Modern God miracles, and how did he do them?

[Eva]

the church leans towards naturalism, except when they want the supernatural to exist...
this is practical atheism.

[Sternwallow]

The Laughing Cow wrote

No, actually I don't agree, though like the Church, itself, I lean towards naturalism. However, this is where some actual knowlegde of history and the development of Christian theology would do you some good. Google "Cessation of miracles" and see if you can discover anything interesting and new to add to your vast understanding of Christian history and theology.

I did as you suggested and checked out the site you pointed out.

Thank you for the history lesson. It all comes clear now. I see that what used to be great big physical events, floods, frogs and divided seas and such, called miracles, are no longer done because Jesus arrived and changed everything.

He replaced big miracles, like floods and tsunamis which took years to clean up, with individual mental and psychological attributes and events. Things like prophesy, interpretation and speaking in a tongue(?) and of being awash in the Heavenly bliss of God's Grace.

He brought the miraculous to the individual and made what had been an event shareable by all who could see taste and smell it, into an internal thing that each person experiences by himself, even when he is in a crowd, and that he has no way to question or analyze.

So now, for the last 2000 years, miracles are internal changes in people's lives that are entirely subjective and inaccessible for reasoned evaluation to any one, even the person having the experience.

When there were big noisy miracles the people were amazed because they didn't know how the magic tricks were done. When they did figure out the smoke and mirrors, miracles had to become something that was still largely unknown, the human psyche so that it could no longer be explained in materialistic terms.

As we learn more and more about the psyche and can explain more and more of what goes on in there, miracles will have to move again to someplace where mystery still lurks, until the rubes get wise to that one too.

Well, you didn't read very well or very widely but this is a decidedly fine first effort. I didn't point to a site, just suggested the search terms to use. Perhaps I should have. It doesn't sound like you landed on one of the better ones. But then again, it is you doing the reading ...

Next, poke around a little and see if you can find out why the Protestant reformers were particularly intent on debunking the possibility of miracles in the (for them) modern age.

[calpurnpiso]

Eva wrote

the church leans towards naturalism, except when they want the supernatural to exist...
this is practical atheism.

wow..well said Eva. This is the reason the RCC has been so successful the past 1500 years, they have their cake & eat it too.

The councils of the church are responsible ( 325ce to 1965 ce). They are amazingly smart convincing some educated intellectuals 2+2=5. RCC are masters of double talk. The ONLY thing that will destroy the church are the mentally healthy ,aka atheist,neurologists that having said enough is enough would become militants.

They will be the child that yelled: "Hey mom the emperor wears no clothes"

[ILOVEJESUS]

Lily. Would you not agree, and I have touched upon this at one other time or another, that God would be better marketed with a reverse to the green house effect or something? Please everyone and show who is boss all in one go lol. ps I know you are now an atheist.

[Sternwallow]

A newly revealed atheist cow wrote

Well, you didn't read very well or very widely but this is a decidedly fine first effort. I didn't point to a site, just suggested the search terms to use. Perhaps I should have. It doesn't sound like you landed on one of the better ones. But then again, it is you doing the reading ...

Next, poke around a little and see if you can find out why the Protestant reformers were particularly intent on debunking the possibility of miracles in the (for them) modern age.

I do not need to waste time on that because, how the Protestants felt about miracles is irrelevant to the question of the lack of miracles of a sort described in the Bible, in the last 2000 years or so.

The top site retrieved by Google under your suggested keys was pretty convincing and it matched much of what you have been saying about the way the Church (and you) move the goal-posts on the whole miracles issue.

You wind up agreeing that the miracles of old were not cases of massive Godly intervention in the world, temporarily overturning the laws that He, Himself made, but were rather, natural occurrences interpreted as miracles by ignorant primitive people who thought that gods and spirits were the proximal causes of every rock and tree and puff of wind.

As one such ignorant primitive put it "God makes everything happen that happens so, of course, He can violate any law He wants to."

[Philboid Studge]

I searched this thread for "gaps" and did not find. Shirley the absence of modern miracles is because The Incredible Shrinking Deity is becoming more and more irrelevant as science both explains and performs "miracles."

I suppose that since It now has no physical attributes whatsoever, It has already completely disappeared from view, even among the faithful.

Sternwallow wrote

You wind up agreeing that the miracles of old were not cases of massive Godly intervention in the world, temporarily overturning the laws that He, Himself made, but were rather, natural occurrences interpreted as miracles by ignorant primitive people who thought that gods and spirits were the proximal causes of every rock and tree and puff of wind.

As one such ignorant primitive put it "God makes everything happen that happens so, of course, He can violate any law He wants to."

Back on your meds, old geezer. There are still miracles as there have been throughout history. The miracles of old were miracles. The greatest of all was, of course, the Resurrection. The fact that ignorant people attribute natural phenomena to direct divine intervention is simply irrelevant. God is the cause of all. They are his natural laws working as he intended.

It is funny how you can twist the truth so thoroughly that it supports what ever mad, perverted, or silly claim you want to make. Tell the truth-- you are Studge's father, aren't you?

[Smellyoldgit]

Lily wrote

It is funny how you can twist the truth so thoroughly that it supports what ever mad, perverted, or silly claim you want to make.

You dopey old mare. How can you type that with a straight face?!
Now I know you're only here as a shit-stirring, wind-up, piss-taking crank.

Cow, Smelly. Cow.

Lily wrote

Back on your meds, old geezer. There are still alleged miracles as there have been throughout history. The alleged miracles of old were allegedly miracles. The greatest of all was, of course, the alleged Resurrection. The fact that ignorant people attribute natural phenomena to alleged direct divine intervention is simply irrelevant. Allegedly God is the cause of all. They are allegedly his alleged natural laws working allegedly as he allegedly intended.

It is funny how you can twist the truth so thoroughly that it supports what ever mad, perverted, or silly claim you want to make. Tell the truth-- you are Studge's father, aren't you?

There, I fixed it for you.

[ILOVEJESUS]

Ok Lily my atheist queenie. So anything that happens is the work of God as he is nature? Very Pantheist , only we go one step further and rid the deity out of the picture. Are you a Pantheist? Maybe so. There are no modern equivalents to the miracles of old if you are honest. Do theists never tire ( you are clearly a Pantheist now) of having to change their imaginary being everytime it is proved that it does not exist. Where will it end up being pushed as science pushes the ignorance of many theories into the mire , as has already been stated.

[nkb]

Lily wrote

There are still miracles as there have been throughout history.

Examples, please?

Lily wrote

The miracles of old were miracles.

Which ones?

Lily wrote

The greatest of all was, of course, the Resurrection.

OK, so what was so great about this one? In fact, which part was a miracle? Jesus was all man, but all God too, wasn't he? So what's the big deal about him being resurrected, he was never really killed in the first place (unless you're claiming that the Romans were so badass, they could knock off deities).

Lily wrote

It is funny how you can twist the truth so thoroughly that it supports what ever mad, perverted, or silly claim you want to make.

We're getting into quite a routine here, aren't we?

[Philboid Studge]

nkb wrote

OK, so what was so great about this one? In fact, which part was a miracle? Jesus was all man, but all God too, wasn't he?

I think it's because while Harry J Christ was certainly well-hung, He was not hung so well that He couldn't rise with a bit coaxing.

(Christian theologians have been noodle-scratching for millennia over the question of who coaxed the Golden Staff to verticality: Was it Mary Magdalene or Thomas the Curious ?)

nkb wrote

OK, so what was so great about this one? [the Resurrection] In fact, which part was a miracle? Jesus was all man, but all God too, wasn't he? So what's the big deal about him being resurrected, he was never really killed in the first place (unless you're claiming that the Romans were so badass, they could knock off deities).

Just when I think you have plumbed the depths of stupidity, you show that you haven't. Honestly, how do you manage this level of utter ignorance? Do you ever think before you write these thing?

Jesus was fully human. That means that he was subject to every temptation; every fear; every thing that humans can suffer, emotionally and physically. He feared his upcoming execution but accepted it for our sake. Yes, he really died, because humans die. Yes, it helped that he is God. It made what he did for us possible. To claim that that is no big deal puts you in the idiotic position of a drowning man who refuses the rope his potential rescuer is trying to throw him because the rescuer is standing on dry ground and so has an unfair advantage. Duh!