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

[JawgeFromJawja]

I do believe in miracles. Even so, I don’t necessarily have to come up with a god to explain them. There are so many other possible explanations for miracles.

I already knew that Carl Sagan made that statement. He is one of my heros.

Well, of course a miracle is an extraordinary claim. Your statement seems to have been rather petulant. No matter. I can see from your posts and profile that you and I do have much in common. (You probably immediately think, “God forbid!”)

We both are in the healing profession. Our interests are similar. I’m no musician other that playing the Appalachian dulcimer by tabs, but my favorite music is classical, with some interest in folk music, blue grass (not “country” – yecch!), and the more refined popular music.

I was a professing Christian from age 9 through age 23, an atheist from age 24 through age 37, and a reprised Baptist after that. My theology has become so weird that the Baptist church no longer has anything officially to do with me, so I just attend the church of my wife’s family. Even they are made uncomfortable just by my silent presence.

I believe in reincarnation. So did the early church fathers until Constantine decided that reincarnation was too politically threatening to him. That ole guy Constantine was an evil, self serving, bloody brute. I believe in universal salvation. So does God, but don’t dare breathe that abroad. Too explosive and disruptive. Reincarnation does help to explain universal salvation and other truths.

Finally, I had a totally unexpected epiphany early this past Christmas morning. I had thought of myself as a profane individual whom God barely tolerated. Now I know better. God, the God of The Bible, is unlimited in all good qualities including love and mercy, and has none of the evil qualities attributed to Him by all too many who see “through a glass, darkly”.

I’m trying to figure out how to relate my epiphany to this forum without being threatening or offensive, and without my being committed to some institution.

Right on! [about those mysteries...]

Of course I recognize that we live in a world of the unexplained.

[About the god of the Bible not seeming all that wise...]

That is mainly because His spokespersons did not, do not, really know Him. So how could they accurately describe Him?

GeorgeK

[cardw]

I guess this post is the red letter edition.

The question that comes to mind is if these spokespersons did not really know god, and can't accurately describe him why are we still listening to them?

In terms of enlightenment Janism and Buddhism realized that violence didn't ultimately create a quality of life worth living long before Jesus talked about that.

And the prophecies of the Bible don't really solve the problem of violence because, if you are mainline Christian, the ultimate solution instituted by god is a violent one.

It sounds like you pick and choose your beliefs. I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, but it would seem labeling your God the god of the Bible is rather confusing since by your own admission the writers of the Bible didn't really know what they were talking about.

[cardw]

George,

If I was worried about us having things in common I certainly wouldn't say "god forbid." LOL (since I don't believe in any god or gods.)

You obviously have had shift in your connection with life. I'm not interested in refuting or judging that. And you are certainly free to label and describe it any way you want.

If I disagree or don't see it the same way or have a passionate view of my own doesn't mean that I don't like you or wouldn't be associated with you. I am able to suspend disbelief long enough to understand where other people come from. I have to do this every day.

But if you ask me why I believe or disbelieve any particular thing I am going to generally have a pretty well thought out position or I won't have a position at all.

Richard

[JawgeFromJawja]

CARDW, please comment on my statements written below. What I am asking is that you give me a check on my current reality orientation. Not that I will necessarily agree with you, but that it is obvious that your cognitive integrity surpasses that of all too many learning souls who are struggling with a reality that is so very confusing.

Of course I pick and choose my beliefs. Without exception, so does everone else. And without exception, everyone thinks that he “picks and chooses” the most rational belief system, from Richard Dawkins, a rabidly atheistic British biology professor, to Francis Collins, MD, PhD, for years the chief of the NIH human genome project. From childhood, Dr. Collins was groomed in atheism, but after becoming a physician, he converted to evangelical Christianity. He continues to believe in evolution, but not intelligent design. Collins is one of the greatest inspirations of my faith. His book The Language of God, is well worth reading. We all think our beliefs are well thought out, but it seems singularly indicutive to me that brilliant people such as Dawkins and Collins can have such disparate beliefs.

All of us begin with the belief system of our parents or whoever nurtures (or fails to nurture) us in childhood. With maturity and education, many of us eventually reject the faith of our parents for whatever seems more rational.

Most of us do not willingly subject our established belief systems to questions or doubt. After all, belief systems are our concept of the Universe, providing a sense of security, familiarity, and relative safety, whether that sense be true or not. But no matter how preposterous, the belief systems of most of us are compatible with the day to day events and affairs we encounter. Even should we have experiences that are incompatible with our beliefs, no matter – such things are ignored, blithely passed on to the unconscious file that is most likely to maintain and facilitate our world view. But the uncomfortable fact of the matter is that we are all biased.

Currently, and for years, I have styled myself a “Zen Baptist”. Most Christians seem appalled at the idea that I, a professed Christian, meditate. No matter. Meditation is a Biblical precept, even though most doctrinal fundamentalists would deny that “meditation” of The Bible means the same as our current definition.

There are ways to circumvent bias, which is largely an unconscious dynamic. The unconscious is difficult to understand. Indeed, the unconsciousness is denied as an entity by many who are bothered with the idea that we do not have total control of our minds. Bias can be overcome by a commitment to look at all relevant facts and opinions in a particular topic. That commitment must be based on a determination to honestly accept facts even when they conflict with our beliefs.

My belief system was tempered from the start by the conflicting beliefs of a relatively uneducated father (6th grade) and mother (8th grade). My father taught me that God wrote His spiritual truths on our hearts . He rejected Devine inspiration of The Bible. Like many of the founding fathers of our country, he was a deist, but a thorough materialist who felt that this life is all we have, and that death is the end of it all for us as individuals. My mother was a Southern Baptist whose precepts initially won out over those of my father. The spiritual belief systems of both my parents lost out to the implied materialistic and atheistic concepts of my education, pre-medicine at The University of Georgia and medicine at The Medical College of Georgia. Because of his integrity based on his own experice, I consider my father to be one of my reliable guides for spiritual truth.

Og Mandino opined in one of his fictional works that all writings are inspired of God, whether they be religious, materialistic, fictional, or even profane. With several qualifications, I accept that idea, realizing that all writings are certainly not of equal in spiritual, factual, or literary value . An eclectic reading and study habit is one of the many ways bias can be partially overcome. And obviously, a broad education is more conducive to critical thinking than is an education restricted to principles that are compatible only with established doctrine, no matter what the founding principles of that doctrine are.

As far as the writers of The Bible, I believe that they could not or would not accept God for what He is, in His ineffable glory. Even so, their concept of God evolved from Genesis to Revelation as the writers became more open to God’s full revelation.

One of my guides for spiritual truth is the Seventh Day Adventist wife of my youth (and old age). Her bed rock foundation for spiritual truth is Love, Agape, a love that is all encompassing, a love that is absolutely unconditional. My belief of the love manifested by spiritual truth is that it can honestly accommodate all observed facts, even those that are incompatible with doctrine. This is also the evolved belief of my beloved wife.

I consider the ultimate guide for my belief system to be the Holy Spirit. There is no way to prove this to others. However, for many of us, there is a knowing that comes with spiritual growth, a knowing that has nothing to do with the material world. One of my constant prayers to God is that I always be cognizant of the truth (The Truth). God makes me aware of truth through meditation, feelings, experience, precepts of credible people of integrity, and Scriptural reading. Through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, The Bible is not my only sacred Scriptural source. Ultimately, on Christmas Day 2010, I personally experienced the presence of God in an overpowering revelation that will shape my concept of God for the rest of my life. Such had never happened to me before, and for many weeks I hesitated to tell that event to anyone who was not a close friend for fear of being branded a crank, demented, or lying. No matter. It did happen to me, as I described in a topic in

Forums » Personal Christian Experiences » Something GREAT Happened to Me Today.

George

[cardw]

That is why I am agnostic. My cognitive integrity tells me that I can't claim to know things I can't possibly know. Even with those limitations, I can determine certain things to not be true by contradiction. So to make any determination of what god wants, thinks, or does is completely out of the realm of my or any other's ability or experience. So I don't claim that any god exists.

Since each of us has different levels of reasoning ability I support the free expression of one's beliefs. I think the difference is religions often freeze people at a certain point. I change what I believe in the presence of new information and that will continue for my whole life. And I freely admit that even what I think I know, is only a convenient holding place that I am reasonably sure to be an illusion. What we call reality is a persistent illusion, but an illusion just the same. I am a pragmatist.

And since we are all biased I think that supports the idea that we all really don't know.

You might like Ken Leong's book, "The Zen Teachings of Jesus"

This assumes that we have and understand all the facts. I freely admit my limitations and that is why I make no claims about any god or gods. It also why I have my doubts about anyone else's claims about god or gods.

I recognize that love exists, but there are all kinds of reasons why this might be so. And simply because one has love doesn't mean they have knowledge or expertise on god.

I recognize there is an artful way to engage with life. This is the subjective experience of being human and I value it greatly, but I don't determine what is true through it.

I have this knowing as well. I just don't find any evidence to assign this to the god of the Bible or any other god for that matter. I also don't use it to determine what is true for anyone else. I try to stay to the most accurate sources of information I have available for that.

I use this "knowing" to guide my interactions with other people, not to determine truth.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Richard, I'm gonna try this red edition again, where red represents my comments. Such was the purpose of my previous "red edition".

You say there is a knowing, marginally agreeing with me. There is such a knowing. With that knowing, I believe that I myself can determine what is spiritually valid or not. Even my deist father believed this, despite being hostile to established religion, as I tend to be.

I did believe (not claim - this was formerly too strong for me) that God exists, based mostly on inference from actual miracles and other events seen in my medical practice. Since my Christmas Day 2010 experience, I now CLAIM God exists. I think that Christmas experience was strongly related to generic phenomena similar to near death experiences, phenomena that engender a knowing about and comfort with the validity of afterlife,the existence of God, and other very troublesome concepts.

This stance places you beyond the position of most people. It is guaranteed to make you very unpopular, one reason being that you will make people uncomfortable. People don't like their belief systems being challenged, especially if challenged by compelling reasons.

Don't know what? There are many levels and areas of ignorance.

Aw'right. I just ordered that book on your recommendation. ABE books order number 74194848. I highly recommend ABE books as a source of used and out of print books. My wife will put you on her dustbin list - she thinks I spend all too much on books.

Surely you jest. We neither have nor understand all the facts about ANYTHING. Me, I'm more of a nihilist about knowledge than an agnostic. I think nihilism is much more honest. However, a total nihilist would be afraid to even put a foot on the floor each morning.

There are events such as near death experiences and ecstasy (NOT THE DRUG USE!) that render ignorance of God, ignorance of the afterlife, and lack of belief in miracles irrelevant. Such events happen to sane, well grounded, rational, even well educated people who are never be the same after such events. Fortunately or unfortunately, I belong to that considerably large group of people. I can give you many persuasive reasons to believe in God, the afterlife, and miracles, but all those reasons can be dismissed by various arguments. Such dismissive arguments may or may not be valid, in which case that ole bugaboo, bias, makes the decision.

Here, to quote Shakespeare, "methinks the lady doth protest too much." Your sentence is rather fuzzy. Ah, well. So is much of existence. And as the Germans say, "das mach nichts." It doesn't matter. Eventually, possibly after countless lives, you will know and love God.

Highest regards,

George

[cardw]

When I talk about a sense of knowing, it is only for my reference. It is based on a number of life experiences where I didn't listen to my gut. I listen to this knowing now, because it doesn't tell me exactly what is not right, but it warns me to wait until I understand what is really going on to make a decision.

I have decided against a number of choices simply because this sense that something wasn't right didn't go away. In every case it eventually became apparent that it was the right choice.

There have been times when my initial no turned into a yes because a sense of rightness was present. The timing seemed to be the issue, not the choice.

I'm not a nihilist because I'm a pragmatist. It seems to be a higher quality of life to trust that most things will work than to fear their failure. This is my version of faith.

[JawgeFromJawja]

"I use this "knowing" to guide my interactions with other people, not to determine truth."

Okay, no more red editions. They should have worked in theory.

Rich, please explain this quote from your post of 6 - 14, at precisely 10 PM o'clock.

Personally, I use any "knowing" I have to evaluate my perception of the Universe, which includes God.

Best regards,

George

[cardw]

I thought I explained what I meant by knowing in the post itself.

You are free to use your sense of "knowing" as a connection with god.

That doesn't make sense to me because the god of the Bible doesn't seem to allow that sort of thing. The god of the Bible seems more interested in people following rules than their intuition.

It seems to me that many people use god as a box to place everything they can't explain. I prefer to simply say that I don't know. That seems more honest to me.

[fccool]

George,

In epistemology knowledge = truth. Everything else is a belief. Beliefs can be falsified. Knowledge in epistemological sense can't.