Jesus reportedly performed many miracles, but adamantly refused to perform “stupid God tricks”- demonstrations on demand as proof of his divinity. In fact, God or Jesus or his prophets seem broadly adverse to performing miracles except in the most needful circumstances. Why is this exactly?
*Need I even specify that this question is in the context of the New Testament being literally true? The answer “because he couldn’t actually work miracles and all the reports he did were power of suggestion, mass hysteria, or myths after the fact” is hereby recognized and dismissed from further discussion.
“I refuse to prove that I exist,” says God, “for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.”
^It’s from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, not the Bible, but sums it up pretty well.
There’s a whole theological philosophy built around the idea that faith and reason are antithetical, called fideism. Jesus was something of a fideist. He refused to be a performing monkey to convince those of weak faith, but he’d pull out the occasional miracle when he felt like it to help individuals in need.
WAG: Miracles aren’t magic tricks for the dubious. They’re manifestations of God’s power and so should be for the deserving and/or faithful. It’s like the difference between paying for someone’s groceries because they demand it versus paying for the groceries of a struggling family because they seem to need a little good in their lives - even if you were rich as hell and could pay for groceries all day, being expected to “put out” because some jerk wants you to prove it is really obnoxious.
I think this has to be the best explanation. Faith is such a huge part of Christianity, and if Jesus/God just went around performing miracles on demand, that would make faith unnecessary.
Of course, it could be the other way around, too. The early founders of Christianity had to make faith a big part of the whole deal precisely because there was not physical evidence.
Yeah that one doesn’t seem too noble - he basically just prevented a wedding reception from running out of booze. And from what I recall (reaching way back to elementary school days), it was at the explicit request of a fellow party-goer.
The Gospels don’t have Jesus refusing to do tricks all the time. They say he wouldn’t do them for Antipas, but he certainly healed and performed exorcisms on demand, and his mom is the one who told him to do the wine trick.
It is contradicted by the fact that the Bible is filled with stories of miracles and direct communication by God to humans. The Apostles didn’t need faith, they saw proof.
It has no moral value and turns salvation into a guessing game. Whoever can guess, without evidence, which precise religious story (out of an infinite number of choices) is the “true” one gets to go to Heaven. It makes no difference what kind of person you are. Guess right or go home. It’s the equivalent of God making salvation contingent on being able to guess what number he’s thinking of between negative infinity to infinity, not excluding decimals. This is a test which renders any concept of moral “goodness” an irrelevancy to both people and God. Ted Bundy can go to Heaven, but Gandhi is fucked.
Belief is a dependent variable. It’s not volitional. Not a choice. It therefore can’t logically be a moral test.
OK, now I’m confused. Are you talking about your own view of what the NT says, or are you talking about what the official Catholic Church’s position is.
#1 is pretty clear, and I agree that’s what is in the NT, but we’re talking about people who either never saw Jesus during his lifetime, or the rest of us who never had a chance.
I’m talking about what the NT says, but also about the whole notion in general that salvation by faith makes any moral or logical sense.
God is just as capable of proving his existence now as he was then. The NT clearly shows that people don’t have to believe without proof to be saved, and there’s nothing preventing god from showing his existence to everybody alive in every generation. Furthermore, as I said above, faith is not a volitional act so it’s completely irrational and immoral as a test.
I’m not disputing that the Catholic position exists, if that’s what you’re asking. I’m just calling the position itself theologically indefensible.
It wasn’t that Jesus refused to do things on demand, but that he refused to do it just to show off. Even what happened at the wedding was a need, if a small one.
Furthermore, he refused to do stuff during his trial specifically because it could have gotten him off, which would defeat the purpose.
