How did St Paul's survive the Blitz?

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Castout

There was a women named Therese Neumann from German town of Konnersreuth. She was somekind of a saint and she opposed Hitler and Nazi.

The allied generals knew about her and ordered that her house be spared from bombing runs.

It still did catch a bomb but she was unharmed. She befriended US WWII general and had a cross put on top of a new church building by a loaned US military helicopter.

She also saved a few Catholic pastors from the hand of the Nazis.
She is also a stigmatist and she survived living without eating and drinking nothing but the blessed hosts for the rest of her life until she died. This is testified by people ordered from the Vatican to investigate her and actually lived with her to do that..

Look her up on the internet.

I remember reading about her year or so ago. There's quite a bit to it that would indicate "foul play". Especially on the subject of bleeding eyes and the stigmata stuff.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I remember reading about her year or so ago. There's quite a bit to it that would indicate "foul play". Especially on the subject of bleeding eyes and the stigmata stuff.

To make Saints, you have to create miracles, I think 3....and the Catholic Church is good at creating both......keeps them rich.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Armistead

To make Saints, you have to create miracles, I think 3....and the Catholic Church is good at creating both......keeps them rich.

Hehe, aint that the truth.

Here's a good read on the case of Theresa Neumann:
http://www.josef-hanauer.de/swindle-...-contents.html

Only chapters 1-5 are translated, the whole book in german is available too:
http://www.josef-hanauer.de/schwi.html

[Schroeder]

That was to be expected.
Thanks Dowly.

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I remember reading about her year or so ago. There's quite a bit to it that would indicate "foul play". Especially on the subject of bleeding eyes and the stigmata stuff.

She has been intensely investigated. There was no foul play. But yeah it may be hard to believe and I guess people could choose what to believe despite the evidence or vice versa the lack of it.

The Nazis tried their best to destroy her reputation mostly through the media. The only reason they would do that is that they feared her. And if they did they must have a reason to so vehemently despise her yet not killed her.

One thing for certain is that I've observed that people are mostly NOT a rational person. We tend to make excuses all the time. Even when we are presented with the fact right before our eyes. It's part of free will I guess.
But then again different people have different experiences and reasons(perception) to believe or not to believe or to want to believe or not to want to believe. I'm not saying that she's 100% genuine but I see no reason to claim otherwise from what I saw of her documentary.

Much like the people who dared to say that the world is round or that the earth is not the center of the universe these kind of people would only dare to commit themselves for future persecutions and ridicules when they are convinced that they are right. Much the same situation with the apostles who were willing to die for what they believed. More often than not these people ideas would mean change and often in the most fundamental ways even when it's only perceived so or not in the real sense of way that the people who have been benefiting from status quo would put enormous efforts to fight whatever revelation that these reformist brought into public knowledge.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Castout

She has been intensely investigated. There was no foul play. But yeah it may be hard to believe and I guess people could choose what to believe despite the evidence or vice versa the lack of it.

The Nazis tried their best to destroy her reputation mostly through the media. The only reason they would do that is that they feared her. And if they did they must have a reason to so vehemently despise her yet not killed her.

One thing for certain is that I've observed that people are mostly NOT a rational person. We tend to make excuses all the time. Even when we are presented with the fact right before our eyes. It's part of free will I guess.
But then again different people have different experiences and reasons(perception) to believe or not to believe or to want to believe or not to want to believe. I'm not saying that she's 100% genuine but I see no reason to claim otherwise from what I saw of her documentary.

Much like the people who dared to say that the world is round or that the earth is not the center of the universe these kind of people would only dare to commit themselves for future persecutions and ridicules when they are convinced that they are right. Much the same situation with the apostles who were willing to die for what they believed. More often than not these people ideas would mean change and often in the most fundamental ways even when it's only perceived so or not in the real sense of way that the people who have been benefiting from status quo would put enormous efforts to fight whatever revelation that these reformist brought into public knowledge.

Did you read the book I linked?

If not, here's a quick summary:

On injuries/condition before stigmata:

• Everytime a doctor tried to examine her eyes when she was "blind", she had a epilectic seizure or felt strong pain. Convient.
• The few times a doctor managed to shine a light to her "blind" eyes, her pupils reacted as if there was nothing wrong with the eyes.
• Many of the injuries she claim to have been "cured", could not be witnessed by a doctor. The bad bed sores AFAIK, the doctor never saw nor was informed off until after she had been "cured".

There's more, just read the thing.

On stigmata:

• No one EVER saw a bleeding wound. Observers/visitors were forced out of the room and when they came back, the blood had already bled.
• Doctors/investigators were blocked by the parents or the minister Naben (or something) to do a proper examination of the stigmata process from beginning to the end.
• Doctors have said that the stains on her cloth simply didn't act like blood. Explanation being that blood expands quickly when in contact with cloth, even if there's a small amount of blood. However the cloth she wore in her head only had small spots of "blood" in it even after so much time had passed.
• Doctor something-starting-with a G (Gelley?) was constantly hindered from doing a test he had done to 30+ alleged stigmatists (is that even a word?) that would make it impossible for the wounds to be altered and would show if there indeed is bleeding. IIRC (not 100% sure), this guy worked for Vatican and his task was to confirm or falsify a case of Stigmata, all 30+ cases he had done before he could falsify with his test.

Again, there is much more than that, just read.

I'm not here to hinder what you belief, I just encourage to see both sides of the story. Read the stuff that I linked and make up your mind then.


EDIT: Schröder, any chance of a quick summary of her eating "habbits" if it's in the end of the book that isn't translated? Would be interested to see what they make of it.

[Schroeder]

I didn't read the whole thing but they did tests on her urine that showed that she has eaten things and that it was often tried to hinder people to do proper examinations on her.

@Castout
I'm sorry, but the Catholic church is so full of fake saints and miracles that I don't believe anything of it. Why else would they often want to prevent proper examination of things?