So, apparently a Muslim baby “miraculously” is displaying red marks on his flesh with Koran verses on them. There’s a discussion of the “miracle” on an online Catholic forum. Interesting how selective some people’s acceptance of miraculous apparitions can be.
Eventually some Muslims show up and the whole thread devolves into a “My God is better than your God” argument, but there are some curious comments earlier up:
“Pure nonsense! Just another hoax to keep Muslims mesmerized by Islam!” Yeah, it’s not like Catholics have divine apparitions every few years (or every few days if you count food products and building reflections) to keep their faith going.
And someone else seems a bit confused at the idea that a loving God would cause a skin rash, rather than something friendly like actual bleeding:
“Why would Allah let a baby suffer (they say it hurts him and he cries, with a high temperature) to bring conversion/reassurance to others? Wouldn’t it be better to do it with somebody’s permission once they’re older, etc?
Very interesting though. I am not sure if the stigmata hurt, but that’s the only comparable thing(that I can think of) in Christianity. But then even if it does hurt (which I don’t think it does) then it happens to a deeply prayerful adult, not a clueless child.”
I don’t recall any stigmatic (someone whose hands and/or feet bleed in imitation of Jesus’ wounds) who said anything about God asking permission before afflicting them.
It’s amazing how clueless people can be about the silliness and absurdity of their own religion, even when they see for themselves how silly and absurd (and downright harmful) religion can be.