T
Trebor135
Guest
Post #80 in this thread raises an issue that I’ve wondered about for some time now: how to distinguish between the miracle claims from different religions and discern whether some or any of the unusual events in question clearly point to the truth of one of them above the rest.
Let’s say that no-one had heard of Fatima. But let’s say that I related the events exactly as have been discussed. But I make no mention of the religion involved, the place where it was meant to have occurred or the nationalities of the people involved.
Do the facts stand on their own? Do you believe it because thousands of people were reported to have seen it? Do you believe the dancinf sun and the rain and the dry earth and the first hand accounts? Do you believe it must be true because it was prophesied? Or do you hold on any decision until you find out which religion the people belonged?
If I tell you that someone I know was seriously ill and was prayed over by my local priest and was immediately cured despite all medical indications that death was imminent, do you accept it as a miracle? The facts would be undeniable, there were witnessed galore, you can talk to them, you can talk to his doctor. Maybe you would accept it. Especially if the information above stated that I was a Catholic (you’d probably check, wouldn’t you). What if I then told you I’m Indian and only became a Catholic recently. And the priest in my village 40 years ago was Hindu.
‘My God performs miracles, therefore I can (in good faith!) accept any testimony. Your god doesn’t, therefore your testimony is a crock’.
Isn’t that the way it works?