I guess its believable if you dont really think about it.
Theres more probs to come.
Why mention divine intervention at all if not to support the story,
or say its not needed when its actually the whole point of the story?
Divine intervention can occur without breaking any natural laws, but we’ve already talked about that earlier. More than once.
1 Like
That may be so, though it is an assertion of faith, a fact
not in evidence.
It is also arguing against something I did not say. I did say " support"
which is-again- the point of the story.
A miracle is, after all, given as the reason he was unharmed.
If it was a dry bite or a harmless snake then touting it as proof he was under divine protection is making someone a number one flim flam man.
You cant have it both ways.
Now I will repeat with rephrasing: The string of of events described
each of which is only remotely possible adds up to a story
which has a very low probability of being true.
I dont believe it but I’ve no religious obligation to do so.
Also, to repeat: i was under the impression that this forum actually
was about examining scripture in the light of science.
The extreme reluctance to do so with this story seems entirely contrary to this avowed mission.
Dale, I missed it earlier when you said I am not trying to be objective, but am making things up, and ascribed a motive you guessed and stated as fact,. And got it wrong.
Such claims against my integrity have no place here.
In the interests of gracious dialog I suggest you retract it.
My point was that details not in evidence can always be imagined to ‘refute’ the account as written. Maybe I am alone in inferring an accusatory or confrontational tone in many of your posts, but “In the interests of gracious dialog I suggest you…”
Thats fine Dale if that is really all you meant.
Of course details can be made up to support or refute.
Please identify any such dishonesty on my part. You must have something in mind else why mention.
And then return to the subject svp, personal remarks are distracting.
Were you saying there is or is not supernatural Intervention?
The “natural law” thing was never an issue, so need to speak of that.
If your position is that a highly improbable story is true because
God made it happen, thats fine. Say so and no more needs to be said.
How many times have I said that I know God’s providence?
Who knows? The statement has very little meaning to me.
Whatever it may mean Im pretty sure it lies outside of science
which is the pov I am working with.
I am interested in analysis, others are satisfied with
miracles.
Maggie’s testimony is a beautiful illustration of God’s providences with multiple examples concentrated in a short period in one of his children’s lives. If you read it and don’t get it, yes, I understand why it has very little meaning to you.
In this case it means an utterly unrealistic story is automaticallY
true in every detail because " providence"?
Thats super easy to understand. Does it work for
Noahs ark, too?
Are you referring to Maggie’s account?
Remember what I suggested about a confrontational tone, and your complaint about gracious dialog?
Those of us whose worldview allows for God’s providential interventions in the here and now, some of us having experienced them, even recording them, are more likely to allow for them in biblical accounts, as well. And a couple of us have made very reasonable suggestions to account for your obstinate “utterly unreasonable story” objections.
I’m sure they appear reasonable to you,
nothing even vaguely unlikely.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.