I selected both that it depends on the disagreement and that my position is nuanced. The thing is, I really look at it in reverse, in that the works of a miracle worker are only meaningful IF they are consistent with his teachings. That is, using Jesus as an example, I get that a lot of people, particularly at the dawn of Christianity, were swayed to believe in him because of the miracles. It seems the line of reasoning is that being a miracle worker implies he has the backing of God, therefore his words are going to be largely consistent with the message of God, he claims to be God, ergo he IS God and his teachings are thus truth. In this case, missing the claim to be God, we can only say that the teachings are close enough to be blessed with those powers.
But the thing is, I really don’t buy this line of reasoning, because even if one has proved beyond reasonable doubt that I’d understand as super natural or miraculous, that doesn’t mean they come from God. Maybe this person is just an amazing magician/illusionist so skilled as to pass the scrutiny of anyone watching and unethical enough to let people REALLY believe that they come from God rather than just suspend disbelief in the performance. Or maybe it’s along the lines of the adage that any sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic. Or maybe they ARE of some sort of celestial being but not necessarily in a way that’s analogous to God or gods or source that is inherently worth listening to. Or maybe it’s just pure dumb luck, akin to mutants from X-Men, where there’s no meaning to the source of the powers at all.
Instead, I take the opposite approach, that it’s the teachings the lend weight to the purpose of miracles. Again, using Jesus as an example, I think his miracles have meaning (assuming for the sake of discussion they happened) because of his teachings, because he taught of love, generosity, compassion, etc. His teachings are consistent with his miracles, and his teachings are generally consistent with my own beliefs.
As for this teacher, like with many spiritual types, the superficial messages are often along the same lines, but it’s the underlying philosophies and reasonings are what separate these types of people. That is, again, most spiritual leaders talk about helping and serving others, but if that were enough, then we wouldn’t have so many different religions and life philosophies. Some do these things out of fear, some out of compassion, others because of an afterlife or reincarnation, some for more complicated reasons. It’s ultimately the motivations that I can suss out from being around someone that drives me to agree with, or not, their life philosophies. If they’re consistent, I’ll be more likely to trust them and actually believe that at least they believe they’re miracles, if not, even if I have no real explanation at all, I’ll be more likely to be skeptical.
And even in that, for people whose spirtual paths and philosophies I largely agree with, I’ve yet to find anyone where I agree with everything. Hell, some I’m not just debatable with on certain points, but flat out think they’re wrong. At the same time, I believe what I believe because I think I’m right, but I recognize I’m probably wrong about a lot, maybe even more than I’m right about. So my views are constantly evolving. Beyond that, it’s just really hard to know how I’d react without meeting and being in the presence of that person.
