Let's talk miracles...

[Quintessence]

And yet, certain people tend to interpret them as if they really happened as described.

To entertain the thought, it is hypothetically possible that strong miracles once existed in the past (though I personally think this is unlikely). This also begs the question "why don't strong miracles still happen today?"

 

[Storm]

And yet, certain people tend to interpret them as if they really happened as described.

Meh... "Certain people" interpret evolution as proving atheism, as well. Every village has its idiot.

 

[Pegg]

I have a few questions regarding this...

1. Do you believe there is such a thing as miracles?

2. What are miracles and how do you separate them from other rare, but natural, fortunate events?

3. What is the justification for calling something a miracle?

Yes i do believe in the miracles recorded in the bible. I dont believe miracles happen today.

Miracles of the bible were unnatural events that were caused by God. Sometimes God used natural phenomenon such as droughts as a punishment... but when he did, the prophets always forewarned of their coming, so that is how the isrealites knew if a drought or earthquake or something else was caused by God.

the justification for naming an event as a miracle is if the event had been forewarned. Or if the event was carried out by one of Gods servants for the purpose of showing Gods power to the people. For example, Jesus walked on water and calmed a windstorm in the presence of his apostles to show them proof that God was with him. Moses showed the Isrealites Gods power to prove that God was with him, the prophets at times did the same thing and it was always given as evidence of Gods backing.

 

[Storm]

To entertain the thought, it is hypothetically possible that strong miracles once existed in the past (though I personally think this is unlikely). This also begs the question "why don't strong miracles still happen today?"

I have an explanation of that, if you will suffer me to rewrite your definitions.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Meh... "Certain people" interpret evolution as proving atheism, as well. Every village has its idiot.

Very true.
For the record, I will come down just as hard on the scientific ignorance of an atheist as I will on that of a theist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Yes i do believe in the miracles recorded in the bible. I dont believe miracles happen today.

In your opinion, why do they not happen today?

Miracles of the bible were unnatural events that were caused by God. Sometimes God used natural phenomenon such as droughts as a punishment... but when he did, the prophets always forewarned of their coming, so that is how the isrealites knew if a drought or earthquake or something else was caused by God.

You do realize that certain events, such as the world-wide flood, never actually took place, and that we know this for a fact?

the justification for naming an event as a miracle is if the event had been forewarned. Or if the event was carried out by one of Gods servants for the purpose of showing Gods power to the people. For example, Jesus walked on water and calmed a windstorm in the presence of his apostles to show them proof that God was with him. Moses showed the Isrealites Gods power to prove that God was with him, the prophets at times did the same thing and it was always given as evidence of Gods backing.

So in your view, miraculous recoveries (for instance) are not miracles?

 

[Storm]

Very true.
For the record, I will come down just as hard on the scientific ignorance of an atheist as I will on that of a theist.

Cool beans.

 

[Pegg]

In your opinion, why do they not happen today?

because God has already established his credentials and the credentials of his prophets. The record of Gods credentials has been made for us and it is available to all people in the form of the Holy Scriptures.

You do realize that certain events, such as the world-wide flood, never actually took place, and that we know this for a fact?

Yes i realise that some geologists disagree, but it is debatable and not all geologists have interpreted the data in that way.

So in your view, miraculous recoveries (for instance) are not miracles?

no i dont believe they are. Why would God cure some but not others?

 

[jarofthoughts]

because God has already established his credentials and the credentials of his prophets. The record of Gods credentials has been made for us and it is available to all people in the form of the Holy Scriptures.

If that is so well established, how come we're not all Jehova's Witnesses?
I mean, your numbers are, what, 7-8 million people world-wide, and even if we include all Christians, we're still nowhere near all the people on the planet.

Yes i realise that some geologists disagree, but it is debatable and not all geologists have interpreted the data in that way.

Ah, you have chosen the Way of the Creationist.
Sorry mate, this is a subject of debate.
The flood didn't happen, and the Noah story is bunk for so many reasons beside geology that it isn't even funny.

no i dont believe they are. Why would God cure some but not others?

At least we agree on something.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I would believe it if a man with a wooden leg goes to Lourdes and rubs holy water on his stump and new leg miraculously grows back. Now that would be a true miracle. People going into remission from cancer for unexplained reasons are not. That happens all the time irrespective of which faith the person practices.

 

[theirreverentconcubine]

Let's talk miracles? Let's not.

I like the old saw: If it happens once, it's a miracle; if it happens again, it's science.

I only use the term in the avuncular or sarcastic, other than that, the term has no use. I say such in this thread as Jar of Thoughts seems to share my thoughts.

 

[Quintessence]

I have an explanation of that, if you will suffer me to rewrite your definitions.

Go for it. I'm not particularly attached to the definitions. They are just some that I encountered somewhere else that I found interesting.

 

[839311]

I havnt heard of someone's amputed hand or leg miraculously growing back. Although, in time science should be able to solve this problem. I have no doubt at all that when we reach that stage there will also be a sudden appearance of people miraculously having arms and legs grow back. Such deception should be a criminal offense.

 

[Storm]

Go for it. I'm not particularly attached to the definitions. They are just some that I encountered somewhere else that I found interesting.

OK.

So, while I don't believe in the supernatural, I do believe in the art of magic. I realize that will almost certainly confuse some people, however explaining would totally hijack the thread. If you really must know, start a spin off topic, please.

Anyway, the nutshell version is that magic is the deliberate application of raw consciousness to shape the world. I believe it has declined steadily over the centuries, in part because as science progresses, skepticism and disbelief rise.

The thing is, the capacity of magic is intimately linked to the deepest levels of belief. Wholly dependent on them, in fact, because the witch or deity shaping the spell borrows the energy of other life forms. If the energy we seek to tap is unwilling, it is denied. Belief is not the power source, but the power's gatekeeper.

So, as more and more people disbelieve, the available energy has declined sharply. I believe that in the days of the ancients, even the amateur hedge witch could shape wonders that would astonish our modern minds. Now, the most powerful energy shaper on the planet is limited to subtle things easily dismissed.

Questions, comments, confusion?

 

[Pegg]

If that is so well established, how come we're not all Jehova's Witnesses?
I mean, your numbers are, what, 7-8 million people world-wide, and even if we include all Christians, we're still nowhere near all the people on the planet.

seeing is not believing... and faith is 'not the possession of all people' says the bible.
The whole world will never be converted to believe...thats not going to happen.

Ah, you have chosen the Way of the Creationist.
Sorry mate, this is a subject of debate.
The flood didn't happen, and the Noah story is bunk for so many reasons beside geology that it isn't even funny.

im not a creationist, however, i would trust the bible over human reasoning any day. Geologists are still trying to figure out many things about the earth...such as the evidence that there has been 'global' glaciation in the past

so the fact is that the earth has been covered in water (look up snowball earth) and there is evidence for it...the questions over exactly when and why are still ongoing.

 

[jarofthoughts]

seeing is not believing... and faith is 'not the possession of all people' says the bible.
The whole world will never be converted to believe...thats not going to happen.

Well, you were the one who said it was well established.
If that just means that it is 'well established' amongst your personal club, then I am not particularly impressed.
Any whoohaa with a made up god or cosmic principle to worship can claim the same.
What makes your view more 'established' than anyone else's?

im not a creationist, however, i would trust the bible over human reasoning any day.

Perhaps not, but you are doing the exact same thing as they are; i.e. trying to make it sound as if this somehow is a controversial subject among the professionals.
It isn't and a global flood never took place at any time in human history.

Geologists are still trying to figure out many things about the earth...such as the evidence that there has been 'global' glaciation in the past

so the fact is that the earth has been covered in water (look up snowball earth) and there is evidence for it...the questions over exactly when and why are still ongoing.

A frozen Earth is not the same as a flooded Earth, and in any case the hypothesis is working on a time-scale of more than 650 million years ago, which means that there would have barely have been multicellular life (as in, not even arthropods), which means no humans and no Noah.

Sorry, try again.

 

[Pegg]

Well, you were the one who said it was well established.
If that just means that it is 'well established' amongst your personal club, then I am not particularly impressed.
Any whoohaa with a made up god or cosmic principle to worship can claim the same. What makes your view more 'established' than anyone else's?

it has been established by the bible writers and those who confirmed the accounts of the bible a very long time ago. That is the record which God has given us as 'evidence' and its why we dont need to see miracles today to believe.

A frozen Earth is not the same as a flooded Earth, and in any case the hypothesis is working on a time-scale of more than 650 million years ago, which means that there would have barely have been multicellular life (as in, not even arthropods), which means no humans and no Noah.

Sorry, try again.

it stands to reason that, no matter how long ago the earth was covered in ice/water, that water must still be here...water doesnt just vanish

if the earths elements could just vanish, then we wouldnt have an earth. So im sorry, but I cant believe that all that water could have just vanished. You might find it easy to believe that, but that is not what happens in reality. No elements simply disappear from the earth. Water may vaporize, but then it comes back down as rain...it may freeze, but when it melts it returns to water and that water runs into the seas and the cycle starts all over again. So its fantasy land to believe that the earth has never been flooded, it has and that water is still here.

 

[jarofthoughts]

it has been established by the bible writers and those who confirmed the accounts of the bible a very long time ago. That is the record which God has given us as 'evidence' and its why we dont need to see miracles today to believe.

So why is it so full of contradictions and obvious flaws?

it stands to reason that, no matter how long ago the earth was covered in ice/water, that water must still be here...water doesnt just vanish

I will assume you never paid much attention during the science classes in school.

First off, the term 'snowball Earth' does not mean that the Earth was actually covered in a layer of ice that was higher than the continents and the mountains. So your premise is flawed from the outset.
Secondly, even if your premise wasn't flawed, water expands when it freezes, which means that ice, not to mention snow, take up a lot more space than water. (Try it for yourself if you for some inexplicable reason believe me. Take a bucket of snow inside and let it melt. You'll see how little water it actually holds.)
Thirdly, 'snowball Earth' is far from what we would call evidential fact. It is an unproven hypothesis, and while interesting, does not fit with the evidential models.

if the earths elements could just vanish, then we wouldnt have an earth. So im sorry, but I cant believe that all that water could have just vanished. You might find it easy to believe that, but that is not what happens in reality. No elements simply disappear from the earth. Water may vaporize, but then it comes back down as rain...it may freeze, but when it melts it returns to water and that water runs into the seas and the cycle starts all over again. So its fantasy land to believe that the earth has never been flooded, it has and that water is still here.

If the water is still here, then why isn't the earth flooded now?

 

[Me Myself]

I personally believe they ar e governed by laws beyond our natural acknowledgement.

I do believe in them though.

 

[Quintessence]

OK.

So, while I don't believe in the supernatural, I do believe in the art of magic. I realize that will almost certainly confuse some people, however explaining would totally hijack the thread. If you really must know, start a spin off topic, please.

Anyway, the nutshell version is that magic is the deliberate application of raw consciousness to shape the world. I believe it has declined steadily over the centuries, in part because as science progresses, skepticism and disbelief rise.

The thing is, the capacity of magic is intimately linked to the deepest levels of belief. Wholly dependent on them, in fact, because the witch or deity shaping the spell borrows the energy of other life forms. If the energy we seek to tap is unwilling, it is denied. Belief is not the power source, but the power's gatekeeper.

So, as more and more people disbelieve, the available energy has declined sharply. I believe that in the days of the ancients, even the amateur hedge witch could shape wonders that would astonish our modern minds. Now, the most powerful energy shaper on the planet is limited to subtle things easily dismissed.

Questions, comments, confusion?

Heh, interesting. I think I vaguely alluded to this possibility (former greatness of magic that has gone into decline or been sucked out of the world) earlier in the thread, but I forget. It's entirely possible, but we'd have no way of knowing for certain if this is true or not. Either way, as a Neopagan who does work with the concept of magic and/or spellcraft, I think I understand where you're coming from here. At the same time, I sometimes feel suggesting that mere humans have that kind of power (or ever did) is hubris and an affront to the gods.