*Sigh*

You're a fucking idiot.

Yes the thread went way off but I had a good reason to.  If no one accepts the concept of a miracle to be valid, what is the point of arguing what hasn't been seen to begin with?  This is my primary problem with this argument.  What is the point of arguing about why a miracle has not been seen if you do not believe there are miracles to begin with.  Since you do not, the defending of such a point would be moot since no explanation would be acceptable.

Also, you obviously did not understand my position since I hardly consider "everything" to be a miracle.  I will not go into that again since it has been beaten to death already IMO.

Actually, I was not arguing that everything is a miracle and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "all occurrences."

I'm not exactly sure what your point here is.  You are asking me (and other theists) to tell you why a God you do not believe in is not doing something when I (and other Christians at least) will tell you that it is our belief from the bible that God does things to his will not ours and since "salvation situations" no longer are needing of God's intervention because Jesus took care of it all, the need for "salvation miracles" is no longer needed with faith in Jesus.  Did I understand that correctly?  Did I just answer you?

Ho ho ho, good sir. What clever reasoning and astute logic is at your fingertips.

Jesus. Of course.

Or they could just be your words contradicting themselves. Do you vary the basic terms you operate under every time you're asked a question? If you do, no problem. You have a lot in common with the writers of the Bible.

Do you think "I'll use definition X if I'm asked question A and definition Y if I'm asked question B...Oh crap! He asked a question I don't have a pat answer to! Quick, make something up!"

Not sure what I'm missing here.

Dear pjts one thing I am learning from spending time on these forums is that Christians ( and other theists ) fear being backed into a corner, hence the constant changing of terms and definitions.  I find it to be quite a waste of time and am beginning to experience burn out from all the double-talk.

I imagine myself giving them a hard slap across the face and screaming "Just answer the damn question you idiot ! "  

I am also a former Christian.  I understood the question from the OP perfectly and would have answered as you.  It's not a trick question for crying out loud.

I did this (post 74 and again in 78) yet it was either glossed over or dismissed either way (like in 84).

Yes, I've read on some sites where there is debate over whether the verses should be there or not.  My personal opinion on the verses is they do not alter or contradict the subsequent time line in Acts and actually add some support to Acts.

My apologies, I was generalising your position slightly.  Renshia had originally asked about Biblical miracles - drinking poison etc. - and you had suggested in earlier posts that the ability of EMTs and others to save lives etc. was 'miraculous' in your eyes.  By mentioning "all occurences" I was merely suggesting that you had a broader definition of what a miracle is than many others on this board. (My definition being an event which could not have occured by natural means)

At the risk of being pedantic... I was asking why the God you believe in is not doing something.  The God I don't belive in isn't doing anything because he doesn't exist .  But you've answered my question to a certain extent.  I was asking why we dont' see miracles like those performed by Moses.  You're suggesting that the sacrifice of Christ was enough to remove the need for these "salvation miracles" because it is through faith in his sacrifice that we will be saved.  Correct?

Allow me to add a caveat to my original question then, as I feel using a real-life Moses analogy may have been too specific in a 'salvation' sense.  What about other miracles?  Pillars of Fire?  People talking to God through burning bushes?  People being turned into pillars of salt because they dared to look upon God's work?  Does Christ's death and ressurection remove the need for all these kinds of acts?  I only ask because I was baptised and raised a roman catholic and it is my understanding that in dying Christ was supposed to accept the cost and burden of man's original sin, thus paying the price that would allow us to enter heaven again.  Christ's sacrifice offered us the salvation of heaven if we had faith in him and his ressurection.  Am I mistaken?  I'm not as knowledgable of the bible as others on here so please correct me if I'm wrong.

So why does faith in Jesus, which has granted spiritual salvation, remove the need for any "supernatural" assistance in times of physical hardship? 

If you want an example - there are people of faith working towards resolving the Darfur situation.  Many would say that "The Lord" is working through them.  They're not just praying and hoping.  These people are actively doing everything they can to help.  They believe that faith in Jesus and acting as he would will help that troubled part of the world.  But it hasn't helped in 4 years.  Are the people of Darfur undeserving of a miracle?  How has Christ's death helped them?  Why does Christ's death prevent God freeing them from their suffering as he did the Jews in Egypt?

M

The OP is asking about something biblical.  If you cannot understand time, place, and circumstance then the explanation will be lost to you.

Since you do seem a bit more sincere in your question, I'll expand on my answer a bit.

Jesus had just got done chewing them out for not believing (v14).  He knew therefore that believing would need more than just words.  Remember, Jesus would have been a radical new concept so in order to create new disciples and break from the Roman and Jewish traditions.  Jesus needed to have more done since he would no longer be on Earth to continue the movement.  Acts is the documentation of that additional action.  The miracles served their purpose.  No where in Mark does it say that they would continue forever.

I may not be correct but this is what I have come to understand those verses mean.  Taking them out of context with the rest of the bible and from the time period can and does raise questions like that of the OP from other theists.  From the point of view of atheists however, this is why I question if there was even an acceptance of miracles to begin with.

I guess I could accept that explanation.  I can think of a few expansions on that like "so then how does one come to know Jesus" kinda thing but that would be a different thread none the less.

Time and place.  I can't say God would do those things again as he may not have to.  But as means of bringing into belief for salvation, yes, no longer necessary.

The dogma of the Roman Catholic Church as well as other denominations tends to cloud the issue of many many things like the original sin.  I don't want to take this thread into a different direction so if you'd rather start up a different thread for that, just let me know where you go.

I'm not sure I understand why there needs to be.  And this is the root of the stalemate between atheists and theists: proof.  I cannot prove to you God exists because I'm not God.  Only he can give you the proof you need.  It's a bit Calvinistic but it is how it is stated in the bible.

Both opportunities and challenges in daily life are serving God's purpose for each person.  Taking the suffering that say the Jews underwent with the Nazis, I could say that it was God's will for it to happen so they could be back in the holy land (United Nations and the creation of Israel).  I don't know how Darfur will turn out since that is not part of my purpose as it stands but for those called to go out there and help, well, you got me wondering, is the only way for it to be of God is if God were to micromanage the situation?

I am very familiar with the first century regarding customs, history, geography, religions (various not just Christianity) and events.

The OP is very clear in his question.

Thanks for your comment. Though I take a far different position I am meticulous in my observation of reported events. I have had training on both religion and theology and in scientific observation. As with others I have studied the NT extensively and do not jump to assumptions as you do.

Interesting assumption on your part that a time limit is placed on the believers ability to perform miracles. Why do you think this? Luke 9:1 - Jesus gave the disciples the power to heal. Luke 10:9 - he gave at least healing power to the 70 he sent out. Matthew 18:19-20 Jesus tells them if 2 of them agree it will be done of the Father (sound like healing or miracles). Mark 9:23 - Jesus tells them all things are possible to those of faith. Mark 11:23- faith can move mountains.

No where does it say that after Jesus leaves or the Apostles die (another story JC was supposed to return before all of them died) that the miracles performed by believers would stop. It in effect says in many places exactly the opposite.

I think you are incorrect in your interpretation. The time period has nothing to do with why the miracles by believers seem to not occur. It matters little if I deny the possibility of miracles, Jesus could have been an alien with a healing tri-quarter that he had implanted beneath his arm. If so, it wouldn't be a miracle but technology. The problem is the writing of this period makes claims that miracles could be performed by those that believed in Jesus. This appears to not occur today, possibly it never did. I have little confidence that the NT is an accurate representation of the detailed events it contains. There are many reasons for my distrust of the writing. Regardless, claims can be read and the original intent understood.

My view on miracles if they occur, I have no idea what they are. I put them in the I don't know category and don't start erecting altars to meter maids (See Dead Like Me the series from Showtime).

I didn't say there was a time limit.  I simply said it does not have to mean forever.  Now the reason I state that said miracles listed in Mark did not have to continue forever is, as with all things listed in the bible, they served their purpose.  Just as the atonement was fulfilled and was no longer necessary because of Jesus, as believers came to be, the miracles were no longer needed because of the proof offered by those who witnessed and became record in Acts.

By the way, why did you leave off the "faith the size of a mustard seed?"  Yes, all things are possible with faith and this is evident by record of the Acts of the apostles.  That was them, this is us.  I have faith but I also at times have doubt.  If I look at a mountain, I know in my heart I doubt that I can move it, hence I don't.  I'm being a bit facetious but I hope you get my meaning.

It does not say that those miracles would stop but it does not say anything to the effect that they would continue forever or for how long.  I'm not sure what you are referring to by the opposite.

And again, because neither of us have been witness to anything like this, neither of us can comment that they have indeed not been performed recently.

Many people thought that when Jesus referred to his return, they thought it meant in their lifetime.  They also thought that the temple being destroyed was that when it happened in 70AD by the Romans.  Neither statement was correct.  And yet here you are telling me that the time period has nothing to do with what was written.

As I've stated several times, all I can offer you on the verses in Mark is one of an opinion.  I used not only Mark but Acts as part of my theory on both the meaning and intention and even that of the audience of the words from Jesus regarding the miracles from believers as not necessarily being for all time but for that time period only.  That is the best answer I can offer on the question.  I didn't ask you to agree but to consider.  I didn't expect you to accept (since very little ever is accepted by a theist anyway).

I believe many theists are so caught up in word games and private interpretations that they are not even capable of answering a simple question.  razorphreak is simply duplicating the methods of another insane theist ( Paisley ) who constantly redefines words and concepts to suit his purposes.

It is pointless to debate these confused individuals.  Direct communication with them is likely to result in answers that actually bring the exchange of ideas to a complete halt.

They will bury you in an avalanche of posts but yet never produce anything but chaos and confusion.....hence the extremely loooooooong duration of these "debates".

You know I still don't know who this Paisley is.  The fact that you are still reading this thread...makes me kinda...flattered.

Razor to Prozac, "You know I still don't know who this Paisley is.  The fact that you are still reading this thread...makes me kinda...flattered. "  ///

  Atheists LOVE you more !

  Concerned theist Paisley, can be found in the "resent posts" option at left, and you can click on anyones name and then "track" all their posting.  He's a loose "Live Wire" looking to connect to GAWED .....    

Flattered ? 

I'm aware of the conventional meaning of the word "flattered" but when dealing with you I'm afraid to make any assumptions.  Based upon the past chaos, miscommunication and sheer lack of consensus on this thread your definition could easily be miles from the typical usage of that word.

It doesn't matter if you don't know who Paisley is.   I seriously doubt that you would comprehend the significance of the comparison anyway.

Fair enough, I may start up another thread on the subject.

I've grouped these together because I think it's better to tie this all together in one coherent form.  My take on your answers is this:  Before Christ, God would appear and perform 'miracles' to convince men to do his work and carry his name to people that would not hear.  The birth, life, and death of Christ gave the world the word of God and the message of faith.  This was God's final 'overt' act in giving his message to the world i.e. rather than appearing as a burning bush/pillar of flame and telling people what to do he said "from this day forth look to my son, live your life as his and my work shall be done".  Is that a fair summary of the point you're making?

If that is the case then it would certainly leave the door open for God's influence on the world to be much more of a 'micromanaging' role.  However I have two objections to this that you could perhaps clarify for me.

1)  This floats dangerously close to the "God works in mysterious ways" or "It's all partof God's unknowable plan" type of argument which some have always taken to be the "I don't know but God must do it" argument.  It doesn't really answer any questions.

2)  Where does that put biblical miracles that were not supposed to convince people to believe or act on God's behalf?  Men of true faith are promised the ability to drink  poison unharmed (as stated in the OP).  That is not a miracle to bring about salvation or faith, it is a promise of God's gift to those of faith.

If you want a better example of my second objection I would point to the fact that Soddom was destroyed for being an affront to the Lord.  This was not a miracle to bring "into belief for salvation" it was an act of punishment against those who would defy him.  If the biblical miracles designed to bring belief for salvation are no longer needed because of Christ that's fine, but that doesn't account for all miracles.  What about those?

M

What would you consider a more mundane act of God (according to your definition)?

Actually, I was rather disappointed you didn't appreciate my airplane analogy.

Asked and answered.

Not according your definition - "An act of God without any possible scientific explanation".

You haven't come close to doing that yet (unless you count all the answers you've ignored).