i like a lot of the article and agree with many points, but i have a few issues.
i think power is correct, and theology is correct, but there is also authority: Jesus did miracles to so he was the son of God, without a rival god to challenge nor a theological point beyond that to make. They were things to show he himself was special, so miracles can also be believed on those lines. miracles as sign of someone uniquely set apart.
Also i'm not sure ideas on divine hiddenness have veto power lol. i may be reading it wrong but theology/philosophy is after the fact, trying to analyze, not a law that is binding. I mean the mind of God is his, people speculate but "a glass darkly" kind of necessitates looseness of thought.
thought it was a really good argument otherwise on why one is skeptical about miracles, being fair to them. personal/visible was a good definition, and arguments were sound without turning it into pure philosophy or doctrine.
i actually don’t disagree with much of this! This was very much a steelman argument and a reflection of how I viewed miracles when I was a Christian (I was kid, but i gave them no thought and actively was skeptical of them when someone did mention them)
I glossed over a lot of miracle distinctions and the dichotomy I put forward is definitely oversimplified. I think one of the tensions in the gospel is, with Jesus performing miracles, is he doing it out of the authority of God or someone else? As a reader or believer you know, but the way it’s described in the story, for the skeptics the jury is out. Of course i could be conflating gospels as IIRC Mark is the gospel that leans into the secrecy angle.
i like a lot of the article and agree with many points, but i have a few issues.
i think power is correct, and theology is correct, but there is also authority: Jesus did miracles to so he was the son of God, without a rival god to challenge nor a theological point beyond that to make. They were things to show he himself was special, so miracles can also be believed on those lines. miracles as sign of someone uniquely set apart.
Also i'm not sure ideas on divine hiddenness have veto power lol. i may be reading it wrong but theology/philosophy is after the fact, trying to analyze, not a law that is binding. I mean the mind of God is his, people speculate but "a glass darkly" kind of necessitates looseness of thought.
thought it was a really good argument otherwise on why one is skeptical about miracles, being fair to them. personal/visible was a good definition, and arguments were sound without turning it into pure philosophy or doctrine.
i actually don’t disagree with much of this! This was very much a steelman argument and a reflection of how I viewed miracles when I was a Christian (I was kid, but i gave them no thought and actively was skeptical of them when someone did mention them)
I glossed over a lot of miracle distinctions and the dichotomy I put forward is definitely oversimplified. I think one of the tensions in the gospel is, with Jesus performing miracles, is he doing it out of the authority of God or someone else? As a reader or believer you know, but the way it’s described in the story, for the skeptics the jury is out. Of course i could be conflating gospels as IIRC Mark is the gospel that leans into the secrecy angle.