American case echoes Savita story as Bishop strips hospital of Catholic affiliation

(… more) So here are my few proofs for BigDaddy and Seano, following - but you must research each one of them in the great variety of internet sites (or simply: Google or Bing for them) and make up your own mind. 1 - Jake Finkbonner (present-day). 2 - “The cures at Lourdes recognised by the Catholic Church” – this has highly scientific, medical descriptions of the nature of the illnesses cured by what we believers call “Divine Intervention”. In looking at this document, remember that, though Lourdes is famous for its miraculous waters, factually the majority of recognised miracles in Lourdes occurred during processions of the Holy Eucharist as It passed by the ill person during religious ceremonies there. 3 – Audrey Toguchi (present-day). 4 – “Three Secrets of Fatima” through Wikipedia and other sites (I’d actually recommend reading the book “Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words” which Wikipedia uextracts from). These are all empirical proofs that you claim do not exist and that’s only four out of thousands. (more…)

(…more) If you google ‘New Advent’, the Catholic Church’s official online encyclopaedia, you will find a 13,000-word well-discussed article on miracles (once on the site, read the Original Preface bit under the alphabet letters as a starter, then click on the letter ‘M’ of the alphabetical index and then scroll down for Miracle; ). BTW – miracles also occur in Orthodox, Coptic and other religions associated with our Christ and are equally vigorously investigated. A vision of Our Lady appearing over a Coptic Church in Egypt, witnessed by some 10,000 people, Christians and Muslims, was recorded by several video cameras a couple of years ago (see them on you tube). Coptics call the Catholic ‘Our Lady’, St. Virgin Mary. (Muslims also believe in the Virginity of Mary; Muslim and Christian pilgrims flock to the House of Mary and (St.) John in Ephesus, not far from Kusadasi in Turkey. I was there too).

(…more) One of the experts appointed to examine the case is always a non-believer, e.g. a respected humanist or atheist with a medical or scientific background, the so-called ‘devil’s advocate’ member, whose duty it is to examine the claim of a miracle dispassionately given his/her speciality (e.g. cancer, orthopaedics etc). The process of investigation takes many years, usually at least 5 yrs; some have gone on for 50 yrs and longer (no case for a miracle claim is ever closed to investigation). For a cure of a person to be declared a miracle, it must be a) complete; b) instantaneous; c) durable (i.e. – the sickness or physical ill-condition does not return) and d) the investigation must, after all physical matters has been exhaustedly examined in detail, admit natural forces alone could not have produced it, and the only rational explanation is to be had in the interference of a Divine agency (which we call ‘God’, or through Jesus Christ His Son, or through the intercession of a saint or of Our Lady). (more…)

BigDaddy – I’m going to try post the follow up (…more) comments to mine of 11.04pm yesterday that failed to appear last night. I think from your comments you are not a baptised Catholic like Seano is (though by his own admission he’s now lapsed into disbelief). That makes it more difficult for you to appreciate what believers like me say or offer as proofs. I’ve scoffed at claims of a Hindu miracle some years ago where milk was ‘miraculously’ drunk by statues of elephants in India. The Catholic Church adopts a similar careful “should we believe a miracle claim?” before declaring one. It launches a thorough examination of a miracle claim by a team of medical and theological experts. The Church views with utmost gravity all claims of miracles. (More…)

Seano, you choose that "in the mind" option of chickening out of belief. I made the choice to really find out for myself what this Christianity "lark" was all about and found it was anything but a lark... It's deadly serious; I hope you do too. Cheers... I'm hoping my full replies to BigDaddy get posted; hold your breath...

Jacer!! you beg the question on God. JE only exists in the mind and if you wish to believe a fairy tale thats your perogative. I choose to deal in facts not fiction. The proof of the existence of God is your burden not mind.

Such as when the RCC tells people in poverty stricken countries

But I'm OK with that

jacer, I never said I couldn't. But watching you assume I said that gives me a greater appreciation for what seano said; you really have no proof just inferences. But ImO with that. Perhaps you will try to understand that inferring things works both ways. Such as when the RCC has people in poverty stricken countries that condoms do not help prevent AIDS, wouldn't that be an attempt at mind control? Lying to people to get them to conform to your dogma would definitely be seen as mind control by most people, don't you think?

Back tomorrow... comments saved this time...

ICental binned me follow on comments again!

(…more) Empirical science HAS established that there are things happening in our world that it doesn't totally understand but yet totally accepts that they happened, specifically, in this discussion, relating to unexplainable events in ordinary people’s lives. They are all factual, physical occurrences called Miracles of some kind. You graciously asked for 3 or 4 proofs of the existence of an entity that we believers call ‘G*d’ and a place called ‘He*ven’ and (by extension) that there is an entity known as ‘Sa*an’ and a place called ‘H*ll’. You would need to look up the Catholic Church’s definition of a miracle on the Vatican’s website to fully appreciate what it means. The most difficult miracle most unbelievers have is in the resurrection back to life of the dead founder of Christianity but it is recognised by believers to be the prime example of why miracles still happen in our own present days. I could offer lots more proofs to intrigue you but for now… (more…)

BigDaddy: apologies if I seemed to cast you as a bully. In my post, I was influenced by memories of a famous wrestler called Big Daddy who acted the bully in the wrestling ring but was a kind-hearted man outside it and a huge favourite with sports fans. I’m an eldest male like you and so is one of my sons, so I guess by your Sth States of America understandings we’re all “BigDaddies”. *High Fives!* >>> I have to refute your claim that I’m turning ‘the issue’ on its head. Seano made the initial claim (Black moving first?? Forget the inference (I don’t regard Seano as ‘black’ in the sense of evil as black chess figures are seen against the whites (no racial tones pls, good vs evil allowed under popular perceptions as in white cowboy hats vs black cowboy hats); discussing the existence of a God is not a chess or cowboy game). I invited him and you to offer proof of your dismissing claims. Both of you have said you can’t, it’s impossible. Thank you both for that acknowledgement. (More…)

From RTE: "The report of the confidential Maternal Death Enquiry (MDE) in Ireland says that there were 25 maternal deaths for the period 2009-2011.... two of these deaths were due to suicide." This tally does not include women who fled to the UK or the mainland for crisis abortions, nor does it count women who died in crisis pregnancies outside of Ireland. How many deaths of pregnant women are acceptable to the Irish? Do the Irish consider it a morally relevant fact that prompt abortion can save lives and destroys no lives that could be saved?

jacers...first things first. BigDaddy is what people in the Southern part of the US call the eldest male member of the family. So, put your fears aside and know that I am not a bully. Now, if you would kindly share your "proofs" with me I would be most happy to acknowledge them as valid or to dispute them as the case may be. You need not offer thousands of them, 3 or 4 should work for a start. As for offering proofs that seano's assertions are true, I have to believe that you would do what you are doing now if I presented them to you. i.e., turning the issue on it's head. To claim there exists an omniscient being which looks after you and sometimes appears as a burning bush and impregnates young Jewish girls is at the least narcissistic (at the most delusional). To then ask me to prove that it doesn't exist is what a madman might do. To try and answer such a question would take an even greater madman but maybe I am just that. In the spirit of greater understanding, let me say that I am more than willing to offer you my proof but I assume that you feel as if you are the righteous party in this debate or the one wearing the white hat if you will. As such, the first move belongs to white, correct?