27 Apr '07 21:02>1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrAs much as a debate about the appropriate decision criteria for assessing the actions of the deceased can, I suppose.
Well, at least this debate makes sense.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI wonder what it is like, phenomenologically, for the candidate saint to take a petition to God. Does he, say, walk into a throne room, kneel, and straight up ask God to help out? Does he telepathically communicate the request? How does this work?
As much as a debate about the appropriate decision criteria for assessing the actions of the deceased can, I suppose.
Originally posted by bbarrWell, you see, it's just like the story of the prodigal son...
I wonder what it is like, phenomenologically, for the candidate saint to take a petition to God. Does he, say, walk into a throne room, kneel, and straight up ask God to help out? Does he telepathically communicate the request? How does this work?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI am beginning to suspect that you are now just looking for any excuse to attack the RCC. Do you remember that this thread is supposed to be on the sibject of whether an OOO God who is benevolenent must be persuaded to do good, and not on the subject of sainthod? Square one is whether God needs to petitioned to do good, right?
Then we are back to square one. What is the decision procedure for determining whether a candidate for sainthood has satisfied the requirement of performing a posthumous miracle? It has been proposed that having observed Q petition P petition God for a miracle healing and then having P healed was sufficient to determine that P had performed a mirac ...[text shortened]... ed their required miracle. Why can't somebody just tell me how this determination is made?
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
It must be proved that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P. I should think that obvious to everyone. It is not enough for someone to petition P and later experience a miracle. There has to be a causal link.
Originally posted by lucifershammerEh? Do you have any concrete examples of this kind of thing?
[b]Catholics will often identify a miracle as an affirmation of the legitimacy of a doctrine. Say a prominent supporter claimed that Limbo existed and then cured many people of cancer, that may be regarded as a validation of the theory of limbo.[/b]
Eh? Do you have any concrete examples of this kind of thing?
I imagine that if such Q expe ...[text shortened]... ship, not an IFF relationship. The absence of a miracle does not imply the absence of sainthood.
A miracle is obviously a clear proof of the divine origin of the doctrine in support of which it is wrought; it is God's positive testimony that the doctrine is true, and God cannot testify to a lie.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
What are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
And don't you see that accepting an OOO God entails that such a causal link cannot exist, for if it did it would mean either that but for P's action God would have done the wrong thing, or subse ...[text shortened]... icitly denies that any further causal link need be established. Who is right, you or him?
Originally posted by Conrau KWell, what are the decision criteria for rejecting other causes of the miracle? For example, on what conditions would you reject the possible cause that God healed out of benevolence to ease the victim's suffering?
[b]What are the decision criteria for affirming that such a link exists, for establishing that the miracle must only have followed from the petitioning of P?
I suppose the rejection of any other causes for the miracle. [/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesPerhaps praying to a saint to make things clear is necessary.
Well, what are the decision criteria for rejecting other causes of the miracle? For example, on what conditions would you reject the possible cause that God healed out of benevolence to ease the victim's suffering?