Religious Phenomenon

stigmata, crying statues? how do we explain this?

 

Well..... either You can google it or I can.... guess which option I chose? ;-) But seriously, there is no reason to assume they are of a divine nature. For instance, the word stigmata is plural for Stigma, meaning a mark or brand. There have been reports of Muslims having marks (stigmatas) of the wounds of Mohamed. There have also been reports of people having post hypnotic wounds appear after suggestions of the wounds were entered into the patients mind during hynosis. Its also possible to self hynotize ones self and produce wounds that appear later. The mind can make the body react in many strange ways, in other words, the power of suggestion can be pretty strong in some individuals.

There was a recent (within the last 40 years or so) report of a Hindu statue of one of their gods that seemingly appeared to drink milk. It was wittnessed by millions in India. Turns out that the statue was made of a porus nature and the milk was being absorbed into the statue by capilary action. (You can google this too for more info). The point being that millions of Hindus were convinced that this was the Hindu god 'drinking" the milk. Does this mean that the Hindu god exists and is thirsty? To millions of Hindus, that's exactly what it means. Should we accept that this hindu god exists? Why or Why not? Should we give this "miracle" more credence than any of the Christian miracles because this happened within your parents life time? Why or why not?

The main point I'm trying to make is that just because there may be some phenomena that can't currently be explained by science, does not make it default to "divine" in nature. One other point to make..... people lie for attention.

 

Stigmata, a freaky movie, I liked it. Crying statues, never encountered one. I have seen such things in the movies and on TV, but I am not sure I have found any documentation of crying statues. People tend to believe what they want to believe. <(^o^)>

 

There SHOULD be a fair amount of documentation of statues crying, usually "tears of blood" that turn out to just be naturally occurring oxidisation of whatever the statue is made of. I'd say it was weird that it always comes from the eyes, but then, maybe it happens a lot more often than is reported but no-one bothers to report the Virgin Mary crying tears of blood out of the hem of her skirt.

 

Read this first: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1858430.stm

Then this: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article1081044.ece

Interesting who debunked this "crying" Padre Pio.

 

And my fuse box was the found out for the burning-out of the fuse at the tip this morning. The actual reality of the light in the kitchen going out was on January 12th.

 

That's actually fantastic. Everything about it is incredible. I mean, let's start with:

I mean, I love how people don't think, for one second: "Hmmm, that's odd. Because tears and blood... they'd be quite easy to wipe off a statue, wouldn't they?" Like, there's no question that they're not tears of blood, despite this. Fantastic!

And then the Vatican comes up with something as crazy as "these tears of blood are fake because of the sex of the statue". I mean, isn't it wonderful that someone who can entertain the notion that a statue can cry tears of blood would be dissuaded by the fact that the blood happened to be of the wrong sex?! Like, crying tears of blood is fine, a statue crying tears of blood is fine, but the idea that a statue might cry tears of blood that are not of the same sex as the person the statue is of... man, that's just a leap too far, isn't it?

This is why humans are awesome. Because they're frickin' MENTAL. I mean, how boring would the world be without shit like this to brighten up your day?

EDIT: OH WAIT, news just in:

 

LOL, womans blood, reminds me of South Park: Bloody Mary.

 

To be fair, The argument of fakery from sex is that on a male statue, it is unlikely that there would be female blood tears....

It is pretty spectacular though.

 

Oh, I know. Although let's remember that it's a statue of a male, rather than a male statue.

I just love that a statue crying tears of blood ceases to be a miracle purely because the blood is of the wrong sex. Would it not be considered a miracle if a human cried tears of blood of a different sex? I do kinda wonder...

That said, when I've heard about statues crying tears of blood, I've always wondered why no-one seems to ask whose blood it is.

 

I don't have an explanation for these phenomena, but I wouldn't rule out hoaxes and mass halucinations. A case in point are the regular miricales and sitings of the Blessed Virgin at Medjugorje, Herzgovina. Ever since she appeared and spoke to a group of children many years ago, people have been flocking to the site, where many report miraculous visions and happenings, such as the sun shifting in the sky, etc. Interestingly, not everybody in the audience sees these things. Obviously, if people spend large amounts of time and money traveling to the site, they're pretty predisposed to see a miracle. If they stare at the sun long enough, anything is possible. Also, at least one of the children continues to receive regular communications from Mary, which are passed on and published in newspapers, such as the one in my home town in Oklahoma. Two local bishops in succession have vigorously denounced the whole thing as a hoax, and have been villified for doing so by the believers. The children (now adult) had a handler in a local monk who has been accused of composing the Virgin's messages, but the Vatican has waffled on taking an unequivocal stand, possibly because so many believers might have a crisis of faith if Rome came out against the visions.

By the way, similar strange phenomena considered miracles have regularly happened at annual hippie gatherings of the Rainbow Family of the Living Light, which has a site on Hip Forums. These phenomena, which range from a white buffalo to an extra-heavy rainfall, are expected as confirmation of blessing of the event by the Spirit, God, Jah, Krishna, Gaia, Allah or whatever (it's a very non-denominational association). Of course, mushroom tea can't be ruled out as an explanation, and some of the occurrences don't seem that out of the ordinary to rule out coincidence. One that happened at the Vermont gathering in, maybe, 1990, was documented by Time magazine and witnessed by one of my relatives. It seems that a rainbow formed a circle around the sun just as a procession of children reached the center of the great circle to break the period of silence observed by the gatherers praying for peace. Good timing.