You have every right to enter the public square, or in this case a public forum, and express your views, as does anyone, as long as they do so according to the rules set forth by this forum. However your persistent confusion of “magic” and “miracle” is demeaning to persons of faith. Since it has been pointed out to you, and you continue to confuse them/use them interchangeably, you obviously are doing so knowingly, not accidentally.
And when I ask about your agenda, it was a simple question, one that you declined to answer, but instead used a diversionary tactic of portraying yourself as a victim. The question remains, however, and, based on your previous response, apparently there is not only an agenda, but a hidden agenda.
Cheers.
My agenda is simply to further the message and agenda of Jesus Christ.
But regarding other particulars, I am well within the rules of this forum when I state that believing in Christ based on what has been read about his magical abilities is WRONG. I aver this based on the fact that so many other religions substantiate and defend their their specific dogmas as a result of their having been told that their God is magic.
But, to continue with our discussion, allow me a moment to relate that I’ve have looked at several interpretations of miracle v. magic and found that there is a negative connotation associated with the term “magic” in that it does imply sorcery, whereas “miracle” implies an extraordinary event sanctioned by God.
But in the world of semantics and calling a duck a duck, if there is water and that same water by virtue of a supernatural/divine/God sanctioned power instantly becomes wine – and I mean without that same water not having been mixed with grapes or whatever – then one could call that magical or miraculous. I mean only that and nothing more.
And what has anyone said here to lead you to think we believe in “arbitrary” alterations of the natural order?
See the above retort.
Read what you have written again. You are saying, in effect, “I know there are things in the realm of existence that I do not understand, but that which I have experienced and do understand about the realm of existence allows me to evaluate the possibility of existence of those things I don’t understand.”
I mean that which I typed. Only that and nothing more. But again:
“… I will assert that do not believe in magic in the classical sense that this same magic suggests that various natural laws can be arbitrarily altered by virtue of what a child would normally consider to be “hocus pocus.” On the other hand, I do recognize that there is much that exists in the realm of the possible of which we do not understand. But yet on still another hand, I also am a firm believer in repeated experience and tend to conform to what I believe to be natural laws.”
Could it be that the denotation, “hocus pocus,” is offensive??
Philosophically, you can’t have it both ways.
Please explain. I have no idea what you mean.
Sure, your reductionist view of Christianity makes it nothing more than a philosophy you happen to admire.
“Reductionist” is not even a word. (Remember, my grammar has been lambasted.
)
You may not admit it, but functionally, you are a materialist in that all you will permit to exist is material and the qualities associated with that material.
Not true. Although I do not understand it, I recognize the phenomenal – as well as the subjective.
Whether you like it or not, Christians all down through history have understood the whole thing stands or falls on a real man really rising from real death.
That Jesus rose from the dead is obvious. But, that Christians throughout history have “understood” anything is certainly a leap of faith. I believe that Blake knew Christ but will contend (I contend, I have this opinion, my conscience tells me this) that Pope Urban II did not.
The important question is whether Christianity is true, not whether you prefer it for whatever reason.
It’s true because I believe it, and I do believe it and not because I am superstitious.
