Just wondering why God no longer performs miracles on such a grand scale as illustrated in various religious texts and scriptures. Burning bushes, parting of seas, filling arks with animals in pairs by species, floods, etc. Just trying to understand why the God of religion seems to lose power as we gain knowledge. It fascinates me.
I guess because there are cameras everywhere now. So people can't be fooled so easily OR we can see God at work in earthquakes, tsunami and other such great events.
I see god every time I turn on the TV. Miracles still happen. Robert Gibbs still has a job. I'm also convinced stOx might one day learn to use a dictionary.
I see. If one were already predisposed to try and give God credit for anything I could see how that person would try and give God credit for what we can now definitively prove are natural phenomenon and even explain how they come about. One would be foolish to try to give God credit for it, but they most certainly could try. But no I'm speaking more along the lines of obvious God miracles like burning talking bushes, unnatural locust swarms, etc. I do hope that those among us who hate straw man arguments will rush to jump on such an easy and direct question.
Lets face it, stOx learning to use a dictionary would be a miracle. Whether you decide to attribute such miracles to "God" or not is a topic for another thread I suppose. Maybe your question would be more properly stated, why don't supernatural stories like those in the bible happen today? If you want to debate whether god should get credit for anything, I'd say the "miracles" of the bible are also fair game for that debate.
My question is pretty direct "Just trying to understand why the God of religion seems to lose power as we gain knowledge." You can call them God's miracles or biblical miracles. You can even go round and round and pose several different ways to ask the question. why don't supernatural stories like those in the bible happen today? That's a good way too. The question is still the same and a rather plain one.
Well, I disagree that your question is "direct" as you call it. For instance, the god of the Buddhist religion does not perform miracles and has not lost power. The god of the Christian religion has only lost power if you a) believe all the supernatural events described in the bible in a literal sense, and b) credit the Christian god for those events. If you believe in the Christian god as a matter of philosophy, and take those parts of the bible as allegorical, then your god has also not lost any power. Pegan, whole different story but with similar contradictions. The Atheist god has actually gained power through work of it's evangelists(Something like Nihilism I suppose). Also, the very title of your thread, which is, "Have we outgrown God's power" begs the discussion of what you do and do not attribute to "God's power". You'll get a slighlty different answer to that question from almost anyone you ask. One could answer, defy death and I'll answer yes. Anyway, the question is not straight forward and is nearly as loaded as, "How long have you been cheating on your wife.". That is my opinion, for what its worth.
OK so I'll take all that as to mean you either lack the intellectual capacity to see what I'm trying to ask (I doubt that) or you see exactly what I'm trying to ask and you don't have an answer, hence the run around and dissecting of my question. You're trying to draw me into talking about which God I mean specifically as if you don't know? Seriously? Burning bush? Arks with animals in pairs? the flood? Did I not mention all of them in the very first post clearly enough for you? Sorry but I don't see where I left any room for confusion there. I knew you'd come in here trying to make this about dissecting my question but this is ridiculous.... Ignore the title of the thread, be intellectually honest, and answer the question you know I am asking. If you can't that's fine I'll accept your silence as an answer. But please don't assume your coming into this thread and judging the way I asked the question is perceived as anything but avoiding it.
What I will do is re-ask the question in a way that I think reflects the question you were trying to ask, and allows me to answer. I hope that will do. Several possible reasons immediately come to mind. 1) It is possible the specific bible author describing said miracle did not understand the perfectly normal scientific causes behind said event, so he called it a miracle. Considering there are many "big" things that happen on the earth today for which we don't have a full and proven scientific explanation, said "miracles" still do happen in modern times. 2) Said bible "miracle" was not meant to be taken literally, but instead was added for its allegorical value. In this case, since the said "miracle" never really happened, one could say similar "miracles" are occurring in the same way today. 3) Said "miracle" was just a made up story passed down from generation to generation, evolving with every telling. 4) Said "miracle" was added by the Council of Nycea for purposes of fear, control, and manipulation by what would eventually become the catholic church. 5) God performed miracles when he was directly in contact with his people on earth (Israelites, Jesus). Once Jesus died, the new covenant did not necessitate or make room for such direct divine intervention. I'm sure there are other possible reasons, but those are from the cuff.
#5 is a very interesting theory and one I hadn't considered. It draws on inconsistencies in the old and new testament possibly brought about by advances in scientific discovery and thought. I would submit however, that both before and after the coming of christ and his life miracles such as the following allegedly occured: The burning bush · The ten plagues of Egypt · The parting of the Red Sea · The crossing of the Jordan · The fall of Jericho · The battle of Gibeon
The answer is simple. because the bible is a made up work of fiction and the events in it never happened. of course, for the believers the answer becomes far more difficult and ends up being nothing more than a contrived rationalisation that enables them to continue to believe in the patently untrue.
In the years up to to 100ad? Care to substantiate that? Look, I personally don't believe in the bible even as a historical document, but what you call inconsistencies are actually the lay of the text. In the old testament, god was the god of Israel and he fought on their behalf. The new testament is all about all people being god's people and therefore no need for god to do such dramatic things. Why call that an inconsistency? Those are all old-testament. New testament (After coming of Christ) miracles included turning water into wine, curing leprosy, curing the sick, raising the dead, walking on water, regrowing an ear. All "smaller variety" miracles.
Sorry it was late and I was tired. I meant to say inconsistencies between the old and new testament. I call them inconsistencies because they both are testaments derived from the same branch of faith aimed at the same core group of people yet are different in many ways. Why that is simply accepted and not questioned or held up as a "hey wtf" moment by believers interests me. I agree they are smaller variety but still you don't today, see people walking on water or regrowing ears within a short time span in such an in your face fantastical fashion as described in the good book. As for the healing and matters of health I imagine the rampant trickery and misconduct of a lot of "faith healers" have tainted that idea to the point where it's more of a joke than an actual possibility. Unless you believe that is... For those unfortunate (in my opinion) individuals it's as real as real gets even when it doesn't work.
Actually most theologians do not consider these inconsistencies at all, but fulfillment of prophecy. I personally like the Zeitgeist explanation better, but that is just me. I don't know many people who consider them inconsistencies, including Zeitgeist which is about as anti-religion as it gets. Well this is all off topic, since your question tried to narrow down only "Large" miracles attributed to "God". Regarding small miracles, they actually do happen on a daily basis. People recovering from stage 5 cancer, or being healed of other illness, whether attributed to faith or otherwise. I also continue to believe that stOx may one day open a dictionary. You brought up faith healing, and while most agree that the con artists have descended on that "profession", there are documented cases where people have been healed, though folks like you would attribute it to other things. Regardless of what you may believe about the healing powers of faith and belief, I think we can both agree that western medicine does not have all the answers. As a case in point, our treatment of cancer patients is nearly as draconian as the blood letting performed by the "surgeons" of yesteryear. Acupuncture seems to hardly have scientific substantiation behind it, yet the data indicates it works. Obviously nobody attributes that to "God", but as I said earlier, handing out "credit" for these small miracles is a whole different thread.
Indeed, they can't be attributed to science and they most certainly can't be attributed to God either. There's really no need to point out my bias towards the possible religious answers to this question. I can assure you I am well aware of it. As for staying on topic, the discussion was pretty much over between you and I at post 10 in terms of the topic of this thread. So I was just carrying on related discussion while we wait for others' input. I highly doubt any actual believers will touch this topic with a 10 foot pole because the only rational answer to the question would have to include possibilities that include the bible being untrue or misinterpreted. It's the danger I've talked about in other threads when one topic is discussed to an end without being allowed off course. This topic also feeds into a theory I posted in another thread regarding how the faithful's only defense and or answer to scientific advances is to point to the unknown. What science hasn't answered yet. I'm sincerely trying to think of a better term to describe it but the word that keeps popping up is backpedal. But I am clearly getting off topic here and I can see that concerns us both so if you'd like we can start another thread and let this question remain.
Bump, in case anyone wants to challenge Obamanation's answers. Otherwise, alas, this may be an opportunity lost for religious followers to set non followers straight while earning a gold star from God.
Miracles only co-exist with prophethood. Since there aren't any prophets at our time, miracles can not exist. Peace,
Why would miracles require a prophet. Take stOx learning to use a dictionary for instance. Would that make me a prophet? Landing a full passenger jet in the Hudson without a single casualty was nothing short of miraculous, yet I saw no prophet predict it. There are lots of miraculous things that happen with no scientific explanation and therefore, no credible way to give credit. Giving credit to God, man, the planet, or any other thing is as debatable as religion vs atheism. Regarding prophets of our time, I know a lot of people who called the credit crunch in 2003. Prophets? You could certainly refer to their predictions as prophetic.