.

Dear George,

.

You wrote :

« The Catholic Church does not “present” these things (miracles) as “evidence” of divine intervention »

This is how the Catholic Encyclopaedia defines miracles :

« … i.e., wonders performed by supernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed to God … Catholic theologians hold the view that the opinion of Locke, Trench, Mill, Mozley, and Cox, that the doctrine proves the miracle not the miracle the doctrine, is not true. »

Also, I see on the internet that Pope Jean-Paul II promulgated a document called the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) in 1992 which he presented in the form of an apostolic constitution which I understand is the highest level of Papal decree. The CCC apostolic constitution is called the Fidei Depositum.

Jean-Paul ii declared that it is "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith".

Here are some interesting entries on miracles in the CCC :

156. … the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability are the most certain signs of divine Revelation …

434. … in his name (Jesus) his disciples perform miracles, for the Father grants all they ask in this name …

548. … miracles strengthen faith in the One who does his Father's works; they bear witness that he is the Son of God.

You also note :

« Actually, it is explicitly stated that a Catholic does not have to believe in the miracles of Lourdes or similar places. »

The CCC has this, inter alia, to say about faith :

157. Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie.

160. To be human, man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will.

I found nothing in these sources that « Catholics do not have to believe in miracles ».

.

.

Dear Ojnab,

.

You wrote :

« I thought that the concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God predated Christianity. »

That is also my understanding, but the Catholic church modified that concept by recognizing Jesus of Nazareth as the son of God, born of the Virgin Mary who was impregnated by the Holy Ghost, and by introducing the Trinitarian doctrine of God defined as three consubstantial persons.

.

Dear banjo

.

You wrote :Encyclopaedia defines miracle:BUT/QUOTED/IT WRONG

«..i.e.,wonders;..*

..:..performed by supernatural-power/SINGULAR*
*as signs..of some special PER-mission or gift..and explicitly ascribed to God>>

BECAUSEV IT EXUISTED/AS WITNESSED/AND WAS CURED AS STATED/SO THAT THE WEAK/OF\FAITH/WOULD HAVE A SURE FIRM BASE[AS SURE FIRM/AS WE CAN DO WITH THE FACTS/AS WITNESSED;.

STENGTHEN YOUR FAITH/YES..BUT AS..STATED EARLIER-ON
EVERYTHING IS MIRACULOUS/TO THOSE WHO LET THEMSELVES FEEL WONDER/AWE/THAT WE ARE GIFTED///THESE KNOWINGS

<<..Catholic theologians hold the view that the opinion of Locke, Trench, Mill, Mozley, and Cox, that the doctrine proves the miracle not the miracle the doctrine,>>

is true

Also..<<>>the highest level of Papal decree.
>>The CCC apostolic constitution is called the Fidei Depositum.

Jean-Paul ii declared that it is "a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith".

of course/there are many levels/our klleaders need feed some milk/others meat.hence thev maNY CREEDS AS WE SORTED/IT OUT

<<..inter alia, to say about faith.:

157. Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of GoOd who cannot lie.

160. To be human, man's response to God by faith must be free, and... therefore nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will.>>

TRUELY GREAT STUFF

<<I found nothing in these sources that « Catholics do not have to believe in miracles ».

THOU SHALT NOT ADULTERATE THE WORD/ONEword
we all guilty of adulteration of the illiteration/translation[let alone the imagry/thing]

Dear Banjo,

These are more or less known positions. None of them contain the word “evidence”. That word was all what my objection was about. “Holding the view”, “most certain sign” etc are not the same thing as “evidence”. The Church does not use that word even when talking of Jesus, including Christ’s Resurrection, although it is bounding on Catholics to believe in them, unlike the Lourdes miracles.

There are many things that the Catechism (that you apparently know better than I) says nothing about not having to believe in.

George,
You object to me describing evolutionary transformations as 'magical'. But I think I have every reason to label such as at least mysterious, if not mystical. For from our observations in the real world, time and again, everyday we see biology reproducing after its kind. Such is the action of genes at work. Yet evolutionists have their theories that this was not the case in times long distant, when biota transformed from one to another: flagellum to flowers, to fish. and eventually to philosophers. I say it's mysterious because its a process we don't see now, a process no one has ever seen, and those who proclaim its truth sound unconvincing, except to the faithful.

Though it's a process unseen (unfalsifiable in your words), it forms part of the creation myth for the secular world. Every worldview or faith, even the secular, needs a good creation myth. This relates directly to the heart of this article, which concerns having one rule of law for all, the religious and the non-religious. Yet often our public institutions will heavy handedly favour one creation account over another.

I ask why are so many here wanting to define 'religion' (other than to discriminate against the religious)? You said it's because we have to know WHAT we do, or do not, want to give special privileges to. Yet no one here is wanting to give the religious any special privileges, not the author of the article, nor anyone here posting. Can you think of anyone? That is the point. It seems the motivation here is religious discrimination.

It's all a matter of categorisation. And here, George, I'd like to challenge your notion of categorising faith as concerning the WHY questions, with science asking HOW things work in reality. That's a pretty shallow perspective for someone of your intelligence. Actually, the Christian faith is terribly concerned with answering questions concerning the nature of reality. It asks what is the ultimate truth to which we must subscribe. God has answered such questions emphatically.

Dan S de Merengue

The book is a guide, and it has become the biggest teaching agent that if read right, teaches us the good part of us....

Now the baby boots have just come off....and if I may....quote..(with each new born baby we see better than our past.

To be strong in this world, you must know yourself...with out it, your just an animal, hence why religion was so important to the human race, hence what this thread is all about.

Knowing you......the best parts of course.

Humans still have a long way to go, but I believe in them.....just give them a chance, for me.

Kat