Prayer

[Asmodee]

Then maybe you could clear something up for me. 

I know this was not meant for me and sorry CL if I am over stepping.

I don't mind hearing an opposing point of view.

I've chatted with various other people on various forums, some of them Catholics, who believe every brisk breeze is a miracle and absolute proof that God is real.  That last Catholic I remember talking to pretty much accepted any and every claim of a miracle as absolute proof, even if it was so week that the Catholic Church would not recognize it as a miracle.  So I have two questions.

On one hand I cringe at those guys, or rather those who want to believe things so badly everything becomes a mircle, but at the same time.. I do know that once you seen the hand of God work in your life that you can't just keep it bottled up. because for you despite what other may think say or do, you know it to be true.

I think that may be true of some of the more "colorful" religions, but not Catholicism.  It's a dry, boring, ritualistic religion without any spontaneity whatsoever, its every service a tedious ritual, scripted hundreds of years ago, much of it in Latin.

First, the big one (I know it's more than one, but it's a general theme rather than a single question).  Miracles were obviously not rare in the Bible.

 Actually they were. remember the bible represents about a 3000 year span and about an 1/8th of the bible's content deals directly with miracles.

Why are they so rare now? 

there not, I would say they happen in about the same frequency, it now we just call them by different names. "Unexplain medical phenoma or mis diagnosis." (as to why somone wakes up after being pronounced 'brain dead.')
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/...36958.html
http://www.westernjournalism.com/man-tho...-12-years/

You realize that you just said exactly the opposite of what I said and it makes no more sense the way you said it if your beliefs are true than it did the way I said it.  I said miracles were NOT rare, but now they are.  You just said miracles WERE rare, but now they're not.  So you refuted both parts of what I said and ended up canceling out your own argument.  AND THEN you went on to say they happened with the same frequency, that frequency being both very rare and extremely common, apparently.

Aside from that, "miracles" of today are petty shadows of the things mentioned in the Bible.  A person WHO WAS RECEIVING TREATMENT unexpectedly gets better vs walking on water.  The word "miracle", which used to mean "somethings miraculous", now means "something good for which you cannot find a viable and definitive alternative explanation".  It went from, "Wow!  God is POWERFUL!" to "Yeah, that was probably God."  That doesn't bother you at all?

And aside from THAT, the Bible clearly spells out in multiple places that the true believers are supposed to be able to perform ACTUAL miracles.  YOU can walk on water, move mountains, heal the sick, survive poison with no ill effects, etc.  Jesus himself said you could do all those things.  Peter actually did it for a short time until his faith wavered.

People simply choose not to believe and create an alternative narrative.

Or people simply choose to believe and create an alternative narrative.  Miracles as described in the Bible would be a damned site harder to explain away than, "My wart went away!  It's a miracle!"

What purpose did they serve in the past that no longer needs served now?  Why did God change?

beggs the question (the logical fallacy) You wrongfully assume there is no purpose today.

Bullshit.  I made no such assumption or claim.  That is actually a red herring.  I clearly said that miracles in the Bible ALWAYS had a clear and obvious purpose, "miracles" today do not have such a clear and obvious purpose.  If you disagree then name ONE miracle from the Bible where the purpose of the miracle was not clear and obvious.  Staff into a snake, show that God was more powerful.  Water from the rock, give drink to a thirsty people.  Water into wine, provide for a wedding.  Walk on water, get to a boat.  Fishes and loaves, feed the hungry.  Ten plagues, show God's power.  40 days and nights of rain, kill the infidels.  EVERY SINGLE TIME there was a clear, obvious reason.  I never said there was no "reason" behind miracles today, just that the "miracles" I always here about not only almost always have a very mundane explanation (I literally had someone believe that seeing a particular license plate qualified as a miracle), but there is NEVER a "clear and obvious" reason for the miracle.

When in fact the purpose is the same, but on an indivisual level, and not for the masses or crowds. God didn't change here. we did or rather our ablity to have a direct relationship with him did. Before in the OT and even in the days when Christ was alive, the Holy Spirit worked though prophets to assure the crowds that the man claiming to be a servant of God was indeed who he said he was... Today we all have access to this very same God on a personal level. Miracles on this level is the 'personal proof' some of us need to ensure we are indeed working for the very same God.

Now there is some mental gymnastics there, and you're continuing with the red herring.  You're replacing "clear and obvious purpose" with "purpose", the two very much NOT being the same.  You are defining "purpose" as being "God's reason for doing it".  That is clearly not the way I was using the word.  I'm not talking about God's reasoning here.  I'm talking about the miracles of the Bible not being just random weird shit happening.

Second, what types of miracles do you believe happen today?

 Whatever needs to happen for an indivisual to be assured. In short it depends on the heart or person God is directly working with.

Well that was a non-answer.

Are they anything like the big things of the past or are they now more subtle, more "undisprovable", if you will?

 what is a big thing? Can you name one thing in science that is "undisproovable?" so than why the double standard?

No, I can't.  And neither can you.  If it can't be tested, or "disproved", then it's not scientific.  So there is no double standard.  There is just the false equivalency you are trying to weave between science and mysticism.

Again, why did God change? 

Nothing has.. Look at the plagues.. For everything God had moses do on a large scale Pharaoh's wizards was able to conjurors on a smaller one.. all except the Passover of the 10th plague.
For those who do not want to believe God always leaves an out for their minds.[/qoute]
You have taken answering without answering to an art form.  The plagues were a "big thing".  An entire nation was inexplicably vexed.  An ingrown toenail being healed, not a big thing.  Cancer, something which you can't see and we don't fully understand, going away during treatment even though the doctors don't "think" it will, not a big thing.  Obviously the doctors don't "know" it won't go away or they wouldn't be doing the damned treatment.

Are there any specific miracles in modern times that you believe?

Just the ones I've been involved with.

Thank you for those...um...specifics?

  Are those miracles consistent with stories of miracles in the Bible? 

Yes

For instance, every single miracle in the Bible had a clear purpose.  There was a clear reason behind every single one.

Indeed.

 

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?

Again, beggs the question, who said God did?

Stop, dude.  You don't know shit about logical fallacies.  If you did you wouldn't be taking a simple, generic example of one possible modern miracle as an absolute claim that God made a specific statue cry somewhere.  It was an EXAMPLE of something I have heard claimed as a possible miracle, not a CLAIM on my part and, thus, NOT a logical fallacy.

I'm sure you probably read all that and are now thinking, "It's a trap!", "What an argumentative dick!" or both.

I see someone who simple has not experienced what others have.

Now who is the one drawing conclusions?  See my soul from there, do you?  My entire life?  Besides, I really haven't a clue what you're saying here.

  I am honestly curious.  Of course if you say anything which I disagree with or which doesn't make sense to me I'm going to respond, but that's not my purpose here.  The last Catholic I talked to was...shall we say, "unreasonable". 

Good news everyone! I'm not Catholic!!!

I gathered, and really don't care.

---

Dismissing my beliefs as blind faith is a bit insulting considering you don't hardly know anything about me or how much I've thought things through.

Yes, I do trust the church's judgements on approved miracles, but that goes along with the fact that I've chosen to stay catholic in the first place. So of course I trust them as a reliable source when it comes to miracles.

Anyhow, sorry I haven't been of more help to you. If youre curious about our beliefs, I would recommend joining a forum called catholic answers forum. It's pretty active and there are plenty of ppl there way more qualified to help you than myself.

I did not "dismiss your beliefs", or not intentionally so, anyway.  Obviously I don't hold them.  And to be fair it was you who said that you just accepted what the church told you, "the church's judgement on miracles", as you put it here.  Is that not "blind faith"?  Am I misusing the term?

You have answered the questions I asked, and for that I thank you.  You just aren't "right" for the conversation I was hoping to have.

I have no interest in pushing myself onto Catholics in their home.  If they are interested in talking to me, they'll come here.  I personally have no reason to seek out people who believe essentially the opposite of what I believe and start a conversation with them which says essentially, "You are wrong".  That would be rude of me.  And, really, I'm not all that curious about Catholic beliefs anyway.  It's more that I wanted to understand the mentality of a particular type of Catholic.  The beliefs, themselves, I find to be silly, obviously.