Talk:Miracle

message: I do not think that this material belongs in this article. It seems to better be suited for an article on writing, culture, drama, or something like that. RK 14:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)
A miracle which me must believe in.
:In this view, miracles do not really occur. Rather, they are the product of creative story tellers. They use them to embellish a hero or incident with a theological flavor. Using miracles in a story allow characters and situations to become bigger than life, and to stir the emotions of the listener more than the mundane and ordinary.
:In the world of miracle, wonder and faith the imposssible become the possible. Through bravery and courage, charity, sacrifice and reason Good always triumps over evil. Deep inside each person is the longing to see the extraordinary, undenial, proof of goodness and divine love; and a personal desire for someone (perhaps even ourselves) to be special and possess wondrous powers to right wrongs for someone's benefit. Story tellers know miracle stories inspire wondrous deeds. Everyone wants to be a hero and bring about happiness. In these stories these deeds happen, dispelling doubt and uplifting faith.
:Critical science and history take a back seat. Those far outside the world of the artistic story teller have difficulty understanding: for them there is only fact and fiction. It is easy for modern people to stop believing. Many of our ancestors did not. They held on to miracles and optimism in very brutal times.
Doesn't seem here to be any sceptical view of miracles - either from atheist or Protestant point of view. Or indeed how Catholics view miracles claimed by other faiths.
Exile 11:53, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: First comments

message: Is it still true that one must have two miracles attributed to him/her (posthumously) based on appeals to his/her spirit to intervene in order to be considered for canonization as a saint?  If so, does this belong in the article at some place?
Answer: Sometimes. Two posthumous miracles are required for canonization, unless the candidate was martyred for his faith (martyrs don't need miracles to become saints).
Rlquall 21:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles and "Canonization" 

message: I quote the following from the Catholic part of the article: Since Adam and Eve set foot on the earth there have been an estimated 40,000,000+ miracles.  
I come to the conclusion that you can't accurately calculate the number of miracles from the time of Genesis to the present.  I believe that there is currently a growth of miracles taking place (especially in China at the moment).  Is this number calculated for just the Catholic faith or for the whole of the Church?  It's just I think that this number is rather small in ratio to the number of miracles which I have seen locally and I live in a very small country.  Also you must consider the fact that God performs many spiritual wounds which can be counted as miracles as well.  It has been reported from the house churches of China that 80% of Christians in the region are so in witness to miracles.  At the time of me writing this there is well over 10 million Christians in the house churches and the current growth of the Church is 25,000 per day (taken from Mal Fletcher's book: The Pioneer Spirit, which can be purchased from Authentic).  
Figures from the China house churches are quoted from the Back to Jerusalem web site http://www.backtojerusalem.com/
:Well we know how many verified, proven miracles have occured in recorded history and that number is zero.  The Catholic Church or you personally can assert as many as you want, but neither one of you has actually ever come up with any evidence SuperAtheist (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 40,000,000+ miracles

message: My opinion is that the "40mm miracles comment" should either be expanded or deleted
The message below was posted to user Michael Hardy, who added the comment recently.
Michael
First of all, congratulations for working on so many good mathematics articles.
I am writing however about the entry "miracle", which you edited on 24 Jan 2005 (quote from your comment: "I'm putting back some material that an anonymous editor put here earlier, purporting to present a Catholic view. This time it is so labeled and appropriately formatted for Wikipedia.")
Among the comments added is the claim that 40 mm miracles are estimated to have happened, in the history of humankind. While I myself do not believe in miracles as a religious manifestation, I would be interested in knowing how this estimate has been arrived to. I actually think that the basis of this estimate are a required addition to the paragraph.
I also believe that if such an estimate can not be described in some further detail and (as much as possible) in an unbiased way, then maybe that comment should be removed, having no sources or further detailed explanation.
To clarify further: I am unbiased as to whether that comment should remain and be expanded, or should just be removed. However I am adamant that it should not remain unexpanded in its current state.
I will post this same comment in the entry's talk page, hoping to receive some illuminating comments from fellow wikipedians.
Regards, gintaras 23:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 40,000,000+ miracles

message: We definitely need official sources for the many claims made in the new section on Catholic views of miracles. Wikipedia:Cite sources is one of our policies.  For instance:
*Anyone can perform a miracle if he or she adheres to the following points.  Really?  Anyone can?
*A Satan-assisted miracle is a temporary miracle that disguises itself as a genuine miracle....
I think this article lacks reference to the work of renowned contemporary theologians and philosophers who have tried to give a meaningful interpretation to miracles, which is, by the way,  not affected by the critique by philosophers referred to on this page. 
E.g.: the work of Karl Rahner or the views referred to by Bernard Sesboué in Croire, Invitation à la foi catholique pour les femmes et les hommes du xxie siècle, 1999  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.147.75 (talk) 20:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for sources: Catholic view of miracles

message: I'm not certain that this belongs as it is, but my editing of it is to reflect a need to be gramatical if it is retained.  A source for the alledged number of miracles would be really nice!   Rlquall 21:51, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More than you may be looking for is here.  This does not provide a source for the above claimed number, however. Csernica 5 July 2005 19:36 (UTC)
I can find very little support for most of what this section has to say in any standard Catholic references.  Whoever added it has not responded to repeated requests for sources, especially for his rather odd figure for the number of recorded miracles.  If no one objects, I'm going to give it a drastic edit sometime soon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic view of miracles 

message: Can anybody elaborate on this?:
"Within the Christian church in Africa miracles are still a frequent occurance."
I don't have a problem with it in the article, but I guess I just wondered exactly what was meant by this.
DJPthousand 19:07, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miracles in Africa 

message: Why is this article in a Pentecostal category?  Most Christian groups affirm the existence of ongoing miracles.  We should either include this in categories for all of them individually if it's going to be in one; or just put it under :Category:Christianity and not in any of the subcategories for each group, IMO. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pentecostal? 

message: Followers of Sai Baba are sincere in their belief that he performs miracles. The dominant view outside the movement appears to be that this is simple conjuring.  We can state the facts without appearing to form a judgment, I hope, and the same should be true of the others.  That includes the section title: claims is neutral, fraud is not. Just zis Guy you know? 08:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: true. Some followers of Sathya Sai Baba continue to have faith even if they hear someone observing fraud or even when they personally observe fraud. Sathya Sai Baba himself gives various definitions of a miracle. One of his definitions is an event that attracts the attention because it cannot be explained. Andries 20:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary 

message: Nothing wrong with content, but I think that the Christianity section contains more Judaism than the Judaism part. Needs attn. Flymeoutofhere 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I've just inserted a link to Cessationism in the See also section. At least one of the External links is more related to Cessationism than Miracle per se.  Perhaps it isn't needed here. DFH 20:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I started correcting the English in this section because parts of it were not comprehensible to an English speaking reader but I don't have time right now to finish. There are also some NPOV problems which should be addressed. I think the many Quranic citations should be in a separate list, as they clutter up the article and make it less readable. Do feel free to discuss this. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but would like to improve this section.Essaouira 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic view of miracles 

message: I found this article to contain some bias in the way "god" was spelled.  There were many cases where "God" was used in the place where "god" should have been.  This is a minor edit, but it is very important.  The use of "God" in many parts of the article are biased towards the god of the Christian religion, who is named "God".  I fixed a few of the issues I found with this.  Some of the parts should be left as "God" since that is what they are refering too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.71.219.100 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A few biased points 

message: I don't think that is a standard English word. I didn't edit, because I have no way of knowing what the intent of the author was here. Would someone like to standardize the word usage?
67.49.147.148 19:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecizing? 

message: Here is what I wrote:
C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, and Christians who engage in jurisprudence Christian apologetics have argued that miracles are reasonable and plausible.   . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.205.115.88 (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a new section 

message: I am looking for language translations of the word Miracle. Preferably Swahili or Hawaii Translations. I am currently pregnant with the baby they said I would never have. Of course, Miracle is fine for a girl but not for a boy. I really need some help. Even if it's just pointing me in the direction of help.
(Marvalla (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for translations

message: Certainly there are several different viewpoints of what consitutes a miracle and how people interpret stories about them.  This is not covered well now and needs expansion.  Rlsheehan (talk) 02:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Better definitions and interpretations

message: This article needs to discuss more views of miracles other than just the European Christian view.Bless sins (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   World VIew  

message: The current standards and practices of the Catholic church in declaring miracles as evidence for sainthood are being documented at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Father_Damien
There have been some surprising revelations there recently.  Lawn Chair Charlie (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How silly for any humans to try to declare what is a miracle and what is not.  Leave that to God.  Rlsheehan (talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Damien case reveals the standards to be very low or nonexistent. Mother Inferior (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Standards and Practices in Declaring Miracles for Sainthood 

message: Some events in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures can only be described as miracles but others might be open to natural explanations. The creation miracles described in the first two chapters of Genesis can only be accepted through subjective belief. They cannot be proven objectively by any means.
The parting of the Reed Sea described in Exodus, however, could have been a tsunami event. In a tsunami the sea typically recedes slowly from the shore and then comes roaring back in a wave or series of waves many meters high. This is what's described in Exodus. Couple this with the comment that the Israelites were led by a pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night, which could be a description of a volcano. Volcanoes and tsunamis are quite often linked. If the Israelites could have seen the Thera eruption from Egypt, the Exodus would have occurred ca. 1628 BCE. This doesn't denigrate God's involvement in the events of the Exodus but might help to establish the historicity of these events.
Mary's virgin pregnancy could have been a manifestation of, say, parthenogenesis in humans. Some vertebrates (e.g., amphibians and reptiles) reproduce asexually through the mechanism of parthenogenesis. Our genome could still contain the code for this but its occurrence would be exceedingly rare. The probability might be 1 in a trillon, say, but still finite. This hypothesis would be difficult indeed to prove but would have major ramifications for Marian theology if it were.
The resurrection of Jesus is more problematical. Based on the Gospel accounts, Jesus was dead when removed from the cross. The spear thrust into his side rules out the possibility of lapse into coma. Nevertheless, something happened that had a profound effect on his disciples that ultimately produced the Christian religion. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except most of the things you just mentioned (the exodus, the resurrection of Jesus, virgin birth, etc) have no evidence to support that they happened, so why would there be a need to make an ad hoc explanation for them? SuperAtheist (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Possibilities 

message: Hi, I inserted two short sentences and a reference about an event known as the miracle of Calanda under the section "Catholic Church claims", but this keeps getting deleted after a short time. Why is that? Guardaiinalto  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.151.98 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to Calanda 

message: What is the opposite of a miracle? Erudecorp ? * 10:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: maybe Murphy's law ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.46.45.232 (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposite 

message: Hi, I found the bit about Christian miracles far too liberal to be "of neutral viewpoint" (neutral stance being of wikipedia's policy), therefore I added a little bit of Bible and "fundamentalism" to balance it out.... We can't exactly have a whole article on miracles criticizing miracles and call it "neutral", can we? Gottistgut (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as it is clearly labeled Fundamentalist, there is nothing wrong with that. Erudecorp ? * 03:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: I changed a bit

message: why is this empty?Robotpandazombie (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish miracles section

message: Of all the strange features of the universe, none are stranger than these: time is transcended, laws are mutable, and observer participancy matters.
~ John Wheeler (born: 1911-12-09 died: 2008-04-13 at age: 96) Professor of Physics, Princeton University
Also when Einstein was working on his Superstring theory he interviewed a RC Priest at Princeton regarding transubstantiation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.76.65 (talk) 02:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quantum Miracles may need to be added 

message: Why should the word 'miracle' be in bold in the text (especially in the "Dismissal, Disbelief and Skepticism" section)? From my perspective, it provides an special emphasis on it, which is not justifiable in terms of neutrality. Also noted in the section 'Philosophers' explanations of miracles': "human God's" is also in bold. 
Flapointe (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Word "miracle" in bold

message: To further add to the neutrality of this article, it would be useful to provide some statistical data for miracles, especially those mentioned here - how many 'true' miracles have occured since humans have been able to research/document such law-of-nature-defying phenomena? What is the scientific consensus on the matter? Cheers. THEPROMENADER 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The number of "true" miracles that have been verified to have happened is exactly zero.   Funny how God stopped making blantant appearences right around the time people started keeping good historical records.  SuperAtheist (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics? 

message: The present lead paragraphs  are poorly worded and contradictory.  I suggest: 
:A miracle is an unexpected event attributed to divine intervention. Sometimes an event is also attributed (in part) to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader.  A  miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature.  Others suggest that God may work with the laws of nature to perform what we perceive as miracles. A miracle is often considered a fortuitous event: compare with an Act of God.
:In casual usage, "miracle" may also refer to any statistically unlikely but beneficial event, (such as the survival of a natural disaster) or even which regarded as "wonderful" regardless of its likelihood, such as birth. Other miracles might be: survival of a terminal illness, escaping a life threatening situation or 'beating the odds.'
Comments? Citations and links can be added as needed. Grantmidnight (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made edits to the lead section with citations.  Grantmidnight (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: This listing of individuals is excessive.  Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists) recommends not having lists like this.  This section should be removed and the article tightened up. The article can link to appropriate individuals or existing WK lists.  Rlsheehan (talk) 20:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Some of the individuals are important to mention somewhere in here, such as Jesus and Mohammad.  Others, such as Audrey Santo are of lesser importance. ThemFromSpace 22:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the excessive list but retained each of the links.  Rlsheehan (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Individuals 

message: 59.167.172.206 (talk) 03:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms 

message: Doesn't it seem a little ridiculous to have a line about Richard Dawkins planting the Occam's Razor flag in this article, when Occam himself was a Friar? Occam considered a select amount of spiritual matters (which would have included select miracles, like the Resurrection) to be immune to his Razor. Occam's Razor can indeed be used to seperate false miracles from genuine ones, but to use it to remove the possibility of miracles altogether whould be a gross abuse of the way Occam intended it to be used. And furthermore, even if the community considers it a worthy addition to the article, it most definitely belongs in the criticism section. --Jesspiper (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes but a distinguished career in biology does not a religious expert make, you have to cut him some slack. It's only comic genius to those in the know, everyone else will just take it at face value. 78.149.140.249 (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I rarely cut ignorance of any kind slack, but at the very least I will be moving it to the criticism section where it belongs.--Jesspiper (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dawkins and Occam's Razor

message: The sentence leading into the Hinduism section of this article was an unverifiable, non-neutral, unsourced editorial that characterized Hindu miracles as "not superstition," was grammatically incorrect, and did not follow contain any information identifiably relevant to the subject except as pure speculation. As such, I have deleted it. 76.118.32.67 (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to Hinduism section 

message: I believe that because this article seeems to be bias toward some religions that there should be a seperate section for each belief about miracles. This would remove need for further minute changes to help reduce bias in certain sections. This would also provide a broader view to all aspects of what could be considered a miracle. In addition miracle can be used in common speech as an event which is not completely un explainable.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.57.115 (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Division of Religious Views 

message: I have removed 6 people from this list as their articles did not mention them having performed miracles. There could be more I just picked 6 at random! Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of individuals who are claimed to have performed miracles 

message: Do other religions BESIDES Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) contain miracles in their claims? Are the Abrahamic faiths the only religions worth mentioning? Buddhism is mentioned as well, but don't nearly ALL religions have miracles attributed to them? What makes the Abrahamic faiths so special? Where are the others, besides just the Abrahamic faiths and Buddhism?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.252.56 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other religions and miracles 

message: Currently the lead starts with
:A miracle is an event not ascribable to human power or the laws of nature and consequently attributed to a supernatural, especially divine, agency.[1] Such an event may be attributed to a miracle worker, saint, or religious leader. A miracle is sometimes thought of as a perceptible interruption of the laws of nature. 
Since the  entire rest of the article implies, and in at least one place says, that miracles are beneficial, I think that the opening sentence above should begin
:A miracle is a beneficial event not ascribable....
Duoduoduo (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence should say "beneficial" 

message: I'd like to add an Examples section, e.g. high temperature superconductors are not explicable by natural or scientific laws: "A sample of a cuprate superconductor (specifically BSCCO). The mechanism for superconductivity of these materials is unknown." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics#Condensed_matter_physics . Or does anyone think high temperature superconductors are not miracles? Then the definition of miracles is flawed. Darsie42 (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: Did't notice any referance to hope /prayer in miricles? Thanks! Eddson storms (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reference  re place of HOPE/Prayer in Miricles? 

message: The word miraculum is a Latin word. It appears in the Vulgate from the late 4th century.
In the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament the word terata is used. This means "wonder", not
miracle. A wonder brings about a feeling of surprise mingled with admiration, caused by something beautiful, unexpected, unfamiliar, or inexplicable. Admiring the stars at night can cause a
feeling of wonder or surprise, not necessarily miracle. Watching an ant can bring about wonder.           
In Hebrew the word נֵס (nes) today means miracle, but its meaning in Biblical Hebrew is a symbol of victory held high for all to see. The term "supernatural" is not used till about 1520-1530.
I suggest reading: The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry and Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner, Revised Third edition, 1990 Miistermagico (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: "Miracle" the word

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Miracle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606165846/http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf to http://www.stolaf.edu/collections/kierkegaard/newsletters/Newsletter43.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110128052924/http://vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php to http://www.vailankannishrine.org/miracle.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I had upper cased Sun and Earth in the following sentence, which was reverted: "...witnessed the sun dim, change colors, spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet to earth." Not capitalizing 'earth' seems fine even though arguably it would have a case, and thanks for catching that. The word 'Sun' in the sentence, however, should be capitalized, as it does not refer only to sunlight (dim, change colors) but the actual star seen to '...spin, dance about in the sky, and appear to plummet...'. So, earth, no, Sun, yes? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun and Earth upper cased if they refer to the astronomical bodies

message: A miracle or "good luck" is a human conclusion reached a AFTER a beneficial event has
occurred. An example is a single child surviving a catastrophic plane crash where the "miracle child" was the only survivor. Miistermagico (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beneficial: a human conclusion 

message: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article :Superstitions in Muslim societies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstitions in Muslim societies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bookku (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination of [[:Superstitions in Muslim societies]] for deletion 

message: Hi, this edit should be looked into and truly considered. It's already in political discussion amongst the United States Government/Politicians, Native American chiefs, world leaders, and will be a mainstream recognized miracle within the next few years. Religion here seems to have become more Political than its original objective, a common spiritual worldview, denied to none. Religions are all pointing in the same directions, yet with different words, names, and honored people. The truth is, there really is something, but it is beyond our possible understanding.  Saint Tammany and Matthew Edward Hall's miracle is revealing a truly all knowing, all powerful God/Higher Order, or even in the deist Christian view, preset with clues in the grand design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger44223 (talk • contribs) 
:This edit consists of nothing more than bold claims about a miracle by "Matthew Edward Hall" and using his own websites as references. These are not reliable sources. The other claims about a prophecy by Gurdjieff consists of original research and WP:SYNTH by making claims not explicitly made by the references. Those references consist of a Goodreads page and some usergenerated quote sites. The goodreads "quote" is fake as a search of the actual book contents will show. This whole addition is an unreferenced hoax and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Notfrompedro (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Saint Tammany]] Miracle 

message: even if there are no cited sources, we can add that angels of God or of Satan can do miracles. Demons don't act freely and for the good of people, but want to be worshiped in place of God and for a deal with the Devil which would ensure ethernal damnation of the human body and soul. Demons act by hand of a false prophet or witch, as it is explained in the film titled The Unholy. 151.18.1.138 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angels