Do you believe in miracles?

[wmrs2]

[QUOTE=TomOfSweden;560628]What does this mean? Personal is one person. Mankind is all people. If religion isn't about people and their needs, what is it about?



You neglected to explain how. Christian scholars have been fighting with this for centuries, so you'd better back your shit up now



So how should it be read? How do you know what is God's word and what is just your or your priests personal morality?

God Wants Actions

Sorry Tom that I took so long to give you an answer. My K-board on the PC broke down. Here's your urgent answer.

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically. For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

[Thorne]

Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

So, if I believe that God wants me to beat my wife because she burned my dinner, that makes it okay? It seems self-evident to me!! (NOT!)

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind.

Certainly! Just look at the Crusades, and the consequences which we are STILL living with!

Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Funny, but I was once told by a seemingly intelligent preacher that most people don't have the understanding to interpret the Bible, and should rely on those trained to interpret its "truths." Where's the difference?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us. We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

Yes we certainly wouldn't want to confuse the ignorant serfs with the facts, would we? They might just decide that they don't really NEED us!
This kind of logic kept humanity in virtual slavery to religion for millennia. It's about time we eliminated it, don't you think?

[TomOfSweden]

God Wants Actions

And you base this opinion/truth on what exactly? Your intuition?

That's part of the problem with trying to understand religious truth. Scholars have only messed up the search for truth by attempting to quantify it. Real truth is generally self evident truth that people just act on! People don't have to back it up academically.

The point with academic studies, isn't to impress with big brain on internet forums. It is comparing ideas and learning from each other. You're rejecting this and replacing it only with intuition. I'm guessing that you're not a scholar. If that is the case, what you are doing is rejecting thousands of years of work, that you haven't read, and draw conclusions about the futility of their work. But you're not against studying are you? You read the Bible don't you?

For exp., a father doesn't delay teaching his child to stay out of the street until he documents the dangers in the street.Some common sense facts are self evident. Helping the sick man in a ditch is self evident act based on a truth of love. Also, if we help one person with AIDs, I think at the same time we are helping all mankind.

So what do you need God for? If being good is self evident then religion can be rejected, right? I'd personally call it instinct or human nature. But that's just me.

Activist Christians have done a lot to help mankind. Their actions have been based on self evident truth (M.L. King, Pope John Paul, teachers nurses, etc.)
Scholars who argue over which facts about God are real or backed up or can be proven are the ones that have not done shit, as you call it.

I'm not going to argue. But I think the did what they did, not because they believed in God, but because of helping others made them feel good about themselves, and affirmed them. Humans are a helpful species. We're social, and we like to help those we can connect and empathise with.

I am using the term truth as an abstract. But the truth that Jesus used certainly was not empty. It was very relative. In your responses to this thread, you provide us with many good sources but I don't see the relativeness to any of them in relation to the "human situation." Most people who read these threads do not have the academic background to interpret the sources you cite. They only have to take our word for it that these sources say what we say they say.

Wikipedia is for laypeople. It's the whole point of it. So I think you'll do fine.

If truth is relative you need to give a context.

You wrote the bellow text:
"For example, in the Bible the Good Samaritan did did not need theological knowledge to help the sick man in the ditch. Theological knowledge often overlooks the personal needs of mankind. It is this personal knowledge and truth that Christ brought to the religious argument. This the truth that the Bible seeks to enlighten mankind. There is no error or fault in this truth."

Is the Bible seeking to enlighten mankind? Is this relative? If the good Samaritan would have done it anyway, what did he need God and the Bible for? How has he been enlightened if he had done it anyway? And then you go on to saying that "it is no fault or error in it", like a statement. As if it needs pointing out if it would have been true.

The real scholar of truth goes a step closer. He taught in parables and sayings that helped individuals see the self evident facts of live and the human situation.

Again, what does the "real scholar of truth" need God for? If he's taught parables that are self evident, he doesn't need them does he?

If the common person wants to know if God is real or does miracles, he doesn't need to ask fellows like us.

So you're basically saying that God is irrelevant? If the existence of God isn't important, I assume that you don't care either way?

We might know too many facts that would only confuse persons with real good common sense.

I hope this helps.

But your facts wouldn't confuse a man with bad common sense?

edit: BTW. There is no need to apologise for not answering fast. I prefer you taking your time and making sure what you write is what you had in your mind and what it is you want us to understand.

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

A problem with parables is that they need interpreting. Which brings us back to the issue with truth. How can you possibly know that you've interpreted something correctly? How can you ever say that you know what God wants? How can you ever say that your actions are in accordance with Gods wishes?

[Ozme52]

Just to make my point more clear. I'd like to know how you detect the truth? If your only tool for figuring it out is your intuition, you've robbed Christians of any platform from which to judge anything. Their own morality for example. What if another Christians religious intuition goes against yours. Who has truth on their side? How do you know? I think you need to quantify the truth, for moral judgements to have any value.

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

[ThisYouWillDo]

Ummm - the Eastern Orthodox Christians might take an opposing view, and that it was Rome which fell into error leading to the Schism

<No I am not having an anti-Ozme day, even if it looks like it!>

[Ozme52]

Ummm - the Eastern Orthodox Christians might take an opposing view, and that it was Rome which fell into error leading to the Schism

No issue there. My point is that it is indeed in the eye of the beholder... and not based on any underlying "truth".

<No I am not having an anti-Ozme day, even if it looks like it!>

No problem TY.

('course I haven't read what else you've shot my way today yet )

[ThisYouWillDo]

No issue there. My point is that it is indeed in the eye of the beholder... and not based on any underlying "truth".

So true ...

[TomOfSweden]

History says their reaction would be to start another version of Christianity with an altered set of "truths". All "protestant" versions of Christianity are sprung from disagreements with the "truths" as professed by the "original" version(s).

Please note the pronunciation of 'protestant' here is meant to be based on the root word... "protest"

People forget that all versions of Christianity other than the "original" Catholicism are in fact heresies. <<==

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

[Ozme52]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant.

Well, not really because, unfortunately, while you look for a way to "know" and to prove what is "true" most people are

... arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth.

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

[ThisYouWillDo]

Apparently, people with greater religious beliefs are likely to live longer than average. It seems there is even scientific evidence to support this, but how good it is, I don't know.

Still, it seems we have a miracle: God lets his followers live longer.

TYWD

[Thorne]

Apparently, people with greater religious beliefs are likely to live longer than average. It seems there is even scientific evidence to support this, but how good it is, I don't know.

Still, it seems we have a miracle: God lets his followers live longer.

TYWD

Let us not forget that, historically, non-believers tend to die at the hands of believers! Skews the data.

[wmrs2]

Sorry to be an arse here. But this is irrelevant. We, or rather Christians need a way to measure the level of truthfulness between Christian theories. If you cannot, then how do you know you are right and others wrong. Both cannot be right. They are mutually exclusive. Just because a lot of people have traditionally done something doesn't add to the argument. This is Terry Pratchett theology. A god isn't dependent on it's followers for existence. It is of course the other way around. Measuring the correctness in a certain dogma is critical.

I'm well aware that the religious deny that science can measure the divine. It is after all a foundation it rests on in order for us to have religious faith at all. I've got no problems with that. But if we don't use science to measure it, then what do we use?

How do we tell Gods and God theories apart? How do we differ between a message from God and your own opinion? How do you differ a divine voice in your head from just any old internal discussion in your head? There are no ways to find out.

This doesn't prove God doesn't exist, but it defeats comparing them. If let's say, we're Anglican, we cannot say the Catholics or Tawahedo got it wrong.

We have nothing to use as arguments. Since the nature of God is unknowable we cannot use logic to deduce what God wants. The logical conclusion is that my options are to either:

1) Be arrogant and just assume God is better friends with me and have made sure I know the real truth. Alternatively assuming that I'm smarter/more spiritual, which is just as arrogant.

2) See this phase of human history as a fact finding stage to find more information before nailing down the God theory once and for all.

3) Just ignore religion due to insufficient data. If God wants us to believe in him, he'll just have to make an effort and stop being so vague. Alternatively humanity is much too limited to grasp the deep truth of the universe, which brings us back to ignoring it being the best option. If we cannot find the truth, then why bother? If those who claim that they've found it can't be told apart from those who fake it with something we can measure, we're not better off.

My point is that when it comes to religion we have no way of telling what is true, and this is even after we've already assumed God exists. Catholics have no stable platform from which to judge the validity of other Christian sects. They cannot know if they're heresies or not.

The fact that USA was founded by wonky Christian sects doesn't really change any of this.

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life. To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Take a bad experience one has in religious purists, for example. Would a person be better off to stay away from religion altogether? Should he change his mind about religion? Should he try to change religious behaviors with a different model? Should he become bitter? The bad experience will lead to another experience depending how one reacts (or doesn't react) to the bad experience.

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

[TomOfSweden]

That's also the reason that your personal search will have to be just that. Personal. You're being entirely too rational... and that's anti-faith. The 'faithful' are all sure God is their best friend and approves wholeheartedly and solely with the way they believe.

I think you're totally wrong. All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level. If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

[TomOfSweden]

The philosopher knows he can never know or prove what is absolute truth. I think I know God is absolute truth. But in the end of the search for truth, I'm forced to accept things to be true without absolute evidence.

That's the definition of faith. You have evidence for something and each time you check the result is the same. When you've checked enough times without any deviation it's safe to assume it'll always be the same, we call it faith. It's the same for scientific or religious faith. When I'm out walking I don't go running between lamp posts and grabbing them tightly just in case gravity might give way. I have faith in that it'll keep working. Even when I'm not watching. I'm a man of faith.

But you're leaving out the most interesting detail. How did you reach this conclusion that "God is absolute truth"? How did you work it out? How can you be sure that it isn't just in your head?

The decision that must be made is how much factual evidence is require for me to have enough faith to live a quality and happy life.

I didn't get this? Are you talking about how much evidence you need for faith in God?

To make the best choices in life, man must use all the tools available. Academic study is a very important tool, especially in a very sophisticated society. Intuition, reasoning, logic, and experience are other equally needful tools. The combination of all the tools of philosophers used together is probably the best approach to finding truth. keeping in mind that our country was founded on self evident truths (intuition) listed in the Constitution of the USA and other great historical documents.

Are you saying that "intuition" is the same thing as "self evident truths"? I wouldn't mind you explaining this. How do we know when a truth is self evident? My intuition tells me God doesn't exist. If intuition is self evident truths, then is my brain broken?

If one feels the need to remain religious he will have to deal with what he thinks is truth, knowing he will never absolutely know. Maybe this is faith. Faith does not make use of the historical approach, the scientific method, or Aristotelian logic of any less value. Faith and all these can make each better.

But Artistotelian logic can prove Christian theory of God has logical inconsistencies, (ie the Christian paradoxes). How do you reconcile that? How can the theory of God be true and false at the same time? How can God be good when there is evil in the world? Once again, what I think you're doing is removing the content of the "Scientific method" and "Aristotelian logic" and treating them as empty abstractions, because it looks good in a sentence. I'll grant you that it saves you the effort of understanding it, but doesn't add to your argument. You cannot apply the scientific method to something that cannot be measured. Some say this is proof God doesn't exist. Some say it's down to nonoverlapping Magisteria, but if that is the case your Christian faith cannot teach you anything about science. What you mean with "historical approach" I'm not sure? Hegelian dialectical reading of history perhaps? It's the standard method today of interpreting history.

At any rate, to go on in life, man has to make choices based on what he guesses to be true. I don't want to disprove anything said on this thread or challenge anyone academic character. It would be nice to see an appreciation
of all the approaches used to find the truth.

I hop this helps.

You'll have no argument there. But there's a world of difference between living your life as Christian because that's what sounds the most plausible to you, and having faith. One is arrogant and the other one is an educated guess.

[Ozme52]

I think you're totally wrong.

Perhaps. I will admit I had fundamentalist types in my mind as I wrote my comment. Those who out and out reject any possible interpretation of the world that implies that the bible isn't the actual word of God. Those who reject science and would prefer blind obedience... and who would force it on you if only they could.

All religions are very common sensicle and make perfect sense on some level.

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

If you want a bizarre theory of the Universe, read Aristotle. They all make perfect logical sense and was totally dominant in the west for 1900 years. His theories covers the whole theological spectrum from Darwin to Theism. But by applying modern science we know for a fact that all his theories are wrong.

I think people believe in God based on rational decisions. I can't see how anybody could take any decision in life that wasn't. The question is just what we use and accept as valid in data.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

We also have a huge problem specific for our modern world. The body of science is so huge that nobody can understand all of it today. Unless we are religious of course. It's the only way today to do away with the unknown and understand the Universe. Religion wins out here. I think it's a logical back-flip because it means trusting people who haven't done their homework, (priests) over people who have, (scientists). But I do think it is rational decision, because it makes us feel better. It's always more fun dealing with definites than vagueries. I'll use the great sales of the Sims computer game as evidence. We can be rational in many ways.

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

[ThisYouWillDo]

Let us not forget that, historically, non-believers tend to die at the hands of believers! Skews the data.

Believers have died at the hands of non-believers too. Joseph Stalin made a creditable one-man attempt to restore the imbalance, for example!

[Thorne]

Believers have died at the hands of non-believers too. Joseph Stalin made a creditable one-man attempt to restore the imbalance, for example!

You're absolutely right, of course. But Stalin was killing just about anybody, with hardly any consideration for their religion. And Hitler didn't just kill Jews, either. There were whole classes of people who were on HIS hit list.

But I think you have to admit that, with the Crusades and the Inquisition and the "convert or die" mentality of the Spanish missionaries in the Americas, the Church has had a lot more experience in killing off non-believers. Or even believers who were not quite docile enough to suit them.

[TomOfSweden]

I'd have a better acceptance of that statement if I saw any real evidence that their perspectives were occassionally updated... (and by that I mean updated and the current crop of believers were open to the possibility that their current understanding wasn't perfect.

And this is of course why all holy texts will eventually fail being true. At least if scientists are doing their job. And is a problem for any religion with a static holy text.

But then again. This shouldn't really apply to Christianity since the original Bible only was a bunch of ever expanding collection loose articles. It's a shame that little tid bit of information got lost somehow.

heh. Irrelevent... having valid data is paramount. Even a paranoid psychotic thinks he's being rational.

I was speaking from the sense of perception. If we perceive we have valid data, then we will perceive that the conclusions we draw are correct. The world is full of opinionated people who haven't done all their homework. People who read theories from the wrong angle, misinterpret and then draw conclusions. I've been guilty of this many many times. It is very difficult to get every theory right. Sometimes we cannot understand a theory, like molecular biology. I don't know enough maths to understand even the simplest of their theories. I have to depend on second hand interpretations. Which comes down to trust. Valid Data is an elusive animal. Especially when it comes to the big theories. I mean Quantum Theory! Even the greatest minds of physics can't understand that one. So let's say we're Christian and we want to reconcile it with known theories of physics. Even if we have all the valid data it is impossible. I'd personally see this as a victory for agnosticism. How can we have faith in something we don't fully understand?

Why must we do away with the unknown? Is it in our nature to want to know? Sure. But I think being accepting that I don't know everything and may never know everything is absolutely fine.

Doing away with the unknown is the goal of our curiousness. Is it not? But let's for sake of argument say you're lazy. You don't want to do your homework, but you still want the answers. I'm certain the latest surge of finding God in the west is simply a symptom of people becoming more comfortable and lazy. They can't be arsed to study the data out there because it is hard to understand. Any buffoon can accept God. It's a superficially an easy concept. Even though it isn't really. But that's just my highly personal opinion.

Tom, to me, it's like saying that it makes a difference to me, should make a difference to me, to know whether or not you are using a desktop or a laptop to write your posts. And not knowing should make me insecure. So let's just assume it's a laptop because it will make me feel better about my own conduct.

That is why neither of us is religious. I have no problems with using the "unknown" column in my spread sheet of the universe.

My perspective of how religion serves us today though, is that they would have me believe you're using a teletype machine.... or maybe it appears here transmitted directly from your stone tablet

I'm really posting here with my fax. Now you know.

[Mr.FixIt]

I am the son of a Church of Christ preacher (maybe that's my problem), who is the son of a Baptist minister, and my brother is a Church of Christ youth minister, AND MY OPINION IS ___________________________________________!

[stripedangel]

The biggest trick the devil ever played on us was convincing us that he doesn't exist.

That's all i have to say about that!

[TomOfSweden]

The biggest trick the devil ever played on us was convincing us that he doesn't exist.

That's all i have to say about that!

I've thought about this now. What exactly are you trying to say here? Either you're saying what you're saying or it's so full of irony that it goes way over my head.

[mkemse]

I have never seen any proof to prove to myself that miracles do or not not exist, this does NOT mean i do not belive in them, al it means is i have never seen anything to indicate they do or do not exist or have or have not happened

[stripedangel]

I've thought about this now. What exactly are you trying to say here? Either you're saying what you're saying or it's so full of irony that it goes way over my head.

Thought it was pretty clear, myself...and it is very ironic as well. However, it is making you think.

[GearJammer]

having seen one, I can only answer, yes.

[Mr.FixIt]

Simply put do you believe that God still performs miracles today?

Ok. I must speak up now. I believe that this thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base from where it originally began. The question was "do you believe that God still performs miracles?" Not "do you believe that God exists".

The purpose of the (historic if you will) biblical examples of miracles was to introduce a new message of a newly established (new testament) religion to have an impact on non-believers--and also to set the stage, via envy of His notoriety, for non-believers to ultimately crucify His son. There was a strong purpose for miracles--then, but now that the religion is established, there is no purpose for miracles today. The word is out--the choice to believe is now ours (freedom of choice and all that).

I do believe that God has a plan for everything, including all of us (everything happens for a reason and all of that), and He does intervene with a divine purpose of guiding events according to His plan. I don't quite think that this should be considered a miracle; however.

So, to answer the original question: No, I don't believe that God still performs miracles today.

BTW...I am certain that my lineage of religious leaders would not agree with me!!!!!!!!!

[TomOfSweden]

Ok. I must speak up now. I believe that this thread is waaaaaaaaaaaaay off base from where it originally began. The question was "do you believe that God still performs miracles?" Not "do you believe that God exists".

I understood the purpose of the question, but it was a bollocks question. It was one of those "Do you give to the Lutheran Charity, or do you hate children" kind of questions. The question itself answers most of the question. The question was only about affirming the faith of the person asking it. It's not really a question. It's more of a statement.

[stripedangel]

The question infers that Midnite already has faith. This is a question about that faith. Not whether God exists. It is not a bullshit question, it is quite valid. i cannot see where this question equates with your examples.

i watched my mother come out of death from a terminal illness and make it another 11 months. She wasn't ready to die just then, i (her only child) was about to give birth to her second grandchild. She lasted until he was 8 months old. Miracle, or sheer will?

Tom, what if you simply answered the question without all the added commentary? i think that when the thread was started, it was to see if anyone had a "miracle" story to tell. If you don't like the "bullshit" question, then don't answer...now, it appears that you hijacked a thread because the topic was not up to your standards.

As far as Mom is concerned.....that was sheer will. She had been told that she would have no children at all before she was pregnant with me...she wasn't about to miss a grandchild's first word.

i tend to think that everything happens for a reason. At this moment, i can't think of an example of a miracle...possibly because i've been reading about the existance of God.

I, for one, believe that miracles do exist. It's a miracle that i didn't reach across the counter at the bank and strangle the teller, when she told me that i could not get $1000 from my account without 2 forms of ID......but i could get $999. Devine intervention is all that saved her purdy lil neck, and i was given a laugh when she actually answered the question, "Why do i keep my money in the bank if i can't get hold of it?" LOLOL

[icey]

no i dont believe in miracles plain and simple!
im glad your mother survived long enough to see her grandchild stripedangel but if that was a miracle then why did my best friend die at the age of 32 leaving her children whose father had died less than 12 mths previously with no family?? (the rest living in trinidad)

[Thorne]

Tom isn't the only one who thought it was a "trick" question. To answer Yes or No implies that you believe that God performed miracles at one time, and that there is therefore a God. If you don't believe in God you cannot truthfully answer the question. Kind of like asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

The diversion which this thread took is a natural evolution of the original question. That's anathema to most religious folks, though.

[stripedangel]

To answer Yes or No does imply that you believe in God. So, if you don't believe in God, why answer the question at all? It wasn't directed at non-believers, obviously.

Should the question have been phrazed, "Do you believe in miracles?" Well, start your own thread,then.