Skip to main content

UFOs & Apparations of The Virgin Mary

Some people claim to have seen UFOs, other's claim to have seen the Virgin Mary. How the hell should we tell which of these claims are true, especially since there is far more evidence for the former than the latter?

And if both claims are true, what are we to make of that?

Those who claim to have seen God, or the Virgin Mary, or any other such apparitions (how come people never claim to have apparitions of Mohammad or Moses, and so on?), are often convinced that they have been chosen to then enforce the rules of the religion she is associated with. But how could such people ever know that they were not simply the subject of an elaborate experiment/hoax/fraud, that managed only to fool them into believing they had seen the Virgin Mary, instead of having actually seen her?

The only answer such people can offer, of course, if "faith," which is just about the flimsiest answer anyone could ever offer to anyone else.

What should a person make of such an experience? Assuming the person who claims to have seen Mary actually did, in fact, see her, what should the person who hears this then take away from such an experience?

They might naturally wonder why Mary had not appeared to them as well. Did she appear to the first person because that person needed it more, or less, than the person she did not appear to?

If the first person reaches heaven and the second "non-seeer" ends up in hell, what might that tell us of the decision of Mary (Or God) to have given the first person the vision and not the second?

Is the person who is healed from a disease by "a miracle," more likely to devote themselves to their religion than the person who was not? And if so, why the special treatment for the one and not the other? Especially if it results in the former having the stronger faith that helps them to avoid hell in the final judgement than the latter.

The whole system seems incredibly unfair, on the one hand, and impossible to make any sense of, on the other.

But the only thing more entertaining than listening to people who have seen UFOs call those who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary "crazy," is listening to those who claim to have seen the Virgin Mary calling those who have claimed to have seen UFOs crazy.

At least those who have seen UFOs are not demanding that the only reason the world is going to shit is because homosexuals are allowed to kiss in public and on television, and are even demanding that they stop being treated like moral lepers by all those who claim to have seen the ghost of Mother Mary.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part II

"But God by nature must love Himself supremely, above all else." Fr. Emmet Carter   This is part  two of a look at an article written about the "restorative and medicinal" properties of punishment, as espoused by Fr. Emmett Carter (https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/).  Ideas of this sort in Christianity go back to St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas - two saints who saw the suffering of Christ as sure fire evidence that God needed humans to suffer to balance the cosmic scales of his love for us. Sure, he could've come up with a better game, or made better humans, but its apparently the suffering he really enjoys seeing. Carter's essay raises countless questions, especially about the true nature of God's blood lust, but lets stick to just four simpler ones. The first question deals with the idea of "free will." According to Christians, God designed us with the ability to freely choose to obey or offend h

Christianity: An Addiction of Violence Masquerading as Love: Part I

If the Holy Bible proves anything at all, it proves that the Christian God has a blood-lust like no other God in history. From Abraham to Jesus to the end times to eternal hell, the Christian God loves suffering even more than, or at least as much as, said God loves Himself. And if everything from the genocides in the Old Testament and God killing everyone on the planet with a flood, to Jesus being tortured and murdered (rather than the devil, who is the guilty one) and the fiery end of the world followed by the never ending fires of hell, are not enough to convince you that Christianity is really an addiction to violence masquerading as "love," just consider the psychotic rantings of a Catholic priest trying to convince his faithful flock that murder and mutilation - which he calls "punishment" -  are proof of just how much his "God" is pure love.  In an article published on https://catholicexchange.com/gods-punishment-is-just-restorative-and-medicinal/,