Jump to content

The American heartland

Recommended Posts

I have an explanation for Duff's miracle. He drove home blurry eyed, but believed he was seeing clearly. No one but he can verify his vision during that time. I also find it implausible that he required someone to drive him to the opthamologist after reaching his driveway. Anyone who needs corrective lenses keeps spare/old glasses around the house. Even if he didn't have a replacement pair of contacts at home, he would have had a pair of glasses at home. He is to have us believe that he returned home to not have a supply of contact lenses or a spare pair of glasses. So that last part of the story must be fabricated. That brings into question the former part of the story. Do I call him a liar? No, but a story teller, yes. And an irresponsible one too for driving other people's children without corrective vision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Miracles? Miracles are easy to claim, impossible to prove, and impossible to disprove because there are no witnesses other than the person claiming the miracle.


Either you believe the person making the claim of a miracle, or you don't. Even among people who believe in miracles, there are those who scoff at other people's miracles.


I do not believe in miracles and never have. I was raised in a household with two scientists. My parents taught me to question everything.


I've heard a woman claim that is was a miracle from God that her toaster worked in the morning. I'd call that irrational - but that's just my opinion.


I tire of athletes hiding behind the false modesty that can be had under the guise of calling an exceptional athletic performance a miracle. When Mary Lou Retton nailed the perfect 10 on her vault performance, it wasn't a miracle, it was the result of years of hard work and dedication to her craft. When the US Hockey Team won the gold in 1980, it wasn't a miracle, it was the result of their dedication, hard work, and wanting it more.


When a person is told, based on diagnostic images that they have cancer, and when the surgeon discovers there is no cancer, it's not a miracle, it's the result of mistakes made, or equipment malfunctions.


When a 120 pound mother lifts a car off her child, it's not a miracle, its the result of the extraordinary power adrenaline can have on the body at a specific instant.


When a man claims his eyesight cleared up just long enough to drive down a mountain and deliver a van load of Scouts safely to their home, I say prove it - with real, objective, measurable proof. Otherwise, I call BS and state that it's a tall tale designed to help sell more books to the kinds of people that believe a car starting up on a 70 degree morning is a miracle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments about sports teams are humorous and I enjoy them, even subscribe to them a bit, being a Braves fan. But I also see the tip of some raw nerves exposed. I do not mean to provoke but merely to discuss the concept in a meaningful way.

The book is less important to me than is the concept of the 'miracle'. Calico stated that he does not believe in miracles. I'm not even sure what "believe in" really means. I just want to try to understand the view of persons who DO invoke 'miracles' and the basis for that invocation.


In general, without further reference to the mentioned book, it is a false dichotomy to limit choice between a phenomenon that can be explained rationally and a 'miracle'. The actual dichotomy is between the ability to explain and the inability to explain. Moreover, it diminishes the concept of 'miracle' to invoke it simply because of an inability explain something rationally. The inability to explain is simply a gap in our understanding, a function of our ignorance. That inability, as has been shown many times over in science, might fall once a rational explanation IS found.


However, some of us feel the need to fill that 'gap' by invoking non-rational explanations. And some unscrupulous people exploit this tendency in others for personal gain. I understand that almost any time in modern history, there have been (and are) hundreds - perhaps thousands - of persons trying to convince others of their (let us say) 'unorthodox' beliefs...often for personal gain.


I've been to Roswell as well as to another famous site of space alien visitation, Palmyra, NY. To me it is equally valid that God is a space alien from planet Kolob as it is any other claimed phenomenon that can neither be explained nor examined critically. And some might call even small examples of such phenomena 'miracles'.


But should the inability to explain something automatically qualify the phenomenon as a 'miracle'? I hope not, at least not in my view. I find it equally plausible that I (or the person relating the phenomenon) am merely ignorant of a rational explanation. Invoking 'miracles' does not give me much of a satisfying feeling of understanding in these cases. To me it is not only an acknowledgement of ignorance but also a statement that ignorance is in some way good.


So I was hoping that there was something more to the concept. Perhaps someone can elaborate?


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'scientist excuse'. I mentioned science only as it applies to rational explanations. As Augustine said, faith has no purpose except to transcend reason. So I grant you that within absolute faith, any belief is possible. Those beliefs are not rational, however.

I could just as easily ask, "what's with the faith excuse?" for your failure to explain anything.


"...plenty of scientist believe in miracles."

I grant you that there are individuals who engage in scientific investigation who profess to 'believe in' miracles. However the moment they invoke the miraculous they are engaging in something other than scientific investigation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Just following Godwin's Law . . .


The Nazi's banned marriage of Jew/non-Jew and also forced sterilization on those not deemed fit to procreate. So marriage as a right is not quite universal.


The state is already in the marriage business given the fact that tax laws are very different for single and married individuals. So, if the state wants to get out of the "gay marriage" debate - it should change tax laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Acco, until Loving vs Virginia in 1967, there were 16 states which applied anti-miscegenation laws. The spirit of those awful times for Germany lived on in United States laws for quite a while. I remember too that my elders claimed Biblical authority for that as well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...