Tusko writes:
By the way: what do you think miracles are for if they aren't to impress (and implicitly effect belief)?
Miracles are God's way of doing things, not God's way of proselytizing.
If somebody needs feeding, we can do it or God can do it through us or God can wave his magic wand. I think you're exaggerating the significance and the frequency of the wand-waving.
If you believe they actually happened then you can't escape the fact that they would have impressed the hell out of a load of people at the time....
So, why do you jump to the conclusion that impressing the hell out of people was the
reason for the miracles? Isn't that a bit like saying that Hollywood makes movies to help the popcorn industry?
... God being a canny fellow would have known this.
Steven Spielberg, being a canny fellow too, might invest in popcorn.
You might also think that the bloke who was doing these miraculous things should probably be listened to.
Not necessarily. There were probably a lot of blokes wandering around pulling rabbits out of turbans and sawing ladies in half.
For the most part, the spectacle of Jesus' miracles was secondary to the practical effect. The good that He did was probably what led people to accept His philosophy - not the fireworks.
... I assume if you are a Christian who believes the accounts, you believe there were at least some - came to the Christian faith in a very different way from anyone else since.
People "come to the Christian faith" in a lot of different ways. Some people like the hymns, some people like stained glass or incense. Some people like to see the virgin Mary in every grease stain.
None of that has anything to do with what the Christian faith
is.
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC