Discussion on the FSM- keep it clean/respectful

star of bethlehem youtube

Ok, r2 and Mano have another opportunity to look at the video.  Type above in to browser and you'll get to see it ( albeit ) broken up into 5 individual videos to cover the entire original video.  Honestly, I have now given 4 point blank references to similar events ( Akita, Medjugore and Garabandal )and have not had a single reply... so I'm not sure why trying now is going to change anything ... do the same thing over and over again ... expecting different results ? ... crazy ... * Mano tried on one occasion but his response absolutely indicated his pre thought on the topic but in no way addressed the actual referenced material ...  If you would look at the material and converse, I would appreciate it, and you may also.

Lts was quite right in his timing of the events pertaining to the Star ... our world, our solar system... the entire universe runs like clockwork, as I believe a guy named Johannas Kepler ( pious, devout Lutheran ) found centuries ago ... ( and no, the point here is a mathmatician and astronomer found the moving universe to be against the prevailing Christian view, but pressed on ... not when he did it ... but that he did against prevailing Christian view.)  This clockwork manisfestation of movement, univeresally, was initiated from the very beginning ( in your view or ours ) and in ours, the God of all thought, pressed it in to motion ( 14 billion yrs ago ? ) to have it occur exactly and simultaneously as the wise men needed it to follow as the Christ was being born.  From the very beginning of our universes' time God's plan was initiated and followed though to completion some 13.9 billion years after His "thoughtful" big bang.

Too many coincidences for me and the video will help with that statement.  Please watch and report back what you think. 


MoS 

I haven't spoken of the Star of Bethlehem, and to be honest, I still haven't watched MoS's video, so I can't speak to it either.

Get on the stick Canookiness ..  I want to hear your thoughts ... It's not a game changer to your or my opinions, but will help support the Star's very possible reality as spoken of in the bible.  

Now, forgive me because, again, I didn't watch the video, but if the video is assigning a scientific explanation of the Star of Bethlehem, doesn't that invalidate the concept that it was a "sign from God"?

Is it a miracle if its a natural occurance? ...  yes, its a miracle of natural occurance initiated 14 billion years before it happened ...
as planned and described in b.c for us in a.d to recognize as the incredible power of the will of God.  This, if anything, reposes the question that time is meaningless to God, but so impressive to us.


MoS 

Had to show you guys what were the readings in Mass this morning ...  too close for comfort ? ... 

 

Thursday of the Second Week of Lent 
Lectionary: 233

Reading 1[JER 17:5-10]

Thus says the LORD:
Cursed is the man who trusts in human beings,
who seeks his strength in flesh,
whose heart turns away from the LORD.
He is like a barren bush in the desert
that enjoys no change of season,
But stands in a lava waste,
a salt and empty earth.
Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD,
whose hope is the LORD.
He is like a tree planted beside the waters
that stretches out its roots to the stream:
It fears not the heat when it comes,
its leaves stay green;
In the year of drought it shows no distress,
but still Bears fruit.
More tortuous than all else is the human heart,
beyond remedy; who can understand it?

I, the LORD, alone probe the mind
and test the heart,

To reward everyone according to his ways,
according to the merit of his deeds.

 

Gospel[LK 16:19-31]

Jesus said to the Pharisees:
“There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen
and dined sumptuously each day.
And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores,
who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps
that fell from the rich man’s table.
Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.
When the poor man died,
he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.
The rich man also died and was buried,
and from the netherworld, where he was in torment,
he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off
and Lazarus at his side.
And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me.
Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue,
for I am suffering torment in these flames.’
Abraham replied, ‘My child,
remember that you received what was good during your lifetime
while Lazarus likewise received what was bad;
but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.
Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established
to prevent anyone from crossing
who might wish to go from our side to yours
or from your side to ours.’
He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him
to my father’s house,
for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them,
lest they too come to this place of torment.’
But Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the prophets.
Let them listen to them.’
He said, ‘Oh no, father Abraham,
but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
Then Abraham said,
‘If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets,
neither will they be persuaded
if someone should rise from the dead.’“   Even the Risen Christ ... 

Unfortunately all too common place here and elsewhere. 


MoS

Honestly, I have now given 4 point blank references to similar events ( Akita, Medjugore and Garabandal )and have not had a single reply... so I'm not sure why trying now is going to change anything ... do the same thing over and over again ... expecting different results ? ... crazy ... * Mano tried on one occasion but his response absolutely indicated his pre thought on the topic but in no way addressed the actual referenced material ...

Really, MoS...my response indicated my "pre-thought" on the topic?  Please enlighten me then.  Unless I see your miracles as you see them, then I am not being honest in my response?

First of all, you are talking about three reported visions of the Virgin Mary and none of the three are even recognized by the Catholic Church as legitimate.  So, if your own Church doesn't believe they are miraculous, what the heck do you want from me?

If you are going to bring up unexplained miracles, why not talk about the water at Lourdes?  Where there have been 68 medically certified people cured of disease.  Some of those have since been disproved with the disease reoccuring later in life, but most are seen as legitimate miracles!  I am fascinated by this place, and actually know somebody who claims to have seen a family member cured by the water at Lourdes.

I won't sit here and tell you that I know what those people saw or experienced, or that I have a logical explanation for those, or any other mysterious event that seems to indicate a supernatural, religious, happening.  There is plenty in the world that I don't have an explanation for, MoS, but I will NEVER just assign a mystery to God just because I can't explain it.  That's ridiculous!!  Its midievel thinking at its best. 

Human nature is to assign mystery to the supernatural and experience has taught us that there is almost always a rational explanation for those mysteries.  Science, eventually, finds a reason.  Just because we don't understand it now, doesn't mean we won't understand it in the future.

Too many coincidences for me and the video will help with that statement.  Please watch and report back what you think.

I will watch the video, MoS, because it seems important to you that I do, but I am going through alot at work and home right now, so you will need to be patient with me.  It could be a couple of weeks before I get to it.

Then why have we spent dozens of pages of this thread lending scientific credence to the Book of Genesis?

Because it's fun?  Because the Bible is under attack for the things written in it and some people feel the need to point out that just because we don't understand something completely does not mean we shouldn't believe it?  Maybe those backward, primitive people actually knew what they saw and heard?  I'm not sure, really.

 Now, we are getting away from any semblance of reality again!

I love when you say things like this, it actually makes me smile!  It leaves "any semblance of reality" because it is written in the Bible... you are too much Mano!

  First of all, even if the Magi were aware of the Jewish scripture, they would have no reason to revere it in a way that would compel them to travel hundreds of miles to visit the birthplace of Jesus.

You are forgetting a guy named Daniel, a Jew who rose to prominence in Babylon (along with others Jews) and was the man in charge over the King's counselors.  Those counselors included divivers, sages, wise men, magicians, and whatever other class of counselor you wish to include.  Do you not think the Magi (traditionally believed to come from the Mesopotamia region) would have no interest in or no clue about the Jewish nation?  For all me know the Magi could have been Jews that still lived in a far country - of course there is no evidence regarding that, but you can't simply dismiss the entire account because it appears in the Bible.

Secondly, the "wise men" of the bible are only mentioned in a SINGLE gospel account, that of Mark, and there is virtually zero supporting evidence for their existence. 

I know you hate Wikipedia, but it is a convenient place to locate general information - Magi is "a term, used since at least the 6th century BC, to denote followers of [Mazdaism] or[Zoroaster]. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by [Darius the Great], known as the [Behistun Inscription].

Starting later, presumably during the [Hellenistic period], the word Magi also denotes followers of what the Hellenistic chroniclers incorrectly associated Zoroaster with, which was – in the main – the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold.<sup class="Template-Fact">[[citation needed]]</sup> However, [Old Persian] texts, pre-dating the Hellenistic period, refer to a [Magus] as a Mazdaic, and presumably Zoroastrian, priest. "

Thirdly, there is absolutely ZERO reason to believe the Massacre of the Innocents even happened outside of the Biblical account.  There is no other historical mention of the event and, like the Magi, it is only ever mentioned in a SINGLE gospel account, this time Matthew.

Well, not being mentioned in the other gospels is irrelevent.  If ALL the gospels included the story you still wouldn't believe it, so you can leave that out of your argument entirely.  Unless you want to rethink your position on the resurrection?  

The fact we have no other written record of the killing is not necessarily meaningful - after all, we aren't talking about thousands of children here.  Bethlehem was a small village and "only" a small number of children would have been killed.  That is nothing, historically, compared to the other events taking place in and around Herod's palace.
 
Now, all that aside, the reason I mentioned anything about the star is that it was brought up by some in your camp within this thread as just another of the scientific impossibilities listed in the Bible.  However, if stellar activity matching that described in the Bible can be or has been verified, then we have another example of the Bible's writers being correct in what they recorded. 

Really, MoS...my response indicated my "pre-thought" on the topic?  Please enlighten me then.  *see below.  Yoiur response was completely your thoughts ( backed up by somw (?) investigation ) but you never really responded to any of the events I asked you to. There were simply dismissed, lumped in with any and all other similar events.

Unless I see your miracles as you see them, then I am not being honest in my response?  I have never said your responses were dishonest.  I cannot unring that bell you just sounded.  What I am saying is no one has actually entertained the events I presented with anything other than comparing them to something else and not as stand lone events.

First of all, you are talking about three reported visions of the Virgin Mary and none of the three are even recognized by the Catholic Church as legitimate.  This is a half truth.  The Church will not approve because they are incomplete in their works ( all the above 3 have secrets yet to transpire ) they will not approve until the event is completely exhaustively resourced and will not be approved unless it stands up against all scrutiny.  Would you have it any other way ?  I would not, just so any singular event cannot be proven to be a hoax ( of which there have been many in the past).  The Church, by the way does not stand in the way of any pilgrim to go to , experience and/or relay their personal experience to others of the faith.  No, they are not shown the recognition you speak of, but has primatur "effect" as : in no way do the related events transgress the faith and are considered currently viable acts of faith.  I cannot unring that bell either ...

So, if your own Church doesn't believe they are miraculous, what the heck do you want from me? *see above ... and all i wanted from you is a talk about those events that it seems you have dismissed along with any other similar event.  Asking too much, it seems.

Also, in regards to approved apparitions as Lourdes, Fatima ... etc ... I stayed away from them because they did not have anywhere near the possible forensic and other more modern ways to verify.  All three I gave earlier have had incredibly extensive study and in depth analysis... and have yet to be disproved, even with todays best measures of detective work.

There is plenty in the world that I don't have an explanation for, MoS, but I will NEVER just assign a mystery to God just because I can't explain it. But would you ( or why wouldn't you ) if all the participants were there for God, experiencing the unexplainable for by and with the express conditions set forth as miraculous in God's people.  The events are only for the fulfillment of faith in both the believer and unbeliever ... specifically.  You do not allow for the possibility, and seems archane in todays world of unimagineable information availability ... now, That's ridiculous!!  Its midievel thinking at its best 

I will watch the video, MoS, because it seems important to you that I do, but I am going through alot at work and home right now, so you will need to be patient with me.  It could be a couple of weeks before I get to it.

I don't suppose it is necessary Mano.  I simply wanted to hear from a man who does not believe, his perspective on these events specifically ... but I'm not all that interested now because I know you are not.  I am sorry to hear of ugly work load and whatever family issues your experiencing ... they are far more important than this and you are officially let off the hook I think you felt I am trying to hang you on.  You know I am not and if you don't, then it's all been a ruse anyway.

(original response from page 43 (?)  I think ... 
*Your events are no more or less valid than these ones.  They have not been more or less verified.

I know it is a stretch for some, but these events are apparently scientifically unverifiable yet undeniably happening.

That's the problem.  They are scientifically verifiable. ( not to date for any of the 3 examples I asked of )There are scientific explanations for things like stigmata and beautific visions, but that doesn't matter to a man of faith because the event itself is the proof they are looking for.  Am I not a man of faith who is looking for discernmet from an unbeliever, or am I too to be lumped in with "all the others" as I feel have with the events in question compared to other "stigmata's" etc...

yes but you don't have to, just look at the evidence and tell me what you think.

I think that they are not signs from God.  Do I know what they are?  No, but I'm comfortable telling you what I think they aren't.

No, but I'm comfortable telling you what I think they aren't.  Finally, this is disapointing to me, as it is an admission that even if you found the reasons that may be miraculous, it wouldn't matter because you simply will not believe because of prior thought that ...
IT JUST AIN'T SO.


MoS



 

Finally, this is disapointing to me, as it is an admission that even if you found the reasons that may be miraculous, it wouldn't matter because you simply will not believe because of prior thought that ...

Im largely trying to stay out of this particular discourse for a while, but you sir, totally missed his point. that is not what he was saying AT ALL. you didnt even ask him by what reasoning he could assert what he did, you jsut jumped the gun and spoke for him, ill let him defend his own statement but he was NOT dismissing evidence out of hand because it may contradict his world view etc.

there is a big difference between the word know and think sir. a very very big difference and mano is being humble as any man who basis his knowledge on reason and logic would be. we can not know many things but we can infer, think etc based upon evidence and probability. ill let mano handle the rest.

also formatting error there mos, made it a chore to read.

2k

Wow...feeling a bit under attack tonight.  I only have acces through my cell phone at the moment so I am not going to try and respond in depth.  I will get to both LTS and MoS in the morning.

I just want to make one thing perfectly clear...I enjoy this debate. especially the part of it we are having right now.  The evolution and creationist stuff doesn't really do anything for me but I really enjoy this aspect of the thread.  If I have seemed a bit short tempered the past couple of days you all have my apologies.

Goodnight and god bless.  

Im largely trying to stay out of this particular discourse.  I think you should have heeded your own advise.  It is you who have missed the point and jumped the gun... and here's why r2 ... This discourse was initiated by me specifically regarding the 3 miraculous events I proposed. (you, by the way have never responded directly to any at all )  Mano cannot possibly say "Do I know for sure .... and no, but I do  think" comments in regards to those specific events if he hasn't read them ... can he ?  Therefore I am completely justified in saying his prior knowlege of aka stigmata, miraculous events etc. , effects his judgement in this case because it is all he has to rely upon if he hasn't read the material I supplied ... Do you understand now !

Also, you above all have no right to speak of others putting words in someone elses mnouth ... good grief, I am not only not doing that... but correct me if I'm wrong but ... you are handling that all by yourself... within just thios post alone, and others I am aware of...

but you sir, totally missed his point. that is not what he was saying AT ALL.you jsut jumped the gun and spoke for him,  
ill let him defend his own statement but he was NOT dismissing evidence out of hand because it may contradict his world view 
we can not know many things but we can infer, think etc based upon evidence and probability. ill let mano handle the rest.
I expect you don't see the forest for the trees, but it is you who are talking for Mano here... by your own admission  ... not me.  He may not mind, but none the less you are putting words in his mouth, right or wrong ... not me.

Thanks also for the multiple "sir" comments, but for some reason I'm thinking they were actually somewhere between tongue in cheek and irreverant pap.

Finally, you who have ended at least a dozen post on the FSM with ... "didn't check the post ... or ... sorry for the grammaticals, I didn't go back to reread .. etc". are again the last person to cast stones about formatting, sp's, run on sentences etc ...  So what is that r2 having your cake and eating too ... again, by your own admission and not noticing the beam in your own eye for the splinter in mine ...  by the way, there are 4 more sp's in just this post alone, so please take care with your words and I'll try to do better with mine.

Wow...feeling a bit under attack tonight ... please don't feel this way Mano.  I am in no way attacking.  You who have known me for as long as any here in CBS, surely must know I am not that man.  I just want and expect more from you than any others because you are an academian, so I have greater expectations.  It must also include something in the how I am writing, so call me out on that... but never belligerant .. not attacking .. it completely misses the point of Love thy neighbor .. ... even while in this discussion !


MoS

Also, you above all have no right to speak of others putting words in someone elses mnouth ... good grief, I am not only not doing that... but correct me if I'm wrong but ... you are handling that all by yourself... within just thios post alone, and others I am aware of...

all i said for mano at best was ' he was not doing this'. how was that speaking for him, i just went on to clarify the difference between thinking somehting and knowing something which is actually vital in this discussion.

As for your grammar jab, it was not a jab when i mentioned your formattting, its like a font size 8 or something and I was making you aware of it incase it displayed normally on your computer.

I use sir as a term of respect and formality, if i wanted to insult you i would.

So right now, im holding my tongue, i havent tried to insult you but thats all you seem to see in what im writing, and honestly, you are really ticking me off so im going to stop here before i say something that offends you. good luck mano.

(you, by the way have never responded directly to any at all

Didnt know they were directed at me. And if you think i speak for other people you misunderstand me, i dont, i try hard not to, perhaps my use of words misconveys my intent and im always willing to ammend or take things back if im misunderstood, i do however give my opinion on what i think is going on, which is what i did here.  the only thing in my post that spoke to the comment completely directly was the ' he isnt doing this...' i went of on a tangent to try and explain something i felt was important.

Yeh, im really pissed off so im just going to stop here, this was an excercise is restraint, good luck to you too.

2k

Yeh, im really pissed off so im just going to stop here, this was an excercise is restraint, good luck to you too.

Now 2k, I don't see MoS's comments as anything to get angry about.  We've all been much more belligerent that this throughout this thread.  Mano continually calls our beliefs silly, crazy, childish, and other such things but we let them slide - usually - and carry on.  We (Christians) are constantly said to be delusional, prideful, selfish, ignorant, intolerant of other viewpoints, etc etc etc by you and others.  So I would think your own tolerance should be greater and you would not take his comments so personally.

But you did show great restraint, your last two or three posts have been maybe the shortest I have seen in well over a year!

Well, I typed out this huge, long, extraordinarily well written, convincing post to LTS and when I hit the "Post" button, I got an error...please try again later my a$$!!!!

So, I took a couple of hours to calm down and now I'll try again.

Then why have we spent dozens of pages of this thread lending scientific credence to the Book of Genesis?

Because it's fun?

Best answer you could have come up with!

I love when you say things like this, it actually makes me smile!  It leaves "any semblance of reality" because it is written in the Bible... you are too much Mano!

It has nothing to do with it being written in the Bible, it has to do with it NOT being written anywhere else.  You are quick to point out that the Bible isn't meant to be a "science manual" but my contention is that it can't be used as a history manual either!  Its historicity is no more valid than its science.  Use it all you like for your base teachings and moral compass, but its not a history book.

Do you not think the Magi (traditionally believed to come from the Mesopotamia region) would have no interest in or no clue about the Jewish nation?  For all me know the Magi could have been Jews that still lived in a far country - of course there is no evidence regarding that, but you can't simply dismiss the entire account because it appears in the Bible.

I never said the Magi didn't know who the Jews were or that they weren't familiar with their scripture.  All I said was we have no reason to believe they did.  There is nothing written, anywhere, that shows the Magi having any reverence for Jewish scripture, yet this group of Magi wandered hundreds of miles to give the Jewish Messiah gifts?  I suppose its not impossible, but improbable is an understatement.

And I can be virtually certain that the Magi were NOT Jews.  In fact, if anything, its the opposite.  Parts of Jewish doctrine is borrowed from Zoroastrianism, the faith the Magi followed.

I know you hate Wikipedia, but it is a convenient place to locate general information - Magi is "a term, used since at least the 6th century BC, to denote followers of [Mazdaism] or[Zoroaster]. The earliest known usage of the word Magi is in the trilingual inscription written by [Darius the Great], known as the [Behistun Inscription].

Obviously I wasn't clear, my apologies.  I wasn't implying that we have no evidence the Magi ever existed, I was saying that there is absolutely no evidence that a group of Magi made a trek to Bethlehem following a great star.

Well, not being mentioned in the other gospels is irrelevent.  If ALL the gospels included the story you still wouldn't believe it, so you can leave that out of your argument entirely.  Unless you want to rethink your position on the resurrection? 

Bull!!!

It is completely relevant, regardless of how it might impact my personal beliefs.  We are talking about a supposed historical event that we have absolutely ZERO supporting evidence for!  You have one gospel writer, sitting down at least TWO generations AFTER the actual event, and writing about this event but no other gospel writer, not even the other gnostic gospels which almost all tell the story of Jesus' birth, gives it so much as a passing mention?

Then, you have actual historians, like Josephus, who was pretty in tune with Herod's reign, not giving it any mention.  This is the biggest slight against it ever happening for me, not because of the level of attrocity, because you are right, a couple dozen kids getting slaughtered may or may not have rung the bell 2000 years ago, but because of the supposed motive.  If Herod was declaring war on the supposed King of the Jews by slaughtering kids in and around Bethlehem, I think that would make some waves, but I could be wrong.

Now, all that aside, the reason I mentioned anything about the star is that it was brought up by some in your camp within this thread as just another of the scientific impossibilities listed in the Bible.

I know that I never mentioned it, and I don't recall reading it from anyone in "my camp", but I certainly can't refute your claim here.

However, if stellar activity matching that described in the Bible can be or has been verified, then we have another example of the Bible's writers being correct in what they recorded. 

Sure, but only insomuch as the bible is right about some sort of celestial event occuring at some point.

An aspect of good storytelling is building the fiction around actual events so people can relate to them.  This author may well have witnessed a great light in the sky around the time Jesus was born, but that doesn't mean the rest of his story is true!

Again, I relate it to the Exodus.  We know that the Nile River can run red under certain conditions, but that doesn't mean it happened when Moses waved his hand to command it.  We know that most of the "plagues" of Egypt have a scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean they occured in succession and allowed the Jews to escape.  We know that even the parting of the Red Sea is possible if you understand that it wasn't the Red Sea at all but the Sea of Reeds (or a location nearer to it).

None of those things makes the story of the Exodus any more true.  All it does is show that the authors were familiar with some, at that time, unexplainable phemomena and that they wove it into their story.  It happened all the time in alot of different scriptures.  Its not unique to the Bible, LTS, I could provide you similar stories woven around historical events from Hindu scriptures, or Muslim scriptures, and most especially, through ancient Greek and Roman mythologies which, in their time, were religions in themselves.  I don't have the time nor the inclination to actually do that, but its there.

I have never said your responses were dishonest.  I cannot unring that bell you just sounded.  What I am saying is no one has actually entertained the events I presented with anything other than comparing them to something else and not as stand lone events.

First of all...no worries, MoS, I take no offense in your words.  We're good.

On to the argument!!

Even without reading your copy and paste at the end of your post, I know this is true.  I didn't give an opinion of the actual events that didn't use a comparison to other, similar events.  Maybe that isn't what you were looking for, but its what I felt was the best way to answer your questions.  You are looking for an explanation for something that is yet unexplained.  The fact that we don't yet have an explanation, though, does not automatically make it a supernatural event!

When I talked about stigmata, or crying statues, or other such, reasonably explained, "miracles" it was to show you that while at the time those events happened we didn't have a good explanation aside from "god did it" we eventually figured it out.  Will that happen with the spirits of Garabandal and the rest, I'm confident it will, because it almost always does.

Also, in regards to approved apparitions as Lourdes, Fatima ... etc ... I stayed away from them because they did not have anywhere near the possible forensic and other more modern ways to verify.  All three I gave earlier have had incredibly extensive study and in depth analysis... and have yet to be disproved, even with todays best measures of detective work.

I wasn't talking about the apparitions at Lourdes, but the water at Lourdes and its healing power.  There have been dozens of confirmed (by an independant medical board) healings of people that have drank the water at Lourdes.  I am fascinated by this and just thought that if you were looking to get me to comment on "forensically verified miracles" that this would have been one of your first examples!  A few ghosts seen by some kids in Garabandal doesn't hold nearly the sway for me as these medically proven miracles!! 

But would you ( or why wouldn't you ) if all the participants were there for God, experiencing the unexplainable for by and with the express conditions set forth as miraculous in God's people.  The events are only for the fulfillment of faith in both the believer and unbeliever ... specifically.  You do not allow for the possibility, and seems archane in todays world of unimagineable information availability ... now, That's ridiculous!!  Its midievel thinking at its best

My problem with this line of thinking, MoS, is that it precludes the possibility that the same type of miracles happen to non-Christians.  When a Muslim sees a vision like the ones you are describing, you wouldn't believe that it was legitimate, would you? 

I don't suppose it is necessary Mano.  I simply wanted to hear from a man who does not believe, his perspective on these events specifically ... but I'm not all that interested now because I know you are not. 

I am interested, MoS, as I am always interested in researching this topic.  I just am having a hard time finding an hour to set aside for it right now.  I will get to it, just have patience.

I am sorry to hear of ugly work load and whatever family issues your experiencing ... they are far more important than this and you are officially let off the hook I think you felt I am trying to hang you on.  You know I am not and if you don't, then it's all been a ruse anyway.

I appreciate the concern, and I may have been a bit melodramatic.  Things aren't horrible or anything, just going through a lot right now and haven't had my usual amount of time to spend on this site.  I don't know what you mean by that last sentence, but I didn't think you were trying to pull anything.

No, but I'm comfortable telling you what I think they aren't.  Finally, this is disapointing to me, as it is an admission that even if you found the reasons that may be miraculous, it wouldn't matter because you simply will not believe because of prior thought that ...
IT JUST AIN'T SO.

I have said on MANY occassions in this thread that if a miracle were to be proven true, that would be the proof of concept that I require to change my tune.

Nobody has provided that and I don't believe they ever will.  Not because I'm blind to it, but because it doesn't exist.

Your visions and other unexplained phenomena are fascinating, no doubt, but even just looking at the Garabandal incident, the predictions have already started to fail.  We are now about to have the fifth pope after the death of John XXIII, contrary to the prediction by Conchita that there would only be 3 more.  Conchita Gonzalez is now 64 years old and still hasn't announced that fateful Thursday miracle that is supposed to be coming.  We haven't yet seen the "warning" that was to come a year before the miracle.

What happens to your miraculous apparitions if NONE of the predictions come to pass?  Conchita isn't going to live forever...what happens when she dies without ever making her announcement?  Will you admit then that maybe it wasn't such a miraculous happening?