Catholic priests exorcise the entire country of Mexico to drive out demons.

a reply to: Isurrender73

But possession would violate our freewill, And I believe the scriptures on this, we never loose our freewill.

God may blind our eyes and ears for our arrogance, but we always have freewill to return to him.

Ghosts maybe? Possession absolutely not.

Different religions have different sacred stories. The old religions had most of their stories focused on a "mythical age", prehistory when the gods were sorting the known world out from chaos. From there, the worldview was cyclical, day/night, awake/asleep, springtime/harvest, etc.

Modern people see time as linear, counting years, a teleological view rather than cyclical. The god is seen as acting within history. Ethics reflect this; working with the god in partnership to help those around us, toward a better future.

The "mythical age" for Christianity revolves around the life/death/resurrection/elevation of the Christ. That, for Christians, is the time when the chaos was sorted out and the Christ determined human freedom from "evil/sin".

So to focus on "evil" as an entity to be fought does seem to be a backsliding into primordial chaos, like if an ancient Greek were to "go back to fight the Titans", that's already done, doesn't need to be done over again.

Christians have cyclical sacraments like Lord's Supper as a way to participate in the victory of the Christ. Fighting against "primordial chaos" probably should not be seen as a Christian sacrament.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: markosity1973

If you want to see a proper miracle image, look no further than the Tilma from Mexico

One of the problems with miracles is that we don't understand all the implications that they represent; such as, what, if any, understandings are affirmed or contradicted.

The main promoter of the cult was the Dominican Alonso de Montúfar, who succeeded the Franciscan Juan de Zumárraga as archbishop of Mexico. In a 1556 sermon Montúfar commended popular devotion to "Our Lady of Guadalupe," referring to a painting on cloth (a tilma) in the chapel of the Virgin Mary at Tepeyac, where certain miracles had occurred. Days later, Fray Francisco de Bustamante, local head of the Franciscan order, delivered a sermon denouncing the cult. He expressed concern that the Archbishop was promoting a superstitious regard for an image:

"The devotion at the chapel . . to which they have given the name Guadalupe was prejudicial to the Indians because they believed that the image itself worked miracles, contrary to what the missionary friars had been teaching them, and because many were disappointed when it did not."[15]

The next day Archbishop Montúfar opened an inquiry into the matter. At the inquiry, the Franciscans repeated their position that the image encouraged idolatry and superstition, and four witnesses testified to Bustamante's claim that the image was painted by an Indian, with one witness naming him "the Indian painter Marcos".[16] This could refer to the Aztec painter Marcos Cipac de Aquino, who was active at that time.[17][18] But "if he did, he did so without making a preliminary sketch - in itself a near-miraculous procedure.[...] Cipac may well have had a hand in painting the Image, but only in painting the additions, such as the angel and moon at the Virgin's feet",[19] claims Prof. Jody Brant Smith (referring to Philip Serna Callahan's examination of the tilma using infrared photography in 1979).
. . .
In the 16th century and probably continuing into the early 17th century, the image was modified by adding the mandorla-shaped sunburst around the Virgin, the stars on her cloak, the moon under her feet, and the angel with folded cloth supporting her - as was determined by an infrared and ocular study of the tilma in 1979.
Our Lady of Guadalupe

If nothing else, this shows that people tend to feel they have some liberty to manipulate the facts. The study of 1979 shows that the mandorla (almond shaped halo effect), the stars on cloak, the moon, and angel were added later to the miracle image. Was that to bring it in line with the then current Christian artistic depictions?

And latest science has picked up an amazing image in the eyes of the painting - a reflection of those who were present when the image was created. There is also much dispute over that 1979 studies findings.

Not the least in part because the stars surrounding her are actually a sky map. But that is another story all together.

Then there's the fact that it is on the most fragile material ever and it should have disintegrated years ago and that it has survived at least one attempt to destroy it.

As I have said all the way through this thread, belief is optional. I've got nothing to gain from changing anyone's opinions but what I have presented in Zeitoun and the Tilma has a lot, capital LOT of evidence to prove that they are at the very least unable I to be replicated in their entirety by current human technology.

originally posted by: Layaly
a reply to: rossacus

can I ask what you think about Teresa Neumann from Bavaria.

everybody is adding very interesting point of view

Teresa Neumann, the stigmatist I presume.

The stigmata is a medically observed phenomena. There is a slight problem that suggests it could be psychosomatic though. The position that the 'wounds' have appeared have kinda changed a few times in history in line with what was accepted at the time of the exact details of Christ's crucifixion. I.e from wrists to hands.

It's still a very interesting phenomenon and at least goes to prove how powerful the human mind can be.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Isurrender73

Fighting against "primordial chaos" probably should not be seen as a Christian sacrament.

No it should not.