Why doesn't God call any more?

June 12, 2007 6:29 PM

Are there strong theological explanations for why the current activity in miracles isn't quite what it used to be? No more pillars of salt, burning bushes, days being stopped etc... Doesn't he love us?
posted by wilful to religion & philosophy (45 comments total)

We've lost our incredulity.

Look at it this way: if you saw, say, a burning bush, would your first reaction be to get down on your knees and praise the Lord, or look for the cameras and film team?

I remember seeing an X Files episode on this subject--Sully, the Catholic, believes the visions people are seeing are miracles, while for once Fox is the skeptic.

Besides, who's to say they aren't happening all the time, but in the form of images of the Virgin Mary on toast, etc.?
posted by misha at 6:42 PM on June 12, 2007

According to some interpretations of I Corinthians 13:10, "When that which is complete has come" (the Holy Spirit, and through it the New Testament) "that which is in part" (miracles and speaking in tongues) "will be done away." So the age of miracles ended when the New Testament was recorded, becaues miracles were an imperfect vehicle to faith and were always meant to be replaced with something better.
posted by kindall at 6:43 PM on June 12, 2007

There's some thoughts from one Christian group here, here and here. That's mainly in reference to the miracles of the apostles, though. And clearly there are other Christian sects who still very much believe in miracles.

For the more old-school-vengeful-God sort of miracles you're talking about, I'm not so sure. Maybe Jewish sources would be more enlightening.
posted by Jimbob at 6:44 PM on June 12, 2007

This isn't a theological explanation but it may be a useful one regardless. It's an excerpt from John Searle's book Mind, Language, and Reality. In this section titled "Beyond Atheism", he offers the following explanation for why people don't seem to take note of what once would have been seen as religious miracles.

Beyond Atheism


What has happened? I think that most people would suppose there has been a decline of religious faith among the more educated sections of the population in Western Europe and North America. Perhaps that is true, but it seems to me that the religious urge is as strong as ever and takes all sorts of strange forms. I believe that something much more radical than a decline in religious faith has taken place. For us, the educated members of society, the world has become demystified. Or rather, to put the point more precisely, we no longer take the mysteries we see in the world as expressions of supernatural meaning. We no longer think of odd occurrences as cases of God performing speech acts in the language of miracles. Odd occurrences are just occurrences we do not understand. The result of the demystification is that we have gone beyond atheism to a point where the issue no longer matters in the way it did to earlier generations. For us, if it should turn out that God exists, that would have to be a fact of nature like any other. To the four basic forces in the universe gravity, electromagnetism, weak and strong nuclear forces we should add a fifth, the divine force. Or more likely, we would see the other forces as forms of the divine force. But it would still be all physics, albeit divine physics. If the supernatural existed, it too would have to be natural.



A couple of examples illustrate the change in our point of view. When I taught as a visiting professor at the University of Venice, I used to walk to a charming Gothic church, the Church of the Madonna del Orto. The original plan had been to call the church San Christoforo, but during its construction, a statue of the Madonna was found in the adjoining orchard, and it was assumed to have fallen out of heaven. A statue of the Madonna fallen out of heaven into the orchard of the very church grounds was miracle enough to warrant the name change to the Church of the Madonna of the Orchard. Here is the point of the story: if today a statue were found near a building site, no one would say it had fallen out of heaven. Even if the statue were found in the gardens of the Vatican, the church authorities would not claim it had fallen out of heaven. That is not a possible thought for us because, in a sense, we know too much.



Another example, also from Italy. When I taught at the University of Florence, my parish church, if I may so describe it, was San Miniato, located on a hill overlooking the city, and one of the most stunning edifices in all of Florence. Why so named? Well, it seems that San Miniato was one of the first Christian martyrs in the history of the city. He was executed by the Roman authorities in the third century. He survived the assault of the lions in the arena, but his head was then cut off. After his decapitation, he got up, tucked his head under his arm, and marched out of the arena, across the river, and out of the town. He climbed up the hill on the south side of the Arno, still carrying his head, until he reached the top, where he sat down. On that site the church now stands. Today's guidebooks are rather bashful about telling this story, and most do not recount it at all. The point is not that we believe it is false, but that we don't even take it seriously as a possibility.



The fact that the world has become demystified to the point that religion no longer matters in the public way that it once did shows not so much that we are all becoming atheists but that we have moved beyond atheism to a point where the issues have a different meaning for us.
posted by inconsequentialist at 6:53 PM on June 12, 2007 [5 favorites]

Technology makes it easy for cultures to get jaded.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 6:55 PM on June 12, 2007

>days being stopped etc

Perhaps lots of days get stopped. You'd never notice.
posted by pompomtom at 6:59 PM on June 12, 2007

Why doesn't God call any more?

Hmm, not sure about the connection between "God calling" and miracles but the form of your question presumes God doesn't call anymore so, for myself at any rate, I can't answer directly. Many would say God calls. For example, some people deeply involved in "humanitarian" works of various kinds would report "it's a calling" or more directly, they feel "called by God to do this work". Good question, don't know if that helps sort it out any.
posted by scheptech at 7:00 PM on June 12, 2007

Scheptech, I think wilful was asking why God doesn't come down and show himself in obvious ways anymore - he doesn't appear as a burning bush, doesn't come down to the mountain to have a chat with Moses, there's no booming voice from heaven. That's what was meant by "God doesn't call anymore".

I should add to my post above that the most common excuse given by Christians to this question, in my experience, is that proof makes faith unnecessary, and faith is important. Somehow, there's more value in believing in God without evidence, than in God just turning up and proving that he exists.
posted by Jimbob at 7:10 PM on June 12, 2007

Everyone's being so nicey-nice here, but you could just as easily say that miracles were a specific tactic used by the overwhelming political and economic elite to deliberately cow the population and ensure compliant and pliable subjects.

Miracle creation, though, works best when the overarching theology demands that humans NOT read and study the bible but approach Jesus Christ strictly via a mediator - the Church (of course, this is the Roman Catholic Church).

Martin Luther and Calvin and others started a process that was truly revolutionary. One of the cores of those many beliefs, which fall under the umbrella "Protestant", is that individuals should read the bible and develop a personal relationship and/or understanding of Jesus Christ/God.

To come to your own terms with the bible, though, requires literacy and a certain amount of education - and removes a great deal of the power of the Church as institution - hence, as a body that can cynically create and promote the concept of miracles as a power-gathering strategy.
posted by mikel at 7:11 PM on June 12, 2007

Just to be clear folks, I'm talking about current theological explanations, not rational ones, and I'm talking about the big obvious stuff, that had it’s heyday in the Old Testament, and has slowly disappeared (particularly post-enlightenment). Hey I can see the correlation, but that’s not my question.
posted by wilful at 7:14 PM on June 12, 2007

A Christian might say that the Old Testament miracles were all laying the groundwork for the ultimate miracle, the life of Jesus. Since Christ's appearance sums up everything God wants to communicate to us, there is isn't a need any more for the flashier kind of miracle. That's one way to look at it.
posted by gubo at 7:14 PM on June 12, 2007

Might say? Surely someone has addressed this directly.
posted by wilful at 7:15 PM on June 12, 2007

Somehow, there's more value in believing in God without evidence, than in God just turning up and proving that he exists.

perhaps that is because believing without evidence is a much harder task than believing with evidence?

after all, it seems our society puts more stock in overcoming adversity than in taking the easy way out.
posted by violetk at 7:15 PM on June 12, 2007

and, presumably, getting into the kingdom of heaven shouldn't be an easy ride.
posted by violetk at 7:17 PM on June 12, 2007

Asking this in the land of secular humanists is like asking a bunch of people who live in death valley why it never seems to rain anymore.

People that find miracles relevant would be able to cite plenty of miracles now - there is no dry spell.
posted by extrabox at 7:18 PM on June 12, 2007

Your question presumes that miracles used to occur, and now do not.

A possible answer to your question is that miracles didn't occur then, just like they don't occur now.
posted by jellicle at 7:32 PM on June 12, 2007 [3 favorites]

What extrabox said.

Who says that miracles aren't happening any more? Apparently Wilful isn't perceiving any miracles, but that doesn't mean they aren't happening or that other people aren't experiencing them as they move closer to the Divine.

There are many theologies in which the process of revelation is personal, and proceeds at its own pace with each distinct individual. From this perspective, the descriptions of miracles in scripture are symbolic guideposts that help people orient themselves as they undergo religious experience. CF Joseph Campbell and the Hero with a Thousand Faces.
posted by alms at 7:43 PM on June 12, 2007

Deus absconditus might be relevant.
posted by Abiezer at 7:43 PM on June 12, 2007

Jesus' life, death and resurrection was the creation of a new covenant between God and the human race. He is THE miracle. Even when he was on earth, people asked him for a sign:

So they asked him, "What miraculous sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do? Our forefathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written: 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." "Sir," they said, "from now on give us this bread." Then Jesus declared, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty. John 6:30-35
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:44 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Ditto on all of the points made here about Jesus eliminating the need certainly for powerful or visible miracles (burning bushes, etc.) It is my personal belief that the love of human beings outputs miracles from God on a regular basis.

Another important consideration is the time involved. The Old Testament takes place (at least) over 4000 years, so it wouldn't be difficult to take all of the miracles there to heart and still assume that a person who lived 80 or 90 years would never see one. Still, reports of miracles come from non-European and American societies all the time (see all the sightings of the Virgin Mary, the recent birth of a shark to a virgin mother, etc.)
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:49 PM on June 12, 2007

I think wilful was asking why God doesn't come down and show himself in obvious ways anymore

I don't know but here's a thought. If God were to do something obvious now it would be electronically recorded and disseminated around the world leaving little room for doubt or for the "deciding" process that's so important in the Christian view. There's something vital, in that view, in people making a voluntary decision for good vs evil, for Christ. Deciding in the face of ambiguity and doubt, to trust in Him anyway. An obvious God demonstration would remove our choice, our free will, in the matter. Miracles done 2000 years ago and recorded in a old collection of books can easily be doubted and of course are. This is an answer to the more general question of why, if God wants us to believe in Him, he dosn't simply make His existence more obvious. I think this is found in C.S. Lewis, but possibly it's not original with him and someone has an earlier reference.
posted by scheptech at 7:49 PM on June 12, 2007

Google/Wikipedia tell me the belief that miracles have ceased is called Cessationism. Of course, the fact it has a name implies not everyone believes miracles have stopped. Catholics, for example, require two miracles to be attributed to a person before they may become a saint, and since they're still canonizing people, clearly they still recognize miracles. And Pentecostals, among others, still speak in tongues on a regular basis, if that counts.

Here's one guy's argument against modern miracles. He cites scripture but I have no idea how accurate/in-context his citations are.

Here's a different guy that (I think) cites some verses as to why miracles can still happen. Again, can't vouch for any of it but it might be of interest.

Try Googling with terms like lack miracles today theology and see if you can't find some more options. There's no answer yea or nay for this one, since it's clearly a controversial point even among devout Christians. (And certainly among those of other faiths, but since you cited Biblical miracles and since Christians are so numerous, especially w/r/t posting about miracles on the Internet, I focused on that angle.)
posted by SuperNova at 7:50 PM on June 12, 2007

I think there are a couple of assumptions embedded in your question that are not valid, specifically:

(1) "current activity in miracles isn't quite what it used to be." There are many religious people that believe miracles happen all the time. They might think they don't get reported on, or people try to explain them away, but they certainly happen, and with similar frequency. I don't mean The Gods Must Be Crazy people, I mean the guy next to you on the bus. I know people that think this way.

(2) "[the mirabilis per annus rate] isn't quite what it used to be" Lots and lots of religious people don't necessarily think the miracles literally happened. Or that maybe not all of them happened. At any point on the literalness continuum between "the various holy books are literal accounts of events that happened" and "they are a hoax", you can find a large number of religious people who hold that position, even among groups where this isn't stricly "allowed" (Catholics, for example. The Catholic Church says you buy the whole magilla or you get none. Many people (certainly most in America) who call themselves Catholic don't hold this view). Some people think they are allegories, or parables.

There is also a school of thought that says that after Jesus we enter into a no-miracle age until the End of Days. This is related to the New Testament superceding the Old Testament (and consequently is related to reason that many Christians think its fine to mix wool and cotton, why they insist on sticking to the less savory holdings of Leviticus but think God's new Covenant supercedes these details I can't tell you). I don't remember the details but IIRC it has to do with Jesus symbolically taking on the role of God's Covenant with his people: once this was represented by the rainbow, then by the crumbled tablets toted around the desert in the ark, and then by Jesus. Each of these promises establishes a separate age with different rules and such forth. This one has no miracles.

Here is a good general rule for answering questions of the form, "Are there strong theological explanations for...": The answer is Yes. For any arcane thing you can think of, there is definitely a strong theological explanation. Surely you've heard the quip regarding the angels and their pin-dancing. It may not explain why people actually believe something, you may not buy it, it may even include a logical inconsistency (but no more overt than say cogito ergo sum), but there will be one. You gotta remember that all the smartest people in the Western world worked on this stuff 24/7 FOR OVER A THOUSAND YEARS. Aquinas, for example. Some years, he wrote the bulk of the series. Not exactly a lightweight, dude. Think of a Pillar of Western Civilization from earlier than 1600: Whoever did it, it was probably a side project. They probably earned their daily bread trying to reconcile the crazy crap in the Bible with whatever they could see around them.
posted by jeb at 7:52 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

My niece is about to turn 2. Her mom was told 10 years ago that she'd never get pregnant and if she did she'd miscarry and if she managed to bring it to term, the kid would be mentally and/or physically handicapped. She was told this by multiple doctors.

My niece runs around the house, is shockingly intelligent, has an ear for music and her birth was very smooth and natural.

Some would call that a miracle, but I think the baby brother my niece is about to get in 2-4 weeks might trump that.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:02 PM on June 12, 2007

From an Old Testament perspective: God's hiding. The Hebrew term is hester panim--literally, "hiding of the face."

There's a lot about it that I can't remember (or do justice to the complexity of--which seems called-for whether or not I *agree* with the reasoning), but this is an interesting summary:

What role does Hester Panim play in the Divine plan? Why would G-d choose to hide Himself from humanity? Hester Panim is actually a Divine gift that allows humanity freedom of choice. If a child is told not to eat a cookie by its mother, but the mother remains in the kitchen to watch, then the child isn't going to take the cookie. Once mother leaves the room, though, it is the child's free choice that determines what happens to the mother's ruling. At the same time, when mother leaves the room, she is aware of her child's behavior, listens for danger and is ready to jump to the rescue. So too, G-d leaves us to give us space and allows us to make our own free choices, but He is always waiting on the periphery to protect us from ultimate harm.

posted by needs more cowbell at 8:40 PM on June 12, 2007

Why won't god heal amputees?
posted by Neiltupper at 8:44 PM on June 12, 2007 [2 favorites]

Actually, there are still quite a lot of miracles going on. At least among Catholics. Given that modern-era Catholics are making their way through the process of sainthood, and one of the requirements of sainthood is the performance of miracles, from a theological standpoint miracles are still alive and well.

Maybe God does talk to people, but who believes in prophets anymore? If I told you I talked to God, you'd think me crazy. Hell, there were plenty in the Biblical era that thought the prophets then were crazy. So it could be going on, but it's not publicized and when it is it's dismissed. As for pillars of salt and burning bushes, again, you haven't heard about them or they're explained away with science.

(Not saying I believe this myself, but it is an entirely plausible explanation)
posted by schroedinger at 8:55 PM on June 12, 2007

It's too late to go a googleing at the moment, but look up and read about Julian Jaynes and his "Evolution of Consiousness through the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind".

His theory has come under fire recently, maybe some of this archelogical evidence from the '70s has had been disputed by more recent information...

The basic idea... between the 10,000 BC human and the 4,000 BC humans, and the 0 BC humans... a change took place in our brains. We went from animal without voice to human with voice...

Around 10,000 BC, when you heard a voice inside your head warning you that that guy down the road wanted to hurt you, it was the voice of the Gods inside your head protecting you. By around 0 BC, the same experience was your intuition telling you that the guy down the road wanted to hurt you.

Basically, back in the ancient times, the voices in your head were not considered to be your intuition, but were considered to be the actual voices of your ancestors or leaders, (long since dead, and therefore Gods)....

Everybody back around the 4,000 BC era was what we would consider to be schitzo... In later times, only the touched by God prophets living out in the desert were in true daily contact with a supreme being. By the 0 BC era, only a few temple people could claim direct contact with God. After that it's all hearsay.

In the olden days, due to a misunderstanding of the mind, and the acquisition of language, an idea in your head came from God. Later, as the majority of people learned that the voices came from within, and were your intuition, those that thought the voices came from outside their head were prophets. Even later, now we think that people who hear voices in their head are crazy.

When you somehow know that it will rain tomorrow, if you just have a gut feeling that it will rain tomorrow you are normal... if there is a voice in your head that you do not recognize that tells you that it will rain tomorrow, you are schitzo.... if there is a voice in your head that tells you that it will rain tomorrow and you are religious, then God had told you that it will rain tomorrow...

The prophets and miracle recieving people of the long past were the last of the crazy people who listened to the voices in their head without realising that the voice inside their head was their own voice...

We've evolved from a time where everything that we knew that wasn't obvious was from the Gods... to a point where we realize that our 'gut' feelings are just another part of us, and not the words of the Gods.

Basically, human people of today's age know that the little voices inside their head are themselves.... a gut feeling of "don't do that" is just that, a gut feeling. In the past, a "don't do that" came from nowhere and was assumed to come from the Gods.

Ages ago, every living person was in direct contact with the Gods. Then only the crazy people out in the desert were in direct contact with the Gods. Today there is no direct contact with the Gods, except for the crazy people who talk to the Gods every day.... Now we put them in an asylum.

Anyway, Julian Jaynes (even will all of his faults) still explains the ancient direct contact on a daily basis with the Gods vs the current lack of Godly participation in the world.

Sorry, talking to God == Crazy.
posted by zengargoyle at 9:13 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

How many times does the questioner need to say that he's looking for a contemporary theological explanation, not all this other crap people are posting??
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:59 PM on June 12, 2007 [1 favorite]

as much as i like this answer, the opposite also makes sense (and this sorta has to do with this answer), that is, in ancient times, no one understood much of anything, so magical food coming from the sky was awesome, but hey, so were lunar eclipses. And rain. And lightning. In a sense, when you lack the science, you can't be sure what is a miracle, and what isnt.

So, assuming a diety that didnt want to give away His/Her existance as a matter of fact (and this sorta has to do with this answer), miracles were allowed in ancient times: they didnt prove anything. But today, with all the physics and science that we know, given the possibility of examining a true miracle, witnessing a real violation of the laws of the universe, we'd be left with proof of God's existance which He/She may not want.
posted by milestogo at 10:05 PM on June 12, 2007

Well, Bush was reelected ;)

In a world where human thinking has become more sophisticated and skeptical, burning bushes and apparitions and all that will probably not have the same effect that they did on ancient desert tribes.
posted by casarkos at 10:13 PM on June 12, 2007

looking for a contemporary theological explanation

Well, in the realm of theology, C.S.Lewis (60 years ago) is up to date. Actually thinking about it some more, he said that God will indeed reveal himself as stated in the bible. And when that happens, the world as we know it will come to an end. Because: it's about the "deciding" thing, we live in an time when "deciding" can happen and matters, when God puts in an obvious appearance, the deciding time will be over. This is certainly part of contemporary thinking.
posted by scheptech at 11:05 PM on June 12, 2007

CONTEMPORARY THEOLOGICAL EXPLANATIONS!
PLEASE!

I'd really like to see this answered, too
posted by bunglin jones at 11:05 PM on June 12, 2007

From Jack Miles' God: A Biography (New York: Knopf, 1996):

God's last words are those he speaks to Job, the human being who dares to challenge not his physical power but his moral authority. Within the Book of Job itself, God's climactic and overwhelming reply seems to silence Job. But reading from the end of the Book of Job onward, we see that it is Job who has somehow silenced God. God never speaks again, and he is decreasingly spoken of. In the Book of Esther--a book in which, as in the Book of Exodus, his chosen people faces a genocidal enemy--he is never so much as mentioned. In effect, the Jews surmount the threat without his help.

What is the meaning of the long twilight of the Hebrew Bible, its ten closing books of silence? The twilight is not followed by darkness: God does not die. But he never again intervenes in human affairs, and by accumulating implication, no further intervention is expected of him. His chosen people, returned from exile, cherishes him more than ever as his life ends-more, certainly, than when he vanquished Pharaoh "with mighty hand and outstretched arm" and led them through the desert to the promised land. Back then, they were recalcitrant, and he called them, bitterly, "stiff-necked." Now they are devout, but he has nothing further to say to them or about them--or to or about anybody or anything else. God and his people are beautifully, movingly reconciled as the Hebrew Bible ends, but it scarcely seems blasphemy to say that his own life is over.

More here.
posted by Sonny Jim at 11:30 PM on June 12, 2007

[metadiscussion goes to metatalk - if you don't have something that is based on theology or something that isn't STFU to add, you can continue the debate in metatalk.]
posted by jessamyn at 6:49 AM on June 13, 2007

I cannot quote a Contemporary Theologian on this one, but let me give you the gist of the Baha'i teachings on the subject (which are < 150 years old, give or take):br>
God's involvement with man changes as society changes, i.e. the more advanced we get, the less we need miracles.

To quote from the 'pedia:

Religious history is interpreted as a series of dispensations, where each manifestation brings a somewhat broader and more advanced revelation, suited for the time and place in which it was expressed.

To summarize: God doesn't call because we don't need him to call anymore.
posted by unixrat at 6:51 AM on June 13, 2007

Arrgh. It looked good in preview.
posted by unixrat at 6:52 AM on June 13, 2007

They're there, its just some modern people have trouble accepting that this water stain is really a miracle. 1000 years ago it would have been accepted without question. What this says about miracles and faith is up to the reader.
posted by damn dirty ape at 7:34 AM on June 13, 2007

Muhammad came and restored the original, uncorrupted monotheistic faith of Adam, Abraham, and others. He is the last messenger and prophet of God. After him, there was no need to impress people with cheap tricks.

Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí, Joseph Smith, and LR Hubbard might disagree, though.
posted by meehawl at 8:35 AM on June 13, 2007

“They're there, its just some modern people have trouble accepting that this water stain is really a miracle. 1000 years ago it would have been accepted without question. What this says about miracles and faith is up to the reader.”

I think that's a bit glib. The questioner has in mind the sorts of miracles found in the Pentateuch, which are often of a scale much greater than a water stain. So why did "big" miracles occur in early times but no longer? Does Judaism or Christianity (any flavor) have a theological explanation for this? Does Islam? (Though I wonder if Islam would accept the premise that "big" miracles no longer occur.) That's what the questioner is asking, I think.

It's a good question—it's a common question from those of us skeptical of Judaism and Christianity. I've read a number of the great Catholic theologians, but I can't recall an answer to this. That doesn't mean anything: I was mostly bored out of my mind reading those books.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:55 AM on June 13, 2007

They weren't exactly frequent back then, either. There were clusters, like those associated with the exodus from Egypt, but those were localized both in space and time. There were long periods of time when no miracles happened then, too - the generations of enslavement prior to the Exodus, for example. But the events worth making into stories are the miracles, however rare, and not the decades of quiet.

Even if they were happening, who would see? How closely do you have to look at a burning bush to see that it's not being consumed by the flames? Most people wouldn't pay that kind of attention. And even the bigger miracles now would be explained in other ways. The trumpets, after all, just happened to hit the resonant frequency of the walls of Jericho...

The bit about paying attention and openness to recognizing the divine influence is a theological explanation I've heard from Jewish sources.
posted by Lady Li at 11:00 AM on June 13, 2007

There is the modern semi-Gnostic approach that God's contact with the material world has corrupted him driven him senile. In the OT he was already showing some symptoms with his petty and vain behavior. He realized this so as his last major act before he completely degenerated he created Jesus.
posted by MonkeySaltedNuts at 1:41 PM on June 13, 2007

I think that's a bit glib.

Why is this glib? The fullterton Mary is the biggest miracle to hit Chicago, a city of 3 million people. That's more people than in ancient Judea. With modern media more people are aware of this than were aware of Jesus until quite some time later in the tail-end of the Roman empire.

Secondly, the people who believe in this miracle would find your attitude pretty dismissive. There's never any shortage of flowers and candles at this site. They are Christians who think this is real. If theyre wrong how could ancient people ever be right?

Considering ancient people were less educated than modern people, I would guess that this micracle is as significant or more so than the average one listed in scripture.

To the OP, I say the "miracles" are everywhere. More so today than ever. If they arent impressive I'm certain that a time machine to the ancient biblical past would show the exact same results.
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:55 PM on June 13, 2007

I'm not a theologian by any means, and what I'm about to say wouldn't necessarily apply to all miracles, but here is one suggestion.

Many of the miracles recorded in the New Testament were healings done for a particular person who had faith. Today, our faith for healing tends to be in doctors. In that time, doctors were somewhat less than effective. There are still some people who rely on God (at least in conjunction with doctors, and some solely on God) for their healing; and among these people, I think you'd find that they don't think God has stopped working miracles.

As for other miracles and a more general contemporary theological viewpoint on the subject, I'd recommend reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis. If I remember correctly from a few years back when I read it, it's one of his more readable & interesting books.
posted by greenmagnet at 2:24 PM on June 13, 2007

Here is an explanation from a theological publication, the March 8th 1989 issue of Awake magazine, article entitled "Miracles and Apparitions—Why Not Needed":

WHEN on earth, Jesus performed many miracles. He changed water into wine, provided food for crowds of people, healed the sick, and expelled demons. Jesus’ teaching and the fact that he fulfilled the Bible prophecies concerning the Messiah convinced many of his contemporaries. Others reasoned as follows: “When the Christ arrives, he will not perform more signs than this man [Jesus] has performed, will he?”—John 7:31.

The Purpose of Miracles

What was the purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed? The Bible explains that Jesus was to be ‘a prophet like Moses.’ (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18) Jehovah God gave Moses the power to perform certain miracles to prove that he was the leader chosen to liberate the Israelites from captivity in Egypt. (Exodus 4:1-9, 30, 31) Just ‘like Moses,’ Jesus performed miracles to identify himself as the Messiah, as the promised Liberator of the Jews.—Acts 3:22.

But Jesus’ miracles also proved that he had received special power from God. When God’s Kingdom rules the earth unopposed, Jesus will use to the full the power that he demonstrated on a small scale while on earth. To illustrate, let us take the miracle of the loaves and the fishes. (Luke 9:12-17) In God’s new world, Jesus will see to it that all mankind have enough to eat. (Psalm 72:16) He will also cure all sickness and disease, thus enabling obedient humans to live forever. (Revelation 21:4) By performing three recorded resurrections, he proved his ability to raise millions from the dead.—Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; John 5:28, 29; 11:11-44.

A Means of Identification

Another reason why Jehovah performed miracles on behalf of Israel was to prove beyond any doubt that they were his chosen people. (Deuteronomy 4:32-34) The beneficiaries were an entire people, not a few privileged individuals.
Similarly, first-century miracles were one of the proofs that Jehovah had transferred his favor from fleshly Israel to the early Christian congregation. (Matthew 21:43; 27:51; Romans 9:6; 11:7) The many miracles performed by the apostles were evidence of God’s approval of the congregation under the leadership of God’s Son, Jesus Christ.—Acts 2:22, 43; 4:29, 30; Hebrews 2:3, 4.

Furthermore, in those days, people would lay the sick ones in places where merely Peter’s shadow might fall on them, and the Bible states that those brought to him “would one and all be cured.” (Acts 5:15, 16) Why, then, are all those who today go with faith to shrines not cured?

Apparitions Not Needed

The primary reason is that signs and miracles are no longer needed to prove that God has transferred his favor from fleshly Israel to the true Christian congregation. In a letter to his Christian companions, the apostle Paul clearly explained that miraculous gifts would eventually be done away with. The time would come when they would no longer be a means of identifying true Christians.—1 Corinthians 13:8-13.

Even calling on Jesus’ name would not prove that a person was a true Christian. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus foretold that he would reject certain ones who claimed: “Lord, Lord, did we not . . . work many miracles in your name?” For what reason would Jesus reject these miracle workers? He answers: “I have never known you; away from me, you evil men!” Evidently, some would work miracles in Christ’s name, but in fact they would be impostors.—Matthew 7:22, 23, The Jerusalem Bible.

The Real Criterion

In view of the foregoing, how is it possible to identify true Christians today? Jesus provided a criterion when he declared: “A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit . . . Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men.” The day before his death, Jesus reminded his apostles: “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” It follows that performing miracles would not be the criterion forever. But all would have to prove themselves Christ’s disciples by their true love.—Matthew 7:18-20; John 13:34, 35.
posted by Danila at 3:12 PM on June 13, 2007 [1 favorite]