As a practicing Catholic, I have studied the Bible intensively since
my youth and I have come to the conclusion that there were no explcit 
miracles in the Old Testament. I bleeive that peopel take the miracles
in the old testmanet and call them "truth" without understanding
the context in which the Bible was written. I beleive that blind
faith is not the way to go. God puts plenty of meaning in the old T.
Miracles do not = beleif. Miracles equal meaning, greater truths.
The Bible could be written in the exact same way without miracles and I
could still beleive in it. It is the doctrine that is key, not 
ssuperficial magic...

19 responses total.

Are you saying that there are miracles in the New Testament, though?
I'm not sure I understand how you're using the terms.  How do you
distinguish between miracles and "superficial magic".

It sounds like the way his terms are used is unclear.

Maybe he could explain what he means by them?

Hoo boy, I see an argument brewing.

I, too, am a practicing Catholic, and I have no idea what you're talking
about.  This is probably 'cuz I don't understand what you're saying. 
Could you please clarify it a little bit?

How can we place a value on a miracle, or even discern what a
miracle is unless God himself told us that it was indeed a 
miracle.  I've never seen one, but then again, I would know one is I did see
it.

Define miracle.

Allow me to clarify. Miracles can be defined either as a supernatural
occurrence or as an example of God's loving grace in action. What I am
trying to say is that some people look at a miracle in the old Testament
(i.e. the parting of the Red Sea) and think that since God is so great
and can do these powerful miracles, then he must exist and must be
powerful. To utilize the example of the Red Sea, the term "REd Sea"
was substituted for the "sea of Reeds" by a monk in the fifth century
A.D. who was copynig manuscripts. The Sea of Reeds is an actual river
in the Sinai Peninsula that will actually "part" when the wind blows 
hard enough. But my point is that people focus on the miracle itself
not the MEANING of the miracle. We teach our children that these miracles
are the basis of the religion. Children think "wow, that miracle is rad" 
and then begin to base their beleif on this instance. This mentality
often carries over to adults who base their beleifs of a supernatural 
occurence, but missing the most important lesson the miracles show , i.e.
God's saving grace. One of the reasons that peopel fall out of the church
is not becasue they disagree with the doctrine. They fall out becasue 
they become pragmatic adults and begin to doubt the possibility of the miracle

Wouldn't that be all the more reason to believe in the miracles?  If doubting
miracles leads to a loss of faith, then why go out of your way to do it?
I think that if you really tried, you can come up with a way to 
rationalize any event that might be classified as a miracle.  I have
at least one friend who I think wants to believe in God, but keeps 
rationalizing themselves out of it.  I don't think that the existence 
or non-existence of God can be proven.  At some point, you have to make
a choice whether or not you believe in God or your rationalizations.

greg, I would say "no". Here is why: why would god lie to you?

I'm really sorry, but I fail to see the relevance of that question.  
God talks to us, and we can listen to him and ask him questions.  But 
it's not something we can do easily; we're tooo human.  The main problem
with asking God if he exists or not is that in order to be able to listen
to him, you pretty much have to already believe he exists.  If you ask 
God a question, and are really expecting to get no answer, you probably 
won't get one, at least not an answer you'll recognize as such.  Why does
God do this?  Why doesn't he just appear to all agnostics, atheists, and 
the like, and say "I EXIST, WORSHIP ME!"  I think that he doesn't just 
want our love and worship, He wants us to choose to love and worship Him
and believe in Him even though we aren't absolutely, completely sure he 
exists.  That's why he gave us free will in the first place, so that we
could make the choice for him.

greg, trying to start a religion is like trying to  start a company.
Beleive it or not, people "sell" each other on religious beleifs. How
did the early Christians/Buddhists/Muslims become what they were.
The early teachers of this religion would say, "god exists. We know 
becasue he delivered us from  Sumerian chariots" The essence of the question
is: What do you base your beleif on initially? It is not the intricate dogma,
but Stories. You are exactly right when you say we are too human. Our caveman
ancestors saw fire and were amazed. The same thing has happened and will
continue to happen as long as these religions exist. My pint is that:  the
bible has context- learn it. :)

Of course the Bible has context.   Everything has context.  My point is,
the context ofthe Bible, or of anything else, doesnt' necessarily rule 
out the possibility of miracles.

I think one of the main points about miracles in the Bible is that 
although they show the nature God, they also show the nature of man.
 
Every miracle in the Torah whether it be the Red Sea, pillars of cloud
and fire, manna, plagues, prophesy, etc., just show really the 
need for mans nature to be redeemed.

As the miracle would occur, the Israelites would praise and worship
back to their idol worship, murmuring, and other signs of 
unbelief and what God deemed abomination.

The prophets later told of the greatest miracle of God to 
occur sometime in their future.

In speaking of Jesus they also prophesised that few also
would believe in His time.

In speaking about those who wouldnt believe, Jesus maintained 
the fact that even if they, with their own eyes, saw one raised 
from the dead, they would still deny the Lord. They would not repent.

Okay, so you apparently define a miracle as something wonderful that shows
>how great god is, and you say there are none of these in the old testament.
>Orwell, dear, what do you call the creation of the earth, the creation of
man?
>And how Joseph got out of his predicament when he began to interpret dreams
>with the help of god?  Sure,all of it can be explained with logic.  God
>doesn't use "magic" deary.  We use the word magic in everyday life to mean
>an event that we know in our minds cannot happen, but look, it did. A thing
>loses its magic when it is explained.  All of the things in the new testament
are also very well explained by logic, as many people will tell you while
trying to convince you that Jesus was not the son of God.  

I definately believe in god, but only really in the context of a word that
answers unanswerable questions.  I think the bible is incredible interesting,
but I've never even considered taking it litarally, I am perfectly happy to
belive in all those stories as alagory meant to teach us something important.
Whether the miracles that are written about happened or not I don't feel any
need to rationalize them, because if you can take them for what they are and
for what they accomplished both at the time of their supposed happenings and
their effect on history it doesn't really matter what the scientific
rationalizations are.  If you do believe in the bible litterally then it
shouldn't be necessary to put human logic to it, because if you believe in
an all powerful God then human logic isn't enough to understand how the
miracles worked.  If you believe in a God that actually created the heavens
and the earth that we live on, specifically in seven days with a completely
new piece on each day then is there any point at all in believing that these
things couldn't happen?

I usually read the Bible with a grain of salt, keeping in mind that
although it may be God's word, it is His word through man. Several
men, for that matter.

have there been any translations of the Bible by a female author yet?

I think I heard about a feminist bible that is fairly new, but there are so
many translations around that it would be strange if there wasn't.

I heard about it recently as well. I'd like to get my hands on a translation
like that just to keep well informed. I think that would call for really
interesting reading. :)

I've heard of several new editions of teh bible using only non-gender-specific
terms, as well as a modernization of teh language.  Which is really sad, when
you think about it--the bible is some of the best poetry in all of western
literature, and to alter it like that, while it may be "politically correct",
is certainly not a good idea.
"Our parent, who is in heaven, your name is sacred...."  
It just doesn't work...

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss