Why Limit Miracles?

One of the best Gospel readings is centered on one of the most famous stories from Scripture. It is St. John's account of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes, a story so powerful and awesome that it is almost electric. It's one of the premiere miracles performed by Christ, in stature as well as in scope.

Yet there are those who do not accept that it actually happened, even among Christians. Their take on it was that the crowd which had assembled saw Christ sharing food with his disciples learned to share themselves. Those who presumably had the foresight brought something to eat and then shared that with their neighbors. Christ was only teaching them to share. Or, perhaps, shaming them into it. Either way, it rather takes the edge off the event, to say the least.

In the first place, are you ready to believe that no one, not one, of the 5,000 or so gathered had any inkling that it was a good thing to be kind to those around you? I believe ancient Jewish law already covered that. Secondly, It doesn't seem like a very profound thing for Our Lord to do. Not that everything He did had to have pow or zing, to be sure, but as He was trying to prove His Divinity I have to think he would do so in a stronger way than saying essentially, 'Be nice, now.' Any decent parent or teacher can do that.

I have likewise heard that many don't believe that the Red Sea actually parted for Moses in leading the Israelites out of Egypt. The tide was out for them, you see, yet it came back in and Pharoah's chariots become entangled in the seaweed, that's all.
No big deal.

It is a big deal. As with the loaves and fishes, it loses all its strength stripped of God's help. To begin with, it would have been one unusual tide to have allowed Moses to get by while returning quickly enough to decimate the pursuing Egyptians. But my ultimate point here is that I can't understand why people who claim to practice and indeed even teach Christianity want the miraculous aspect of it purged.

I realize that there are parts of the Bible which can be taken literally while others are intended to be figurative. But the standard as what is what, I've always believed, is that whatever isn't obviously figurative is expected to be taken literally. As there is no reason to doubt these two tales, there is no reason that they ought not be taken as the straight truth, an accurate accounting of what actually occurred.

Unless you don't really believe that Christ is God. If so, then it doesn't matter. Yet if He is what He says, then you ought not cast aspersions on His work.