This is the miraculous event that made Pope John Paul II a saint, as described in the article entitled 'Costa Rican woman who elevated the Pope to sainthood: "Praying to John Paul II saved me''':
Floribeth Mora Díaz was told there was no hope. Taken to hospital in Costa Rica, she was devastated to discover that her persistent headaches were the result of an aneurysm in the brain. The doctors said her days were numbered. [...]
Alejandro Vargas Román, the neurosurgeon who treated Mrs Mora, is convinced that her recovery is the result of divine intervention.
"Of course it's true," he told Costa Rican newspaper La Nacion. "I am a Catholic, and as a doctor with many years of experience I do believe in miracles. No one has been able to provide a medical explanation for what happened."
Mr Román was questioned by Vatican authorities in San Jose, who concluded that she was saved by a miracle.
"I talked to the priests, but maybe they were specialised in something," he said. "They weren't doctors; they were theologians or lawyers, so my role was that of medical investigation."
But he is adamant that the science is sound.
"We have to remember that the arteriography [images of the blood vessels] was seen by various people within this hospital, and also shared at a symposium in Mexico. The images are stored here. Any person who needs to see the studies; they are here," he said.
From another source:
"The neurosurgeon who admitted and diagnosed Mora, however, denies he gave her a month to live. Alejandro Vargas says he forecast only a 2 percent chance Mora could bleed into her brain again within a year of her diagnosis, possibly killing her.
"She was sent home with medication that would reduce her blood pressure and was advised to improve her diet so as not to raise her cholesterol levels and thus decrease the chance of her having a second bleeding episode. She was sedated because the headaches were too sharp," he told Reuters. "We didn't send her home to be sedated and wait until she died in her sleep."
Thus, the God of the Gaps reigns supreme. Find a pocket of ignorance, add religion, some wild exaggeration, bake for 2 minutes, and God appears.
Crackpot: How do you explain X?
Me: I can't.
Crackpot: See? God did it. It's the ONLY explanation! The science is sound!
@Gallup - you can shorten it all, really (although it has it's entertaining elements) with a picture (naturally).
@Strega. It's perfect. Look closely and you can discern the head of an altar boy at waist height under the robe.
Ah, but you didn't reject the caption, therefore you wholeheartedly agree with it!
As satire? Sure. Christians can be the most arrogant people in the world.
Glad you didn't harm any fronkeys, though!
Those people, about whom you seem so concerned, appear to have done a bang-up job of self-vilification without any help from me.
What I find most interesting about his act, is the fascinating dance he does, that I like to call the "Prof Bob Fandango." He snipes at our positions, yet never specifically reveals his own, so we have no similar target. When he's asked a question he can't answer, he ignores it or twirls around it, and when proven wrong, he ignores and doesn't respond to that part of the comment. I've been observing his responses to you and to Suzanne, and have enjoyed his performance immensely.
What's really interesting, particularly with @Gallup, is that he always pivots to personal name-calling and general ad hominem. Now you too, @arch! Is that consistent with your belief in intellectual rigor, or fairness, or behavior toward others?
I dissected one paragraph full of errors above from your internet source. Would you say you ignored it, or twirled around it?
Should I call you a name now? ;-)
Anyway, I tracked the source down as best I could to a Dr. Craig Lampe, who is a fellow who owns a "Bible Museum" in Goodyear, Arizona, and is a partner in an online bible sales business. You're quoting a bible salesman and the director of a tourist trap in a suburb of Phoenix as an authority on biblical history. He's also Senior Pastor of a church he started, part of the Apostolic (Pentecostal) tradition, which is quite an anti-Catholic group.
I think it's safe to say that you won't find any published scholars who wouldn't consider your source a quack. Are you sure you want to maintain that you trust this source?
Absolutely, and I've never heard of a Dr. Craig Lampe, much less used him as a source. I'll locate those sources when time permits, but as I believe I mentioned, my time is valuable and limited.
As is all of ours. So to save you time, he appears to be your source. His stuff seems to get picked up and repeated by a lot of the fringe internet, so you may have found it elsewhere, but he seems to be the author of the original.
You can find what you posted, word for word, on his "Greatsite Marketing" bible sales site at http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reforma... . He also has a book and a DVD out published by a fringe Christian press.
What's really interesting, particularly with @Gallup, is that he always pivots to personal name-calling and general ad hominem.
Except that ol' Gallup doesn't do that. No sir.
Personal name calling would be just saying, Robert you're a total fuckwad. Ad hominem would be ignoring your argument, such as this one where you say priests cannot commit child abuse, and saying, Robert only a total fuckwad would make an argument like that, rather than responding to the substance of it as I do.
"Satire is a genre of literature in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon. A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant"—but parody, burlesque, exaggeration, juxtaposition, comparison, analogy, and double entendre are all frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack."
So you see Robert, satire is neither name-calling nor an ad hominem fallacy. I've explained about satire publicly more than once, most recently here. Yet for some reason, it just keeps right on slipping your mind and you keep right on telling all these nice folks that I'm "always" calling you names and engaging in ad hominem fallacies. But it just ain't true.
What's really interesting with you, Pinocchio-- and I mean genuinely interesting, not the fake interesting that's born of your phony amnesia attacks-- is the way you pivot to dishonesty whenever your position is too weak to withstand honest debate, scrutiny, or criticism. Which it nearly always is.
Simon, please tell, what is advanced spirituality?
@Mak - That would be Bullshit 403, as opposed to Introduction to Bullshit, 102, a Freshman course --
Haha, advanced level bullshit eh!
Further, Ed, if we were made in god's image, how come we're not invisible too?