Re: Miracles and the Miraculous

miracle: noun
1. an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.

2. such an effect or event manifesting or considered as a work of god.


miraculous: adjective
1. Of the nature of a miracle; preternatural.

2. So astounding as to suggest a miracle; phenomenal: a miraculous recovery; a miraculous escape.

I think that everyone can agree on these definitions from dictionary.com.

On this blog and on at least one other recently, several questions have been raised about the topic of miracles and if it is possible that they have ever occurred. I suppose that this is only natural being that miracles, by definition, surpass " all known human or natural powers" and thus are "ascribed to a supernatural cause" which could at the very least be reasonably described as an outside, supernatural force or agent working upon something here in our plane of existance. It wouldn't be wise to ascribe every highly unlikely event as a miracle and nobody is suggesting any such thing. Such occurances should be tightly scrutinized to eliminate the possibility of a natural explanation to the occurance of such unlikely and highly improbable events in order to ascertain that what happened could be explained by strictly natural, materialistic processes.

"The real problem of believing in miracles is that it forces us to deal with a supernatural God-a being powerful beyond our wildest dreams who will one day judge us righteously and in holiness. For skeptics, miracles remind them of an intimidating God. As a result, people will go to great lengths to avoid the plainly supernatural elements of the Bible." [1]

The belief in the Christian God and miracles pretty much come part and parcel with one another. The Bible would indicate that God is a decidedly different creature than we humans are so to not expand upon the claimed power of God would not fit His description as found in the foundational document of Judeo-Christian belief. One could ask, if "God had the power to create the world and set all of its natural laws in motion, wouldn't that same God have the ability to perform a miracle-that is, to do something outside of what can be explained by natural laws?"[2] The ability to perform such miracles would be consistent with the claimed abilities of God. If one could create the world, then a floating axe head should be a piece of cake by comparison.

But the Bible isnt the only place where "miracles" are claimed to have happened. I'm not referring to great upsets in sports history or certain elections in which a lowly underdog actually achieves victory against an opponent that was clearly favored to win. One example of this is the so-called Miracle on Ice 1980 US Olympic hockey team's victory over the dominant team of that era from the former USSR (pictured above). Using the term in this way seems to water it down and it loses its meaning. I'm referring to very real events occurring in people's lives that defy a logical explanation and when critically examined with an open mind, little else explains how a particular occurance happened and one might indeed consider it a miracle.


Through no special process of elimination, I have come up with two different examples of what one may consider "miracles" for consideration. These examples were randomly selected in that they recently have come up in my personal life experiences and they are each in some small way representive of the overall catagory of that which can be considered "miracles". One could further delve into the subject should they be so interested. The first example would pertain to what I heard at church yesterday...


While attending the early (traditional) service at First Church West yesterday, Dr Norman Wise remarked upon something that caught my attention given recent discussions regarding miracles. Dr. Wise related to the congregation a peculiar occurance that happened the day before, peculiar in light of the circumstances of it's occurance. The church I attend also has a counseling ministry in which certified Christian counselors help people with their counseling needs. Marital, abuse issues, drug and alcohol, you name it, they do it. Numerous area churches refer their members to this counseling center in the event that a local pastor runs into a level of need that might be a little out of their depth to effectively deal with.


As it turns out, early in the week, last week, there was an important need for funding for both the church and the counseling center. Money was needed right away and Dr. Wise let this be known in very general terms to a couple of people. These few people were involved in fervent prayer for the past week, asking God for assistance in this manner. Then last Saturday, a bit of a suprise came to pass. There were donations made in the amount of $3000 USD each to both the church and the counseling center. Dr. Wise remarked that this was akin to "winning the lottery" insofar as he was concerned because neither ministry is large enough in that donations of this size are anywhere near a commonplace occurance. Furthermore, nobody else in the entire world was aware of the specific dollar amount needed by the church and counseling center except for Dr. Wise. One might try to rationalize the timing and specific amount of said donations, but I will leave it to your own personal consideration and reflection on the matter to sort it out for yourself.



The next example I would like to offer is from an article that I came across last week about a young lady named Rachel Lozano.

"Rachel Lozano didn't die of cancer as the doctors predicted, and she says it's a miracle.

Not a miracle like a last-minute goal or winning the lottery. The real deal: the work of God through the intercession of a saint.

Other Roman Catholics in St. Louis believe, too, and on Friday, the St. Louis Archdiocese officially wrapped up its investigation into the claimed miracle with a prayer service to mark the occasion. Boxes of testimony generated by the investigative tribunal — about 3,000 pages — will be sent to Rome, where the Vatican's Congregation for the Causes of Saints will examine the evidence.

Lozano said she doesn't really have to wait. She already knows the answer to how her cancer was cured, and "medicine can't explain it. "There's just a peacefulness inside me," she said, "whether the church declares it a miracle or not."...

Lozano had survived several bouts with cancer, and even underwent a stem cell transplant, but in 2002, doctors found a tumor growing near her heart, lungs and spine.

The news from doctors was all bad: Surgery would kill her. So would the cancer, in weeks or months, depending on which organ the cancer struck first. No one had survived a recurrence of this cancer after a stem cell transplant.


But she lived weeks, months, a year. Scans showed her tumor, which she named Spanky, wasn't growing as expected.


Eventually a surgeon removed the tumor and found it was dead.

"It was pretty astounding," her oncologist told the Post-Dispatch last year.

The Marianists order of Catholic brothers and priests found Lozano's case compelling and presented her story to the archdiocese as a miracle attributable to Chaminade, the order's founder. An archdiocese tribunal investigated, interviewing Lozano, her family, her doctors, and Tobin, among others.

The tribunal doesn't make a judgment, just gathers evidence. But Monsignor John Shamleffer, judicial vicar who served on the tribunal, said God picked up where doctors couldn't succeed.

"I believe in God's ability to do things we can't do," he said. "I have no reason to believe this is not a miracle."

Let me first mention that this is not the appropriate time to discuss the pros and cons of praying for the intersession of saints or for arguing the finer points concerning Marianism in that these topics warrant their own thread and can be discussed at a later time. If one were to do so and try to change the topic, then I could just as easily counter that had Ms. Lozano been Pentecostal instead, that the occurance would still be valid even though there are differing opinions concerning Pentecostalism's adherence to such things as speaking in tongues and Arminianism. It would only obfuscate the discussion.

Suffice it to say that numerous baptised, Trinitarian Christians were involved in praying for this young lady and her recovery certainly fits the definition of the word "miraculous".

I accept that one's worldview can affect how somebody can rationalize such occurances as those cited above. No less a source than Jesus Christ Himself was able to foresee such skepticism when he said...

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’

“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’

“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:19-31

[1] Kennedy, D. James; Skeptics Answered, Chapter 3, (1997), Random House

[2] Ibid

South Carolina Gripped by "Alvin Greene Fever"

Or as Byron York so aptly put it....

"This sign is from US 521, near Greene’s hometown, and hotbed of support, in Manning, SC. No signs for Republican Sen. Jim DeMint were spotted anywhere near the area, suggesting that Greene has opened an imposing lead in the early-advertising race."

I know, I'm terrible. It might have been wrong, but laughed my butt off over it anyway. Democrats have nobody to blame for this one except for themselves. Indeed, just how can a guy that has a felony arrest but has "no job, no house, no campaign website, no campaign headquarters -- indeed, no campaign" actually qualify as a legitimate candidate for US Senator for the Democrat party? Ann Coulter sums up the prevailing democrat mindset thusly...

"MSNBC's Keith Olbermann interviewed Greene as if he had Lee Harvey Oswald in the dock. Chris Matthews asked guests: "Do you think this has the look of a dirty trick -- sort of a Watergate number?" Watergate, you'll recall, involved the Nixon White House trying to persuade a mildly retarded black man to run for the Senate.

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a "legitimate" candidate and called his victory "a mysterious deal." (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)

They're hopping mad, these liberals, but it's not clear what their theory of the crime is. Before accusing Republicans of committing a dirty trick, apparently no one asked the question: "OK, but what was the trick?"


The key to Greene's victory (in the primary), you see, is that he got more votes. How do liberals imagine Republicans pulled that off? Mesmerize the Democrats into voting for an idiot? If they could do that, John McCain would be president."

On Napoleon and Gay Samoans

While perusing the web yesterday, I came across this article which caught my attention and I had intended to make an entry about it. It's regarding a very real, recent story out of Montana that reports upon the efforts by the Pink Hand to indoctrinate our kids, beginning with 5 year olds in the public school system. Quote, "beginning in kindergarten, school nurses will teach students proper terms such as "nipple, breast, penis, scrotum and uterus." Once they are promoted to first grade, children will learn that sexual relations could happen between two men or two women. By the time students are 10 years old, instruction will include the various ways people can have intercourse, be it vaginally, orally or through "anal penetration," according to the proposal".

It turns out that columnist Sandy Rios put together an article that is much more intersting than anything I ever could have come up with. A certain mother of a 2010 high school graduate recently wrote...

"Today I asked my son what country Napoleon was from. He said Rome.

He just finished 12 years of public schooling in what has been called one of the top high schools in the nation. Although he’s not a bookworm, he is a decent student. He has better than a B average.

He doesn’t know which country Napoleon was from – let alone what he did. I don’t think he was sick that day.

On the other hand, I’m going through his Social Study papers and see that he did learn that homosexual men in Samoa may perpetuate gay genes by being good uncles…

Twelve years. If education were a product we would be suing."

Is it just me? This is getting out of hand! But wait, Rios continues to document more hair-raising accounts from our nation's schools that will make you want to grab your monitor and throw it out the window...

"In Deerfield, Illinois, a required Freshman orientation class features gay, straight, lesbian and bi-sexual students telling 14 year olds the ins and outs of homosexual sex with their young audience strictly forbidden to tell their parents. In schools across the nation homosexuality is taught in every discipline from the use of math word problems related to same gender sex to the science of non-existent gay genes to history claiming Abraham Lincoln had a love affair with his law partner, Billy Herndon.

Massachusetts, Vermont and California have blazed the trail on these matters…providing co-ed bathrooms in schools and allowing students even in some grade schools to alter their gender if so led.

After the legalization of Civil Unions in Vermont, Outright Vermont, a homosexual advocacy organization hosted a weekend seminar funded by tax dollars that taught middle schoolers about a violent homosexual act called “fisting” and girls how to remove healthy breasts if they preferred to be boys…complete with photos and live demonstrations."

No wonder our schools are failing miserably in comparson to other countries where efforts are made to concentrate on Math, Science and Social Studies. PARENTS should decide what age is appropriate their kids should learn about sex, not gay activists who are pushing a slanted agenda. I heartily concur with Rios's closing sentence about our children's cirriculum. "Away with the gay Samoans and up with Napoleon!"

On David and Goliath

No, not THAT Davey and Goliath, the children's show brought to us each Sunday by the Lutheran Church, I'm talking about the Biblical account concerning a certain Philistine giant of a man and his claimed encounter with the future King of Isreal.

"Early in the morning David left the flock with a shepherd, loaded up and set out, as Jesse had directed. He reached the camp as the army was going out to its battle positions, shouting the war cry. Israel and the Philistines were drawing up their lines facing each other. David left his things with the keeper of supplies, ran to the battle lines and greeted his brothers. As he was talking with them, Goliath, the Philistine champion from Gath, stepped out from his lines and shouted his usual defiance, and David heard it. When the Israelites saw the man, they all ran from him in great fear. 1st Samuel 17:20-24

With the latest news from archeologists coming out of Isreal, it would appear the Goliath's hometown of Gath (or Gat) has been uncovered at last...

"An ongoing archaeological excavation in Tel Tzafit continues to unearth the ruins of what was once the city of Gat – described in the Bible as the hometown of Goliath.

Recent finds from the Tel Tzafit excavation are “fascinating,” Maeir said. The site, inhabited at times by Canaanites and at other times by Philistines, has remnants from many periods of history. “We are focusing on the Canaanite period, the Philistine period, and the Israelite period, and for now we're primarily in the Philistine period,” he said.

One of the most interesting finds was a piece of writing containing, among other things, Philistine names, some of which were similar to the name “Goliath.”

"We've found a rich variety of artifacts” showing that Gat was a major city at that time, he continued. “We are now discovering remnants from metal craft and bronze, and from the destruction of the city at the hands of King Chazel of Aram as described in the second books of Kings.”

Findings show that Chazel and his army laid siege to the city until its residents had exhausted their food supply, then attacked. Dozens of buildings were found that were demolished by the invading army.

Other buildings appear to have collapsed in an earthquake, possibly the one mentioned at the beginning of the book of Amos, he said."

Skeptics often cite "Science" as their main rejection of a Book of supposed "fairy-tales" and yet they fall suddenly silent when confronted with the fact that "science" (in this case archeology) is proving the Bible to be accurate every day.

Such a finding as this falls into the category of Proven True by the Bible as such finds as the recent discovery of Nehemiah's Wall, along with the historical existances of King Saul and King David, the city of Ninevah, the supposedly "non-existant" Hittite Empire and Sodom and Gomorrah . All of which only give credence to a Book so often maligned by skeptics.



But getting back to David, perhaps one of Christian visitors might care to comment on who actually killed Goliath. Was it David or Elhanan?

Happy Bastille Day!

Another July 14th has come and we are reminded take pause to remember of the horrific differences between the French and American Revolutions. One major difference between the two was that in the case of the American Revolution, Christianity (and more specifically, Calvinism) was central to the beliefs of it's leaders. France on the other hand, attempted to drive out any religious influences from the republic by replacing Christianity with the Cult of Reason.

Thousands were slaughtered in the ensuing tyranny. Much of it at the hands of the oddly named Committee for Public Safety. As one author aptly put it, "Now, it must be kept in mind that the French Revolution was not a purely atheist enterprise; only two of the members of the Committee for Public Safety, d'Herbois and Billaud-Varenne, were confirmed atheists. It is also true that the massacres may not have been a genocide proper, but rather the vicious aftermath of a civil war triggered by religious oppression and persecution by the Revolutionary French regime. But both the Committee and the Revolution were avowedly anti-clerical, and there is no question that the Revolutionary slaughter of 170,000 Vendéeans was primarily driven by anti-religious sentiment. So, the war in Vendée not only demonstrates the falsehood of the "religion causes war" theme, but also underlines the tendency of anti-religious regimes to commit large-scale atrocities." Link


Charitable giving all but disappeared after the fall of the Ancien Regime and to this day France is still ranked among the lowest in charitible contributions among industrialized nations.


French historian and politician Alexis de Tocqueville had this to say about post-revolutionary America...

"Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention .... In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united. ”

De Tocqueville further wrote:



The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other .... They brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion."

It is important to keep such facts in mind as we live in an age where historical revisionism is prevelant. I would only add that I find it interesting that the French press is divided concerning the participation of African forces in this years Bastille day parade. Contrast this to the press corps here in the US that unquestioningly accepts having an African usurper in the seat of executive power while according to a recent poll, less than 4 in 10 Americans believe what is most recent version of Obama's nativity story. Link

Author: Atheists less likely to be sentimental

Now David Hume, tell us something that we don't already know...

"Just listened o Paul Bloom, author of How Pleasure Works: The New Science of Why We Like What We Like, on a podcast (mp3). He notes that the chain of possession of items impacts how much pleasure we gain out of ownership, or at least our attachment to them. As an example, it is not unknown for people to be attached to the clothes and other personal items of a loved one who has passed away. The attachment may not derive from any sensory empirical rationale; rather, it is knowing the chain of possession and a sentiment that an essence of the loved one has been imparted (yes, I know that clothes may sometimes retain distinctive scents, but discount those details. The example holds true for objects such as pens which retain no sensory trace).

The strength of this sentiment varies from person to person. Bloom observes that there are individuals who have no sentimental attachment to objects at all. That is, individuals for whom objects are simply means to a bundle of ends, pure utility. So long as the bundle of elements remains invariant objects can be substituted at will. Bloom contends two demographic variables seem to common among this set of individuals who lack any sentiment toward objects:

1) Overwhelmingly male

2) Invariably atheist

(note that this does not entail that most males or atheists are circumscribed by this set!)


As someone who believes that the deep neurobiological root of theism is rooted in sentiment I find this eminently plausible. Perhaps one reason that atheists are unpopular in American society is that atheists are often so psychologically abnormal, and lacking in conventional sentiment and emotional response."

All of this is highly consistent and give further support to the the writings of one famous author who stated..."It is no wonder that the 2001 American Religious Identification Survey reported that atheists are one-third as likely to be married as the average American; these are the sort of men who believe that boring a woman with lengthy explanations of why her opinions are incorrect is the best way to her heart."

Freedom of "Worship"?

In yet another development in the culture war here in the US, Mark Hemingway points out a little noticed example of how the creep of relativism is affecting the policies of the current administration.

"As we learned earlier this week, even NASA's "foremost" mission is now Muslim engagement. The problem is that the Obama administration doesn't seem to know the difference between Muslim engagement and Muslim appeasement.

With little fanfare, the administration has quietly changed its religion rhetoric. Administration officials no longer speak of supporting "freedom of religion." Instead, they now speak of "freedom of worship."

It should be noted with bitter irony that the president first used the phrase at the memorial service for victims of the Muslim terrorist attack at Fort Hood, Texas. Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have used the phrase many times since then.

The change is of enormous significance. "[Freedom of worship] excludes the right to raise your children in your faith; the right to have religious literature; the right to meet with co-religionists; the right to raise funds; the right to appoint or elect your religious leaders, and to carry out charitable activities, to evangelize, [and] to have religious education or seminary training," Nina Shea, director of the Center for Religious Freedom, told Christianity Today.

Even Saudi Arabia could be said to have "freedom of worship," as the government allegedly guarantees the right to worship in private. Yet, proselytizing there is illegal, and Muslims who convert to Christianity face the death penalty.

Your government is now sending a signal to the world it is OK with this state of affairs. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, of which Shea is a member, worried in its annual report that the shift in rhetoric could have "concrete policy implications."

I first heard of this subtle yet important shift in policy a couple of months ago when Fr. Longenecker linked this article by George Weigel who wrote...

"... speaking at Georgetown University, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a similarly diminished view of religious freedom when she declined to use that term, substituting “freedom to worship” in a catalogue of fundamental human rights that included a striking innovation. Asserting that people must be free to “choose laws and leaders, to share and access information, to speak, criticize and debate,” the secretary of state then averred that people “must be free … to love in the way they choose.” For those with ears to hear in Gaston Hall that day, the promotion of the so-called LGBT (lesbian/gay/bisexual/ transgendered) agenda had just been declared a human rights priority of the United States, in the same sentence in which the secretary of state had offered an anorexic description of religious freedom that even the Saudis could accept (so long as the worshipping was done behind closed doors in a U.S. embassy).



One has to wonder if there is a connection here....



Religious freedom, rightly understood, cannot be reduced to freedom of worship. Religious freedom includes the right to preach and evangelize, to make religiously informed moral arguments in the public square and to conduct the affairs of one’s religious community without undue interference from the state. If religious freedom only involves the freedom to worship, then, as noted above, there is “religious freedom” in Saudi Arabia, where Bibles and evangelism are forbidden but expatriate Filipino laborers can attend Mass in the U.S. embassy compound in Riyadh."

They are right. Freedom of Worship and Freedom of Religion are not the same thing. Next, they will be telling Christians something akin to "Look, you have the Freedom to Worship, don't you? Just keep it in church Pilgrim". Or as Matthew Warner wrote last week...

"... practicing a religion is not just something we do in a worship service on Sunday. It’s not a string of trivial ceremonies we do out of respect for our culture or family tradition. It’s not something that is (reasonably) done half-way. It’s something that permeates every aspect of our lives. It effects how we run our businesses, hospitals, charities and organizations. It effects what we will and will not do in our employment. It effects our local communities, civil laws and political positions. It effects what we say, what we buy, what kinds of behavior are acceptable and healthy, how our children are educated and how we engage in the public debate to control all of these things. It effects everything.



The idea that we can separate the role our religion plays in all of these things is ignorant nonsense. Yet, that is precisely what Obama and his ilk expect you to do.



Many people at this point will disagree with me and insist on a “separation of Church and State.” First, these people have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is meant by the “separation of Church and State.” Second, every communal or collective aspect of society involves competing interests. My interests (religiously motivated or not) are just as valid as anybody else’s. It’s illogical absurdity that a point of view backed up by thousands of years of reasoned wisdom is confined to private “worship” and unwelcome at the public table, but the drivel of a malformed conscience fueled by self-absorption and a sensationalist media is just one of the many wonderfully diverse inputs."