Miracles

Originally posted by TheSkipper
I'm not judging you; I'm giving you some advice. Besides, everyone knows that bible colleges are full of girls (assuming you are a single (or polygamist) and straight male) just itching to find a good Christian boy to marry. It’s like a two for one deal, you get a wife and you get knowledge that will help you keep from looking ridiculous on internet mes ...[text shortened]... ..then we can address that young earth thing. Stick with me son, you're gonna be alright.

Ah good grief... just for the record im married.... you sound so closed off to new experiences... i can imagine your dull little life.... do you get off on patronising others.... i clearly state what i feel and because i am not a duplicate of you you attack....

I dont need to stick with you...God is in control...im allright...

Originally posted by Nordlys
So why do you think it's wrong for parents to harm or kill their children? I always thought it was because of the harm done to the child, but if that's the case, how can it be right for God to do it?

Its wrong to harm children ourselves because we all are the creation of the Lord and he said "Thou shall not kill".... only he has that right seeing as he gave us it in the first place....

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Ah good grief... just for the record im married.... you sound so closed off to new experiences... i can imagine your dull little life.... do you get off on patronising others.... i clearly state what i feel and because i am not a duplicate of you you attack....

I dont need to stick with you...God is in control...im allright...

Now who's judging who?

Originally posted by darvlay
Now who's judging who?

Just a response man...nothing more.....

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Its wrong to harm children ourselves because we all are the creation of the Lord and he said "Thou shall not kill".... only he has that right seeing as he gave us it in the first place....

Let's imagine for a moment that we'd be able to create robots which were able to feel pain. Would that give us the right to torture them, because we created them? If anything, I'd say the opposite would be true - being the creators, we would have more responsibility for them.

Originally posted by Jay Joos
Its wrong to harm children ourselves because we all are the creation of the Lord and he said "Thou shall not kill".... only he has that right seeing as he gave us it in the first place....

Harming children is a species of property damage? Yikes! I thought that you shouldn't harm children because it would be cruel to do so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The important factor is whether or not the known laws of nature have been measurable contravened. I have heard of many faith healing stories and seen many examples on tv etc. At no point has it ever been shown to provably violate the laws of nature. Has anyone ever had a missing limb replaced in a miracle? Did anyone who couldn't walk receive a completel ...[text shortened]... d claim it was a gift from God and not only not pay for it but also gain some credit as well.

The very nature of faith healing type miracles makes it very clear that either the laws of nature are not broken or there is some underlying rule that it can never be proven that the laws of nature were broken.

Which, for the sake of this thread, would tend to put faith healing into the second category. And I am really interested in claims for the third. I should have been more clear in the first post about such miracles being “supernatural.” A lot of events can have a naturalistic explanation; and there is also the possibility that an event that appears not to, simply means that there is an aspect of nature that transcends our cognitive ability, without necessitating the leap to the supernatural.

In this thread, perhaps, the difference between the possibility of “transcendant nature” and “super- (or extra-) nature” may not mean much (although in other matters, it does). Although, the supernatural premise can be such a rule as you are talking about.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b](3) An event that is claimed to [b]actually contravene the known laws of nature—e.g., virgin birth, walking on water, turning water instantaneously into wine...[/b]

I'm never sure about this definition. There is no reason to think that there are "laws of nature" per se. Scientists merely develop a set of theories to explain observed phenomenon an ...[text shortened]... ldn't be explained by, say, magentic fields exerted on metal needles around the area.[/b]

Not quite sure what a "miracle" then is. I have often thought the concept of a miracle as something inexplicable by science to be incoherent, because even a miracle performed by God would conform to a pattern (such as, heal loving people), and thus be explicable to scientists.

Which would mean that such an event need not point to God.

Panentheists would perceive the universe to be a constant miracle.

In this sense, could I substitute the word “sacrament” for “miracle”? (Which, does, in a way, seem to fit with what you said above...) I wonder how far panentheism goes toward “naturalizing” theology, compared to strict theism on the one hand, and monism on the other (considering my question about “transcendent naturalism” versus “supernaturalism” ).

In the Catholic Church a healing miracle must be instantaneous, permanent and not explainable by science. Such as if a gash in the stomach suddenly became sewn together, didn't collapse again, and couldn't be explained by, say, magnetic fields exerted on metal needles around the area.

Which is really an event of the second type? Is this not subject to the “god of the gaps” problem? That is, what was considered a miracle in the 12th century, say, could be explainable today?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Not quite sure what a "miracle" then is. I have often thought the concept of a miracle as something inexplicable by science to be incoherent, because even a miracle performed by God would conform to a pattern (such as, heal loving people), and thus be explicable to scientists.

Which would mean that such an event need not point to God.

Panenth ...[text shortened]... at is, what was considered a miracle in the 12th century, say, could be explainable today?[/b]

Which would mean that such an event need not point to God.

Agreed. But I want to point out that it doesn't necessarily follow that God was not the author of the "miracle". I think that science has a sort of doctrine embedded in its methodology that will assume a monist perspective of the universe (not that I'm taking issue with that) so an alternate explanation for any phenomenon, especially a supposedly miraculous one, will always be available.

In this sense, could I substitute the word “sacrament” for “miracle”? (Which, does, in a way, seem to fit with what you said above...) I wonder how far panentheism goes toward “naturalizing” theology, compared to strict theism on the one hand, and monism on the other (considering my question about “transcendent naturalism” versus “supernaturalism” ).

As a Catholic I have certain limits as to how far I will naturalise theology. I do, for instance, distinguish between miracles and sacraments (even though sacraments, as you pointed out, have elements of a miracle) and between God and universe. However, just as Thomas Aquinas' proofs of the existence of God need to be translated into a scientific language after the advent of Newtonian physics, I think that Catholics need to articulate their beliefs in a scientifically orientated culture. I think our idea of transubstantiation needs to be comfortably exiplained in scientific language and we need substitutes for words such as "substance" and "accidents" or in the Trinity concept of "nature" and "person".

Which is really an event of the second type? Is this not subject to the “god of the gaps” problem? That is, what was considered a miracle in the 12th century, say, could be explainable today?

I think there can always be sort of explanation. In the example I imagined, a scientist might apply a sort of anthropic principle and say, 'since it did happen, there is reason for its happening and hence it is not a miracle." So whether something or not is explainable should be irrelevant to whether its a miracle.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]Which would mean that such an event need not point to God.

Agreed. But I want to point out that it doesn't necessarily follow that God was not the author of the "miracle". I think that science has a sort of doctrine embedded in its methodology that will assume a monist perspective of the universe (not that I'm taking issue with that) so an alterna er something or not is explainable should be irrelevant to whether its a miracle.[/b]

Fair enough. I recently said that I thought the supernatural (understood as being "outside" nature) had to be a premise rather than a conclusion. I'm still trying to work out how panentheism might be in a kind of dialectical tension with strict montheism, on the one hand, and monistic non-dualism, on the other.

I need to go back and look at Meister Eckhart, perhaps...