I thought about saying "you know it's a grift when they collect personal information and leak it." According to their Bible, you don't need an app to pray. They say church (or a covenant, I forget, it's been 30+ years since I read the KJV) is when any two people come together to talk about Jesus (sorry!). So, where does an app fit in? And why does that app need your personally identifiable information (referred to as PII in industry). Wouldn't an all-knowing God already have it?

But you don't have to know it's a grift... I feel like this is proof the Vatican (or whoever made this app on their behalf, and thus speak on their behalf... and the Pope allegedly speaks on God's behalf) themselves know it's a grift. Because why would they need your PII?

I know, fools and their money are soon parted... just saw this on /all and figured the Fediverse's top Atheism comm should have it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 months ago (47 children)

Sin was introduced to humanity by the serpent when Adam and Eve ate the apple.

...all of which god created, knowing this would happen.

ill need sources for the claims you made in the last paragraph

You need look no further than the bible to confirm that all of christianity is a death cult, yahweh is a death god. Do you drink your savior's blood and eat his flesh? Do you know how fucked-up that is?

Rapists and pedophiles: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676731/

Murderers and genociders: https://www.worldhistory.org/Crusades/

All in the name of your god. Can you prove they are wrong and you are right? Everyone reasonable is still waiting for any proof of god's existence before claiming they believe in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (46 children)

    When cases of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church became known, the German Bishops’ Conference (Deutsche Bischofskonferenz, DBK) commissioned a study by an interdisciplinary consortium to determine the frequency of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy in Germany (the MHG study).

    1670 persons belonging to the Catholic clergy who were accused of sexual abuse of minors were identified from their personnel files, corresponding to 4.4% of the clergy overall.

    The DBK requested this study in the first place, and 4.4% of all clergy since the 1910s in Germany

    Also, there have been many scientifically proven miracles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (45 children)

    They protect pedophiles until they cannot, if the evidence is overwhelming. How many are they still protecting today? How many were simply sent to other churches to harm more victims?

    Still happening this year, actively covering up abuse: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2026/01/27/catholic-abuse-powerful-utah/

    Also, there have been many scientifically proven miracles.

    Define "miracle". Name one that has been scientifically proven.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (44 children)

    an otherwise impossible act done by God

    The Eucharistic Miracle of Buenos Aires

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (43 children)

    But you never proved or defined "god".

    Anyway, even catholic scientists admit your example is not a miracle: https://drjulesgomes.substack.com/p/catholic-scientists-debunk-assertions

    Catholic scientists are now urging the faithful to be cautious about claims that eucharistic miracles have been scientifically proven, as unconsecrated hosts tested under similar conditions have also shown similar “bleeding” appearances.

    Peer-reviewed studies published by Catholic scientists who believe in Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist have also dismissed assertions that the miracles were validated by research carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN).

    Would you like to try another? Spoiler: they're all bullshit, magic isn't real. Please use your brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (32 children)

    they APPEAR to be bleeding due to serratia marascens, a red pigmented bacterium.

    But multiple tests for serratia are done in the case of eucharistic miracles

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (31 children)

    But without detailed reports? You just take them at their word?

    You believe god is all-powerful, yes? And you believe this is how he chooses to interact with us?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (30 children)

    He has many ways of interacting with us

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (29 children)

    How do you know? Everything you've shown so far is natural phenomena and humans making shit up.

    Why do you pretend there is a god?

    People are dying for your mistakes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    who created the natural phenomena?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (27 children)

    Why are you assuming it was created by someone? There is no evidence to suggest that.

    If god doesn't need a first cause, why does the universe?

    If the universe needs a first cause, why doesn't god?

    All you have is special pleading and god of the gaps.

    Those are fallacies, not evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (26 children)

    Because God and the universe are not equal. They are of different natures entirely. I mean omnipotence IS hard to comprehend for us since we're human

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (25 children)

    Because God and the universe are not equal.

    We have evidence for the universe. We have no evidence for god.

    They are of different natures entirely.

    Based on your arbitrary, inconsistent definition of "nature".

    I mean omnipotence IS hard to comprehend for us since we're human

    It's pretty easy: if an omnipotent being existed, they could do anything. They would need nothing. So if an omnipotent being exists, and suffering exists, it is because that omnipotent being wants that suffering to exist.

    It's not love. It's a death cult.

    You keep going backwards. You assert things about god and then you pretend there are reasons to believe it. If we go ground-up from what we can sense, no god ever enters the picture. There is no reason to assume his existence.

    How many genes must be different for two beings to have different natures? Or how is it defined, how is it measured? You're drawing lines arbitrarily and pretending to know things no person can know.

    Why did god write such a shitty book? Why are none of his miracles clearly documented? He must not be trying very hard to convince anyone that he is actually there. All evidence suggests that humans invented god.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (24 children)
    1. We do

    2. https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35071 Here is the definition.

    3. It was written by humans, inspired by God. They are. Show me the evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (23 children)

    We do

    Stop telling deadly lies. There is absolutely no evidence for god. You have not provided any, you only have fallacies.

    Here is the definition.

    "The essence of a being considered as the principle of activity." So you and I have different natures.

    "Also the substance of a thing as distinguished from its properties, considered as the source of its operations." This is nonsense. Do you have an example?

    "In contrast with God, it is the created universe. In contrast to the life and operations of divine grace, it is that to which a human person has claim, as creature, as distinct from a share in God's own life, which is the supernatural."

    This makes no sense. Nothing is supernatural. How do you determine what the opposite of a nature is? What is the opposite of human nature, if we pretend that exists for a moment?

    It was written by humans, inspired by God.

    If you are pretending the bible was written by god, then why does it contain mistakes?

    If you are admitting that it was written by humans, why should we believe any of it?

    Show me the evidence.

    Humans wrote the bible. You even admitted that. But then you added the completey unproven and ridiculous claim that it was inspired by god.

    It contains blatant contradictions with itself and our reality. Example: what year was Jesus born?

    Do rabbits chew cud?

    Do you actually believe the world was made in 6-7 days? If so, in what order? Genesis 2 contradicts Genesis 1. Why did god write such an unbelievable book if we're supposed to believe it? He's not all powerful, clearly. Your bullshit about "humans can't understand omnipotence"... Humans can understand language. Humans can understand what we can sense. So why is god unable to communicate with no errors?

    Do you believe that I am going to hell for being honest, for having intellectual integrity? Your god is an abuser.

    You are defending a death cult.

    People are dying for you.

    Please. Think.

    Stop making bullshit excuses and start relying on the reality we share. Anything less makes you a murderer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (22 children)

    He was 33 when he died and rose again, so 0 AD

    No one goes to hell for being honest

    Can I havr the contradictions in Genesis?

    And a day for God isnt a day for us. God is above time itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (21 children)

    He was 33 when he died and rose again, so 0 AD

    How do you know he was 33 when he died? How do you know he died in 33 AD?

    The book of Luke suggests that Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. We can use biblical clues to estimate that he started his ministry between 27-29 AD. By calculating historical passover dates and comparing with lunar motion, most scholars estimate that Jesus died in either 30 or 33 AD.

    However, the gospels offer different accounts of his birth year. Matthew associates Jesus's birth with the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC. Luke associates Jesus's birth with the census of Quirinius, which took place ten years later.

    So if Matthew is correct, Jesus could not have been born later than 4 BC. If he died in 30 AD, he may have been 33, if his birthday was after his crucifixion. If he died in 33 AD, he would actually have been 36 or so.

    If Luke is correct, he would have been born no later than 6 AD, making him either 24 or 27 when he died.

    How do we know which is correct, and why did god allow contradictions like this? It casts doubt on the entire bible. All of it could be human error.

    No one goes to hell for being honest

    That's not what your theology says. According to the bible, god gave me this brain in this world, a brain that honestly concludes "humans invented god" based on everything I can possibly sense. Due to my non-belief, I will be punished in some vague yet terrible manner, depending on which parts of the bible you cherry pick. Maybe I'll be annihilated. Maybe I'll burn forever, maybe there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. All because I didn't want to lie, to pretend I sense a god when I do not.

    Can I havr the contradictions in Genesis?

    Have you glanced at chapters 1 and 2? They are not long. I was specifically referring to the order of creation; were plants created before humans as it says in chapter 1, or were humans created before plants as it says in chapter 2?

    Did god make animals before humans (chapter 1), or did he make animals as companions to Adam (chapter 2)?

    Those are some easy ones from the first two chapters. It gets worse when we consider the rest of the bible. In Genesis, god encourages humans to be fruitful and multiply. He says it to Adam and Eve, he says it to Noah, he says it to Jacob. But in Leviticus, god insists that women who give birth must also provide a sin offering. Does god command us to sin?

    And a day for God isnt a day for us. God is above time itself.

    Where does it say that? Why wouldn't god include these clarifications in the text at the time? We understand what a "year" is, he could have provided it in human time instead of god time. I would be very impressed if the bible gave a detailed account about natural events that formed our universe and world that modern science can verify. But instead we have a contradictory fairy tale about making existence in "eh whatever amount of time sounds believable to you".

    The question remains: why would an all-powerful being who loves us do such a poor job of convincing us of his existence?

    You have chosen to pretend that false things are true. I am unwilling to lie. Humans wrote the bible, and god seemingly did nothing to prevent errors from getting through. What sense does that make?

    Please continue to think critically about the contents of the bible and the flimsy excuses that come from outside of the bible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    Almost nothing will convince you if you are not willing to be convinced

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Being convinced has nothing to do with what I want to be true.

    We do not choose our beliefs.

    I aim to be as honest as possible: I believe what is most likely true given all available evidence.

    Stop killing kids.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    You refuse to accept certain evidence contradictory to your own views

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    You have provided absolutely no evidence for any of your claims.

    Your cult is killing us all.

    Fuck you for choosing death instead of being honest.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    I want to be convinced of whatever is true. That is why I rely on evidence and reason. As humans, that is all we have. Divine revelation is, evidently, a dangerous myth.

    You want to be convinced that god is real because you've already bought the lie. You work backwards, distorting evidence of our real world and inventing fiction, treating your assumptions like facts so you can pretend your false beliefs are just as good as real ones.

    Stop lying. All life is at stake.

    Fuck you for choosing death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    and you yourself decide what is true. Thus, you believe what you want to believe

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Dead wrong.

    Again. And really think about it this time:

    HONEST PEOPLE DO NOT CHOOSE THEIR BELIEFS.

    We believe what is most likely true whether it is what we want or not. We do not decide truth. We attempt to describe it as accurately as possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Can I have the Leviticus verse?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    All of chapter 12. I was specifically thinking of verses 6-7:

    6 “‘When the days of her purification are completed for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the door of the Tent of Meeting, a year old lamb for a burnt offering, and a young pigeon or a turtledove, for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer it before Yahweh, and make atonement for her; then she shall be cleansed from the fountain of her blood.

    What sin did she commit? The lord told her to bear children, why would he make any part of that process sinful?

    But it's also worth noting the blatant sexism of verse 5 compared to verse 1, where bearing a female child makes a woman "unclean" for twice as long.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    The sin offering is for the original sin of the child, I believe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    What sin could a baby possibly commit?

    Why does god command us to have children if it brings more sin and suffering into the world?

    Why does god give children cancer?

    What sense does it make to punish the children of someone who did something wrong?

    Your baby-killing god is fucking sick. We're all lucky he's not real. Now please stop spreading deadly lies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    the original sin, adam and eve eating the apple.

    and just because we cant understand his plan doesnt mean its bad

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    and just because we cant understand his plan doesnt mean its bad

    Needless suffering is bad. Grow up. Stop letting apologists think for you. You think backwards and it's killing us all.

    Fuck you for choosing death.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)
    1. Another approach to estimating the year of birth is based on an attempt to work backwards from the point when Jesus began preaching, using the statement in Luke 3:23 that he was "about 30 years of age" at that time.[24] Jesus began to preach after being baptized by John the Baptist, and based on Luke's gospel John only began baptizing people in "the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar" (Luke 3:1–2), which scholars estimate would place the year at about AD 28–29.[24][25][26][27][28] By working backwards from this, it would appear that Jesus was probably born no later than 1 BC.[8][24][27] Another theory is that Herod's death was as late as after the January eclipse of 1 BC[29] or even AD 1[30] after the eclipse that occurred in 1 December BC.[31]

    Luke's date is independently confirmed by John's reference in John 2:20 to the Temple being in its 46th year of construction when Jesus began his ministry during Passover, which corresponds to around AD 27–29 according to scholarly estimates.[32]

    from Wikipedia. We dont have a year-for-year 100% accurate account of ancient history.

    1. Relying only on your physical senses? God gave you free will and your rational soul along with your intellect. God did not make you disbelieve.

    2. You know you can plan things right? God intended for animals to be companions to us and then created them, then us.

    3. Maybe the ancient Hebrews used a different way of calculating time than we do? And God performs a lot of miracles when he sees fit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    We dont have a year-for-year 100% accurate account of ancient history.

    Because all-powerful god failed to convey a simple timeline?

    Relying only on your physical senses?

    That is our only means of acquiring data, yes.

    God gave you free will and your rational soul along with your intellect.

    No, he didn't. We evolved what we call consciousness over many generations. There is no evidence of god, free will, or souls.

    God did not make you disbelieve.

    If you believe he made my brain and this world, yes yes he did.

    You know you can plan things right? God intended for animals to be companions to us and then created them, then us.

    That's not what the bible says. Why is the bible wrong?

    Maybe the ancient Hebrews used a different way of calculating time than we do? And God performs a lot of miracles when he sees fit.

    Or maybe it's all bullshit and you are an intellectual and moral coward. Why couldn't god make it more clear if he meant what you interpret him to mean? How do you know your interpretation is correct when other common interpretations contradict yours?

    Kids are dying for your false beliefs. More each day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)
    1. No, because historians arent God

    2. It isn't

    3. He did

    4. Genesis 2:19 Therefore, the Lord God, having formed from the soil all the animals of the earth and all the flying creatures of the air, brought them to Adam, in order to see what he would call them. For whatever Adam would call any living creature, that would be its name.

    5. How do you know your interpretation of the Earth itself is correct when the flat earth theory exists?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    No, because historians arent God

    Nor did I say that, dipshit. Focus.

    If god is all-powerful, why couldn't he convey simple facts clearly through the bible he supposedly influenced? Why does it contradict itself and our reality at all?

    It isn't

    Saying things doesn't make them true. Even if you are correct (which you are not), you have done nothing to demonstrate that.

    He did

    Saying things doesn't make them true. That's all the bible is, by the way. People saying things.

    Genesis 2:19 Therefore, the Lord God, having formed from the soil all the animals of the earth and all the flying creatures of the air, brought them to Adam, in order to see what he would call them. For whatever Adam would call any living creature, that would be its name.

    You skipped the contradiction. Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about whether animals or humans were created first.

    Also, the idea that animals were created for us to eat and exploit is deeply fucked. STOP DEFENDING ABUSE.

    How do you know your interpretation of the Earth itself is correct when the flat earth theory exists?

    Evidence. Have you never ridden on an airplane or used a telescope? Are you seriously comparing your own beliefs to the flat earth theory? This is suicidal stupidity, and you're taking us down with you. Do better.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Interesting, I'd love to see the report. Ah, it's linked at the bottom of the article. Hmm, the link is unsafe, certificate expired two years ago. I proceeded with caution and saw... a 404 error.

    There is no evidence of this supposed miracle.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    That is a letter, not a report.

    I have not been able to find the report myself, but other scientists have commented on it, including catholic "scientists":

    DR. KELLY KEARSE, A CHEMIST SPECIALIZING IN BLOOD RESEARCH AND IMMUNOLOGY AND A TEACHER AT KNOXVILLE CATHOLIC HIGH SCHOOL, IS CALLING FOR THE USE OF MORE ACCURATE RESEARCH METHODS IN INVESTIGATING THE SHROUD OF TURIN AND OTHER RELIGIOUS PHENOMENA THOUGHT TO BE DIVINE.

    Dr. Kearse points out important natural explanations that were never addressed. Until those are ruled out as causes, it is premature to claim a miracle.

    It seems remarkable that all five test for the same, rare blood type. But there is a problem: the A and B antigens are not unique to humans. Since the 1960s, biologists have known that bacteria cells also have A and B antigens on their surfaces. Hence, if a sample is contaminated with bacteria, even if it contains no blood at all, it could still show a type AB blood result in this test.

    A “very low concentration of human DNA” is indicative of handling contamination. In forensic DNA tests, trace amounts of DNA from humans who touch a sample can be unintentionally amplified, and reports say the hosts were touched by several people.

    https://etcatholic.org/2025/01/exaggerations-and-eucharistic-miracles/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    "It seems remarkable that all five test for the same, rare blood type. But there is a problem: the A and B antigens are not unique to humans. Since the 1960s, biologists have known that bacteria cells also have A and B antigens on their surfaces. Hence, if a sample is contaminated with bacteria, even if it contains no blood at all, it could still show a type AB blood result in this test.

    Yet, without anyone ever checking for bacteria as the explanation, the claim about the blood type is often repeated as miraculous."

    They do check for Serratia, thats literally the FIRST thing they do

    Dr. Kearse devised, for the first time ever, a set of control experiments. He obtained unconsecrated Communion wafers and processed them according to the same conditions described above. He left them in a dusty, dark corner for several days and then stored them in water at ambient temperature and humidity for seven to 10 days. Approximately 15 percent of the control wafers formed a gelatinous red substance on the surface, like the photos from the eucharistic miracle reports.

    Microscopy, fluorescence, and molecular biology techniques showed the reddish substance to be fungus and bacteria. Again, this is a natural explanation that was not checked but easily could be. Dr. Kearse presents a variety of tests showing that blood can easily be distinguished from microorganisms. As before, genetic testing would ultimately confirm what the red substances are and whether they have a single origin.

    They test for serratia

    The other AB results are from cloths believed to have touched Jesus at the crucifixion (the relics): the Shroud of Turin (a burial garment), the Tunic of Argenteuil (a seamless robe), and the Sudarium of Oviedo (a face cloth).

    Also, Sokolka went through electron microscopy, and serratia tests.

    " Two independent university professors. Professor Maria Elżbieta Sobaniec-Łotowska and Professor Stanisław Sulkowski, both of the Department of Pathomorphology at the Medical University of Białystok, conducted independent analyses and reached the same conclusion — without consulting each other.

    • The tissue is cardiac muscle. Both professors identified the substance as human cardiac muscle tissue (myocardium) based on multiple diagnostic features: segmentation and fragmentation of muscle fibers, communicating junctions characteristic of heart muscle, centrally positioned cellular nuclei, and contraction nodes.
    • Electron microscopy confirmation. Electron microscope imaging revealed intact myofibril filaments and junction outlines — structures visible only at extreme magnification that are uniquely characteristic of cardiac muscle. This level of structural preservation in unpreserved tissue exposed to water is, by established science, impossible.
    • No decomposition. The tissue showed no signs of autolysis (cellular self-destruction) — a process that begins within hours of tissue death and is accelerated by water exposure. The professors explicitly noted that a bacterial culture would deteriorate within a week under similar conditions, yet this tissue remained intact for months.
    • Tissue fused with bread at fiber level. Microscopic examination showed that the cardiac tissue was intertwined with the bread fibers of the Host at a structural level — not sitting on the surface, but integrated into the substrate. The scientists stated this phenomenon could not be replicated or explained by any known natural process.
    • Official Church confirmation. On October 14, 2009, the Metropolitan Curia of Białystok issued an official statement confirming the scientific findings and declaring that the event "does not contradict the faith of the Church, but rather confirms it."
    • Consistent with the global pattern. The identification of cardiac muscle tissue places Sokółka in a direct line with Lanciano (1970 analysis), Buenos Aires (2004 analysis), and Tixtla (2009–2012 analysis) — four independent scientific investigations across three centuries of miracles, all finding the same tissue type."
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Sokolka went through electron microscopy, and serratia tests.

    How do we know that?

    I found a Polish newspaper article suggesting the research was amateurishly performed and should have been more extensive. I used the auto-translate feature that my browser has, I can't guarantee accuracy.

    https://www.rp.pl/kosciol/art7471901-co-sie-naprawde-stalo-w-sokolce

    What kind of research did Professor Sulkowski perform? It's unclear exactly. He enigmatically replies that it fell within the scope of his specialty.

    However, he refuses to say how the nuclei were arranged in the fiber of the tissue he examined. "Such questions fall within the purview of the appropriate commission investigating the miracle," he says, cutting the conversation short.

    DNA testing would precisely indicate whether the tissue being examined is human or animal, and whether it's male or female. "We would determine with a high degree of probability what region of the world it comes from. We would dispel any doubts," assures Professor Śliwka.

    Prof. Chyczewski: – The Archbishop was not interested in conducting such research. I was told that since the material was believed to be of miraculous origin, there was no need to bother with it any further.

    Did he even publish his results? There should be images, evidence. So far we still just have claims.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Another polish article about this: https://naukawpolsce.pl/aktualnosci/news%2C367624%2Cuniwersytet-medyczny-odcina-sie-od-badan-ws-cudu-w-sokolce.html

    The Medical University of Białystok officially distances itself from the results of these studies and emphasizes that the university does not endorse them.

    One of the most valuable things about science is the consistent ability for anyone to repeat the experiment and get the same result. Why does the catholic church keep hiding from showing us that it is true?

    "We did not do this as a university," Chyczewski told PAP, adding that the tests were conducted illegally, "quietly," outside the official channels. They took place at the Academic Department of Pathomorphological Diagnostics. Chyczewski emphasizes that the university was not commissioned to perform these tests, and the study was not registered anywhere. "Please do not attribute the diagnosis to any specific department operating within the institution called the Medical University," Chyczewski wrote in his statement.

    Why didn't they collaborate with the university, if they have legitimate evidence?

    Professor Chyczewski believes that his colleagues who made the diagnosis made a "schoolboy error" by trying to combine theology and biology, which, in his opinion, is impossible.

    Because biology is evident and theology is not.

    Just a few weeks ago, when the news of the tests became public, Archbishop Ozorowski said: "We are dealing with an extremely subtle matter. If we confess that this is the body of Christ, we cannot just cut it into pieces and subject it to tests. We must exercise caution and a certain fear."

    Fear of your own savior? Fear of your "loving" god's punishment for proving his own existence? This same god who once loved when his own creations were eviscerated and cooked now is squeamish? Ohhhh, no, I get it, he's only offended when it's his OWN flesh that gets... Wait, what about Jesus, though? He was willing to make that sacrifice, but not this one?

    Please stop defending catholicism. It is a death cult. People are dying for your false beliefs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments