Why believe in the miracles of the Bible if we don't see any today?

[cardw]

I have noticed a general tendency to dismiss modern miracles stories by Christians when it involves weeping statues or apparitions or other fantastic claims that tend to surface from time to time.

Miracles are kept in the realm of saving us from death in an accident, avoiding an accident we drove by, winning a football game, helping me perform a song well, paying my mortgage, having a successful surgery, or other such co-incidental events.

My question is why accept the miracles in the Bible if there are no miracles on that scale happening today? I mean even Pharaoh had magicians that could do miracles. The Bible says that Christians would do even greater things than Jesus and yet where are these miracles?

It would be pretty hard to refute the gospel if it included the ability to heal disease with the touch of the hand. Isn't that the point of the gospel, healing the mind, the body, and the soul?

Now I know Adventists claim that the medical ministry and education are the modern versions of this work, but I don't find this concept in the New Testament. The miracles of Jesus and Paul are presented as evidence of god's power. Adventism, at least to me, is an American modern adaption of this idea. And evidence of this is the general disbelief in modern reports of miracles.

The other thing that happens is these miracles are put in the future. God will eventually affirm who is correct by allowing miracles to follow the true message. This generally leaves many Adventists feeling like they aren't really getting it or aren't good enough for god to give his endorsement. Or maybe god isn't helping because the group isn't good enough so you have all these different independent ministries trying to reform the Adventist church to usher in the end times with all the miracles and fantastic happenings. And you can read their general frustration with the Adventist church and its "Laodicean attitude." "If everyone would only believe like we do then god would vindicate that our message is really true."

I do have some empathy for many of these groups because many people have dedicated their whole lives and all their resources to these ministries with very little to show for it.

I know all of these doubts exist within believers because these issues are discussed all the time and a lot of energy has been put into developing apologetics for the apparent lack of the miraculous. I can understand the resistance because there is a lot of momentum emotionally and financially given to the world view that god is going to come back and save us.

So where are the miracles today?

[abelisle]

Yes - where are they? specifically within the scope of the preternatural.

[fccool]

We can really ponder as to why God is seemingly withdrawn from actions of human beings, it would seem that He believes into "non-interventionism" when it comes to directing human lives today.

Last week in church a lady was giving praise for God's miraculous intervention. He mother is older, and she got a new cell-phone that she still does not know how to use. The daughter had not called her for a while, but that particular moment had a strong conviction to call her... only to find out that she fell on her steps in freezing weather, can't get up, and has been trying to call someone for hours.

Sure, there would be some questions that can be injected before jumping to the idea of "God told me to call". I could be a coincidence. It could very well be the human connection that occult calls "egregore". Or it can be the act of humble God who would not take credit.

I mean, think about it. How would you like people validating you by your ability or inability to perform magic tricks ... especially if you've created this world and everything in it.

Specifically, think about what this world would be like if people knew for sure that there is God... I think their choices and actions would contain lesser degree of freedom. Is the criminal out of jail behaves because he's changed, or because there's a parole officer and police?

Perhaps, God is withdrawn because people largely don't want the idea of a parent looking over their every decision that they do. God seems to respect that. Miracles would instantly change that. Imagine the scenario in which God appears to every human being and says that if they need to change for the better, and as proof of existence He stops earth spin for a day without consequences to life. What would happen to human societies as we know it? What would happen to the cultural constructs such as countries, economies, corporations, food and transportation chains. I think, largely, such event would be disastrous ... leading many to brink of suicide.

I think, most people on this planet could not "handle the truth" so to speak. As far as "what's changed since year 0?"... coming up next...

[fccool]

In the past, you could certainly get away with much more exaggeration when it comes to miracles that you would now. People simply did not have means and communication to verify the events. What takes us seconds to know today could take people months of "broken telephone" chain or oral/written communication (largely oral, because most people could not write or read). And, with lack of journalistic standards in the past, you can only imagine how event can get out of hand fairly fast.

For that reason, many historians in that past actually take the stands on removing the "miracles" from events, because once you allow one hearsay story to contain a miracle... then anything really goes. Nobody would believe you today if you've said that a cow with tentacles broken into your house and burned it to the ground with its breath. Try putting this on your insurance report.

The historical bias against miracles could grow as communication channels speed up and open.

Yet, at the same time we could say that God would be less likely to cause a break-down in society in age of superstition... so perhaps during the age of superstition He is more likely to act through miracles.

Call me crazy, but I think that not knowing for sure is what actually drive our lives to some meaning... which becomes finding the answers. That's what our lives are in essence from the moment we are born... a progressive answer to the questions that we develop over time.

A bit off-topic, but if you really think about it hard enough, then the idea of "you" is nor really the baby that your mother birthed. I know that it was a part of it, but that was not you. Even today, we call things "my body... my face ... my leg ... my brain ... my eyes". The reality is that "you" is the software personality that resides within and that has been developed over time. All of those personal questions/answers make up "you" on level of "brain software". Take away all of the memory and understanding, and it's no longer "you". It's just the hardware.

Where I'm going with all of this... in a way you build yourself over a lifetime. If God intervenes and alters your ideas about yourself, then it's no longer "you"... it's part you, and part something else. I really believe that God would respects and cares for humanity enough not to do that, unless people really want to become "god-clone" and lose "self". Even in such case, I don't think God would really want that to happen.

[phkrause]

Some interesting thoughts Fccool. I would add also for those looking for God to porform(sp) a miracle. That's exactly what Herod wanted to see, was it not? And what did Jesus show him? Nothing, basicly saying, if I have to show you a miracle, than your not going to believe anyway. Your need to see is blinding you. Just my opinion, and the way I see it. I believe its different for each one of us and our relationship with God.

[Gail]

Great discussion!

[skyblue888]

To me the air I breathe is a miracle. My heart beat is a miracle. Is not the human brain a miracle of God's power in spite of the fact that we have been degenerating for six thousands of years? How about all the species of animals and birds and fish, etc etc? Are not all these manifestations of God Himself?

The sunshine is a miracle. The rain is a miracle. Everything around us is a miracle. These things don't happen by themselves. There is an unseen, mighty Intelligence working in and through all, moving in all things. All these things are mircales of the wonder-working power of an ever-present God in Christ Jesus by the Spirit.

The only key to the mysteries that sourround us is to acknowledge in them all the presence and power of God and the divine Spirit that Jesus promised to send is the presence and power of God.

When at last, God has a people on the earth who truly keep the commandments of God by the faith of Jesus, He will "make bare His holy arm" and the miracles of the past will be repeated for Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him.

sky

[cardw]

There are a number of times I have witnessed where people felt moved to contact another person because they felt their distress. I think there is a naturalistic explanation for this. I believe that humanity is connected at a deep level and the less distractions and anxieties we have the more aware we become of these connections.

There is no reason to say one has to have the god of the bible facilitate this communication. I think when one is a believer it is far more likely to assign god as the causative agent.

There is actually evidence that certain mammals are telepathic. There is an active research study on dogs and their owners. It seems that certain dogs have the ability to know when their master is going to come home no matter what time or how far they are away from home. In one case as soon as the master decides to head home the video shows the dog stopping play with other dogs in the house and waiting by the door. This occurred in a majority percentage of the time.

The other problem is it seems that god intervenes somewhat late in a lot of cases. If god wanted to provide evidence for his existence it would seem that the miracles would be of a nature to preclude all other sources.

For example someone might say god saved them in an accident. It would seem that stopping the accident in the first place would be a far greater miracle. All these claims of god working in one's life seem to be open to other causes.

Plus if our eternal salvation is linked to believing in this god it would seem that more evidence should be available. This appeal to faith seems like a dodge to me. A true miracle would be something like restoring the leg of an amputee instantly. That would demonstrate true creative power.

It seems like god exists in marginal narratives and group think to me.

[skyblue888]

cardw, If we can't see or recognize the miracles that take place in our lives on a daily basis we will not recognize the "greater" miracles when such shall be performed. We shall rationalize them away as did the unbelieving Jews.

sky :)

[cardw]

This idea that the god of the Bible is the only explanation of the mysteries that surround us is simply not sustainable from human experience.

Now as an agnostic I am certainly open to evidence of a god in general. I find it very unlikely that the god of the bible is this god with his tendency to use iron age ethics and violence as the solution for all the problems of the earth.

I understand that Christians often appeal to faith as if this explains everything. To me it seems like people pick the god myths they were raised with. Even as an agnostic I use the concept of faith. I basically enter each day having faith that it will work out. I doesn't always work out exactly how I expect, but it seems pointless to enter each day expecting disaster. But I would never use faith to provide any type of explanation.

[cardw]

sky,

Appealing to a future event as proof of a current belief doesn't make sense.

What you are suggesting is that if I don't mythologize my current experiences I won't recognize realities. I think the less one mythologizes the more striking a true miracle will be because I thought out the evidence before hand.

In my day to day life I have to deal with people's belief systems in a very neutral way. I rarely intervene in a person's belief, but in fact I operate within their belief system. I am more interested in outcomes and not so much how a person gets there. For many people Jesus is the name they give to what I call my higher self.

If a belief in Jesus helps an individual move into a healing place then I use Jesus. If it is mother Mary I use Mary. These connections aren't contained in language anyway. What I reference is authenticity. If that is coming through it doesn't matter to me what name a person gives it.

Where religion becomes harmful is when this inner myth is imposed on others either through group coercion or violence. And the bible is full of this type of coercion.

[cardw]

I want to address this idea that fccool put forward that god in this day and age intervenes less because it would be offensive today with our ability to communicate.

I actually proposed this as a solution when I was a believer except no where in the Bible does it describe a god like this. The god of the bible intervenes all the time and many times in quite violent ways.

This is basically why Deism emerged from the very dialog we are having now. Thomas Jefferson and others felt that there must be a god of some sort, but that this god no longer intervened in human affairs once creation happened. And clearly the god of the Bible was not this god to them.

Personal responsibility became much more important. Solutions presented themselves from human reason. Democracy is one such solution that came out of this think tank. It is as rational of a solution for government that these philosophers could come up with. It is a solution that relies on human personal responsibility.

Our way of life will be destroyed because of ignorance and giving up one's right to pursue happiness. The problem that I see with many Christians is that they are waiting around for god to bring happiness.

[skyblue888]

If in doubt, faith it out!

One could say that the root cause of much unbelief today is the way the God of the Old Testament is perceived.

The Bible declares that God is love. Now if we believe this declaration we will be willing to wait for Him to make straight paths for our feet. We will be willing to wait for God to make straight what is crooked in our minds. The fact that there are difficult things to understand in the Bible is just another evidence of its divine origin. Even the simplest truths stated in the Bible cannot be discerned by the human mind unless it is enlightened by its Author. It is written that the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerened. This is true of every human being.

sky

[cardw]

There is a lot of triumphal talk about the god of the Bible being good. And it is reasoned that all the violence was because Israel wanted to do it that way.

What doesn't make sense is god orders the stoning of a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath, but sees nothing wrong with not only allowing, but ordering the Israelites to commit genocide, rape the virgins of their enemies, and slaughter innocent children. And this same god seems to think that blood sacrifice will make up for all the suffering.

The only response I get to this is I'm just not reading it right. I think I'm in pretty good company with Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and others who found it just as impossible to create a loving god out of the one in the Bible.

It's not a problem of perception at all. One just needs to not read the Bible too carefully and listen to favorable commentators.

Now if the god of the universe is a god of love, maybe the straight way being made is to stop believing in all these myths and killing each other in the name of our respective gods.

Now I admit that there are great mysteries out there, but trying to make the god of the Bible a god of love is clearly an impossibility unless you severely redefine what love is. It has nothing to do with spiritual discernment.

If these truths were so simple I can think of a lot better way to outline them than the Bible. I was a Christian for many years and I couldn't discern it then and I realized that it's impossible to make sense out of nonsense.

I know there are quotes for all this, but have you ever thought that they were having the same problem back then? Maybe these quotes exist because they couldn't make sense of it back then either.

[fccool]

Sky, you are stretching. No need to stretch. A simple fact is that you don't know. If you are absolutely honest with yourself... that's the truth. You don't know because you can't verify.

Any nation can super-set history with its historical occurrences, and you get OT-type of Biblical narrative. Just let the likes of Pat Robertson to write history of the past 100 years with his theological insight in mind... and you'll have 9-11 to be an act of God to punish America for decadence.

[fccool]

I certainly think it's a matter of perspective. Consider the Hiroshima and Nagasaki event. I certainly view it as a horrendous atrocity that should have been, and could have been avoided. Most of the US public, and perhaps even many Japanese see it as a necessary occurrence that replaced even worse outcome.

That's the way Christians view the violence by God in OT and the future. It's a necessary and justifiable occurrence that would prevent even worse outcome.

The obvious problems:

1) I can think of a handful ways to get around killing people... I'm sure God can come up with at least a million of them.

2) God commissions people to do the dirty work as "test of obedience", which seems a bit strange.

3) Extreme punishment in the end seems to solve nothing. In case of man picking up the sticks... what does it solve? Does it really stop someone from disobeying? I think it gives them more reason to believe that God is an angry dude who will snap at your every wrongdoing. Why doesn't it happen today? Was it because nice and meek Jesus paid the price to satisfy the wrath of God, or is there some other reason?

Imagine a criminal who killed your relative stands up before the jury and says... you don't have enough information to understand that what I've done is ultimately for the greater good. So, you have no reason to judge me because you really don't know the ultimate outcome of this sometime down the road...

What would you say as a jury-member? "Oh, this guy is absolutely correct, and he's innocent! We really can't understand, and because we can't understand... it means that that is a further proof that he is right!" I think it's pretty clear that the God of OT is painted in fairly dark colors. I'd say that it's rather seems that a nation trying to justify its savage laws, its atrocities and bigotry making up a god that fits its current purpose... just like Pat Robertson making up a god who hates gays and punishes America with 9-11.

[fccool]

I'd have to point out that Savagery was the human norm up until fairly recently. People made pacts by cutting the animal in half and walking in between... etc. . The way I looked at it before was... God steps down to human level and explains it in language of their savage ways, but why would real God do that?

God would do everything possible to avoid violence and bring about knowledge and understanding. You can't really have peace and love without knowledge and understanding. You can't call stoning someone "a tough love". It just does not make sense. I really can't see God saying .... well, I've done everything possible here for this guy and he's still decided to desecrate my Sabbath by picking up sticks. He deserves death. OR ... this guy really offended me by name-calling, he deserves death. OR ... this guy is bowing down to a statue of wood because he does not know any better, he deserves death. It just does not make sense. I'm sorry, it does not.

On top of that, God commissioning humans to kill seems fishy. Recently, the actor of ugly betty killed his wife with a sword because he heard a voice in his head telling him she has a demon and has to be killed. In case of modern perception, this guy is nuts. Yet, if we lift that story and insert it somewhere in Exodus... it would make perfect sense. Why? Why would omnipotent God need human executioners? And why wound it be so improbable that a group of priests murder people in the name of God for political control? That just does not happen historically, right ? Mayan priests did not really roll those heads down the steps because gods told them to.

Ultimately there's a price to pay for the blood that flows justified in the name of the holy and the divine. Catholic church has near billion followers in spite of it maiming and torturing people because god told them to. We have puritans doing nearly same things while wiping out Native Americans in the name of god.

I don't think it takes too long for educated person to figure out that love and violence have VERY LITTLE in common. The only time I can see love and violence meet is at time of defense of the loved, and in case of God... no one has to die during such event. People can be educated.

PS The generic response of <Well, Israel was educated by God and they still rebelled>. It's silly! Please stop it It makes no sense. God can find better ways to educate people than to a list of don'ts and killing of animals for breaking it. That would seem to be a way of savage culture ascribing it to God.

[skyblue888]

When Jesus was asked to destroy the Samaritans who had rejected Him, He [told] His disciples [that they didn't know what kind of spirit they were of.] - Luke 9:55.

That says just about everything we need to know about God the Father for Christ came to reveal the Father. Yet when one reads the Old Testament he gets a totally different picture. We, like, the disciples of Christ, would have expected Jesus to call fire to fall down from heaven upon the hapless heads of the Samaritans.

If there are difficult things we don't understand from the Old or the New testaments, and there are, we will have to wait until it is all made clear to us just like those angels who remained loyal to God in spite of all the accusations that Satan had made against Him. The angels who remained loyal to Him could not answer all of Satan's charges for he had made everything that was simple mysterious. They waited for God to answer the charges. The charges were shown to be false when they saw how Satan and his followers crucified Christ for refusing to retaliate, for refusing to use force or to resort to violence against His enemies. And that is the way of the Father and of the Son which we are to emulate through the grace of the Holy Spirit which is obtained by trusting wholly in the all-sufficient merits of Christ's infinite sacrifice.

sky

[cardw]

Sky,

Just because Jesus presents a different perspective doesn't solve the problem. It just means Jesus has a different perspective than the Old Testament.

You haven't answered why. The only answer you are offering is that we have to trust that it will all be explained.

If there is no explanation, how are we to make an informed choice?

It appears to me that the reason there is no explanation is that there is no explanation for an irrational position.

[skyblue888]

cardw, I want to think that you understood that I never meant to say that there was no explanation. I was simply talking about the attitude one should have when approaching the study of God especially from a Bible standpoint. Truth is progressive. For you this humble approach of waiting upon God to explain His word makes no sense at all since there is no God to wait upon in the first place, right? Am I correct in saying that? All I am saying is that for those who believe in the God of the Bible it is the only wise and safe approach. The answers are in the Bible itself. I have already offered an explanation for the apparent contradiction between what is perceived as the "Old Testament God" vs the "New Testament God". It is the same God and He never changes. So there are no contradictions between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, only apparent ones.

Of course when we read about His instruction in the Old Testament "an eye for an eye" and then we read a totally different instruction in the New, we can't help but see a contradiction and we want to know the answers. The answers are there but in order to know what the answers are, we must be teachable and sit at the feet of Jesus.

You are no different than any other human being. God is no respector of persons. He impresses His Spirit upon the human mind, and that includes yours. We either resist or welcome those influences. This is our choice. It is safe to say that those who welcome and follow the Spirit's influences will be taught of God that they may go on from faith to faith, from light to a greater light, and from victory to victory.

sky

[skyblue888]

What do you mean by "any commentary"? Mrs. White's? I would appreciate if you would share any commentary on this from whatever source.

CoA, Did you get the impression that I was suggesting that Christ or God changed? If so, you missed the point entirely. The point is to show that in spite of the apparent contradiction there was no change on the part of God. Jesus did not repeat the "an eye for an eye" instruction to His disciples,,, on the contrary He said that if someone takes your shirt give him your coat also or if someone strikes you on the right cheek present him the left cheek. This was also meant for the Isrealites in Old Testament times. So why did He give this instruction then: "An eye for an eye." Or why did He give instruction to stone the Sabbbath breaker and the adulterer to death?

sky

[phkrause]

Not sure cardw what your looking for but from my own perspective or life, every time I go out to drive, take an airplane or what ever its a miracle, because each one of us can die at any minute. In Bible times or some hundred years and beyond the mode of transportation was walking, riding a horse, donkey, bicycle etc. The reason I bring this up, ever since you asked about miracles I've been thinking about your question. And while driving back from Florida and thinking about this I was looking at all the traffic and saying to myself, its a miracle we don't have more deaths. I know your probably thinking of stuff more like the parting of the sea etc. I just think that God still works that way and we are just like Herod and are looking for a miracle around every corner. The more we look the less we see. Besides what will it change? Will it make you a Christian? I don't think it works that way, for me being a Christian is looking to Jesus and following his example.

[cardw]

Sky,

This is what I'm hearing from you.

If I don't see or believe in the miracles of the Bible then:

1. I'm not being humble.

2. I'm resisting the holy spirit

3. I'm not waiting long enough for god to teach me

4. If I don't do this I'm not being wise or safe.

This basically means that the Bible is beyond criticism. If it doesn't have an answer to its own lack of clarity then I need to wait to be shown.

So how long do I wait before it becomes evident that there isn't any answer?

What if I discover that the people who put the Bible together weren't very honest, were ignorant, and used violence to promote a particular view of the Bible?

What if it becomes evident that the Bible was altered to fit a particular world view both through actual textual additions and the way in which it was translated?

What if I discover other similar writings most Christians don't believe, but have just as many people claiming that those books are the true message?

What if I look at Christianity and its history of violence and coercion and realize the only reason Christianity is a major religion is because of this violence?

The weight of evidence shows me that these miracles were made up. If god has a case to make, then make it. It makes far more sense to see the Bible as something created from the minds of men.

[cardw]

pkrause,

There are three laws proposed by Arthur C. Clarke

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right; when he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

The first of the three laws, previously termed Clarke's Law, was proposed by Arthur C. Clarke in the essay "Hazards of Prophecy: The Failure of Imagination", in Profiles of the Future (1962)

The second law is a simple observation in the same essay; its status as Clarke's Second Law was conferred on it by others.

In a 1973 revision of his compendium of essays, Profiles of the Future, Clarke acknowledged the Second Law and proposed the Third in order to round out the number, adding "As three laws were good enough for Newton, I have modestly decided to stop there".

The third law, I believe, is applicable to your claim that the safety of airplane flight is a miracle. This is not from miracles, but it is from research and hard work.

One simply has to look at the google cars that have been driving around with no drivers taking pictures. They have logged over 140,000 miles with one accident. And that was from a human rear ending the car.

Now I admire certain teachings of Jesus. I don't particularly admire his silence during his trial. In the story it seems contrived anyway. I don't consider that type of martyrdom admirable.

This idea that Jesus was trying to show up Satan wouldn't fool most humans, let alone the mythical being Satan, who is supposedly the brightest created being ever.

If I was Satan I wouldn't touch Jesus with a 10 foot pole if I was trying to demonstrate the superiority of my approach. If Satan was the one inspiring all the violence and ill treatment of Jesus then Satan was a simpleton.

It seems rather obvious to me that these stories are myths that capture the imagination and move a great number of people, but I don't believe they make much sense as literal stories.

[Bravus]

I also particularly like Isaac Asimov's corollary to Clarke's first law: "When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion -- the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right."