GOOD FRUITS AND THE LIFE TRANSFORMING AND VIRTUE INDUCING DOCTRINE OF DIVINE GRACE
Jesus said that it is by their fruits you know the true prophets from the false.
Just in case we end up seeing a prophet as good for he seems okay he said the
prophet needs to get figs where there are thorns. So ordinary views of goodness
will not do.
He implicitly denies that one religion is as good as another.
For him, the biggest miracle is how God fixes hearts and does for people what
they cannot do for themselves.
Miracles of the other kind - vanishing cancers ladies in white appearing in holy
grottoes are not doing a good thing for they attract people to a faith that they
would not believe in if they knew it properly which few people do.
If Jesus had thought, he would have noticed how the miracle of bad people
becoming good is what matters and not attempts to exorcise demons or rise from
the dead!
People apply his test of getting figs from thorns to miracle claims.
A miracle is an event that is not naturally possible. That does not mean it is
necessarily impossible. There could be a power greater than nature such as a god
that can do it. A miracle is supernatural. It's really magic and superstition
under a different name. If a power can instantly remove an incurable terminal
disease, then it can guarantee bad luck for those who walk under ladders.
Christianity claims that God shows his love by doing miracles. The biggest one
is when he raised Jesus from the dead to be our saviour and to give us hope of
resurrection. But many miracles contradict each other. A god appears in one
religion condemning the god of another. So religion argues that not all miracle
stories are true and we know what miracles are really from God when we see
amazing good fruits such as conversion and joy and peace.
Religion says God will do miracles only to help make it easier for people to see
the truth he has given to them that will make them better people. But when God
decides what way miracles will be done and when and why we cannot really know
all his reasons. We might even mistake the side-effects that are good as being
intended by him. You cannot say that God did a miracle without being able to
give evidence why he must have done it. It is not for you to judge that the good
is a good fruit and not just a side-effect. It is like, "Oh I'm so special that
God went to all that trouble for me!"
A person who sees a miracle says it opened him or her up to the grace of
conversion. This is not true. God is said to bring people to himself by grace or
his undeserved favour. The person sees a miracle. God calls the person to
convert. It is their response to that that changes them not the miracle.
Miracles never convert anyone. So it follows that they are totally unnecessary.
They are just showing off. It is how people choose to respond to a miracle that
effects the positive changes – not the miracle.
Miracles produce bad fruit if they support bad or false doctrine. No God would
raise Jesus who was so evil that he claimed that sinners who die will go to Hell
forever. God sends them there according to the Bible and we are to believe God
for believing what he has allegedly said is an act of worship towards him. We
see and touch one another and we cannot be as sure as that that God exists and
yet we are expected to have faith that people we know can go to Hell and this
should be approved of all for the sake of this God.
When Christian miracles verify error it is clear that miracles are not signs and
should not be considered as such.
Naturally, modern miracles would be more credible than ones that happened
centuries ago for people know human nature better and know science better these
days.
Prayer is not about trying to change anything but to unite to God and opening
yourself up to being like him. If miracles emphasised that doctrine they would
not have as many fans. A handful would have been there the day the sun spun at
Fatima. The attraction about miracles is not God but human craving for
idolatrous worship and its love of sectarianism and man-made religion.
Many believers say prayer has good fruits so it is from God. When miracles have
plenty of concern for calling us to prayer and none for the unspeakable crimes
we commit against animals mainly by doing nothing for them it is clear that this
talk about fruits is only sanctimonious nonsense. It is better to save animals
from suffering than to pray. Yet the teaching of prayer says no. A clear example
that faith comes first for Christians and people don't matter in comparison. If
you needed to hurt an animal to believe, you would therefore be obligated to do
that.
A good God will be satisfied with one brief prayer for it is quality not
quantity that matters. Prayers offered when you are sinning or unrepented which
is a sin in itself are worthless and trying to take God for a fool. "God reward
me with an answer to my prayer and I will not reward you with obedience."
The fruits people call good fruits mean the people are putting themselves in the
place of judges. It is not that easy to judge. They say they know what the good
fruits are which is quite an arrogant boast for the fruits might be unintended
by God.
The Christian God is praised for doing nothing miraculous about the Holocaust
while the Christian thinks that finding a dollar on the street that he needs to
buy some bread is a miraculous response to his prayer. There is appalling
arrogance in that. The Christian thinks his dollar is more important than
stopping the Holocaust. He thinks the dollar is a good fruit of his prayer. It
is far from it.
To say, "God sent the dollar to me which was a miracle sign that he is looking
after me", is a refusal to admit that if it is, then the Holocaust is a sign
that he does not look after people. The believer ends up being concerned not
about evidence but about wanting to feel looked after. I'd not take such a
person's word for it if they report seeing miracles or claim that God cured them
of cancer.
Jesus used the fruits argument when talking about prophets. These seem to be the
prophets sent by God whose utterances are scripture or to be taken as being
devoid of error for God does not err. The Catholic Church holds that since the
prophets produced the Bible, today's prophets do not have the same rank. You do
not have to believe in them. So the fruits argument then only applies to
authorised revelation for the whole Church. It does not apply to private
revelations.
It is believed that if a miracle results in conversions and repentance that
these good fruits prove that God was behind it. The very fact that all believers
hold that fruits show this, proves that the miracles promote the bad fruit of
deception for it is wrong and self-righteous to appeal to the fruits.
And Jesus said that sincere people do their good works in private so if miracles
result in the good fruit of good works that means the people are disobeying this
rule and showing off. So the good fruits are really bad fruits.
Good fruits follow even fraudulent miracle claims. The fruits argument puts
pressure on the fraudster not to come clean. The argument causes a bias in
favour of the fraudster as well. Good fruits may be as unhelpful for determining
if something is good and true as they are helpful. The good fruits argument is
popular but very toxic. It is the number one reason why people were sexually
abused by priests and felt unable to speak out about it. The reasoning was, "The
priest brings people to God. People see he is a good man. I am bad for thinking
he is bad for hurting me. It is my fault."
All false miracles have seemingly good fruits – even the fraudulent apparitions
of Bayside which claimed that Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by an
impostor! The Hare Krishna would tell you about the good fruits of chanting a
mantra. They feel they experience union with a fictitious Hindu god. And a god
that taught immorality in the Gita, their gospel.
When an event happens there are good direct consequences and bad direct ones and
the same holds true for the bad and neutral consequences – therefore to boast
that a miracle was from Heaven because of its fruits is just sheer madness and
arrogance and deceptiveness for nobody can really know for it is too
complicated. Suppose something has fruits that are equally good or bad. People
may just ignore the bad. Such fruits are not good fruits but kind of neither. If
something is both it is also neither.
The failure of the fruits argument to help show miracles are a good thing and
maybe from a good God is a deep one. It is a complete disaster. You cannot show
that a miracle was really a force for sufficient good so you cannot repose your
faith on it. Its failure shows that the goodness is just as bad as the goodness
that comes from taking a e-tablet. The fruit is mostly bad.
When so many people find the attraction to religion that results from miracles
disturbing it shows that believers just care about their spiritual thrills and
not about whether miracles might be harmful. When most of us live without seeing
miracles and so without the fruits it is clear that it is best to assume they
are bad. What is so special about miracle mongers that we should take their
claims seriously? Who do they think they are?
The most important test of a miracle that really came from God would be the
truth of its message. Truth would be the main fruit for without truth we cannot
see what good is or what is right so all the good results in the world cannot
justify belief in a miracle that is either a hoax or from the Devil but was
taken for a miracle from God.
There can be no doubt that the big attraction about miracles is the good fruits
but this itself is a mistake. It is a mistake that proves that no miracle can be
from God for no miracle seeks to correct this mistake. It is the fruit we want
not the miracle and who made us like that? God. It is selfish to value good from
a miracle more than good for itself. Miracles result in vice that looks like
virtue.
§
You cannot judge a person as good without being open to the possibility of
judging and perceiving them as bad. What use would being thought good be if
everybody judged nobody bad? Your mental health would not last if you thought
people were judging you good not because of your good deeds but because they
have that attitude towards everybody by default. Judging must be kept to the
minimum as it's a necessary evil. If we judge a holy miracle by its fruits - the
positive spiritual effect it has on people - then we are forced to judge people
over religion. That is wrong. If I judge a man for hurting his baby, I judge him
as having harmed the baby and himself by behaving like a monster. But if I
believe in religion, I will also judge him for disobeying his religion and his
God. That is extra judging and it does nobody any good. It is going too far.
Whatever encourages belief in God may do short-term good but it sanctions
judging and in that it is bad. It's enough to condemn it.
Religion argues that we can consider a reported miracle of God to be authentic
if it has good fruits of joy and so on. God is good so he supposedly does good
things. The fact that he makes nasty viruses is conveniently forgotten. He has,
according to Catholicism, even rigged nature so that babies are supposedly born
in a state that makes them unfit to enter his presence and enjoy an eternal love
relationship with him. If miracles are really good then how can they be if they
encourage such beliefs?
You need seriously good evidence to back up a miracle claim. If miracles are
signs from God, then it follows that we must ask on God's behalf that people
believe in them. The more extraordinary the claim you make, the more
extraordinary the evidence must be.
In the light of the good fruits notion, extraordinary evidence will primarily or
solely consist of extraordinary spiritual and moral heroism in the person
touched by the miracle. The person then becomes the miracle. But this hardly
ever happens. We have no evidence even that the apostles of Jesus were amazing
saints for there is so little known about them. So that does not say much for
their proclamation that they witnessed the resurrected Jesus.
To say that the verified miracles of another religion are from Satan is to admit
that Satan does miracles that make people live what seem to be better lives and
happier. He sees and hears things we don’t so his miracles will do undetectable
evil or evil that cannot be directly traced back to the miracle so you cannot
tell the difference between a miracle from God or him. The miracle of exorcising
demons who are tormenting people they control or possess is a definite hoax
because no sane Devil would let a person show the signs of possession in an
obvious way.
We conclude that the good fruits argument is only helpful when it describes how
God fixed a person and that any other kind of miracle does not have the same
strength. That includes the resurrection of Jesus and Jesus risen seemed to have
less interest in teaching people and fixing their souls than the
pre-resurrection did! We should not even be interested in such miracles!