I do sort of need to know which of @Klax’ three criteria George Müller doesn’t meet, though, since he specified. That seems to be critical to his criticism.
I’m sure he can let you know… in a private message 
1 Like
It’s kind of important to the discussion. If he has no answer, that’s okay.
He will always have an answer according to faith.
@Klax wasn’t tracking when you added the new conversation. He has a reply there that belongs here, if you would move it, please.
He was a good man. Of his time, of his subculture, of his epistemology. He was no less faithful according to his beliefs than anyone, more than most by far in fact. A totally credible follower of Christ. Again, rational according to his lights and even by the mores, beliefs of the larger culture, most superstitious Victorian England. His story is easy to deconstruct and reconstruct rationally. Just like Maggie’s. If you need to believe it all as divine intervention, for your faith, as a result of your faith, that’s perfectly understandable. I don’t any more. My faith isn’t dependent on such accounts, none of which withstand rational, psychological, forensic deconstruction. They cannot be reconstructed with disinterested, scientific methods concluding with supernatural activity. They can easily be reconstructed parsimoniously without it. I would love it to ever be otherwise.
Is that the right one? Liam’s already asleep because you two have exhausted him so much. 
5 Likes
Yep, that’s it. (There’s nothing to do about where it is sequentially, though, is there.)
Of course it has nothing to do with him being in the UK. 
1 Like
Not that I’m aware of anyway…
It’s possible there were multiple factors involved… 
2 Likes
Aye, we faithful Olde Worlde rational fuddy duddies eh?
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.