Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Religionists Arbitrarily Choose the Miracles They Believe in 

A miracle is an event that cannot be explained naturally. Natural laws cannot account for it. A conjurer can make a statue seem to bleed but if there is some way of proving there is no natural intervention and a statue is bleeding then the bleeding is considered miraculous, paranormal or supernatural. Nobody will ever understand a grain of sand completely. Nobody will ever understand everything about reality and nature. Thus nobody is in a position to say that something cannot be explained naturally. It is never possible to rule out a natural explanation nobody has thought of or can think of. There are laws we know nothing about and as for the laws we do know about we do not know exactly how they work together at any given time. At most, one can say it might be a miracle. But that does not entitle you to believe it is a miracle. So believing in some miracles is INTRINSICALLY arbitrary. The miracle is arbitrary by definition in the sense that you arbitrarily guess there is no natural explanation. If miracles are done arbitrarily, if we believe arbitrarily and if miracles are arbitrary in the sense just explained then it is evil to stand by and fail to discourage faith in them. Why? Because it means you agree that a being arbitrarily doing miracles such as forgiving original sin at baptism or making a monk float in the air is good while a little baby dies in agony without any miraculous cure.

The religious boast that they have evidence for their religion in the form of miracles is a lie for they abuse the evidence to believe and get others to believe. They lie to themselves and everybody else. And these are the basic good fruits of miracles! Good? Dishonest would be the right word!

When God makes a statue of Mary tell people to say the rosary and will not give us the recipe for controlling cancer so that it is no longer terminal what kind of God is that? The problem is that it is people's opinion that it is complicated and that he has reasons for this that we cannot see. It is too serious of a matter to just to have an opinion on. What if you are failing to see how bad and final this evil is? Misdiagnosing evil as being part of a plan is terrible for a correct diagnosis of a problem is needed to fix it right.

And the notion that there is a purpose that looks random but is not, depends on religion cherry-picking what miracles it is going to believe. It randomly chooses. A miracle where the Virgin Mary's statue says, "My son was fathered by a Roman soldier" will be ignored and not even checked out. People do seem to have incurable diseases that disappear but most of these are ignored. It is only the ones who suit what the Church wants to believe that are not. If the context of the "miracle" does not fit Church doctrine the alleged miracle will be ignored. It is one thing to say that miracles happen and to find it rational and sensible to believe and then say they only seem random for God has a plan. You are using evidence to argue that they may look random and not be random. It is another to make them random by irrationally and foolishly picking out what miracles you will accept like it was a restaurant menu. That is what the religions are doing and it is a total insult to suffering people who get no miraculous help from God.

Suppose miracles are not absurd in principle. A miracle is so out of the norm that reason demands that it should only be accepted by the investigator after a thorough, cautious and professional investigation of the evidence. Depending on somebody else to tell you the miracle happened for the evidence says so is no good. Most believers are insulting suffering people for the investigators are virtually non-existent.

To say that God is right to let a baby die in agony when he does the miracle of turning bread into Jesus at any particular Mass as if the latter were more important is horrendous. We should do it with extreme reluctance assuming we should do it at all. 

OUTSIDE THE PALE?
 
The Catholic Church teaches that miracles are evidence that it is true and that God exists. It says that God will never do a miracle outside the Catholic Church in another Church or sect that can be taken as evidence that that other Church or sect is the right religion.

 “Catholics logically hold that since God has authorized the Christian-Catholic religion, He could not work a miracle under such circumstances that it could be reasonably be interpreted as divine confirmation of another religion as a whole or of a doctrine contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church” (Miracles (Theology of) New Catholic Encyclopaedia). The Encyclopaedia maintains that there have been no miracles attesting to another religion or heretical doctrine and says that the idea of miracles having happened in them to support the points of agreement with the Roman Catholic faith in a false religion is debatable. The unfairness of this is evident for the Church says it believes in miracles for all the witnesses can’t be liars and then it scorns the testimony of witnesses outside the fold – how ecumenical: so we see that miracles oppose ecumenism! It is undeniable that if God does a miracle for a Hindu to give him evidence that God is almighty then the Hindu will not take it just as evidence for that doctrine but also for the entire Hindu religious package. Doctrines fit into a system so to give evidence for one will lead to the system of dogma being regarded as authenticated by implication. Suppose a miracle happened in Hinduism to verify some point of agreement between that religion and the Catholic Church which is the true religion. The witnesses are not going to interpret the miracle as the Church would like. For example, if a Hindu is cured of cancer miraculously by praying to the Blessed Virgin Mary that will only confirm to the Hindu that Mary is one of many gods.
 
In 1870, the First Vatican Council, which claimed to be infallible decreed that anybody who says that miracles can never be proven or that they cannot ever show the divine origin of the religion of Christ is to be excommunicated for heresy (The Encyclopaedia of Unbelief, page 454). The text is in the New Catholic Encyclopaedia and commands belief in miracles as evidences (Miracles (Theology of)): “In order that the ‘service’ of our faith be ‘in accord with reason’ [cf. Rom 12,1], God willed that to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit there be joined external proofs of His revelation, i.e., divine deeds, and principally miracles and prophecies. Since these clearly show forth God’s omnipotence and infinite knowledge, they are signs of revelation that are most certain and suited to the intelligence of all men. Therefore not only Moses and the Prophets but also pre-eminently Christ the Lord Himself wrought many obvious miracles and made numerous manifest prophecies” (Denz 3009). The idea that “miracles can never be known with certitude nor serve as valid proof of the divine origin of the Christian religion” (Denz 3034) was censured. The Anti-Modernist Oath of 1910 said that miracles were evidence for Catholicism. It had to be taken by all priests and teachers for priests under the regime set up by Pope St Pius X.

The suggestion that God will never do a miracle outside the true faith that people will take as an indication of his approval for the errors of a false religion is totally insane because most human beings are not rational. The fact that there are millions of religions contradicting each other suffices to prove that. And it is even more proven if there is a God for they are ignoring the promptings of his grace which helps them discern the truth so they still manage to listen to lies.
 
And the religionists lie in saying that no miracle can be proved outside their own religion which they maintain is the true one. They know that there are alleged miracles that they haven’t disproved. Nobody can be expected to conduct an in-depth study into every miracle claim that has ever been made. So when they are saying that miracles happen only in relation to their religion they are guessing which proves they are guessing when they call miracles evidence. They are only pretending to be sure. Jesus said you can tell a false man of God and a false miracle by the fruits (Matthew 7:15-23). Miracles have bad fruits and cause bigotry and arrogance and division and obstinacy when they demand to be unjustly treated as evidence. Jesus exposed himself as a fraud when he stated that the Devil had miracle powers meaning that it was possible that the Devil was supplying him with his preternatural capabilities. Jesus himself admitted that the miracle of multiplying the loaves and fishes had bad fruits for instead of making the people holy it caused them to run after him for free food (John 6:26).
 
St Vincent Ferrer was the most famous miracle worker of all time and allegedly the most powerful miracle worker ever. He was in fact a member of the excommunicated rival Roman Catholic Church led by anti-pope Clement VII. The man the Church believes was the true pope Urban VI excommunicated his rivals supporters as schismatics, excluded from the true Church and the Catholic Church still has the nerve to say that miracles only happen in the true Church and show us who the true saints are! Vincent’s miracles were intended to draw people into the false Church.

The Catholic Church accepts many unacceptable miracles as being from God which refutes her suggestion that miracles in a Church mean the Church is the true Church. For example, when a miracle of healing worked by a saint to be is accepted the Church has to wait for another one to happen and be authenticated before it will proceed with the canonisation. What this is, is an admission that miracles are not signs for one miracle should be as good as two. What this also is, is this: “God, we will make your friend a saint if you do another miracle and only then.” That is clearly tempting the Lord which both the Law of Moses and Jesus said was a sin. Jesus told Satan he would do no miracle before him to impress him for it was written that the Lord God must not be tested. The vast majority of miracles accepted by the Church are signs from Heaven that God wants the dead people they are attributed to, to be declared saints. When the first miracle encourages the sin of trying to tempt God and the second comes to show that it is right to tempt God it is obvious that the Catholic Church has no right to endorse miracles as evidence for the divine origin of the Church and all its official doctrines.
 
The Church says that God can answer prayers made by non-Roman Catholics. Answered prayer is taken as evidence for God though it is weak evidence for nobody can be very sure that chance was not responsible. When God answers the prayers of those outside the pale why wouldn’t he do miracles out there too? The Roman Catholic Church must see this. She is wilfully lying. Surely she sees that when her doctrine about miracles causes so much evil and deceit that the miracles must be from her Devil if genuine? She is capable of any lies at all. Though there is no evidence that some Catholic miracles have been hoaxes we should believe that the Church has covered up the real facts which are that no real miracle has taken place. The Catholic Church tells so many lies so we ought not to pay any attention to her at all. She is in the same category as the prophets who give a word from God that he never spoke (Deuteronomy 18). God commands that such prophets and revelators be ignored.
 
The modern doctrine that all love starts with self-love is a modern doctrine (a better formulation for it is the advice that you cannot respect others unless you respect yourself first). It is wholly incompatible with the Bible teaching that we must love the Lord with all our hearts and that this is the basic commandment and the commandment to love yourself is the second (Mark 12:28-34). Even Christian psychologists while giving an insincere assent to Bible teaching, support the new idea. This new doctrine has certainly caused an apostate condition within the Catholic Church. It means that the Church practices egoism though it is well disguised. God is used for spiritual thrills and not for his own good. The shift in spirituality is so serious that it means that the modern Catholic Church is not Catholic at all but an imitation. Yet the miracles are still happening. What use are they for teaching? Who is doing them? The saints of the Middle Ages all did miracles as a call to the people not to love themselves first but to love God first. Now better miracles are happening and all they show is that religion cannot be true or believable for the gospel alters with the times. It’s all politics.
 
When the Church has optional miracle beliefs then these beliefs are outside the pale for if the gospel cannot be added to then whatever they support it is not the Catholic faith despite happening within it.