Miracles

Originally posted by Nemesio
Do you recall chiding Rev. Kirk with this comment:
[b]Typical liberal clouding the issue.
So you don't believe in miracles. Jesus didn't heal. The dead weren't really dead when He brought them back to life. The blind didn't receive their sight. The lame didn't walk. A miracle isn't really a miracle. It's only what you want it to be. Heavens, let's not be c ...[text shortened]... ttle him, then? He's a believer, he just believes differently
than you do.

Nemesio

Believe differently?

Eph. 4:11-16
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith,

and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Originally posted by josephw
Believe differently?

Eph. 4:11-16
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Till we all come in the unity of the faith,

and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, ...[text shortened]... g in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

So are you adding to the criteria of being a true believer now? Before, you simply cited the
Romans passage. Now a believer must adhere to this too?

Let's save some back and forth: Give me a complete criterial list of things a believer must
believe in order to be a Christian.

Nemesio

Originally posted by twhitehead
Not at all. No such assumption is required nor did I make it. In fact my question makes it clear that I am not making that assumption.

[b]It seems to me you are just trying to play a 'gotcha' game.
It seems to me that you are not only trying to read more into my question than I put there but also trying to avoid the issue.[/b]

It seems pretty obvious that you didn't even consider what I said. Plainly stated, supernatural laws trump natural laws, natural laws are subject to the supernatural ones because it was the supernatural that created the natural. Natural laws are not being violated when miracles occur, though to the 'natural' mind in may appear so. I'll try an analogy: Take an iron ball and drop it off a tall building. You expect gravity to cause the ball to fall to the earth when you release it, but if you have a properly calibrated magnet above the iron ball, when it's released, the ball could just hang in mid-air, seemingly defying the law of gravity, which it is not, it is just that another law is at work superceding the other. Is anyone here besides twhitehead not getting this?

Originally posted by Nemesio
So are you adding to the criteria of being a true believer now? Before, you simply cited the
Romans passage. Now a believer must adhere to this too?

Let's save some back and forth: Give me a [b]complete criterial list of things a believer must
believe in order to be a Christian.

Nemesio[/b]

You and thinkofone are two peas in a pod. I'm not sure which of you is more delusional.

You're incapable of following the concepts expressed within their contexts from one post to the next.

Originally posted by josephw
You and thinkofone are two peas in a pod. I'm not sure which of you is more delusional.

You're incapable of following the concepts expressed within their contexts from one post to the next.

Let me try to help you understand what I was saying.

I am responding to your apparent criticism of Kirksey's non-belief in the complete corpus of
Jesus' miracles. You seem to think that this is sacrilege or something. However, your definition
of believer from Romans didn't include a belief in Jesus' miracles, nor did your citation from
Ephesians.

So, what's your beef with him? If it isn't criterial to believe in Jesus' miracles, then what do you
care if he has a 'liberal' take on Christianity. If it is criterial to believe in Jesus' miracles, then
support that stance.

Nemesio

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
It seems pretty obvious that you didn't even consider what I said. Plainly stated, supernatural laws trump natural laws, natural laws are subject to the supernatural ones because it was the supernatural that created the natural. Natural laws are not being violated when miracles occur, though to the 'natural' mind in may appear so. I'll try an analogy: T ...[text shortened]... law is at work superceding the other. Is anyone here besides twhitehead not getting this?

We could actually legitimately say that the ball has violated the law of gravity by not falling. It is just a matter of perspective, and you do make a good point. However, it is still irrelevant to the discussion and I suspect little more than an attempt to avoid the issue.
So, in the terms you prefer, maybe you would care to tackle the questions:
Why do some people believe that certain events such as Noahs ark were entirely natural or at least largely natural and go to great lengths to find evidence for that when they do not apply the same thinking to the miracles of Jesus?
And why do other people who do not believe that the miracles of Jesus were strictly following natural laws claim the story of Noah cannot be true because it is impossible within the confines of the natural laws?

Originally posted by josephw
You and thinkofone are two peas in a pod. I'm not sure which of you is more delusional.

You're incapable of following the concepts expressed within their contexts from one post to the next.

I think it is more likely that you read a lot more into the Bible passages that you quote than us mere mortals can see and thus you think that concepts have been expressed when for the rest of us - they haven't.
I for one can see Nemesio's point but not yours.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I for one can see Nemesio's point but not yours.

The easy explanation is that we're sharing the same delusion, twhitehead.

Originally posted by Nemesio
The easy explanation is that we're sharing the same delusion, twhitehead.

Is it not statistically more likely that he is deluded about our state of delusion than that all three of us (you, me and thinkofone) share a delusion?

I really don't see how our incapacity to follow points can be described as delusional.

Originally posted by twhitehead
We could actually legitimately say that the ball has violated the law of gravity by not falling. It is just a matter of perspective, and you do make a good point. However, it is still irrelevant to the discussion and I suspect little more than an attempt to avoid the issue.
So, in the terms you prefer, maybe you would care to tackle the questions:
Why d ...[text shortened]... e story of Noah cannot be true because it is impossible within the confines of the natural laws?

Irrelevant to the discussion?!?!?! At the beginning of this thread the first question YOU asked was, "Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics?" I was right on point. Perhaps you've gone astray in your thinking since you began this thread.
Now, as to the disparity you see, let me just ask: In your mind, why do Jesus' miracles and the Flood/Noah's Ark need to be classed as the same type of phenomena? I don't think they need to be. For starters, Jesus was the initiator of His miracles, while Noah did not initiate the Flood.
twhitehead, do you own a Bible? You sometimes seem to be attacking things without having much knowledge of what you're attacking.

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
Irrelevant to the discussion?!?!?! At the beginning of this thread the first question YOU asked was, "Do you believe that miracles are at least sometimes a violation of the laws of physics?" I was right on point.

No you weren't. You are attacking what is nothing more than a language issue whilst avoiding the remaining questions. Though you have at least answered the basic question of whether or not miracles are not purely within the realm of standard physics.

Now, as to the disparity you see, let me just ask: In your mind, why do Jesus' miracles and the Flood/Noah's Ark need to be classed as the same type of phenomena? I don't think they need to be. For starters, Jesus was the initiator of His miracles, while Noah did not initiate the Flood.
Have I said they need to be classed as the same type of phenomena? In both cases they were initiated by God.
My questions which you are still avoiding are:
1. Why do some people go to great lengths to show that no miracle was involved in the flood?
2. Why do other people ridicule believers in a miracle flood yet believe in a miracle resurrection themselves?

twhitehead, do you own a Bible? You sometimes seem to be attacking things without having much knowledge of what you're attacking.
No, I don't own a Bible, and although I was brought up a Christian and know a little bit about it I do not claim to be very knowledgeable on the subject. But I am not attacking the Bible or the story of Noah or even the miracles of Jesus. I am questioning peoples selective acceptance of miracles.
If you have more knowledge than me on the subject then I would welcome your input in answering the questions.

I'm unsure as to why you keep asserting that I'm avoiding the issues and questions you've proposed. First, you ask if miracles and the laws of physics are contradictory and I answer by trying to give some perspective on the natural vs. supernatural. Again, I must assert that I was right on target with my answer, and not trying to avoid anything - just framing the question in it's proper context.
To address your stated reasons for asking the questions, all I can say is that if you want to continue justifying your own unbelief by pointing at the inconsistencies of various Christians, you will have a never-ending supply of those inconsistencies 🙄 ,but they do not justify your unbelief. If I wanted to justify my being a theist by pointing out the inconsistencies of atheists, I would also have an ample supply of fodder, but I would be making a poor argument, just as you are doing.
BTW, I am curious as to why you say the ID supporters are essentially claiming evidence for a violation of the laws of physics. How so?

Originally posted by dizzyfingers
To address your stated reasons for asking the questions, all I can say is that if you want to continue justifying your own unbelief by pointing at the inconsistencies of various Christians, you will have a never-ending supply of those inconsistencies 🙄 ,but they do not justify your unbelief. If I wanted to justify my being a theist by pointing out the ...[text shortened]... o have an ample supply of fodder, but I would be making a poor argument, just as you are doing.

Actually your mind reading is a bit off. I feel no need to justify my 'unbelief'. Let me explain where the idea came from:
Most of my family are well educated Christians who accept as fact most scientific findings including the age of the earth and the Theory of Evolution. I have an inlaw who is a "Young Earth creationist" who believes that the earth is around 6000 years old and Noahs flood really happened etc. He is also not very well educated. My other relatives make fun of him and point to his lack of education and basically dismiss his beliefs as nonsense. I am actually in a way standing up for him by pointing out to my other relatives that his beliefs are no less rational than theirs.
I see the same sort of thing happening on this site where Christians criticize fellow Christians' beliefs as irrational yet turn a blind eye to the fact that their own beliefs are in fact no more rational.

I just thought I would see how others on this site see it.

BTW, I am curious as to why you say the ID supporters are essentially claiming evidence for a violation of the laws of physics. How so?
I thought I posted an answer to that already, but here it is again:
ID is basically a claim that what we observe in the universe cannot be explained by the 'natural laws'. It is therefore a claim that some metaphysics is not only in operation but is identifiable. Furthermore it claims that we can deduce from the results of said metaphysics that there is an intelligence behind its operation.

twhitehead, I appreciate the background info.
What stands out to me is that you say you have other Christian relatives who make fun of your 'Young Earth Creationist' in-law! I'm not sure how you know this - I'll have to assume they do it in front of you, which, I don't care what they believe, sure isn't Christian! My goodness! Being a Christian isn't about seemingly educated or uneducated you are, it's about loving God and loving your neighbor as yourself! You've got some mighty arrogant relatives if this is what's going on. If this is what the Christians around you are acting like, no wonder you have doubts about Christianity! If this ever happens again, you ought to stop them dead in their tracks by asking them (rhetorically of course) if it's more important to have right opinions or to love your neighbor as yourself!

Last I checked, logic dictates that the laws of physics can ONLY be disproven. If one believes God is everywhere and in everything, one will know that He can do whatever he wants. The laws of physics themselves are not binding, and Quantum Theory would account for Divine Providence.