where are the miracles?

[Windwalker]

the only way to still be religious in this tradition is to take this stuff metaphorically.

And your point is what? Are you suggesting that because someone understands these old stories as mythological in nature, that they should not be taken as literal historical facts in the way modern man looks at history, largely devoid these days of the ability to think metaphorically, that therefore this equals that God does not exist? Can you explain that reasoning to me?

 

[rusra02]

Here is a question that has been on my mind. If you are a part of a religion that stems from the Bible (hebrew Bible) then where are the fantastic miraculous happenings? Why aren't they occurring now? Think of the people God turned into salt, the floodings, the plagues, the talking of animals, the destroying of cities. Why doesn't this stuff occur now? Why... actually... are there no miracles that can really be confirmed as such occurring?

The Bible shows miracles occurred when God determined they were necessary to fulfill his purpose. Jesus miracles,for example, identified him unmistakably as the Messiah or Christ. (Acts 2:22) The early Christians performing miracles was to show God's backing of the Christian congregation that replaced the nation of Israel as God's people. (Acts 4:16) The Bible said such miracles would cease when no longer necessary. (1 Corinthians 13:8-10) Persons who claim to perform "miracles" today have no reason to believe these "miracles" come from God, IMO. (Matthew 7:22,23)

 

[viole]

Who is selling it? I suspect that the miracles pop up in a natural sort of, and even honest, way.So and so hears from his friend's sister about something. Over time, incidents become inflated. A group of people comes in contact with a new group who has a set of legends which then get passed around, and so on, until it's a part of taken-for-granted wisdom. It happens even now. How often do I hear the refrain "wear a coat or you'll get a cold!" because somehow I will magically produce a cold virus if I happen to get chilled. People will believe things that their family and friends say, and will believe it more than empirical evidence. It's just something 'everyone knows'. I suspect a lot of these miracles are like that. Until a few hundred years ago in Europe, everyone just knew Christianity was true, that witches could harm you, and so on.

Yeah, chinese whispers and unavoidable noise in each communication step.

This is how it works:

- not a lot of rain recently, the sea level is low. Maybe the tides, too.
- look at Jesus, if I did not know that the sea is low, I would say He is walking on water
- it looked like Jesus walked on water
- to someone, it looked like Jesus was walking on water
- someone saw Jesus walk on water
- Jesus walked on water, there are witnesses
- jesus walked on water. Period.
- Hallelujah.

Add a little of superstition, hope of a better (after)life, fear, redemption, whatever, and the result is guaranteed.

You can try it at work. Spread the rumor that they might fire two people and observe it coming back to you as the rumor of a major reorganization.

Ciao

- viole

 

[brokensymmetry]

And your point is what? Are you suggesting that because someone understands these old stories as mythological in nature, that they should not be taken as literal historical facts in the way modern man looks at history, largely devoid these days of the ability to think metaphorically, that therefore this equals that God does not exist? Can you explain that reasoning to me?

I never said that the implication is that God does not exist. What I will claim, though, is that it would certainly be much clearer that a personal God exists if there were clearly miraculous things happening now and I find it suspicious that this isn't the case.. I also do not accept that people in the past saw all of these stories as mythological in nature.

 

[brokensymmetry]

Yeah, chinese whispers and unavoidable noise in each communication step.

This is how it works:

- not a lot of rain recently, the sea level is low. Maybe the tides, too.
- look at Jesus, if I did not know that the sea is low, I would say He is walking on water
- it looked like Jesus walked on water
- to someone, it looked like Jesus was walking on water
- someone saw Jesus walk on water
- Jesus walked on water, there are witnesses
- jesus walked on water. Period.
- Hallelujah.

Add a little of superstition, hope of a better (after)life, fear, redemption, whatever, and the result is guaranteed.

You can try it at work. Spread the rumor that they might fire two people and observe it coming back to you as the rumor of a major reorganization.

Ciao

- viole

Step 8: Hallelujah haha.

Why do I get the feeling you have tested out the experiment you recommend to me?

 

[Windwalker]

I never said that the implication is that God does not exist. What I will claim, though, is that it would certainly be much clearer that a personal God exists if there were clearly miraculous things happening now and I find it suspicious that this isn't the case.. I also do not accept that people in the past saw all of these stories as mythological in nature.

A couple points. I believe a personal God exists, and I find the notion of miracles to convince someone of that to be unnecessary, and frankly more a distraction since it would suggest God was some sort of performer of magic. God is far more subtle and knowable than needing a rabbit jumping out of a hat to make someone "believe".

As far as you do not believe people in the past saw them as mythological in nature, well they wouldn't have, per se. That's simply how they framed and spoke about these things. Mythology is a modern category for this type of thought and perceptions and stories, etc. They wouldn't have thought of them that way. It's just simply how they saw things, through the language of myth as we understand it today. They were not, I repeat, not modernist in their thinking.

 

[brokensymmetry]

A couple points. I believe a personal God exists, and I find the notion of miracles to convince someone of that to be unnecessary, and frankly more a distraction since it would suggest God was some sort of performer of magic. God is far more subtle and knowable than needing a rabbit jumping out of a hat to make someone "believe".

As far as you do not believe people in the past saw them as mythological in nature, well they wouldn't have, per se. That's simply how they framed and spoke about these things. Mythology is a modern category for this type of thought and perceptions and stories, etc. They wouldn't have thought of them that way. It's just simply how they saw things, through the language of myth as we understand it today. They were not, I repeat, not modernist in their thinking.

So you believe in a personal God. Alright. Why? Miracles aren't about God being a magician, it's about having some reason to think that this sort of God exists.

The trope that ancient people spoke in stories and songs is just that. They had all sorts of pragmatic concerns and while they may not have had modern science and history as a profession, when a story is recounted about the babylonians taking Judea into captivity the charitable interpretation of that is just that, an attempt at recounting happenings. If you can find evidence in the writing that a genre is being attempted that clearly does not want it to be taken at face value, such as poetic type verses, wordplay and so on, great, I will accept that. But I see a lot of people wanting to use the notion that somehow 'ancient peoples' as metaphorical and poetical as an escape hatch from having to deal with otherwise bizarre and grisly stories in their sacred texts.

 

[Ingledsva]

Yeah, chinese whispers and unavoidable noise in each communication step.

This is how it works:

- not a lot of rain recently, the sea level is low. Maybe the tides, too.
- look at Jesus, if I did not know that the sea is low, I would say He is walking on water
- it looked like Jesus walked on water
- to someone, it looked like Jesus was walking on water
- someone saw Jesus walk on water
- Jesus walked on water, there are witnesses
- jesus walked on water. Period.
- Hallelujah.

Add a little of superstition, hope of a better (after)life, fear, redemption, whatever, and the result is guaranteed.

You can try it at work. Spread the rumor that they might fire two people and observe it coming back to you as the rumor of a major reorganization.

Ciao

- viole

I like that. LOL!


*

 

[Windwalker]

So you believe in a personal God. Alright. Why?

Because of personal experience of the ineffable, of the transcendent.

Miracles aren't about God being a magician, it's about having some reason to think that this sort of God exists.

There's the problem right there. You're looking for a cognitive reason to logically "believe" God exists. As I said before God is far more subtle, but very much discernible. One knows God by simply opening oneself and allowing, not by dissecting and analyzing. I say this because you qualified, "reason to think".

There is an interesting point though in what you ask, which is in essence "Give me a sign that I may believe". Or put another way, "I need something tangible that it may inspire faith". That to me does sum the desire for a miracle requests by people. You're hardly alone. The first thing I would say is that its kind of getting off on the wrong foot. It would seem the person is wowed their way into following a path of belief, but it can well turn a person's attention away from their own deep internal desire to touch and to know the ineffable, to a constant looking outside themselves to find validation for their beliefs as their faith ebbs and tides. "Where are you God? Give me a sign!". Never quite looking in the right place. And never as a result growing spiritually and knowing God in all things present.

All one needs to do is look at these churches which are miracle shows. People come to the feeding trough to have their weekly infusion of faith from witnessing things perceived as outside themselves being brought into the world by miracle. So much of that too of course is staged or manufactured, and to me keeps someone from really knowing the nature of faith in themselves. It began looking outside "from on high", rather than looking within. And as a result they are ungrounded. There are no deep roots of faith through self-knowledge, which is a knowledge of God.

I would say if someone says they would believe if they could only see a sign from on-high, that what they should do is stop and in silence look within to what that seed of desire is within themselves is. What is it reaching toward? What is it that deep within is going on that the reasoning and rational mind is trying to find some sort of an illusion of validation for this wholly non-rational desire that appears to the mind to violate reason? (There is a marked difference between the non-rational and the irrational). In simply existing with an awareness of that 'seed' of desire of the transcendent, which I'll call it, not judging it with the mind, not trying to explain it rationally but simply existing with it an allowing it to be, that as we relax ourselves with ourselves rather than being at odds, what opens to us becomes the answer we were looking for. "Where is God?"

If you define where you think God is, or should be, you will not see God. But yet that seed desire will continue to be, regardless of how deeply we cover it and try to smother it out, or even avoid it by being super-religious. Yes, religion can very much be a way to avoid opening ourselves to God. Worse actually because it disguises that avoidance.

The trope that ancient people spoke in stories and songs is just that.

I did not state nor claim they did.

They had all sorts of pragmatic concerns and while they may not have had modern science and history as a profession, when a story is recounted about the babylonians taking Judea into captivity the charitable interpretation of that is just that, an attempt at recounting happenings.

Yes of course they had pragmatic concerns, and yes they used rational thought. But you are mistaken to believe that they were attempting to be modern historians in the sense of recording facts solely for facts sake. Have you never heard the axiom that history is written by those who win the day? It's "their" history, through their eyes, their perceptions of themselves. Everyone does this actually. We rewrite our own histories. Historians today are well aware of this fact of history. You are mistaken that people were dispassionate recorders of data. And even if they made such a rare attempt, what would come out would never be freed from their won influences through cultural lens. This is a all part of that myth of a "pregiven" world, that the facts are out there and if we can just get to it with the right tools, then we can know the truth. It simply does not, and cannot work that way.

If you can find evidence in the writing that a genre is being attempted that clearly does not want it to be taken at face value, such as poetic type verses, wordplay and so on, great, I will accept that.

Again, I never stated that. And you missed my point that was within what I said. It's not that they were "trying" to create stories. They did view these as factual. But what was "factual" to them is within a mythological framework of reality. What is "factual" to us is within a rational framework of reality. There's the difference. To give a great modern example, take a look at childhood development. Do you think a five year old's worldview, the model of reality through which he interprets events, is identical with that of a 50 year old? No! Of course not. The 50 year old's worldview is radically different than the child's. There was a major shift that happened in his development. And as a result, nearly everything he sees and experiences in the world is modeled differently and interpreted, understood, and spoken about differently - even if he uses the same words a five-year-old does.

Do you accept that evolution really happens? Do you believe nothing changed for us a species, no major shifts in conscious awareness as the whole of culture and civilzations influenced and facilitated these shifts? Do you believe the cave man was a modern rationalist? Even if they had the brain capacity, they still had to evolve mentally. So yes, people had practical concerns and yes they had rational minds, but they still as a whole saw the world governed by external forces, gods, spirits, etc. That is the framework through which they would speak about the world as they understood it, and so that understanding permeates their stories with that image of reality as it appeared to them.

They weren't "wrong", they were simply seeing and speaking of the world through that particular lens, just as we today see and speak of the world through our particular lens, and just as the world of tomorrow when the next major shift happens will see and speak of the world through that new, more evolved lens and our world will appear quaint and primitive to them. And I'm not speaking of scientific knowledge, but how we understand the whole of reality which will include, but not be defined by science as Modernity attempts to make it.

Make more sense now? They were not Modernists. There was a shift in how we as a whole began to see the world around the time of the Enlightenment. We see the world, largely, in rationalist terms. That's the modern framework of reality. We reason and analyze and dissect. The gods are side matter, not the set of eyes we look at reality through anymore. Just as when little five-year-old Bobby doesn't uses those eyes anymore when he became 13.

But I see a lot of people wanting to use the notion that somehow 'ancient peoples' as metaphorical and poetical as an escape hatch from having to deal with otherwise bizarre and grisly stories in their sacred texts.

I see no issues with understanding them. They were seeing through the set of eyes they had in their historical development. To insist on that be the reality of things in speaking about God, is like trying to force-fit the views of the ancients who were beginning to understand science as the authorities over science today! Think about it.

 

[viole]

Step 8: Hallelujah haha.

Why do I get the feeling you have tested out the experiment you recommend to me?

Heaven, yes.

You just have to be very clear when you start it that the rumor is an absolute secret and should not be made public.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Altfish]

One knows God by simply opening oneself and allowing, .....

I hear this a lot, it basically blames the non-religious for not trying hard enough, 'like us believers have'.
It can easily be changed to One knows Zeus by simply opening oneself and allowing, ...

 

[Windwalker]

I hear this a lot, it basically blames the non-religious for not trying hard enough, 'like us believers have'.
It can easily be changed to One knows Zeus by simply opening oneself and allowing, ...

No, it's actually stating what I experience myself in my own opening or closing off to God. It's just how it works. Other's say the same thing, and from my own normal experiences, it's completely correct. If someone wants to experience and know God, this is simply how it's done. It's no judgement of anyone.

It's really no different than anything else in life. How can you possibly enjoy and experience the beauty and peace of a sunset if you're sitting there brooding over how unfair your ex-girlfriend was to you? You're in your head, closed off to the world around you. But if you shut the hell up in that inner mess, and open yourself to what is there around you, you allow it to fill you, refresh you, and take you out of that crappy isolated mess in your head. It's exactly that. Very simple actually. And yes, in a sense, if you're doing that to yourself, it's not the sunset's fault.

 

[Altfish]

No, it's actually stating what I experience myself in my own opening or closing off to God. It's just how it works. Other's say the same thing, and from my own normal experiences, it's completely correct. If someone wants to experience and know God, this is simply how it's done. It's no judgement of anyone.

It's really no different than anything else in life. How can you possibly enjoy and experience the beauty and peace of a sunset if you're sitting there brooding over how unfair your ex-girlfriend was to you? You're in your head, closed off to the world around you. But if you shut the hell up in that inner mess, and open yourself to what is there around you, you allow it to fill you, refresh you, and take you out of that crappy isolated mess in your head. It's exactly that. Very simple actually. And yes, in a sense, if you're doing that to yourself, it's not the sunset's fault.

Thank you, you have just confirmed exactly what I was saying. It is my fault that I don't experience god.

 

[jimniki]

Isn't it safe to say that the only variable here is people's interpretations of what has actually occurred.

Turn a glass of my **** into a nice glass of cab sav and I'll make a temple in my lounge room in your honour! with candles, your photo, the lot!

How many hundreds of people get struck by lightning every day?
I never underestimate the variability nature ... it is capable of many things we would call miracles......

 

[Windwalker]

Thank you, you have just confirmed exactly what I was saying. It is my fault that I don't experience god.

It's really no different than you or I taking responsibility for our own unhappiness in life too. It's the exact same thing. Others don't make you happy. You choose to be happy or not. I am responsible for what I allow or don't allow in my life, and so are you and everyone else.

I think the problem actually is in your expectations of others, God in this case. You view God as the sky parent who will do it for you? I see God as available to swim within, or not as we choose. I don't see it as a blame God sort of thing. This is the way reality works, for everything. Unless you're a child and expect mommy and daddy to do everything for you. I don't mean to be insulting at all, but to put things into proper perspective, for anyone who imagines God in these ways. We set ourselves up for nothing but disappointment and blaming of others in life. If you want to enjoy the sunset, you have to go outside and sit down and look. Don't get mad at the earth because it didn't meet your expectation of how reality should work according to you.

 

[Altfish]

It's really no different than you or I taking responsibility for our own unhappiness in life too. It's the exact same thing. Others don't make you happy. You choose to be happy or not. I am responsible for what I allow or don't allow in my life, and so are you and everyone else.

I think the problem actually is in your expectations of others, God in this case. You view God as the sky parent who will do it for you? I see God as available to swim within, or not as we choose. I don't see it as a blame God sort of thing. This is the way reality works, for everything. Unless you're a child and expect mommy and daddy to do everything for you. I don't mean to be insulting at all, but to put things into proper perspective, for anyone who imagines God in these ways. We set ourselves up for nothing but disappointment and blaming of others in life.

I don't view god as anything; god is a man made thing, he/she doesn't exist. The god I hear about from believers is far from a loving parent he is a jealous megalomaniac, but like I say, it is all made up.

You may not mean to be insulting but you are very condescending; atheists have considered the options and come to a rational well thought out conclusion. However, as with all rationalists, give me the evidence and I will happily change my mind.

 

[Windwalker]

BTW, if you have 'tried' to experience God and were unable, and were disappointed and now just don't believe because of a lack of success, that's a different matter. I don't see those failed 'attempt' to find God to be cause to conclude God doesn't exist. If something doesn't work for you, than do something different. Everyone is different, and my path is not your path. All paths are a paths of self-discovery. So if you tried wearing someone else's shoes and they didn't fit, try on another pair and see what actually works for you. Again, that's simple - in hindsight.

 

[Altfish]

BTW, if you have 'tried' to experience God and were unable, and were disappointed and now just don't believe because of a lack of success, that's a different matter. I don't see those failed 'attempt' to find God to be cause to conclude God doesn't exist. If something doesn't work for you, than do something different. Everyone is different, and my path is not your path. All paths are a paths of self-discovery. So if you tried wearing someone else's shoes and they didn't fit, try on another pair and see what actually works for you. Again, that's simple - in hindsight.

Well I must admire your persistence.
I am happy, I am content, I have many friends and family, I love life.
I used to go to church as a child, but as soon as I learnt about science and began to enjoy the world around me and understood how it was formed and the beauty of nature, why add an imaginary being into the mix?

 

[Windwalker]

I don't view god as anything; god is a man made thing, he/she doesn't exist. The god I hear about from believers is far from a loving parent he is a jealous megalomaniac, but like I say, it is all made up.

I don't believe in that God you describe. So that makes me an atheist like you. We don't believe in the same thing.

You may not mean to be insulting but you are very condescending; atheists have considered the options and come to a rational well thought out conclusion. However, as with all rationalists, give me the evidence and I will happily change my mind.

I'm not meaning to be condcending either. It's just practical experience and being necessarily honest. Sometimes it does us good to just be told it straight out rather than sugar-coating it. I'm giving you the exact same context you should be able to relate to in common life experiences. But many, myself including in the past had to learn that first in life, before being able to take those same life-lessons and apply them to our spiritual lives, which includes God (or not, depending).

As far as rational thought, yes I am quite adept at that. I had become an atheist for many years following my religious background. But rationality, as powerful a tool as it is, and it should be embraced as you are doing, is not the end all be all in being human. There is legitimately a 'transrational' world, that embraces rationality, but also allows the non-rational, the sense of the ineffable to flood the mind and heart and inform it 'beyond reason'. This is what the great mystics of the world have come to realize.

The evidence, would have to be your own experience. Without it, any evidences are just two-dimensional non-realities drawn on a piece of paper like stick figures. It's not until you engage with a living, multi-dimensional reality itself will you have the evidence that satisfies that deep inner thirst for reality.

 

[Altfish]

Beam me up, Scotty