Page 5 - Sin Boldly News Today : Breaking News, Live Updates & Top Stories | Vimarsana

Robert John Russell critiques my critique of David Hume to expand the discussion of miracle and nature's laws. Russell on Hume makes miracle room.

Blasphemy is in the news reporting on movements to repeal anti-blasphemy laws and because of Quran burnings in Sweden and Denmark. It's time the systematic theologian clarify the three types of blasphemy: (1) denunciation of God or God's believers; (2) pursuing evil the he name of the good; and (3) pursuing evil in the name of evil. Blasphemy as (1) sacrilege; (2) evil in the name of the good; and (3) evil in the name of evil.

Jesus' nature miracles do not break nature's laws. Rather, they break into nature's processes from God's eschatological new creation. All Jesus miracles draw on the power of God's eschatological promise to transform this creation into the kingdom of God. Jesus' nataure miracles break into nature's laws

Special Divine Action comes in two forms, miraculous and non-miraculous. Robert John Russell's NIODA (Non-Interventionist Objective Divine Action) theory explains the non-miraculous. How does a miracle differ? Special divine action comes in miraculours and non-miraculous forms.

Philosopher David Hume defines a miracle as an event that breaks a law of nature. But, because the laws of nature are never broken, miracles do not exist. Is that a sound argument? Not according to Donghwi Kim. Hume on miracles? Fallacious reasoning?