Reactor

The Lord also does as he pleases (a theologically sound concept if you care to check). Most likely because he knows what he's doing.


"God, please move our king piece into the path of the knight."

NO.

"But... but... God, sir, I know it'd be good for us. We might even win."

I SAID...

"But God, I don't think it'll be a bad move!"

CAN YOU SAY, CHECKMATE?

"But God, I asked nicely and..."

*God shakes his head*

Metacrock

MEta =>I don't know. How should I feel when atheists say "Xian?" I will tell you how I do feel, I feel as though they are saying "Nigger." Or perhaps "those people" "them" "their kind" "the other." That is how I feel. Should you feel insulted? Well I'm sure you will tell me that "Xian" is not intended as an insult. Somehow I still feel that way but atheists keep using it. How do you feel about "atheiod?" I don't mean it as an insult. Do you still feel insulted?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Why? Because they wont take the time to think about them or find out what they are.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You seem very fond of stating as certainties what you cannot possibly know.

Meta =-> How do you figure that? All I need do is observe what they say. what they have done in the past. Not all of them of course, Ender and STill and certain others are always exempted from my tirades. I am mainly concerned with John and the Troll set. Koy and Kosh and Ipertrich. SD and whoever.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's see how well defiened they are. But first observe, the motvation for this could well be because liberal christianity is the real thing! It is the scholarly version, since these guys are far too uneducated to deal with that they have to dismiss it as though it is meaningless because they are really scared to death to actually try to argue with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =>See now here's a prime example of what I said above. you obviously don't know the history of theology. Rather than take the time to learn it, you make assertions. As I pointed out, the fundies were a 19th century reaction agaisnt something that already existed for almost two centuries, in fact since the Rensiassance. So this is not possible that liberaism is a watered down version of something that did not exist until after it did.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now they will quote Corsson all over the place as though he's a big authority and then turn right around and say that only fundamentalism is true christianity. Crosson is a Christian. He doesn't not think of himself as an atheist and liberal theology is the sort of Christianity he believes in. To taut him as the big authority when he says things you like and than dismiss totally his view point as though it is absurd and stupid, is just totally dishonest and is the mark of a pesudo scholarly hack who can't think!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are those who view Crosson as a pseudo- scholarly hack who can't think straight.

Meta => Glad to hear it (he's giving us liberals a bad name).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frist of all, the standard conservative view is verbal plenary inspiration. This view was developed in the 19th century by Warefield and Darby in reaction to modernity. It was not the view of the chruch fathers, it was not the view of scholastics of the middel ages, it is a modern veiw. It is part of the modern world and it is a reaction to the modern world, therefore, it is not the essence of the Christain view. It is a secterian view. But it's one atheists insit is the true view becasue easier to laugh at.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =->I know it was a modern reaction to a modern world, that's what I said. saying they want to get at the fundamentals doesnt' make them right. Their quest for fundamentals is illbegotten. The Bible never calls us to guard a list of fundamentals and it never calls us to seek some golden age of "true faith." the first century chruch was screwed up. The Corinthians were a first century chruch, the seven chruches of Asia minor were first century chruches and Jesus says of them "I will spew you out of my mouth." We are never called to restore some golden age of faith. We are called to move forward in our understanding and in our relationship with God. That's the language of the NT, moving form glory to glory, running the race, moving ahead, moving on toward the goal, coming to deeper knowledge, not looking back to some fabaled time like the Reagan adminsitration.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secondly, VP assumes that God is going to dictate a letter like a business man dictating to a secretary. But that is a false assumption. There is no reason to assume that this is the hall mark of inspairtion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =>Why would it? That's just circular reasoning. That's based upon the assumptions of verbal plenary to begin with. There are reasons to think God wouldn't do it that way. For one thing it can't be done. It's a navie appraoch to lanague. For another thing, it ignores the nature of a persoanl relationship with God. The existenial personal experince model is far more in keeping with such a relationship. Thridly, its based upon an epistemological model which was brought into being by the Reformers in the 16th century. That is not the assumption of scripture itself. In fact it didn't exist as the doctrine we know today until the 19th century, and ironoicaly, it was based upon the work of liberals in the Rensiassance. (See the Avery Dulles book Models of Revelation).


Meta =>more circular reasoning You are reading in the assumptions of verbal plenary as though they are the foundational assumptions of the faith, and that is historically naive. There is no reason to equate God's perfection with a verbalized form of revelation, or to equate perfection in communication with details of litteral history and science.The Bible as a whole could be totally mythological and still be a perfect communication of God to humanity. There is just no reason to equate perfection with literalism.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thirdly, it assumes that literal history is the hallmark of truth. This is why atheists like it because they all they have to do is find the mythological elements and they have a great argument against the Bible. But all they really have is an argument against a modern version of hermeneutics which failed becasue it was falwed to begin with.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =>That argument only makes sense if you define "flawed" as "non literal." I see no reason to undersatnd it that way. "Revealed" religion does not have to mean merely historical details and scientific facts, it can also mean that God's character is revealed. In fact that is the clue, Jesus is the revelation, the Bible is just the written record of the communitie's encounter with the revelation.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foruth, the old saw that liberal view is just "take what you want and leave the rest" is stupid, and it is so becasue that's what the whole science of textual criticism is desinged to do, to give one a means of understanding the original nature of the text. That's what we use rather than just what we like, textual criticism and the history critical method. That offers a totally scientific and very accurate way of being able to understand exactly what is mythology, what is litteral, what is added and what is original. It's not 100% accurate but it is very good.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =>actually I have, to an extent. The Moslems have not made the big deal of persevering texts in order and understanding their groupings as have Christians. They have not subjected it to that kind of anaylsis so the spade work has not been done and I don't the lanague so I can't do it. But it's not important anyway, because that only assums that this one book is the truth to the exclusion of all other books. Those books can contain truth too because God is working in all cultures.(The BOM is easy, it's pleagerized from an up state NY school teacher named Spalding and that has been demonstrated I believe).


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, my view can be described in the following points:
1) rather than dictation it assumes that reflection upon one's personal experinces of God is the basis of inspiration.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta =>That would be true if such experinces were understood in a vacuum. But since the point is the commuities understanding of the text and how it shaped the communities identity that is reflected through the tradition as a conversation with past generations. Thus there are things to compare it to and what is really important is what the tradition says about it. The topos of historicity resides in the tradition of the community, not merely in isolated expenices of a handful of people. In other words like the Ephesian Elders say at the end of John "We bare witness that these things are true."


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) This means that when one encounters God in one's own life and writes about it in some way then that experince is the dominate feature of the communiation, not some littreal dispensing of a message word for word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEta =>Certianly not! that's an arbitrary criticism. I really can't see why you would say that. Just because it lacks the clearity and authority of a "keep off the grass" sign doesn't mean that it lacks any sort of authority or guidence for individuals today. It just means that it is to be understood in conjunction with a coversation with the tradition and personal experinces, not merely a book of rules. It's purpose is to bestow grace. The proof is in the pudding. Through reading the Bible grace has been bestowed in millions of lives, and there are thousnads of testimonies to that effect. The bestowing of grace doesn't have to come through mere rule keeping. It passes on pricniples through example which enable one to understand one's own relationship with God. but it does assume that one has a living active relationship and not mere rule keeping.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) For this reason litteral history is not very important except in certain enstances such as the resurrection, merely becasue the people who were there lived in the communities that produced the Gospels and their testimony became important, for example.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


meta=>The resurrection is not literal history its history making. The difference is that rather than having to prove that it happened, the important thing is not the proof of the actual event, but how we regard the event in realtion to the way that belief in it shaped history. So rather than being "historical" it is "history making." in other words, sure I believe it happened. I never said my view consists of denying all historical claims. But in fact some historical calims can be more improtant than others. It is more imporant that Christ really died on the cross and rose form the dead than it is that Noah really had an arch or that Eve really ate an apple. Why? Because those events, the latter ones are merely the cultural framework in wich Jesus mission as messiah makes sense. But Jesus actual atonement and resurrection are a statement of solidarity with humanity. So to regard these as actual events is crucial, but proving them is not crucial. Becuase in regarding them as actual we still understand their symbolic value as being of great importance. they are more powerful if they are actual, but they don't have to be. What really matters is that we understand what they mean.

...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Bestowing Gace: The Bible is not science it is not epistemology. It's funcition is very simple. It is aimed at bestowing Grace upon the reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =>You have yet to point out any. All you have pointed out so far is things you don't understand about my view. Once I've expalined them I think they make sense. So do a lot of other people. But the point here is that it is not at all uncertain that Grace is bestowed, it is an existenial thing that can be "proven" to the experincer. When one's life is changed grace is bestowed. That happens all the time and there are studies that demonstate that. You read it, it changes your life, Grace is bestowed, proof is in the reading.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The measure of that success is if Grace is actually bestrowed, not if they got little scientific details right or if they thought the sun moves around the eath. That is unimportant. We need not expect parler tricks from the text. All we need is a reflection of an experince which bestows Grace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


MEta =>Since the concept of which I am speaking is not a scientific experiment or a logical proposition, but a matter of existenial and phenomenological apprehension, one need only examine one's own experinces and allow the qualia to select their categories.

What you are saying is like this; I tell you I have met a wonderful woman I am in love. You say "How do you know your in love? Love can't be falsified or verfied it's totally subjective." I say "yea but I'm in love, that's how I know cause I'm in love." Simple. You don't need science for that. All you need is to experince it.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now why is this not well defined? Let's summarize in an even more simplistic manner. That might be easier for certain people to follow:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you complain about insults??

Hey just trying to be clear man!


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) God is not the big guy in the sky. He is not dictating word for word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


meta =>You have such capacity for circular reasoning and loaded statements. Look at the assumptions of a Verbal Pleanry view that you pack into that statment! you make The VP assumptions into base line theological assumptions, prtened that they are the defition of the faith, and than argue that my view doesn't stack up to them. That would only work if one assumes before hand that VP equals "truth Christianity." In fact it is a circular argument. Here are the assumptions you load into that statment:

1)Pefect is defined by communication

2) that the "job" of a "perfect" being (whatever that is) is literal history and scientific fact

3) that anything lacking these qualities is faulty.

This is all just imposing that view of the VP model unto base line theology and then assuming that all views must live up to that. That can't even be squared with the chruch fathers or the creeds or any other standard of Orhtodoxy excpet that of the VP view itself.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) He's not doing parler tricks with little hints about science not concerned with historical details except in certain specialized matters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Bible is full of what could be termed parlor tricks that "He" allegedly did.

Meta +>No its not! It's full of things that certain people think are that because that's what they look for.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) it's a reflection of inner expernice of the devine which aims as bestowing Grace upon the reader.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where does it say anything like that in the Bible itself?


Meta =>What else would "God spirited" mean? Scripture is said to be "God breathed" (but that word is the same as spirit, so God spirited, a matter of the Spirit. That is not an objective matter of fact that can be empirically verified because the spirit "blows where it will and on one can see it." We are called to be Partakers in the Divine nature, that is a matter of bestowing Grace. In 1 Cor 13 Paul says now we see through a glass darkly but when that which is perfect has come that which is imperefct (knowledge--we know in part we prophesy in part)

But hey, let's look at what you don't have! It is our theolgoical baggage that leads us to think that the VP view is the standard view so we just assume that this is in the Bible. Where in the Bible does it say that all scripture is literal and contians factual historical and scientific information? It doesn't. That can only be gotten at through an interpiration of "God spirited" which reads that in. It is never clear enoguh to glean that from the reading. There is no passage which says "this is how God inspires the Bible." In fact it doesn't even say to have a Bible. There was no concept of "the Bible" when the works of the canon were written. Even the Jewish canon wasn't closed when Paul was writting!

When we look at the first century chruch what we see is a charismatic chruch. They healed, they had tounges, they had experinces and miracles and the Holy Spirit moved among them. That can still be found in post canonical literature up late into the second and even third century. The only thing that comes close to the VP model in terms of an example of inspiration in the Bible is Revelation where Jesus comes in and says "take a letter" to the seven chruches. But, that is only for that one book. Because when we look at Paul we see he forgets who he baptized, he includes all sorts of exta stuff like "go get my coat from Troas" and "pray for Timothy" obviouisly he's not in trance getting it word for word; he's being moving to write and he's chosing his words himself out of his own experinces.

now there is some diverity, this is why inthe other thread I asked John to read the Dulles book, because it's a complex view. But He didn't want to so let's simplify it and reduce it out of existence. The fact is there are examples of all different kinds of inspiration, there is no one model but what comes out most often is that the authors/redactors are working out of their own relfections based upon their experiences and what they take to be those of the people of Israel.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) It makes use of mythology because it is grounded in a mythological world view.It is grounded in the cultural constructs of the ancient world thus we can expect it to reflect the views of the ancient world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MEta =>Circular reasoning again. You impose the assumption of VP view and then demand that everything live up to that assumption and that is suppossed to prove that view. But it only does so if we can assume from the start that this is the correct assumption. You still haven't given me a reason to assume that.

Meta =>O he wouldn't hu? IN the OT he used a dumb ass to speak for him, so why not a liberal theologian? That is really impossing a ciruclar assumption upon the text? Why should we think he woul use a televangelist or a fundie's world view to do so?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that means that your knit picking piddeling "contradictions" are totally unimportant and you just have the wrong end of the stick in thinking about what makes the Bible true or in what way its true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meta => That assumes that the book is the point. The book is not the point. Jesus is the point. the book is just a means of helping us understand Jesus, Jesus is the revelation, not the book.


meta =>That is as ludicrous an assumption as saying that if atheism were true it would be in the majority. IT's just an unsupported assumption that that is what God would do. I suggest that you don't know and are not in a positoin to say what God would do. you are allowing all of this to be colored by your experinces in Christianity, which seem on the face of it not to have been deep. you are merely unloading your former theolgoical baggage upon us and expecting us to cow tow to it as though it were some sort of authority figure.

--Don--

MEta =>How do you know that Don? If God can use a dumb ass why can't he use me?

Metacrock

You are so into circular reasoning. If the evidence I argue works than obviously there is evidence.

No offense, but your arguments remind me of the Chruch of Christ preachers I grew up with. You wern't by any chance Ferrell Till's assistant pastor or something were you?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: Metacrock ]</p>

Metacrock

MEta =&gt;Well you know that's all very interesting. But all it really amounts to is a white rabit. Because it doesn't answer the speicific medical evidence that I present in that link. So it's just a bunch of historical soft shoe and it totally refuses to come to terms with the evidence. In fact it's based upon a bait and swtich because it doens't even consdier miracles but tries to palm them and replace them with "magic."

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Hey buddy! I think that's an unreasonable argument. Come on now, there is no connection. Arguing like that is just totally unfair. I mean look, these guys are prayed for with Christian prayer and the medical evidence shows they got well and the medical people say they can't explain it. Now to come back and propose totally unrealated things that "might be" is just plain irrespsonsible. I mean I how do we know that nuclear radiation is harful? Maybe everytime someone is exposed to it a magic elf zaps them with elfshot? You can't prove it isn't the case. Now is that a fair to argue? If empiricism means anything that is not a way to argue.


Meta =&gt;NO that's not ture! The evidence I have (its on the first page, just see the link) says that the rules are hard, and that some complain they are too hard. In fact, they still use skeptics on the committees and that is from a 98 quote.


meta =&gt;What is the porobablity that it would clear up in that proximity to prayer, after years of attempted treatment when it didn't? If probablity means anything we can't argue this way. As for misdiagnosis you have to show some propensity for it to be something that would clear up. We aren't working in a vacuum here, we have laws of averages and porbablities to consider.


Meta =&gt;You are just making a mistake about Catholic doctrine. Of course she was dead. You can't be canonized without being dead, it's like a basic criterion. The point was that this was a miracle submitted to the canonization committee to prove that she is on the job as a saint doing saintly things already and thus should be canonized. Thus the prayers were to her, which they couldn't be if she wasn't dead. or actually to be more precise they were requests to her to interceed to God on their behalf.why should we assume they had anything to do wtih Buddhism? We have reason to believe that they might have something to do with Christianity, but why assume buddhism when there is no connection?

1976 Carmelite sister Concepcion Boullon Rubio was at the point of death when she was suddenly and completely cured of a rare disease called lipomatosis after members of her family prayed to God for a cure through the intercession of Blessed Josemaria.


MEta =&gt;My friend Doc Phil who has posted on this site before, is a real doctor. He has examined all these cases and says the evidence is good. It can be fatal, wehather it is usually is or not. What you ignore is the through nature of the committees. They are not lax, they are very hard and their athority is beyond reproach becaus they use top meidical experts and even skeptics. I've documented that time and time again.

"Padre Pio, a humble Capuchin priest from San Giovanni Rotondo, Italy, was blessed by God in many wonderful and mysterious ways. The most dramatic was the stigmata. Padre Pio bore the wounds of Christ for fifty years!

A boy dreams of Padre Pio and wakes up from a coma, and this is a miracle? Causal link, please.

Meta =&gt; Someone prayed to Pio on his behalf and he dreamed of Pio and woke up from a coma. That's a pretty good link. Why would he just happen to dream of the intercessor who was involved in cononization?

One reportedly happened in the United States, where a French woman who broke several ribs in a car accident miraculously healed when she wore a Mother Teresa medallion.


MEta =&gt;Obviously it was faith that healed her, not the medallion itself. Ribs dont' just knitt back over night you know.

In the other, a Palestinian girl suffering from cancer was cured after Mother Teresa appeared in her dreams and said, "Child, you are cured."

meta =&gt;That is an informatl fallacy known as the white rabit. Who cares how many don't get cured? You can't expalin the one's that do. Just arguing "O well thousands of others don't get healed" does not in any way diminish the remarkable examples of those who are. We have to assume that not everyone will get healed. But you can't expalin this. It is beyond your naturlastic world view to explain it, so you are merely reducing it to anlogoius proportions and absording it into the paradigm. Kuhn would be proud.

All of these people were totally healed of incurrable or terminal states. The one commonality they all have is that they were at some point prayed for by the same person, Kulhman.


meta =&gt;Nonsquiter! That doens't dispove the power of prayer just because others prayed. this is not a prayer study. We don't have to control for prayer because we aren't using a control group. The point is, we know of one prayer that was said, that of Kuleman, and the healing is inexplicable.

"A month after the first operation, the same surgeons made a last-ditch effort to remove the rest of the tumor. But when they went into Elizabeth's brain, they couldn't find the lesion. As planned, they removed a section of the nerve that the cancer had invaded, knowing that it would leave her blind in her right eye but agreeing that it represented her best hope of surviving. When the tissue was examined, the pathologist could not find any cancer. Regular cat scans since then have revealed no evidence of a tumor. The medical community calls what happened "spontaneous resolution." The family call it a miracle. Even a resurrection."


MEta =&gt;Nope! Most spontaneoius remissions do not just happen magically. Most of them take time, leave traces, it is rare that the problem just magically goes away. But there is a good epistemological problem in that case. Notice that is not one of the Catholic miracles either. That's from a sectin I call "Protestant miracles; the anecdotal pile." So that is a supplemntal peice of evidence not primary evidence.


Meta =&gt;All of that is the white rabit. It's just taking us off the path from the evidence, but it doesn't anser the evidence. That is not an argument. iT's a decoy. It has no meaning. So what? Besides, there are tons of stories of miracles from D-day! From all over the war. There are probably tons of miracle stories form 9/11 too, I just haven't heard them. But so what? that doesn't answer the one's I present that's the evidence you have to deal with.

Also the implication of that argument is a theolgoical assumption, and to deal with that we would have to get into some big theological discussions and that would take us far afield from this thread, as though we aren't already.


this thread has evertyhing now. Miracles, textual criticism, pissing contests, trolls (not you) and everything. Ah the Sec WEb what I would do without it.

Michael[/QB][/QUOTE]

Metacrock

yea really! might as welll say "medical evidence for miracles just wont cut it as evidence for miracles." People getting better over night for no reason just wont cut it as a miracle. What will?

Anunnaki

Is there a difference?

RyanS2

You do know you didn't have to repeat my obviously very long post don't you? Now, here's the question. You call it a bait and switch, because it replaces the word "miracles" with "magic". Pray tell, what is the difference between a miracle and magic? Both are claiming some sort of supernatural force, (though magic relies upon parapsychology, i.e. influences of the mind through externalized projection upon astral planes of existence, while miracles rely upon something which is beyond this time/realm, by definition of not being encapsuled by time/space, but the two are mutualistically interchangeable), as a means of operating on a level that cannot be tested directly, and the only proof of action is through indirect actions.

Dr. Mezmer's methods were certainly well attested, and he developed a methodology for it, (somewhat of a prerequisite for a science), in fact, current faith healers use his exact same methods in most cases. Miraculous healings have been attested by millions of people the World over, Hinduists, Buddhists, Taoists, Zenists, Gnostics, Christians, Jews, etc.

For real miracles:

I have a simple proposal, using the Bible itself. For a real miracle to be proven, no use of scientific principles can be used, it must be done exactly as outlined in the Bible.

Mark 16:16 – 17

"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

I think that is a fairly simple five step test.

Real Miracle Two:

Judges 6:36-40

"And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said,

Behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said.

And it was so: for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl full of water.

And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground let there be dew.

And God did so that night: for it was dry upon the fleece only, and there was dew on all the ground."

Real Miracle Three:

"Judges 6: 19-21

“Gideon went in, prepared a young goat, and from an ephah of flour he made bread without yeast. Putting the meat in a basket and its broth in a pot, he brought them out and offered them to him under the oak.

The angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread, place them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And Gideon did so.

With the tip of the staff that was in his hand, the angel of the LORD touched the meat and the unleavened bread. Fire flared from the rock, consuming the meat and the bread. And the angel of the LORD disappeared.”

Real Miracle Four:

"Judges 6: 22-32

“When Gideon realized that it was the angel of the LORD, he exclaimed, "Ah, Sovereign LORD! I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face!"

But the LORD said to him, "Peace! Do not be afraid. You are not going to die."

So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites.

That same night the LORD said to him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old. Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it.

Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering."

So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime.

In the morning when the men of the town got up, there was Baal's altar, demolished, with the Asherah pole beside it cut down and the second bull sacrificed on the newly built altar!

They asked each other, "Who did this?" When they carefully investigated, they were told, "Gideon son of Joash did it."

The men of the town demanded of Joash, "Bring out your son. He must die, because he has broken down Baal's altar and cut down the Asherah pole beside it."

But Joash replied to the hostile crowd around him, "Are you going to plead Baal's cause? Are you trying to save him? Whoever fights for him shall be put to death by morning! If Baal really is a god, he can defend himself when someone breaks down his altar."

So that day they called Gideon "Jerub-Baal," saying, "Let Baal contend with him," because he broke down Baal's altar.”

This one is interesting. I'll demolish any Church and I bet that YHWH will not strike me down for it, (with legal sanctifications from that Church that I can destroy it of course). If I'm struck down dead, then it is a real miracle.

Real Miracle Five:

"Kings 18: 22

“Elijah went before the people and said, "How long will you waver between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him." But the people said nothing.

Then Elijah said to them, "I am the only one of the LORD's prophets left, but Baal has four hundred and fifty prophets.

Get two bulls for us. Let them choose one for themselves, and let them cut it into pieces and put it on the wood but not set fire to it. I will prepare the other bull and put it on the wood but not set fire to it.

Then you call on the name of your god, and I will call on the name of the LORD. The god who answers by fire--he is God." Then all the people said, "What you say is good."

Elijah said to the prophets of Baal, "Choose one of the bulls and prepare it first, since there are so many of you. Call on the name of your god, but do not light the fire."

So they took the bull given them and prepared it. Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."

So they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears, as was their custom, until their blood flowed.

Midday passed, and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, no one answered, no one paid attention.

Then Elijah said to all the people, "Come here to me." They came to him, and he repaired the altar of the LORD, which was in ruins.

Elijah took twelve stones, one for each of the tribes descended from Jacob, to whom the word of the LORD had come, saying, "Your name shall be Israel."

With the stones he built an altar in the name of the LORD, and he dug a trench around it large enough to hold two seahs of seed.

He arranged the wood, cut the bull into pieces and laid it on the wood. Then he said to them, "Fill four large jars with water and pour it on the offering and on the wood."

"Do it again," he said, and they did it again. "Do it a third time," he ordered, and they did it the third time.

The water ran down around the altar and even filled the trench.

At the time of sacrifice, the prophet Elijah stepped forward and prayed: "O LORD, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command.

Answer me, O LORD, answer me, so these people will know that you, O LORD, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again."

Then the fire of the LORD fell and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench.

When all the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, "The LORD--he is God! The LORD--he is God!"

I think that is a fairly safe outline. All of these miracles are attested by the Bible itself, and they are considered to be miracles to prove who is a real defender of the faith in every instance. Anyone going to take me up on this one?

[ January 20, 2002: Message edited by: RyanS2 ]</p>

Toto

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My real reason? I don't think the supernatural exists, in any way, shape, or form. It is all just superstition. Christianity is fundamentally no different than a belief in Zeus or Odin.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta =&gt;O yes it is, fundamentally different in many ways. Besides, I think your underating belief in Odin. Religious experince is a neat thing. Read my debate with Gurdur, see espeicially the first couple of posts I made in that debate.

====================================

Meta - what happened to polymorphous monotheism? Doesn't belief in Zeus or Odin count there? Maybe I'll have to read your debate with Gurdur.

Some of the liberal Christians that I have read don't see the need to believe in the Resurrection as an actual historical event. I gather you are not that liberal.

My question on Buddhism or gnosticism was not aimed at your summary of their philosophical viewpoints, but at their conception of god (or the divine.) If a Buddhist through meditation achieves something that could be called "grace", how is that different from Christian grace?

If you don't have to believe that the virgin birth was a literal event, would you have been a Christian in 300 CE? You said that the early church was messed up in some way. Why has it taken Christianity so long to figure it out?

lpetrich

Reactor, you are making yourself look stupid. What's wrong with wholesale healing? Modern medicine has made possible the wholesale curing of many diseases -- do you really want to turn your back on it on account of its wholesale nature?