Prayer

[Asmodee]

I've never talked with anyone who thinks the breeze, in and of itself, is proof of God. So it's hard to comment on that first paragraph without talking to the person himself that said this. 

I was being facetious.

Now to answer your question. Miracles are not rare "in the bible" because that's pretty much what the bible is about lol. Supernatural happenings, God, etc etc. I don't take the OT stories as literal, real happenings, so it's pointless to comment on those. Most of the miracles described in the NT are attributed to miracles performed by Jesus during His life here. That's one person performing miracles out of the however many millions that were alive back then. I'd say in perspective miracles were still pretty rare.

---

Well, that brings up more questions. Do you accept all the miracles of Jesus as fact? Do you accept any miracles in the OT as fact? If no for either of those, how do you tell which is fact and which is fiction?

If all you take as fact is the miracles Jesus performed and, as you said, that was one person performing miracles out of how many millions of people alive, then what makes you think that miracles happen today? Do you just accept the church's judgement on that?

Second, what types of miracles do you believe happen today?  Are they anything like the big things of the past or are they now more subtle, more "undisprovable", if you will?  Again, why did God change?  Are there any specific miracles in modern times that you believe?  Are those miracles consistent with stories of miracles in the Bible?  For instance, every single miracle in the Bible had a clear purpose.  There was a clear reason behind every single one.  A statue crying, not so much.  So if miracles are not just weird things that happen which can't be explained empirically, again, why did God change?

A big one that happened not too long ago was the miracle of the sun in fatima. I think most Church approved miracles consist of apparitions and spontaneous healing of serious illnesses/disorders.

You can't name a single miracle, Old or New Testament, which didn't have a clear, inarguable purpose. Do you really thing the sun thing in 1917 had a "clear, inarguable purpose"? What was that purpose? It seems like the only purpose would be to convince people that miracles are real, but that doesn't jive with the teachings of Jesus, who refused to perform miracles just to prove they were real.

I don't believe miracles have changed, necessarily. Perhaps they were more necessary during early Christianity when the disciples were trying to spread the word, but I don't think this means God has changed. I guess you would have to ask that question to someone who takes a literal view of the OT stories.

Then let's talk about the NT only. You're saying that "need" has changed, as I understand it. Miracles were "more necessary" during early Christianity. In what way has need changed? What was the "need" for miracles back then? Was it to convince people? Why is there no need to convince people today? Was the "need" just enough to get the ball rolling on Christianity? Then why are there still miracles today if that need no longer exists?

But the most obvious thing for me is that no miracle in the Bible ever was done without a clear purpose, a reason. Not one. Yet the "miracles" of today are more like parlor tricks. The colors in the sky, that's what passes for a "miracle" these days? That seems petty compared to healing the sick. It seems petty compared to turning water into wine or walking on water or feeding the masses with very little food or raising the dead. You put "colors in the sky" in a lineup with all the miracles in the Bible and this one seems laughable by comparison. There isn't a single miracle in the Bible anywhere that I know of that is this petty and pointless. Walking on water is about the most petty miracle I can think of from the Bible and that one is STILL pretty impressive. And it had two clear purposes. The first was to convince the particular follower he was fishing for, the second was to teach about faith, as you read on in the story.

I'm sorry for all the questions. I'm thinking that this subject is just too big for a casual conversation. It's just rare that I get to talk to a Catholic who seems even a little reasonable or intelligent (no offense, but I've talked to some REALLY dumb Catholics and that's most of them I've talked to). If you don't want to answer a slew of questions, many of which you've likely addressed before, I completely understand.

To give you an idea what the previous Catholics I've talked to are like, I'll give you some examples. The first was an unwed pregnant teen who I heard say, "I can't use birth control because I'm Catholic". Really? Wasn't there also some rule about sex before marriage, you dumb twit? I got a second cousin out of that one. Another thought that "proof" God was real could be seen in the sun and in babies. He also thought he was more open minded than me because his beliefs were absolute, even though I was agnostic at the time. Still another, who also mentioned Fatima to me, believes in every third world claim of miracles. Some BS about blood liquefying on command. It has all the hallmarks of a hoax. There are about 20 known examples, almost all from the same area, tests on one sample proved it would liquefy at a certain temperature suggesting it's a clever mix of wax and oil and the Catholic Church does not recognize it. Still another told me that if he stopped believing in God he wouldn't work for a living. He would just kill people and take what he wanted. No, he wouldn't, because not only was he just a tiny guy, he was also one of the most decent human beings I have ever known. But when he tried to imagine "not believing" in God all he could muster was "rejecting" God in his head. So that's where I'm coming from and why I'm so anxious to talk to a Catholic who's at least somewhat intelligent (not that you are only "somewhat intelligent", just that I don't know you that well, but you seem intelligent so far).