June 21, 2011

• God's miracles

  I was thinking today that the miracles recorded in the Bible as being performed by God actually seem quite "optimal".   If they were 'stronger' (e.g. ?) they might be more 'impressive', but less 'believable'.  If they were 'weaker' (e.g. 'God healed my back pains'), they might be more believable, but less impressive.  But such as they are (e.g. healing of a man born blind), they have the optimum balance of strength and believability.

  If they were more observable/regular (e.g. 'anyone who goes to the top of the mountain of zinzibar at full moon will be healed of all diseases') or more universal (e.g. if Jesus healed ALL lepers throughout the world, not only those who came to him and asked for healing), they might be more quickly taken for granted and despised.   If they were less observable (e.g. if Jesus had not appeared after His resurrection to hundreds of credible eyewitnesses), they would be less believable.

  They are also quite different than the occult/sorcery miracles.   If you read/watch a typical wizardry story or movie, they're all about power for the sake of impressing people and/or waging war...  casting spells on people, forcing people to do what you want them to do, adjusting life to give oneself more luxury.   But the miracles of God were typically items of rescue, provision, and healing.  People in dire straits who were about to be slaughtered unjustly, or about to die of some irreversible illness, or lacking food/water, or drowning, or whose only son had just died, etc, called out to God for help, and God performed a miracle to help them.

  Beautiful.  True.  Beautiful that they are true.

  • 8:18 am
  • Comments Off