Miracles Cannot Violate Natural Law

[AV1611VET]

I am forced at this point to ask how old you are ...

61

You?

 

[AV1611VET]

If I recall correctly, you actually upset at least one person to the point that they left the forums because you kept bringing it up.

Is this what you're referring to: 117

 

[PsychoSarah]

If this is the post you're referring to: 117 ... you're wrong.

Oh right, what you did was worse than that. My bad. I'm socially inept, and I know that expressing a minimal amount of sympathy for that kind of loss is standard. Bringing up a drug that caused miscarriages to a person that had two of them, and showing no concern or sympathy for upsetting them, was a jerk move on your part. You didn't need to roll over for them by any means, but you have tons of other, less... mentally traumatizing arguments. Heck, you could have probably continued with the Thalidomide discussion if you said "sorry for your loss, and I am sorry if this topic makes you uncomfortable, but I feel that it is too important a point to give up for your sake."

Anyways... you have been asked repeatedly never to bring up Thalidomide again. I personally don't care, but as I have said, science can't test what the law prevents it from testing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh right, what you did was worse than that. My bad. I'm socially inept, and I know that expressing a minimal amount of sympathy for that kind of loss is standard. Bringing up a drug that caused miscarriages to a person that had two of them, and showing no concern or sympathy for upsetting them, was a jerk move on your part.

You have no idea how I expressed my sympathy to my niece for her two miscarriages -- none.

And as I have stated before, my niece herself would probably bring up Thalidomide, if it was warranted.

ETA: And I'll bring up Thalidomide as I see fit until administration says otherwise. If you guys can bring up genocide and God causing miscarriages, I feel I can certainly bring up Thalidomide.

 

[Jay Follett]

61

I want to believe you but all indications are that you are not 61, if however you are 61 I think something bad happened to your education somewhere along the line.

You?

I'm 75.

 

[AV1611VET]

I want to believe you but all indications are that you are not 61,

And all your indications are in error.

if however you are 61 I think something bad happened to your education somewhere along the line.

Please don't tell me about my education, when you can't hardly type one post without grammatical mistakes.

I'm 75.

And I'm Alfred Neuman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You have no idea how I expressed my sympathy to my niece for her two miscarriages -- none.

That's just as bad, if not worse. Even if she didn't ask for your sympathy, it's rather cold of you to not make an attempt to show some. And this is coming from a person whose sense of sympathy is highly impaired. Even in situations where I don't feel much sympathy, I can usually tell if I am supposed to, and act sympathetic for the sake of the emotional health of others. Thank goodness they're already too upset to notice my bad acting. Not that I feel nothing, I just can't relate to a loss I haven't personally experienced, so I have to relate it to a different loss. I relate it to my feelings on 2 classmates dying before the age of 19 to get an acceptable emotional feel, which is moderately uncomfortable.

And as I have stated before, my niece herself would probably bring up Thalidomide, if it was warranted.

If only we all were that tough. I've unintentionally brought a university professor to tears by criticizing their attempts at looking over papers. None of what I said was dishonest or exaggerated, the other students were constantly complaining about her behind her back, but this adult woman couldn't handle it. If you walk into a conversation assuming others are going to react as you do to what you say, you run the risk of really hurting people.

ETA: And I'll bring up Thalidomide as I see fit until administration says otherwise. If you guys can bring up genocide and God causing miscarriages, I feel I can certainly bring up Thalidomide.

Fair enough, although I try to avoid emotion charged arguments when I can. Personal request from me, though; if you ever feel tempted to bring up Hitler as if he was an atheist, bring up Stalin instead. He was an open atheist, and certainly just as evil if not more so than Hitler, and it prevents that whole unnecessary "he was/wasn't a Christian" nonsense. Still not a good argument, but it works better and prevents some of the unnecessary distraction.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I want to believe you but all indications are that you are not 61, if however you are 61 I think something bad happened to your education somewhere along the line.I'm 75.

That old!? Your diction isn't much better than mine, and I am 21. You speak more like a reasonably educated man in his mid 30s.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personal request from me, though; if you ever feel tempted to bring up Hitler as if he was an atheist, bring up Stalin instead. He was an open atheist, and certainly just as evil if not more so than Hitler, and it prevents that whole unnecessary "he was/wasn't a Christian" nonsense.

Request denied.

I'd rather bring up Hitler, as it energizes the scientific methodists here to point out he was a Christian because he had GOTT MIN UNS on his belt buckle; and that allows me to effectively counter it by pointing out we have IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins, yet they claim the United States isn't a Christian nation.

 

[AV1611VET]

You speak more like a reasonably educated man ...

And I'm Alfred Neuman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Request denied.

I'd rather bring up Hitler, as it energizes the scientific methodists here to point out he was a Christian because he had GOTT MIN UNS on his belt buckle; and that allows me to effectively counter it by pointing out we have IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins, yet they claim the United States isn't a Christian nation.

But Germany was legally a Christian nation... by law. It was in their laws, it's not in those of the United States.

 

[AV1611VET]

But Germany was legally a Christian nation... by law. It was in their laws, it's not in those of the United States.

Assuming you're right, why don't these scientific methods appeal to their law?

Instead they appeal to their belt buckles.

 

[JacksBratt]

Turning water into wine is a parlor trick so easy that even I can pull it off with a few tries.

You could do that? If you were at a big celebration somewhere, you could ask the waitresses to go fill some of those 5 gallon water cooler jugs with water from their tap and then have them take them out to the table and when they poured them out they would pour fine wine out of them? You could do that?

Furthermore, never underestimate the telephone game and the almighty power of exaggeration.

So, they weren't miracles at all? They were he said, she said some more, then the next added even more and eventually it turned a haircut into the blind being able to see?

"healing instantly" could be an exaggeration of Jesus having treatments to ailments that worked moderately well, and given that Jewish medical practices at the time were better in that geographical area than most other groups, they would have reason to find that impressive. Medical men at the time were often viewed as magic, even though their treatments really weren't.

So, I take it, from your point of view, there was no miracle so nothing needed to be "supernatural" just illusions, slight of hand, trickery and some knowledge of special medicine or healing practices known to those who are trained for them.

Thanks for your honesty. I, on the other hand, believe that He was the son of God, and His works were not staged, set up, tricks, special medicine and illusions.

But, that's my opinion.

Also, I don't see how it being good wine would matter, and good wine from that time period would still suck by today's standards.

How do you know that it would suck? These people lived in a warm climate. Juice and milk would spoil very fast. They drank a lot of wine. Do you think they were that culturally stunted that they would not have known good wine? Do you think that the vintners of that day were incompetent compared to today?

I think it is a mistake we all make, to assume that the people of earlier times were less intelligent than we are. I believe that they were, possibly, even more intelligent and wise as they had to live and manage without the technologies we are blessed with.

The reason that I stress that it was good wine is the fact that it takes skill, experience and time to make a fine wine. It makes the miracle that more difficult to fake. Christ would have had to know, beforehand, that they would run out, know that His mother would ask Him to preform a miracle and have a large quantity of very good wine, at His disposal and ready for the whole plan to come together.

 

[JacksBratt]

That's exactly right.. I asked how you can tell what is super natural and instead of giving me an answer you give me the definition of a word from a textbook, and you have the nerve to think the rubbish you gave me was an answer.
The sad thing about this is that you think you're right, you see nothing wrong with all of this, as far as you are concerned you genuinely think you gave me an answer. phew...... or do you?

Ok, let's play your game......

I know that the time Jesus walked on water was "supernatural" because Jesus was a man, His body density would have been greater than that of water (salt or fresh). Therefore, due to the laws of physics, He would not have been buoyant in the water to the extent necessary for Him to walk on the surfce. The water would not have been able to support His weight. Therefore, He should have had to tread water and swim like every other person would have. Also, Peter, another man, asked if he could walk on water, out to where Jesus was. Peter was able to do this until he took his eyes off Jesus and thought of this impossible thing he was doing, lost faith in the fact that he could and started to sink. This is not a natural event. It disobeys the laws of this universe. It is supernatural....

I will await your condescension.

 

[Jay Follett]

Ok, let's play your game......

It's you playing the games not me.

I know that the time Jesus walked on water was "supernatural" because Jesus was a man, His body density would have been greater than that of water (salt or fresh). Therefore, due to the laws of physics, He would not have been buoyant in the water to the extent necessary for Him to walk on the surfce. The water would not have been able to support His weight. Therefore, He should have had to tread water and swim like every other person would have. Also, Peter, another man, asked if he could walk on water, out to where Jesus was. Peter was able to do this until he took his eyes off Jesus and thought of this impossible thing he was doing, lost faith in the fact that he could and started to sink. This is not a natural event. It disobeys the laws of this universe. It is supernatural....

Why are you telling me all these stories from the Bible? you said: "I think supernatural events occur all the time" which tells us you know a supernatural event when you see one, I said: "how can you tell they are supernatural events?" I am still waiting for an answer.

 

[JacksBratt]

It's you playing the games not me.Why are you telling me all these stories from the Bible? you said: "I think supernatural events occur all the time" which tells us you know a supernatural event when you see one, I said: "how can you tell they are supernatural events?" I am still waiting for an answer.

First things first. You keep repeating the question ""how can you tell they are supernatural events?" Let me help you out here. This is not the question you need to be asking. You see, I answered this question already.

Remember, in school, to answer a question you had to use part of the question in the answer. In order to do this, like I taught my kids, it would go like this:

I can tell they are super natural because.......they contradict, break, defy or ignore the laws of nature.

In school, that answer would get a red check mark.

The question that you should be asking is "Can you tell me about a supernatural event that you have seen and why you believe it was supernatural"?

OR... "if they happen all the time, can you tell us about them?" or "give us an example".

See how it is so much clearer?
Go to post #120 in the magnetic bracelets thread. I describe an event where my friend was cured of terminal cancer. He has no evidence in his body, now, that he even had the growths and tumor. Not even scars. The doctor is speechless.

But, you won't believe it anyway. I have taken the time,in the past, to type a couple of the events that have happened to people that I know or are in my family. Posters just want to spend the time stating "it musta been this or it musta been that" or some other excuse as to why it was not a miracle or supernatural.

They happen all the time. Sometimes the people are oblivious, sometimes they do a double take and cannot quite figure out what just happened, sometimes it's right there in front of their nose and they cannot deny it, however, if they tell anyone they may be called crazy. Sometimes it's is undeniable but to admit that something happened that is supernatural or outside the realm of normal reality would mean that the person had to admit that something supernatural exists and they can never do that.

So, I will not give you fodder which you will only use to ridicule me like a school boy. I've been down that road. You'll have to bait someone else.

OH, and by the way....you were saying that you would not recognize a supernatural event if you saw one?

I 99% believe you.

If you did see one, in that 1% window, you would spend every waking moment convincing yourself that it wasn't.

So, I will say Ciao to you. You must have someone else to steal lunch money from.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You could do that? If you were at a big celebration somewhere, you could ask the waitresses to go fill some of those 5 gallon water cooler jugs with water from their tap and then have them take them out to the table and when they poured them out they would pour fine wine out of them? You could do that?

5 gallons? No, a bit too heavy for me to do it, but a strong guy could do that. Have you never seen that parlor trick done before? I prefer the version that "turns water into glitter" personally. You can use a simple chemical reaction to give the appearance of water turning into wine, and even reverse it, as well as give the illusion of pouring water into a container and, while your audience is focused on that, pour actual wine into the container.

So, they weren't miracles at all? They were he said, she said some more, then the next added even more and eventually it turned a haircut into the blind being able to see?

Never underestimate the power of exaggeration and the telephone game, although I suggested that from the start, Jesus had some legitimate medical knowledge that provided some relief to his patients. Just not the insta-cure the bible states.

So, I take it, from your point of view, there was no miracle so nothing needed to be "supernatural" just illusions, slight of hand, trickery and some knowledge of special medicine or healing practices known to those who are trained for them.

Yup, it was very common in the past for medical men to use slights of hand and tricks to make them appear magic and their wares more legitimate.

Thanks for your honesty. I, on the other hand, believe that He was the son of God, and His works were not staged, set up, tricks, special medicine and illusions.

But, that's my opinion.

Thanks for being honest as well.

How do you know that it would suck? These people lived in a warm climate. Juice and milk would spoil very fast. They drank a lot of wine. Do you think they were that culturally stunted that they would not have known good wine? Do you think that the vintners of that day were incompetent compared to today?

The wine would have sucked due to no pasteurization, and no pasteurization means the majority of wines would be more bitter thanks to microbe contaminants. It is possible for a wine of that time to be good by today's standards, but highly unlikely.

I think it is a mistake we all make, to assume that the people of earlier times were less intelligent than we are. I believe that they were, possibly, even more intelligent and wise as they had to live and manage without the technologies we are blessed with.

I don't assume they were less intelligent, but I know pasteurization was developed because so much wine was made bitter by microbial contaminants, and that the process wouldn't exist for more than a thousand years after Jesus was dead. I am not claiming their intellect was lesser, but that their tools were lesser.

The reason that I stress that it was good wine is the fact that it takes skill, experience and time to make a fine wine. It makes the miracle that more difficult to fake. Christ would have had to know, beforehand, that they would run out, know that His mother would ask Him to preform a miracle and have a large quantity of very good wine, at His disposal and ready for the whole plan to come together.

Yeah, it is actually really easy to set up a situation in which a drink will run out. Just don't set out enough for the number of guests you are going to have. The more guests you have, the less suspicious the shortage is.

 

[Jay Follett]

First things first. You keep repeating the question ""how can you tell they are supernatural events?" Let me help you out here. This is not the question you need to be asking. You see, I answered this question already.

Remember, in school, to answer a question you had to use part of the question in the answer. In order to do this, like I taught my kids, it would go like this:

I can tell they are super natural because.......they contradict, break, defy or ignore the laws of nature.

In school, that answer would get a red check mark.

The question that you should be asking is "Can you tell me about a supernatural event that you have seen and why you believe it was supernatural"?

OR... "if they happen all the time, can you tell us about them?" or "give us an example".

See how it is so much clearer?
Go to post #120 in the magnetic bracelets thread. I describe an event where my friend was cured of terminal cancer. He has no evidence in his body, now, that he even had the growths and tumor. Not even scars. The doctor is speechless.

But, you won't believe it anyway. I have taken the time,in the past, to type a couple of the events that have happened to people that I know or are in my family. Posters just want to spend the time stating "it musta been this or it musta been that" or some other excuse as to why it was not a miracle or supernatural.

They happen all the time. Sometimes the people are oblivious, sometimes they do a double take and cannot quite figure out what just happened, sometimes it's right there in front of their nose and they cannot deny it, however, if they tell anyone they may be called crazy. Sometimes it's is undeniable but to admit that something happened that is supernatural or outside the realm of normal reality would mean that the person had to admit that something supernatural exists and they can never do that.

So, I will not give you fodder which you will only use to ridicule me like a school boy. I've been down that road. You'll have to bait someone else.

OH, and by the way....you were saying that you would not recognize a supernatural event if you saw one?

I 99% believe you.

If you did see one, in that 1% window, you would spend every waking moment convincing yourself that it wasn't.

So, I will say Ciao to you. You must have someone else to steal lunch money from.

You may have managed to convince yourself, (which is after all the object of the exercise) but I don't think you have convinced anyone else.
You have it wrong, I don't want to steal anyone's lunch money I want to tell them they don't need to pay for their lunch.

 

[Jay Follett]

Thanks for your honesty. I, on the other hand, believe that He was the son of God, and His works were not staged, set up, tricks, special medicine and illusions.
But, that's my opinion.

I think this is the first time I have ever seen a Christian write that their belief was just their 'opinion', good for you, you are free to have your own opinions but you are not free to have your own facts. thank you Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

 

[JacksBratt]

The wine would have sucked due to no pasteurization, and no pasteurization means the majority of wines would be more bitter thanks to microbe contaminants. It is possible for a wine of that time to be good by today's standards, but highly unlikely.


I don't assume they were less intelligent, but I know pasteurization was developed because so much wine was made bitter by microbial contaminants, and that the process wouldn't exist for more than a thousand years after Jesus was dead. I am not claiming their intellect was lesser, but that their tools were lesser.


Yeah, it is actually really easy to set up a situation in which a drink will run out. Just don't set out enough for the number of guests you are going to have. The more guests you have, the less suspicious the shortage is.

I don't know that the pasteurization is necessary for good wine. Have you ever made wine? It is really quite simple. The grapes are the important part as they have the yeast on their skin, naturally, you don't have to add the yeast. Each different strain of grape has different yeast type. These different strains of yeast are the huge proprietary issue and the different strains were identified, cultured and have been cultured for 100's or 1000's of years.

When you get into trouble is when fruit flies come around. With out being careful, these pesky little things will cause your alcohol to turn to vinegar. Then you're done.


My father in law showed us how he made wine with Ontario wild grapes. All we added was some water to the mashed grapes. The yeast is wild yeast, on the grapes themselves. If you want, you can add more sugar. This gives the yeast more food and as a result your wine is a higher alcohol level. When the alcohol level gets too high, or the sugar runs out, the yeast die and fermentation stops. Some yeast are tolerant of higher alcohol levels than others too.

Any left over sugar will cause the wine to be sweeter. Anytime I have made wine, I use a hygrometer, which allows me to track the sugar content and approximate % alcohol level based on the beginning sugar content. Usually, all the sugar is consumed.