Talk:Miracle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

== Headline text ==Emily is the best

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Miracle article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 First comments 2 Miracles and "Canonization" 3 40,000,000+ miracles 4 40,000,000+ miracles 5 Request for sources: Catholic view of miracles 6 Catholic view of miracles 7 Miracles in Africa 8 Pentecostal? 9 milk-drinking statues 10 Physics 11 Hume Miracles Section 11.1 Hume's views 12 Contemporary 13 Cleanup 14 External links 15 Wicca, 16 Islamic view of miracles 17 A few biased points 18 Prophecizing?

[edit] First comments

I do not think that this material belongs in this article. It seems to better be suited for an article on writing, culture, drama, or something like that. RK 14:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC) A miracle which me must believe in.

In this view, miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allow characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.

In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Deep inside each person is the longing to see the extraordinary, undenial, proof of goodness and divine love; and a personal desire for someone (perhaps even ourselves) to be special and possess wondrous powers to right wrongs for someone's benefit. Story tellers know miracle stories inspire wondrous deeds. Everyone wants to be a hero and bring about happiness. In these stories these deeds happen, dispelling doubt and uplifting faith.

Critical science and history take a back seat. Those far outside the world of the artistic story teller have difficulty understanding: for them there is only fact and fiction. It is easy for modern people to stop believing. Many of our ancestors did not. They held on to miracles and optimism in very brutal times.

Doesn't seem here to be any sceptical view of miracles - either from atheist or Protestant point of view. Or indeed how Catholics view miracles claimed by other faiths.

Exile 11:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles and "Canonization"

Is it still true that one must have two miracles attributed to him/her (posthumously) based on appeals to his/her spirit to intervene in order to be considered for canonization as a saint? If so, does this belong in the article at some place?

Answer: Sometimes. Two posthumous miracles are required for canonization, unless the candidate was martyred for his faith (martyrs don't need miracles to become saints).

Rlquall 21:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The final section, particularly the last paragraph, is a bit preachy for my liking. I'd agree that a more sceptical view of miracles should be added to the article as a whole.

e03bf085 21:35, 1 Apr 2005 (BST)

[edit] 40,000,000+ miracles

I quote the following from the Catholic part of the article: Since Adam and Eve set foot on the earth there have been an estimated 40,000,000+ miracles.

I come to the conclusion that you can't accurately calculate the number of miracles from the time of Genesis to the present. I believe that there is currently a growth of miracles taking place (especially in China at the moment). Is this number calculated for just the Catholic faith or for the whole of the Church? It's just I think that this number is rather small in ratio to the number of miracles which I have seen locally and I live in a very small country. Also you must consider the fact that God performs many spiritual wounds which can be counted as miracles as well. It has been reported from the house churches of China that 80% of Christians in the region are so in witness to miracles. At the time of me writing this there is well over 10 million Christians in the house churches and the current growth of the Church is 25,000 per day (taken from Mal Fletcher's book: The Pioneer Spirit, which can be purchased from Authentic).

Figures from the China house churches are quoted from the Back to Jerusalem web site http://www.backtojerusalem.com/

[edit] 40,000,000+ miracles

My opinion is that the "40mm miracles comment" should either be expanded or deleted
The message below was posted to user Michael Hardy, who added the comment recently.
Michael
First of all, congratulations for working on so many good mathematics articles.
I am writing however about the entry "miracle", which you edited on 24 Jan 2005 (quote from your comment: "I'm putting back some material that an anonymous editor put here earlier, purporting to present a Catholic view. This time it is so labeled and appropriately formatted for Wikipedia.")
Among the comments added is the claim that 40 mm miracles are estimated to have happened, in the history of humankind. While I myself do not believe in miracles as a religious manifestation, I would be interested in knowing how this estimate has been arrived to. I actually think that the basis of this estimate are a required addition to the paragraph.
I also believe that if such an estimate can not be described in some further detail and (as much as possible) in an unbiased way, then maybe that comment should be removed, having no sources or further detailed explanation.
To clarify further: I am unbiased as to whether that comment should remain and be expanded, or should just be removed. However I am adamant that it should not remain unexpanded in its current state. I will post this same comment in the entry's talk page, hoping to receive some illuminating comments from fellow wikipedians. Regards, gintaras 23:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sources: Catholic view of miracles

We definitely need official sources for the many claims made in the new section on Catolic views of miracles. Wikipedia:Cite sources is one of our policies. For instance:

• Anyone can perform a miracle if he or she adheres to the following points. Really? Anyone can?
• A Satan-assisted miracle is a temporary miracle that disguises itself as a genuine miracle....

[edit] Catholic view of miracles

I'm not certain that this belongs as it is, but my editing of it is to reflect a need to be gramatical if it is retained. A source for the alledged number of miracles would be really nice! Rlquall 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes... The article now claims that the Vatican records some 12,756+ events that it regards as miracles. That number is just the Earth's equatorial diameter in kilometres. Of course it might be a coincidence, but in a discussion of miracles any coincidence sticks out like a sore thumb. So, what about those sources?
—Herbee 23:57, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Could we get info for what constitutes a miracle according to Catholic doctrine? -Tydaj 3 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)

More than you may be looking for is here. This does not provide a source for the above claimed number, however. Csernica 5 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)

I can find very little support for most of what this section has to say in any standard Catholic references. Whoever added it has not responded to repeated requests for sources, especially for his rather odd figure for the number of recorded miracles. If no one objects, I'm going to give it a drastic edit sometime soon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miracles in Africa

Can anybody elaborate on this?: "Within the Christian church in Africa miracles are still a frequent occurance." I don't have a problem with it in the article, but I guess I just wondered exactly what was meant by this. DJPthousand 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pentecostal?

Why is this article in a Pentecostal category? Most Christian groups affirm the existence of ongoing miracles. We should either include this in categories for all of them individually if it's going to be in one; or just put it under Category:Christianity and not in any of the subcategories for each group, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] milk-drinking statues

... Hindu statues reportedly drank milk on September 21, 1995. The story received world-wide coverage by television stations including CNN and BBC, newspapers such as the Washington post, New York Times, The Guardian and Daily Express, and radio... Sounds fascinating! Something this recent in such mainstream papers ought to be in their on-line archives. Can anyone find a specific link and add it to this page? --Keeves 19:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Guardian's has been archived and is only mentioned in a story about a statue of mary bleeding now. Looking for the others. I added 3 refs: two of them mention these sources. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Also adding, this would be better in Modern miracles section, and I will move it there if and when I can find enough information on Hindu miracles to get more than one line, or when someone Hindu expands that section. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

there was hysteria for a day or 2 on the milk-drinking. It was quickly explained by capillary action and died down soon after that. Not many Hindus still consider that a miracle. I have removed that and expanded the section. I only tried to draw parallels to what is considered a miracle in Christianity, since the concept does not have the same significance in Hinduism. --Pranathi 23:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I put that in, as I explained above, until a more knowledgable editor could make a contribution. I searched online and the darn milk thing was 99% of the returns, so I thought, well, it will do until we get some substance here.

Thanks again for adding that substance! KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the search didn't reveal much because the concept, though it exists in Hinduism, does not have the same significance as in other religions. Miracles are not talked of by themselves or as an illustration of a figure's authenticity. Thanks again for the alert.--Pranathi 01:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physics

Quote: "Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur. These transcendent miracles include events such as the virgin conception of Christ and his bodily resurrection." What? This needs some serious clarification and smells far too much like pure speculation and/or opionion to belong in an encyclopedia article. What scientist has ever linked superstring theory or whatever with MIRACLES in any serious way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.151.80.30 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur, removed unsourced possibly OR speculation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "Another type of miracles are ones that seem to defy physics all together. Modern physics, specifically dimensional physics, help to explain how events that seemingly defy reality can occur." This is still nonsense, and in dire need of explanation/clarification/sources/examples, etc.

The section "transcendent and non-transcendent miracles" is bullcrap and must be destroyed. I, the anonymous editor, shall now do just that.

[edit] Hume Miracles Section

The section as currently written is

(a) far too long - perhaps this criticism deserves to be merged into the article 'Argument from Miracles'. If necessary there could even be an article on Hume's essay itself - it's quite well known.

(b) clearly POV. It begins by calling his analysis infamous for heaven's sake.

(c) Rather bad, IMO. I have only the non-specialists understanding of Hume's views on the subject of miracles, but this is egregiously awful. I suspect a college freshman posting his essay to the web...

--Gargletheape 19:27, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hume's views

Re DEFINITION. The definition that the article attributes to David Hume is very nice. It is, of course, not what Hume wrote in the chapter On Miracles but why should Wikipedia go directly to the source if such a nice formulation of what Hume might have said is available from another encyclopedia. Anyway, the main point is that by providing information on what Hume did not write, the subsection also in a way tells us something about the views that Hume did not hold, which was after all what it set out to do. Mission accomplished.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Or you could, you know, like, fix it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Re FIX IT. So what do you think I'm doing, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Being sarcastic on the talk page. Fixing it involves editing the actual article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 10:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re INVOLVED. This may come as a surprise to you, TCC, but in Switzerland, where I come from, pointing out a method for solving a whole class of equations is considered worth much more than actually solving one of these equations.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re SARCASM. Another surprise, TCC: In the Alps, sarcasm is not considered a crime. On the contrary, it is seen as the mark of every great writer. We can't all be great writers, of course, but we can pay our tribute to these giants by also using this tool now and then.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 14:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You asked what I thought you were doing and I provided a straightforward answer. I never said sarcasm was a crime, it's just not helpful here. And this isn't mathematics, where discovering the method is 95% of the work. It's an encyclopedia, where nothing useful is done until and unless the article is edited. I don't know Hume well and I'm frankly not interested in him. You do and you are. Why you can do nothing but complain, and refuse to to the work yourself, I can't imagine. Had you simply edited the article, it would already be fixed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

And actually, I believe you'll find that great writers frequently use irony, not sarcasm. Irony is a forceful way of making a point. Sarcasm is merely insulting. You don't need to be a great writer to insult; any moron can manage it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Re 95%. Right. In an encyclopedia it's 99.99%.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re FIXED. Right. 1 article out of a million would be fixed. Without anybody having learned anything.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re COMPLAIN. Who's complaining, TCC?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re IRONY. Right. But why should this be a proof that they don't use sarcasm as well? Show me one who doesn't!--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re INSULT. In the mountains, sarcasm is not considered an insult. Telling other people what to do and how to write, is. Well other countries, other customs, as we say in Switzerland.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 09:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: 99.9% -- All right. So your mathematics comparison was even more inapposite than I said. I admit I deliberately underestimated it.

The million articles are not all wrong. A great many of them have no serious problems or inaccuracies to speak of, at least not more than a reputable print encyclopedia like the Britannica. Besides, why not fix those that are wrong? Of course since there will be less to complain about it would spoil some of your fun, but hey, you have another 999,999 articles to complain about. And nobody would have learned anything? That's absurd. Any reader of the article would have learned something. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Complain? You are. I'm merely pointing out that complaining about a problem without doing anything about it, when doing something about it is perfectly within your power and indeed would have taken less effort than this discussion, is more useless than anything else. But perhaps doing useful things is not your purpose here.

Irony -- Yes, many great writers use sarcasm. It's a method of attack, not well-intended discourse. As many great writers have had occasion to intellectually attack someone, it's not surprising that they use it. Sarcasm is characterized as "biting". Irony is regarded as insightful. I suppose which is more admirable depends on the situation.

I live in mountains myself. You may be surprised to learn that they exist in places other than Switzerland. In these mountains sarcasm, especially the condescending variety you use here, is insulting. But now you're either being dishonest or are admitting to the charge. What was your initial sarcastic complaint about the article but an instruction to someone, anyone, to fix it? (I'm sure you might claim otherwise, but that would be highly disingenuous of you.) So you were being insulting at large, even by your own lights. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re MOUNTAINS. Well, TCC, thank goodness you explained to me what mountains you are coming from. Otherwise I might have taken offense at being called "deliberately obtuse", "condescending", "insulting at large", "highly disingenuous", "a moron", "dishonest", et cetera et cetera. But if in the American mountains this is taken to be civilized discourse, then that's fine with me. I only hope that you won't mind if I don't reply in the same way. In Switzerland we say: When in Rome, never forget you're a Swiss.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Re SARCASM (cont.) This morning it came to me in a flash: You, TCC, have never read the book that introduced sarcasm as a literary style to our civilization. I guess, like so many young people nowadays, you had the misfortune to be raised as a "free thinker". Had you ever read only one of the many beautiful verses in which the Bible uses sarcasm of the most explicit kind to make a point, you would have a very different opinion of it. But see for yourself. The book won't bite you, and you don't have to become a believer. Just give it a try. You will learn a lot. Not only about the uses of sarcasm but also about other things, such as intellectual pride and humility for instance. I wish you a very pleasant day, TCC.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You are a very silly man. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Re SILLY. Well, I assume this rates as an argument in the American mountains; and, no doubt, also in the back of the German woods. But let me show you what we in the Swiss mountains prefer: And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a God; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. Yes, you got it: SARCASM. The preferred way to talk to the prophets of Baal.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I correct myself. You're a very silly man, and you still haven't done anything useful with the article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

continued below>> Re CORRECT.

Re BELIEF OR OPINION. As mentioned above, a reader should be able to deduce Hume's views from the information given in the article. At least if he is an American. For the readers from Switzerland or other mountaineous regions, here is a short explanation of what Hume's essay is all about:

A man like David Hume would of course never have wasted his time discussing the kind of miracles mentioned in the article. Anyone willing to invest the 10 minutes that it takes to read On Miracles will see that Hume has something very different in mind: decisions that can only be "wrong". Nobody has ever seen a man raised from the dead (best case). Your best friend has never ever deceived you (best case). If this friend tells you he has just seen some Lazarus rising, should your belief or opinion be that he is right (miracle #1) or that he is wrong (miracle #2)? You can either be right for the wrong reason, or wrong for the right reason. Nobody (sorry, Mr Hume!) has ever come up with anything even approaching a satisfactory solution to this problem.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Re CORRECT. Nice correction, TCC. And so brilliantly argued. You feel that a silly man should do the work that, in your opinion, needs to be done. And not only a silly one but a VERY silly one at that. You want a very silly man to write articles for Wikipedia? That's what you want? - And they cried out aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 12:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contemporary

Followers of Sai Baba are sincere in their belief that he performs miracles. The dominant view outside the movement appears to be that this is simple conjuring. We can state the facts without appearing to form a judgment, I hope, and the same should be true of the others. That includes the section title: claims is neutral, fraud is not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

true. Some followers of Sathya Sai Baba continue to have faith even if they hear someone observing fraud or even when they personally observe fraud. Sathya Sai Baba himself gives various definitions of a miracle. One of his definitions is an event that attracts the attention because it cannot be explained. Andries 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re DEFINITION. If he wants this definition to make any sense whatsoever, Sathya Sai Baba would have to specify who would be qualified to decide that an explanation is satisfactory or not. Does he, Andries?--BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

Nothing wrong with content, but I think that the Christianity section contains more Judaism than the Judaism part. Needs attn. Flymeoutofhere 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I've just inserted a link to Cessationism in the See also section. At least one of the External links is more related to Cessationism than Miracle per se. Perhaps it isn't needed here. DFH 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wicca,

Most Wiccans do not consider themselves as Satanic. Many of them belive in a God and a Goddess. Some of them even believe that these are forms of the God of Love and Loving Light, The Greatest Spirit of all Spirits, the Ultimate Conciousness, or The Source of Life, the Universe and Everything. Therefore any association done toward Satanism would most likely not be from anyone within the faith. Most often it is in Christian literature as such. But Wiccan literaure has a different view. However, I have found that far too often Wiccan literature does sometimes do just the opposite of what they intend to do. Yet, if you examine my viewpoint you will see that so do the Christian literatures. Their creed is "Harm none, and Do what you will so be it in love." By Critizing the Christians they have violated the principle, because judgemental criticism is harmful. Sometimes they are careful, and constructively criticize. Just like Christian Literature often violates the law "Judge not, lest ye be judged." These are principles that all men must learn. Even myself.

So basically Wiccans believe in anything.

[edit] Islamic view of miracles

I started correcting the English in this section because parts of it were not comprehensible to an English speaking reader but I don't have time right now to finish. There are also some NPOV problems which should be addressed. I think the many Quranic citations should be in a separate list, as they clutter up the article and make it less readable. Do feel free to discuss this. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but would like to improve this section.Essaouira 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A few biased points

I found this article to contain some bias in the way "god" was spelled. There were many cases where "God" was used in the place where "god" should have been. This is a minor edit, but it is very important. The use of "God" in many parts of the article are biased towards the god of the Christian religion, who is named "God". I fixed a few of the issues I found with this. Some of the parts should be left as "God" since that is what they are refering too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.219.100 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The the first two paragraphs in the section for contemporary miracles seem to be more in the vein of recruitment brochures than encyclopedic entries - somebody want to have a look at that? I'm no expert, but I'm almost certain those don't belong.

[edit] Prophecizing?

I don't think that is a standard English word. I didn't edit, because I have no way of knowing what the intent of the author was here. Would someone like to standardize the word usage?

67.49.147.148 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Leif Palmer, 9:50 AM Hawaii time, March 22, 2007