Are miracles worthless?

[Lucretius]

Human beings by their nature know things by appearances, and through them we detect the “heart” or reality from which these appearances arise.

This makes discernment difficult for us, because the same appearances can point towards different realities by itself, and different realities can appear as differently due to circumstance, etc.

For example, two men can appear to love a woman, but one can be informed by lust and the other by love. On the other hand, St. Claire and St. Louis can live very different lives, with very different personalities, and yet share the same Holy Spirit.

Miracles are no exception to this, because God, demons, misunderstood angels, and even conmen can all create the appearance of miracles. Some miracles may have even been fabrications. Some may have not.

Furthermore, God may perform miracles for pagans, like healings, because he wishes to heal them. The rain, after all, falls on believer and unbeliever alike.

One rule of thumb regarding magicians is they tend to be all about the appearance. The sign exists to seduce others, it doesn’t exist to point the faithful towards a deeper reality. Thus, these miracles tend to be “showy.”

Another thing to look at is what the preformer of the miracle intends. If they are seeking worldly goods out of the miracle, they tend to be not from God.

One of the most important standards to judge miracles is if they were done in the Spirit of the Gospel. If a miracle tends to lead the flock away from the Shepard, its probably not from God.

Christi pax.

 

[undead_rat]

2nd Face on Shroud points to Supernatural Origin

'2nd face' on Shroud points to supernatural origin * WorldNetDaily * by Jerome R. Corsi

... Read more

www.wnd.com

While the latest evidence and new theories confirm what we already know about the Shroud–that It is the miraculous Sign of Jonah—the Baha’i-trolls keep saying that we will know how the “artist” painted it in just a few more years. They have been saying this for a long time now, but that fact doesn’t seem to faze them.

 

[undead_rat]

“. . . then he just woke up from the dead. . .”

It sounds good, but it is not, of course, at all historically consistent, as there is no “history” for it to be consistent with. Its depiction of resurrection form the dead is in stark contrast to the other three such resurrections noted in the gospels. If we consider the gospels to be history, and for Jesus’s resurrection to be consistent, then he just woke up from the dead, without dematerialising in an atomic explosion.

 

[leonhardprintz]

Undead Rat, are you seriously calling anyone here who doesn’t agree with your theories about the Shroud of Turin, Bahaists?

Don’t you realise how that makes you look? I haven’t seen any sign of Hugh Farey being anything other than a member of good standing in the Catholic Church. He simply doesn’t share your point of view about that shroud.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

That’s not quite true. Mr. Farey has shown a consistent bias against the idea that Jesus worked miracles. He jumped into an off-topic discussion about Jesus’ miracle about walking on water in support of the atheist who believed that this miracle was just some kind of cheap magician’s trick. Mr. Farey said that “the disciples were fishing” and therefore their boat could have been very close to the shore. As we have seen on this thread, he argues against the truth of the Gospel of Matthew by saying that Jesus’ corpse did not vanish from the inside of a sealed tomb.
Mr. Farey has never denied his acceptance of the Baha’i theology that the Resurrection is just some kind of spiritual allegory and did not occur as described in our Gospels. To be blunt, I find him full of tricks and misinformation. I wouldn’t put it past him to be employing the use of secondary identities to support his views: the old good-guy / bad-guy routine.

Oooh, you are a shocker, aren’t you?

1. The theology of miracles is too complex to go into here. I think Jesus did work miracles, but I doubt if they were supernatural in performance.
2. The gospel of Matthew directly contradicts the other gospels in several respects. They should be taken as a whole, not cherry-picked to suit individual interpretations.
3. I formally deny that I am of the Baha’i faith.
4. I formally deny that I think the Resurrection didn’t happen. As to the exact details, the gospels do not describe what happened, so it is impossible to contradict them. They do contradict themselves from time to time.
5. Unlike Undead Rat, I use my own name when I am posting comments. I have nothing to hide.
6. You find me “full of tricks”. I challenge you to describe any single one.
7. You find me full of “misinformation”. I challenge you to give any such instance.
8. You wouldn’t put it past me… Do not judge me by your own standards. I am scrupulously honest, and if anyone has been misled by anything I have said it was entirely unintentional. If any one has a problem with anything I’ve said, by all means point it out and I’ll explain further. In the end we may disagree, but I’m sure we can do so honestly and without malice.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Unlike Undead Rat, I use my own name when I am posting comments. I have nothing to hide.

This is an inappropriate criticism of undead_rat. The FAQ for this forum recommends that users do not register under their real names. From the FAQ:

All messages you post will include your “user name.” We recommend that you use a nickname or pseudonym, and not your real name.

There have been cases of people whose username included all or part of their real name experiencing harassment outside the forum based on their posts here.
So it’s perfectly fine and even encouraged for undead_rat and indeed all of us to use pseudonyms in order to follow the recommendation of the forum terms of service and to protect our privacy and safety.
If you choose to use your real name, then that is your choice, but you should not be lording it over others.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Hi Tis_B,

I don’t mind anybody using whatever pseudonym they care to, and I do not consider the use of my own name “lording” it over anybody. I made my remark in the context of Undead-Rat’s continuously unhinged obloquy against me personally, and his insinuation that I am a closet Baha’i and employing "the use of secondary identities to support [my] views. There is a lot to be said for hiding one’s identity on these forums, but a downside is that it enables people to be rude and uncivilised without those who know them realising how unpleasant they really are.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If you think a post is rude to the point where it violates the TOS, you’re free to flag it.
We just can’t be calling people out over not using their real names, when the TOS strongly suggests that we not do that and some other people have suffered bad consequences from doing so.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

How did I “call” Undead-Rat “out”? Please quote exactly what words you find objectionable.

 

[Eddie18]

That is absolute nonsense that pagans and heretics can perform miracles. Some people like to try and say so, but there is absolutely no proof. The major miracles such as Fatima, the incorruptibles, healings in Lourdes, etc (where proof is plentiful) are ONLY in the Catholic Church and no other so-called religion has anything equivalent.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

That is absolute nonsense that pagans and heretics can perform miracles. Some people like to try and say so, but there is absolutely no proof. The major miracles such as Fatima, the incorruptibles, healings in Lourdes, etc (where proof is plentiful) are ONLY in the Catholic Church and no other so-called religion has anything equivalent.

I don’t think this is necessarily true. Some people think that part of the definition of a miracle is that it is endorsed by the Catholic Church, in which case then of course no non-Catholic miracle is possible, as it would be a contradiction in terms. If, however, we try to define a miracle without such a restrictive clause, then miracles relating to other religions, or none at all, may be acceptable. A careful definition of a miracle will help sort out any uncertainty.

 

[Eddie18]

I should clarify my previous post. There are 2 kinds of miracles, first-class and second-class. First-class miracles are those that are available for everyone to see and where plenty of proof is available, such as with the miracle of Fatima, the incorruptibles, Eucharistic miracles, raising someone from the dead etc. Second-class miracles are the lesser, usually personal miracles that others don’t see and are more difficult to prove, such as a person personally being healed from a disease or miraculously saved from an accident.

God can obviously perform any kind of miracle with any person He chooses, regardless of their religion. But it’s the first-class miracles that God has historically reserved for the Catholic Church. They are detailed in Scripture and in the lives of the Saints. An example in Scripture would be St. Peter raising Tabatha from the dead.

I’ve had similar discussions throughout my life on the subject, and people always like to say that “other religions have their miracles too”. But when pressed for proof of a first-class miracle similar in magnitude to those in the Catholic Church I mentioned above, I never hear from them again. It ends up that way every time.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

But when pressed for proof of a first-class miracle similar in magnitude to those in the Catholic Church I mentioned above, I never hear from them again. It ends up that way every time.

I wasn’t going to reply, but your last sentence made me feel guilty!

I feel that the trouble with being a Western European Christian means that we only really have access to miracles via our own culture, so obviously don’t get to hear about, let alone get to assess, miracles from other cultures. I think the reverse is also true - I’m sure many of my Buddhist friends in Nepal have never heard of Fatima, for example. However Buddhism, especially, acknowledges numerous miracles, of which the most commonly discussed in the west is probably the Rainbow Body. Around the Hindu holy city of Varanasi miracles seem to be analyst daily occurrence - the Hindu equivalent of Lourdes, perhaps. Miraculous healings seem to occur all over the place, and for all sorts of people. Just type in, say “miracles Hindu” or “miracles Japan” or any other religion or country, for examples.

However, I think that you do have a point. I think that no other theistic religion is quite so grounded in reason as Christianity, and that therefore the scientific investigation of miracles has little purpose, and also that other theistic religions do not have a distinct centre of authority, from which definitive pronouncements may be promulgated. These two factors may militate against miracles playing quite such a part in other religions than Christianity.

 

[Eddie18]

With the emergence of the Internet over the past 30 years, it has really become impossible for people not to find out about things across cultures. There is even internet-access now in remote islands in the Pacific.

Anyone can claim they were miraculously healed, but these are difficult to prove. Though with the healings at Lourdes, they established the Lourdes Medical Bureau, open to doctors of any belief, who investigate many of the healings. The list shows people entering the water there with incurable illnesses like cancer and tuberculosis (incurable at the time) and walking out completely healed, confirmed even by non-Christian doctors. No other religion has anything like this no matter how much they claim it.

Here is a link to an official list of many healings at Lourdes confirmed miraculous by the Church: Lourdes Cures

 

[Hugh_Farey]

No other religion has anything like this no matter how much they claim it.

Well I don’t think they do claim it, that’s my point. They have neither the commission nor the authority to establish one. However, that may be because they don’t think they need it. I suspect that the whole idea of a ‘miracle confirmation board’ would be slightly ludicrous to a Buddhist or Hindu. They just wouldn’t think it necessary. In that sense, I think you’re probably correct in supposing ‘verified miracles’ to be an exclusively Catholic thing.

 

[Eddie18]

This is the way it’s been my entire life; people claim other religions have their miracles but they can never be verified for one reason or another. Then people repeat the same thing and are again asked for verification, and again it is never given, and on and on it goes year after year.

As you know, the Catholic Church has touted its miracles for the last 20 centuries, unlike any other religion. The Catholic Church also has many enemies. Certainly one of the enemies of the Catholic Church at some point over the last 20 centuries would have gone above and beyond to prove so-called miracles in other religions so as to try and make the Catholic Church look foolish. It has never happened, and it is obvious why.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

Certainly one of the enemies of the Catholic Church at some point over the last 20 centuries would have gone above and beyond to prove so-called miracles in other religions so as to try and make the Catholic Church look foolish. It has never happened, and it is obvious why.

You may be right, but I would think it more likely that they would try to denigrate Christian miracles rather than champion their own.