Modern miracles

[seashale76]

My apologies, but I still don't understand. Is it simply the name for a group of Christians engaging in the group worship of God? Is it proper name for the Christian ritual whereby Christians eat wafers and drink wine?
Or is there something more to it than that? Something less mundane, more... spiritual?

I assure you, there's nothing mundane about it. You're more than welcome to come and see for yourself.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I assure you, there's nothing mundane about it. You're more than welcome to come and see for yourself.

How can I go see it if I don't know what it is?
Can you describe it in your own words? In what way is it a modern miracle?

 

[ebia]

On the contrary, you're assuming that I'm using the Bible at all. I'm not talking about what the Bible calls 'miracles' (I'm quite aware of what modern Christianity considers to be miraculous). Rather, I'm talking about those phenomena described in the Old and New Testaments wherein God gives some outward, objective display (e.g., talking through burning bushes, parting the Red Sea, turning rods into snakes). Whatever you want to call them, God has apparently stopped performing them.

Seems to me you are reading the biblical text biblical text, and reading it through your enlightement categories. What the biblical writers cannot be trying to do is to describe an event that its "impossible according to 20th century science". What they are trying to do is describe wonderous events of God's working around and through them. You pick out a few and read them through an anachronistic lens and then say 'why don't they still happen like that'? They have to be read on their own terms.

Perhaps, but it's not a miracle in my sense.

I would suggest that there have actually only ever been a very few such "miracles" and such are intentionally one off events that mark major turning points in the story of salvation (perhaps just Exodus and Resurrection). We don't live at such a turning point.

 

[Chesterton]

I think you're confusing blind adherence in materialism to healthy scepticism. It's one thing to search for a natural explanation (after all, a natural explanation is more likely than a supernatural one), but I agree that it's wrong to dismiss any supernatural explanation out-of-hand. That's why I reject the idea that science is inherently naturalistic (or, more accurately, reject the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural'; there are simply phenomena).

No I'm not confusing those; I think religious people naturally have, and should have, a healthy scepticism too. Many occurrences of miracles in the Old and New Testament are met with scepticism from the witnesses. But you mentioned "undeniable" miracles, I was trying to make a point that such a thing would be very hard to come by. For example, the parting of the Red (Reed) Sea. The future children of those who crossed the sea would only have knowledge of the event the same way you and I would: being told about it, and they could choose to disbelieve it. Even some of the eyewitnesses may have attempted naturalistic explanations of a body of water defying gravity and parting, as some people do today (just from TV shows I've seen 3 or 4 different natural explanations offered). But if I agree that it was an undeniable miracle, even then it was so for a relatively small number of people, and only during their lifetime.

Acknowledging that a miracle occurred doesn't mean you can't complain about it, or that you see it as any less divine if you do. God could spontaneously set my room on fire, and I'd be forced to concede that that is, indeed, a miracle. But that doesn't mean I can't complain about being set alight!

And calling the Dunkirk Evacuation the "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a) overlaying it with unnecessary religious overtones (which I think Wikipedia has a policy against),

Well when I start my own encyclopedia site I'll have a policy against unnecessary materialistic overtones. Seriously, my point is sort of based on what I think may be an idea behind your OP, that you think maybe God should perform in-your-face miracles today, and my point is that the Bible is a story of miracles, but it is just as much a story of how easily humans forget, ignore or disregard miracles. Read Psalm 78. And consider Christ's parable of the vineyard, in which the sending of prophets over time doesn't keep the people faithful, so God says, finally, "I will send my Son".

But within the last few years: a cross is tossed into the Jordan river and the river flows backwards; the Holy Fire lights itself once a year in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre; a cross appears in the clouds over a Russian city; a man in New York falls 47 stories onto concrete and survives. I could go on. So how do these affect your life? What's your response? I assume it's either "that didn't happen" or "it happened but there was a natural cause".

and b) an exercise in statistical ignorance. Of all the military operations that went on during WW2, a small fraction are bound to have an unusually good casualty rate. This is simply a consequence of repeatedly running a normally-distributed trial.
It was only a 'miracle' in the 'what a fortuitous turn of events!' sense. What most people consider to be actual, religious miracles is something quite different.

The miracle primarily was that the German high command simply ordered its army to stop, right as the German army was about to win the war. You know, your national anthem asks God to save your Queen. Then when He does it, you ungratefully say "meh, we got lucky".

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Seems to me you are reading the biblical text biblical text, and reading it through your enlightement categories. What the biblical writers cannot be trying to do is to describe an event that its "impossible according to 20th century science". What they are trying to do is describe wonderous events of God's working around and through them. You pick out a few and read them through an anachronistic lens and then say 'why don't they still happen like that'? They have to be read on their own terms.

Again, you don't seem to understand what I'm asking. I'm not talking about events impossible to 21[sup]th[/sup] century science, I'm talking about objectively verifiable instances of divine intervention. I don't care what the Bible calls them, or what it defines as 'miraculous'.

I would suggest that there have actually only ever been a very few such "miracles" and such are intentionally one off events that mark major turning points in the story of salvation (perhaps just Exodus and Resurrection). We don't live at such a turning point.

On the contrary, these events are rife in the Bible.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No I'm not confusing those; I think religious people naturally have, and should have, a healthy scepticism too. Many occurrences of miracles in the Old and New Testament are met with scepticism from the witnesses. But you mentioned "undeniable" miracles, I was trying to make a point that such a thing would be very hard to come by. For example, the parting of the Red (Reed) Sea. The future children of those who crossed the sea would only have knowledge of the event the same way you and I would: being told about it, and they could choose to disbelieve it. Even some of the eyewitnesses may have attempted naturalistic explanations of a body of water defying gravity and parting, as some people do today (just from TV shows I've seen 3 or 4 different natural explanations offered). But if I agree that it was an undeniable miracle, even then it was so for a relatively small number of people, and only during their lifetime.

Obviously, future generations (especially those in the far future) would have difficulty believing that a genuine miracle actually occurred. My personal belief is that many of these 'miracles' were simply mundane phenomena that the people of the time had no way of explaining (at the time of Exodus, a nearby volcano erupted; this would seem like a pillar of fire by night, and a pillar of smoke by day. It would also drain the Red Sea, either by shifting the underlying bed, or by creating tsunami. The Ten Plagues of Egypt also have naturalistic explanations).

Which is why I'm not surprised that miracles mysteriously don't occur nowadays: they never occurred in the first place.
But that's just my opinion as an atheist .

Well when I start my own encyclopedia site I'll have a policy against unnecessary materialistic overtones. Seriously, my point is sort of based on what I think may be an idea behind your OP, that you think maybe God should perform in-your-face miracles today, and my point is that the Bible is a story of miracles, but it is just as much a story of how easily humans forget, ignore or disregard miracles.

I'm not saying he should, I'm just wondering why he stopped. What's changed?

Read Psalm 78. And consider Christ's parable of the vineyard, in which the sending of prophets over time doesn't keep the people faithful, so God says, finally, "I will send my Son".

The purpose of the miracle is irrelevant. The fact remains that God has stopped performing them (or, at least, the sort that frequently occurred in the OT), and I'm asking why.

But within the last few years: a cross is tossed into the Jordan river and the river flows backwards;

Source?

the Holy Fire lights itself once a year in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre;

Allegedly. No-one knows what goes on in there, and one story tells that it's lit by a rather mundane icon-lamp.

a cross appears in the clouds over a Russian city; a man in New York falls 47 stories onto concrete and survives. I could go on. So how do these affect your life? What's your response? I assume it's either "that didn't happen" or "it happened but there was a natural cause".

If you can substantiate these claims, I can say more.

The miracle primarily was that the German high command simply ordered its army to stop, right as the German army was about to win the war.

The statistics still apply .

You know, your national anthem asks God to save your Queen. Then when He does it, you ungratefully say "meh, we got lucky".

We're grateful where gratitude is due.

 

[ebia]

Again, you don't seem to understand what I'm asking. I'm not talking about events impossible to 21[sup]th[/sup] century science, I'm talking about objectively verifiable instances of divine intervention. I don't care what the Bible calls them, or what it defines as 'miraculous'.

As I've said, I don't think you will find many in the bible if you read it through the right lens.

But if you try to read the bible through an post-enlightenment lens that distortion will mean that you think you see many of them.

The biblical writer is trying to describe something wonderous, and you read back into that something supposedly objectively verifiable.

But lets have a look at your list. The site you link to lists a supposed 120. Hardly an enormous number for the entirity of human history to 60 AD. Of those about 40 are associated with the immediate presence of Jesus - a special case in anybody's book. Leaves us with about 80.
Take off the handful at the beginning that are part of myth telling of early Genesis. Leaves say 75.

How many of those 75 would actually be "objectively verifiable"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

As I've said, I don't think you will find many in the bible if you read it through the right lens.

But if you try to read the bible through an post-enlightenment lens that distortion will mean that you think you see many of them.

The biblical writer is trying to describe something wonderous, and you read back into that something supposedly objectively verifiable.

So are you saying the events didn't take place as recorded in the Bible? That is was just a metaphor for something more... nebulous?

But lets have a look at your list. The site you link to lists a supposed 120. Hardly an enormous number for the entirity of human history to 60 AD. Of those about 40 are associated with the immediate presence of Jesus - a special case in anybody's book. Leaves us with about 80.
Take off the handful at the beginning that are part of myth telling of early Genesis. Leaves say 75.

How many of those 75 would actually be "objectively verifiable"?

The plagues of Egypt seem pretty objective. Either all the first-born sons died, or they didn't.

 

[Chesterton]

Obviously, future generations (especially those in the far future) would have difficulty believing that a genuine miracle actually occurred. My personal belief is that many of these 'miracles' were simply mundane phenomena that the people of the time had no way of explaining (at the time of Exodus, a nearby volcano erupted; this would seem like a pillar of fire by night, and a pillar of smoke by day. It would also drain the Red Sea, either by shifting the underlying bed, or by creating tsunami. The Ten Plagues of Egypt also have naturalistic explanations).

Which is why I'm not surprised that miracles mysteriously don't occur nowadays: they never occurred in the first place.
But that's just my opinion as an atheist .

Naturalistic explanations or not, mundane events occuring at fortuitous times and places could still be miracles.

I'm not saying he should, I'm just wondering why he stopped. What's changed?

The purpose of the miracle is irrelevant. The fact remains that God has stopped performing them (or, at least, the sort that frequently occurred in the OT), and I'm asking why.

The wonders God worked among the Jews were to establish the knowledge of Himself through His chosen people. It was even commanded that they should record and remember the more significant miracles, and Jews still celebrate Passover to this day. So we have the record of the stories, and we can believe them or not. I believe those miracles among the Jews were for certain purposes at certain historical times, and it's just no longer the primary way God works since the time He became one of us and effected his work of salvation. But the purposes of some of the miracles are not irrelevant, with respect to their pre-figuring later Christian realities, e.g., the Exodus was deliverance by God, as Christ's salvation is deliverance, and Christians celebrate the "new Passover" (Pascha/Easter).

Source?

Allegedly. No-one knows what goes on in there, and one story tells that it's lit by a rather mundane icon-lamp.

If you can substantiate these claims, I can say more.

I can't substantiate them, but that's my point. They're things people report. But if you and I were living in Canaan or Philistia at the time of the Exodus and heard reports of the Exodus events we'd be in a similar position, right?

 

[ebia]

So are you saying the events didn't take place as recorded in the Bible? That is was just a metaphor for something more... nebulous?

That they are told in such a way a to make clear their wonderous nature.

The plagues of Egypt seem pretty objective. Either all the first-born sons died, or they didn't.

Or lots of children died in some catastrophic way and the author of Exodus tells it in a way that in a way that brings out its theological and wonderous meaning.

All storytellers tell the stories in ways appropriate to their purpose. Virtually never is that a straightforward recording of chronological 'facts', even in our age. A newspaper reporter does that just as much as the writer of Exodus or 'Julius Caesar'.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That they are told in such a way a to make clear their wonderous nature.

I'll take that as a 'yes'.

Or lots of children died in some catastrophic way and the author of Exodus tells it in a way that in a way that brings out its theological and wonderous meaning.

So your answer to my OP would be "God didn't stop them, they were never common in the first place"?

All storytellers tell the stories in ways appropriate to their purpose. Virtually never is that a straightforward recording of chronological 'facts', even in our age. A newspaper reporter does that just as much as the writer of Exodus or 'Julius Caesar'.

Agreed.

 

[ebia]

So your answer to my OP would be "God didn't stop them, they were never common in the first place"?

I thought I had already said that, but perhaps not clearly enough. Yes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Naturalistic explanations or not, mundane events occuring at fortuitous times and places could still be miracles.

Not according to the definition I'm using in this thread .

The wonders God worked among the Jews were to establish the knowledge of Himself through His chosen people. It was even commanded that they should record and remember the more significant miracles, and Jews still celebrate Passover to this day. So we have the record of the stories, and we can believe them or not. I believe those miracles among the Jews were for certain purposes at certain historical times, and it's just no longer the primary way God works since the time He became one of us and effected his work of salvation.

Then you answer to my OP is "God stopped performing miracles because of Christ"?

But the purposes of some of the miracles are not irrelevant, with respect to their pre-figuring later Christian realities, e.g., the Exodus was deliverance by God, as Christ's salvation is deliverance, and Christians celebrate the "new Passover" (Pascha/Easter).

So the early OT miracles were simply foreshadowing Christ, and, once Christ had come and gone, there was nothing left to foreshadow?

I can't substantiate them, but that's my point. They're things people report. But if you and I were living in Canaan or Philistia at the time of the Exodus and heard reports of the Exodus events we'd be in a similar position, right?

Agreed. But it seemed like you were trying to justify the existence of miracles in the modern world (the Holy Fire, for example), and I was chipping away at the examples. My apologies for misinterpreting you.

That said, do you, like ebia, say that the 'miracles' in the OT are nothing more than mundane events retold in theological guise? That is, the parting of the Red Sea really was a natural phenomenon, but subsequent retellings gave it a divine overtone.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I thought I had already said that, but perhaps not clearly enough. Yes.

I like to make sure . Thanks for enduring my tirade of questions .

 

[Chesterton]

Not according to the definition I'm using in this thread .

God could either directly turn a body of water into actual blood, or cause the water to turn red via a carbon dioxide eruption. Either way it's a miracle. The use of natural means would not by itself disprove miracle.

Then you answer to my OP is "God stopped performing miracles because of Christ"?

No, of course I don't know the answer to the OP, we're just guessing at the mind of God. God is the great engineer and technician, but I suspect He's even greater as artist and author. It's fairly easy to look at an engineer's work and deduce why he did this or that, because an engineer is following rules. It's a lot tougher with an artist's work. An engineer is dictated to by physical laws, but an artist must deal with dynamic human psychology.

The Old Testament is all about Christ (I believe many religions of many people around the world are ultimately about Christ), so yes, in a narrow sense, you could say a certain type of grand miracle stopped after Christ, because the person of Christ is the culmination of things, the final revelation. The power, the wrath, the concern and the love all revealed in the OT miracles is embodied and incarnate in Christ's ministry.

So the early OT miracles were simply foreshadowing Christ, and, once Christ had come and gone, there was nothing left to foreshadow?

I know that some do, I don't know that all OT miracles directly foreshadow Christ, they might, but then I'm not an expert there. I think that may be part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

That said, do you, like ebia, say that the 'miracles' in the OT are nothing more than mundane events retold in theological guise? That is, the parting of the Red Sea really was a natural phenomenon, but subsequent retellings gave it a divine overtone.

I'm not sure that's exactly what ebia said. He said a re-telling of events could "bring out" it's meaning; I'm not sure he meant "invent a meaning" for the event. But no, I don't think they were mundane events. If nothing else that would be too statistically improbable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

God could either directly turn a body of water into actual blood, or cause the water to turn red via a carbon dioxide eruption. Either way it's a miracle. The use of natural means would not by itself disprove miracle.

How would God 'use' natural means? Ultimately, he would have to intervene at some point (even if it's just pushing a molecule slightly to the left), otherwise it's not a miracle: it's just an unusual event that God had no say in. It doesn't matter if people think God did it, or if it gives people faith in God.

No, of course I don't know the answer to the OP, we're just guessing at the mind of God. God is the great engineer and technician, but I suspect He's even greater as artist and author. It's fairly easy to look at an engineer's work and deduce why he did this or that, because an engineer is following rules. It's a lot tougher with an artist's work. An engineer is dictated to by physical laws, but an artist must deal with dynamic human psychology.

The Old Testament is all about Christ (I believe many religions of many people around the world are ultimately about Christ), so yes, in a narrow sense, you could say a certain type of grand miracle stopped after Christ, because the person of Christ is the culmination of things, the final revelation. The power, the wrath, the concern and the love all revealed in the OT miracles is embodied and incarnate in Christ's ministry.

I think that's a 'yes', though I could be wrong.

I know that some do, I don't know that all OT miracles directly foreshadow Christ, they might, but then I'm not an expert there. I think that may be part of the answer, but not the entire answer.

Fair enough.

I'm not sure that's exactly what ebia said. He said a re-telling of events could "bring out" it's meaning; I'm not sure he meant "invent a meaning" for the event. But no, I don't think they were mundane events. If nothing else that would be too statistically improbable.

We shouldn't be surprised that a statistical improbability occurred, but we should be surprised if it occurs all the time. Imagine all the coincidences that didn't happen, and suddenly this spectacularly unlikely event doesn't seem so spectacular.

 

[Chesterton]

How would God 'use' natural means? Ultimately, he would have to intervene at some point (even if it's just pushing a molecule slightly to the left), otherwise it's not a miracle: it's just an unusual event that God had no say in.

Yes, you're right.

It doesn't matter if people think God did it, or if it gives people faith in God.

But I'm not sure what you mean here.

I think that's a 'yes', though I could be wrong.

Well it's a partial yes, a maybe and another "I don't know". Partial yes or maybe because some theologians divide human history into ages, making the post-Christ age separate from the age of the prophets and law. The OT miracles could be seen as being in conjuction with the old covenant with Israel ("I will be your God and you shall be my people.")

We shouldn't be surprised that a statistical improbability occurred, but we should be surprised if it occurs all the time. Imagine all the coincidences that didn't happen, and suddenly this spectacularly unlikely event doesn't seem so spectacular.

That's true, but maybe that's one reason there were lots of miracles.

------
Bristol's just a stone's throw from Stonehenge isn't it? Did you attend the solstice ceremony/party today?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

But I'm not sure what you mean here.

I mean that something is a miracle regardless of how people react to it (and, likewise, something isn't a miracle despite how much people believe it to be).
At least, in my vocabulary.

Well it's a partial yes, a maybe and another "I don't know". Partial yes or maybe because some theologians divide human history into ages, making the post-Christ age separate from the age of the prophets and law. The OT miracles could be seen as being in conjuction with the old covenant with Israel ("I will be your God and you shall be my people.")

So why would God perform 'foreshadowing' miracles? Why not just do the whole life-death-resurrection thing from day one (i.e., during Genesis 1)?

Bristol's just a stone's throw from Stonehenge isn't it? Did you attend the solstice ceremony/party today?

I always meant to go when I was Pagan, and I'd still like to. But I'm in Birmingham atm getting my physics degree .

 

[Chesterton]

So why would God perform 'foreshadowing' miracles? Why not just do the whole life-death-resurrection thing from day one (i.e., during Genesis 1)?

Humanity had just started; there had to be something for him to do the thing about.