Townhall.com | Matt Barber | August 2, 2007
Jesus said, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (Mark 10: 6-8, NKJV)
Virginia resident Lisa Miller – now a born-again Christian – and her beautiful five-year-old daughter Isabella find themselves immersed in a nightmarish custody battle. But this battle is unlike most others. The person trying to take Isabella away from her mother is entirely unrelated to the little girl and is essentially a total stranger. She’s lesbian Janet Jenkins, a woman with whom Lisa had at one time been homosexually involved.
By her own account, emotional problems brought on by a series of events — including abandonment by her father, abuse by her mentally ill mother and a decade long struggle with alcoholism now overcome — eventually led Lisa Miller into the lesbian lifestyle. In 1999, Lisa began a homosexual relationship with Jenkins after coming out of a legitimate marriage that ended in divorce.
In 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to legalize homosexual “civil unions,” Miller and Jenkins made a weekend trek from Virginia to Vermont to enter into such a “union.” They then headed back to Virginia where they lived together.
In 2001, Lisa was artificially inseminated after the two decided to raise a child in an unnatural, deliberately fatherless home environment as self-deluded “wife” and “wife” — mother and “mother.”
In August of 2002, Miller and little Isabella, now just a few months old, moved to Vermont with Jenkins. However, things were unstable, and according to Lisa Miller, Jenkins was physically and emotionally abusive. “It was a troubled relationship from the beginning,” Lisa told World Magazine in a recent interview. “The relationship did not improve, as Jenkins — working as a nightshift security guard — grew increasingly bitter and controlling,” reported World.
About a year later, when Isabella was less than a year and a half old, Lisa ended her lesbian relationship, took her daughter back home to Virginia and filed for dissolution of her homosexual “civil union” back in Vermont.
And that’s when the nightmare really began.
Although Jenkins had no parental connection to Isabella (she was neither an adoptive parent, nor biologically related) she filed papers in Vermont in 2003 to try to take Isabella from her mother. Even though the child was conceived, born and living in Virginia, the Vermont court nonetheless held that it had jurisdiction. The legal battle has continued since that time, and incredibly, the court recently ruled that Jenkins possessed parental rights over Lisa’s daughter. It granted Jenkins regular and very liberal visitation. Isabella is now required to make the several hundred mile roundtrip journey from Virginia to Vermont every other week to visit a total stranger (Jenkins) who, according to reports, outrageously forces the confused and traumatized little girl to call her “momma.”
Rena M. Lindevaldsen, who is an attorney with Liberty Counsel and is representing Lisa and Isabella Miller, explains, “After Lisa ended her relationship with Janet, when Isabella was only 17 months old, Lisa became a born-again Christian. For the past three years, she has attempted to raise her child according to Biblical principles. According to recent filings by Janet, however, Janet believes that Lisa’s religious beliefs render Lisa incapable of properly parenting Isabella. As the fit, biological parent of Isabella, it is Lisa, not Janet, who has the fundamental right to decide how to raise her child and with whom she visits. Shockingly, when the Vermont courts declared Janet, a woman who is still actively involved in the homosexual lifestyle, to be Isabella’s parent and set a liberal schedule for visitation between Janet and five-year-old Isabella, the court did not even address Lisa’s fundamental parental rights.”
. . . more
Note 300 Why is uniformity of belief important?
Because the subject of the beliefs is Truth and because the salvation of souls is at stake in many issues.
The very act of asking this question strikes me as strange. People are drawn to religion because they are seeking the eternally real and the eternally true. Some time ago I think in note 287 Jim H wrote that he thought a particular issue transcended religion. Nothing transcends religion because religion is the search for the transcendent.
Note 295 Mr. Holman regarding miracles:
“Actually, that would work for me. I wouldn’t even need a private session. A group session would suffice.”
I’m glad to hear this, because if you didn’t believe after such a miracle there would be consequences on judgment day (Luke 10). I imagine this is one reason why archangels do not appear to people on a day-to-day basis. There are likely other reasons, too, but I am not able to put much more thought to the matter right now.
If you want miracles, I think there are miracles all around us and we might see them if we look for them. For example, there are a number of icons that miraculously cry tears of myrrh. I’ve never seen one myself, and I’m not all that familiar with the purpose of such miracles, so I hesitate to bring it up in this context. I’ve heard these miraculous icons provide great encouragement to the congragations that witness them. Of course, I’ve heard of some cases that turned out to be fakes, and heard first-hand accounts that were difficult to explain away. Perhaps such phenomena would not impress you as miraculous, but perhaps they would. A good number of Christ’s miracles recounted in the New Testament were performed only after people showed at least a bit of faith or effort in seeking them out.
Of course, the way I see it, everyone who thinks deeply enough believes in some miraculous event or another. A strict atheist must believe that matter existed in one form or another eternally, or that matter appeared out of nothing without reason for so doing. If one can believe that, I don’t think one needs to see an archangel to believe in the Triune God.
D. George writes: “‘If you want miracles, I think there are miracles all around us and we might see them if we look for them.'”
There have been quite a number of alleged such occurrences within the last century, including Bayside, New York, Garabandal, Spain, Medjugorje, Fatima, Portugal and Zeitoun, Egypt.
Do you personally regard all of these as authentic? If not, why, and what criteria do you utilize to judge whether they are authentic or not?
Note 295:
You see, there I’ve asked a “bad” question.
No, your behavior is “bad”. Your behavior is “bad” because you do not ask questions in good faith. You are not interested in Orthodoxy, rather you are interested in “debating” Orthodoxy. You explicitly reject it. This would be fine, except you continually assert yourself, your “questions”, in a manner that is not interested in Orthodoxy, but rather “debating” it.
You admitted as much a while back when you said you simply use this site as a way to “sharpen” your philosophy. Your a Troll, not a participant.
Go “sharpen” somewhere else, somewhere that was designed to be a place for “sharpening” your philosophy – someplace named “MaterialismToday”, not “OrthodoxyToday”.
note 302:
. A strict atheist must believe that matter existed in one form or another eternally, or that matter appeared out of nothing without reason for so doing. If one can believe that, I don’t think one needs to see an archangel to believe in the Triune God.
Exactly. It takes as much faith to believe in Neo-Epicureanism as it does any other philosophy that takes on origins…
Note 306, JamesK, Miracles on a daily basis
God manifests himself to people who seek Him. Authority. Seek and ye shall find. God understand humans and understand doubt and fear, but, will still accept prayers in good faith. Authority “help my unbelief.”
Just about every Christian can recount at least one instance of the Lord’s activity in their lives. Many Christians can recount many.
Most people are somewhat hesitant to discuss many of the Lord’s manifestations because there is something precious and very intimate about it. It would be a very grave offense to advertise or brag about an instance of the Lord’s unmerited grace. Protestants call it “greiving the Holy Ghost.” I am sure the Orthodox teach something equivalent.
Some very holy people who have written about their inner spiritual life describe the Holy Spirit as something like a dove or a gentle doe. Very beautiful, very delicate and very shy. The Holy Ghost is supposed to be attracted by humility, charity and gentleness. Like a beautiful dove or gentle doe it can be frightened off by coarseness or unkindness.
So, many Christian, particularly those with a strong prayer life can recount miracles in their lives. I can recount quite a few probably 5 or 6. I doubt that you would give me any credence if I described them and I haven’t decided whether I would want to expose my real life that much on the net.
Since I fear that the details of my life would just become the fodder for disputation and scorn anyway.
By the way, I didn’t and still don’t deserve the gifts that the Lord has bestowed on me, which is a problem because to whom much has been given much will be required.
Isn’t that, in some way, what JamesK is talking about when he suggests that, to disprove an atheist, “a few well-placed miracles would suffice?” If you have to seek and be in the right frame of mind in order to find a miracle, perhaps there was there was nothing there to find, in reality?
Perhaps the confusion is with the definition of “miracle.” Colloquially, a miracle is anything unlikely or beneficial. A student might say, “It’s a miracle that I finished high school!” A woman might say, “It’s a miracle that I am able to function again after my husband’s death.”
But the kind of miracle that I think JamesK is talking about (as well as Sam Harris), is an act that could only be the product of divine intervention. Something unquestionably miraculous, not just something that was unlikely. If you survive a particularly nasty car crash, that’s wonderful, and it may even be extraordinarily unlikely. But, given the huge number of car crashes that occur each day, someone is bound to survive a bad one now and then.
I can’t say for certain whether the personal miracles you speak of would be of the “unquestionably divine intervention” category or the more elusive “things that seem unlikely or make me feel very positive” category. I have a hunch, since you suggest that we might not give you credence, that you’re not talking about “my car floated twenty feet in the air in front of a hundred witnesses.”
This is not to say that the miracles that you and others speak of are not miracles. It’s possible that that’s just the way God works: He refuses to do anything that could give away his existence outright. (This would be a change in policy from Biblical days, but perhaps that’s the way He wants things to be now.)
As I write this, I am confident that the Orthodox faith, as well as Catholics and other Christian thinkers, have centuries of philosophy that justifies why miracles of the “unquestionably divine intervention” category do not occur in the modern era.
But realize, JamesK was asked to provide a standard: “What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?”
After he provided that standard, the immediate response was suggestions that the standard should be lowered, of that “miracles” be redefined so that they aren’t the kind of evidence about which he was speaking.
Combine this thread with the one on global warming. We are unable to see who we really are, what the creation really is. We are blind. “Miracles” are simply seeing a little bit of what actually is. For some they are so common place they assume everyone sees what they do. I remember a bishop telling the story of a young man who came to see the bishop one day and was astounded when the bishop admitted that seeing angels was not a regular part of the bishop’s everday life. The young man simply assumed it must be so since they had always been with him.
Jesus raising the dead was simply making seen what was true. The people were not dead. We pray for the living, not the dead, right? So how do you account for this: O God of spirits, and of all flesh, who hast trampled down Death, and overthrown the Devil, and given life unto thy world: Do thou, the same Lord, give rest to the soul of thy departed servant, in a place of brightness, a place of verdure, a place of repose, whence all sickness, sorrow and sighing have fled away. Pardon every transgression which he hath committed, whether by word, or deed, or thought. For thou art a good God, and lovest mankind; because there is no man who liveth and sinneth not: for thou only art without sin, and thy righteousness is to all eternity, and thy word is true.
It is or own sin that blinds us. Our own unwillingness to really see. “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.” “Repent, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.”
The icon is the perfect expression of the miracle that “God is with us.”
Do you want proof? Repent. “a contrite and humble heart, God will not despise”.
Do you want to heal the enviroment? Repent. If the people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. II Chronicles 7:14
Abortion, euthanasia, war, poverty, rampant immorality of all types are all cultural manifestations of the hardness of our hearts, our unwillingness to see that God is with us. “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and all these will be added unto you”
Repentance is too simple for us though. Too private, too small, too invisible. Besides, why do I need to repent when everybody else is worse: “fool do you not know that this night, your soul will be required of you?” We must ACT!, Make a difference, save the world!!!. In fact such attitudes are an expression of a desperate lack of faith. It is proclaiming that God is not with us and we are left to our own poor, miserable devices. So we go about “defending ourselves against pain and death by pain and death”. Success is measured by how much of each we can inflict on others, especially if it is done for “the greater good”
note 307
Perhaps the confusion is with the definition of “miracle.”
Yes, you do display a certain amount of confusion about the definition. No offense intended, but both you and JamesK are quite confused as to what Traditional Christians speak of when they use the term.
As I write this, I am confident that the Orthodox faith, as well as Catholics and other Christian thinkers, have centuries of philosophy that justifies why miracles of the “unquestionably divine intervention” category do not occur in the modern era.
LOL! Please, point me to the sources – I would be most interested 🙂
Note 303 JamesK:
Do you personally regard all of these as authentic? If not, why, and what criteria do you utilize to judge whether they are authentic or not?
I don’t regard these cases at all. I haven’t committed any time to study them. I don’t judge them because I don’t study them. I don’t study them because my time is very limited and it doesn’t make an iota of difference to me if the cases you list are or are not authentic.
Note 307 Phil:
If you have to seek and be in the right frame of mind in order to find a miracle, perhaps there was there was nothing there to find, in reality?
But, perhaps there was something to find. I would not denigrate having the “frame of mind” that you mention. I don’t find this “frame of mind,” or better yet “disposition of soul,” one bit less rational than the frame of mind required to assume that matter existed eternally, or to assume that matter appeared out of nothing for no reason. Let’s face it: If we’re honest, those of us who do not avoid fundamental questions make an assumption that requires the supernatural, and if we make such an assumption, why should we be so skeptical about miracles?
”But the kind of miracle that I think JamesK is talking about (as well as Sam Harris), is an act that could only be the product of divine intervention. Something unquestionably miraculous, not just something that was unlikely.”
and later:
”But realize, JamesK was asked to provide a standard: ‘What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?’
”After he provided that standard, the immediate response was suggestions that the standard should be lowered, of that “miracles” be redefined so that they aren’t the kind of evidence about which he was speaking.”
The example of icons streaming tears of myrrh (note that I did not say condensed water or some similar nonsense), if valid, is not just unlikely, it is unquestionably miraculous. Granted, there are no flashes of lightning or visible manifestations of bodiless powers involved, at least not to most folks. But, if true, these cases are unquestionable miracles nonetheless. I hope that if Mr. Holman believed he saw an unquestionable miracle (great or small), it would meet Mr. Holman’s standards. Perhaps Mr. Holman would see such an icon and assess it to be a hoax. And perhaps he would be correct, as I’ve heard of some that were hoaxes in any case. But, perhaps he would be unable to explain what he saw. And if not, it would be interesting to see his report on this blog. In any case, it was just an idea.
As for Sam Harris, I fear the man is probably so blind he wouldn’t recognize an archangel if one hit him with a 2 x 4. Harris is a fellow who, while fully aware that atheists like Stalin and Mao were responsible for tens to hundreds of millions of killings and starvations, nonetheless concludes that atheism promotes greater peace than religion, and that we must eliminate religion because religion is a factor in many wars. Frankly, his conclusions defy common sense to such an extent that I wonder if he didn’t just realize that writing such nonsense would get his name into leftist book reviews, university alumni magazines, papers, etc., and make him a lot of money.
“It’s possible that that’s just the way God works: He refuses to do anything that could give away his existence outright. (This would be a change in policy from Biblical days, but perhaps that’s the way He wants things to be now.)”
Perhaps not much has changed from Biblical days. Miracles may occur, most often (but not always) to those who exhibit some faith. Perhaps you and I just don’t see them. Because some folks seem to like bright lights, archangels, etc., so much, I will say I met one former atheist who said he had a road-to-Damascus like experience. Was he lying, or telling the truth? I cannot prove one way or another. He didn’t go around talking about it a lot, for sure. In some ways, I imagine such an experience would impart a great responsibility; one that would perhaps be burdensome for a person like me. Imagine the temptation to pride. We should be careful what we ask for.
On the “Dawkins Delusion”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis
Note 309: Christopher, there are indeed full cessationists who consider themselves Christians. Classical cessationists (which includes orthodox Presbyterians) believe that the “sign gifts” (prophecy, healing, etc.) ceased with the apostles and the finishing of the canons (see section 2:”The Gifts of the Spirit”), while full cessationists insist that God does not perform miracles today.
This may not be the Orthodox position, but it is indeed held by many believers.
Note 312:
And the confusion continues…;)
James, for an Orthodox approach see Christian Atheists
Note 309–
I didn’t mean my statement as a “diss” of Orthodoxy or Catholicism. If your assertion is that, in fact, neither Orthodox nor Catholic philosophers have given any thought to the question of why the average modern person doesn’t witness Biblical-scale miracles, I’ll gladly accept that for the sake of argument. It’s just my intuition that religions with either a tradition of apologetics or an intellectual bent would have already dealt with such a question.
Michael writes: “Of course, as long as you insist that faith is only about a mental agreement to a laundry list of doctrines or dogmas, you will continue to miss the point.”
I don’t think it’s that simple. In fact, I’m sure that faith involves far more than that. But for me, it’s the “laundry list” that trips me up, so that tends to be what I focus on. Other aspects of faith I don’t have a problem with. I’d like to say more about that, but we end up getting into some pretty deep issues that would be difficult to discuss here. Anyway, thanks for the response.
Missourian writes: “You want to invoke the standards of science (which by definition and from the outset excludes the possibility of God as a active force in the universe). Science has its place but it does not attempt to explain all of life.”
All things being equal, I don’t have much of a problem with the idea of God as an active force in the universe. Most of my problems are related to certain specific historical claims that are a part of traditional Christianity. While it is certainly possible that they happened, I don’t find the historical evidence to be compelling. I have a hard time making assertions about history that are not adequately supported by the historical evidence. Of course, that’s a whole other topic.
CFLconservative writes: “Jim – I think the question is misplaced on an Orthodox Website. The primary Theological tradition of the Orthodox Church is apophatic Theology, which you must be aware of. It is the Theology of negation, meaning it is easier to say what God is not than to say what God is.”
Yes, and actually, it’s the apophatic aspect of Orthodoxy that I find most interesting — the idea that you don’t have to have everything “figured out” and explained in a theological system.
Nonetheless there is also the cataphatic “laundry list” of things that must be believed as literally true. But I agree with you that the “package deal” in Orthodoxy is much smaller than other package deals.
CFLconservative: “The Fundies, many of them anyway, hate the pre-Christian past as much as the Muslims hate the pre-Muslim past. Not being able to find any good in thousands of years of history always struck me as an odd position to take.”
The fundamentalists also hate the Christian past. To them the liturgical and other traditions are the “traditions of men.” For many fundamentalists, church history consists of the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther (who may or may not have been saved) and the pastor of the local church. When I was coming out of fundamentalism, I did extensive reading in Jewish history and theology, and one of the things that I realized was how impoverished my fundamentalist background had been. It was almost as if Christianity didn’t exist until my group came along.
Christopher writes: “You’re a Troll, not a participant.”
Thanks for pointing that out. Please let me know which specific rule of Fr. Hans that I have violated, and I’ll change my ways immediately.
Phil writes: “This is not to say that the miracles that you and others speak of are not miracles. It’s possible that that’s just the way God works: He refuses to do anything that could give away his existence outright. (This would be a change in policy from Biblical days, but perhaps that’s the way He wants things to be now.)”
The gospels are kind of ambivalent about miracles. Jesus performs miracles and people believe as a result. But there is also “an evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign,” and “blessed are those who have believed and not seen.” There is also the passage in Luke that D. George quoted about how if Moses and the prophets aren’t sufficient, a visit from the dead wouldn’t be either.
In the first century, miracles were commonly accepted. It was part of the culture even before Christianity. Two thousand years ago the Virgin Birth was scandalous, not because it involved a miracle, but because it involved a poor, common woman of no distinction.
We live in a different world today. Basically, we live in a world without miracles. Marcel Gauchet wrote a book titled The Disenchantment of the World: A Political History of Religion. The modern world is literally “disenchanted” — without enchantment. One of the functions of religion in modern society is to preserve that sense of enchantment.
D. George writes: “I don’t study them [various miracles] because my time is very limited and it doesn’t make an iota of difference to me if the cases you list are or are not authentic.”
In another post you mentioned the example of weeping icons. Whether or not that “really happens” isn’t the idea of the weeping icon very moving? I think it is. In other words, the true power comes from the story, not the physical object. But if someone said to me “you have to believe that icons really do cry” I would reply “you’re missing the whole point.” Likewise if someone said to me “it is impossible that icons can cry” I would reply “you’re missing the whole point.”
D. George: “Harris is a fellow who, while fully aware that atheists like Stalin and Mao were responsible for tens to hundreds of millions of killings and starvations, nonetheless concludes that atheism promotes greater peace than religion . . . ”
Harris sees communism as an atheistic religion — an ideology that functions as a religion, but that also denies the existence of God.
Missourian writes: “People are drawn to religion because they are seeking the eternally real and the eternally true.”
People come to religion for all sorts of reasons, some good and some bad. I think people are drawn to Orthodoxy because they want to be part of a 2,000 year old tradition of faith rather than floating around as disconnected individuals in a confusing and often hostile world. They also come to religion because of the beauty of the ideas and images. Sometimes I think that the attraction to religion is similar to the attraction that people feel toward profound music. Again, perhaps a topic for a different thread.
That’s very nice, Christopher, but it only serves to explain that Traditional Christians are failing to understand what Jim meant when he was asked, “What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?”
If you asked me, I’d be happy to rephrase the response: “a few well-placed acts of clear, unquestionable, and irrefutable divine intervention would suffice.” Many people would call such acts “miracles,” but it doesn’t really matter what you call them. Either you think that God can do such things, or you think that He cannot. Either you think that He does do such things, or that He does not.
Either way, it’s pointless to ask a skeptic, agnostic, atheist, pagan, or “bright” such a question and then try to quibble about the terminology in his response. Why argue with someone who’s explaining how their thinking works? You’re avoiding the person’s point if you say “God does do miracles! Every day! Just open your eyes!” The kind of miracle that would convince me, for example, would require no suspension of belief on my part, no special magical frame of mind.
If I were visited by aliens, and there were no other explanation for my experience, I would believe in aliens. People believe that they are visited by aliens nearly every day, of course. If it makes sense to them to believe that their experiences are proof of alien visitations, that’s fine for them. But it seems that people who have a strong desire to believe in aliens are the ones most likely to encounter them.
What posters on this board are saying is that people who have a strong desire to believe in miracles are the ones most likely to encounter them.
You’re right. Although your initial mention of the example was followed by “I’ve never seen one myself,” and “I’ve heard of some cases that turned out to be fakes,” if indeed such a thing occurred, it could be considered miraculous. If someone brought me an icon, and it started streaming tears of myrrh, and we took it to the myrrh to a lab and it really was myrrh, with no explainable source within the icon, I might start to believe. I’d think it was a subtle miracle, and it would be a strange choice for God to choose to convince me in a way that had easily been faked before, but it could happen.
Is it insulting for an agnostic to suggest that he’d set the bar a little high when it came to the kind of divine intervention that he’d find convincing? Or could it be viewed as giving a little credit to the God he doesn’t necessarily believe in?
(Note: In post 307, I attributed a quote from Jim Holman to JamesK. The quote in question dealt with a response to “What, if anything, would God have to do to convince you?” The response included the phrase “…a couple of well-placed miracles would suffice.” My apologies for the mixup.)
Miracles will not occur to those who scorn God. That just won’t happen. Miracles don’t occur so that God can “prove” His existence to a skeptic. That won’t happen either. Miracles occur in response to prayer.
When the Virgin Mary appeared at Zeitun, Muslims were healed right alongside Christians. (This event was first brought to my attention by a Coptic Christian who witnessed it first hand.)
Fr. Hans writes: “Miracles will not occur to those who scorn God. That just won’t happen. Miracles don’t occur so that God can “prove” His existence to a skeptic. That won’t happen either.”
But Christians offer the occurrence of miracles to non-Christians as a compelling reason why non-Christians should believe. We’ve even seen that in this thread. But anyone who would accept the veracity of a second- or third- or fourth-hand account of a miracle is probably a Christian already.
People, even Christians, naturally doubt miracles anyway. No matter how many Mormon friends tell me about the angel Moroni and the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon, the story does get any more convincing, and I can’t imagine that story plays very well in the Orthodox church either.
We are especially skeptical of miracles that occurred in ancient times. For example, the miraculous Phoenix bird is attested to by several ancient historians, and even one of the church fathers. On the other hand, as far as I know, the only source we have on the defeated Gallic leader Vercingetorix being led in chains to Rome by Julius Caesar is Caesar himself. But I can’t imagine anyone finding the account of the Phoenix bird more plausible, and I certainly haven’t heard of a National Geographic camera crew camping out in the deserts of Arabia hoping to film the Phoenix rising from it’s own ashes. (But it would make a heck of a show!)
I certainly don’t rule out the possibility of miracles. But I haven’t experienced anything that couldn’t be explained as simply an improbable event, not miraculous.
The most “miraculous” thing that ever happened to me was also one of the most trivial. I went to the grocery store to do the main shopping for the week. as I got about 30 feet into the store I noticed a dollar bill on the floor. I picked it up and looked for someone who might have dropped it, but no one was anywhere near it, so I put it in my shirt pocket. Then I realized that I left my grocery list in the car, and returned to the parking lot to get it. As I came back into the store, I heard a fragment of a conversation happening about 15 feet to my left. A man was saying to a boy ” . . . but I’m sure I gave you enough money for that.” I stopped and went over to them and said to the boy “did you lose a dollar?” The boy said that he had. I said “I found it,” and gave it to him, and went on my way.
What are the odds of that? That I would find the bill before anyone else? That I would forget my shopping list? That I would return to the store at the exact moment and catch a piece of a conversation from 15 feet away? What is that, one in a billion? It’s so bizarre I don’t even know how to calculate the odds. But the fact is that it was only about a dollar. That’s as close to the “miraculous” as I’ve ever come.
Note 315:
I didn’t mean my statement as a “diss” of Orthodoxy or Catholicism.
I believe you. However, your question(s) can be answered by a basic catechism. A blog is not really the place to learn the basics.
Note 317:
but it doesn’t really matter what you call them. Either you think that God can do such things, or you think that He cannot. Either you think that He does do such things, or that He does not.
Well, again, a basic catechism would provide the Orthodox dogma.
You’re avoiding the person’s point if you say “God does do miracles! Every day! Just open your eyes!”
True, we ARE “avoiding the point”, which rules out miracles a prior because of the ground of the “skeptics” (or more accurately materialist) philosophy. In other words we are not granting the veracity of his position, and thus are rejecting the “point” altogether. This would not be valid if this site was called “RoundTableDiscussionToday” or something similar, but it is not. It’s titled “OrthodoxyToday”, so we of course assume Orthodoxy, Christian, presuppositions.
It is the skeptics/materialist burden to try to come out of his shell, his worldview, and understand who he is talking to and what he is talking about at a site called “OrthodoxyToday”. Actually, even any good “RoundTable” discussion (where people of differing world views get together and discuss) has this element. The problem with Jim all the time, and JamesK most of the time, is that they don’t come out of their shell.
So yes, we are not going to grant “his point”.
would require no suspension of belief on my part, no special magical frame of mind.
EXACTLY! You got it! You will never never never ever ever ever (picture some toddler saying “no” and crying) consider your world view, if you will never question it, if you will never ever consider that at the very bottom of your philosophy and way of understanding the world (or in this case, God and miracles) is an error, or at least that others have a different and perhaps clearer sight line, then what is the point of you coming to a site called “OrthodoxyToday”?
You see, you have just reduced all other philosophies, all other worldviews, to “magical frame of mind”. You will NEVER consider them in any serious way until you stop puffing up your self with such overwhelming pride that you can not even consider that someone else (A Christian, or perhaps a Buddhist – anybody) might see things better than you.
There really is no more point discussing ANYTHING with you – as all Christians have a “magical frame of mind”. At this point, your participation here at “OrthodoxyToday” is for some deceptive reason – perhaps you want to “sharpen” your thoughts like Jim, or perhaps your a secular evangelist here to ‘save’ Christians from their ignorance.
Frankly, I don’t care – the point is you don’t take anything but your own worldview seriously, thus we can’t really discuss anything with you.
What posters on this board are saying is that people who have a strong desire to believe in miracles are the ones most likely to encounter them.
Wrong. This is what you reduce what they are saying to because you only see things from your worldview, and refuse to grant another any validity at all. It’s quite boring actually, as anyone who has been a Christian for more than 5 minutes have heard it all before….yaaaaawwwwwnnnn…
Is it insulting for an agnostic to suggest that he’d set the bar a little high when it came to the kind of divine intervention that he’d find convincing? Or could it be viewed as giving a little credit to the God he doesn’t necessarily believe in?
Neither. It’s simply a restatement of his materialism. It reveals either his ignorance of his own thinking, or his pride and stubbornness that only he has the true way of thinking about life, the universe, and everything…
“Again, perhaps a topic for a different thread.”
Perhaps your a person for a different blog…
note 319:
The most “miraculous” thing that ever happened to me was also one of the most trivial……..That’s as close to the “miraculous” as I’ve ever come.
If you allowed yourself to be more human, to have a real human heart, you would pray that the truly miraculous would come closer to you. BUT, if you had prayed, you would already see that the miraculous is closer to you. BUT, praying is of course dependent on you deflating the enormous pride you have in your mind, philosophy, and experiences….
Note 319. Jim writes:
That, essentially, is what a miracle is. Miracles don’t violate physical law, they “speed it up” in a sense. When healings occur for example(which happens quite frequently actually), the healing does not occur apart from a natural healing process, but within it although in ways not yet known or understood. If, for example, we had an 24 hour real time video MRI of the one week disappearance of the grapefruit sized tumor that the sister of a friend of mine had, you would see it disappear. Other technology, if refined enough, could describe the biochemical processes in the disappearance. Having said that, the disappearance (no surgery necessary) is nevertheless miraculous.
For the theologians out there, physical miracles (healings in particular) may be a foretaste of the restoration of material creation before its time or (equally as valid) a glimpse of the material creation before the Fall.
The material universe, when brought into closer proximity to God, seems to lose some of its corruption, which is to say, the deleterious effects of the fall seem to be lessened. Prayer, of course, is door way to the miraculous because it brings a person (including his body) closer to God.
Note 319. Jim writes:
Don’t think in terms of odds or processes. Think only in terms of results. This happened because you were particularly generous that day (your heart was oriented to the neighbor and so God granted you the opportunity to help him). Be grateful to God you could bless that boy.
Why not think in terms of odds or processes? Because these things will happen all the time — if you let them. And they happen in the normal routines of everyday life, not apart from them.
In the abstract, it’s fine to disagree, Christopher. And I appreciate your frustration. But the “point” in this instance was about him. He was asked a question about himself.
If you respond by saying, “No, no! You’re looking at it all wrong! That’s not the Orthodox view!” then who’s the one not coming out of his shell?
Honestly, I think there’s an element of vulnerability and openness for someone (a pagan, agnostic, whatever the label) to admit that they can conceive of supernatural evidence that would convince them to shift their worldview. Imagine if you were asked what kind of material evidence would cause you to disbelieve in the supernatural… Wouldn’t it be a huge step just to provide a simple answer to such a question?
Are you saying that that has never happened, or just that it won’t happen in the modern era?
So, what would you call something that does violate physical law? Even if it’s not a “miracle,” it’s clearly a concept we all understand, we just don’t have an agreed-upon term for it.
note 325:
In the abstract, it’s fine to disagree, Christopher. And I appreciate your frustration. But the “point” in this instance was about him. He was asked a question about himself. If you respond by saying, “No, no! You’re looking at it all wrong! That’s not the Orthodox view!” then who’s the one not coming out of his shell?
*sigh*. No, this look up at the “address” bar in your browser. Where are you?
Your assuming this is site is “RoundTableDiscussionToday”.
The question of course, was asked in the context of a tangent of a tangent of a post named “Your not my mommy” on a site named “OrthodoxyToday”.
Now, why would a materialist, neo-pagan Jim find himself posting here year of after year? It’s time, long past time, he comes out of his shell – or move on to another blog where materialism is the discussion…
Honestly, I think there’s an element of vulnerability and openness for someone (a pagan, agnostic, whatever the label) to admit that they can conceive of supernatural evidence that would convince them to shift their worldview. Imagine if you were asked what kind of material evidence would cause you to disbelieve in the supernatural… Wouldn’t it be a huge step just to provide a simple answer to such a question?
Honestly, I am not impressed with these claim of “openness”. Also, Your question is a non sequitur, as in my worldview, the material can not provide evidence against the supernatural, and in materialism, it can’t provide evidence for the supernatural. It’s a false dialectic set up in your worldview…;)
That’s not really what “non sequitur” means, but I see your point. You’re still engaging in fallacious reasoning, however, because a person is a person. They may have a point of view, and they may indeed have a very strict and specific schema for organizing the information that they take in from the world around them.
If we’re going to talk about “what it would take to change that schema,” it’s preposterous to suggest that such change cannot occur. A materialist can convert to Catholicism. A devout Orthodox could become an atheist tomorrow. A person’s worldview is not an immutable property. Nor does any person frame every moment of their life with the same viewpoint. I don’t believe in ghosts, but if I’m standing alone in a dark empty house and I hear a weird noise, I’m going to be unnerved; I might even run for the door. You don’t believe that physical matter is all that exists in the universe, but you probably are happy to take medicines that were devised by persons who adopted such an assumption for the sake of experimentation.
As such, from your post, it seems that a) materialists are both willing and able to explain what supernatural evidence would cause them to change their worldview and b) supernaturalists are either unwilling or unable to explain what material evidence might cause them to change their worldview.
This does not mean that you are wrong, or that you are being unreasonable. It’s a fair assessment of many devout religious persons.
However, it does illustrate my point from posts 18, 44, etc., that discussion of evidence is often a red herring when talking to a non-materialist. You are pretty explicit about that here.
note 327:
If we’re going to talk about “what it would take to change that schema,” it’s preposterous to suggest that such change cannot occur. A materialist can convert to Catholicism. A devout Orthodox could become an atheist tomorrow. A person’s worldview is not an immutable property.
I agree completely, 100%. People are not their philosophy.
That said, it is another thing entirely to cling stubbornly to a materialist worldview, or rather assert it over and over and over at the site “OrthodoxyToday”. In other words, while you are NOT changing, you should have the common decency to RESPECT the fact that others are not like you, and that they don’t wish to “debate” with you in vain over and over and over and over. I respect BrentM, who has decided he does NOT respect Orthodoxy and has decided to take his leave.
Now, a materialist may wish to ask questions, clarification, etc. but why would he “debate”, ad nauseum, for year after year?
but you probably are happy to take medicines that were devised by persons who adopted such an assumption for the sake of experimentation.
To go off on yet another tangent: Your confusing methodology with philosophy. Even in methodology, you can leave the door open for something other than materialist causes (archeologists do it all the time).
As such, from your post, it seems that a) materialists are both willing and able to explain what supernatural evidence would cause them to change their worldview and b) supernaturalists are either unwilling or unable to explain what material evidence might cause them to change their worldview.
A) and B) are both incorrect. From a materialist standpoint/philosophy, the supernatural is an impossibility. From a supernaturalist standpoint, material evidence is not sufficient explanation for the supernatural, thus it can never be “evidence” – or at least sufficient evidence to challenging the reality of the supernatural. Sort of like a two dimensional reality “proving” the non existence of a three dimensional reality – can’t be done, because you can’t get there from there. How can an atom “disprove” a molecule? Materialism is such a flat, non-hierarchical way of looking at the world it can be compared to the flat earth society, which is what it is like “debating” with the materialist…;)
that discussion of evidence is often a red herring when talking to a non-materialist.
I agree with you, in that “evidence” limited in scope by an a prior commitment to materialism is not “evidence” at all. But that is the materialists problem, not the non materialist…;)
Note 316 Mr. Holman:
In another post you mentioned the example of weeping icons. Whether or not that “really happens” isn’t the idea of the weeping icon very moving? I think it is. In other words, the true power comes from the story, not the physical object. But if someone said to me “you have to believe that icons really do cry” I would reply “you’re missing the whole point.” Likewise if someone said to me “it is impossible that icons can cry” I would reply “you’re missing the whole point.”
If a purported miraculous weeping icon is not really happening, it is a fraud. Frauds do not move me, except perhaps to anger, regardless of the stories they fabricate.
Now, perhaps stories resulting from miracles that didn’t “really happen” move you, but earlier you mentioned that a supernatural, miraculous event (like an archangel) might “help.” Not knowing where to find archangels, but hearing from trusted sources that there are miraculously weeping icons here and there, I suggested that you go see one, of course with no guarantees that you would be moved one way or another.
“Harris sees communism as an atheistic religion — an ideology that functions as a religion, but that also denies the existence of God.”
To me, Harris sounds very religious. He believes in whatever he considers lack of religion enough to want to see religious belief (presumably including religious atheists) eliminated. He can skirt the issue of how to eliminate other beliefs, but I expect he would advocate either proselytism or violence.
Sure, but that’s like saying, “From a Euclidean standpoint, curves in spacetime are an impossibility.” If a Euclidean discovers a curve in spacetime, it’s up to her to account for it. Just because I suggest that “viewing an unquestioned act of divine intervention” would cause me to change my standpoint is not an admission that I think it could or will happen, I’m just acknowledging that I can envision a hypothetical event that would cause me to change my opinion.
…and yet, people lose their faith all the time, not necessarily because it was “disproven,” but because something happened that caused them to change their standpoint. You might say “nothing could ever happen that would possibly cause me to lose my faith,” and if you’re correct, then “B” is still true: you are unable to explain what would cause you to change your worldview, because nothing would.
Streaming icons: ones that I know of in the United States (although I don’t know if they are still streaming) New Blanco, Tx; Cicero, Il, 8 or 9 in Indianapolis, IN. the most recent at St. George Orthodox Church. My brother is an Orthodox priest in Indy which is why I know of their existence.
As I understand the procedure when a streaming icon is first encourtered, a mini-exorcism is performed and then it is carefully checked. The one in Cicero is on the iconostatsis of the Antiochian Church there. Petty easy to check for hoaxes.
Christopher writes: “From a materialist standpoint/philosophy, the supernatural is an impossibility.”
The term typically used in that context is naturalism, not materialism. In hard philosophical naturalism, only naturalistic explanations are accepted, only naturalistic phenomena possible.
I’m not a philosophical naturalist. My naturalism is experiential and probabilistic. For example, since the sun so far has risen every day, I believe it is highly likely that the sun will rise tomorrow. In my everyday life, I don’t experience known miracles, therefore I believe that miracles are not very likely. In my experience things that are claimed to be miracles usually have perfectly acceptable naturalistic explanations.
So I don’t at all rule out the possibility of future miracles, nor do I believe that they were impossible in the past.
The problem is that it’s not clear what counts as evidence of a miracle. I mean, for all I know miracles are happening continually all around me. Maybe every heartbeat is a miracle. There are no clear criteria for knowing what is or is not a miracle, except in cases in which the supernatural is the only reasonable explanation. But I don’t see any reason at all to assume that miracles are impossible.
Christopher: “From a supernaturalist standpoint, material evidence is not sufficient explanation for the supernatural, thus it can never be “evidence” – or at least sufficient evidence to challenging the reality of the supernatural.”
Sure it can. The reality of the supernatural — as supposedly manifested in a particular instance — is the issue under discussion. D. George noted that some weeping icons turn out to be hoaxes. But let’s be charitable and say that it is possible for people to misinterpret what they see. For example, someone could see a weeping icon and take that as a sign of divine providence. Later, someone discovers that there is a small leak in the roof above the icon, and rain water has been perceived by the faithful as tears. That wouldn’t mean that a miraculous weeping isn’t possible — it would just mean that that particular icon was being rained on, not weeping.
D. George writes: “If a purported miraculous weeping icon is not really happening, it is a fraud. Frauds do not move me, except perhaps to anger, regardless of the stories they fabricate.”
I think that most reports of miracles that do not turn out to be miracles are not the result of fraud, but of well-meaning people who perhaps read too much into a situation. Again, since there are no criteria for knowing what is or is not a miracle it is hard to know.
Years ago a friend was in the Marines in Vietnam. He was a demolition expert, which is to say that he specialized in blowing up enemy weapons and supply caches, tunnels, and so on. One day his unit was mistakenly attacked by friendly jet fighters. So he’s hauling all these explosives in a rucksack on his back, and suddenly the entire hilltop erupts in fire and explosions. Most of the guys he is with are killed; he walks away without a scratch. Was that a miracle? Was he just one lucky son of a gun? He didn’t ask for it. He didn’t want it. But he believed it was a miracle and eventually became a dedicated Catholic lay worker. Was it “really” a miracle? I have no way of knowing. I wasn’t there. It wasn’t my miracle.
From what I’ve heard, there is a very personal aspect to miracles. If my friend really did experience a miracle, then it was HIS miracle. Not my miracle, not anyone else’s miracle. “Miracle” implies a relationship. It’s a personal thing. It’s like being married. Your spouse is YOUR spouse, not someone else’s spouse. If it’s really a miracle, it’s a grace given to YOU, not to someone else. And so far, it’s something that hasn’t been given to me.
The following web page has some interesting photos of weeping icons and statues, as well as statues of Hindu gods that drink milk, and vegetables on which the name of Allah appears:
http://www.share-international.org/background/miracles/MI_other.htm
note 330:
and yet, people lose their faith all the time, not necessarily because it was “disproven,” but because something happened that caused them to change their standpoint.
This is true. In almost all these cases, what happened to them was a spiritual trial, which they did not pass (or they are in the process of either passing or not passing – losing your faith is often the road you travel to find God!). This can even include a sort of passing from a childish to a sort of adolescent “rationalism”, that will one day rationally lead to something a bit deeper.
note 332:
I’m not a philosophical naturalist. My naturalism is experiential and probabilistic
A distinction without a difference, especially in your case. I like materialism because it is really all you believe in, and all you look to explain your world. Naturalism has a slightly better history than your truncated world view…
Christopher writes: “I like materialism because it is really all you believe in, and all you look to explain your world. Naturalism has a slightly better history than your truncated world view…”
Nope, not me at all. But that’s Ok. I know you feel a religious obligation to put a negative spin on anything I post. So when you post things about me that aren’t true, I understand. For future reference, there’s usually more to people than what they post on the internet. And usually less than what they are accused of.