What is the difference between magic and miracle?

[OnceConvinced]

I am presuming that god and the devil are real. I am presuming here that miracles and magic are real. They are supernatural events of some kind. They are not tricks done by shysters. They are not freak occurences as a result of luck or being in the right place at the right time.

It seems some Christians get a little offended when you use the term "magic" for deeds done by god. They seem to want to use the term "miracle". But really, what is the difference? Both appear to be a supernatural event that either involves something being generated from nothing or something changing as a result.

The only difference I can get is that a "miracle" is a supernatural event that is caused by god, while "magic" is a supernatural event caused by Satan. But really, what is the difference? How is a "miracle" different to "magic"?

[David the apologist]

If Jesus had walked up onto the mountain, yelled "Prepare to be amazed," and proceeded to reach into his yarmulke and pull out a trombone, a fishing boat, a clouded leopard, etc. and then gone on his merry way, I'd be inclined to call it "magic." There is no religious context, there is no meeting of anyone's needs, and there's no obvious connection to what God is doing in the world or what He will do at the end of the age. There's just showmanship.

So what about turning water into wine? That seems like a showmanship type thing to me. After all the guests at that wedding feast hardly NEEDED wine. Even if you claim it's fruit juice, it still wasn't really a need because if they were dying of thirst they could simply drink the water.

And what about Jesus walking on water? What exactly was the need he was meeting there? Once again seems like showmanship. The real miracle was him commanding the storm to halt.

Oh and what about the classic one of withering the fig tree? That is also classed as a miracle in the bible. What need was he meeting there? In fact there he was actually performing an act that would have negative consequences. Concievably that fig tree might have one day beared fruit for people. Instead Jesus withered it for no good logical reason. He simply unleashed his wrath on the poor tree.

All of these examples were covered by C. S. Lewis in his book "Miracles." Now, I could reproduce his responses here. However, it would probably be better for you to read it yourself, as it will resolve (or at least render less potent) the problems you pose for the defender of miracles, as well as many more general complaints about the supernatural.

Now, as to the "marks of a miracle" I mentioned, a miracle may be inferred from the presence of one or several of them, but a non-miracle is not ensured by the lack of one of them. "If X is a supernatural event that meets somebody's needs, then X is a miracle" seems to me to be a valid inference. "If X is a supernatural event that does not meet somebody's needs, then X is not a miracle" seems to me to be an example of denying the antecedent.

[David the apologist]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

The truth is that if you thought a voodoo witch doctor transformed water into wine, you'd call it magic. If you believe Jesus did it, you call it a miracle.

It depends. If the witch doctor was a recent covert to Christianity, and was attending a church service that ran out of wine for communion, and proceeded to perform the trick in the baptismal font, I'd be inclined to call it a "miracle." Context matters as much as content for classifying these sorts of events, in my opinion.

This seems a little like the argument that if it's from God, then it's a miracle. If it's not from God, then it's magic.

It seems to be less about context and more about the desire to confine "miracle" to being something cause by God.

They still really look like the same thing though, don't they?

What if the church service was being held by a cult in a little commune led by someone like David Koresh. Would it be a miracle or magic?

Well, to the extent that the miracle was not performed under occult-ish circumstances, and to the extent that it "fit into" the religious context to the cult as a non-arbitrary yet spontaneous supernatural event, it would be worth classifying as a miracle.

I'm willing to say this because I know that no David Koresh-like cult will ever have a genuine supernatural event of the requisite sort, not because I'm willing to acknowledge the possible validity of any such cult as a religion proper, let alone the true religion.

[Danmark]

Well, to the extent that the miracle was not performed under occult-ish circumstances, and to the extent that it "fit into" the religious context to the cult as a non-arbitrary yet spontaneous supernatural event, it would be worth classifying as a miracle.

I'm willing to say this because I know that no David Koresh-like cult will ever have a genuine supernatural event of the requisite sort, not because I'm willing to acknowledge the possible validity of any such cult as a religion proper, let alone the true religion.

What is it that makes a "David Koresh-like cult" incapable of performing a 'miracle' or 'supernatural event,' whereas 'true religion' could be the host of a 'miracle' or 'supernatural event.' What, in fact, distinguishes 'true religion' from the strictly man made version?'

[Zzyzx]

.

How is a "miracle" different to "magic"?

Miracle = I claim my favorite god was involved

Magic = Everything else (especially claims for competing gods or claims by people I don't like)

[OnceConvinced]

[quote="[url=http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?

The truth is that if you thought a voodoo witch doctor transformed water into wine, you'd call it magic. If you believe Jesus did it, you call it a miracle.

It depends. If the witch doctor was a recent covert to Christianity, and was attending a church service that ran out of wine for communion, and proceeded to perform the trick in the baptismal font, I'd be inclined to call it a "miracle." Context matters as much as content for classifying these sorts of events, in my opinion.

This seems a little like the argument that if it's from God, then it's a miracle. If it's not from God, then it's magic.

It seems to be less about context and more about the desire to confine "miracle" to being something cause by God.

They still really look like the same thing though, don't they?

What if the church service was being held by a cult in a little commune led by someone like David Koresh. Would it be a miracle or magic?

Well, to the extent that the miracle was not performed under occult-ish circumstances, and to the extent that it "fit into" the religious context to the cult as a non-arbitrary yet spontaneous supernatural event, it would be worth classifying as a miracle.

I'm willing to say this because I know that no David Koresh-like cult will ever have a genuine supernatural event of the requisite sort, not because I'm willing to acknowledge the possible validity of any such cult as a religion proper, let alone the true religion.

There are many Christian churches out there that border on being cult like. In fact I would even argue that the majority of churches are cult like. Yet all these cult-like churches believe that miracles occur within their walls. How does one deem what is really a cult and what isn't?

[Danmark]

There are many Christian churches out there that border on being cult like. In fact I would even argue that the majority of churches are cult like. Yet all these cult-like churches believe that miracles occur within their walls. How does one deem what is really a cult and what isn't?

Exactly.
This "cult" or "cult like" dichotomy that D the A proposes is almost meaningless. It is just a label to allow the question to be begged. Believing something happened without sufficient evidence, or attributing to an event a 'magical' or supernatural cause without evidence is unreasonable, whether the person or group that does so can be labeled 'cultish' or not.

[wiploc]

My impression is that "cult" is a derogatory term directed at young small energetic churches by old big boring churches. The purpose of the derogatory name is to slow down the rate at which little churches draw members away from big churches.

[Danmark]

My impression is that "cult" is a derogatory term directed at young small energetic churches by old big boring churches. The purpose of the derogatory name is to slow down the rate at which little churches draw members away from big churches.

Not necessarily, but the term has certainly been used that way. It has, or at least had, a sociological definition.

"In the sociological classifications of religious movements, a cult is a religious or other social group with deviant and novel beliefs and practices.[1] However, whether any particular group's beliefs and practices are sufficiently deviant or novel enough is often unclear, and thus establishing a precise definition based on these criteria is problematic.[2][3] The English word often carries derogatory connotations[4][5] and is used selectively by proponents of mind control theory.[6]

The word "cult" has been controversial. One reason is that it (as used in the pejorative sense) is considered a subjective term, used as an ad hominem attack against groups with simply differing doctrines or practices, and without a clear or consistent definition.[7]

Beginning in the 1930s cults became the object of sociological study in the context of the study of religious behavior.[8] Certain groups have been labeled as cults and opposed by the Christian countercult movement for their unorthodox beliefs; and since the 1970s by the secular anti-cult movement, partly motivated in reaction to acts of violence committed by members of some groups. Some of the anti-cult claims have been disputed by other scholars, leading to further controversies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

In the sociological sense, certainly Christianity started out as a cult, with a Charismatic leader or figurehead. It went thru sociological stages until it emerged as a 'church,' an organized group generally respected. The use of the term 'cult' need not be done with derogatory intent.

[OnceConvinced]

I'm hearing the both of ya.

Actually when I think of New Zealand, where I come from, there's a large church there called Destiny, which came onto the scene about 15 years ago. Led by a guy named Brian Tamaki (who has now been proclaimed as a Bishop rather than a pastor). In New Zealand terms, I'd call it a mega church. Huge budget. Tamaki unashamedly flaunts his wealth and even preaches that Christians should be wealthy. He also preaches stuff which has been pointed out by many people as heresay. His church members treat him like he's Jesus. They have to swear allegience to him if they want to be members. Have to tithe if they want to be members. Have to stand up against anyone who bad mouths him. Have to stand for him when he enters the room, wait for him to start eating first when it comes to dining. Yet this church is spreading across New Zealand with thriving churches (at the expense of others of course). The people who go to these churches believe God is continually doing miracles within their walls. Last I saw this church was even listed on the cult watch website. It's not just some little isolated cult. It's a major church branch. Probably the most successful one in New Zealand at the moment.

Would David dare suggest that this church is dabbling in magic, rather than bonafide miracles?

[wiploc]

When I went to college the first time, there was an article in the college paper about cults. It listed all of the identifying criteria. Interestingly, those criteria would all have identified Christianity itself as a cult, back in its early days.