lpetrich

Why not this miracle:

On the evening of September 11, 2001, US East Coast time, the following happens:

All the victims of those kamikaze hijackings are restored to life in this world, for all of us to see.

The culprits are also restored, but are chained to pigs.

The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are fully restored, complete with really good air-defense systems.

The four airliners are fully restored and placed in nearby airports as if nothing had happened.

-DM-

Responding to Meta ...

I had asked: Is that ["John the atheiod"] meant to be an insult? Should I, as a fellow nontheist feel insulted (as you say that you do when Christianity is insulted)?

It isn't a question of how you should feel, rather it is a question of how you should behave. You allegedly have "God's" Holy Spirit residing in you and you allegedly have the power of prayer at your disposal. Put it into action and provide the kind of Christian witness that would make you seem different than a non-Christian -- if possible.

I had said: You seem very fond of stating as certainties what you cannot possibly know.

Anyone who makes a statement such as you did, namely: "Because they wont take the time to think about them or find out what they are," isn't JUST making an observation, he is drawing a conclusion based on his/her observation(s), a conclusion which may or may not be correct, a conclusion stated as a certainty and which you cannot possibly know with certainty -- unless you are omniscient.

I had responded: ... or it could well be that liberal Christianity is simply a whitewash of REAL fundamentalist Christianity by those who are too weak-kneed to embrace REAL fundamentalist Christianity.

Another conclusion stated as if it were fact, an erroneous conclusion in my case, and an insulting one at that. Not becoming a so-called Christian.

And as I said, the idea behind the fundamentalist movement was to get back to the fundamentals of Christianity, what they considered to be the essence, the essential doctrines. Like it or lump it, Meta, you don't have much of an idea of what original Christianity was really like. No one does. And the fact of the matter is that had not the headquarters Church in Jerusalem and its leadership been destroyed circa AD 70, Christianity as we know it today would likely be far different than what we have. There is also the matter of the loss of many of the earliest documents in the burning of the library at Alexandria. And then there is the matter of the use of books in the Early Church which are now considered noncanonical.

Yes, I know that. You do recognize agreement when you see it, don't you?

... nor you right, nor them wrong, nor you wrong.

You are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that the quest for a watered-down liberal Christianity which is palatable to true intellectuals is ill-begotten.

Whether the Bible calls you to guard a list of fundamentals or not is irrelevant to whether there is a list of fundamentals which you should guard in order to be true to your faith. HOWEVER, what the Bible does and does not do and say should not matter much to someone who thinks of it as less than inerrant.

On the contrary, the Bible says that the author of Revelation says that Jesus said such and such. But unless you accept the Bible as inerrant (which you have said you don't) then you cannot say with certainty that Jesus said such and such based on a Bible verse. (Do you still insist that liberal Christians, apologists, and theologians DON'T pick and choose what they will take literally in the Bible?)

Irrelevant. You ARE called upon to maintain the faith and -- if you put any stock in Revelation -- to not add to or subtract from at least that book (although Christians do it all the time, reading into it what isn't there and then redefining it when its alleged prophecies fail to materialize).

Please quote the chapter and verse where you are called on to move forward in your understanding and in your relationship with "God" and then tell me why it matters given that you don't believe the Bible to be inerrant and/or infallible.

No, that is your interpretation of the NT. Others who are at least equally well-informed and sincere hold different interpretations of the "language of the NT."

I had responded: And there is no reason not to assume it either. After all, it certainly would be in the realm of a perfect and omnipotent "God" to inspire a perfect, infallible, and plenary "Word of God."

I could ask you the same question and then make the same comment. If mine is circular reasoning, then so is yours. But I don't think either is a case of circular reasoning. Rather I think it is a matter of what is self-evident. I feel that it should be quite obvious to you that there is no arguing with the fact that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could inspire a perfect, infallible, and plenary "Word of God" if he/she/it wanted to do so. To me, that is self-evident.

Wrong. It is based on no assumption. It is based on the definitions of "perfect" and "omnipotent."

Of course there are -- in the minds of liberal Christians.

Then you deny the omnipotence of your "God." No ifs, ands, buts about it, you simply deny the omnipotence of your "God" when you say "it can't be done."

Naive approach to language or not, it is well within the capability of an omnipotent "God."

My opinion is that the "existential personal experience model" is in keeping only with a nonexistent, nonomnipotent, imaginary/personal "God," a god who exists only in the mind of a believer.

...

I had said: In fact, to think that a perfect and omnipotent "God" could possibly have anything to do with an imperfect, incomplete, and fallible "Word of God" (or "book," if you prefer) is somewhat of an oxymoron.

To me, it not circular reasoning at all but rather it is self-evident.

Do you think of yourself as clairvoyant or omniscient? If not, then you cannot possibly know what I do and don't "read-in." In any case, you are wrong. I am not "reading-in the assumptions of verbal plenary as though they are the foundation assumptions of faith." Rather I am stating what seems to me to be self-evident. It surprises me that you don't see it that way yourself.

Do you understand the meaning of the words "perfect" and "omnipotent" in some special way that means something less than what those words actually mean?

I am not talking about it being mythological or nonliteral. I am talking about it being fallible, flawed, imperfect.

I had responded: Under your view, the Bible was apparently flawed to begin with. Putting one's faith into a so-called revealed religion which is based on a book which is flawed from the start seems to me to be intellectually dishonest and unwise.

Hardly. The argument also makes sense if you define "flawed" in the case of the Bible as being inconsistent, offering unsound precepts, attributing to "God" acts which "He" himself would or should condemn, etc.

If you truly see "NO reason" then you are being myopic. Myself, I see little reason (not "no" reason) to understand it the way that you do.

In my opinion, you, like Helen, essentially have a religion of your own making.

Of course, and it could even mean that it was "revealed" differently to everyone to whom it was revealed, "God" being something of a chameleon of trickster. But this sort of "God" wouldn't be much more satisfying (or much less satisfying) than the "God" of the Bible, the "God" of Christianity.

Given your view of the Bible, you cannot be sure that such is the case.

You can't be sure of that either. It may be nothing more than the written ramblings of various primitive "religious existentialists" who didn't know what they were talking about.

I had responded: If you believe that textual criticism and the historical approach to the Bible (as well as the other techniques of so-called higher criticism) can arrive at what is and is not believable, so be it. In that case, however, you will need to apply those same techniques/methods to other alleged Holy books such as the Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. Have you?

On the contrary. I think that the copies and translations of the Koran are better preserved than are the Biblical books in terms of being faithful to the original(s).

On the contrary, Muslims claim that the Koran is in complete harmony with science, that it doesn't suffer the historical and scientific flaws that the Bible does.

According to Muslims, that is true of the Koran, of course.

It would necessarily follow that an omniscient "God" was working in all cultures. The question would be, how? Through what alleged holy books.

My, you do pick and choose. You are referring to Solomon Spaulding, an amateur author who allegedly wrote a novel called "Manuscript Found" which allegedly became the foundation of the Book of Mormon according to Walter R. Martin, former Director of The Christian Research Institute, Wayne N.J., as put forth in his book "The Kingdom of the Cults" published by Bethany Fellowship.

Martin takes on the Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Mormonism, Spritism, Theosophy, Zen Buddhism, Bahai, Unity, Seventh Day Adventism -- anything which he considers both a cult and a threat to [his version of] Christianity.

As he himself puts it: "I am a Baptist minister of the conservative school of thought. It is impossible for me to say with Dr. Braden that 'I am an unrepentant liberal to the present.' ... It has been wisely observed by someone that 'a man who will not stand for something is quite likely to fall for almost anything.'"

---------

And that's where I'll leave it for that describes very well what I think has occurred with you and others like you who have a religion which is essentially of your/their own making. When one has redefined Christianity to the extent that you and Helen have, for example, there is little point so far as I am concerned in continuing to discuss it.

--Don--

Vorkosigan

How do you feel about "atheiod?" I don't mean it as an insult. Do you still feel insulted?

LOL. No, actually I thought it was another spelling error. Don caught it as intentional; he's a lot smarter than I am.

Michael

Vorkosigan

Meta =>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?

Meta, you're not facing the issue at hand. The fact is that in many of these cases of "successful" prayers, numerous individuals from many different faiths are praying for the sick one. What protocol do you have that rules out the influence of these other faiths?

The fact is that there is a connection to Buddhism, because Buddhists pray for the sick every day. Can you prove that she was not healed by Buddhist prayer?

For example, when I was looking for a job last year in Texas, my mother prayed for me in her Catholic tradition, and my Buddhist wife said sutras for me. My New Age friend Peg put my picture under a pyramid ("I'm not making this up!" as Dave Barry would say). I also had various dreams about various individuals, some alive, some dead. Eventually I found a job.

Now, assuming this is a miracle, which one of these "methods" was successful, and what protocol do you have that rules out the miraculous interventions of my dreams, Buddha and a pyramid in favor of whomever my mother prayed to?

For that matter, in each of the cases you discussed, are you certain that no other person prayed to no other miraculous entity? That nobody attempted to use telekinesis, the power of chi or aliens to intervene to effect a cure? If not, then your protocol is worthless. Even if you could confirm a miracle, you have no way to know the source of the miracle, because you have no chain of causation. For all you know, a casual prayer by my wife's mother, who prays every day for the sick in her folk-buddhist system, did the trick for all of the cases you mention.

Finally, if such miracles are confirmation of god, why aren't the healings by the Buddha Tooth here in Taiwan, confirmed by many, evidence of the power of Buddha? A while ago a friend of mine here, frustrated by several years of expensive auto repairs to her car, drove the thing into a temple and had the priests burn incense and chant over it. Now she swears it runs perfectly. We're buying a new car, and she is insisting we do the same thing. Clearly this would confirm the power of Chinese folk religion.

meta =>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.

Of course it does. First, it calls into question whether such events actually happen. In fact, it demonstrates that they don't. For example, only a completely morally bankrupt entity, with the power to heal, would heal a single nun of a fat deposit while at the same time permitting millions to die lingering deaths through AIDS or starvation. The logic is clear: either gods do not exist, or they are unmitigated bastards.

meta =>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.

Control or not, you have no protocol that rules out intervention by other supernatural entities or means. Here in Taiwan there are buddhists who daily say prayers for all the world's sick. Can you demonstrate that they did not acheive this healing? For that matter, can you demonstrate that the friends and families of the sick, through the power of the mind harnessed in desperation, healed their sick members through sheer force of will, using telekinesis? Maybe the idea of Katherine Kuhlman was just a focus for their powerful will....

Your "miracle" claim fails as proof of god because you have no protocol that can rule out other supernatural claims, including those that involve ESP, aliens, or magic systems that are atheistic in nature. Nor can you sketch any chain of causation that would lead one to conclude that any particular extranormal force is the cause.

Turning now to specific cases.......<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002402&p=3" target="_blank">I posted this before</a>, so am editing and reposting.

The standards for miracles at Lourdes, a place brought up on your site, are ridiculous. Some "cured" by Lourdes were actually "cured" by mass said at Lourdes Cathedral while they were in Algeria. And so forth. The "standard" for a "cure" by Lourdes is almost anything. And of course, there is never any follow-up. Only a handful of cures in the modern era, which strongly suggests that mistaken diagnoses, not miracles, are the cause of Lourdes "success."

Information for following is from <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380718855/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Encountering Mary : Visions of Mary from LA Salette to Medjugorie</a> by Sandra Zimdars-Swartz. This book is a sympathetic sociological account of the events associated with several Marian visitations.

The first visions at Lourdes WERE NOT of Mary, but of simply "aquero" "That One" which did not identify itself. After intervention from outsiders, and pressure from the crowds, later it identified itself as a the "Immaculate Conception." Now since the "Immaculate Conception" is a late-developing Catholic myth (dates from later Middle Ages) that was big in the 19th century at the time (Pope declared in officially in 1854, but was a popular folk belief for two decades prior), it is more than likely that Church politics played a role in the construction of the Lourdes myth, as well as the girls' own experiences of the Immaculate Conception doctrine, which we know of through her own testimony. Where in the NT does it say Mary was conceived without sin? Since the Immaculate Conception is nowhere in the Bible or early Church writings, whatever that girl saw, it WAS NOT Mary.

In other words, the so-called "Vision of God" was simply a vision of a white female visitor which OUTSIDERS interpreted as the Virgin. The poor girls' experiences were simply shoehorned into the Catholic mythology, and 45 days after the visions started, after merciless interrogation by Church officials and pressure from crowds, she announced that the aquero revealed itself to be the "immaculate conception," a Catholic invention of the late Middle Ages. By that time --within the first few days of her visions becoming public -- reports of miracles were circulated. Not only her healing, but total fantasies about her miraculous childhood, etc. The hagiography was already under construction.

More interesting than how the crowd interpreted the visions was were the miracles it chose to ignore. For example, one skeptic was eaten up by snakes, according to the local story -- very un-NT. Since these claims did not fit the Catholic order of reality, they were quickly dismissed.

Far from being "visions of Mary" the visions of Lourdes were in fact reality constructions of the Catholic Church. All of these miracles in which the Church gets involved follow the same pattern, including close interrogation by Church officials whose job is to bring the miracles under control, because they are very threatening to the Church (what if the Church authenticates a miracle, and the Mary says the Pope is the AntiChrist? Or challenges some other piece of doctrine?). Everyone knows how close interrogation can get people to accept the interrogator's point of view, and let the interrogators plant ideas in the prisoner. This occurs even when everyone is acting with the best of motives. Through such simple sociological processes, the miracle then brings itself around to the proper accord with Church doctrine (&lt;whew&gt;; ). Since these visions are invariably seen by young females from poor families with troubled histories and few emotional resources, control is not difficult.

As an aside, the anthropologist David Hess, who is sympathetic to New Age claims, investigated 40+ cases of poltergeists in Brazil, and discovered that in each case, a young girl in the house was being molested. Hmmm...wonder why these visions are so common among females.

Since the Church has such a vast investment in these miracles, why should I accept its own (self-serving) assessment of these events?

Thus, there is no evidence, except claims made by others and the girls AFTER interrogation and crowd pressure, that the Virgin had been seen. There is no reason to regard this as a Christian miracle, even if it is a miracle. It is simply an event appropriated by the Church for its own political uses.

We've discussed Lourdes before. Even assuming that they are miracles, no protocol can prove the are Christian in origin. For all we know the girls had a vision of Kuan-yin and interpreted in the Catholic myths they were familiar with, and the healings are actually the result of Buddhist influence.

Here are the criteria that someone listed in the original discussion:
that the fact and the diagnosis of the illness is first of all established and correctly diagnosed;

that the prognosis must be permanent or terminal in the short term;

that the cure is immediate, without convalescence, complete and lasting;

that the prescribed treatment could not be attributed to the cause of this cure or be an id to it.

Not one of these criteria addresses the origin of the miracle. Note that the alternative explanation -- error -- is much simpler, and given the microscopically low miracle rate at Lourdes, a much safer explanation. Even if such protocols were perfect every time, they could establish a miracle has taken place. They can only establish that within the limits of the protocols, the reason for the cure is not known. This is important, because even when treatment causes remission, the docs can merely show that the cancer is not detectable. They cannot show that it is gone. So how could anyone wielding these protocols prove a miraculous cure involving a cancer? All they can do is show that the cancer has fallen below detectable levels.

The protocol also contains no positive way to find a miracle and rule out all naturalistic explanations.

Other signs point to error: the fact that so many of the cures are for chronic illnesses that may at any time go into remission, that so many occurred in the 19th century when medical science was less advanced, and that there is no protocol for follow-up. How is spontaneous remission ruled out, especially since the moment of cure is never recorded? (answer: it can't be). In fact, the rate of approved cures at Lourdes is lower than the spontaneous remission rate for many diseases that people go there for.

If you look at the list at the site below, you'll find that a second HUGE problem: most of the 19th century cures were not recognized until the period between 1908-1912. For example, the ununited fracture of the left leg in 1875 was recognized in 1908 -- 33 years later. This strongly suggests that we are looking at errors in diagnosis, and decisions made for political reasons. Then no new miracles are recognized for another 30 years, until the late 1940s. Hmmm....one wonders what changed on the political front.

<a href="http://www.lourdes-france.com/ftp/gbsb0035.pdf" target="_blank">list of Lourdes cures</a>.

Some of these are just plain ridiculous.

• The two year old cured of "Chronic post-infective malnutrition with retarded motor development." As if diet and exercise wouldn't cure that!
• Or take the two cases of MS reportedly cured in 1952. <a href="http://www.nationalmssociety.org//Sourcebook-Diagnosis.asp" target="_blank">MS is notoriously tricky to diagnose.</a>. Since MRIs were not available, how did they know in 1956, when the second one was certified, that he was free of MS? It had been only four years, yet MS has been known to go into remission for far longer than that. The protocol is obviously looser than a two dollar whore.
• How about the person cured of Addison's! Any number of stress-related diseases will present like Addison's!

Unfortunately none of the descriptions are very detailed, but it is obvious the protocols are not applied very rigorously.

You're aware that Bernadette, the original visionary, herself was not cured; she died of tuberculosis and suffered from asthma all her life. Another successful cure from the miracle of Lourdes!

Michael

Asha'man

Nope, absolutely not. I don't have to overturn anything. The burden of proof is clearly on you, the one making a claim of miracles. Your evidence simply does not meet any form of scientific standard.

Actually, medical miracles are probably the worse possible place to make your case. The human body is extremely complex, and not fully understood. Unexplained things happen all the time. In order for you to provide scientific evidence of a medical miracle, you would have to show that no natural mechanism could have caused the cure. Since we don't yet fully understand most of these natural mechanisms yet, that type of evidence is simply not available.

I am quite serious. This is real money: one million dollars in US currency. If you can reliably demonstrate any supernatural phenomenon, under testable conditions, the money can be yours.

PS. I hate to mention this, since many have already said something. I compose all my posts in Word, and then cut & paste them into the reply. I am a poor speller, and often don’t notice typing errors. Word is quite good at flagging these errors, and offering correct alternatives. Besides, it is easier to edit your text when you can see a whole page at once, and I often re-arrange my sentences to improve the flow. It really creates a much more readable posting. I offer this simply as a friendly suggestion of what works well for me.

Toto

Photocrat is also impressed with Lourdes miracles in this thread<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=57&t=000011" target="_blank">Hindu milk miracle</a>. Joe Nickell's book, which I referenced there, has a section debunking Lourdes' miracles. The board that certifies them as miracles is not very critical, and Nickell cites one woman who died of the disease that she was supposed to have been cured of.

Metacrock

Theologians get paid better, if they are lucky enough to get jobs, and they have to take out student loans to get through seminary.

Vorkosigan

Really? I thought the diocease/church/coven whatever paid for it.

Michael

Metacrock

Meta =&gt;Yea, I don't know why I did that. I'm trying to rhabilitate myself.


Meta =&gt;NO they are not interchangeable, they are very different.

1) I wouldn't say that magic is supernatural. That term has come to be used of anyting unscientific. But in theology is has a very precise meaning, it is a metaphysical construct, an ontology, not merely anyhting oppossed to science or nature.

2) miracles are a rational result of the will of God (rational becasue God is reason itself, and God creates through the use of law and rules, and the supernatural is merely a hihger set of rules) but magic is irrational because it even though it has rules they don't make any sense and they bare no relation to the rules invovled in nature. in Christian theology nature is a subset of supernature, in occultic thinking supernature is oppossed to nature and magic is the breaking apart of natural rules rather than bending them toward their ground and end.

3) Supernatural is the ground and end of the natural, magic is the oppossition to the natural.

4) Magic is not the result of the will of God but of fate or inelluctable forces.


Meta =&gt;The affects of miracles can be tested that's the point.



Meta =&gt;But there was no rigor in any scientific investigation of his effects, they didn't even have the same notions of science in his day that we have now. These Catholic miracles are well attested and resarched by medical experts and they are based upons scientific data from the lattest diagnostic tools.


Meta =&gt;Non sequitter. That may cause problems for Christian theology but it in no way rules out the medical evidence which shows that something inexplicable has happened in connection with prayer. Moreover, it is not a problem for my theology. I am a polysymbolic monotheist, one basic God, one fundamental religious expernce, behind all traditions which is diffussed throughout all cultural constructs thus giving the illusion of many gods.The idea that God would work in other cultures and through other religions doesn't bother me in the least.


Meta =&gt;But why should we do this when we have the scientific evidence to prove "real miracles?" your just gain saying the evidence. BTW most of those examples from the Bible could be interprited to seem much like the prayers my guys have researched. I don't have any examples of parting the red sea, but I suspect that is part of the mythological heritage of Semetic cultures. That doesn't diminish the reality of the evidence, it's another red herring.

Metacrock

[quote]Originally posted by Toto:
<strong>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 =&gt;Well you should be reading it anyway! But you must have misunderstood. I wasn't discounting PSMT I was endorsing it again; Zeus and Odin are merely symbols for the one reality behind all major religions.


Meta =&gt;Right, but some major liberal one's do. I follow in the wake of Jurgen Moltmann, Wofhart Pannenberg, and Ernst Kasemann.


Meta =&gt;Well it can't be called "Grace." It's a very different concept. "Grace" in this sense means not only unmerited favor, but the dispensing of spiritual power to achieve a holy life through unmerited favor, or as we say in the theolgoical biz, "imparted Grace" (as oppossed to merely imputed where God just wipes away sin but it's your look out to be good). The Buddhist similarity to that would not be nirvana or enlightenment (I don't think) but admission into the pure land (for imputed) and I don't know if there is an analogue for the other in Buddhism. Of course that only applies to pure land sects. As I understand it, regular Buddhist enlightenment is not strength from the divine that is being offered unmeritted, but a discovery of self (or lack of self) that comes form some inward journey of mediation.


Meta =&gt;I accept the Virgin birth as a more of less ironic connection to the historical tradition. So I'm not pushing to lose it. I think in 300 the creeds that were in use included the V.birth.So a Christian in that era to be Orthodox would have to accept it.

I dont' recall what I said on that, but I don't think I meant the V.birth.