“My comment referred to see visions in various random patterns on things, such as cheese sandwiches, tears from statues, and water stains on plaster walls, or ceilings, and attributing these things to God. They are not from God. The connection to God is in the imagination. They are not miracles and signs.”
Our dispute had nothing to do with that proposition. However, we can bring that in if you like.
“Re: I said Photoshop on this one, because it is. The whole beam of light and smoke was applied to the photo. Just like the CtoC folks, they like to promote the illusions.”
Right there. Once again, you have made the hateful, closed-minded, and totally unjustified comparison of Catholics with the loony-toon whackos that listen to CtoC.
“You stuck the word (Catholic) in there, to describe "they", and it was completely inaccurate.”
On the contrary, by every rule of English usage, your “they” indicates “Catholics.”
“"They" refer to those Catholics, that actually attribute the result of random patterns to miracles and signs from Heaven, AND create them themselves.”
There are two problems with that.
(1) That may be what you intended to say, but it is not what you said. However, I will accept your explanation that you are inept at expressing yourself.
(2) You are inferring that Catholics *frequently* “create such things themselves,” when in actuality a sincere Catholic acting from Catholic motives would never do that. A Cheech Marin Catholic might, and a fallen-away Catholic might, but a genuine Catholic would not. In the final analysis, you are implying that *many* Catholics are whackos of the CtoC variety.
“It is frauds such as this, in combination with the claims about random patterns on concrete, grilled cheese and tears from statues that evidence what I said.”
It is very bigoted to lump all such phenomena together and dismiss them. I repeat, only ignorance can support such arrogance.
“There's no bigoted comment in anything I said.”
That reminds me of the 1950s in Oklahoma: “I ain’t pej’diced. N*ggers rilly *is* infer’or. A’hyuk, a’hyuk.” Your whole outlook toward Catholics is bigoted, from soup to nuts.
“Your reading comprehension was simply effected by what you imagined I said”
My reading comprehension is in the top one-third of the top one percent of college graduates headed for graduate school or law school. I interpreted what you wrote correctly. Now you say that you didn’t intend to tar all Catholics with the same brush. You only intended to tar a very large number of them, and to lump all supernatural phenomena—including those that are very well documented—into the same whacko bin.
“If you found offense in my conclusion, that these alleged miracles and signs are nothing more than a combination of random outcomes of physical processes, and imagination, or outright fraud, tough.”
No, I accept your God-given freedom to be wrong about that. I also reserve the right to take offense when you safari into bigot country. (By the way, one doesn’t “find offense.” One “takes offense,” or “finds something offensive.”)
“Now some people, who are Catholics, will say they are miracles.”
Actually, no. This sort of thing would be called an apparition. You should take the trouble to learn a little about something you plan to be bigoted against. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15477a.htm
“The thread was posted as a mystery and treated as a possible miracle, which simply adds to the evidence that these visions are promoted as micacles, and the imagination involved in creative story telling is definitely being promoted. Mystery is promoted, reality is not.”
Very confused thinking, all through this paragraph. Your major malfunction seems to be your a priori assumption that reality excludes the supernatural. In addition, you seem to have some misconception that the Catholic Church “promotes” apparitions. In fact, short of those who closed-mindedly exclude from consideration all manifestations of the supernatural, the Catholic Church is the strictest skeptic extant.
“Busy does not equal lazy.”
However, “too busy” usually does, particularly when one can simply paste the phrase into Google and have a translation in a couple of seconds. Less than a second with a broadband connection.
“Speak English.”
Unlike the traitorstream media, I refuse to dumb down my writing for the lazy.
“The photo from the former cop, who is Catholic, is a Photoshop fraud”
Prove it, or stand guilty of bearing false witness.
There are a number of possible explanations that don’t involve the supernatural, but you are just jumping from a bigoted assumption that it couldn’t be true to an unjustified conclusion that it was malicious fraud. Flag on the play.
“It is deception, and it was done to further the lengthy list of fictional stories claimed to be miracles, that inspired it in the first place.”
Boy, you God-haters are really something. Of all the possible explanations, you have to seize on the one that reflects the greatest discredit on belief, without even bothering to make a case for it.
"Right there. Once again, you have made the hateful, closed-minded, and totally unjustified comparison of Catholics with the loony-toon whackos that listen to CtoC."
The subject is fraud and the perpetrators of fraud. The descriptive terms Catholic and CtoC refer to the respective subjects. They are not the subjects themselves.
Re: You stuck the word (Catholic) in there, to describe "they", and it was completely inaccurate.
"On the contrary, by every rule of English usage, your “they” indicates “Catholics.”"
The subject again was story telling and fraud. The adjectives Catholic and CtoC, simply describe the respective subjects.
"...I will accept your explanation that you are inept at expressing yourself."
Oh, thou art so merciful.
"You are inferring that Catholics *frequently* “create such things themselves,” when in actuality a sincere Catholic acting from Catholic motives would never do that."
I gave no indication at all regarding frequency of the occurrence of outright fraud. I did indicate the number of imaginary miracles was qualitatively high. The motive to do such things is fundamentally an abandonment of reality in preference to embracing mystery and imagination. The preference in some may simply be based on ignorance. The promotion of the mental discipline of imagination regarding various claims that certain things are unfathomable mysteries is a Catholic peculiarity, that most certainly is not restricted to Catholics. It is the fundamental source for the sort of happenings considered here.
A reasonable person might be triggered to contemplate something, after observing some random pattern. They will not suspect, or take that perception as a miracle and revere the physical trigger as some sort of relic. They will simply continue on with a rational contemplation they were inspired by, and not take the physical trigger itself as a miracle.
Re: It is frauds such as this, in combination with the claims about random patterns on concrete, grilled cheese and tears from statues that evidence what I said.
"It is very bigoted to lump all such phenomena together and dismiss them. I repeat, only ignorance can support such arrogance.
Matthew 12:39
He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.
There are those that seek the signs and wonders, and others that provide them. If mystery and imagination takes precedence over rationality, the children will be mislead. Some will see the imagination for what it is, others will be led away from reality and into an imaginary world.
Re: “There's no bigoted comment in anything I said.
"That reminds me of the 1950s in Oklahoma: “I ain’t pej’diced. N*ggers rilly *is* infer’or. A’hyuk, a’hyuk.” Your whole outlook toward Catholics is bigoted, from soup to nuts."
Whatever chief. You're acute analytical skills are simply miraculous.
"My reading comprehension is in the top one-third of the top one percent of college graduates headed for graduate school or law school."
Wonderful.
" I interpreted what you wrote correctly."
cough...
"Now you say that you didn’t intend to tar all Catholics with the same brush. You only intended to tar a very large number of them, and to lump all supernatural phenomena—including those that are very well documented—into the same whacko bin."
My intent was clear from the beginning and contained no qualification that justifies the use of the word "tarring" to describe it. As far as the supernatural goes, there is no such thing, and I never extended my discussion to all of anything. As far as the various claims of "well documented" miracles goes, there are none that stand up to rational scrutiny.
"I also reserve the right to take offense when you safari into bigot country. (By the way, one doesn’t “find offense.” One “takes offense,” or “finds something offensive.”)
Whatever. ...same difference.
Re: “Now some people, who are Catholics, will say they are miracles.
"Actually, no. This sort of thing would be called an apparition. You should take the trouble to learn a little about something you plan to be bigoted against. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15477a.htm
I see, so I'm a bigot by my own intent and design. Thanks, I never would have guessed that.
As to your claim that I erred in calling these apparitions miracles, your link says the following about miracles. "the miracle is called supernatural, because the effect is beyond the productive power of nature and implies supernatural agency." Now here's what they limit their discussion of apparition to, "This article will deal not with natural but with supernatural visions, that is, visions due to the direct intervention of a power superior to man." So, an apparition is a miracle. It is a miraculous happening.
re: “Busy does not equal lazy.”
"However, “too busy” usually does,
I see.
Re: The photo from the former cop, who is Catholic, is a Photoshop fraud.
"Prove it, or stand guilty of bearing false witness.
Your logic sucks. You want hard evidence cough up the cash and the original in .tiff.
"There are a number of possible explanations that don’t involve the supernatural, but you are just jumping from a bigoted assumption that it couldn’t be true to an unjustified conclusion that it was malicious fraud. Flag on the play."
My observations are that the smoke pattern is not continuous though the spacial range and that discontinuity corresponds to background features, such as the columns. All features within the smoke field should be obscured according to smoke density, they are not. The base of the smoke plume should indicate roughly point sources for the smoke, as I assume it's from pots of burning incense. The extent of the base indicates a large area, diffuse source. The smoke ends abruptly, and unnaturally above the diffuse lighting resulting from the scattering. The "image" of the angel contains a complimentary color, indicating the application of image filters, so the color of the scattered light abruptly changes at and around the image. The filter applied was some form of spacial filter, which transfered the colimentary of the edge color to the center. Since all edges were effected the color density of the center was increased according to the boundary of the filter size each time it was applied. The filter application also resulted in the creation of boundary consisting of a rather shape and unnatural change in brightness, color distribution, contrast and slope around the image. Since the camera's photosensitive array can only respond to the light present in the field, that abrupt and unnatural change in color, brightness, contrast and slope, can only come after the exposure. That's enough.
Re: It is deception, and it was done to further the lengthy list of fictional stories claimed to be miracles, that inspired it in the first place.
"Boy, you God-haters are really something. Of all the possible explanations, you have to seize on the one that reflects the greatest discredit on belief, without even bothering to make a case for it."
Again, the logic is bad. Your conclusion that I hate God is completely ridiculous and is w/o justification.
Re: “Speak English.”
"Unlike the traitorstream media, I refuse to dumb down my writing for the lazy.
The use of English to communicate does not mean thay are lazy. The refusal to communicate in a language understandable to the one addressed, with the accompanying slur that the one addressed is intellectually lazy simply means you could care less about anything other than communicating the slur.
Re: I'm not bothered by your insults
"Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est"
Translates: If the victory award is the object, repetition injury not is. So it probably should have been, Si palma est res, dictito iniuria est non", or "if the victory award is the object, to say often injury is not.
Bravo.