Miracles Cannot Violate Natural Law

[Pagan]

A Christian friend asked me to read the Gospel of John. The first time I read, John 1:1, I said to my Christian friend, "Your God must act as a sort of grammar."

My Christian friend tried to explain that the word, Word, comes from a Greek word, Logos, which means logic or a kind of argument. My Christian friend tried to explain that in this case, logos acts as more than an argument, but I think that, for Christians, God has a grammatical or logical nature. Grammar and Logic, like libidos, memories, or tetrahedrons, and triangles, exist as mentalness of some kind.

So, one might say, God exists in the mind because as I might paraphrase Henry Fielding, "It must be true. I read it in the Bible, didn't you."

 

[JacksBratt]

Well it's good to know that even though I'm dead you think I will still have my mind and my body.

It will be a different body. But you will most definitely be conscious.

You really do live in a dream world don't you?

Well, for your sake, you better hope it's all a dream. I call it the blessed hope. For believers anyway. You better hope I'm wrong.

 

[Xalith]

Oh man, I am sorry but you have so much to learn.

Have you never heard, "In the old testament Christ concealed, In the New Christ revealed"?

There are so many parallels to Christ in the OT it is astonishing. The whole Passover is a lesson in Christ. Joseph and the coat of many colors.

I'm sorry but this is a whole semester of study. Just believe me when I say that the OT is ALL about Christ, foreshadowing and parallel teachings. While the NT is Christ coming and fulfilling the OT.

We truly could go on forever about how Christ is on every page of the OT, but sadly many professing "Christians" don't even see it.

Christ said it Himself: John 5:45-47. Christ makes it quite clear that Moses (and of course people following Moses) wrote about Him. The OT prophets, even a lot of the stories (like Ruth) have elements of Christ buried in them.

For people wondering "What could Ruth possibly have to do with Christ?", well two things:

1). The bloodline of Christ went through Boaz/Ruth
2). It teaches the "Grafted-in" mechanic, because Ruth was a Moabite (aka, Gentile) but yet she was included in Christ's bloodline, which foretells how Gentiles would be saved later by belief in Christ.

 

[JacksBratt]

A Christian friend asked me to read the Gospel of John. The first time I read, John 1:1, I said to my Christian friend, "Your God must act as a sort of grammar."

My Christian friend tried to explain that the word, Word, comes from a Greek word, Logos, which means logic or a kind of argument. My Christian friend tried to explain that in this case, logos acts as more than an argument, but I think that, for Christians, God has a grammatical or logical nature. Grammar and Logic, like libidos, memories, or tetrahedrons, and triangles, exist as mentalness of some kind.

So, one might say, God exists in the mind because as I might paraphrase Henry Fielding, "It must be true. I read it in the Bible, didn't you."

Well, that is an interesting post. Not sure if meant to insult or explain how you are still trying to figure out "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
All the information and events of the OT are about or describing Christ, His coming and His purpose. So, the word, or scripture of the OT is all about Christ. Therefore He is the word.

Then the Word became flesh. The prophesies and events that foreshadow or parallel Christ all came true when He lived those 33 some odd years. He lived the predictions of the OT and these real life events were written in the NT.

So, Christ is the Word. Everything about it is regarding Him. He existed at the beginning of time.

Thus, In the Beginning was the Word (Jesus Christ). He was with God and actually Christ was the actual part of the triune God that created everything, so He was God, again as part of the trinity.

 

[klatu]

"miracles cannot violate natural law"

I am always amused when anyone, religious or otherwise, upsurps the perogatives of an "Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence" God, to suit their own reason, logic and bias, as if God is subject to those same limitations that human nature suffers under. And if the Biblical God does indeed exist, then the one who created all 'natural law' can change them in any way He might choose. And given the limitations of our species a 'correction' to our nature, founded upon an ethics we have not yet imagined, might be the only way to save both ourselves and the planet!

Hello, dis Habilis here. Habilis wants to mention: miracles cannot violate natural law if God exits. God has qualities that are part of his nature: Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. To name a few... If God Omnipresent that means He exists both within and without the universe. If God exists within the universe, he cannot violate the laws of the universe where He is inside it, because this would contradict Himself. God made universe and natural law. He is omnipresent (within the universe). Within universe, God cannot break natural law. Miracle might bend or extend law, but not violate that law.
This change how we view miracles like big flood: If God used miracles to cause big flood, this flood should follow natural laws. If this true, evidence should look like big flood stir everything up. But fossil record not look this way. So maybe big flood local flood?

 

[Pagan]

Well, that is an interesting post. Not sure if meant to insult or explain ...

He is the word.

I did not intend to insult anyone. If it did insult anyone, I apologize.

I understand that Christians believe that God existed before the creation, but I also know that words and logos exist as mental possesses. Mental processes exist only in the mind, so when a previous poster objected to God existing in his mind, that seemed odd. It seems especially odd because Catholics believe that God is everywhere, so why would the mind be an exception?

 

[jesus4gaveme03]

These miracles of Jesus not contradict Omnipresence. Gods miracles can work through natural law. What happens miraculously may seem like contradiction, but it is just appearance of contradiction to us, because we not know how law bent or changed to make miracle

So, Christ walking on water, turning water, instantly to wine, curing leprosy, blindness, deafness with the touch of a hand is all within the natural laws and some day man will do it without effort? OK!

Jesus healing, adapting the physical properties of water to be able to walk on it, or the chemical properties of water to make it wine, may be explained by science, sure. But what about the miracles that cannot be explained by science, and the scientific advances during the time of Jesus? For example, a virgin woman today can be artificially inseminated and give birth while remaining a virgin. How do you explain a virgin woman, during Jesus' time, becoming pregnant and giving birth to a child? How do you explain feeding the masses not only once, but twice with less than ten loaves of bread and fish each, then multiplying those food enough to feed at least 4,000 people each time? How do you explain the resurrection of Jesus presenting Himself to His disciples with Thomas putting his hands in the holes where the nails were? Then remaining on the Earth for forty days witnessing to more than just His disciples?

 

[JacksBratt]

I did not intend to insult anyone. If it did insult anyone, I apologize.

I understand that Christians believe that God existed before the creation, but I also know that words and logos exist as mental possesses. Mental processes exist only in the mind, so when a previous poster objected to God existing in his mind, that seemed odd. It seems especially odd because Catholics believe that God is everywhere, so why would the mind be an exception?

God is everywhere, you are correct. When the poster stated that "your god is only in your mind" I believe they were stating that God was a figment of my imagination and nothing more. God is not something that I have imagined ore created in my mind.

 

[freezerman2000]

This thread has gone off topic..Please help it get back on track..

 

[SkyWriting]

Jesus healing, adapting the physical properties of water to be able to walk on it, or the chemical properties of water to make it wine, may be explained by science, sure.

No, none of those examples follow scientific principals.
If you can't reproduce the events, it's not scientific.

 

[sparow]

Hello, dis Habilis here. Habilis wants to mention: miracles cannot violate natural law if God exits. God has qualities that are part of his nature: Omnipotence, Omniscience, and Omnipresence. To name a few... If God Omnipresent that means He exists both within and without the universe. If God exists within the universe, he cannot violate the laws of the universe where He is inside it, because this would contradict Himself. God made universe and natural law. He is omnipresent (within the universe). Within universe, God cannot break natural law. Miracle might bend or extend law, but not violate that law.
This change how we view miracles like big flood: If God used miracles to cause big flood, this flood should follow natural laws. If this true, evidence should look like big flood stir everything up. But fossil record not look this way. So maybe big flood local flood?

Suppose there was a natural law that defines God's creation all man can do is perceive it and define it according to mans limitations; I would expect God's miracles to follow the laws of nature even when man cannot understand.

 

[mmksparbud]

miracles cannot violate natural law if God exits.

RONFLOL!!!! That is the silliest thing I've read yet!!----

 

[JacksBratt]

Suppose there was a natural law that defines God's creation all man can do is perceive it and define it according to mans limitations; I would expect God's miracles to follow the laws of nature even when man cannot understand.

"Suppose", There ya go. and "I would expect".

You have just gone into speculation mode.

You started with "miracles cannot violate natural law if God exits." and "he cannot violate the laws of the universe where He is inside it, because this would contradict Himself." and "Miracle might bend or extend law, but not violate that law."


You started with "cannot", "cannot" and "not", in the above quotes. Theses are absolutes.

Now you are changing to "suppose" and "I would expect". Which are speculation.

Further, your speculation is based on nothing. You are a man. You live in the earthly dimension, created by God. You have no understanding of the abilities and possibilities that exist outside this realm by angels, powers, principalities and of course the most powerful force of all the creator of all..........GOD.

No creator is ever limited by that which they create.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I did not intend to insult anyone. If it did insult anyone, I apologize.

I understand that Christians believe that God existed before the creation, but I also know that words and logos exist as mental possesses. Mental processes exist only in the mind, so when a previous poster objected to God existing in his mind, that seemed odd. It seems especially odd because Catholics believe that God is everywhere, so why would the mind be an exception?

Stating that God exists in someone's mind implies that God is a figment of their imagination if you don't provide additional context. That's why they were insulted.

 

[sparow]

"Suppose", There ya go. and "I would expect".

You have just gone into speculation mode.

You started with "miracles cannot violate natural law if God exits." and "he cannot violate the laws of the universe where He is inside it, because this would contradict Himself." and "Miracle might bend or extend law, but not violate that law."


You started with "cannot", "cannot" and "not", in the above quotes. Theses are absolutes.

Now you are changing to "suppose" and "I would expect". Which are speculation.

Further, your speculation is based on nothing. You are a man. You live in the earthly dimension, created by God. You have no understanding of the abilities and possibilities that exist outside this realm by angels, powers, principalities and of course the most powerful force of all the creator of all..........GOD.

No creator is ever limited by that which they create.

You call your self a Protestant, what is it you protest, logic reason and sanity; because there is none of these in your post not even in your misquotes.

 

[JacksBratt]

You call your self a Protestant, what is it you protest, logic reason and sanity; because there is none of these in your post not even in your misquotes.

Maybe you can give me a bit of a hint as to what in the world you, yourself a proclaimed protestant, are talking about.

To come on here and spout insults and accusations without anything to back up your claim is quite unacceptable.

All to often, here, we see this. People who disagree with another posters view and then they just go on an empty rant of the likes of yours. No substance, no thought, no integrity, just insult and condescension.

If you disagree with my view, state yours and the reason for your view. If you need to....... start a new thread so that the existing thread doesn't go off topic. If I deem it to be worth my input, I will respond. If I agree I will "like" your post. If I disagree I will POLITELY respond.

Otherwise.................what you are doing is very unchristian, un-Protestant and called "flaming".

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe you can give me a bit of a hint as to what in the world you, yourself a proclaimed protestant, are talking about.

I remember asking someone (can't remember who) what it was he was protesting?

I don't remember getting an answer.

 

[JacksBratt]

I remember asking someone (can't remember who) what it was he was protesting?

I don't remember getting an answer.

From what I understand, Martin Luther was protesting the fact that the church was not letting the patrons read the scriptures.....There were some important scriptures that the patrons were never taught and this changed everything.

Being a "Protestant" as far as my denomination, is only a result of not being Catholic. Maybe I should change it to "Evangelical" or "Pentecostal" or "Christian Reformed" or "Associated Gospel" or "Baptist" as I attend all of these theologically based churches.

 

[AV1611VET]

Being a "Protestant" as far as my denomination, is only a result of not being Catholic.

Okay ... thanks, JacksBratt.

Maybe I should change it to "Evangelical" or "Pentecostal" or "Christian Reformed" or "Associated Gospel" or "Baptist" as I attend all of these theologically based churches.

May I make a suggestion?

 

[JacksBratt]

Okay ... thanks, JacksBratt.May I make a suggestion?

Sure