Faith and miracles isn’t what it used to be

Biblical miracles and what faith could do by having it are plentiful to read from in the Bible. Some of my favorites are the three men in Daniel when they were put in a fiery furnace and came out unharmed because they believed in their God, and not of Nebuchadnezzar’s. Moses parts the Red Sea and does other wonders. Samson grows his hair long and receives amazing strength. In the NT believers are supposed to be able to pick up deadly snakes, and drink of poisons with no harm coming upon them. Some southern churches try to emulate this aspect. Jesus is said to have done many wonders by just laying upon the hands or saying a few words. The word “faith” is used hundreds of times throughout the Bible, and it is stressed in quite a few places how important this is in order to do such things.

When I read of such miracle stories either then or hear of them occurring now, I apply Hume’s scale of which is more likely to have occurred. Has science and what we know about nature’s laws really gone cuckoo? Or has man embellished or mistakenly or knowingly distorted the facts? This seems like a reasonable way of going about such a thing, and the reason it would need an extraordinary amount of proof in its favor before it should be accepted as actual fact.

Today’s miracles are not of the biblical kind, so not sure how one obtained their faith, it must mean different things to different believers. Invoking God or Jesus name is pretty much all drama and done for show (see Benny Hinn). Today if believers want miracles, they have to settle for the watered down variety along these lines: Aunt Betty had cancer, prayed, and went into remission. Billy Ray Bob had one leg longer than another, but a faith healer healed him. A person temporarily gets out of their wheelchair and walks around a little bit. Our football team won. One prays for rain and it does; a week later mind you, but it did rain. A lone survivor of a horrible plane crash says he is evidence of special providence, but on the flip side of that coin, nobody gets to ask the dead how they feel about that.

Isn’t one of the things that separates believers from the non-believers is what each group considers good evidence? Believers appear easily swayed by their emotions and wishful thinking, and are more readily acceptable to anecdotes, a good story teller, power of suggestion, personal testimonies, fallacious arguments, hearsay, and peer pressure all seem to help persuade believers. Even geography plays a role. Faith, I suppose gives believers sort of a placebo effect of some sorts, but not sure how adults convince themselves of such beliefs, and set their logic aside. An afterlife of eternal bliss and seeing loved ones again is a very comforting thought. And if this hope and promise in an afterlife doesn’t persuade one, others might try another of fear and eternal damnation which has the same exact lack of evidence going for it as does the afterlife of eternal bliss. It was Lucian that wrote many centuries ago that said life was swayed by two great tyrants, hope and fear. Religion has exploited both to the fullest, has it not?

I remember as a teenager being in the church for five years, and there I was still passing the communion plate at age 16, my last year in the church, I still wasn’t baptized. I remember a few of the stares I would get, and one particular Elder who always made it a habit of giving me this disgruntled look each time the communion plate had just come to me because I had to pass and not partake since I wasn’t baptized. Before I took the plunge, I wanted to get the faith first. I kept hearing about how others read the Bible, and it somehow helped in their faith. It honestly had the opposite effect on me. I was also taken a bit back of just how the Bible had many of God’s favorites that were brutal and immoral people, and many a times this particular God looked the other way on often serious offenses such as genocide, murder and rape, but would huff and puff for the most petty of offenses, such as building or making a fire on the Sabbath which carried the death penalty. When religious people tell me the very same story I just read, I’m often amazed how much spin one could put on it, and how they always will give this God a free pass each and every time. I paid particular attention to the faith and miracle stories, figuring this would be a sure-fire way of me getting the faith if only it was true. Don’t most of the believers, at least on this board at least recognize the miracles stories as seriously doubtful? But even if I found the stories to be true, I would have still had the problem of how the Bible seemed to describe a Demon more than a God, and why would anyone find such a Being worthy of admiration such as that?

I remember when my brothers, both younger and older were baptized, how they especially received all of these adulations from the church, and I was happy for them. I actually have many fond memories while I was in the church, overall I felt like they were good people who were seriously mistaken for all of the wrong reasons, much of what I gave earlier. I didn’t think those reasons were good enough evidence to believe, and perhaps they really knew it too, but maybe good evidence wasn’t what they were really after. I seriously doubt anyone actually has the kind of faith I am thinking of. I wanted my faith to be as strong as the three men in Daniel.

Maybe believers can recall exactly how they obtained their faith, and give other insights on how one can still sustain it in this day and age. Often today I hear believers going through some ordeal, and plenty of time one says “only my faith in God got me through it.” I’m not sure I understand what that means to them, but I suspect they don’t give themselves enough credit. I believe it was Bishop Spong that said, even if God does exist, you had better live your life as if He doesn’t. I think what he was saying was that there is no personal God of any kind that is going to intervene on your behalf, you truly are on your own.

How does reading about such miracles carry any weight with believers today and does this still do anything for your faith? Hasn’t most of our present understanding of how this modern world works put some serious dampers on your faith, or do you honestly feel like it is as strong as it has ever been? Why doesn’t anyone today have faith as strong as the three men in Daniel? Every person of faith I’ve ever came across today aren’t remotely like the ones I used to read about in the Bible; not a one.

You really think our understanding of the modern world has made it harder for modern people to believe in miracles than it was thousands of years ago? You really think science has changed anything?

I’ve got news for you: whether you’re a Nobel-winning physicist or a semi-literate Galilean fisherman, you know dang well that dead people don’t come back to life! You KNOW that water can’t be magically turned into wine! You KNOW that the blind can’t be magically given sight. You KNOW that’s absolutely impossible. So, while there are countless things that Steven Weinberg knows and St. Peter didn’t, don’t imagine for a moment that St. Peter was more inclined to believe in the impossible than Professor Weinberg.

It was no easier for St. Peter to believe in the crazy things he saw than it would be for Richard Dawkins!

As for people’s willingness to endure suffering for their faith, again, nothing has changed. Human nature just doesn’t change much. We’re human. We’re weak. We’re afraid. That was true two thousand years ago (when Jesus sweated blood and begged to be spared what he was going to experience on Calvary), and it’s true today.

It was NEVER easy to endure, let alone embrace, pain and suffering. It still isn’t.

The cynic in me says that miracles always happen long ago and far away, never in front of you. But I admit that doesn’t address the debate very much. C.S. Lewis pointed out that miracles are, by definition, miraculous. I seem to vaguely recall a passage in the New Testament that implies that miraculous works would eventually become rarer and then cease?

There are a lot of questions in there, but let’s see if I can address at least some parts of your post.

You seem to focus on miracles as a proof of faith. Isn’t it possible that those who compiled the stories that became the Bible chose these examples specifically because they were the exception rather than the normal course of things? Similarly, does the death of everyone else in a plane crash diminish – or reinforce – the “miracle” that anyone at all survived?

You say you wanted your faith to be as strong as the men in Daniel, and that you doubt anyone has faith that strong. Moses led the Israelites to the promised land, yet he broke faith while in the wilderness. Peter was “the rock” upon whom Jesus built the church, yet Peter denied Jesus. Jesus was tempted. Thomas wanted proof that Jesus rose from the dead. The stories of people whose belief wavered are as much a part of the Bible as the stories of those whose faith was unshakable.

Some people of faith believe it’s the very order of the universe that justifies belief in a supreme being. The mere fact that we can observe and formulate laws of physics is thought to be proof of an unseen hand that guides eveerything. Do you feel that a supreme being must prove itself by coming in and mixing things up once in awhile?

Absolutely, much more so than 2,000 years ago when perhaps 99% of the people were illiterate, and science maybe was in its infancy. Our understanding of how this world operates takes us further away from supernatural explanations. Europe is also experiencing a more non-religious climate than at any other time in their history. Leading scientists at NAS (National Academy of Sciences) are also the most skeptical and since polls have been taken over the last 100 years, this skeptical trend has grown over time. Just a few centuries ago, many were still accepting Noah’s flood account. Old Britannica encyclopedias bare this out and had entries of Noah’s flood, and it wasn’t treated as mythology. Some 2,000 years ago, just reading from early Christian fathers, it seemed quite easy for them to believe in a lot of absurd things both in and outside the Bible or at least they professed to. If they are wavering as much and finding it so hard to believe after all, then maybe they never believed in it in the first place, but only pretended to. Didn’t know faith was such a struggle for those that professed to have it. It’s good they have that doubt in being able to do the things the Bible says men of faith could do though. Otherwise, they would likely end up killing themselves or others.

Well, hey, if Moses broke faith, but still at times when he had it could still part the Red Sea, that’s pretty damn good wouldn’t you say? Of course what you say makes the stories even more incredulous. If they had those miracles supposedly occurring in front of them, or were actually the miracle worker themselves, and their faith still wavered: then how can believers today be expected to have faith when they only read about such things supposedly occurring in a book written thousands of years ago? That’s what I’ve covered in my OP. Does not a single man of faith on his best day–not on one of his days where he is wavering on it or his faith is weak or moderate-- can’t he have at least have a mustard seed of faith to do something really spectacular, or shall we classify all as charlatans to the likes of Benny Hinn who claim to do things far less spectacular? If it’s natural phenomena, no faith required.

If anything Christians have become pretty fat and happy. I don’t see much suffering on their part, particularly in America.

Yes, that what I concentrated on in the OP. I don’t care if it’s an exception or fairly common occurrence. I’m curious how a believer of today explains his faith, does he rely on reading about such stories and what men of faith showed they could do by having it, or is it a different type of faith believers are relying on today? When harm comes a true believers way, wouldn’t this be a good time for their faith to work miracles? Faith supposedly saved 3 men in the book of Daniel from a fiery furnace, but 6 million of his people couldn’t be saved under Hitler.

Let me try again. Does a man of faith need good evidence? If he has good evidence, doesn’t the role of faith go away?

Like kunilou, I believe in miracles, but miracles are not the reason why I’ve chosen to devote my life to Christ. I chose to follow Christ because when I read the Gospels, I find Christ’s teachings to be the most truthful, moral, useful teachings that I have ever seen, and because the examples of so many people who have followed Christ ever since proves their power. That is the basis of my faith in Christ. Now there’s a lot of supporting evidence that I have to complement that basis and increase my faith. That would include things ranging from historical investigation into the origins of the Bible to personal testimony from people I know. Miraculous events would be part of that supporting evidence. But to emphasize, the supporting evidence is not the basis of my faith, and if further investigation showed that I was wrong about miracles, it would not change my faith in Christ.

So, with that said, why do I believe in miracles? Because the evidence for them is overwhelming. I’ve been reading quite a lot about the topic in the past few years. The best book I’ve found on the topic is The Miracle Detective, by Randy Sullivan. Sullivan was a writer and reporter for Rolling Stone and other major magazines, and he was an agnostic when he began writing the book. In 1997, he heard that a family of Mexican immigrants near his home in Oregon had reported visions of the Virgin Mary. He decided to right a book-length mockery of silly Catholic visionaries from all over. After traveling around the world, speaking with visionaries, investigating past miracles, and talking with scientific experts, he instead ended up converting to Catholicism. Another useful book is Remarkable Recovery by Dr. Caryle Hirshberg and Dr. Marc Barasch. They’ve investigated thousands of extraordinary medical recoveries and compiled the evidence on some of the most impressive cases in history.

Now I’ll try responding to the objections you raised, and some other common ones. On the complaint that “miracles aren’t what they used to be”, I don’t think it’s true at all. If you read the Bible, you’ll find miracles aren’t actually that common, especially when you consider how much time the Bible covers. Major physical events like parting the Red Sea or surviving in a furnace are rare. In particular, you claim that today’s miracles are “watered down” ones like healings, yet most biblical miracles are healings as well. So I really don’t see why that argument is supposed to cast doubt on the existence of the miraculous. Try telling John Traynor or Rita Klaus that what happened to them was minor. As for the fact that nobody today can perform the extraordinary miracles that Jesus did, the uniqueness of Jesus is basically the point of the Gospels.

But even if I did accept that miracles have been downsized in the modern era, why should that cast doubt on their existence? There are a lot fewer murders committed these days, per capita, then in previous centuries or millenia, yet nobody doubts that murders exist now or did back then.

On the complaint that believers have low standards for the evidence that we’ll accept, again I don’t think it’s true. Try reading the two books I listed above or any of dozens of others and you’ll see that they provide plentiful evidence from sources as strong as you could like. When I debate the miraculous, I find the skeptics are the ones relying on weak evidence and unsupported claims. For instance, in this thread about Portuguese mystic Alexandrina da Costa, the skeptics end up relying on exactly the types of reasoning that they always accuse others of: attacking the person who makes claims rather than the claims themselves, jumping from one personal account being false to all accounts being false, and so forth. I’ve had people try to explain away miracles by anything from mass hallucination to mental functions inherited from cavemen to huge conspiracies. All that generally seems to me a lot more far-fetched than genuine miracles.

On the complaint that miracles always occur in places and times where they can’t be verified, I once again don’t think it’s true. For instance, you can see the body of Saint Bernadette of Lourdes, which did not decay after her death in 1879. It’s still on display at the Convent of Nevers. But aside from cases like that, on the broader issue, it doesn’t bother me that I’ve never witnessed a miracle. If miracles are rare, I wouldn’t expect to witness one. If miracles are granted by God usually to those who have shown particular devotion, I certainly wouldn’t expect to witness one. It is entirely in keeping with the letter and spirit of the Gospels that miracles would be special gifts, usually to pious persons, not to those who are trying to put God to the test by demanding a demonstration. It also doesn’t bother me that most miracles occur off-camera. Most of human existence occurs off-camera.

On the complaint that medical miracles don’t exist because no amputee has ever had their limb miraculously restored, I really just don’t grok that one. No amputee has ever had their limb restored by medicine, yet it doesn’t mean that medicine doesn’t exist.

Lastly, on the argument that every believer arbitrarily accepts miracles related to their own religion but rejects those related to other religions, I don’t reject those related to other religions.

Even outside the topic of miracles, I believe that most discoveries of the past century or so have bolstered a Christian worldview and worked against the worldview of scientific materialism, but that’s another thread.

Plenty of people do. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had faith which lead him to become the leader of the civil rights movement, even though he guessed correctly that it would eventually get him killed. Oscar Romero stood up for human rights in El Salvador, even though it was obvious that he’d be assassinated as a result.

Let me try again, as well. Most of the miracles in the Bible, upon scrutiny, turn out to have a cause that can be explained by science. There are a few medical miracles that still can’t be explained - but as you said, Aunt Betty’s cancer remission can’t be explained, either.

But what kind of evidence is “good” evidence? If there’s one inexplicable miracle, do I need ten? If there are 10, do I need 100? And if it turns out that every account of a miracle can be explained, there will still be things that can’t be explained.

Or, we can argue that there wouldn’t be a state of Israel if 6 million of his people hadn’t died. Maybe Israel is the visible evidence of their belief.

But in the Bible people get raised from the dead. It’s been quite a long time since that’s been claimed to happen. Now all we have are things like the stories you pointed out. If John Traynor’s problems were being caused by the bullet in his body, and that bullet was moved by all the efforts it took to get him to Lourdes, then maybe that’s what did it. Rita Klaus got worse before she got better, and took a long time to recover from her problems, not really all that miraculous.

The problem with these quite typical stories is there isn’t a lot actual evidence. We have no way of knowing what really happened with John Traynor. Yes, maybe he was healed by magic. But maybe he was healed by the bullet moving. There doesn’t seem to have been a lot of effort put into investigation at that point, it was just assumed to be magic. Rita Klaus immediately thanks god, in spite of the fact that she had been helped by doctors for years. Care to guess what her life would have been like without all the help from medical science? Medicine can’t explain everything, but that doesn’t mean god gets to be the default. Yes, what happened was odd, but without evidence that god actually had something to do with it, you can’t claim that god had anything to do with it.

Really, you’re going to try and argue this? Murders are quite well know, and are not in dispute. Miracles violate laws of physics, and somehow, so many times a miracle gets properly investigated it turns out to not be so miraculous. Miracles are in dispute, rightly so.

You bring the two stories from above as evidence, and then claim that the skeptics are the ones with weak and unsupported claims? And the page about Saint Bernadette? C’mon, the whole page is religious glurge with maybe a few sentences of anything substantial. And nothing about how thoroughly it was investigated. Again, if you want to claim that god had anything to do with something, then you need to present evidence that god had something to do with it.

So you’re invoking the ‘god hides from skeptics’ argument? Why does god only grant miracles to certain people? Let’s say John Traynor was healed at Lourdes, what about all the other people who weren’t? I can’t imagine every single person who’s gone to Lourdes was miraculously healed, we would have heard about it. What about their suffering and death? Were they just not good enough? Showed up at the wrong time? Maybe there was a skeptic in the room? Miracles are rare, fine, but as time goes on and we get better at investigating things, the scale and frequency of ‘real’ miracles certainly seems to be going down. I wonder what a graph of ‘frequency & scale of miracle’ vs ‘increase in scientific investigation & medicine’ would look like.

This again? Medicine doesn’t claim it can restore limbs miraculously, so expecting it to doesn’t make any sense. God, on the other hand, supposedly can. And since modern medicine not only can’t do it, but claims that it shouldn’t be able to happen, it would be a really hard thing to ignore. But even given all the other claims of healing miracles, and god’s acknowledged ability to do so, no amputated limb has ever been miraculously regrown.

You are substituting faith and wishful thinking for evidence. The story or John Traynor is not evidence of a miracle performed by god. You know how I know that? There isn’t any evidence god did anything. Something happened that wasn’t understood, and so god was invoked. That’s a very common theme in miracles.

So you’re admitting that even in the face of actual contrary evidence, you’d still blindly believe something you knew to be wrong? Interesting, but not surprising.

The body is not “on display”. None of her supposed remains are actually visible; what isn’t covered by her habit is covered by wax masking, including the face and hands shown in the picture you linked to.

It’s fairly obvious that she was embalmed prior to burial.

Miracle stories in the Bible do not have an explanation in science. If science can explain how a dead mans body that already had an odor of decay about it can be brought back to life by a laying upon of the hands, let’s hear what you think the scientific explanation is. It’s well documented that quite a few do go into remission with cancer and no supernatural explanation for this terrible disease is required when this happens.

Although I prefer replication, I’d settle for one, if we could just get that, and how ‘bout something done in the present? I’d settle for a Ben Franklin or an Abe Lincoln being raised from the dead with cameras rolling and for numerous eye-witnesses to such a thing including me having a gravesite seat. There are many good examples that could be given on what would constitute good evidence of a miracle, and countless demonstrations that would qualify to verify such a thing if it only existed. That’s probably the reason good evidence is lacking on such things is because they don’t exist. It reminds me of something McKown once said about “the invisible and the non-existence look very much alike.”

Maybe evidence of their belief, but certainly not belief of a miracle. And if it took 6 million of his people to be gassed, that’s a hell of a way of going about it, and for what? Was this the best plan a God could come up with on how Israel was going to get to establish itself?

ITR Champion, thanks for the time you put into your post. Gives me quite a bit to look over, and I spent a great deal of time opening up your links, and reading from some pages of a book review on the pages it allowed me to do so. I’ve got time for some of it tonight, and might try to get to other parts at another time if you feel like it is important. I’d like to see how we do with some of what you have presented thus far.

Since most of your posts dealt with apparitions mostly occurring in the 1800’s, I will assume this is what you find as the cream of the crop of good evidence for miracles. Apparitions of the Virgin Mary and others are a dime a dozen, many clearly have plenty of problems, but I’ll get to some of that later on in my post.

As another has pointed out, I think what you are seeing is the wax mask and wax hands that have been placed over the body. If it was preserved and was Incorruptible as your cite described it to be, I wouldn’t think wax would be needed. Since St. Bernadette is also known as Our Lady of Lourdes and perhaps many believers think is something that truly qualifies as a miracle, I spent most of my time on her since plenty of information was readily available throughout the internet. I read your cite, and also took a look at the entry in wikipedia for her as well just to see if their story fairly matches up with your link. Not saying Wiki is a gold standard of truth, but it will give us another perspective. It is said she had 16 visions, but also had the distinction of not decomposing as fast as some thought she should have. This is what helped get her into Sainthood. She died in 1879. The story is told how her body was exhumed in 1909, a second time in 1919, and yet a third time in 1925. Did anyone else say why they had to exhume the body? Was it simply to see if she was decomposing as fast as she was supposed to so that they could clarify a miracle? Who was qualified in cadavers that determined this? Reports say her body appeared incorrupt. Your cite states: The second exhumation took place at the end of the Process on April 3, 1919. The body of the Venerable was found in the same state of preservation as 10 years earlier, except that the face was slightly discolored, due to the washing it had undergone. If Wikipedia is correct, the second time they exhumed her body it had patches of skin that had disappeared in some places, and parts of the body had patches of mold covering it, but the skin was present on most parts. That’s more than just a slight discoloration of the face, which they claim was only caused by the washing it had undergone. Seriously, if the body and face was doing this good, there is no need for wax. Your cite doesn’t mention the third time it was exhumed. Wiki says this is the time the Church wanted to make a wax mask of her face, but some felt like “the sunken eyes and nose would make an unpleasant impression on the public.” I’m no expert on cadavers, but it appears to me they are describing a very normal decay of a well preserved body if Wiki has done a reasonable job of presenting the facts. For the wax mask, it appears they corrected all such imperfections of the sunken eyes and nose for the general public.

Take a moment of your time to look over this wiki entry for Incorruptibility, and especially take a good look at the pic of another St. Virginia Centurion which the Catholic Church also found to be another fine example of Incorruptibility, and describe how well you think she looks who is on display evidently without any wax. Do you think if the Catholic Church had any actual pics of St. Bernadette’s corpse, she would have fared any better? Speaking of which, cameras had been around for some time, are there any pics that you know of St. Bernadette during these exhumations? Let’s see if she is as good an example of Incorruptibility as compared to others. Of course, St. Bernadette should look a bit better than St. Virginia since she had been dead for longer. Just from the pics I have seen, St. Virginia seems to be decaying at a rate that other bodies that are better preserved would be decaying at also.

Also take a look at Lenin’s tomb. Lenin has only been dead 90 years, and look how well preserved he is. Does this atheist qualify for Sainthood and the CC declaring it a miracle based on this? Incorruptibility has many good examples of weak evidence that believers are willing to accept for the support of their faith. Never mind the CC is exploiting the hell out of gullible people giving them a sense of false hope, embellishing the stories for all they are financially worth, and the local economy depending on such stories and exhibits. In your honest opinion, do you really think St. Bernadette or any other Saint dealing with Incorruptibility has anything to do with a genuine miracle, or perhaps more to do with good preservation methods?

Some of your links also dealt with apparitions. Without being able to read but parts of the book you recommended for the apparitions that have occurred, some in our time, it is a safe bet on my part that not a one is captured with a camera or video running, and even better yet multiple pictures and multiple video running? This would certainly be a start in the right direction to at least verifying that the person or people actually saw what they claim by it being recorded on multiple video cameras. One would actually suffice, as long as everything was on the up and up. I’ll give you one such example of what happened not too far away from me.

Back in the eighties there was lots of hoopla going on in the town of Lubbock, Texas. It had reached a climax by 1988, to where the Virgin Mary was going to appear again on a certain day up in the sky. This event attracted some 22,000 people, and this time the video cameras were operating from many various news organizations. Even Fox news was there. The time came, people were looking up into the sky, and right before their very eyes, not just one apparition appeared, but too many to count, I think they totaled up some 28 for the day. Different people seen different things. One seen what looked like the Head of God (whatever that looks like), another seen images of salvation, again, I don’t know what that looks like either. There was Jesus with still crying with tears, don’t know what that was all about, but Mary was there comforting him with outstretched arms. They were reported images of good and evil, and also an image of a demon chained. It’s been awhile since I looked into all of this, but I do remember many not seeing a damn thing, and many of these were believers that had come a long way to see something including priests. But most importantly what did the cameras see? I’ll let this one spirited man tell the story. And you can also read how a popular newspaper reported it. They reported that, “Church deacons took testimony from those that thought they had witnessed an apparition and collected film from those who thought they had captured what they saw with cameras.” It also said the pictures were being locked in a safe for the time being, and Monsignor James said it was going to be used “as evidence to convince the Vatican that, just as Lourdes, a miracle occurred in Lubbock.” Nothing ever came out of it, but still a small group of faithful continue to visit and see such things, cameras never pick up on any of it though.

Briefly, I’ll say there is something terrible wrong with quite a bit of his teachings. From his pro-slavery stance, to his eternal damnation punishment for not accepting his beliefs; to cursing a fig tree, sending demons into pigs that are drove off a cliff; these are just a small number of many examples to pick from that I fail to see that are neither moral or truthful. There are some good parts in it, such as Jesus saving the adulteress portrayed in John even though it has been shown to be an interpolation, it’s still a touching story. Maybe another time for all of this or an entirely different thread if we both have time in the future.

Catholics believe that if a corpse is not corrupted, the person died under grace. It’s one of the possible miracles used to identify candidates for canonization.

The question of why she was exhumed is a very good one, since she was not at that time a candidate for canonization, by all accounts. It seems most likely that the Bishop of Nevers had her corpse treated with preservatives prior to her death, with the intention of later digging the old girl up and pointing to the fact that she had not rotted as evidence of her worthiness for canonization.

There’s the Miracle of Lanciano, last tested and verified in 1971.

If you don’t like Roman Catholics, there’s the Coptic apparition of Mary in 2000-2001.

Now I’m not claiming these actually were miracles sent by God, and I’ll grant you, bright lights in Egypt don’t compare with being thrown into a furnace and surviving. But they are relatively recent, and still unexplained.

Like ITR, I don’t believe that miracles are necessary for faith. If I’m going to believe there is a Supreme Being and Creator of All That Is Seen and Unseen in the universe, I freely admit that asking it to prove itself by showing me a miracle is pretty arrogant on my part.

They just pulled a man out of the ruble yesterday in Haiti who had been there for almost a month. That is a miracle. I’m sure when he recovers he is going to be a changed man.

We have miracles but we don’t see them as miracles. When a person spontaneously heals from terminal cancer that to me is a miracle. Every time a dead person is brought back to life that is a miracle. Forget about uncorrupted corpses and just look around you.

Why is that a miracle? It’s interesting, and unusual, but it does not defy logic or require us to re-think our view of the world. If it is a miracle it’s a pretty crappy one. You have a god that allows/causes an earthquake that kills hundreds of thousands of people, and wounds more, and then he chooses to let someone suffer for several weeks under rubble before being dug up.

I love the visions of Mary. We have no idea what she would have looked like, but every time someone sees an image that looks like a woman wearing a scarf on her head it’s Mary. Maybe it’s Yasar Arafat, or Benezir Bhutto, or celebrity Barbie. But of course not, that would be silly.

These are not the examples I meant by present, but thanks for the links. The miracle of Lanciano is supposed to have happened over 1,000 years ago. The only thing tested and verified in 1971, according to the source was that it was human tissue of the heart and blood, and that the tissue and blood were from the same person. I doubt that even means a miracle to you.

The other one while more recent, is still not the present of what I was referring too. I wasn’t there, but the way the story is told lights were appearing, and doves were seen to glow overhead. It is said it was witnessed by thousands, and many had photos captured on their videophones. I only saw the one pic on your link. It looks simply like someone shined a spotlight against a picture to get a glare. I wasn’t there, but I suppose if there was something to do this, it would have gotten more exposure. Supposedly this went on for nearly a week, night after night. If true, and there were that many with videophones, I would think there would be plenty of footage of this laying around somewhere, and surely somebody had even a high quality camera that would have recorded much of it.

And those that do, do you consider arrogant? If so, what’s arrogant about getting the good evidence first before one decides if something is true? And this particular god insists we believe in him, does it not? This is what I find backwards about religious folk. They go about believing in it first, and I would say get the good evidence later, but actually that’s not even required at any time.

Do you make an exception to the Resurrection?

There have been many verified cases at Lourdes of miracles and thousands of undocumented ones. I would love to go there and visit before I die.

a-miracle-at-lourdesl

Now that video cameras and the internet are ubiquitous, will there be fewer miracles because God is having a much harder time pulling anything off without it going viral?

And if miracles are fairly rare, why is it so important for some people that every large gathering include a mass prayer? Of all the documented examples of miracles taking place, are there any that can be shown to be the result of a mass prayer rather than an individual’s?

“Verified miracles” are meaningless. Church authorities are hardly objective analysts.