ITT: Praise your favourite wizard.
Jesus is one of my favourites, because he had an venomous intellect of which the poison is but Love.
My favorite wizard nam by polyic
>>311114
who is polyic?
>wizard
As Augustine says, magic is demonic, and miracles flow through Faith. Jesus was not a 'wizard', fedorafriend
>>311110
Melia is my favorite wizard ever.
Melia is love, Melia is life!
>>311123
>anime in a Christian thread
A list of possible places you could go back to:
>>>/a/
>>>/trash/
>>>/out/
>>>/mlp/
>>>/r/eddit
>>>/f/acebook
>>>/a/nywherebuthere
>>311122
Yea so differentiate between miracles and magic because there is obviously a differentiation in the methods followed, that's not to say Jesus wasn't a worker of miracles, or, on some level, magic. You say miracles are anointed by God and magic anointed by what exactly? You say, by abuse of the Holy Spirit? What say you?
Simon
and Faust
>>311145
Simon who?
>>311135
Magic/sorcery is allegedly derived from demons. Demonic.
>But all the miracles of the magicians, who he thinks are justly deserving of condemnation, are performed according to the teaching and by the power of demons.
>But if a sinner who is penitent pour out prayers, especially if he has committed any crime of sorcery, does he receive pardon through the intercession of those demons by whose instigation and help he has fallen into the sin he mourns?
(Augustine, City of God, Book VIII, 19)
The different with Jesus would be that, as Christians say, he derived his power from God (the Holy Spirit)
>>311161
Simon Fall-From-The-Sky-by-Demons
>>311167
Obviously it is an internal motive that indicates whether the power is from God or demons, which is not observable from the exterior. This is exemplified when the pharisees claim Jeshua to be in fact beezlbub, his power over the demons deriving from the fact he was the king of the demons as said.
So what could we tell would be the difference?
How are either performed? Is there a difference in that?
>>311168
Simon Magus?
>>311135
Indeed, if any view is plausibly accused of being “magical” in the sense of being *intrinsically unintelligible*, it is atheism itself. The reason is that it is very likely that an atheist has to hold that the operation of at least the fundamental laws that govern the universe is an “unintelligible brute fact”; as I have noted before, that was precisely the view taken by J. L. Mackie and Bertrand Russell. The reason an atheist (arguably) has to hold this is that to allow that the world is not ultimately a brute fact -- that it is intelligible through and through -- seems to entail that there is some level of reality which is radically non-contingent or necessary in an absolute sense. And that would in turn be to allow (so the traditional metaphysician will argue) that there is something which, as the Thomist would put it, is pure actuality and ipsum esse subsistens or “subsistent being itself” -- and thus something which has the divine attributes which inexorably flow from being pure actuality and ipsum esse subsistens. Hence it would be to give up atheism. But to operate in a way that is ultimately unintelligible in principle -- as the atheist arguably has to say the fundamental laws of nature do, insofar as he has to say that they are “just there” as a brute fact, something that could have been otherwise but happens to exist anyway, with no explanation -- just is to be “magical” in the objectionable sense. In fact it is only on a theistic view of the world that the laws of nature are not “magical”; and the Mackie/Russell position is (as I argue in the post linked to above) ultimately incoherent for the same sorts of reason that magical thinking in general is incoherent. As is so often the case, the loudmouth New Atheist turns out to be exactly what he claims to despise -- in this case, a believer in “magical powers.”
http://edwardfeser.blogspot
.com/2011/10/magic-versus-metaphysics.html
>>311247
Never read so much literal bulshit in my life anon, sorry.
>>311247
This is a prime example of pseudo-intellectual wizardry that falls so desperatly short because of it´s lack of coherent arguments and no basis in the scientific method.
It's just strawman arguments.
>>311247
>someone actually wrote this and thought it was an 'argument'
