Last verified meeting/act of God

[Maxwell Edison]

I have only scant knowlege of the Bible, and was curious as to the last known act attributed to God, the number of witnesses, etc. FTR, I do not mean sunsets and babies being born, but actual "hand of God" intervention in human affairs. Also, does the Bible have any instances direct human/God contact? And again, could someone provide insight as to the nature of the contact, witnesses, etc.?

[muppetsoup]

I'm not by any means a scholar either, I know just enought to back up my world view, you could say. The only 'hot God and Man action' that comes to mind would be when God gave Moses the tablets with the 10 commandments on them. There are probably others, but like I said, nothing comes to mind.

If you were talking about, say, Greek Gods, there's plenty of "direct human/God contact" there <wink wink>.

[AHunter3]

You may wish to identify what you'd regard as the legitimate authority in this regard. And do revelations to individuals count? ("Go forth and tell my people...") Or are we strictly talking heavy physical-realm stuff like making the sun reverse course or parting the Red Sea? And do post-Biblical-era events count?

[RealityChuck]

The 1969 Mets. George Burns wouldn't lie.

[Maxwell Edison]

Originally posted by AHunter3
You may wish to identify what you'd regard as the legitimate authority in this regard. And do revelations to individuals count? ("Go forth and tell my people...") Or are we strictly talking heavy physical-realm stuff like making the sun reverse course or parting the Red Sea? And do post-Biblical-era events count?




I would like the question answered as if the Bible is being taken as truth, however any text outside of the Bible that religious scholars generally deem authentic would do nicely also. I would like to hear of the last revelation to an individual, as well as the last documented "parting of the Red Sea"-type miracle.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Saints in the Catholic church can be canonized only if they have performed at least one miracle (see Saint F.A.Q.s (http://saints.catholic.org/faq.html)). I submit that a miracle fits the criterion of <<actual "hand of God" intervention in human affairs>>.
This saint, Maximilian Kolbe (http://www.catholic.org/saints/saints/maximiliankolbe.html), lived from 1894 to 1941. So there would be at least one act of God that occurred during that time period.

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Saints in the Catholic church can be canonized only if they have performed at least one miracle (see Saint F.A.Q.s (http://saints.catholic.org/faq.html)). I submit that a miracle fits the criterion of <<actual "hand of God" intervention in human affairs>>.

Yeah right. I recently read an article in Time Magazine describing the attempts of one priest to canonize a long-dead priest. He had been completely blind for many years, and had his sight restored after beginning a series of prayers to this priest. He claimed it was a miracle. The Vatican investigated and declared it was not a miracle. Their reason: his sight was only 90% restored. If it was a true miracle, his sight would have been 100% restored.

I submit that there has never been a miracle in the Catholic Church sense, it's all a bunch of hooey concocted by priests to con gullible people. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I dare you. Just remember, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.

[Chas.E]

I read the "Saints FAQ" and it says you don't have to be involved in any alleged miracle to be canonized and declared a Saint.

[AWB]

Originally posted by Maxwell Edison
I have only scant knowlege of the Bible, and was curious as to the last known act attributed to God, the number of witnesses, etc. FTR, I do not mean sunsets and babies being born, but actual "hand of God" intervention in human affairs. Also, does the Bible have any instances direct human/God contact? And again, could someone provide insight as to the nature of the contact, witnesses, etc.?

I dunno. After watching my child being born, it's a miracle my wife lets me touch her anymore. :D:D:D

Besides, look at my picutres of CRB below. ;)

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Chas.E
I read the "Saints FAQ" and it says you don't have to be involved in any alleged miracle to be canonized and declared a Saint.

We must not be on the same page. At the site to which I provided a link above, I see the following:
The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle (except in the case of martyrs). ...
Only after one more miracle will the pope canonize the saint (this includes martyrs as well). ... Canonization does not "make" a person a saint; it recognizes what God has already done.

Chas.E also says «I submit that there has never been a miracle in the Catholic Church sense, it's all a bunch of hooey concocted by priests to con gullible people.» That statement is more in the tone of a debate (hardly surprising, since the "Great Debates" forum is where any discussion on religion seems to inevitably be headed). I was only trying to answer the OP, since this is "General Questions".

By the way, you seem to be assuming that I accept as true the statement that canonized people have performed miracles. Never assume!

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 02-23-2001 at 09:06 AM]

[Nurlman]

Originally posted by Maxwell Edison
Also, does the Bible have any instances direct human/God contact?

If I recall correctly, Moses was God's buddy. They talked quite often (causing Moses' head to glow-- go figure), and on one occasion when He was feeling particularly frisky, God let Moses see His back.

Ezekiel also hitched a ride in a UFO with some deformed birds and flew up to Heaven where he got to see God. (Ez. Ch. 1) Ezekiel describes the Big Man as
the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD. (E 1:26-28) So basically, God is an amber-colored set of loins, with fire surrounding them, all wrapped up in a cute rainbow.

Of course, Ezekiel was a nut, so it's entirely possible that this was just a hallucination.

I think that's everybody who got to see God in the Bible (assuming you don't count those who interacted with Jesus).

[Chas.E]

Sorry Arnold, I just saw the bit about beatification not requiring a miracle. The distinction between beatification and canonization is knowledge that is about as useful as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

However, after a little further research, I discovered that you don't even have to be a real person to become a saint.

As far as my assertion that there have never been miracles, I stand behind this as directly relevant to the debate. The question is when was the last direct act of god, when was the last miracle. I assert that there has NEVER been a miracle because there is no god (at least, not in the catholic church sense). Go ahead, prove me wrong. Just prove the existence of god, then prove he/she/it directly acted on the earthly plane.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Chas.E, you will notice that the question in the OP is phrased as "the last known act attributed to God, the number of witnesses, etc." (italics mine).

As far as your challenge: "I assert that there has NEVER been a miracle because there is no god (at least, not in the catholic church sense). Go ahead, prove me wrong. Just prove the existence of god, then prove he/she/it directly acted on the earthly plane." Since I'm an atheist, I feel unequal to the task at hand. ;)

[Chronos]

[Moderator watch ON]

I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody's likely to prove or disprove the existence of God any time in the immediate future. I think it's even safer to say that if myself and manhattan have our say, nobody's going to even try, in General Questions. You want to debate the evidence (or lack thereof, as the case may be) for or against God's existence, hey, that's great, have fun! Just do so in the right place, and we'll all get along just fine.

[Chas.E]

I acknowledge that I'm treading a perilous line between GP and GD, but I'll speak my piece and let it go.

To answer the question directly, the last miracle attributed to god was probably about 1/2 second ago, somewhere. Did you ever see a sketch on Saturday Night Live with Sally Fields? She is a housewife in the kitchen, praying constantly, "please jesus, don't let the rice get sticky this time, please jesus, I pray to you, don't let my floors get waxy buildup.. praise jesus, it's a miracle, the rice isn't sticky!" Finally Jesus appears and tells her that he hears all prayers, and she should stop annoying him all the time with such trivial crap.

To cite a more specific, real example: a few years ago, some obnoxious TV evangelist declared that god had "called him home," and that he would die within 2 weeks if his viewers didn't raise $2million to keep his TV show on the air. The money was raised, and he declared his non-death to be a miracle.

So.. I remind people, the theme of this site is "fighting ignorance." Belief in miracles is superstition, and superstition is just a symptom of ignorance.

[kunilou]

Originally posted by Maxwell Edison
Originally posted by AHunter3


I would like the question answered as if the Bible is being taken as truth, however any text outside of the Bible that religious scholars generally deem authentic would do nicely also. I would like to hear of the last revelation to an individual, as well as the last documented "parting of the Red Sea"-type miracle. [/B]

[kunilou]

Originally posted by Maxwell Edison
Originally posted by AHunter3


I would like the question answered as if the Bible is being taken as truth, however any text outside of the Bible that religious scholars generally deem authentic would do nicely also. I would like to hear of the last revelation to an individual, as well as the last documented "parting of the Red Sea"-type miracle. [/B]

Chas E. since I infer you do not take the Bible as truth (at least for the purposes of this thread), you are not answering the question AHunter asked. Opinions that do not speak to the OP's question should not be posted in GQ.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Chas.E
To answer the question directly, the last miracle attributed to god was probably about 1/2 second ago, somewhere.

As kunilou said, this is not a direct answer to the original question (unless you claim to be a religious scholar whose views meet with general agreement amongst other religious scholars). At the SDMB, one of the most valuable lessons I've learned is to read carefully the messages that are posted. Especially in a text-based medium such as this one, errors like yours happen much too frequently.

Chronos: <<I think it's pretty safe to say that nobody's likely to prove or disprove the existence of God any time in the immediate future.>>

Oh yeah?! Chas.E, go on down to Great Debates and give them hell! I'll watch from the sidelines.

[Arnold Winkelried]

P.s. Chas.E - to address your comment that this site is based on fighting ignorance: very true. But let me give you an example.
Someone asks me "In which book of the Bible does it say that the number of the beast is 666?"

Answer A: That's in Revelations, chapter X, verse Y.
Answer B: The Bible is crap and that story of the Beast is only believed by idiots.

Which answer would you consider is most apt to help the fight against ignorance?

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by kunilou
Chas E. since I infer you do not take the Bible as truth (at least for the purposes of this thread), you are not answering the question AHunter asked. Opinions that do not speak to the OP's question should not be posted in GQ.

I have directly answered the question several times in several different forms. If you don't find any of them acceptable to your religious dogma, too bad.

The question has been rephrased as a literary question, the exact phrase was "any text outside of the Bible that religious scholars generally deem authentic would do nicely." This which requires no interpretation or opinion, other than the interpretation of "religious scholars." So I will answer the question yet again.

The last "miracle" that I am aware of dates to around the 13th century or so. It is documented by the Vatican. According to the story (which alas I don't recall the exact details, just the general story), during the Crusades, somebody captured a holy relic. Now don't laugh, I am totally serious when I say that the book claimed it was jesus' foreskin, and thus the only earthly remnant of jesus' body. According to the legend, the relic was strapped to the back of a camel, the camel released, and wherever the camel stopped for water for the first time, they would establish a temple to the holy foreskin. The camel walked for many days, finally walking vertically up the side of a mountain, where its holy footsteps were said to be etched in the rock. And the temple (and the footprints on the rock) are still there to this day (IIRC, somewhere in France).
If you want to read the details for yourself, go locate the book "Spear of Destiny" which is full of tales of alleged miracles. It claims (amongst other things) that the end of World War II was a miracle because Patton accidentally captured the Spear of Longinius from Hitler. This spear was used to pierce the side of jesus and give him a merciful death as he was being crucified. According to the legend, anyone who posesses the Spear rules the fate of the world. Nevermind that the person who posesses the sword tends to have acquired it at the head of the world's largest military force, and ALREADY ruled the world.

Are you beginning to see why I scoff at all this talk about miracles? Even though I reject christianity, I probably know more about it than you do. If you insist on church-documented "miracles" then I'll pull out an endless supply of ridiculously stupid miracles like the story of jesus' foreskin. And I could equally come up with similar stories from other religions, even my own, like the story of Buddha's extracted tooth that supposedly still has a bit of living tissue attached, despite the passage of thousands of years since its extraction. But let's not get into that here.

[manhattan]

You know what, Chas.E? Here are your choices:

You can refer to others' beliefs "ridiculously stupid" in Great Debates.

or

You can refer to others' beliefs "ridiculously stupid" in the Pit.

or

You can not do it at all.

Do it in General Questions again, and you will be looking for a new message board.

Consider this an official warning.

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Which answer would you consider is most apt to help the fight against ignorance?

C. All of the above.

I think that if I answer the question directly (which I did, several times) then I should be allowed to inject a personal opinion as well. As someone pointed out, that's why we all read Cecil in the first place.
I freely admit to taking far too much pleasure in pointing out the inconsistent and ridiculous points of christianity, however, I always try to do it with "factually" accepted christian theology. Since you are the moderator, please tell me if this is against the rules, and I will comply.

[manhattan]

Facts are always good. It's the loaded language that is a problem, as is interjecting into a thread where others can re-interpret a question to keep it in GQ.

By the way, here are two copies of the word "as." as as

Everyone should please feel free to place them in my prior post in a grammatically appropriate place.

[Dr.Pinky]

I thought it was his death in 1900. (It was in all the papers.)

Or was that Nietzsche?

[Chas.E]

ok manhattan, we were writing those messages at the same time, so don't consider that last msg a response to yours. I consider myself warned, and will comply. But one point of clarification is necessary. If someone's belief really IS "ridiculously stupid" like for example, the Flat Earth people, is it against the rules to say so?
And in my own defense, I did not say anyone's belief system was ridiculously stupid, just certain DOCTRINES. I think we can all agree that, for example, the church suppressing Gallileo was "ridiculously stupid" and the Vatican even admitted it was "an error" (a monumental statement considering the source).

Anyway, I won't respond further, I'm not going to get booted over such a (oops, almost said the R word again) thing.

[manhattan]

Originally posted by Chas.E
ok manhattan, we were writing those messages at the same time, so don't consider that last msg a response to yours.

Yeah, I figured that. It's all good.

If someone's belief really IS "ridiculously stupid" like for example, the Flat Earth people, is it against the rules to say so?


As a general (heh) rule, if something is factually silly it's OK to call it so. The problem with religions is that many of them postulate an omniscient, omnipotent being to whom the normal rules of the universe do not apply. That renders anything possible, even if it is otherwise impossible.

I'd simply ask that you let Chronos and I do our jobs here. We routinely redirect questions to focus on what a certain religion opines about a matter, send threads to Great Debates or otherwise take steps to ensure that this forum stays factual.

And geez! In my case at least, it's not like your dealing with someone with a pro-religion bias!

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by manhattan
I'd simply ask that you let Chronos and I do our jobs here. We routinely redirect questions to focus on what a certain religion opines about a matter, send threads to Great Debates or otherwise take steps to ensure that this forum stays factual.

OK, issue settled. But I beg you to allow a LITTLE latitude, as long as I come up with the good facts (and I think you know I always come up with interesting facts). And besides, people seem to enjoy the sight of sacred cows sent to slaughter (as long as it is not THEIR sacred cow). That's what attracted us to Cecil and SD in the first place.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by Chas.E
I think that if I answer the question directly (which I did, several times) then I should be allowed to inject a personal opinion as well. As someone pointed out, that's why we all read Cecil in the first place.
I freely admit to taking far too much pleasure in pointing out the inconsistent and ridiculous points of christianity, however, I always try to do it with "factually" accepted christian theology. Since you are the moderator, please tell me if this is against the rules, and I will comply.

I prefer whenever possible to leave the moderation to the people in charge of that forum, which is why I haven't made any official statements.

But to refer back to the subject, my point was that you fight ignorance better by avoiding belittling your opponent.
Example:
"Here's an example of a miracle (miracles should of course be viewed with skepticism" sounds better to me than
"Here's an example of a miracle, which is obviously bogus and invented by dishonest priests to fool gullible people." The second statement will just make a religious person, think you're a jerk, encourage them to ignore you, and actually be detrimental in the "fight against ignorance".

The reverse example: a priest saying "Try Christianity, you might like it" is more to my liking than the fire and brimstone preacher screaming "You're going to hell if you don't accept JC!" The delivery is a big part of the message.

[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 02-24-2001 at 11:37 AM]

[cmkeller]

Probably the chronologically latest overt miracle recorded in the Old Testament was when a mysterious hand appeared at a banquet that King Belshazzar of Babylon gave for a thousand of his noblemen and inscribed a message of doom on the wall. This is in Daniel chapter 5.

The story in the book of Esther is considered by the Jews to be a "covert" miracle, i.e., a story of G-d's providence working through natural means, which was chronologically later than the one in Daniel.

Probably the latest prophecy (direct communication between man and G-d) recorded is either the one in the last chapters of the book of Daniel or the one in the book of Malachi.

The Talmud relates a number of miraculous occurrences in the post-biblical era. One example is that they say that the corpses of Betar (a city that was at the center of a Judean rebellion against the Romans, which was massacred by them in the year 127) spent years without being allowed to be buried, yet they didn't rot at all.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Saints in the Catholic church can be canonized only if they have performed at least one miracle (see Saint F.A.Q.s (http://saints.catholic.org/faq.html)). I submit that a miracle fits the criterion of <<actual "hand of God" intervention in human affairs>>.
This saint, Maximilian Kolbe (http://www.catholic.org/saints/saints/maximiliankolbe.html), lived from 1894 to 1941. So there would be at least one act of God that occurred during that time period.
I don't think that you read that site very carefully.
Since miracles are considered proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede for us, the miracle must take place after the candidate's death and as a result of a specific petition to the candidate.
For the Catholic Church to declare Kolbe a saint, it must believe that he performed a miracle (or rather, interceded to convince God to perfom a miracle) after 1941.

[trose]

The last miracles as recorded in the King James Bible (the one I am most familiar with) appear in the book of the Acts of the Apostles. It's a little hard to tell which came last chronologically (at least by the quick skim I just gave it) because after the miracle at Pentecost in Chpater 2, the apostles spread out and start doing cool stuff, and the main narrative of this book follows Paul as he converts and begins preaching. Acts is pretty much the last narrative book of the Christian Bible.

Your other question may also be answered here, in chapter 7. Just before his martydom, Stephen sees the heavens open and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.

ChasE, when you see a GQ thread asking about some piece of Star Wars arcana, do you feel compelled to explain that it's only a movie?

[Chas.E]

Originally posted by trose
ChasE, when you see a GQ thread asking about some piece of Star Wars arcana, do you feel compelled to explain that it's only a movie?
Occasionally, when I see someone unable to distinguish between reality and fiction.

There are many things to be learned from Science Fiction, but if you learn that you want to dress up and pretend you are Darth Vader, you're drawing the wrong lessons.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by The Ryan
I don't think that you read that site very carefully.

Whoops! :o And this is in the same thread where I had the effrontery to claim "At the SDMB, one of the most valuable lessons I've learned is to read carefully ...". I am such a nimrod!