Well, EBarnacle, I don't know if that's the original question, either. But you're right to try to bring the discussion to a more constructive place. I don't know that I feel safe from attack if I answer your question, but I'll say what I think. I tend to view miracles with skepticism, and I'm a little embarrassed by them when they are claimed to happen within the context of my faith tradition. I am very embarrassed by my church's requirement of two miracles for sainthood, and I think a lot of good saints get forgotten because they've failed to perform the requisite miracles. And I think that there's almost always too much hysteria tied to miracles.

I do believe in mystical appearances, things that happen that are somewhere in the unknown realm between reality and spirituality. Such experiences can have a profound effect on those who have had them. I see them as a trip into the deeper meanings of what surrounds us. And yes, they can have great detail, like a person wearing the clothes of a gardener and the cloths being neatly folded. But what actually happened? I dunno, but I think this is a true account of what the witnesses experienced. I think that in mystical experiences, people are NOT sure what happened or if it really did happen, even though they may have perceived vivid detail. That sort of doubt and confusion doesn't exist in miracles, which is why I'm more at ease about believing in mystical experiences. I think that if you read the Easter stories very carefully and with an open mind, you will see that all the witnesses were full of doubt - but yet they were remarkably inspired, and that doubtful inspiration is what inspires my own faith.

I long for the day when I can simply say what I think, without a half-dozen people jumping around saying I'm wrong. Why can't they just give their own observations without having to refute somebody else?

-Joe-