O
Orogeny
Guest
Of course you have a problem with that. I’m not surprised.
My holy book is the Bible.
The Church uses science to investigate miracles. Perhaps you should set them straight on that.
Peace
Tim
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
The miraculous, God directed, events I’m referring to are:
The Flood of Noah’s time. (No evidence for a global flood being the common response.)
Adam and Eve our first parents (evolution only deals with populations, not individuals, being the common retort)
The existence of Jesus Christ as true God and true man (the stone box presented on TV that supposedly held His remains)
The plagues brought against Egypt in the time of Moses (I watched an elaborate TV program that used coincidence with various events to explain this.)
I’ve seen threads here with titles like: “Noah’s Flood - who believes it to be true?” or, in reference to Biblical events, “Did this actually happen?”
And, with all due respect, I should single out poster hecd2 who has told people the evidence says no on more than a few occasions.
Your reference to scientists studying miracles does not deter many from simply believing that those are just things science hasn’t explained yet. This is usually followed by a fervent faith statement that in all likelihood, science will explain whatever it is. My point is, there are a mixture of Christian statements and nonChristian statements. For some, the truth of divine revelation does not exist. I understand that. The poblem is when a few angrily defend their no it didn’t happen because there is no scientific evidence for it position.
Peace,
Ed
The Flood of Noah’s time. (No evidence for a global flood being the common response.)
Adam and Eve our first parents (evolution only deals with populations, not individuals, being the common retort)
The existence of Jesus Christ as true God and true man (the stone box presented on TV that supposedly held His remains)
The plagues brought against Egypt in the time of Moses (I watched an elaborate TV program that used coincidence with various events to explain this.)
I’ve seen threads here with titles like: “Noah’s Flood - who believes it to be true?” or, in reference to Biblical events, “Did this actually happen?”
And, with all due respect, I should single out poster hecd2 who has told people the evidence says no on more than a few occasions.
Your reference to scientists studying miracles does not deter many from simply believing that those are just things science hasn’t explained yet. This is usually followed by a fervent faith statement that in all likelihood, science will explain whatever it is. My point is, there are a mixture of Christian statements and nonChristian statements. For some, the truth of divine revelation does not exist. I understand that. The poblem is when a few angrily defend their no it didn’t happen because there is no scientific evidence for it position.
Peace,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
As opposed to the non-God directed events?The miraculous, God directed, events I’m referring to are:
The common and, more importantly, accurate response.The Flood of Noah’s time. (No evidence for a global flood being the common response.)
Adam and Eve could have been our first parents. Evolution only deals with the physical, not the spiritual. No way to test for souls.Adam and Eve our first parents (evolution only deals with populations, not individuals, being the common retort)
Science is 100% silent about Jesus. You are really stretching here.The existence of Jesus Christ as true God and true man (the stone box presented on TV that supposedly held His remains)
Again, science is 100% silent about this.The plagues brought against Egypt in the time of Moses (I watched an elaborate TV program that used coincidence with various events to explain this.)
The evidence is what the evidence is. Should we ignore it Ed?And, with all due respect, I should single out poster hecd2 who has told people the evidence says no on more than a few occasions.
No, and it doesn’t deter people who think that there are wood elves from believing that, either. Irrelevant to the discussion.Your reference to scientists studying miracles does not deter many from simply believing that those are just things science hasn’t explained yet.
Would you like to shut down all sceintific inquiry into miracles? What if, at some point in the future, there is a scientific explanation of a miracle?This is usually followed by a fervent faith statement that in all likelihood, science will explain whatever it is. My point is, there are a mixture of Christian statements and nonChristian statements. For some, the truth of divine revelation does not exist. I understand that. The poblem is when a few angrily defend their no it didn’t happen because there is no scientific evidence for it position.
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
May I politely point out that your response is an example of what I’ve been trying to clarify? The Church holds in the deposit of faith that certain things actually happened. These things are real events with no possible scientific explanations. The miracles Jesus Christ performed; raising the dead, giving sight to the blind. His life is a perfect example of being human and having the power of God. There is an attempt being made here to define as absolute that certain things did not happen. That is where the problem comes in. There would be no way, even if a scientist was standing next to Jesus, to explain how he raised the dead or how he raised Himself from the dead, even though the scientist could examine Christ’s wounds and confirm that this was the man he saw die on the cross.
Such absolute statements are not factual in a real sense. Miracles occur, are subject to scientific investigation and remain unexplainable by all methods. The tilma or cloak image of Our Lady of Guadelupe. The Church has ruled that the image was not made by human hands.
Respectfully,
Ed
Such absolute statements are not factual in a real sense. Miracles occur, are subject to scientific investigation and remain unexplainable by all methods. The tilma or cloak image of Our Lady of Guadelupe. The Church has ruled that the image was not made by human hands.
Respectfully,
Ed
O
Orogeny
Guest
Miracles. What are they, Ed? Why are they miraculous?May I politely point out that your response is an example of what I’ve been trying to clarify? The Church holds in the deposit of faith that certain things actually happened. These things are real events with no possible scientific explanations. The miracles Jesus Christ performed; raising the dead, giving sight to the blind. His life is a perfect example of being human and having the power of God.
Again, could you tell us what a miracle is?There is an attempt being made here to define as absolute that certain things did not happen. That is where the problem comes in. There would be no way, even if a scientist was standing next to Jesus, to explain how he raised the dead or how he raised Himself from the dead, even though the scientist could examine Christ’s wounds and confirm that this was the man he saw die on the cross.
Well, Ed, many of your statements are not factual in any sense (science doesn’t exist/biology textbook ring a bell?). You are right. It is possible that God flooded the entire earth, killed every air-breathing animal except for those in the ark and made sure that there would be absolutely no evidence that any of that occurred. I choose to believe that He didn’t do that.Such absolute statements are not factual in a real sense.
Why rely on science if it is athiestic and un-reliable? Why not just call everything a miracle?Miracles occur, are subject to scientific investigation and remain unexplainable by all methods.
Peace
Tim
R
rossum
Guest
We need science to be able to tell what is a miracle and what is not. The Sun rose in the East this morning. Was that a miracle or not? God could easily move the Sun from its normal place of rising in the North to a miraculous place in the East and do it every day without fail. Why do we not say that the Sun rising in the East is a daily miracle? Because science tells us that the Sun naturally rises in the East and not in the North. We use science to tell us what happens naturally, and when events deviate from that we can start looking for a miracle.Why rely on science if it is athiestic and un-reliable? Why not just call everything a miracle?
If there was no science, then everything and anything could be a miracle and miracles would cease to be special. We use science to distinguish the natural from the miraculous.
rossum
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yeah, but if we would just call everything a miracle and abandon science, Ed would be much happier!We need science to be able to tell what is a miracle and what is not. The Sun rose in the East this morning. Was that a miracle or not? God could easily move the Sun from its normal place of rising in the North to a miraculous place in the East and do it every day without fail. Why do we not say that the Sun rising in the East is a daily miracle? Because science tells us that the Sun naturally rises in the East and not in the North. We use science to tell us what happens naturally, and when events deviate from that we can start looking for a miracle.
If there was no science, then everything and anything could be a miracle and miracles would cease to be special. We use science to distinguish the natural from the miraculous.
rossum
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
We could call things that we define as natural as miraculous in scope.Yeah, but if we would just call everything a miracle and abandon science, Ed would be much happier!
Peace
Tim
I don’t think Ed wants us to abandon science. He is distinguishing between emperical science and ideologies.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Well then the sunrise is a miracle. No different than the resurrection. That doesn’t work for me.We could call things that we define as natural as miraculous in scope.
I disagree.I don’t think Ed wants us to abandon science. He is distinguishing between emperical science and ideologies.
Peace
Tim
B
buffalo
Guest
On the macro scale all creation is a miracle. Are the laws that govern the universe miraculous?Well then the sunrise is a miracle. No different than the resurrection. That doesn’t work for me.I disagree.
Peace
Tim
Everything that goes on is a subset of the miraculous creation.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Ed, do you believe in gravity?God is boring. Religion is an impediment. The holy books are just old myths.
O
Orogeny
Guest
All of God’s creation is a miracle. Why does the bible tell of individual miracles performed by Jesus and his disciples? Why are they considered special?On the macro scale all creation is a miracle. Are the laws that govern the universe miraculous?
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
I started this thread to focus on what God can do. Experts have examined the tilma or cloak of Our Lady of Guadelupe. Science can’t explain it. The Church declares it was not painted with human hands. I am declaring the things that God can do.
Empirical science is fine but, as Cardinal Schoenborn pointed out, it can cross the line into ideology. All Catholics must be made aware of this problem.
Peace,
Ed
Empirical science is fine but, as Cardinal Schoenborn pointed out, it can cross the line into ideology. All Catholics must be made aware of this problem.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
You know what I mean and I am not going to pursue this any further.All of God’s creation is a miracle. Why does the bible tell of individual miracles performed by Jesus and his disciples? Why are they considered special?
Peace
Tim
8
8eofilos
Guest
As for all that say that science is in conflict with God have no clue that this is a BIG lie. I am a fan of Physics and I many times came to the point were there was a conflict in science itself. Science is not absolut and is relative and that is according to Einstein too. Then Hawkings comes with the theory… but you know guys or should I say fellow Christians, Science is not 100% accurate in all circumstances but God is and also is absolute.
O
Orogeny
Guest
That is why it is considered a miracle, right? Without science, anyone could just claim that it is a fraud and you wouldn’t have a way to defend it.I started this thread to focus on what God can do. Experts have examined the tilma or cloak of Our Lady of Guadelupe. Science can’t explain it. The Church declares it was not painted with human hands. I am declaring the things that God can do.
Let me ask you this: What if science showed that it was made by human hands? Would you accept the science and still insist that it was a miracle?
Peace
Tim
E
edwest2
Guest
“accept the science” is a mantra. I accept the true humanity and true God reality of Jesus Christ. What I want all Catholics to know, clearly, is that certain matters have been declared true for all time by the Catholic Church. They stand outside of debate and are part of the deposit of faith.
As a historian of the history of science and invention, I have watched scientists change course in regard to declaring an ideology that they claim is proven in one way or another by their scientific knowledge. That’s all I’m pointing out.
Peace,
Ed
As a historian of the history of science and invention, I have watched scientists change course in regard to declaring an ideology that they claim is proven in one way or another by their scientific knowledge. That’s all I’m pointing out.
Peace,
Ed
B
buffalo
Guest
Does God perform miracles only to our understanding. In other words as we gain more knowledge will God just keep a step or two ahead of us?That is why it is considered a miracle, right? Without science, anyone could just claim that it is a fraud and you wouldn’t have a way to defend it.
Let me ask you this: What if science showed that it was made by human hands? Would you accept the science and still insist that it was a miracle?
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
So you wouldn’t accept the science? You would insist that the garment was a miracle? Good thing scientists rather than you were around to evaluate Piltdown Man.“accept the science” is a mantra. I accept the true humanity and true God reality of Jesus Christ. What I want all Catholics to know, clearly, is that certain matters have been declared true for all time by the Catholic Church. They stand outside of debate and are part of the deposit of faith.
Whatever, Ed. You reject science because it is something you don’t understand and it scares you.As a historian of the history of science and invention, I have watched scientists change course in regard to declaring an ideology that they claim is proven in one way or another by their scientific knowledge. That’s all I’m pointing out.
Peace
Tim
O
Orogeny
Guest
I don’t understand the question. True miracles are miracles at any time. The resurrection was and always be a miracle.Does God perform miracles only to our understanding. In other words as we gain more knowledge will God just keep a step or two ahead of us?
Peace
Tim
- Status
- Not open for further replies.