Just want to make sure that you understand this is a Christian perspective... it may be redundant, but just want to make sure it is established:
I just want to insure that my words are not being misrepresented. It is YOUR Christian perspective unless you are claiming to speak for all Christians.
So... as to Rob:
The answer is no. If there is penicillin to eradicate a disease and one doesn't take it and the person dies, it isn't a punishment. It is simply that one didn't apply the remedy.
How did you determine that the remedy was not taken by someone involved with first wife or is it only what Rob does or does not do that determines outcomes. Say for instance, the dead wife's sister had prayed for her to be healed and saved? It seems that there is a lot of information that is unavailable to us to make any sort of valid determination of the miracle status of alleged miracles.
This threw me for a loop. I have no idea where this comes from, how it is applicable, what is the root for this statement. Unless you can rephrase it better... (I can't express emotions with words so if you can please read it with a soft tone and a questioning face))
Why? You said that Rob was affirmed with faith for the second wife. Wanting to know why you thought the first would die for Rob's apparent failure of faith is a reasonable question. That is implied in your scenario.
Something that violates the natural course of nature. In other words, a cancer in spontaneous regression is a process of time - natural. A cancer that is there one moment and gone the next is a miracle - not the natural course.
So, regressions only happen over time and you are fully aware of how long they must take to occur. I didn't know that. So no regressions where one exam shows cancer and then next does not. I am not as well versed in the medical science regarding cancer as you seem to be.
So anything that is uncommon or unexpected is a violation of the natural course of nature? I did not know that.
Or, as my friend Cindy some 50 years ago, had a skiing accident that broke her back. 3 times they tried to bridge it with no success. Her diagnosis, "don't lift anything bigger than 5lbs, don't have babies and live with it the rest of your life". She went to what is called "a healing service" in complete pain. She goes back to her hotel room with nothing different. She lies down in tears and crying. From there she rolls down on the floor crying and she is crying she realized... "i don't have any pain".
She goes back to John Hopkins hospital and after ex-rays declared "We have no idea how this happened but there is no evidence of a broken back. We can only say it is a miracle". It violated the course of nature. I've lost contact with her but not before she had two babies and pushed a lawnmower joyfully.
Are you fine with that definition?
I had a cat that got its back broken. I took to the vet. He told me he would keep it overnight, but it would have to be put down. The next day the vet called and told me to come get the cat, it was recovered. He had the x-ray to show the back had been broken, but it "fixed itself". Something he was aware of in very rare cases, but had never expected to see himself. I didn't even pray for the cat.
What I understand, based on what you are telling me, is that the only criteria for naming something a miracle is if is dramatic, happens fast (not sure what fast means), and we do not have immediate reasons for the cause of the event, then it is a miracle.
