For the sake of argument, let's say God exists

[Hespera]

I thought you'd be more offended that he called you an old woman!

ooooooo hooo hoo! YOU are gonna get it now!

 

[HosannaHM]

I don't mind when I was your age I would have thought the same way. Now, I know I would never want to be that age again. I like where I am at. Thanks anyway... I'm ok with it.

Did you not enjoy 23 or something?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Giving Joe Bonham his limbs would be visible and just too straightforward. It's better that God only cures ailments that aren't readily visible. It keeps it all part of the mystery.

"If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

 

[Inan3]

I've had no experience of this. It goes back to the central point of this thread, which we've diverged from quite a bit, we all have our inner voice. Every culture attributes it to different spirits and deities. What evidence is there that it is one particular Middle-Eastern God, and not Native American earth spirits, or our ancestors guiding us? Or that it's just not a natural process of our brains..

In a nutshell, two kingdoms one of light one of darkness. Adam's sin sold us out to the kingdom of darkness under the power and authority of satan the prince of darkness and god of this world. From that time till Christ, satan had rule over ALL mankind. God preserved a line of people who would serve Him and be witnesses of His power in the world so that men would see there was only ONE true God. From the beginning before the creation of man satan/lucifer had set out to set up his throne above God's. He has deceived man into believing in multiple gods and following after the powers of darkness in many differnt forms but basically it is all the same deceiver behind it all. Multiple gods down through the ages with demons and fallen angels behind the powers and sorceries that empowered men to control and abuse and deceive the people. The number one command that He gave to His people was I am the Lord you shall have NO OTHER gods besides me. He revealed Himself as the ONLY God and Creator of all.

I don't know, I'm not a doctor, and I'm not even sure if this is a common practise, I'm just referencing someone from another thread. And as other people have said, there is no evidence that prayer works. There is a certain rate of spontaneous remission in diseases, and it stays the same whether someone is prayed for or not. .

No evidence!! Well, I can't make you believe but over and over again people say they have been healed and over and over again they are accused of imagining it or lying about it or it was going to happen anyway. Well, that's just not true. There have been many verifiable healings but no amount of evidence will be accepted if one wants to believe something else.

I chose nothing. I tried really hard to believe in Jesus, as all of my friends and family were christians, and I'd been taught for years that all of it was true. I literally couldn't choose to believe in your God, and more than you could make the decision to snap your fingers and sincerely believe in Vishnu..

My God and Vishnu are very different. Vishnu is an obvious fallacy but God is not. How many people tell you they have a relationship with Vishnu or that Vishnu has healed them or that Vishnu has saved them and set them free from addictions. Most of Hinduism is just being born into a Hindu family. It is no more than a religion. True Christianity is much more than that. I was born into a Roman Catholic family and I went to church because I had to. I believed in God and what I had learned but I was not a Christian. I was in a religion. I did not become a Christian until "I" committed my life to Christ. From that day I was changed. I no longer attend the Catholic church but I am most surely a Christian. No other God by the one true God.

 

[Hespera]

Inan it really would be a courtesy if you'd change your font colour.

 

[Ar Cosc]

In a nutshell, two kingdoms one of light one of darkness. Adam's sin sold us out to the kingdom of darkness under the power and authority of satan the prince of darkness and god of this world. From that time till Christ, satan had rule over ALL mankind. God preserved a line of people who would serve Him and be witnesses of His power in the world so that men would see there was only ONE true God. From the beginning before the creation of man satan/lucifer had set out to set up his throne above God's. He has deceived man into believing in multiple gods and following after the powers of darkness in many differnt forms but basically it is all the same deceiver behind it all. Multiple gods down through the ages with demons and fallen angels behind the powers and sorceries that empowered men to control and abuse and deceive the people. The number one command that He gave to His people was I am the Lord you shall have NO OTHER gods besides me. He revealed Himself as the ONLY God and Creator of all.

But this is all just rhetoric, there's no evidence of anything.

No evidence!! Well, I can't make you believe but over and over again people say they have been healed and over and over again they are accused of imagining it or lying about it or it was going to happen anyway. Well, that's just not true. There have been many verifiable healings but no amount of evidence will be accepted if one wants to believe something else.

I could level the same accusation at you. You're very entrenched in your views, and are unwilling to consider other possibilities.

My God and Vishnu are very different. Vishnu is an obvious fallacy but God is not. How many people tell you they have a relationship with Vishnu or that Vishnu has healed them or that Vishnu has saved them and set them free from addictions. Most of Hinduism is just being born into a Hindu family. It is no more than a religion. True Christianity is much more than that. I was born into a Roman Catholic family and I went to church because I had to. I believed in God and what I had learned but I was not a Christian. I was in a religion. I did not become a Christian until "I" committed my life to Christ. From that day I was changed. I no longer attend the Catholic church but I am most surely a Christian. No other God by the one true God.

The way you see Vishnu is the way I see your God. You can't disprove Hinduism, but to you, it's obviously wrong. You happily accept any evidence that Hinduism isn't true, but you apply a different standard to the religion you happened to be born into, not because of any rational considerations, but because it's what you want to believe.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

My God and Vishnu are very different. Vishnu is an obvious fallacy but God is not. How many people tell you they have a relationship with Vishnu or that Vishnu has healed them or that Vishnu has saved them and set them free from addictions. Most of Hinduism is just being born into a Hindu family. It is no more than a religion. True Christianity is much more than that. I was born into a Roman Catholic family and I went to church because I had to. I believed in God and what I had learned but I was not a Christian. I was in a religion. I did not become a Christian until "I" committed my life to Christ. From that day I was changed. I no longer attend the Catholic church but I am most surely a Christian. No other God by the one true God.

You do realize that Hindus believe the opposite, right? Like, literally put "Christian God" wherever you put Vishnu in that rant and you have exactly the same argument from the other side.

You have no more evidence that your God is real than Hindus have of Vishnu or Muslims have of Allah.

You are an atheist with respect to Vishnu and all the other Gods beside the Christian one. Us atheists just go one God farther. So really, you know what it is like to be an atheist.

 

[AV1611VET]

You have no more evidence that your God is real than Hindus have of Vishnu or Muslims have of Allah.

What does B.C. stand for?

(Relative to this conversation, of course.)

 

[Seamus Riley]

I see where you're coming from more now, and with regard to your point about the "fairy godmother" god I have a few points:

1. I don't think it's especially unreasonable to think that God will miraculously heal as it's given explicitly as a sign for those who believe in him, and that was the word of Christ, not an epistle-writer pontificating.

2. I don't see why "trumping consequences" is such a no-no when the whole notion of Christianity is trumping a consequence.

3. The point about amputees as I see it isn't necessarily about a fairy godmother god, but more about how the statistics for claimed miraculous healings are no better than those for which no supernatural intervention was sought.

1. on the occasions when jesus said "your faith has healed you" i don't think it was ever in conjunction with the teaching of a doctrine that suggested faith healing would be a function of the church that would compete with or replace medicine. he specifically told the apostles as individuals that they would commit acts of miraculous healing, but never sets up a church doctrine in this vein.

it is much more likely by jesus' words and actions that his miraculous healings were to reach the carnality of mind with the spiritual message as well as a show of compassion. faced with someone in need of immediate medical attention, jesus describes the samaritan as having given immediate medical attention, not merely a prayer for healing. to me this all says that along with the mission of delivering the gospel christians should also build hospitals, which they have.

2. biblically, allowing for one to live with consequences is a show of seriousness of god so that we learn not to act rashly with the belief that whatever stupid thing we do, god will be there to just fix it for us. its like spanking a small child who runs into traffic but was not harmed by the experience itself: it gives a consequence to learn from where mere words might not sink in to an underdeveloped intellect.

but on the matter of eternal consequence, it is clear that god places much less stock in whether we live our earthly lives rich or poor, whole or lame, based on our choices and much more in the eternal spiritual status.

the eternal consequence of sin is not simply deleted, but rather paid for by christ's sacrifice. from that we should have a new consequence, eternal gratitude which should change our outlook on life, god and others around us.

3. i've pointed out in other posts that it's probably going to be impossible to conclusively demonstrate satisfactory evidence for or against miraculous healing. the fact that jesus' earthly mission was not solely hinged on the presentation of miraculous healing, but that these were in fact lesser tools to reach listeners with a bigger picture, shows me that the gospel as is relevant today should neither be based on whether or not faith healing is a real phenomenon. if someone were in fact to receive a genuine faith healing, it would primarily affect only themselves and anyone around them who believed it on faith to be genuine. jesus told the apostles to perform miracles, but to virtually everyone else said believe in me, follow me, etc. the fact is christians needn't perform miracles to carry out christ's commission. the power of love itself can be as mentally transforming as a show of gnarly feats. feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick (with medicine): could keep a lot of people busy and be a strong testament to christianity.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

What does B.C. stand for?

(Relative to this conversation, of course.)

If THAT'S your best evidence, you've proven my point.

 

[Hespera]

1. on the occasions when jesus said "your faith has healed you" i don't think it was ever in conjunction with the teaching of a doctrine that suggested faith healing would be a function of the church that would compete with or replace medicine. he specifically told the apostles as individuals that they would commit acts of miraculous healing, but never sets up a church doctrine in this vein.

it is much more likely by jesus' words and actions that his miraculous healings were to reach the carnality of mind with the spiritual message as well as a show of compassion. faced with someone in need of immediate medical attention, jesus describes the samaritan as having given immediate medical attention, not merely a prayer for healing. to me this all says that along with the mission of delivering the gospel christians should also build hospitals, which they have.

2. biblically, allowing for one to live with consequences is a show of seriousness of god so that we learn not to act rashly with the belief that whatever stupid thing we do, god will be there to just fix it for us. its like spanking a small child who runs into traffic but was not harmed by the experience itself: it gives a consequence to learn from where mere words might not sink in to an underdeveloped intellect.

but on the matter of eternal consequence, it is clear that god places much less stock in whether we live our earthly lives rich or poor, whole or lame, based on our choices and much more in the eternal spiritual status.

the eternal consequence of sin is not simply deleted, but rather paid for by christ's sacrifice. from that we should have a new consequence, eternal gratitude which should change our outlook on life, god and others around us.

3. i've pointed out in other posts that it's probably going to be impossible to conclusively demonstrate satisfactory evidence for or against miraculous healing. the fact that jesus' earthly mission was not solely hinged on the presentation of miraculous healing, but that these were in fact lesser tools to reach listeners with a bigger picture, shows me that the gospel as is relevant today should neither be based on whether or not faith healing is a real phenomenon. if someone were in fact to receive a genuine faith healing, it would primarily affect only themselves and anyone around them who believed it on faith to be genuine. jesus told the apostles to perform miracles, but to virtually everyone else said believe in me, follow me, etc. the fact is christians needn't perform miracles to carry out christ's commission. the power of love itself can be as mentally transforming as a show of gnarly feats. feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick (with medicine): could keep a lot of people busy and be a strong testament to christianity.

. i've pointed out in other posts that it's probably going to be impossible to conclusively demonstrate satisfactory evidence for or against miraculous healing

You can SAY that, but its not so! Regrowth-overnight, say- of any missing part; tooth, kidney, uterus, you name it!

Xrays and other tests showing advanced arthritis, lung cancer, etc, gone overnight or in an instant.

More ways than ya could shake a stick at!

We cant prove the it cant happen, but it would be easy as frog pie to prove it did.... if it did.

 

[Seamus Riley]

You missed the point and made excuses for God. God supposedly heals all kinds of ailments, such as cancer, all the time through miracles. But curiously, he never heals amputees. Ever.

He removes tumors, keeps people from dying from heart attacks or strokes, removes infections, etc but he never heals an amputee. Why would he heal everything else that we know has natural methods for automatic remission or self-healing but he never heals things which aren't known to have natural mechanisms for healing?

you are mistaking me for someone who automatically assumes an unexplained recovery is necessarily a prayer-driven faith-healing directly from god. there are a lot of views being delivered in this muddied thread, so perhaps someone else's may have been mixed in with mine, but i've tried to be clear on my own biblically based views on medicine and miracles.

an atheist pointing to one unhealed ailment and saying "no god" is a unconvincing as a theist pointing to an unexplained healing and saying "see, god".

you are attacking my claims based on the claims of others. if you see a problem with my claim, i'd be happy to defend it.

 

[Ar Cosc]

What does B.C. stand for?

(Relative to this conversation, of course.)

There is no way dating conventions could possibly be relevant to this conversation. The only things less relevant are Thalidomide, the Space Shuttle Challenger, and the Dwarf Planet Pluto. Come on, AV, I know you're proud of not learning things, but these are all complete PRATTs

 

[Seamus Riley]

You can SAY that, but its not so! Regrowth-overnight, say- of any missing part; tooth, kidney, uterus, you name it!

Xrays and other tests showing advanced arthritis, lung cancer, etc, gone overnight or in an instant.

More ways than ya could shake a stick at!

We cant prove the it cant happen, but it would be easy as frog pie to prove it did.... if it did.

you are mistaking me for someone who automatically assumes an unexplained recovery is necessarily a prayer-driven faith-healing directly from god. there are a lot of views being delivered in this muddied thread, so perhaps someone else's may have been mixed in with mine, but i've tried to be clear on my own biblically based views on medicine and miracles.

an atheist pointing to one unhealed ailment and saying "no god" is a unconvincing as a theist pointing to an unexplained healing and saying "see, god".

you are attacking my claims based on the claims of others. if you see a problem with my claim, i'd be happy to defend it.

 

[Cabal]

1. on the occasions when jesus said "your faith has healed you" i don't think it was ever in conjunction with the teaching of a doctrine that suggested faith healing would be a function of the church that would compete with or replace medicine. he specifically told the apostles as individuals that they would commit acts of miraculous healing, but never sets up a church doctrine in this vein.

it is much more likely by jesus' words and actions that his miraculous healings were to reach the carnality of mind with the spiritual message as well as a show of compassion. faced with someone in need of immediate medical attention, jesus describes the samaritan as having given immediate medical attention, not merely a prayer for healing. to me this all says that along with the mission of delivering the gospel christians should also build hospitals, which they have.

I don't see though why this means miraculous healing shouldn't happen now. It would make the whole setup more credible than it is.

I find it curious how you can arbitrarily declare one verse to be not setting up a doctrine, but pluck another verse and make it one.

2. biblically, allowing for one to live with consequences is a show of seriousness of god so that we learn not to act rashly with the belief that whatever stupid thing we do, god will be there to just fix it for us. its like spanking a small child who runs into traffic but was not harmed by the experience itself: it gives a consequence to learn from where mere words might not sink in to an underdeveloped intellect.

but on the matter of eternal consequence, it is clear that god places much less stock in whether we live our earthly lives rich or poor, whole or lame, based on our choices and much more in the eternal spiritual status.

the eternal consequence of sin is not simply deleted, but rather paid for by christ's sacrifice. from that we should have a new consequence, eternal gratitude which should change our outlook on life, god and others around us.

Semantics. It's still a removal of consequence. You could be miraculously healed and have a "new consequence" from being healed - and, in fact, God doing that a bit more noticeably a bit more often could have positive eternal consequences for people too as it would draw more people to him, so it's win-win.

3. i've pointed out in other posts that it's probably going to be impossible to conclusively demonstrate satisfactory evidence for or against miraculous healing.

The point of using amputation is that there are no known cases of spontaneous limb regeneration, so if that were not only observed but also strongly correlated with prayer, that would be a somewhat clear indicator of miraculous healing.

the fact that jesus' earthly mission was not solely hinged on the presentation of miraculous healing, but that these were in fact lesser tools to reach listeners with a bigger picture

I find it odd you call the more striking tools lesser. I do sometimes wonder, with how Christians define their god, whether he really is as interested in saving people as they claim he is.

shows me that the gospel as is relevant today should neither be based on whether or not faith healing is a real phenomenon. if someone were in fact to receive a genuine faith healing, it would primarily affect only themselves and anyone around them who believed it on faith to be genuine. jesus told the apostles to perform miracles, but to virtually everyone else said believe in me, follow me, etc.

No, it should not be based purely on that, but the absence of pretty much any supernatural elements to it isn't helping it stand out either.

the fact is christians needn't perform miracles to carry out christ's commission. the power of love itself can be as mentally transforming as a show of gnarly feats. feed the poor, clothe the naked, heal the sick (with medicine): could keep a lot of people busy and be a strong testament to christianity.

The problem is such things are not unique to Christianity, so it's about as convincing a testament as you claim miraculous healings would be.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no way dating conventions could possibly be relevant to this conversation. The only things less relevant are Thalidomide, the Space Shuttle Challenger, and the Dwarf Planet Pluto. Come on, AV, I know you're proud of not learning things, but these are all complete PRATTs

Maybe you aught to go back and read what he said again, before you make such a hasty remark.

Here, let me refresh your memory:

You have no more evidence that your God is real than Hindus have of Vishnu or Muslims have of Allah.

If you still agree with him, then show me B.V. or B.A.

In order for evidence to have weight, you have to have evidence first; and I submit that the world splitting time up should be counted as evidence.

To ignore it is to ignore history.

 

[Seamus Riley]

I don't see though why this means miraculous healing shouldn't happen now. It would make the whole shebang much more convincing than it is, which is to say, not very much.

i'm not saying it shouldn't happen now. i've stated all throughout this leg of the discussion that it seemed to me that jesus had a place for miraculous healing, but that it was only a means not an end. when jesus says the kingdom of heaven is at hand, it seems to me to he is trying to get people away from being carnally minded, but still did employ physical healing to teach and to pour out compassion.

I find it curious how you can arbitrarily declare one verse to be not setting up from a doctrine but pluck another verse and make it one.

no, jesus did not teach a doctrine of medical science either. i did not use the verse in the way you say i have. i merely pointed out that jesus has left room for both. neither did i claim that a single verse was a dismissal of a proposed faith healing doctrine, but said that the absence of such a doctrine should place the verse into perspective.

Semantics. It's still a removal of consequence.

not at all. if i pay your speeding ticket for you, i have taken the consequence from you and applied it to myself, thus giving you a new consequence. you can choose to be grateful and allow the gratitude to affect your life and/or others around you, or you can choose to say "who does that jerk think he is? what is he trying to pull with that stunt?"

The point of using amputation is that there are no known cases of spontaneous limb regeneration, so if that were not only observed but also strongly correlated with prayer, that would be a somewhat clear indicator of miraculous healing.

it would be, but i do not base the gospel on whether or not a "miracle" that happens today is necessarily a miracle from god, but leave room for the possibility that it is simply one of many unexplained medical recoveries.

I find it odd you call the more striking tools lesser. I do sometimes wonder, with how Christians define their god, whether he really is as interested in saving people as they claim he is.

i call them lesser in the sense that jesus placed more importance on the forgiveness of sins than the healing of illnesses. i paraphrased him on that in a previous post. i also alluded above to his statement about the kingdom of heaven, also indicative of a god who is very concerned with saving people. in saving one from spiritual death, one might also try save them from the carnality of mind. his compassion overlooked this when he attempts to meet people where they are at mentally and thus he heals them, but clearly he had hoped to show them more.

No, it should not be based purely on that, but the absence of pretty much any supernatural elements to it isn't helping it stand out either.

The problem is such things are not unique to Christianity, so it's about as convincing a testimony as you claim miraculous healings would be.

i see. you are looking for an end all, be all demonstration to finally put to rest any and all doubts everyone of us may have about jesus' divinity. but jesus has already demonstrated in his time and those who would doubt still doubted, saying "he casts out satan by satans power" (paraphrase, sorry, i'm running late for work). the argument that why doesn't jesus come down again springs to mind. but if he did, it would prove more than anything else that god doing something once, wasn't effective the first time.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Maybe you aught to go back and read what he said again, before you make such a hasty remark.

Here, let me refresh your memory:

If you still agree with him, then show me B.V. or B.A.

In order for evidence to have weight, you have to have evidence first; and I submit that the world splitting time up should be counted as evidence.

To ignore it is to ignore history.

The fact that you think this is evidence of Jesus or Christianity is hilarious.

 

[AV1611VET]

The fact that you think this is evidence of Jesus or Christianity is hilarious.

What is it evidence of, then?

 

[Inan3]

But this is all just rhetoric, there's no evidence of anything.
[/color]

Maybe not to you but when I received Christ into my life. I was changed at that moment. No church or minister or person suggested a change or told me I had to change. I WAS changed!! Not over night!!! Immediately. That may not be evidence for you but it is for me and nothing you say or compare me to will ever take that away from me. I know what happened in my life that day and it has only been better as each year passes. It's too late. I'm convinced!!

I could level the same accusation at you. You're very entrenched in your views, and are unwilling to consider other possibilities.

That's because of the evidence in MY life. I do not live in a vacuum. I live in this world and I KNOW that God is real and loves me and talks to me. Sorry if that is not your reality but nonetheless it is the FACTS of MY life and I am NOT sorry or seeking for anything else.


The way you see Vishnu is the way I see your God. You can't disprove Hinduism, but to you, it's obviously wrong. You happily accept any evidence that Hinduism isn't true, but you apply a different standard to the religion you happened to be born into, not because of any rational considerations, but because it's what you want to believe.

Well, it's obvious that you have not compared the two. They are nothing alike. Their gods are not real. There is one God.