Replies

To me it's just very open ended as an explanation. And I should say that I quail at the term "supernatural". To me this invokes witchcraft and ghosts, and I'm loath to think that Natural Creation is founded on such terms.

What is this "Natural Creation" ? It's not in the Bible.

Do you believe that Christ raised Lazurus from the dead ?

Luke 11

"43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.

44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go."

No man save Jesus can raise a person from the dead. That's what I mean by supernatural. It's not natural. Naturally speaking, dead is dead.

Jesus Christ did this, most definitely not using witchcraft.

Exodus 13

"21 And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

22 He took not away the pillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people."

A pillar of fire leading a tribe of people around at night ? Not natural.

Do we actually believe in these things ?

Or do we say they are fables, not to be taken literally, because WE DON'T THINK THEY COULD ACTUALLY HAVE HAPPENED AS WRITTEN ? This indicates a) our lack of belief in what the Bible says in certain cases and b) we then selectively decide which Biblical history we accept as true and which we decide for ourselves could not have happened, so we read into the text that it is a "parable" - even in cases where the context is a purely historical account.

We thus take our metaphorical "teacher's red pen" to the Bible text, editting out what we think is too fantastical to actually happen, thus our "belief in God" is:

"I believe in God, but I don't think he has any power over nature".

Instead, we place our faith in texts not divinely inspired: textbooks, math books, science books.

In essence - they replace God for us - as THEY are what we have 100% faith in, and we reduce God's Word to a fable.

Thus, we see indeed that the Word of God is a two-edged sword: it draws the elect to belief in Christ Jesus, and to the unbeliever it reveals their rejection of God's Word.

Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

I believe Jesus used the miracles as a metaphorical reward for Heaven. He would thus heal the poor or the ones abused by governors, instead of helping the rich and powerful, in their faces.

If one cannot believe that God would dare come in the flesh to prove that these people were not of God and would use his powerlessness in the flesh to crucify Him, then of course, the reverse, that God would leave this flesh one day to go to Heaven or to trascend it through miracles, is only logical.

Faith is not the same as superstition. It is more like a soul treatment program, a belief that what we follow improves our lives or soul, despite all the artificial punishment and discouragement out there trying to skew or sabotage the results through direct harm, or, worse, temptation, ie. doing the harm ourselves! a belief that God helps us right ourselves when we err, just like a father would not beat a child for failing in taking his or her first steps, doing it wrong.

What is this "Natural Creation" ? It's not in the Bible.

I mean the material world, which is referred to in rustic vernacular as "Creation". This is definition 3 in my Websters Seventh Tattered...

creation ... 3 : something that is created: as a : WORLD b : creatures singly or in aggregate ...

You know, it was not Evolution, but Newton that elevated science to a comprehensive system and put it in a position where it challenged religion as a fundamental viewpoint. This was crystallized in Halley's Ode To Newton, contained in a prefix to Newton's Principia Mathematica.

The ode contains the statement ( in Motte's translation)

Here ponder too the Laws which God,
Framing the universe, set not aside
but made the fixed foundations of his work.

This was quite controversial because it seemed to indicate that God was in fact BOUND by these Laws. In fact, through the efforts of a zealous churchman, it was censored, or softened, in some later editions, and was only restored in relatively modern times.

The latin is possibly more forceful, containing the phrase "omniparens Leges Creator violare noluit" ... "Universal Laws the Creator was unwilling to violate" ... heady stuff.