Wow, I considered the discussion (not the subject matter) interesting enough to read all posts from beginning to end. Even though, I've been on this board for over 10 years now, I'm still discovering how many really smart people participate here.
Naturally, I have a few choice comments for Recovery and hope that I'm not repeating what others have said, what others have said. Even if I do, even if I do, it may be good so that you, Recovery, can start thinking on what others are trying to say, while I put it differently, and start to prick your way out of that self-referent bubble that surrounds you.
Your analogy about the red cars floored me. You say they're identical in every way except that one runs on gas and the other on a battery. Then faced with the idea that the only difference is their power source, you object to someone else's comment by saying: "But they are not the same car"! (post 133) Huh? You do realize that they can't be the "same" car, otherwise they would occupy the exact same space at the exact same time? I don't think anyone was trying to suggest that. Obviously you obfuscate the corresponding parts of your analogy. I think cognisonance pointed that out more than once.
If you'd thought a little deeper you'd realize that what powers them is the same: energy. The difference is that (to shorten the parallel) one is "magic-gas" and the other "miraculous-electricity". They can't be the same car simply by virtue of their appearance if one car was the "magic" model and the other car the "miracle" model. But I hope I'm not taxing your imagination if I say that for all practical purposes the cars are the same in the sense that they both appear and function (ride) the same. You can equate one car to Pharaoh's priests summoning frogs out of the river and the other car to Aaron summoning frogs out of the river: one is powered by gas and the other by electricity and yet both acts (cars) accomplish the exact same thing. See where I'm going?
Your definitions of one or the other, magic and miracle, are but corollaries (in the parallel you posed) for the definition of gas and electricity. The definitions you referenced for each term -- magic and miracle -- are only different ways to describe things that are both supernatural and not readily available for purchase at your local 7-Eleven. Granted, one for the most part is associated with negative or nefarious sources while the other is more positive and apparently good. But that's just one source. Other's here have made the connection in the supernaturalism of the two.
But if you really put yourself in the place of someone neutral, as some sort of third-party observer, as a visitor to Egypt when the frogs came out of the river or when everyone's staffs (staves) became flaccid and turned to snakes, as an independent observer, you would not have known the nature or the source of the event but for the fact that someone told you. If you are so inclined, you'll believe the Hebrews if they tell you. If not, you'll believe the Egyptians because they were also successful. The real point is that the source is arbitrary, while the events are indistinguishable. I realize that for you they are not and the whole thing is quite simple. But for a critically thinking and impartial individual, if we can't be sure, it's OK to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.
Let's face it, since you're taking the word of a tome with many assailable accounts, unless you can explain them all away, you may finally conclude with respect to miraculous or magical events that if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. You do realize that I'm not giving you an answer to the JWfacts reliability issue (I've never been there) or am even arguing about the veracity of Jehovah or am talking about whether Godzilla really stomped all over Tokyo. But one thing is clear: that even if this one issue in which you are clearly fallible were in a Bizarro world to be found valid, you cannot ignore all the other problems that exist with the teachings of the WTBTS and it would be very difficult to explain the changing stances that the JWs present in their literature. Hence, I'm not sure why you're hung up on this one particular issue.
If you're going to make a distinction between a miracle and magic by what is accomplished, then you need to state what point turning staffs into snakes and summoning frogs from the river make. If God wanted to make a point and give people chances to show their colors, I would think that He's one manipulating dude for putting people through the ringer when He knows exactly what they're going to do. Otherwise, God is just showing off. That does not speak well of good intent to create a miracle as opposed to the poor Egyptian priests using magic to simply keep up with Moses and Aaron and prevent their land from being devastated. Sure, I'm going to the other extreme just to prove a point.
Christ Alone, you said something interesting about evil that caught my attention: "The way I look at it is evil is not a thing, it's a mere [degradation] of what is good." (post 286) Then by the same reasoning, "good" is not a thing either. I think you're right in the sense that they are not so tangible or even quantifiable at times. But I disagree in the sense that they, good and evil, are not entities as much as I consider them "states" of things or of acts as much as we can say something is good or bad. I could say that the water temperature in my tub is bad (evil) because it's so hot it will peel the skin off my ass if sit in it, not mention other more important parts. The same water temperature is good if I use it to wash and sterilize my dishes.
In every sense of the word, the Bible determines us (although via questionable reasons or lack thereof) for what evil is. It's not evil or bad to prevent your 3-year old from going near the top of the stairs in your house. Heck, you do it. But you have determined for him or her that it is bad and wrong because you say so (for good reasons). So, it was OK for Lots daughters to commit incest but then later it was not OK for others. In the O.T. it was not OK to have a wet dream but it's inconsequential in the N.T. That means that there is a context to what is determined as evil or not. If you believe in the Bible, you either perceive it for yourself or you let others interpret that for you. The reality is that when religious organizations spiritually castigate people or cause untold pain for others, as the WTBTS has done, you start to realize that evil (in a religious sense) is relative and very subjective. A society like ours has different rules (or at least different foundations) for what is considered evil.
Recovery , you said: "Hence, supernatural showings such as a human flying, a talking orge [I think you meant to say ogre], or a princess being turned into a frog are not objectionable from the Bible's viewpoint" and "Dressing up as demons and ghosts and devils for Halloween = Fantasy. Does not attribute power to evil REAL evil spirits." Are you serious? So what are you going to dress up as next Halloween? I dare you to put that princess/frog thing to the test and see how fast you're helped out of the Kingdom Hall if you try to argue it. Pahleeeeze, many of us spent quite a bit of time on the inside and have a good deal of certainty about how it would go down.
I would love for you to offer more insight into your thinking because its only bound to sharpen mine as well as give me an opportunity to hear what others here have to say that intelligent and thoughtful. That's an admission that in spite of being wrong, you do make a compelling argument. That's what makes it interesting.
