well, yes actually, you have been supposing all along that god should perform more miracles. furthermore, they should be more convincing than the ones modern christians claim are happening now. you have suggested if god cares about us knowing him, performing more miracles would be more effective. you have also said that non miraculous acts of christians do little to prove jesus' divinity in the context of asking for more miracles as proof, but later said that you're not asking god to give miracles on demand as a show of divinity.
Understand the difference between asking for miracles on demand and asking that a greater number of miracles be observed. You seem to be insisting they're the same.
And by that way, I wasn't supposing what you claim I was.
your argument breaks down without the supposition that god's existence and message to mankind must be supported by miracles alone.
Emphasis mine - and I see you omitted the word alone from your paraphrase above.
Again, I'm not asking that only miracles be done, nor that they always be done on demand - only that they are observed more often. That doesn't require that they be the only act of God, nor that they occur on demand.
really? you're not going to take into account all i've said about jesus' redemptive act on the cross as the real sign his miracles were actually only alluding to? again, are you sure you are not missing my point?
All you've said? I'm not seeing where you've discussed this in any depth at all.
addressed in 1st paragraph.
You're going to have to point that out - I didn't see that addressed anywhere at all in your first paragraph.
the message being that there is no opposite intent in god's eyes. that asking for a sign is already a display of disbelief. in his story about lazarus and the rich man, the rich man begs to get a message from hell to his brothers and was told they have moses and the prophets. the rich man said his brothers wouldn't listen to moses and the prophets and was told then they won't listen to someone having risen from the dead(paraphrased). what is the first thing any of us do when something strange occurs? seek a natural explanation.
And yet people regularly asked Jesus for signs.
Goodness, the ask, seek, knock verse doesn't have any quantifiers on it.
i've said twice in this thread already that we will never produce satisfactory evidence for either side of the issue. it can always be argued. could this perhaps be the reason god doesn't produce miracles on demand?
So what if it can be argued? I'm not asking for definite proof, I never have, yet you keep insisting that am. Apologetics can be argued. The value of good deeds can be argued. So what if miracles can be argued? Why does the fact that something can be argued mean it's not permitted?
all you are seeing is not all i've presented. i have demonstrated where i think you have misunderstood me, but you have not demonstrated where you claim i am misreading you.
Done it several times. Repeatedly.
it just seems to me that you NEED for christianity to have a doctrine of faith healing which cannot be easily proven and thus give you something to shoot holes in.
I don't need it to do anything - Christianity is quite capable of being incoherent all on its ownio.
christians are attacked for their belief in miracles, but when i emphasize the gospel, de-emphasize miracles, defend modern medicine, i am attacked for not emphasizing miracles more. are you simply giving up because you are so used to having it both ways?
You're oversimplifying this.
I think there is scope for more miracles in the Bible - I don't see anything that suggests that more shouldn't be seen - and again, that is not the same thing as saying that miracles should be on demand.
I disagree with you for saying that there isn't scope for this.
I disagree with those who DO claim miracles are occurring because I don't think they ARE miracles.
Both sides of the debate having its issues doesn't mean that those pointing them out are trying to have it both ways.
