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"?

[Clownboat]

Please use these basic English skills you refer to and understand that I was talking about my perception of how people use the words, not discussing dictionary definitions.

Since we are discussing the meaning of words, perhaps it would be wiser to use the dictionary definition, or at least specify that you mean something other than the traditional definition when you use the word.

Oh, you mean like I did. Here it is again, for you and the readers:
My perception:
"Magic" is supernatural events that we know are not true (not considering children here).
"Miracle" is the word used when you still want to believe in magic, but your an adult.

I put a special part in bold for you.

Next, don't forget your basic English skills to then read my example of a rabbit out of a hat compared to fish and loaves pulled from a sack.

Would you care to explain why you disagree with my perception of the uses of these words (assuming you do)?

Why is a rabbit out of a hat magic, but loaves and fishes from a sack a miracle? If you saw a magician pull loaves and fishes from a hat, would you automatically call it a miracle?

The rabbit out of a hat is not magic. It is an illusion, as those who can pull a rabbit out of a hat would be quick to tell you.

Illusion is a form of magic. How about you address my question above rather than these poor attempts to distract.

Comparing the modern idea of pulling a rabbit out of a hat to the biblical account of a miraculous feeding would be like comparing rollerblading to calculus. The claims, setting, and meaning are fundamentally different. If one believes the biblical account or not does not change the meaning of the word magic or miracle.

You are entitled to your opinion that pulling a rabbit out of a hat and pulling fish/loaves of bread out of a sack is not a comparable analogy. I would agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

[Clownboat]

C. S. Lewis grapples with these sorts of questions in his book Miracles, so if you want a really competent treatment of this issue, I refer you to him.

The short answer, however, is that miracles have a different atmosphere than magical acts. Miracles (in the NT sense) are supposed to do on a small scale and in a short period of time what God is already doing on a large scale over long periods of time - or else to foreshadow something He will do. So, for example, Circe turning Odysseus' crew into swine qualifies as "magic" because it seems so... out of place. It neither replicates natural events, nor does it foreshadow any eschatological ones. Jesus feeding the 5 000 with five loaves and two fish, on the other hand, is suggestive of the natural processes of fertility by which fish reproduce and new grain comes in each year. Hence it qualifies as a "miracle."

As you can see, this is more of a spectrum of event kinds than it is a black-and-white sharply defined division. So, for example, the cures attributed to the Roman Emperor Vespian could be classified as either magic or miracle, as while they don't seem particularly arbitrary, they also seem just a tad out of place, given that their only context appears to be that of giving divine sanction to his rise to power. There is also the somewhat subjective factor of what the individual considers to constitute "fitting in with" the themes we find in nature.

Once again, I emphasize that C. S. Lewis does a much better job of laying this all out than I do, so if it seems like there's some kernel of a real response in what I have to say, I encourage you to read Lewis' book for yourself.

I think this furthers the point I just made.

If you go to a show and watch a guy pull more things out of his hat then would physically fit, we understand it to be a magic trick.

Read the same event out of your favorite holy book, and adults can call it a miracle. How is a magic trick more credible when read thousands of years later compared to something you witness with your own eyes?

Same event and both I would consider a magic trick if I saw them in person, but if I still had my Christian beliefs, as an adult, I would call the fish and loaves story a miracle. Most adults don't believe in magic after all.

Perhaps you would, but I think that the description of the miracle of feeding the 5,000 as "pulling more things out of a hat than would physically fit" is a bit inaccurate.

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.

You're not going to hear me argue that it actually happened like told. For me, there is a far more realistic answer.

No, magic, miracles, or illusions, no fish or loaves needed, nor trombones, fishing boats or clouded leopards, nor any ends of ages.

You can believe it if you want of course. In fact, you can even call it a miracle or magic, I'm just pointing out that most Christian adults seem to believe in miracles and deny magic, even when the occurrences (Rabbit/hat, fish/sack) are similar.

[Jashwell]

Real magic is the kind of magic that doesn't exist, and magic tricks or fake magic is the kind of magic that does exist.

Not only is pulling a rabbit out of a hat comparable to miraculous feeding, but pulling a rabbit out of a hat can literally be miraculous feeding

[David the apologist]

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?'

You appear to have entirely missed the point of my post, with all due respect. I concede that if the event occurred under non-occultish circumstances (which guards against an identification of "miracle" when "black magic" is going on, and vice versa) and it fit into the religious context of the cult, it would deserve the title "miracle."

I'm willing to accept that because I believe that Christianity is true, and without that premise, I freely admit that there's no question-begging way to come to the conclusion that miracles in other religions don't occur.

My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

[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?'

You appear to have entirely missed the point of my post, with all due respect. I concede that if the event occurred under non-occultish circumstances (which guards against an identification of "miracle" when "black magic" is going on, and vice versa) and it fit into the religious context of the cult, it would deserve the title "miracle."

I'm willing to accept that because I believe that Christianity is true, and without that premise, I freely admit that there's no question-begging way to come to the conclusion that miracles in other religions don't occur.

My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

You make some good points. However if we are going to use murder, genocide, theft of property and the killing of children as a measure for not accepting a faith, whether by association with miracle or otherwise, why is not the Hebrew foundation of Christianity dismissed for their tribal acts of genocide, murder, child murder, rape and theft of property that appears to be sanctioned by their God as recorded in scriptures held sacred by both Jews and Christians?

In no way do I wish to defend David Koresh, or other similar groups who use religion as a rationale and means to self promotion. But don't the roots of Christianity suffer equally by this standard?

[David the apologist]

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?

Having done some brief googling of this Brian Tamaki fellow, I can say that I'm fairly confident that he's not dabbling in the occult, he seems to convinced of his own special relationship with God to do that.

Are miracles going on in his congregations? Maybe, but not the sort that would authenticate Mr. Tamaki's more audacious claims. For one thing, he appears to have made a prediction that Destiny would be ruling New Zealand by now. If he were really the "Tangible expression of God," there would be no such false predictions. See Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

[David the apologist]

You appear to have entirely missed the point of my post, with all due respect. I concede that if the event occurred under non-occultish circumstances (which guards against an identification of "miracle" when "black magic" is going on, and vice versa) and it fit into the religious context of the cult, it would deserve the title "miracle."

I'm willing to accept that because I believe that Christianity is true, and without that premise, I freely admit that there's no question-begging way to come to the conclusion that miracles in other religions don't occur.

My primary issue with a "David Koresh-type cult" being authenticated by a miracle, however, isn't that it isn't Christianity. My primary issue is that David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication on any religious view that deserves discussion. Not on Christianity, not on Islam, not on Hinduism, not on Buddhism, not on Taoism, not on Jainism, not on Baha'ism, not on Sikhism, not on Judaism, and not on any form of secularism. THAT, not a question-begging assumption of Christianity, is the reason for my dismissal of "David Koresh-type cults."

You make some good points. However if we are going to use murder, genocide, theft of property and the killing of children as a measure for not accepting a faith, whether by association with miracle or otherwise, why is not the Hebrew foundation of Christianity dismissed for their tribal acts of genocide, murder, child murder, rape and theft of property that appears to be sanctioned by their God as recorded in scriptures held sacred by both Jews and Christians?

In no way do I wish to defend David Koresh, or other similar groups who use religion as a rationale and means to self promotion. But don't the roots of Christianity suffer equally by this standard?

Well, at this point we're getting a bit off topic. However, there are a few points to make. First, this sort of behavior would be par for the course in most wars of the period. Second, the Canaanite population turned the sort of debauchery I criticized Koresh for into religious ritual, so the sort of treatment that the Canaanites received was a judgment on their own religious (and social, and political) practices. Third, the way the covenant is set up in the Torah, the land will "spit up" Israel in the same way that it had "spit up" the former inhabitants if Israel breaks the covenant, indicating that the whole Canaanite campaign was one of driving-out primarily - and given the notoriety Israel would have had if the Exodus events were even remotely based on fact, most of the driving out would have occurred well before a single sandal hit the ground in the promised land. Fourth, in every war situation, the affairs of children hang upon the decisions of their parents. If a family decided to remain in the land and defy the God who had crushed the gods of Egypt, then their foolish decision had repercussions for their children. At this point, we've moved from a criticism of the Judeo-Christian God specifically into a discussion of the problem of evil.

I hope that answers your question!

More details, just in case it doesn't.

[Danmark]

Well, at this point we're getting a bit off topic. However, there are a few points to make. First, this sort of behavior would be par for the course in most wars of the period. Second, the Canaanite population turned the sort of debauchery I criticized Koresh for into religious ritual, so the sort of treatment that the Canaanites received was a judgment on their own religious (and social, and political) practices. Third, the way the covenant is set up in the Torah, the land will "spit up" Israel in the same way that it had "spit up" the former inhabitants if Israel breaks the covenant, indicating that the whole Canaanite campaign was one of driving-out primarily - and given the notoriety Israel would have had if the Exodus events were even remotely based on fact, most of the driving out would have occurred well before a single sandal hit the ground in the promised land. Fourth, in every war situation, the affairs of children hang upon the decisions of their parents. If a family decided to remain in the land and defy the God who had crushed the gods of Egypt, then their foolish decision had repercussions for their children. At this point, we've moved from a criticism of the Judeo-Christian God specifically into a discussion of the problem of evil.

If we are getting 'off topic' about Magic and Miracle, it may be because you wrote:

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.

Indeed we are getting into the problem of evil because you directed us there with your claim that:

David Koresh was a moral monster. He engaged in adultery, fornication, pedophilia, child-beating, and he led 75 people to their deaths. Such a person will not be given Divine Authentication

It is only fair to compare David Koresh to the 'moral monstrosities' of the Hebrews recorded in the Tanakh. Because of those acts, can we conclude the Hebrews and the events recorded in the Tanakh "will not be given Divine Authentication?"

It seems to me that if we are to deny "Divine Authentication" because of immoral acts, we need to deny it to the tribal religions described in the Tanakh. This includes Judaism, the foundation of Christianity. It also denies "Divine Authentication" to Christendom due to its long history of religious genocide.

[OnceConvinced]

Are miracles going on in his congregations? Maybe, but not the sort that would authenticate Mr. Tamaki's more audacious claims. For one thing, he appears to have made a prediction that Destiny would be ruling New Zealand by now. If he were really the "Tangible expression of God," there would be no such false predictions. See Deuteronomy 18:20-22.

Yes indeed, he made this false prophecy, which as far as I can see now means he is a false prophet, because his political party never even managed to get into parliament and all and now it no longer exists. Yet, his followers still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I did take a look at the cult watch website about a year or so ago and there were tape recordings of a couple of his sermons. Stuff that he was saying was quite outrageous and even blasphemous. I can't recall what that stuff was now though.

[OnceConvinced]

It seems to me that if we are to deny "Divine Authentication" because of immoral acts, we need to deny it to the tribal religions described in the Tanakh. This includes Judaism, the foundation of Christianity. It also denies "Divine Authentication" to Christendom due to its long history of religious genocide.

If the morality of the person concerned determines whether they are performing miracles as opposed to magic, then biblical characters should also be judged similarly. Moses for instance was a murderer (having murdered a slave driver). Yet when Moses parted the Red Sea we refer to it as a miracle. Perhaps we should call it magic? Same when it comes to changing the staff into a snake and swallowing up the other staffs/snakes.