If God really had revealed himself to mankind in the past, and if mankind recorded the events and bound them into a book -- would you expect that book to contain miracles?
In other words, I'd like to know which kind of a divine book would be more believable to you: A book that contains miracles, or a book that does not contain miracles.
2007-06-07 08:33:22 · 24 answers · asked by phriendofchrist 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Some of your answers had me laughing out loud. This is so great! I hope the replies continue all weekend. :O)
2007-06-07 08:44:52 · update #1
I would believe a book that could sing and dance.
But seriously, the Gods did reveal themselves to mankind in the past. Their stories and testimony were recorded by the great prophets Homer and Hesiod as well as the later prophets Plutarch and Pausanias.
2007-06-07 08:36:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
Here is something for you to wonder about.
Lets say that you are approached by some guy on the street. He introduces himself as the second coming of Christ and he wants you to follow him. He tells you of the miracles he has done and he has a bunch of followers that all back it up. However, he refuses to show you any miracles. You are just supposed to take his word that he performed miracles and the word of his biographers that he performed miracles without any proof of any kind. Would you believe he was the second coming of Christ?
Something else to wonder about.
There are lots of other religions that talk about miracles. What do you think of those? Do these other gods exist and give miracles? What about local folk tales involving miracles? Davy Crockett has many different stories with him pulling off some miraculous stunts. Does that mean that Davy Crockett was performing miracles or does it mean that someone embellished some stories?
Just because someone describes miracles in a book does not mean that those events actually happened. If something is described in a book that just cannot happen under any circumstances, then I am more likely to believe that the author of the book made it up rather than believe it was a miracle.
2007-06-07 08:42:08 · answer #2 · answered by A.Mercer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would believe a book was the inspired word of God if it somehow blew my mind with wisdom the way science does. God is not working hard enough if he can't keep up with Scientific American.
I was in a motel room once, and there was the Bible in the drawer, and there was a bookmark in it that pointed you to certain passages if you were feeling lonely, discouraged, angry, despairing, etc. And I thought, cool! Maybe they'll be something in here. But every verse you got sent to just basically said, "God is my comfort" or "God is sooo awesome." And I realized I was looking for something a bit more than that.
I would love for the book to contain miracles, and frankly I'd love to see miracles. I'd love my doubting atheist butt to get knocked over by seeing God's hand at work in the world. Nothing would be more comforting. Atheism is not the easy way out, by a long shot.
2007-06-07 08:46:45 · answer #3 · answered by Anise 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't need a "divine" book to explain God's existence. An ordinary book would do very well, if it happened to contain verifiable truth. Of course, since God is entirely imaginary, no such book exists. The unsubstantiated "miracles" contained in the current Bible do contribute greatly to my skepticism. Please understand, it's not the presence or absence of miracles that degrades the Bible's veracity; it's the total absence of objective truth. ...that, and the fact that most practicing Christians apparently don't understand the difference between subjective experience and objective reality.
2007-06-07 09:04:34 · answer #4 · answered by Diogenes 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No book would be more believable to me, except maybe a science book. Books are made by man and as a result contain what man would WANT to believe. That does not make it true.
2007-06-07 08:45:04 · answer #5 · answered by punch 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm with Giovanni, I'd believe a book that itself performed miracles. And no, "Stopping my drinking through the belief in the Lord," does not qualify as a miracle to me.
2007-06-07 08:37:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Neither. A miracle that can't be studied isn't a miracle.
And you know, if a god really wanted it to be believable he would get the science right.
"When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know."
-- Mark Twain
2007-06-07 08:43:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd want a book that was straight forward and literal.
"Here's how I created the universe:
Here's the key to quantum indeterminancy:
Here is something in every language ever going to be spoken: "
In short, something that didn't rely on vague symbolism, but came right out and proved the existence of a deity.
2007-06-07 08:39:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No book is proof. Any book is words on paper - no more no less. Each reader decided for his or herself if what is read is holy or not. No book is divine and every book is divine.
Your question, therefore, really makes no sense. You are trying to get someone to define your question about your faith in the Bible.
2007-06-07 08:43:02 · answer #9 · answered by yarn whore 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No book contains miracles. It may have stories about "miracles", but that's all.
2007-06-07 08:40:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋