Mary sinning "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God" not it does not say "we all in and fall short of the glory of God except Mary" to think she was not a sinner is to think she is above humanity and is holy. Human in Heaven yes are sinless and yes are still humans..but on earth everyone who went to Heaven is in Heaven and ever will go to Heaven has sinned during their time on earth. You can not get away from the fact that everyone sinned mary, even paul he killed Christians remember? Everyone is a sinner and everyone needs God plain and simple but not everyone accepts this. Now what I think is instead of arguing among ourselves we should spread God's truth. I have gone all over the web too and seen all those pictures of "Mary" not one looked like her most of them didn't even look close to a person or anything of that such. To say that mary was above that church showing her self is the same as saying that the Devils face was in the smoke of the twin towers. Anyone can make things look like other things...as for those pictures of whatever was above that church angel or what is not really that important, but God's word is...i'd say Chap instead of showing coffee pictures stick to the Word! God's word is more powerful then anything us humans can come up with.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Azrael

two things all I know about cus again we entered over my head. Both DNA and Mary's sins are not in the bible for one reason. The bible (God's word) is not concerned with it the bible follows one thing only...our fall and jesus repairing it HisLessions he taught us. It also goes with dinosaurs yes their in the bible (labiathan) but it only metion thems one or two times...why because thats all the Bible was concerned with...it affect a person in the bible once or tice so it was mentioned but God really doesn't find that apart of his plan.

I agree that God's focus in the Bible is his salvation plan. My point in mentioning that Mary's sins are not in the Bible is to point out that the belief that she sinned is not scriptural, but is rather a human interpretation, a human tradition that started around 1600. So we're clashing a sixteenth or seventeenth century tradition with one that goes back to the beginning of the Church. Protestants are not any more based on scripture in this than Catholics are. Though Catholics, like Protestants, do have a handful of passages they can point to, to base their belief about this on.

Originally Posted by Azrael

As for Mary sinning "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God" not it does not say "we all in and fall short of the glory of God except Mary"

Neither does it say, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except the angels." Nor, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except those in heaven, who don't sin anymore." Nor, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except Jesus." Jesus, you know, was also fully human, an obvious exception that isn't mentioned. The statement, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God," is clearly not one that has zero exceptions. It's a statement that's generally true, sweepingly true, especially of living humans on Earth, but clearly there are exceptions to this broad statement. Jesus is one exception, fully human, yet not included.

We Catholics see Mary also as one of those very few human exceptions. Really, one of the only four humans to ever have been conceived this way on Earth.

It's certainly fun discussing this with you, by the way .

Originally Posted by Azrael

to think she was not a sinner is to think she is above humanity and is holy.

We do certainly think she is holy. So did the Angel Gabriel. When he greeted her, he said, "Hail, Full of Grace." He called her, "Full of Grace," as a title. The Greek word refers to something that is presently true, and simultaneously something that was true in the past. It refers to a past incident as well as a present one, a reference to her having been full of grace in the past as well as now. So Mary became at some time in her past life full of grace. This is especially indicated also by the fact that Gabriel called her that as a title.

Some Protestant Bible have retranslated it, "highly favored," IMO largely to get away from the fact that this title for Mary from Gabriel implies her purity and sinlessness. This retranslation only occurred with the Reformation.

Your claim that she was, "above humanity," is harder for me to respond to, as I don't know precisely what you mean by that. Were Adam and Eve "above humanity," because they were made without sin?

Originally Posted by Azrael

Human in Heaven yes are sinless and yes are still humans..but on earth everyone who went to Heaven is in Heaven and ever will go to Heaven has sinned during their time on earth. You can not get away from the fact that everyone sinned mary, even paul he killed Christians remember? Everyone is a sinner and everyone needs God plain and simple but not everyone accepts this.

Mary needed God too, according to Catholic theology. We believe he saved her by his blood, but he did so before she sinned, saving her by preventing her from experiencing Original Sin.

Originally Posted by Azrael

Now what I think is instead of arguing among ourselves we should spread God's truth.

If you want to stop this discussion of Mary, that's okay. I'm rather enjoying it, but it's up to you.

Originally Posted by Azrael

I have gone all over the web too and seen all those pictures of "Mary" not one looked like her most of them didn't even look close to a person or anything of that such.

Artists use their imaginations. It's not supposed to be a photograph- merely a picture to cause people to remember her. That's what artists do . Though sometimes they have good material to work off of. For instance, a number of them take material from the Book of Revelation, which describes a woman shining like the sun that Catholics interpret as simultaneously representing both the Virgin Mary and the Church. Also, some of them take material from the experiences of visionaries, which is likewise quite valid. But I agree that obviously none of them will be extremely accurate. The experience of seeing the Virgin Mary, according to visionaries, is so extraordinary that it is utterly beyond imagining.

Originally Posted by Azrael

To say that mary was above that church showing her self is the same as saying that the Devils face was in the smoke of the twin towers. Anyone can make things look like other things...

Too many eyewitness stories disagree with you for that to be plausible. An image in smoke is one thing. Clouds can have odd shapes too. A visible woman pulsating glorious heavenly light in the dead of night, accompanied by all kinds of other apparitions, is something else entirely.

Originally Posted by Azrael

as for those pictures of whatever was above that church angel or what is not really that important, but God's word is...i'd say Chap instead of showing coffee pictures stick to the Word! God's word is more powerful then anything us humans can come up with.

I don't think I'm coming up with anything. God came up with it. He chose to send his mother to visit Egypt and opened Heaven, releasing angels and doves shining with light and revealing his mother to the international press, Egypt's president and millions of observers.

Jesus also, when he was on Earth, pointed to miracles his Father in heaven had accomplished in order to convince others to believe his message. He didn't only point to the scripture, though he sometimes did that too (especially seeing as his audience already accepted the truth of the scripture, so there was common ground). That's no different than what I'm doing. I sometimes use scripture and sometimes point out marvelous signs of God. As St. Paul said, "the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power."

We should give the message too, of course. But you have to understand that unhappily, non-Christians on this site often reject the message of the scripture because they see it as simply one other old book. So while I use scripture at times, and spend much of my time trying to show why scripture is to be believed (the first order of the day in religion threads on Entmoot), I use whatever tools God has provided me to try to open doors for human souls between Earth and Heaven.

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree that God's focus in the Bible is his salvation plan. My point in mentioning that Mary's sins are not in the Bible is to point out that the belief that she sinned is not scriptural, but is rather a human interpretation, a human tradition that started around 1600. So we're clashing a sixteenth or seventeenth century tradition with one that goes back to the beginning of the Church. Protestants are not any more based on scripture in this than Catholics are. Though Catholics, like Protestants, do have a handful of passages they can point to, to base their belief about this on.

Neither does it say, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except the angels." Nor, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except those in heaven, who don't sin anymore." Nor, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God except Jesus." Jesus, you know, was also fully human, an obvious exception that isn't mentioned. The statement, "we all sin and fall short of the glory of God," is clearly not one that has zero exceptions. It's a statement that's generally true, sweepingly true, especially of living humans on Earth, but clearly there are exceptions to this broad statement. Jesus is one exception, fully human, yet not included.

We Catholics see Mary also as one of those very few human exceptions. Really, one of the only four humans to ever have been conceived this way on Earth.

It's certainly fun discussing this with you, by the way .

We do certainly think she is holy. So did the Angel Gabriel. When he greeted her, he said, "Hail, Full of Grace." He called her, "Full of Grace," as a title. The Greek word refers to something that is presently true, and simultaneously something that was true in the past. It refers to a past incident as well as a present one, a reference to her having been full of grace in the past as well as now. So Mary became at some time in her past life full of grace. This is especially indicated also by the fact that Gabriel called her that as a title.

Some Protestant Bible have retranslated it, "highly favored," IMO largely to get away from the fact that this title for Mary from Gabriel implies her purity and sinlessness. This retranslation only occurred with the Reformation.

Your claim that she was, "above humanity," is harder for me to respond to, as I don't know precisely what you mean by that. Were Adam and Eve "above humanity," because they were made without sin?

Mary needed God too, according to Catholic theology. We believe he saved her by his blood, but he did so before she sinned, saving her by preventing her from experiencing Original Sin.

If you want to stop this discussion of Mary, that's okay. I'm rather enjoying it, but it's up to you.

Artists use their imaginations. It's not supposed to be a photograph- merely a picture to cause people to remember her. That's what artists do . Though sometimes they have good material to work off of. For instance, a number of them take material from the Book of Revelation, which describes a woman shining like the sun that Catholics interpret as simultaneously representing both the Virgin Mary and the Church. Also, some of them take material from the experiences of visionaries, which is likewise quite valid. But I agree that obviously none of them will be extremely accurate. The experience of seeing the Virgin Mary, according to visionaries, is so extraordinary that it is utterly beyond imagining.

Too many eyewitness stories disagree with you for that to be plausible. An image in smoke is one thing. Clouds can have odd shapes too. A visible woman pulsating glorious heavenly light in the dead of night, accompanied by all kinds of other apparitions, is something else entirely.

I don't think I'm coming up with anything. God came up with it. He chose to send his mother to visit Egypt and opened Heaven, releasing angels and doves shining with light and revealing his mother to the international press, Egypt's president and millions of observers.

Jesus also, when he was on Earth, pointed to miracles his Father in heaven had accomplished in order to convince others to believe his message. He didn't only point to the scripture, though he sometimes did that too (especially seeing as his audience already accepted the truth of the scripture, so there was common ground). That's no different than what I'm doing. I sometimes use scripture and sometimes point out marvelous signs of God. As St. Paul said, "the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power."

We should give the message too, of course. But you have to understand that unhappily, non-Christians on this site often reject the message of the scripture because they see it as simply one other old book. So while I use scripture at times, and spend much of my time trying to show why scripture is to be believed (the first order of the day in religion threads on Entmoot), I use whatever tools God has provided me to try to open doors for human souls between Earth and Heaven.

souls between Earth and Heaven.[/QUOTE]

Dear Lief, much as I realized from day one in this thread that I won't be persuading any Christians to re-evaluate their faith, it was not my intention either. What I would like to do however is point out inconsistencies in the faith, my problems with these inconsistencies and a few troubling aspects of the nature of God, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
I'll have to break it to you then that your fighting an impossible uphill struggle if you are trying to win people like me over to believing in God. I see the good nature in your attempts at conversion, but I respectfully decline; it's not going to happen

Sis is right. If a believer is pre-disposed to cast science out of the window in favor of personal opinions with no basis on evidence.. well, then reasoning doesn't get me very far But here's a shot at it. I at least find the pile of explanations and researchers in all areas of science and social science to be so much more fulfilling:

F.ex. the Coptic Church in the Zeitoun district in Cairo and the seemingly Virgin Mary-like apparitions.

Let's begin with the fact that you state over one million people at one time or another witnessed the luminescence over the said church during the 3-year period. To witness it you must stand fairly close to the Church. This is a city of millions and a city of a million lights. So I would stipulate that the majority of people who did see the lights gathered in the near proximity of the Church.

That this many people saw the what appears to be luminescence and packs of light 'hovering' or 'swaying' above the Church, and understand this to be Virgin Mary standing there with doves flying around her head I take to be a case of mass delusion. It's a fairly straigt-forward process because as we all know, human beings are flock animals.
We have the 'flock mentality', i.e. conformity of thinking during times of stress (be it positive or negative stress). It's a conformity of thinking that let's us survive as individuals, because being a part of a group and agreeing with the group in times of stress is a whole lot easier and satisfying than not to. There's nothing wrong about it, but it's a trap that ensnares effectively the human mind.
So there is a term for mass delusions in psychology which is called motor hysteria. And here's a definition of it: "Motor hysteria is prevalent in intolerable social situations such as strict school and religious settings where discipline is excessive. Symptoms include trance-like states, melodramatic acts of rebellion known as histrionics, and what physicians term "psychomotor agitation" (whereby pent-up anxiety built up over a long period results in disruptions to the nerves or neurons that send messages to the muscles, triggering temporary bouts of twitching, spasms, and shaking). Motor hysteria appears gradually over time and usually takes weeks or months to subside"
So how can we describe the social situation in f.ex. the Zeitoun district in Cairo, and how does this correlate with the above definition?

Firstly, the Zeitoun district is home to a mixed Christian-Muslim population. But this is no walk-on-roses community. Here we have Orthodox Christian groups and Wahabi Salafist Islamist groups, who with inflaming language try to spread the same type of conformist religious dogma that would make the strict religious schools in f.ex. Saudi Arabia proud.

Secondly, we have the year 1968, when President Nasser ruled Egypt. The rule of Nasser was a period of repression and police violence that make Mubarak's current regime in Egypt look mild. This was the very same period in time when student demonstrations wreaked havoc in Paris. The Tet offensive in Vietnam. 1968 was a year of turmoil in the world that has been particularly noted in history books. The point is that this was a time that most of the million people who watched this luminescence lived in a constant shadow of gov't repression with much social anxiety among both the working, the middle and the upper classes in Cairo. 1968-1971 (When Nasser died and the new dictator Sadat stepped in) was a particularly socially violent period. A time of anxiety. I would then say this; that the vast majority of the million people who witnessed this luminescence were particularly well-disposed to view such a bizarre sight as something meaningful, or something pleasing, or something that unites people, or something that takes on an importance higher than that of the very repressive regime that existed at the time. The police, a hated entity in Cairo at the time, known for their violence (even against judges), would make a pleasing sight for many people of Cairo as they went about not being able to stop the luminescence or find its cause. In short, it was something beyond the control of the gov't. Us vs. them, collective delusion as an answer to tough conditions. It would therefore appear that the observers of this luminescence were predisposed to believe that what they saw was of a religious nature as this was societally expected, and Zeitoun being a particularly religious district.

3. The luminescence above the said Church would be a spectacular event in human history had not the same type of luminescence and the much more frequent sighting of UFO's not been reported every year, every month, every week and every day. I take it these sightings of luminescence are as valid as any other, they often being seen by hundreds and sometimes thousands of witnesses. Do you Lief, believe in UFO's?
For my part, the answer is clear. It has been a consistent occurance that luminescence and great swathes of light anomalies occur close to fault lines in the Earth.
I'll extend my reasoning a bit further. There are absolutely no fault lines in my country Norway. There is not a shred of geologic disturbance in this long and winding country of mine. In the far stretch of coastline that is southern Norway, also known as the Bible Belt here, there is not a single seismic activity of any kind. Similarly, there are no lights, there are no sightings. In Norway you just never see anomalies of light hanging around in the air. UFO sightings? Absurdly infrequent. The most spectacular sighting we have are the northern lights and thankfully science adequately provides an explanation for all to see and understand This is a detour, but the bottom-line is that location is everything and so is societal expectation. The luminescence above the said Church in Cairo is a shining example of this.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

like the pun.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Dear Lief, much as I realized from day one in this thread that I won't be persuading any Christians to re-evaluate their faith, it was not my intention either. What I would like to do however is point out inconsistencies in the faith, my problems with these inconsistencies and a few troubling aspects of the nature of God, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Feel free to do so. I want to help end these problems for you. I just sometimes wish you'd slow down a bit and pay closer attention to what I said, because sometimes you make me restate the same point three or four times.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

I'll have to break it to you then that your fighting an impossible uphill struggle if you are trying to win people like me over to believing in God. I see the good nature in your attempts at conversion, but I respectfully decline; it's not going to happen

I see. We'll see .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

Sis is right. If a believer is pre-disposed to cast science out of the window in favor of personal opinions with no basis on evidence.. well, then reasoning doesn't get me very far

Agreed. Not that I see myself or any of the other believers on this thread as a part of that category. We've been posting many good reasons to believe, loads of evidence. In fact, I usually get a very, very strong feeling that you are throwing out reason and hard evidence in favor of personal opinion. And I guess you feel the same way about me . . . Tough chicken for us .

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

But here's a shot at it. I at least find the pile of explanations and researchers in all areas of science and social science to be so much more fulfilling:

They do what they can to explain it. Something bizarre happened, from their perspective, and they want to try to find a non-religious explanation for it, so even if very little fits their theory, scientists will come up with something. They're too interested to leave so dramatic an incident scientifically unexplained .

But you can see for yourself from simply looking at the photos that this explanation is completely ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

F.ex. the Coptic Church in the Zeitoun district in Cairo and the seemingly Virgin Mary-like apparitions.

Let's begin with the fact that you state over one million people at one time or another witnessed the luminescence over the said church during the 3-year period. To witness it you must stand fairly close to the Church. This is a city of millions and a city of a million lights. So I would stipulate that the majority of people who did see the lights gathered in the near proximity of the Church.

Agreed. That logically follows. Besides, if people hear about a miracle-working apparition that's present for all to see and is in their city, you'll naturally get a lot of curious sightseers.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

That this many people saw the what appears to be luminescence and packs of light 'hovering' or 'swaying' above the Church, and understand this to be Virgin Mary standing there with doves flying around her head I take to be a case of mass delusion. It's a fairly straigt-forward process because as we all know, human beings are flock animals.

One of the luminescent flocks of doves has been photographed, flying high in the sky, in the shape of a cross. I gave you the link to the picture earlier.

The picture I relinked at the bottom of this post has the clearest image of a dove that I've seen, from this incident. It shows the dove hovering directly above the apparition of a person in flowing robes. We know for sure that this isn't hysteria of the crowd because you and I can see it ourselves.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

We have the 'flock mentality', i.e. conformity of thinking during times of stress (be it positive or negative stress). It's a conformity of thinking that let's us survive as individuals, because being a part of a group and agreeing with the group in times of stress is a whole lot easier and satisfying than not to. There's nothing wrong about it, but it's a trap that ensnares effectively the human mind.
So there is a term for mass delusions in psychology which is called motor hysteria. And here's a definition of it: "Motor hysteria is prevalent in intolerable social situations such as strict school and religious settings where discipline is excessive. Symptoms include trance-like states, melodramatic acts of rebellion known as histrionics, and what physicians term "psychomotor agitation" (whereby pent-up anxiety built up over a long period results in disruptions to the nerves or neurons that send messages to the muscles, triggering temporary bouts of twitching, spasms, and shaking). Motor hysteria appears gradually over time and usually takes weeks or months to subside"
So how can we describe the social situation in f.ex. the Zeitoun district in Cairo, and how does this correlate with the above definition?

Firstly, the Zeitoun district is home to a mixed Christian-Muslim population. But this is no walk-on-roses community. Here we have Orthodox Christian groups and Wahabi Salafist Islamist groups, who with inflaming language try to spread the same type of conformist religious dogma that would make the strict religious schools in f.ex. Saudi Arabia proud.

Secondly, we have the year 1968, when President Nasser ruled Egypt. The rule of Nasser was a period of repression and police violence that make Mubarak's current regime in Egypt look mild. This was the very same period in time when student demonstrations wreaked havoc in Paris. The Tet offensive in Vietnam. 1968 was a year of turmoil in the world that has been particularly noted in history books. The point is that this was a time that most of the million people who watched this luminescence lived in a constant shadow of gov't repression with much social anxiety among both the working, the middle and the upper classes in Cairo. 1968-1971 (When Nasser died and the new dictator Sadat stepped in) was a particularly socially violent period. A time of anxiety. I would then say this; that the vast majority of the million people who witnessed this luminescence were particularly well-disposed to view such a bizarre sight as something meaningful, or something pleasing, or something that unites people, or something that takes on an importance higher than that of the very repressive regime that existed at the time. The police, a hated entity in Cairo at the time, known for their violence (even against judges), would make a pleasing sight for many people of Cairo as they went about not being able to stop the luminescence or find its cause. In short, it was something beyond the control of the gov't. Us vs. them, collective delusion as an answer to tough conditions. It would therefore appear that the observers of this luminescence were predisposed to believe that what they saw was of a religious nature as this was societally expected, and Zeitoun being a particularly religious district.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

They were seen by millions of Egyptians and foreigners, including Copts, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews and people of no particular faith.

There were vast numbers of conversions to Christianity as a result of the visions. People changed faith, so this wasn't in accord with the faith of all the witnesses. Certainly not of the "Protestants . . . Jews and people of no particular faith." They have no place for Marian apparitions in their beliefs. Muslims don't have that much place for her in their theology either. The fact that vast numbers of conversions occurred shows that this did not fit with the religious preconceptions of all concerned.

I agree with you that it was not an easy time in the world, though.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

3. The luminescence above the said Church would be a spectacular event in human history had not the same type of luminescence and the much more frequent sighting of UFO's not been reported every year, every month, every week and every day. I take it these sightings of luminescence are as valid as any other, they often being seen by hundreds and sometimes thousands of witnesses. Do you Lief, believe in UFO's?

I've never heard, personally, of a UFO sighting before thousands of witnesses. I'm not sure about the hundreds number you offer. Usually, of course, it's just one or two people. Sometimes a lot of people see it together, though. Those incidents have a great deal more credibility because of the number of eyewitnesses.

I've read that something like 98% of UFO encounters can be explained as either weather phenomenon, hoaxes, actual sightings of new military aircraft being tested that the government can't talk about, natural explanations of various kinds. About 2% are impossible to explain by scientific means.

I believe that in the majority of these occasions, the witnesses are reporting accurately what they saw. Especially when there are multiple witnesses together who saw it. When we get into scientifically unexplainable phenomenon, such as lights hurtling through the sky at 1000 MPH and reversing direction with the speed of a bullet, zig-zagging through the sky at impossible speeds, or cascades of shining snowflakes falling to earth, shining in dazzling light for a while and then vanishing without a trace, or aliens appearing and talking to groups of people and then disappearing into thin air, things of that sort, or other UFO phenomenon that reach into the more bizarre and leave broad physical traces, when there are plenty of witnesses together, I'm likely to believe that they're accurately describing what they saw or experienced. A lot of corroborating stories is good evidence.

That doesn't mean that their interpretation of these phenomenon is correct. While I believe they did see aliens coming from spacecraft, these weren't really aliens or spacecraft- they were spiritual entities posing as aliens. These kinds of UFO encounters are widely acknowledged by researchers to closely parallel mystical experiences people have been having for centuries. The appearances of the aliens and their actions, the kinds of episodes, closely parallel mystical experiences people have described in past centuries of gods, werewolves, vampires, demons, jinns, fairies or other such creatures. I agree with the majority of researchers that UFO encounters are a continuation of these phenomenon. These encounters also usually involve people that have a history in the occult. I think the 2% of unexplainable encounters are usually demons.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

For my part, the answer is clear. It has been a consistent occurance that luminescence and great swathes of light anomalies occur close to fault lines in the Earth.
I'll extend my reasoning a bit further. There are absolutely no fault lines in my country Norway. There is not a shred of geologic disturbance in this long and winding country of mine. In the far stretch of coastline that is southern Norway, also known as the Bible Belt here, there is not a single seismic activity of any kind. Similarly, there are no lights, there are no sightings. In Norway you just never see anomalies of light hanging around in the air. UFO sightings? Absurdly infrequent. The most spectacular sighting we have are the northern lights and thankfully science adequately provides an explanation for all to see and understand

Actually, this isn't quite correct.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1832.htm

These luminous sightings are still being reported at Hessdalen, Norway.

Originally Posted by Coffeehouse

This is a detour, but the bottom-line is that location is everything and so is societal expectation. The luminescence above the said Church in Cairo is a shining example of this.

You know, although I've already pointed out that many non-religious people, or people whose backgrounds reject Marian apparitions, saw them and there were vast numbers of conversions to Christianity, this kind of refutation of the societal expectation argument isn't even that necessary. The predisposition of the onlookers as they looked at the lights isn't even necessary for us to get into. You can't explain it away by arguing why these creatures looked like doves to them, or why the apparition of Mary looked like a woman dressed in flowing robes to them. You have to explain why they look that way to you.

Please look again at the photograph and study it carefully for a minute or two. It shows one of the doves hovering right above Mary's head, and that is clearly a bird. It shows the figure of a woman with visibly flowing robes, and an obvious halo. Again, that is obviously what we're looking at. You and I aren't looking at some fluctuating ball of light. The shapes are definite. You and I can see that.
http://indefenseofthecross.com/images/zeitoun6.jpg