I just am curious, For those opposed to God - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
QUOTE (TracerTong+Feb 10 2010, 03:24 PM)
I just am curious - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
Have you ever met a permanently blind man who can now see? Why doesn't god heal amputees?
Have you ever met a permanently blind man who can now see? Why doesn't god heal amputees?
Snake oil salesmen produce the same result.
Both they and faith healers operate on the dictum, 'there's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him'.
Both they and faith healers operate on the dictum, 'there's a sucker born every minute, and two to take him'.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 10 2010, 08:25 PM)
Have you ever met a permanently blind man who can now see? Why doesn't god heal amputees?
No but I was at a healing mass when I was younger and have seen people in wheelchairs get up. Can't remember all the details and don't want to track down the people. If you've watched the 700 Club on NBC (don't know when its on now) people are healed by God.
No but I was at a healing mass when I was younger and have seen people in wheelchairs get up. Can't remember all the details and don't want to track down the people. If you've watched the 700 Club on NBC (don't know when its on now) people are healed by God.
Placebo effect and positive thinking.
You DO believe in those two as well, eh, DroolerDung?
You DO believe in those two as well, eh, DroolerDung?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Feb 10 2010, 03:31 PM)
No but I was at a healing mass when I was younger and have seen people in wheelchairs get up.
Not all people who are in wheelchairs have no use of their legs. Why don't any of these cases get reported to doctors or newspapers?
In my 10 years as a Pentecostal Christian, I have seen many people get "healed." The funny thing is that the next day, they're the same as ever. The euphoric effect that these "healing services" can produce in people is often enough to block out pain. The brain is quite capable of producing its own intoxicating drugs.
Not all people who are in wheelchairs have no use of their legs. Why don't any of these cases get reported to doctors or newspapers?
QUOTE
Can't remember all the details and don't want to track down the people. If you've watched the 700 Club on NBC (don't know when its on now) people are healed by God.
In my 10 years as a Pentecostal Christian, I have seen many people get "healed." The funny thing is that the next day, they're the same as ever. The euphoric effect that these "healing services" can produce in people is often enough to block out pain. The brain is quite capable of producing its own intoxicating drugs.
Never seen anybody get healed. I have seen the phenomenon called glossolalia - i.e.speaking in tongues.
Never ceases to amaze me that people accept babbling incoherently to be equivalent to event that is described in Acts. (Not that I believe it either...)
Never ceases to amaze me that people accept babbling incoherently to be equivalent to event that is described in Acts. (Not that I believe it either...)
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Feb 10 2010, 04:20 PM)
Never seen anybody get healed. I have seen the phenomenon called glossolalia - i.e.speaking in tongues.
I can still do that. It's a great party trick.
I can still do that. It's a great party trick.
Tracer Tong
You want us to believe in your God because of miracles? Easy.
Just get 700 or whatever to heal a double leg amputee. Let's watch the legs grow back. Should make for riveting tv.
You want us to believe in your God because of miracles? Easy.
Just get 700 or whatever to heal a double leg amputee. Let's watch the legs grow back. Should make for riveting tv.
Looks like TracerTong and MisterBelfry ran away as fast as they could.
The "God hates Amputees" argument is flawless.
And oh yeah ... Why is it that speaking in tongues is never done with a more deliberate meter? It's always at a much higher wpm rate than normal speech. What is it about pretending in that way that almost always leads to something that sounds like a 2 year old babbling?
And oh yeah ... Why is it that speaking in tongues is never done with a more deliberate meter? It's always at a much higher wpm rate than normal speech. What is it about pretending in that way that almost always leads to something that sounds like a 2 year old babbling?
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Feb 10 2010, 10:50 PM)
The "God hates Amputees" argument is flawless.
And oh yeah ... Why is it that speaking in tongues is never done with a more deliberate meter? It's always at a much higher wpm rate than normal speech. What is it about pretending in that way that almost always leads to something that sounds like a 2 year old babbling?
I would venture to claim that God IS an amputee since he/she/it is a totally disembodied spirit. Take a human being, amputate the material body and egoism, and you get God, i.e. the Holy Spirit.
I gather this from something I once heard that God creating humans in His image doesn't refer to the image of the human body, but rather the human spirit. Since Lucifer's fall from grace was caused by the elevation of his ego due to pride, I assume that ego is the part of human spirit that goes against the will of God.
If you amputate faith, you amputate God and the possibility of being inspired by Holy Spirit.
And oh yeah ... Why is it that speaking in tongues is never done with a more deliberate meter? It's always at a much higher wpm rate than normal speech. What is it about pretending in that way that almost always leads to something that sounds like a 2 year old babbling?
I would venture to claim that God IS an amputee since he/she/it is a totally disembodied spirit. Take a human being, amputate the material body and egoism, and you get God, i.e. the Holy Spirit.
I gather this from something I once heard that God creating humans in His image doesn't refer to the image of the human body, but rather the human spirit. Since Lucifer's fall from grace was caused by the elevation of his ego due to pride, I assume that ego is the part of human spirit that goes against the will of God.
If you amputate faith, you amputate God and the possibility of being inspired by Holy Spirit.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 06:39 PM)
I would venture to claim that God IS an amputee since he/she/it is a totally disembodied spirit. Take a human being, amputate the material body and egoism, and you get God, i.e. the Holy Spirit.
Wow, I've never seen anyone miss the point by as much as you just did.
The point was that you never hear about god healing amputees and restoring limbs (arms and legs) yet you hear all kinds of crazy (and unprovable) stories about god raising the dead and curing cancer.
Wow, I've never seen anyone miss the point by as much as you just did.
The point was that you never hear about god healing amputees and restoring limbs (arms and legs) yet you hear all kinds of crazy (and unprovable) stories about god raising the dead and curing cancer.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 10 2010, 03:36 PM)
Not all people who are in wheelchairs have no use of their legs. Why don't any of these cases get reported to doctors or newspapers?
In my 10 years as a Pentecostal Christian, I have seen many people get "healed." The funny thing is that the next day, they're the same as ever. The euphoric effect that these "healing services" can produce in people is often enough to block out pain. The brain is quite capable of producing its own intoxicating drugs.
Ok, flyingbuttressman:
I am not lying or exaggerating to you when I tell you what I have already said on here before.
I HAVE eye-witnessed a "near amputee" style healing from no more than about 2 feet away. I watched the leg GROW OUT by several inches through prayer in the name of Jesus, with no possibility of a hoax, in a small gathering, I'd say sometime around 1993. This leg had been injured decades earlier in an automobile crash, and he had a noticeable, obvious limp with the injured leg being several inches shorter than the healthy, due to the bone and tissue damage.
====
Many cases do get reported to doctors and newspapers, but they are often ignored or mocked.
===
I will say one other thing, which you will say that I am crazy, but you already say that anyway, so I don't care. The point of this is not to "brag" on anyone except God, because it's not like I have any control over what I'm about to describe.
You, or someone, told me that it was probably just "Deja Vu"....
Well, let me ask you, have you ever seen the Denzel Washington movie "Deja Vu" from a few years ago? Because the dreams are that accurate and detailed, as if you have a time machine or wormhole and are seeing exactly what will happen.
I know that I have had several dreams in my life which displayed the events of the next day or the next week or month in pictographic form, much like the dreams of Joseph or Daniel in the Bible, sometimes with spoken words of individuals including exact exchanges of dialogue such that I knew the content of a conversation, or at least a couple exchanges of conversation, word for word ahead of time, including exactly what other people would say and exactly what was written on a piece of paper I had never seen, all "non-generic", unique conversations; accurately describe a room or building I have never seen nor heard described, etc. I believe these dreams could only come from God, as it is certainly nothing that I have done.
Now you can ask for "forensic evidence", and I can offer none EXCEPT that if you go to www.WorthyChristianForums.com and ask the administrator about the dreams involving two cyclones, the U.S. flag, and the "Great Seal" (of which I didn't even know what it was called at the time,) which I posted way back in 2004....He deleted because he considered me to be "bitter" and probably a hoaxer, but I bet he still remembers.
Now again, I can't personally offer forensic evidence of this, but what I can do is tell you that these events absolutely happened, and it is not a hoax at all.
My parents also eye-witnessed at least one miracle of multiplication through prayer in the name of Jesus, and I know another man who has eye-witnessed several miracles which I can only describe as "mechanical alterations".
=====
As a serious Christian, I realize the word "miracle" is over-used many times, but I take the word very seriously and consider it to apply precisely to a healing or other event which contradicts the known "laws of physics", usually in response to prayer in the name of Jesus.
Some things I consider miracles:
Prophecy
Transformation (Water to wine or blood, for example.)
Multiplication
Alteration (suspension/change in momentum, inertia, etc, saving life or limb)
Healing of blindness, deafness, mute, amputee, cripple/maim, leprosy, etc.
Raise Dead
Part/Walk on Water
Flight/levitation
Doppleganger (The RCC reports a case of this, if true, it's definitely a miracle.)
Certain other things of this magnitude
Some things I thank God for, but do not consider "miracles"*:
Got a raise
"healed" fever (with modern medicine this is hard to know anyway)
car limped into the gas station
etc.
* I suppose if you are a bad employee and still got a raise, that might be a miracle, and etc, but even if it is, I think the term "miracle" is over-used in such contexts.
In my 10 years as a Pentecostal Christian, I have seen many people get "healed." The funny thing is that the next day, they're the same as ever. The euphoric effect that these "healing services" can produce in people is often enough to block out pain. The brain is quite capable of producing its own intoxicating drugs.
Ok, flyingbuttressman:
I am not lying or exaggerating to you when I tell you what I have already said on here before.
I HAVE eye-witnessed a "near amputee" style healing from no more than about 2 feet away. I watched the leg GROW OUT by several inches through prayer in the name of Jesus, with no possibility of a hoax, in a small gathering, I'd say sometime around 1993. This leg had been injured decades earlier in an automobile crash, and he had a noticeable, obvious limp with the injured leg being several inches shorter than the healthy, due to the bone and tissue damage.
====
Many cases do get reported to doctors and newspapers, but they are often ignored or mocked.
===
I will say one other thing, which you will say that I am crazy, but you already say that anyway, so I don't care. The point of this is not to "brag" on anyone except God, because it's not like I have any control over what I'm about to describe.
You, or someone, told me that it was probably just "Deja Vu"....
Well, let me ask you, have you ever seen the Denzel Washington movie "Deja Vu" from a few years ago? Because the dreams are that accurate and detailed, as if you have a time machine or wormhole and are seeing exactly what will happen.
I know that I have had several dreams in my life which displayed the events of the next day or the next week or month in pictographic form, much like the dreams of Joseph or Daniel in the Bible, sometimes with spoken words of individuals including exact exchanges of dialogue such that I knew the content of a conversation, or at least a couple exchanges of conversation, word for word ahead of time, including exactly what other people would say and exactly what was written on a piece of paper I had never seen, all "non-generic", unique conversations; accurately describe a room or building I have never seen nor heard described, etc. I believe these dreams could only come from God, as it is certainly nothing that I have done.
Now you can ask for "forensic evidence", and I can offer none EXCEPT that if you go to www.WorthyChristianForums.com and ask the administrator about the dreams involving two cyclones, the U.S. flag, and the "Great Seal" (of which I didn't even know what it was called at the time,) which I posted way back in 2004....He deleted because he considered me to be "bitter" and probably a hoaxer, but I bet he still remembers.
Now again, I can't personally offer forensic evidence of this, but what I can do is tell you that these events absolutely happened, and it is not a hoax at all.
My parents also eye-witnessed at least one miracle of multiplication through prayer in the name of Jesus, and I know another man who has eye-witnessed several miracles which I can only describe as "mechanical alterations".
=====
As a serious Christian, I realize the word "miracle" is over-used many times, but I take the word very seriously and consider it to apply precisely to a healing or other event which contradicts the known "laws of physics", usually in response to prayer in the name of Jesus.
Some things I consider miracles:
Prophecy
Transformation (Water to wine or blood, for example.)
Multiplication
Alteration (suspension/change in momentum, inertia, etc, saving life or limb)
Healing of blindness, deafness, mute, amputee, cripple/maim, leprosy, etc.
Raise Dead
Part/Walk on Water
Flight/levitation
Doppleganger (The RCC reports a case of this, if true, it's definitely a miracle.)
Certain other things of this magnitude
Some things I thank God for, but do not consider "miracles"*:
Got a raise
"healed" fever (with modern medicine this is hard to know anyway)
car limped into the gas station
etc.
* I suppose if you are a bad employee and still got a raise, that might be a miracle, and etc, but even if it is, I think the term "miracle" is over-used in such contexts.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 10 2010, 08:49 PM)
I am not lying or exaggerating to you when I tell you what I have already said on here before.
I HAVE eye-witnessed a "near amputee" style healing from no more than about 2 feet away. I watched the leg GROW OUT by several inches through prayer in the name of Jesus, with no possibility of a hoax, in a small gathering, I'd say sometime around 1993. This leg had been injured decades earlier in an automobile crash, and he had a noticeable, obvious limp with the injured leg being several inches shorter than the healthy, due to the bone and tissue damage.
There are hundreds of people who claim with all honesty that they have been abducted by aliens. People claim to have seen all kinds of crazy things, yet all that would take to prove their case is evidence. Every single case that comes up ends up being a coincidence or misunderstood circumstances. All it takes is a single verified miracle, and you would be proven right. The silence is deafening.
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
I HAVE eye-witnessed a "near amputee" style healing from no more than about 2 feet away. I watched the leg GROW OUT by several inches through prayer in the name of Jesus, with no possibility of a hoax, in a small gathering, I'd say sometime around 1993. This leg had been injured decades earlier in an automobile crash, and he had a noticeable, obvious limp with the injured leg being several inches shorter than the healthy, due to the bone and tissue damage.
There are hundreds of people who claim with all honesty that they have been abducted by aliens. People claim to have seen all kinds of crazy things, yet all that would take to prove their case is evidence. Every single case that comes up ends up being a coincidence or misunderstood circumstances. All it takes is a single verified miracle, and you would be proven right. The silence is deafening.
QUOTE
Many cases do get reported to doctors and newspapers, but they are often ignored or mocked.
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 12:00 AM)
Wow, I've never seen anyone miss the point by as much as you just did.
The point was that you never hear about god healing amputees and restoring limbs (arms and legs) yet you hear all kinds of crazy (and unprovable) stories about god raising the dead and curing cancer.
Look, my point was just to "spread the word" by translating the idea of water-to-wine or other spiritual-rebirth metaphors to speak to amputation. The point is that instead of focussing on losing body (parts), God provides an eternal spirit that will outlast your entire body. I'm just saying what I think Jesus would say from what I know about the teachings. I think that is more important than proving that faith can regrow lost limbs.
The point was that you never hear about god healing amputees and restoring limbs (arms and legs) yet you hear all kinds of crazy (and unprovable) stories about god raising the dead and curing cancer.
Look, my point was just to "spread the word" by translating the idea of water-to-wine or other spiritual-rebirth metaphors to speak to amputation. The point is that instead of focussing on losing body (parts), God provides an eternal spirit that will outlast your entire body. I'm just saying what I think Jesus would say from what I know about the teachings. I think that is more important than proving that faith can regrow lost limbs.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 09:14 PM)
Look, my point was just to "spread the word" by translating the idea of water-to-wine or other spiritual-rebirth metaphors to speak to amputation. The point is that instead of focussing on losing body (parts), God provides an eternal spirit that will outlast your entire body. I'm just saying what I think Jesus would say from what I know about the teachings. I think that is more important than proving that faith can regrow lost limbs.
What the hell are you talking about? You are doing nothing but attempting to derail the discussion.
What the hell are you talking about? You are doing nothing but attempting to derail the discussion.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 02:18 AM)
What the hell are you talking about? You are doing nothing but attempting to derail the discussion.
wrong. I am trying to re-rail the discussion from the theologically obfuscating discussion of whether miracle healing works on amputees to the spiritual meaning of amputation and body-loss generally.
Like what you said on the other thread about a post being the equivalent of replacing the periodic table with earth, wind, fire, and water; that's what this thread is doing to theological spirituality, i.e. making it into material parlor-tricks of the flesh that can be easily denied and scoffed at.
wrong. I am trying to re-rail the discussion from the theologically obfuscating discussion of whether miracle healing works on amputees to the spiritual meaning of amputation and body-loss generally.
Like what you said on the other thread about a post being the equivalent of replacing the periodic table with earth, wind, fire, and water; that's what this thread is doing to theological spirituality, i.e. making it into material parlor-tricks of the flesh that can be easily denied and scoffed at.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 09:35 PM)
wrong. I am trying to re-rail the discussion from the theologically obfuscating discussion of whether miracle healing works on amputees to the spiritual meaning of amputation and body-loss generally.
Utter nonsense. Spiritual amputation? Amputation is a medical term. This thread was not created to discuss spirituality. TracerTong was trying to understand why people doubt in the face of what he thinks are miracles. The point made by myself and others is that miracles always seem to be subtle and unprovable. If a miracle had truly taken place, a doctor should see it and publicize it. Amputation is a good example because records of the amputation probably exist, and a healing would provide DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that a miracle had occurred.
Read the original post again:
Read the original post again:
I just am curious, For those opposed to God - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
Utter nonsense. Spiritual amputation? Amputation is a medical term. This thread was not created to discuss spirituality. TracerTong was trying to understand why people doubt in the face of what he thinks are miracles. The point made by myself and others is that miracles always seem to be subtle and unprovable. If a miracle had truly taken place, a doctor should see it and publicize it. Amputation is a good example because records of the amputation probably exist, and a healing would provide DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that a miracle had occurred.
QUOTE
Like what you said on the other thread about a post being the equivalent of replacing the periodic table with earth, wind, fire, and water; that's what this thread is doing to theological spirituality, i.e. making it into material parlor-tricks of the flesh that can be easily denied and scoffed at.
Read the original post again:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like what you said on the other thread about a post being the equivalent of replacing the periodic table with earth, wind, fire, and water; that's what this thread is doing to theological spirituality, i.e. making it into material parlor-tricks of the flesh that can be easily denied and scoffed at. |
Read the original post again:
I just am curious, For those opposed to God - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 02:41 AM)
Utter nonsense. Spiritual amputation? Amputation is a medical term. This thread was not created to discuss spirituality. TracerTong was trying to understand why people doubt in the face of what he thinks are miracles. The point made by myself and others is that miracles always seem to be subtle and unprovable. If a miracle had truly taken place, a doctor should see it and publicize it. Amputation is a good example because records of the amputation probably exist, and a healing would provide DIRECT PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that a miracle had occurred.
Read the original post again:
Read the original post again:
QUOTE (TracerTong+)
I just am curious, For those opposed to God - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
The point of the tread wasn't spirituality? What is religion supposed to be about then?
Remember the quote in the bible when Nicodemus asks Jesus if he needs to go back into his mother's womb to be born again? Jesus says that things of the flesh are flesh and things of the spirit are spirit.
What is happening in this thread, and what happens in most threads about religion on this forum is that people try to account for spirituality using material terms. I.e. they treat things of the spirit as flesh. It's the same as Nicodemus talking about being born again as meaning going back into his mother's womb to be reborn, i.e. nonsense.
If you're not intelligent enough to discuss religion in an enlightened way, what's the point of discussing it at all on a forum as intelligent as this one?
The point of the tread wasn't spirituality? What is religion supposed to be about then?
Remember the quote in the bible when Nicodemus asks Jesus if he needs to go back into his mother's womb to be born again? Jesus says that things of the flesh are flesh and things of the spirit are spirit.
What is happening in this thread, and what happens in most threads about religion on this forum is that people try to account for spirituality using material terms. I.e. they treat things of the spirit as flesh. It's the same as Nicodemus talking about being born again as meaning going back into his mother's womb to be reborn, i.e. nonsense.
If you're not intelligent enough to discuss religion in an enlightened way, what's the point of discussing it at all on a forum as intelligent as this one?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 09:50 PM)
The point of the tread wasn't spirituality? What is religion supposed to be about then?
We weren't discussing religion as a whole. We were discussing why people choose not to believe.
Completely irrelevant.
Completely irrelevant.
What is happening in this thread, and what happens in most threads about religion on this forum is that people try to account for spirituality using material terms. I.e. they treat things of the spirit as flesh. It's the same as Nicodemus talking about being born again as meaning going back into his mother's womb to be reborn, i.e. nonsense.
I don't know or care to know what you believe, but MOST Christians believe in a god that does MATERIAL miracles.
Here's my enlightened analysis of religion: wishful thinking.
If you want to discuss spirituality, don't talk to an atheist.
We weren't discussing religion as a whole. We were discussing why people choose not to believe.
QUOTE
Remember the quote in the bible when Nicodemus asks Jesus if he needs to go back into his mother's womb to be born again? Jesus says that things of the flesh are flesh and things of the spirit are spirit.
Completely irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Remember the quote in the bible when Nicodemus asks Jesus if he needs to go back into his mother's womb to be born again? Jesus says that things of the flesh are flesh and things of the spirit are spirit. |
Completely irrelevant.
What is happening in this thread, and what happens in most threads about religion on this forum is that people try to account for spirituality using material terms. I.e. they treat things of the spirit as flesh. It's the same as Nicodemus talking about being born again as meaning going back into his mother's womb to be reborn, i.e. nonsense.
I don't know or care to know what you believe, but MOST Christians believe in a god that does MATERIAL miracles.
QUOTE
If you're not intelligent enough to discuss religion in an enlightened way, what's the point of discussing it at all on a forum as intelligent as this one?
Here's my enlightened analysis of religion: wishful thinking.
If you want to discuss spirituality, don't talk to an atheist.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 02:35 AM)
...parlor-tricks of the flesh that can be easily denied and scoffed at...
hey, you in the clown suit.
thanks for the entertainment...
now, slowly step away from the crack pipe.
Its bad enough to amputate oneself from reality,
but the trick you pulled of amputating yourself from the delusion into a second deeper level of delusion was...priceless...
the only reason the god hype works so good is because I can reply to you saying, "god isn't 'disembodied', because he never had a body". Then you reply, "well god can be a man anytime he wants". The truth is, a lie can be sustained, if the lie pertains to a "magic that can do anything".
(Cartoon caricatures fall from physically deadly heights, only to stand up, with little bandages already applied to their foreheads).
You need not prove a magic, if you say the magic is "magically keeping itself from being proven or disproven."
Give me quantum physics any day.
hey, you in the clown suit.
thanks for the entertainment...
now, slowly step away from the crack pipe.
Its bad enough to amputate oneself from reality,
but the trick you pulled of amputating yourself from the delusion into a second deeper level of delusion was...priceless...
the only reason the god hype works so good is because I can reply to you saying, "god isn't 'disembodied', because he never had a body". Then you reply, "well god can be a man anytime he wants". The truth is, a lie can be sustained, if the lie pertains to a "magic that can do anything".
(Cartoon caricatures fall from physically deadly heights, only to stand up, with little bandages already applied to their foreheads).
You need not prove a magic, if you say the magic is "magically keeping itself from being proven or disproven."
Give me quantum physics any day.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 02:54 AM)
Completely irrelevant.
It was perfectly relevant. It was the most relevant possible citation for a discussion about miracles of the flesh.
What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration.
What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration.
Here's my enlightened analysis of religion: wishful thinking.
If you want to discuss spirituality, don't talk to an atheist.
Religion is wishful thinking, the most powerful kind.
Atheists are categorically anti-spiritual? Even materialism is a spiritual orientation to materiality.
It was perfectly relevant. It was the most relevant possible citation for a discussion about miracles of the flesh.
QUOTE
I don't know or care to know what you believe, but MOST Christians believe in a god that does MATERIAL miracles.
What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't know or care to know what you believe, but MOST Christians believe in a god that does MATERIAL miracles. |
What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration.
Here's my enlightened analysis of religion: wishful thinking.
If you want to discuss spirituality, don't talk to an atheist.
Religion is wishful thinking, the most powerful kind.
Atheists are categorically anti-spiritual? Even materialism is a spiritual orientation to materiality.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 10:16 PM)
It was perfectly relevant. It was the most relevant possible citation for a discussion about miracles of the flesh.
Nope.
Yes, majority does indeed rule. Religion is defined by its followers. There is no one authority on what a religion is or isn't.
Yes, majority does indeed rule. Religion is defined by its followers. There is no one authority on what a religion is or isn't.
Religion is wishful thinking, the most powerful kind.
*facepalm*
According to you, EVERYTHING is spiritual. Materialism is a methodology, not a belief. You really don't understand how someone can not believe in god, do you?
Nope.
QUOTE
What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration.
Yes, majority does indeed rule. Religion is defined by its followers. There is no one authority on what a religion is or isn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| What, so now majority rules in theology? I cited a direct example about distinguishing spirit from flesh. God may perform material miracles, but they occur through divine spiritual inspiration. |
Yes, majority does indeed rule. Religion is defined by its followers. There is no one authority on what a religion is or isn't.
Religion is wishful thinking, the most powerful kind.
*facepalm*
QUOTE
Atheists are categorically anti-spiritual? Even materialism is a spiritual orientation to materiality.
According to you, EVERYTHING is spiritual. Materialism is a methodology, not a belief. You really don't understand how someone can not believe in god, do you?
LITT:
You take so much pride in your pretense that it's nearly unbelievable. The heights you've reached over these months posting could only be achieved through the most stringent kind of faith that exists. Such a stringent faith is aka ... idiocy.
You did completely miss the point of the thread. You then went about another one of your typical meandering self-referential circle jerks.
Can someone on this forum please tell us where Meem went and give LITT directions to same?
QC:
Are you really using some anecdote about watching a leg grow back partially to defend the "God Hates Amputees" argument? You already know that NOBODY has grown an amputated limb back in history via science, magic or your clearly impotent god. Your assertion of such a thing as evidentiary should garner a suspension.
You take so much pride in your pretense that it's nearly unbelievable. The heights you've reached over these months posting could only be achieved through the most stringent kind of faith that exists. Such a stringent faith is aka ... idiocy.
You did completely miss the point of the thread. You then went about another one of your typical meandering self-referential circle jerks.
Can someone on this forum please tell us where Meem went and give LITT directions to same?
QC:
Are you really using some anecdote about watching a leg grow back partially to defend the "God Hates Amputees" argument? You already know that NOBODY has grown an amputated limb back in history via science, magic or your clearly impotent god. Your assertion of such a thing as evidentiary should garner a suspension.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
Never seen anybody get healed. I have seen the phenomenon called glossolalia - i.e.speaking in tongues.
Never ceases to amaze me that people accept babbling incoherently to be equivalent to event that is described in Acts. (Not that I believe it either...)
Goofus/gmilam: Although I disagree with your overall views regarding Christianity, I must commend you for having more discernment than many/most who call themselves by the name of Christ. The so-called "speaking in tongues" that is prevalent in the US churches (I can only speak for this country) is NOTHING AT ALL like what transpired during the days of the early church as recorded in Acts and elsewhere. In fact (people can mock my use of the word "fact" as much as they'd like to), I've dealt with this so-called "Holy Spirit" as a demon on several occasions and have seen people delivered from it. The Apostle Paul warned of those who would come with "another Jesus, ANOTHER SPIRIT and another gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4). I would venture to say that most churches in the USA are full of just that.
Never ceases to amaze me that people accept babbling incoherently to be equivalent to event that is described in Acts. (Not that I believe it either...)
Goofus/gmilam: Although I disagree with your overall views regarding Christianity, I must commend you for having more discernment than many/most who call themselves by the name of Christ. The so-called "speaking in tongues" that is prevalent in the US churches (I can only speak for this country) is NOTHING AT ALL like what transpired during the days of the early church as recorded in Acts and elsewhere. In fact (people can mock my use of the word "fact" as much as they'd like to), I've dealt with this so-called "Holy Spirit" as a demon on several occasions and have seen people delivered from it. The Apostle Paul warned of those who would come with "another Jesus, ANOTHER SPIRIT and another gospel" (II Corinthians 11:4). I would venture to say that most churches in the USA are full of just that.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
If you want to discuss spirituality, don't talk to an atheist.
flyingbuttressman: Why not? Atheists are VERY spiritual.
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4:4)
Like Goofus/gmilam, I'm quite sure that a lot of your objections to so-called "Christianity" are accurate. I attended so-called "Pentecostal churches" for many years. Even though I was found within their church walls, I was always an outsider (FROM DAY ONE) who tried, unsuccessfully in most cases, to fix what was wrong from within. There are many CHARLATANS within the so-called "church". MANY. And? Jesus warned of such. No need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
Anyhow, if you REALLY want to see Christianity's roots, then learn how to properly read the Old Testament. Pssssttt..you'll need the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, to properly manage that.
Take care.
And you still haven't explained how to do that.
But then you believe that people that follow everyone and everything they can won't follow the Holy Spirit.
I knew a person in particular that would follow bosses, manuals, machine error codes that didn't match what the machine was doing, his priest, his Pope, anything he could.
But you claim he chooses not to follow the Holy Spirit.
At the same time there was a Mulsim who was even more of a follower.
And I would say half the people I've met have been more follower than not but yet you claim all of those followers choose not to follow the Holy Spirit.
Not to mention all the people desperate to follow the Holy Spirit.
You really don't understand why that parable does not fit people who choose to follow the Holy Spirit but can't find him.
And you are just as bad for "conclusion first" thinking as Mr. B.
"To those who must believe in invisible mice, invisible cats are surely a blessing."
flyingbuttressman: Why not? Atheists are VERY spiritual.
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4:4)
Like Goofus/gmilam, I'm quite sure that a lot of your objections to so-called "Christianity" are accurate. I attended so-called "Pentecostal churches" for many years. Even though I was found within their church walls, I was always an outsider (FROM DAY ONE) who tried, unsuccessfully in most cases, to fix what was wrong from within. There are many CHARLATANS within the so-called "church". MANY. And? Jesus warned of such. No need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
What is happening in this thread, and what happens in most threads about religion on this forum is that people try to account for spirituality using material terms. I.e. they treat things of the spirit as flesh. It's the same as Nicodemus talking about being born again as meaning going back into his mother's womb to be reborn, i.e. nonsense.
light in the tunnel: Although I rarely even read your posts and although I disagree with some of what I have read of your posts, there is a lot of truth in this particular comment of yours. Keeping with the theme of amputation, JESUS said:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-48)
I did NOT post this to imply that all amputees are better off in their present condition or that all amputees are amputees due to sin. Rather, I'm simply attempting to show that JESUS placed more emphasis on the eternal/spiritual than He did on the temporary/physical. Elsewhere, JESUS said:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)
Once again, one's "natural life" takes a back seat to that which is eternal. Anyhow, don't expect to get anywhere with the forum members here. They claim to have no interest in "things of the spirit" and yet they are the first to engage in any sort of "spiritual" discussion. Their TRUE motives? Well, they're merely obeying their spiritual "father", Satan. They're his SLAVES...they really can't help themselves. I know someone Who can help them, but, like nocturnal animals, they much prefer the darkness.
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:17-21)
Incidentally, that was the tail end of JESUS' discussion with Nicodemus...in case you didn't already know.
Take care.
light in the tunnel: Although I rarely even read your posts and although I disagree with some of what I have read of your posts, there is a lot of truth in this particular comment of yours. Keeping with the theme of amputation, JESUS said:
"And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:43-48)
I did NOT post this to imply that all amputees are better off in their present condition or that all amputees are amputees due to sin. Rather, I'm simply attempting to show that JESUS placed more emphasis on the eternal/spiritual than He did on the temporary/physical. Elsewhere, JESUS said:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)
Once again, one's "natural life" takes a back seat to that which is eternal. Anyhow, don't expect to get anywhere with the forum members here. They claim to have no interest in "things of the spirit" and yet they are the first to engage in any sort of "spiritual" discussion. Their TRUE motives? Well, they're merely obeying their spiritual "father", Satan. They're his SLAVES...they really can't help themselves. I know someone Who can help them, but, like nocturnal animals, they much prefer the darkness.
"For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:17-21)
Incidentally, that was the tail end of JESUS' discussion with Nicodemus...in case you didn't already know.
Take care.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Feb 10 2010, 08:24 PM)
I just am curious, For those opposed to God - after you know or have seen that the blind receive sight by God, the lame walk, speaking in tongues by the Holy Spirit - Do you still choose to doubt God or Jesus? (nonphysical means)
I just am curious, For those who propose a God - after you know or have seen that the sighted receive blindness by God, the walking made lame, babbling and drooling incoherently in the "Holy Spirit" - Do you still choose to doubt Reason, logic, common sense, evidence, Science ? (physical means)
I just am curious, For those who propose a God - after you know or have seen that the sighted receive blindness by God, the walking made lame, babbling and drooling incoherently in the "Holy Spirit" - Do you still choose to doubt Reason, logic, common sense, evidence, Science ? (physical means)
QUOTE (uaafanblog in my feedback+)
uaafanblog Posted: Today at 10:53 AM
Positive Fails to understand that arguing using "the scriptures" is the weakest possible approach in a forum of reason. Such continuing ignorance though, provides much merriment to reasoning folk who understand that his "holy book" is mashed up collection of inaccurately retold oral tales from Zoroastrianism. So then, I must salute that near perfect storm of stupidity. It is only with great effort that a person could achieve such a high level of dumbassery. Congrats.
uaafanblog: ACTUALLY, you are the one who ought to be "congratulated" as, yet again, you've only managed to showcase YOUR OWN "ignorance", "stupidity" and "dumbassery", to use your terms. In regards to Christianity supposedly "retelling oral tales from Zoroastrianism", here is but one (that means that there are others) refutation of such nonsensical claims:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor4.htm
Gullible? Deceitful? Much?
"Reasoning folk", my butt. "Desperados" sounds much better to me.
Anyhow, if you REALLY want to see Christianity's roots, then learn how to properly read the Old Testament. Pssssttt..you'll need the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, to properly manage that.
Take care.
Positive Fails to understand that arguing using "the scriptures" is the weakest possible approach in a forum of reason. Such continuing ignorance though, provides much merriment to reasoning folk who understand that his "holy book" is mashed up collection of inaccurately retold oral tales from Zoroastrianism. So then, I must salute that near perfect storm of stupidity. It is only with great effort that a person could achieve such a high level of dumbassery. Congrats.
uaafanblog: ACTUALLY, you are the one who ought to be "congratulated" as, yet again, you've only managed to showcase YOUR OWN "ignorance", "stupidity" and "dumbassery", to use your terms. In regards to Christianity supposedly "retelling oral tales from Zoroastrianism", here is but one (that means that there are others) refutation of such nonsensical claims:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/zor4.htm
Gullible? Deceitful? Much?
"Reasoning folk", my butt. "Desperados" sounds much better to me.
Anyhow, if you REALLY want to see Christianity's roots, then learn how to properly read the Old Testament. Pssssttt..you'll need the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, to properly manage that.
Take care.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 02:14 AM)
Look, my point was just to "spread the word" by translating the idea of water-to-wine or other spiritual-rebirth metaphors to speak to amputation. The point is that instead of focussing on losing body (parts), God provides an eternal spirit that will outlast your entire body. I'm just saying what I think Jesus would say from what I know about the teachings. I think that is more important than proving that faith can regrow lost limbs.
But you are not talking about what Tracer et al are talking about.
How can you "spread the word" if you refuse to discuss what they are talking about.
But you are not talking about what Tracer et al are talking about.
How can you "spread the word" if you refuse to discuss what they are talking about.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 11:42 AM)
Anyhow, if you REALLY want to see Christianity's roots, then learn how to properly read the Old Testament. Pssssttt..you'll need the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Christ, to properly manage that.
Take care.
And you still haven't explained how to do that.
But then you believe that people that follow everyone and everything they can won't follow the Holy Spirit.
I knew a person in particular that would follow bosses, manuals, machine error codes that didn't match what the machine was doing, his priest, his Pope, anything he could.
But you claim he chooses not to follow the Holy Spirit.
At the same time there was a Mulsim who was even more of a follower.
And I would say half the people I've met have been more follower than not but yet you claim all of those followers choose not to follow the Holy Spirit.
Not to mention all the people desperate to follow the Holy Spirit.
You really don't understand why that parable does not fit people who choose to follow the Holy Spirit but can't find him.
And you are just as bad for "conclusion first" thinking as Mr. B.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 04:09 AM)
I've dealt with this so-called "Holy Spirit" as a demon on several occasions and have seen people delivered from it.
But many of these people who wind up babbling incoherently did sincerely pray to Jesus and honestly feel like they have been touched by the Holy Spirit.
Personally, my totally uneducated suspicion is that these "preachers" know how to work people up in such a way that their brain overloads on some neurotransmitters and they "short circuit" for a few moments... Probably feels pretty good. Neither demon nor angel, just good old natural/material brain chemistry.
But many of these people who wind up babbling incoherently did sincerely pray to Jesus and honestly feel like they have been touched by the Holy Spirit.
Personally, my totally uneducated suspicion is that these "preachers" know how to work people up in such a way that their brain overloads on some neurotransmitters and they "short circuit" for a few moments... Probably feels pretty good. Neither demon nor angel, just good old natural/material brain chemistry.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 10 2010, 09:13 PM)
There are hundreds of people who claim with all honesty that they have been abducted by aliens. People claim to have seen all kinds of crazy things, yet all that would take to prove their case is evidence. Every single case that comes up ends up being a coincidence or misunderstood circumstances. All it takes is a single verified miracle, and you would be proven right. The silence is deafening.
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
FBM:
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
FBM:
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 10 2010, 07:49 PM)
I HAVE eye-witnessed a "near amputee" style healing from no more than about 2 feet away. I watched the leg GROW OUT by several inches through prayer in the name of Jesus, with no possibility of a hoax, in a small gathering, I'd say sometime around 1993. This leg had been injured decades earlier in an automobile crash, and he had a noticeable, obvious limp with the injured leg being several inches shorter than the healthy, due to the bone and tissue damage.
Is this someone you knew before and still see on a regular basis? Or was it someone who just wandered in to be healed and then moved on?
Is this someone you knew before and still see on a regular basis? Or was it someone who just wandered in to be healed and then moved on?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 11 2010, 01:42 PM)
FBM:
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
Talk is cheap. Prove it.
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
Talk is cheap. Prove it.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 11 2010, 08:42 AM)
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
Perhaps you should study psychology. I think it would do wonders in addressing your misunderstandings.
When you want something to happen, your mind has ways of making it happen.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
Perhaps you should study psychology. I think it would do wonders in addressing your misunderstandings.
When you want something to happen, your mind has ways of making it happen.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You really don't understand why that parable does not fit people who choose to follow the Holy Spirit but can't find him.
And you are just as bad for "conclusion first" thinking as Mr. B.
buttershug: I almost chuckled (but then I felt sorry for you) when I read how YOU accused ME of "conclusion first thinking" as that seems to be precisely YOUR problem. I take the time to answer your questions (even though you insist that I don't) and you continually overlook/misunderstand/misrepresent what I say because you've already CONCLUDED what I'm going to say before I say it. For example, that parable that you keep referring to shows AT LEAST (do you know what "at least" means? It means that there can be and probably are other possibilities) two different types of people:
1. Those who hear God's voice and initially disobey, only to later repent and obey.
2. Those who hear God's voice and FEIGNEDLY "obey" and never genuinely repent.
Did I EVER say or even imply, for example, that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially and continually obey? Did I ever say or even imply, for example, that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially and continually disobey? Did I ever say or even imply that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially obey only to later "fall away" for a number of DIFFERENT REASONS? Of course, I NEVER said or even implied any such things. It is YOU, my friend, who is "hearing things" or who has a "conclusion first" mentality. This is but one of many reasons why I ofttimes just ignore your posts/questions. Keep insisting that the parable doesn't apply to everyone EVEN THOUGH I NEVER SAID THAT IT DID. Here is the crux of the parable:
"Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matthew 21:31-32)
Jesus was drawing a contrast between the SELF-RIGHTEOUS PHARISEES and penitent sinners, such as publicans and harlots. The SELF-RIGHTEOUS, like most forum members here, have no need for Christ...they can make it on their own. Sound familiar? It should. As far as those who, according to you, "can't find the Holy Spirit" are concerned, you've got things backwards. According to scripture, NO ONE can come to God unless they are drawn by God or "wooed" (if I can use such terminology) by the Holy Spirit. I'm pretty sure that I've given the analogy of two different types of boats before, but it bears repeating.
You seem to believe that man can come to God ON MAN'S TERMS. In other words, your "boat" seems to be a "rowboat". You can get in it at any time and "row" at your own speed.
God's Word indicates that man needs to come to God ON GOD'S TERMS. In other words, man's boat needs to be a "sailboat". Man can get in it WHEN THE WIND BLOWS or WHEN THE SPIRIT WOOS/CALLS. As far as "speed" is concerned, I would heartily recommend "hoisting your sails" in immediate obedience to God when "the wind blows/the Spirit calls" and riding it out until the end. Throw all caution "to the wind", as it were.
In relation to the Holy Spirit and His "calling", here is but one example (THAT MEANS THAT THERE CAN BE MORE EXAMPLES...EVEN DIFFERENT EXAMPLES) from one specific group (THERE CAN BE AND IS DIVERSITY EVEN WITHIN THIS SPECIFIC GROUP):
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the dispensation of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." (Acts 7:51-54)
I think that we both know how this ultimately played out...Stephen was stoned to death by this angry mob. Was their anger justifiable or was Stephen's assessment of them accurate? Look, like it or not, these particular Jews held (hypocritically) their scriptures in high regard. FOR THIS VERY REASON, Stephen referred them back TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES in his scathing rebuke of them. I merely gave you the tail end of Stephen's discourse...you can read the entire discourse at your own leisure if you'd like to. If you do read it, then you'll see that Stephen took his hearers for a "stroll down memory lane" by giving them a Biblical review of their history and the history of their forefathers. Were their "fathers" guilty of the things that Stephen accused them of? Well, the answer lies IN THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES AND IN THEIR OWN BIBLICAL HISTORY and that answer is a resounding "YES!".
Stephen: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears..."
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wildereness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." (Jeremiah 9:25-26)
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it." (Jeremiah 6:10)
Those are just two scriptural citations...there are others.
Stephen: "...ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them." (Isaiah 63:9-10)
It is possible to "vex" or "grieve" the Holy Spirit. Here is the heart of the matter (WITH A PORTION OF THIS SPECIFIC GROUP):
"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, this is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the LORD GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." (Isaiah 28:9-16)
Isaiah was an Old Testament prophet...a prophet that religious Jews are very familiar with. What did Isaiah say and how does it pertain to your questions/objections and other things that have been stated in this thread? Isaiah strongly contrasted two different types (IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO TYPES) of Jews:
1. Those who sought to be made righteous by a strict adherence to the Law. To these, it had to be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line" EVEN THOUGH such adherence would only cause them to "fall backward, be broken and snared and taken." Why did Isaiah refer to such an adherence as "a covenant with death"? Because that's the function of the God's Law. It shows sinners that they are guilty of violating God's Laws and that they are not only worthy of physical death, but also of what the Bible calls "the second death." The Law was also designed to be a "schoolmaster" or tutor to lead one to Christ that they might be justified by faith. These CERTAIN JEWS, because of their SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, never used the Law for its designed purposes, but rather sought to be justified by an attempted strict adherence to it.
2. Those who would receive "the rest" and "the refreshing" through belief in the "precious corner stone" Who is none other than Jesus Christ. This "rest" and "refreshing" included speaking "with stammering lips and another tongue" or what Goofus A Gallant recently referred to as "glossalalia". This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts chapter 2) and was rejected by many SELF-RIGHTEOUS JEWS, JUST AS THE PROPHET ISAIAH FORETOLD.
"In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not..." (I Corinthians 14:21-22)
Where was this "written in the law"? In the portion of Isaiah that I previously quoted. My point? If CERTAIN JEWS believe THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES, then they should realize that they're fulfilling them in a negative fashion. Also, you should recognize this as one reason why CERTAIN JEWS "can't find the Holy Spirit". CAN'T FIND HIM? HE'S BEEN STRIVING WITH THEM AND THEIR FOREFATHERS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Sorry to shout...I didn't want you to miss that (even though you probably will, anyway).
Well, in Stephen's discourse from Acts chapter 7, he also reminded these CERTAIN JEWS how they killed THEIR OWN prophets, killed Christ and continually disobeyed THEIR OWN law. In other words, it's NOT a case of them not be able to find the Holy Spirit, but rather a case of them CONTINUALLY RESISTING HIM...just like Stephen said.
For whatever that's worth (probably nothing)...
And you are just as bad for "conclusion first" thinking as Mr. B.
buttershug: I almost chuckled (but then I felt sorry for you) when I read how YOU accused ME of "conclusion first thinking" as that seems to be precisely YOUR problem. I take the time to answer your questions (even though you insist that I don't) and you continually overlook/misunderstand/misrepresent what I say because you've already CONCLUDED what I'm going to say before I say it. For example, that parable that you keep referring to shows AT LEAST (do you know what "at least" means? It means that there can be and probably are other possibilities) two different types of people:
1. Those who hear God's voice and initially disobey, only to later repent and obey.
2. Those who hear God's voice and FEIGNEDLY "obey" and never genuinely repent.
Did I EVER say or even imply, for example, that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially and continually obey? Did I ever say or even imply, for example, that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially and continually disobey? Did I ever say or even imply that there are NOT those who hear God's voice and initially obey only to later "fall away" for a number of DIFFERENT REASONS? Of course, I NEVER said or even implied any such things. It is YOU, my friend, who is "hearing things" or who has a "conclusion first" mentality. This is but one of many reasons why I ofttimes just ignore your posts/questions. Keep insisting that the parable doesn't apply to everyone EVEN THOUGH I NEVER SAID THAT IT DID. Here is the crux of the parable:
"Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him." (Matthew 21:31-32)
Jesus was drawing a contrast between the SELF-RIGHTEOUS PHARISEES and penitent sinners, such as publicans and harlots. The SELF-RIGHTEOUS, like most forum members here, have no need for Christ...they can make it on their own. Sound familiar? It should. As far as those who, according to you, "can't find the Holy Spirit" are concerned, you've got things backwards. According to scripture, NO ONE can come to God unless they are drawn by God or "wooed" (if I can use such terminology) by the Holy Spirit. I'm pretty sure that I've given the analogy of two different types of boats before, but it bears repeating.
You seem to believe that man can come to God ON MAN'S TERMS. In other words, your "boat" seems to be a "rowboat". You can get in it at any time and "row" at your own speed.
God's Word indicates that man needs to come to God ON GOD'S TERMS. In other words, man's boat needs to be a "sailboat". Man can get in it WHEN THE WIND BLOWS or WHEN THE SPIRIT WOOS/CALLS. As far as "speed" is concerned, I would heartily recommend "hoisting your sails" in immediate obedience to God when "the wind blows/the Spirit calls" and riding it out until the end. Throw all caution "to the wind", as it were.
In relation to the Holy Spirit and His "calling", here is but one example (THAT MEANS THAT THERE CAN BE MORE EXAMPLES...EVEN DIFFERENT EXAMPLES) from one specific group (THERE CAN BE AND IS DIVERSITY EVEN WITHIN THIS SPECIFIC GROUP):
"Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: Who have received the law by the dispensation of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth." (Acts 7:51-54)
I think that we both know how this ultimately played out...Stephen was stoned to death by this angry mob. Was their anger justifiable or was Stephen's assessment of them accurate? Look, like it or not, these particular Jews held (hypocritically) their scriptures in high regard. FOR THIS VERY REASON, Stephen referred them back TO THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES in his scathing rebuke of them. I merely gave you the tail end of Stephen's discourse...you can read the entire discourse at your own leisure if you'd like to. If you do read it, then you'll see that Stephen took his hearers for a "stroll down memory lane" by giving them a Biblical review of their history and the history of their forefathers. Were their "fathers" guilty of the things that Stephen accused them of? Well, the answer lies IN THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES AND IN THEIR OWN BIBLICAL HISTORY and that answer is a resounding "YES!".
Stephen: "Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears..."
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will punish all them which are circumcised with the uncircumcised; Egypt, and Judah, and Edom, and the children of Ammon, and Moab, and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wildereness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." (Jeremiah 9:25-26)
"To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it." (Jeremiah 6:10)
Those are just two scriptural citations...there are others.
Stephen: "...ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye."
"In all their affliction he was afflicted, and the angel of his presence saved them: in his love and in his pity he redeemed them; and he bare them, and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled, and vexed his holy spirit: therefore he was turned to be their enemy, and he fought against them." (Isaiah 63:9-10)
It is possible to "vex" or "grieve" the Holy Spirit. Here is the heart of the matter (WITH A PORTION OF THIS SPECIFIC GROUP):
"Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little: For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people. To whom he said, this is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear. But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken. Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves: Therefore thus saith the LORD GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste." (Isaiah 28:9-16)
Isaiah was an Old Testament prophet...a prophet that religious Jews are very familiar with. What did Isaiah say and how does it pertain to your questions/objections and other things that have been stated in this thread? Isaiah strongly contrasted two different types (IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO TYPES) of Jews:
1. Those who sought to be made righteous by a strict adherence to the Law. To these, it had to be "precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line" EVEN THOUGH such adherence would only cause them to "fall backward, be broken and snared and taken." Why did Isaiah refer to such an adherence as "a covenant with death"? Because that's the function of the God's Law. It shows sinners that they are guilty of violating God's Laws and that they are not only worthy of physical death, but also of what the Bible calls "the second death." The Law was also designed to be a "schoolmaster" or tutor to lead one to Christ that they might be justified by faith. These CERTAIN JEWS, because of their SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS, never used the Law for its designed purposes, but rather sought to be justified by an attempted strict adherence to it.
2. Those who would receive "the rest" and "the refreshing" through belief in the "precious corner stone" Who is none other than Jesus Christ. This "rest" and "refreshing" included speaking "with stammering lips and another tongue" or what Goofus A Gallant recently referred to as "glossalalia". This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (as recorded in Acts chapter 2) and was rejected by many SELF-RIGHTEOUS JEWS, JUST AS THE PROPHET ISAIAH FORETOLD.
"In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not..." (I Corinthians 14:21-22)
Where was this "written in the law"? In the portion of Isaiah that I previously quoted. My point? If CERTAIN JEWS believe THEIR OWN SCRIPTURES, then they should realize that they're fulfilling them in a negative fashion. Also, you should recognize this as one reason why CERTAIN JEWS "can't find the Holy Spirit". CAN'T FIND HIM? HE'S BEEN STRIVING WITH THEM AND THEIR FOREFATHERS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. Sorry to shout...I didn't want you to miss that (even though you probably will, anyway).
Well, in Stephen's discourse from Acts chapter 7, he also reminded these CERTAIN JEWS how they killed THEIR OWN prophets, killed Christ and continually disobeyed THEIR OWN law. In other words, it's NOT a case of them not be able to find the Holy Spirit, but rather a case of them CONTINUALLY RESISTING HIM...just like Stephen said.
For whatever that's worth (probably nothing)...
QUOTE
(newguy @ Feb 11 2010, 04:09 AM)
I've dealt with this so-called "Holy Spirit" as a demon on several occasions and have seen people delivered from it
I've dealt with this so-called "Holy Spirit" as a demon on several occasions and have seen people delivered from it
"To those who must believe in invisible mice, invisible cats are surely a blessing."
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
"To those who must believe in invisible mice, invisible cats are surely a blessing."
SinisterUtopia: ACTUALLY, to those who have found deliverance through Jesus Christ, JESUS CHRIST is quite a blessing. Your ignorance changes nothing.
Your emoticon reminds me of many posters here... I'll leave you to figure out what that means.
Take care.
I'm very happy for you Mr Van Helsing.
No, seriously It must be very comforting for those that feel haunted by demons to know that there is a demon slayer to call upon. You just gotta believe!!
I'm very happy for you Mr Van Helsing.
No, seriously It must be very comforting for those that feel haunted by demons to know that there is a demon slayer to call upon. You just gotta believe!!
Your emoticon reminds me of many posters here... I'll leave you to figure out what that means.
Take care.
Ok, thanks.
SinisterUtopia: ACTUALLY, to those who have found deliverance through Jesus Christ, JESUS CHRIST is quite a blessing. Your ignorance changes nothing.
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
Your emoticon reminds me of many posters here... I'll leave you to figure out what that means.
Take care.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+)
But many of these people who wind up babbling incoherently did sincerely pray to Jesus and honestly feel like they have been touched by the Holy Spirit.
Goofus A Gallant: Close, but no cigar. They sincerely prayed to the "another Jesus" who goes hand in hand with this "ANOTHER SPIRIT". I'd better clarify something, so as to not unintentionally offend. If my memory serves me correctly, then you've stated in the past how your sister "speaks in tongues". Also, if my memory serves me correctly, you've also stated how your sister homeschools and is a good Christian. Your sister may very well be a good Christian, but simply deceived in this one area. In other words, just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong about everything. I hope that you understand.
Take care.
P.S. Although I might add how your own comments seem to indicate that you have your own reservations about your own sister...assuming that I'm recalling things properly. If I'm not, then I'll gladly apologize upon your correction.
Goofus A Gallant: Close, but no cigar. They sincerely prayed to the "another Jesus" who goes hand in hand with this "ANOTHER SPIRIT". I'd better clarify something, so as to not unintentionally offend. If my memory serves me correctly, then you've stated in the past how your sister "speaks in tongues". Also, if my memory serves me correctly, you've also stated how your sister homeschools and is a good Christian. Your sister may very well be a good Christian, but simply deceived in this one area. In other words, just because someone is wrong about one thing doesn't automatically make them wrong about everything. I hope that you understand.
Take care.
P.S. Although I might add how your own comments seem to indicate that you have your own reservations about your own sister...assuming that I'm recalling things properly. If I'm not, then I'll gladly apologize upon your correction.
QUOTE
SinisterUtopia: ACTUALLY, to those who have found deliverance through Jesus Christ, JESUS CHRIST is quite a blessing. Your ignorance changes nothing.
I'm very happy for you Mr Van Helsing.
No, seriously It must be very comforting for those that feel haunted by demons to know that there is a demon slayer to call upon. You just gotta believe!!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| SinisterUtopia: ACTUALLY, to those who have found deliverance through Jesus Christ, JESUS CHRIST is quite a blessing. Your ignorance changes nothing. |
I'm very happy for you Mr Van Helsing.
No, seriously It must be very comforting for those that feel haunted by demons to know that there is a demon slayer to call upon. You just gotta believe!!
Your emoticon reminds me of many posters here... I'll leave you to figure out what that means.
Take care.
Ok, thanks.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 05:09 AM)
flyingbuttressman: Why not? Atheists are VERY spiritual.
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4:4)
That's what is called "circular logic." If what you say is true, then what you say is true. There is no hook in your argument that relates to reality as I see it. A Muslim could just as easily say that you are at war with Allah, and need to convert to Islam, but there is no reason for you to do so outside of his argument, even if he backs it up with the Koran. Maybe you should switch tactics to present logical arguments for your position that do not rely on the assumption that your position is true. Atheists have gotten quite good at this, maybe it's time for you to catch up.
What makes them charlatans? Is someone that you don't like automatically a charlatan? It kinda sounds like you have a superiority complex with your fellow Christians. The sole purpose of the church is to unite believers in fellowship. If you are going to consider yourself an outsider, why do you even go?
"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." (II Corinthians 4:4)
That's what is called "circular logic." If what you say is true, then what you say is true. There is no hook in your argument that relates to reality as I see it. A Muslim could just as easily say that you are at war with Allah, and need to convert to Islam, but there is no reason for you to do so outside of his argument, even if he backs it up with the Koran. Maybe you should switch tactics to present logical arguments for your position that do not rely on the assumption that your position is true. Atheists have gotten quite good at this, maybe it's time for you to catch up.
QUOTE
Like Goofus/gmilam, I'm quite sure that a lot of your objections to so-called "Christianity" are accurate. I attended so-called "Pentecostal churches" for many years. Even though I was found within their church walls, I was always an outsider (FROM DAY ONE) who tried, unsuccessfully in most cases, to fix what was wrong from within. There are many CHARLATANS within the so-called "church". MANY. And? Jesus warned of such. No need to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.
What makes them charlatans? Is someone that you don't like automatically a charlatan? It kinda sounds like you have a superiority complex with your fellow Christians. The sole purpose of the church is to unite believers in fellowship. If you are going to consider yourself an outsider, why do you even go?
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
I'm very happy for you Mr Van Helsing.
SinisterUtopia: Hey, I only went to the movie theatre once in about the last 20 years or so and that was to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"...Not because I wanted to...I just knew that people would ask me about it (I hated it). Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, then I saw a preview for the "Van Helsing" movie that day and I must admit that I was tempted to go see it. Oh, not for demon-hunting or anything like that...I just always kinda liked monsters (I used to make a lot of monster models when I was a kid). In fact, I'll also admit to being tempted to see the new "Wolfman" movie that's due out any day now (it might have opened last week).
Oh, no!!!
Now, I've done it...
Dr. Phil (vkamath) will undoubtedly "drop in" to give his next psychoanalysis...
SinisterUtopia: Hey, I only went to the movie theatre once in about the last 20 years or so and that was to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"...Not because I wanted to...I just knew that people would ask me about it (I hated it). Anyhow, if my memory serves me correctly, then I saw a preview for the "Van Helsing" movie that day and I must admit that I was tempted to go see it. Oh, not for demon-hunting or anything like that...I just always kinda liked monsters (I used to make a lot of monster models when I was a kid). In fact, I'll also admit to being tempted to see the new "Wolfman" movie that's due out any day now (it might have opened last week).
Oh, no!!!
Now, I've done it...
Dr. Phil (vkamath) will undoubtedly "drop in" to give his next psychoanalysis...
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
No, seriously It must be very comforting for those that feel haunted by demons to know that there is a demon slayer to call upon. You just gotta believe!!
"You gotta believe!" Hey, that was Tug McGraw and the '73 New York Mets. I was at one of those playoff games...the one in which Bud Harrelson got into a "scrape" with Pete Rose.
"You gotta believe!" Hey, that was Tug McGraw and the '73 New York Mets. I was at one of those playoff games...the one in which Bud Harrelson got into a "scrape" with Pete Rose.
QUOTE (SinisterUtopia+)
Ok, thanks.
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
That's what is called "circular logic." If what you say is true, then what you say is true. There is no hook in your argument that relates to reality as I see it. A Muslim could just as easily say that you are at war with Allah, and need to convert to Islam, but there is no reason for you to do so outside of his argument, even if he backs it up with the Koran. Maybe you should switch tactics to present logical arguments for your position that do not rely on the assumption that your position is true. Atheists have gotten quite good at this, maybe it's time for you to catch up.
flyingbuttressman: Call it whatever you'd like. I've already explained some of the reasons for the things that I know in the past. No need to rehash any of that now.
flyingbuttressman: Call it whatever you'd like. I've already explained some of the reasons for the things that I know in the past. No need to rehash any of that now.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
What makes them charlatans? Is someone that you don't like automatically a charlatan? It kinda sounds like you have a superiority complex with your fellow Christians. The sole purpose of the church is to unite believers in fellowship. If you are going to consider yourself an outsider, why do you even go?
First of all, up until about a month ago, I hadn't stepped foot in a church except to drop off my children at a craft class that is held in one church's basement or to attend either a funeral or a wedding for somewhere around 8 years (I've lost track...I could figure it out more precisely, if I really thought about it). I did check out a new local church about a month ago...I should have rented "Van Helsing" instead. What an absolute disaster. I won't even give any details. "What makes them charlatans?" The type of things that Jesus and the apostles described. You've heard of Jesus, haven't you? By the way, did they have Bibles in that church that you attended? You strike me as a total ignoramus when it comes to scripture...
First of all, up until about a month ago, I hadn't stepped foot in a church except to drop off my children at a craft class that is held in one church's basement or to attend either a funeral or a wedding for somewhere around 8 years (I've lost track...I could figure it out more precisely, if I really thought about it). I did check out a new local church about a month ago...I should have rented "Van Helsing" instead. What an absolute disaster. I won't even give any details. "What makes them charlatans?" The type of things that Jesus and the apostles described. You've heard of Jesus, haven't you? By the way, did they have Bibles in that church that you attended? You strike me as a total ignoramus when it comes to scripture...
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 10:44 AM)
flyingbuttressman: Call it whatever you'd like. I've already explained some of the reasons for the things that I know in the past. No need to rehash any of that now.
My point is that you accomplish little unless you can relate your scriptural references to real life. I don't give a crap if the bible says "all atheists are retards" (or something to that effect) because it's a biased source.
The bible is a document compiled from hundreds of different sources by many different groups and edited according to personal biases. See: Documentary hypothesis
Memorizing that document has little value beyond novelty. Judging other people based on your interpretation of certain phrases is plain idiotic. Your faith in the bible's infallibility is based on a series of false assumptions. Even Christian theologians will tell you that the classical assumptions about the bible's authorship are false. Moses did not write the Torah.
My point is that you accomplish little unless you can relate your scriptural references to real life. I don't give a crap if the bible says "all atheists are retards" (or something to that effect) because it's a biased source.
QUOTE
First of all, up until about a month ago, I hadn't stepped foot in a church except to drop off my children at a craft class that is held in one church's basement or to attend either a funeral or a wedding for somewhere around 8 years (I've lost track...I could figure it out more precisely, if I really thought about it). I did check out a new local church about a month ago...I should have rented "Van Helsing" instead. What an absolute disaster. I won't even give any details. "What makes them charlatans?" The type of things that Jesus and the apostles described. You've heard of Jesus, haven't you? By the way, did they have Bibles in that church that you attended? You strike me as a total ignoramus when it comes to scripture...
The bible is a document compiled from hundreds of different sources by many different groups and edited according to personal biases. See: Documentary hypothesis
Memorizing that document has little value beyond novelty. Judging other people based on your interpretation of certain phrases is plain idiotic. Your faith in the bible's infallibility is based on a series of false assumptions. Even Christian theologians will tell you that the classical assumptions about the bible's authorship are false. Moses did not write the Torah.
I am going to add to FBM's excellent points.
Newguy
If you want to claim anything, and I mean anything, based on the bible, you need to prove that the bible is the word of God, or that Jesus was divine or divinely inspired and that his words were correctly written down.
Otherwise all these quotations means absolutely squat. Might as well be quoting the Koran, or Van Helsing for that matter.
Alternatively, you could attempt to prove that the demons you exorcised were real, or provide any proof of any kind of supernatural effect. It might not prove your God specifically but I for one would certainly be willing to look into it more seriously.
Which leads me to Quantum...
Prove it.
Or at the very least provide some evidence ... even a little... for it. All we have is your word that you saw something miraculous and had dreams.
It's not really convincing... or even remotely believable.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people claim to have been healed every day, modernly often on camera. How come none of them have ever produced any real evidence of such healing? God can heal any disease, as long as it's not real visible?
Let's see that arm grow back on camera shall we. Should not be too hard for God right?
Newguy
If you want to claim anything, and I mean anything, based on the bible, you need to prove that the bible is the word of God, or that Jesus was divine or divinely inspired and that his words were correctly written down.
Otherwise all these quotations means absolutely squat. Might as well be quoting the Koran, or Van Helsing for that matter.
Alternatively, you could attempt to prove that the demons you exorcised were real, or provide any proof of any kind of supernatural effect. It might not prove your God specifically but I for one would certainly be willing to look into it more seriously.
Which leads me to Quantum...
QUOTE
The Healing I saw could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
The dreams I reported could NOT have happened without God.
Prove it.
Or at the very least provide some evidence ... even a little... for it. All we have is your word that you saw something miraculous and had dreams.
It's not really convincing... or even remotely believable.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people claim to have been healed every day, modernly often on camera. How come none of them have ever produced any real evidence of such healing? God can heal any disease, as long as it's not real visible?
Let's see that arm grow back on camera shall we. Should not be too hard for God right?
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 03:35 PM)
SinisterUtopia: Hey, I only went to the movie theatre once in about the last 20 years or so and that was to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"...
Actually his new movie is pretty good. And it has a great moral message about the value of revenge.
Actually his new movie is pretty good. And it has a great moral message about the value of revenge.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 11 2010, 11:07 AM)
Actually his new movie is pretty good. And it has a great moral message about the value of revenge.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
My point is that you accomplish little unless you can relate your scriptural references to real life.
flyingbuttressman: I've done that NUMEROUS times. Haven't you been paying attention? Oh, you mean that you don't believe me? That's fine (sincerely), but it doesn't change reality at all.
flyingbuttressman: I've done that NUMEROUS times. Haven't you been paying attention? Oh, you mean that you don't believe me? That's fine (sincerely), but it doesn't change reality at all.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
I don't give a crap if the bible says "all atheists are retards" (or something to that effect) because it's a biased source.
"Biased source", eh? That's interesting. Especially since the Bible has plenty of derogatory things to say about THEISTS. Anyhow, how about you? Are you a "biased source"? Nah, couldn't be. My "biases" have nothing to do with anything that I've discussed. My NUMEROUS EXPERIENCES have plenty to do with the things that I've discussed, though. Try keeping up.
"Biased source", eh? That's interesting. Especially since the Bible has plenty of derogatory things to say about THEISTS. Anyhow, how about you? Are you a "biased source"? Nah, couldn't be. My "biases" have nothing to do with anything that I've discussed. My NUMEROUS EXPERIENCES have plenty to do with the things that I've discussed, though. Try keeping up.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
The bible is a document compiled from hundreds of different sources by many different groups and edited according to personal biases. See: Documentary hypothesis
Memorizing that document has little value beyond novelty. Judging other people based on your interpretation of certain phrases is plain idiotic. Your faith in the bible's infallibility is based on a series of false assumptions. Even Christian theologians will tell you that the classical assumptions about the bible's authorship are false. Moses did not write the Torah.
That ALMOST made me laugh...it was right there, but it never made it to the surface. You talk to me about "personal biases" and then provide a link to the "Documentary HYPOTHESIS"?!? You don't suppose that there are any "personal biases" there, do you? Nah, couldn't be. You're a riot.
Gotta go shovel some snow...
Memorizing that document has little value beyond novelty. Judging other people based on your interpretation of certain phrases is plain idiotic. Your faith in the bible's infallibility is based on a series of false assumptions. Even Christian theologians will tell you that the classical assumptions about the bible's authorship are false. Moses did not write the Torah.
That ALMOST made me laugh...it was right there, but it never made it to the surface. You talk to me about "personal biases" and then provide a link to the "Documentary HYPOTHESIS"?!? You don't suppose that there are any "personal biases" there, do you? Nah, couldn't be. You're a riot.
Gotta go shovel some snow...
Somebody called the "Po-Po"...
QUOTE (Derek1148+)
Actually his new movie is pretty good. And it has a great moral message about the value of revenge.
flyingbuttressman: Don't laugh too quickly. Knowing Derek, he's probably not joking...
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)
flyingbuttressman: Don't laugh too quickly. Knowing Derek, he's probably not joking...
QUOTE (newguy+)
Dr. Phil (vkamath) will undoubtedly "drop in" to give his next psychoanalysis...
Heyyy...that was very un-Jesus of you. Looks like I struck a nerve.
Heyyy...that was very un-Jesus of you. Looks like I struck a nerve.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 03:33 AM)
Yes, majority does indeed rule. Religion is defined by its followers. There is no one authority on what a religion is or isn't.
Religion is defined by its followers, especially if you believe that all authority, divine or otherwise is the product of those who submit to it, not the person or being it is attributed to. The issue, though, is how people negotiate authority. Hint: it is not a question of majority where regimes of knowledge/truth/power are concerned.
According to you, EVERYTHING is spiritual. Materialism is a methodology, not a belief. You really don't understand how someone can not believe in god, do you?
Yes I can, because I was and still am, in a way, an atheist. My belief in God doesn't erase the atheism I built it on. You refuse to recognize this because you place the "reality" of categories and logic above the reality of cognitive structuring as it occurs in practice.
Materialism, the way I was thinking of it, is a philosophical approach to reality in which human culture and choices are determined by material conditions. Without culture and consciousness, material conditions would not even be perceived. So the idea that materiality and its presumed determinant effect on agency and culture can exist outside of consciousness is a fantasy that one can be conscious of unconciousness, but of course this is impossible sense the very recognition of unconsciousness entails consciousness. Materialism is built on a fantasy of return to innocence, imo.
Religion is defined by its followers, especially if you believe that all authority, divine or otherwise is the product of those who submit to it, not the person or being it is attributed to. The issue, though, is how people negotiate authority. Hint: it is not a question of majority where regimes of knowledge/truth/power are concerned.
QUOTE
According to you, EVERYTHING is spiritual. Materialism is a methodology, not a belief. You really don't understand how someone can not believe in god, do you? Yes I can, because I was and still am, in a way, an atheist. My belief in God doesn't erase the atheism I built it on. You refuse to recognize this because you place the "reality" of categories and logic above the reality of cognitive structuring as it occurs in practice.
Materialism, the way I was thinking of it, is a philosophical approach to reality in which human culture and choices are determined by material conditions. Without culture and consciousness, material conditions would not even be perceived. So the idea that materiality and its presumed determinant effect on agency and culture can exist outside of consciousness is a fantasy that one can be conscious of unconciousness, but of course this is impossible sense the very recognition of unconsciousness entails consciousness. Materialism is built on a fantasy of return to innocence, imo.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 11:22 AM)
flyingbuttressman: I've done that NUMEROUS times. Haven't you been paying attention? Oh, you mean that you don't believe me? That's fine (sincerely), but it doesn't change reality at all.
Your interpretation of reality is very different from mine.
The fact that the bible has nasty things to say about everyone does not make it unbiased. I don't pretend that I am unbiased, but the sources I reference are indeed impartial. Your experiences are interpreted through your ideology. If I had the same experiences, I doubt I would interpret them the same way.
The fact that the bible has nasty things to say about everyone does not make it unbiased. I don't pretend that I am unbiased, but the sources I reference are indeed impartial. Your experiences are interpreted through your ideology. If I had the same experiences, I doubt I would interpret them the same way.
That ALMOST made me laugh...it was right there, but it never made it to the surface. You talk to me about "personal biases" and then provide a link to the "Documentary HYPOTHESIS"?!? You don't suppose that there are any "personal biases" there, do you? Nah, couldn't be. You're a riot.
If you didn't dismiss it out of hand, you would see that it's a well-supported theory. To summarize, the language of the Torah is not as consistent as it should be. The Hebrew language evolved over time just as English has. An expert can tell the difference between Hebrew written in 300 BCE and 600 BCE (the way you or I could tell the difference between a book written in 1850 and a book written in 1950). A detailed analysis of the language used in the Torah leads to the conclusion that every book is the product of successive edits by people from different time periods with different political agendas. That's just the Torah.
Gotta go shovel some snow...
There's a euphemism for you.
1. You don't define reality, no matter how much you think you do.
2. Why should anyone believe you?
You have provided no evidence, just quoted a lot of bits from the bible and gave us your interpretation. Even if...and it's a huge if... anyone agreed with your interpretation it means nothing if there is no God or if there is a God and He or She or It is different that the one you believe in.
Ergo, unless you can provide some kind of evidence to back up your claims, you are nothing but empty wind. Considering what a hateful and arrogant person you are, you really do need to provide some kind of evidence if you expect anyone to take you seriously. So far... nada.
Read the OP. It's not about spiritual blindness... it's about physical miracles.
Get it?
Read the OP. It's not about spiritual blindness... it's about physical miracles.
Get it?
physical miracles have always been about making metaphysical stories up to explain spiritual things.
Get it?
I swear that LITT must be newguy's sane brother, though...
So... physical miracles.
Do they happen...yes or no?
Answer the question.
For once please, without philosophical obfuscation.
Your interpretation of reality is very different from mine.
QUOTE
"Biased source", eh? That's interesting. Especially since the Bible has plenty of derogatory things to say about THEISTS. Anyhow, how about you? Are you a "biased source"? Nah, couldn't be. My "biases" have nothing to do with anything that I've discussed. My NUMEROUS EXPERIENCES have plenty to do with the things that I've discussed, though. Try keeping up.
The fact that the bible has nasty things to say about everyone does not make it unbiased. I don't pretend that I am unbiased, but the sources I reference are indeed impartial. Your experiences are interpreted through your ideology. If I had the same experiences, I doubt I would interpret them the same way.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Biased source", eh? That's interesting. Especially since the Bible has plenty of derogatory things to say about THEISTS. Anyhow, how about you? Are you a "biased source"? Nah, couldn't be. My "biases" have nothing to do with anything that I've discussed. My NUMEROUS EXPERIENCES have plenty to do with the things that I've discussed, though. Try keeping up. |
The fact that the bible has nasty things to say about everyone does not make it unbiased. I don't pretend that I am unbiased, but the sources I reference are indeed impartial. Your experiences are interpreted through your ideology. If I had the same experiences, I doubt I would interpret them the same way.
That ALMOST made me laugh...it was right there, but it never made it to the surface. You talk to me about "personal biases" and then provide a link to the "Documentary HYPOTHESIS"?!? You don't suppose that there are any "personal biases" there, do you? Nah, couldn't be. You're a riot.
If you didn't dismiss it out of hand, you would see that it's a well-supported theory. To summarize, the language of the Torah is not as consistent as it should be. The Hebrew language evolved over time just as English has. An expert can tell the difference between Hebrew written in 300 BCE and 600 BCE (the way you or I could tell the difference between a book written in 1850 and a book written in 1950). A detailed analysis of the language used in the Torah leads to the conclusion that every book is the product of successive edits by people from different time periods with different political agendas. That's just the Torah.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 02:13 AM)
There are hundreds of people who claim with all honesty that they have been abducted by aliens. People claim to have seen all kinds of crazy things, yet all that would take to prove their case is evidence. Every single case that comes up ends up being a coincidence or misunderstood circumstances. All it takes is a single verified miracle, and you would be proven right. The silence is deafening.
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
Love... we depend on it. God is love. Once you make true love your treasure, then you begin to become more beautyful. spelling
You can't mock evidence.
Really though, I had just as much faith as you. I had seen miracles, "real" miracles. All it took was another perspective: could it have happened without god? The answer is always yes.
Once you analyze your entire life's experience, and you can say that it could have happened without god, then the seed of atheism sprouts.
Love... we depend on it. God is love. Once you make true love your treasure, then you begin to become more beautyful. spelling
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 11:51 AM)
My belief in God doesn't erase the atheism I built it on.
One more to add to the LITT "hall of fame".
Arthur
One more to add to the LITT "hall of fame".
Arthur
QUOTE (TracerTong+Feb 11 2010, 11:00 AM)
Love... we depend on it. God is love. Once you make true love your treasure, then you begin to become more beautyful. spelling
Aw, that's sweet. Irrelevant, but sweet.
Obviously designed to trigger the emotional aspects of our brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#Neuroscience
Coincidence? I think not.
Aw, that's sweet. Irrelevant, but sweet.
Obviously designed to trigger the emotional aspects of our brains.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossolalia#Neuroscience
Coincidence? I think not.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 10:22 AM)
Gotta go shovel some snow...
There's a euphemism for you.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 11:51 AM)
Yes I can, because I was and still am, in a way, an atheist. My belief in God doesn't erase the atheism I built it on. You refuse to recognize this because you place the "reality" of categories and logic above the reality of cognitive structuring as it occurs in practice.
Materialism, the way I was thinking of it, is a philosophical approach to reality in which human culture and choices are determined by material conditions. Without culture and consciousness, material conditions would not even be perceived. So the idea that materiality and its presumed determinant effect on agency and culture can exist outside of consciousness is a fantasy that one can be conscious of unconciousness, but of course this is impossible sense the very recognition of unconsciousness entails consciousness. Materialism is built on a fantasy of return to innocence, imo.
Ok, I'm going to ask you a question, and I would appreciate a clear answer.
Do you believe that god and/or other spiritual beings exist outside of human consciousness?
Materialism, the way I was thinking of it, is a philosophical approach to reality in which human culture and choices are determined by material conditions. Without culture and consciousness, material conditions would not even be perceived. So the idea that materiality and its presumed determinant effect on agency and culture can exist outside of consciousness is a fantasy that one can be conscious of unconciousness, but of course this is impossible sense the very recognition of unconsciousness entails consciousness. Materialism is built on a fantasy of return to innocence, imo.
Ok, I'm going to ask you a question, and I would appreciate a clear answer.
Do you believe that god and/or other spiritual beings exist outside of human consciousness?
QUOTE
Oh, you mean that you don't believe me? That's fine (sincerely), but it doesn't change reality at all.
1. You don't define reality, no matter how much you think you do.
2. Why should anyone believe you?
You have provided no evidence, just quoted a lot of bits from the bible and gave us your interpretation. Even if...and it's a huge if... anyone agreed with your interpretation it means nothing if there is no God or if there is a God and He or She or It is different that the one you believe in.
Ergo, unless you can provide some kind of evidence to back up your claims, you are nothing but empty wind. Considering what a hateful and arrogant person you are, you really do need to provide some kind of evidence if you expect anyone to take you seriously. So far... nada.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 04:51 PM)
Religion is defined by its followers,
Do you understand that they claim it is defined by reality outside of themselves?
I don't think you understand that part.
Do you understand that they claim it is defined by reality outside of themselves?
I don't think you understand that part.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 11 2010, 05:22 PM)
Ok, I'm going to ask you a question, and I would appreciate a clear answer.
Do you believe that god and/or other spiritual beings exist outside of human consciousness?
To answer that properly I would have to state whether I believe that anything exists beyond my perception of it, and if I do what is my basis for believing it to be so.
From the perspective of a human observer, there is only a distinction between physicalities and non-physical "spirits" to the extent that one distinguishes them.
Just like when you look in a telescope, all you can see is light that is inside the telescope. Attributing that light to sources external to the telescope requires extrapolation.
So am I capable of distinguishing between physicalities and non-physical "spirits?" Yes. Do I believe that there is an inherent distinction between them at the cognitive-emotional level of perception and experience, no. Prior to conceptualization and categorization, they're both nerve-impulse patterns.
How's that?
Do you believe that god and/or other spiritual beings exist outside of human consciousness?
To answer that properly I would have to state whether I believe that anything exists beyond my perception of it, and if I do what is my basis for believing it to be so.
From the perspective of a human observer, there is only a distinction between physicalities and non-physical "spirits" to the extent that one distinguishes them.
Just like when you look in a telescope, all you can see is light that is inside the telescope. Attributing that light to sources external to the telescope requires extrapolation.
So am I capable of distinguishing between physicalities and non-physical "spirits?" Yes. Do I believe that there is an inherent distinction between them at the cognitive-emotional level of perception and experience, no. Prior to conceptualization and categorization, they're both nerve-impulse patterns.
How's that?
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 02:45 PM)
How's that?
That was the most irritating response you could possibly have given.
And it answers nothing.
What it does say is that you lack the logical faculties to realize the value of evidence as contrasted with personal anecdote.
If I tell you that there is a Unicorn in my yard, you don't see that as any different from a physicist describing what a quark is.
That was the most irritating response you could possibly have given.
And it answers nothing.
What it does say is that you lack the logical faculties to realize the value of evidence as contrasted with personal anecdote.
If I tell you that there is a Unicorn in my yard, you don't see that as any different from a physicist describing what a quark is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 11 2010, 05:35 PM)
Do you understand that they claim it is defined by reality outside of themselves?
I don't think you understand that part.
Externalization is an epistemological power-tactic that is not used exclusively in religion. Look up Emile Durkheim on "social facts." He put forth the social-scientific idea that observable regularities in behavior ("thoughts, feelings, and actions" I believe are the exact words) could be considered empirically observable "facts." In fact they were/are nothing more than social-psychological patterns, but I don't know of any sociologist who really achieved recognition of that until Pierre Bourdieu started talking about "habitus" @ the 1980s.
Externalizing perceptions is a method of exercising epistemological power. Don't believe me? Try denying the reality of anything anyone considers "real" and write down and analyze their arguments to insist on the reality-basis of their knowledge. If it doesn't involve externalization, please let me know because I would be surprised.
I don't think you understand that part.
Externalization is an epistemological power-tactic that is not used exclusively in religion. Look up Emile Durkheim on "social facts." He put forth the social-scientific idea that observable regularities in behavior ("thoughts, feelings, and actions" I believe are the exact words) could be considered empirically observable "facts." In fact they were/are nothing more than social-psychological patterns, but I don't know of any sociologist who really achieved recognition of that until Pierre Bourdieu started talking about "habitus" @ the 1980s.
Externalizing perceptions is a method of exercising epistemological power. Don't believe me? Try denying the reality of anything anyone considers "real" and write down and analyze their arguments to insist on the reality-basis of their knowledge. If it doesn't involve externalization, please let me know because I would be surprised.
LITT
Let's see if you can answer a question directly.
Let's say you lose a limb. Will you go see Newguy to get it to grow back?
Let's see if you can answer a question directly.
Let's say you lose a limb. Will you go see Newguy to get it to grow back?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 11 2010, 08:38 PM)
LITT
Let's see if you can answer a question directly.
Let's say you lose a limb. Will you go see Newguy to get it to grow back?
I don't know what I would do. I would say watch the Passion of Christ and/or read about the persecution and crucifixion and study what Jesus did as he was being progressively deprived of his work and life.
Another bible story that might provide insight is Job's trials in which he was tempted to curse God by subsequent deprivations.
Either way, please stick with reading the bible or someone else's coping story and leave my limbs out of it:)
Let's see if you can answer a question directly.
Let's say you lose a limb. Will you go see Newguy to get it to grow back?
I don't know what I would do. I would say watch the Passion of Christ and/or read about the persecution and crucifixion and study what Jesus did as he was being progressively deprived of his work and life.
Another bible story that might provide insight is Job's trials in which he was tempted to curse God by subsequent deprivations.
Either way, please stick with reading the bible or someone else's coping story and leave my limbs out of it:)
So... you really can't answer a question directly can you?
The point of the discussion is whether or not the claims put forth by Newguy and Quantum are believable. You jumped in with your pseudo philosophical obfuscation and derailed the OP. Not only that... but poorly as well. Here's the point again in case you missed it.
Have there been instances of limbs being grown back by God. If not.. why not?
The point of the discussion is whether or not the claims put forth by Newguy and Quantum are believable. You jumped in with your pseudo philosophical obfuscation and derailed the OP. Not only that... but poorly as well. Here's the point again in case you missed it.
Have there been instances of limbs being grown back by God. If not.. why not?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 11 2010, 11:00 PM)
Have there been instances of limbs being grown back by God. If not.. why not?
Not that I've seen. But the more important question is what purpose it serves theologically to ask that question. The point is that disproving God's physical existence doesn't say anything about His existence in spirit.
Not that I've seen. But the more important question is what purpose it serves theologically to ask that question. The point is that disproving God's physical existence doesn't say anything about His existence in spirit.
QUOTE
The point is that disproving God's physical existence doesn't say anything about His existence in spirit.
Read the OP. It's not about spiritual blindness... it's about physical miracles.
Get it?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 12 2010, 01:41 AM)
Read the OP. It's not about spiritual blindness... it's about physical miracles.
Get it?
physical miracles have always been about making metaphysical stories up to explain spiritual things.
Get it?
It slowly becomes obvious that LITT is one of those people that actually believes the rest of the world is just an adjunct to his existence. Everything and everyone else is just here to provide him with stimulus and/or interaction.
Hey LITT ... when your mommy told you over and over that you were "special" she was being hyperbolic. Get a grip pal. The depth of your egoism is without limit.
Lastly, this is ridiculous ...
Just think about it for a minute you Sophist poser extraordinaire ... Explain to me in clear terms how that isn't a total incongruity and I'll give you a pos.
Hey LITT ... when your mommy told you over and over that you were "special" she was being hyperbolic. Get a grip pal. The depth of your egoism is without limit.
Lastly, this is ridiculous ...
QUOTE
The point is that disproving God's physical existence doesn't say anything about His existence in spirit.
Just think about it for a minute you Sophist poser extraordinaire ... Explain to me in clear terms how that isn't a total incongruity and I'll give you a pos.
I swear that LITT must be newguy's sane brother, though...
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 11 2010, 04:27 PM)
he's probably not joking...
True. Hey, have you noticed the visceral response you generally get from your posts? Is it a natural charm?
True. Hey, have you noticed the visceral response you generally get from your posts? Is it a natural charm?
QUOTE
physical miracles have always been about making metaphysical stories up to explain spiritual things.
So... physical miracles.
Do they happen...yes or no?
Answer the question.
For once please, without philosophical obfuscation.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 10 2010, 11:39 PM)
... Take a human being, amputate the material body and egoism, and you get...
...a bloody mess, and a rationalization for justified murder. (Sorry, but the bloody mess didn't get lighter, so to postulate a measurement of a "spirit" weight leaving the carcass).
...you no better than to follow here-say.
...you no better than to follow here-say.
If you amputate faith, you amputate...
...you amputate YOUR idea of faith. Mine remains intact.
...a bloody mess, and a rationalization for justified murder. (Sorry, but the bloody mess didn't get lighter, so to postulate a measurement of a "spirit" weight leaving the carcass).
QUOTE
I gather this from something I once heard...
...you no better than to follow here-say.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I gather this from something I once heard... |
...you no better than to follow here-say.
If you amputate faith, you amputate...
...you amputate YOUR idea of faith. Mine remains intact.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 08:02 PM)
physical miracles have always been about making metaphysical stories up to explain spiritual things.
Get it?
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension sucks. QC claims to have actually seen an injured limb grow. Not metaphorically, not allegorically... but physically, right before his eyes.
Having done some work in my life creating special effects for the stage, I know that this is not that difficult of an illusion to create. So I suspect that he fell victim to a con man... Then again, I wasn't there.
Get it?
I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension sucks. QC claims to have actually seen an injured limb grow. Not metaphorically, not allegorically... but physically, right before his eyes.
Having done some work in my life creating special effects for the stage, I know that this is not that difficult of an illusion to create. So I suspect that he fell victim to a con man... Then again, I wasn't there.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Feb 12 2010, 03:28 AM)
It slowly becomes obvious that LITT is one of those people that actually believes the rest of the world is just an adjunct to his existence. Everything and everyone else is just here to provide him with stimulus and/or interaction.
Look, consciousness is a paradox. No one has access to anyone's thoughts or perceptions except their own. Yet language and communication allows individuals to engage each other with common expressions. I do not think that "everyone else is just here to provide him with stimulus and/or interaction" but rather that individuals engage each other in pursuit of knowledge-power, myself included.
She may or may not have, but if she wasn't then she had yet to be liberated into full consciousness of situated consciousness. For anyone to believe that they are the same as anyone else, they have to transcend the irreducible fact that no one else lives within their body, which has a specific genealogy of experiences. You can project your consciousness onto some fictive point of observation where you are equidistant from your own body as much as anyone else's and pretend that you are capable of lumping your body together with the rest but, for better or worse, you can't actually deny identification with your body. It is the position from which your consciousness acts.
I think you're confusing egoism with narcissism, although they are somewhat related. Ego is the identity your consciousness recognizes as itself. When someone makes mean remarks about you, like you do to me, it hurts your feelings because you identify with your ego. Narcissism is when you worship your own identity or other aspects of your self-image. Narcissism is what you are accusing me of in order to bruise my ego and cause me to subjugate myself to authority.
Like I said on another thread, you've probably practiced this game of ego-bruising on your spouse or others and have figured out that you can get people to submit to your will or authority by humiliating with ego-criticism, so you use this tactic constantly hoping to gain some cheap social power.
I have no desire to submit to you or anyone else. I am fully conscious of authority and knowledge-power and there is no reason for anyone to be submitting to anyone else in a democratic scientific discussion. You abusing science as a means to play domination games is ethically questionable.
She may or may not have, but if she wasn't then she had yet to be liberated into full consciousness of situated consciousness. For anyone to believe that they are the same as anyone else, they have to transcend the irreducible fact that no one else lives within their body, which has a specific genealogy of experiences. You can project your consciousness onto some fictive point of observation where you are equidistant from your own body as much as anyone else's and pretend that you are capable of lumping your body together with the rest but, for better or worse, you can't actually deny identification with your body. It is the position from which your consciousness acts.
I think you're confusing egoism with narcissism, although they are somewhat related. Ego is the identity your consciousness recognizes as itself. When someone makes mean remarks about you, like you do to me, it hurts your feelings because you identify with your ego. Narcissism is when you worship your own identity or other aspects of your self-image. Narcissism is what you are accusing me of in order to bruise my ego and cause me to subjugate myself to authority.
Like I said on another thread, you've probably practiced this game of ego-bruising on your spouse or others and have figured out that you can get people to submit to your will or authority by humiliating with ego-criticism, so you use this tactic constantly hoping to gain some cheap social power.
I have no desire to submit to you or anyone else. I am fully conscious of authority and knowledge-power and there is no reason for anyone to be submitting to anyone else in a democratic scientific discussion. You abusing science as a means to play domination games is ethically questionable.
Lastly, this is ridiculous ...
Just think about it for a minute you Sophist poser extraordinaire ... Explain to me in clear terms how that isn't a total incongruity and I'll give you a pos.
Would it help if I explained to you the concept of a "spirit?" "Spirit" is one term, a fairly old one I think, used to describe socially-shared states of subjectivity or consciousness. When you say that someone is in "good spirits," it means that they are experiencing patterns of subjectivity or consciousness that are making them happy, positive, etc.
God's existence "in spirit" means that humans continue to know God within themselves, at least as a concept. If I say the spirit of Jalphig exists, you wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about (at least I assume so because I don't) but if I say the spirit of God exists, you know what "God" means.
Therefore, when people are trying to disprove God's physical/material existence, they are actually trying to erase His spiritual existence, which is logically impossible, especially if they know what they are searching for to disprove it. If anything, efforts to disprove God's physical existence only strengthens knowledge of Him in spirit, which is ironic.
I could say that I'm in favor of this as a pro-theist, in that I should favor spiritual activities that strengthen knowledge of God, but the truth is that I favor direct routes over indirect ones, in that the indirect ones tend to be more manipulative. That is why I'm trying to explain the distinction between spirit and "flesh" on this thread, because the faith-healing of amputees discussion seems like a manipulative, indirect route to worshipping and strengthening God-knowledge, which I don't believe God Himself would prefer over the direct route.
So... physical miracles.
Do they happen...yes or no?
Answer the question.
For once please, without philosophical obfuscation.
Let's put it this way, when you witness or experience true faith in a physical miracle, it will be a miracle of spirit for you.
If you read my other posts, you would understand why it is necessary to understand the relationship between flesh/physicality and spirit/subjectivity to understand the relationship of God to perceptions of physical events and ontological experience.
If I told you "no, they don't happen," I would be denying the experience of them as being real and elevating my own subjective estimates of plausibility over the empirical claims of something I didn't personally witness. If I told you "yes, they do happen physically," I would be in denial of my own capacity to estimate plausibility according to my own subjective estimates of plausibility based on knowledge I have built up about physicalities and their mechanics.
It seems like what you are really asking me to do, by pleading against obfuscation, is to assert ideological dominance of positivism over other approaches to knowledge, but how can I do that knowing that positivism itself is an ideology/philosophy that has to be exercised in order to make knowledge-claims?
For better or worse, until someone is able to transcend embodied consciousness, the existence and mechanics of consciousness and subjectivity are more immediate empirical observables than the external physical events presumed to be the source of sensory stimuli.
An empiricist looking into a telescope observes the light in the telescope and only subsequently is able to engage in synthetic-abstract thinking that attributes the patterns observed with the idea that there are objects external to the telescope responsible for the light inside it. The fact that the empiricist is able to step back from the eyepiece of the telescope and observe the telescope itself as a thing with an inside and an outside provides further synthetic-abstract knowledge used to underwrite the belief that the light in the telescope originated outside it.
This is cumbersome and tedious to trace each step of knowledge-synthesis, but this is the only way to dissect positivist assumptions down to the truly empirical level.
If I told you "no, they don't happen," I would be denying the experience of them
Not if you separated the experience of them from the external nature or lack of external nature of them.
Instead of all the volumes and volumes of words you use, why not just say "I don't know" in such cases?
Look, consciousness is a paradox. No one has access to anyone's thoughts or perceptions except their own. Yet language and communication allows individuals to engage each other with common expressions. I do not think that "everyone else is just here to provide him with stimulus and/or interaction" but rather that individuals engage each other in pursuit of knowledge-power, myself included.
QUOTE
Hey LITT ... when your mommy told you over and over that you were "special" she was being hyperbolic. Get a grip pal. The depth of your egoism is without limit.
She may or may not have, but if she wasn't then she had yet to be liberated into full consciousness of situated consciousness. For anyone to believe that they are the same as anyone else, they have to transcend the irreducible fact that no one else lives within their body, which has a specific genealogy of experiences. You can project your consciousness onto some fictive point of observation where you are equidistant from your own body as much as anyone else's and pretend that you are capable of lumping your body together with the rest but, for better or worse, you can't actually deny identification with your body. It is the position from which your consciousness acts.
I think you're confusing egoism with narcissism, although they are somewhat related. Ego is the identity your consciousness recognizes as itself. When someone makes mean remarks about you, like you do to me, it hurts your feelings because you identify with your ego. Narcissism is when you worship your own identity or other aspects of your self-image. Narcissism is what you are accusing me of in order to bruise my ego and cause me to subjugate myself to authority.
Like I said on another thread, you've probably practiced this game of ego-bruising on your spouse or others and have figured out that you can get people to submit to your will or authority by humiliating with ego-criticism, so you use this tactic constantly hoping to gain some cheap social power.
I have no desire to submit to you or anyone else. I am fully conscious of authority and knowledge-power and there is no reason for anyone to be submitting to anyone else in a democratic scientific discussion. You abusing science as a means to play domination games is ethically questionable.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hey LITT ... when your mommy told you over and over that you were "special" she was being hyperbolic. Get a grip pal. The depth of your egoism is without limit. |
She may or may not have, but if she wasn't then she had yet to be liberated into full consciousness of situated consciousness. For anyone to believe that they are the same as anyone else, they have to transcend the irreducible fact that no one else lives within their body, which has a specific genealogy of experiences. You can project your consciousness onto some fictive point of observation where you are equidistant from your own body as much as anyone else's and pretend that you are capable of lumping your body together with the rest but, for better or worse, you can't actually deny identification with your body. It is the position from which your consciousness acts.
I think you're confusing egoism with narcissism, although they are somewhat related. Ego is the identity your consciousness recognizes as itself. When someone makes mean remarks about you, like you do to me, it hurts your feelings because you identify with your ego. Narcissism is when you worship your own identity or other aspects of your self-image. Narcissism is what you are accusing me of in order to bruise my ego and cause me to subjugate myself to authority.
Like I said on another thread, you've probably practiced this game of ego-bruising on your spouse or others and have figured out that you can get people to submit to your will or authority by humiliating with ego-criticism, so you use this tactic constantly hoping to gain some cheap social power.
I have no desire to submit to you or anyone else. I am fully conscious of authority and knowledge-power and there is no reason for anyone to be submitting to anyone else in a democratic scientific discussion. You abusing science as a means to play domination games is ethically questionable.
Lastly, this is ridiculous ...
Just think about it for a minute you Sophist poser extraordinaire ... Explain to me in clear terms how that isn't a total incongruity and I'll give you a pos.
Would it help if I explained to you the concept of a "spirit?" "Spirit" is one term, a fairly old one I think, used to describe socially-shared states of subjectivity or consciousness. When you say that someone is in "good spirits," it means that they are experiencing patterns of subjectivity or consciousness that are making them happy, positive, etc.
God's existence "in spirit" means that humans continue to know God within themselves, at least as a concept. If I say the spirit of Jalphig exists, you wouldn't have a clue what I'm talking about (at least I assume so because I don't) but if I say the spirit of God exists, you know what "God" means.
Therefore, when people are trying to disprove God's physical/material existence, they are actually trying to erase His spiritual existence, which is logically impossible, especially if they know what they are searching for to disprove it. If anything, efforts to disprove God's physical existence only strengthens knowledge of Him in spirit, which is ironic.
I could say that I'm in favor of this as a pro-theist, in that I should favor spiritual activities that strengthen knowledge of God, but the truth is that I favor direct routes over indirect ones, in that the indirect ones tend to be more manipulative. That is why I'm trying to explain the distinction between spirit and "flesh" on this thread, because the faith-healing of amputees discussion seems like a manipulative, indirect route to worshipping and strengthening God-knowledge, which I don't believe God Himself would prefer over the direct route.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 12 2010, 05:18 AM)
So... physical miracles.
Do they happen...yes or no?
Answer the question.
For once please, without philosophical obfuscation.
Let's put it this way, when you witness or experience true faith in a physical miracle, it will be a miracle of spirit for you.
If you read my other posts, you would understand why it is necessary to understand the relationship between flesh/physicality and spirit/subjectivity to understand the relationship of God to perceptions of physical events and ontological experience.
If I told you "no, they don't happen," I would be denying the experience of them as being real and elevating my own subjective estimates of plausibility over the empirical claims of something I didn't personally witness. If I told you "yes, they do happen physically," I would be in denial of my own capacity to estimate plausibility according to my own subjective estimates of plausibility based on knowledge I have built up about physicalities and their mechanics.
It seems like what you are really asking me to do, by pleading against obfuscation, is to assert ideological dominance of positivism over other approaches to knowledge, but how can I do that knowing that positivism itself is an ideology/philosophy that has to be exercised in order to make knowledge-claims?
For better or worse, until someone is able to transcend embodied consciousness, the existence and mechanics of consciousness and subjectivity are more immediate empirical observables than the external physical events presumed to be the source of sensory stimuli.
An empiricist looking into a telescope observes the light in the telescope and only subsequently is able to engage in synthetic-abstract thinking that attributes the patterns observed with the idea that there are objects external to the telescope responsible for the light inside it. The fact that the empiricist is able to step back from the eyepiece of the telescope and observe the telescope itself as a thing with an inside and an outside provides further synthetic-abstract knowledge used to underwrite the belief that the light in the telescope originated outside it.
This is cumbersome and tedious to trace each step of knowledge-synthesis, but this is the only way to dissect positivist assumptions down to the truly empirical level.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 12 2010, 06:05 PM)
If I told you "no, they don't happen," I would be denying the experience of them
Not if you separated the experience of them from the external nature or lack of external nature of them.
Instead of all the volumes and volumes of words you use, why not just say "I don't know" in such cases?
QUOTE (buttershug+Feb 12 2010, 06:15 PM)
Not if you separated the experience of them from the external nature or lack of external nature of them.
Instead of all the volumes and volumes of words you use, why not just say "I don't know" in such cases?
Fine, I don't know why people experience miracles and I don't know about the external nature of them - but I can speculate and I do know that separating external nature from internal experience is a product of internal experience.
You can only confirm or deny external nature tentatively. You can never be certain of whatever externalities may or may not exist to influence your experiences. You can only assert reason to justify your belief that what you know is factual or fictional. Reason may be a great basis for faith, but it doesn't erase the fact that it is faith that follows reason.
Instead of all the volumes and volumes of words you use, why not just say "I don't know" in such cases?
Fine, I don't know why people experience miracles and I don't know about the external nature of them - but I can speculate and I do know that separating external nature from internal experience is a product of internal experience.
You can only confirm or deny external nature tentatively. You can never be certain of whatever externalities may or may not exist to influence your experiences. You can only assert reason to justify your belief that what you know is factual or fictional. Reason may be a great basis for faith, but it doesn't erase the fact that it is faith that follows reason.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 09:45 PM)
Where do you get that I claim to be an expert on topics I discuss?
You are making the assumption that things I'm saying are contradicting things you've heard or read about these sciences, but you haven't presented any facts or even concrete defensible reasoning. Only insistent claims containing assumptions about something you don't put on the table for discussion.
Well here you go, Son of Meem.
Would it help if I explained to you the concept of a "spirit?" "Spirit" is one term, a fairly old one I think, used to describe socially-shared states of subjectivity or consciousness. When you say that someone is in "good spirits," it means that they are experiencing patterns of subjectivity or consciousness that are making them happy, positive, etc.
Once again youre just making up definitions and presenting them as if you know what youre talking about. Heres what dictionary.com has to say about "spirit"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 11 2010, 10:38 PM)
You are making the assumption that things I'm saying are contradicting things you've heard or read about these sciences, but you haven't presented any facts or even concrete defensible reasoning. Only insistent claims containing assumptions about something you don't put on the table for discussion.
Well here you go, Son of Meem.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 12 2010, 05:46 PM)
Would it help if I explained to you the concept of a "spirit?" "Spirit" is one term, a fairly old one I think, used to describe socially-shared states of subjectivity or consciousness. When you say that someone is in "good spirits," it means that they are experiencing patterns of subjectivity or consciousness that are making them happy, positive, etc.
Once again youre just making up definitions and presenting them as if you know what youre talking about. Heres what dictionary.com has to say about "spirit"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit
QUOTE
Origin:
1200–50; ME (n.) < L spīritus orig., a breathing, equiv. to spīri-, comb. form repr. spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action
spirit - 8 dictionary results
Spirit Airline Tickets
Buy Cheap Airline Flight Tickets on this Site. Save 65%, All Airlines
www.CheapOAir.com/Airlines
spir⋅it /ˈspɪrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spir-it] Show IPA
–noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
6. a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7. an angel or demon.
8. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
9. (initial capital letter) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.
10. a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15.
11. (initial capital letter) the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit.
12. the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.
13. spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits.
14. excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit!
15. temper or disposition: meek in spirit.
16. an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.
17. the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age.
18. vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit.
19. the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter ): the spirit of the law.
20. Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation.
21. Often, spirits. a strong distilled alcoholic liquor.
22. Chiefly British. alcohol.
23. Pharmacology. a solution in alcohol of an essential or volatile principle; essence.
24. any of certain subtle fluids formerly supposed to permeate the body.
25. the Spirit, God.
–adjective 26. pertaining to something that works by burning alcoholic spirits: a spirit stove.
27. of or pertaining to spiritualist bodies or activities.
–verb (used with object) 28. to animate with fresh ardor or courage; inspirit.
29. to encourage; urge on or stir up, as to action.
30. to carry off mysteriously or secretly (often fol. by away or off): His captors spirited him away.
—Idiom31. out of spirits, in low spirits; depressed: We were feeling out of spirits after so many days of rain.
1200–50; ME (n.) < L spīritus orig., a breathing, equiv. to spīri-, comb. form repr. spīrāre to breathe + -tus suffix of v. action
spirit - 8 dictionary results
Spirit Airline Tickets
Buy Cheap Airline Flight Tickets on this Site. Save 65%, All Airlines
www.CheapOAir.com/Airlines
spir⋅it /ˈspɪrɪt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [spir-it] Show IPA
–noun 1. the principle of conscious life; the vital principle in humans, animating the body or mediating between body and soul.
2. the incorporeal part of humans: present in spirit though absent in body.
3. the soul regarded as separating from the body at death.
4. conscious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter: the world of spirit.
5. a supernatural, incorporeal being, esp. one inhabiting a place, object, etc., or having a particular character: evil spirits.
6. a fairy, sprite, or elf.
7. an angel or demon.
8. an attitude or principle that inspires, animates, or pervades thought, feeling, or action: the spirit of reform.
9. (initial capital letter) the divine influence as an agency working in the human heart.
10. a divine, inspiring, or animating being or influence. Num. 11:25; Is. 32:15.
11. (initial capital letter) the third person of the Trinity; Holy Spirit.
12. the soul or heart as the seat of feelings or sentiments, or as prompting to action: a man of broken spirit.
13. spirits, feelings or mood with regard to exaltation or depression: low spirits; good spirits.
14. excellent disposition or attitude in terms of vigor, courage, firmness of intent, etc.; mettle: That's the spirit!
15. temper or disposition: meek in spirit.
16. an individual as characterized by a given attitude, disposition, character, action, etc.: A few brave spirits remained to face the danger.
17. the dominant tendency or character of anything: the spirit of the age.
18. vigorous sense of membership in a group: college spirit.
19. the general meaning or intent of a statement, document, etc. (opposed to letter ): the spirit of the law.
20. Chemistry. the essence or active principle of a substance as extracted in liquid form, esp. by distillation.
21. Often, spirits. a strong distilled alcoholic liquor.
22. Chiefly British. alcohol.
23. Pharmacology. a solution in alcohol of an essential or volatile principle; essence.
24. any of certain subtle fluids formerly supposed to permeate the body.
25. the Spirit, God.
–adjective 26. pertaining to something that works by burning alcoholic spirits: a spirit stove.
27. of or pertaining to spiritualist bodies or activities.
–verb (used with object) 28. to animate with fresh ardor or courage; inspirit.
29. to encourage; urge on or stir up, as to action.
30. to carry off mysteriously or secretly (often fol. by away or off): His captors spirited him away.
—Idiom31. out of spirits, in low spirits; depressed: We were feeling out of spirits after so many days of rain.
QUOTE (occidental+Feb 12 2010, 06:56 PM)
Once again youre just making up definitions and presenting them as if you know what youre talking about. Heres what dictionary.com has to say about "spirit"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit
And you don't think my explanation was a good general summary of a variety of the definitions?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirit
And you don't think my explanation was a good general summary of a variety of the definitions?
LITT
Let's see if I can explain the problem with your approach in a clear enough manner that you will understand.
If you are going to take the stand that we cannot prove that anything is truly real because we only experience reality via our perceptions and our thoughts and not directly... then there is no point in any discussion or any science.
Which means talking to you is just like masturbating with a cheese grater. Slightly amusing but mostly painful.... and utterly pointless.
There is no reason to doubt consensual reality unless you can point to some evidence that the reality we take for granted is not genuine. Until then we have to assume that it is.
Ergo the question...
Given the axiom that the reality we perceive is correct in general... can you, or Quantum or Newguy, show us where and when God regrew a limb or some other supernatural event?
Let's see if I can explain the problem with your approach in a clear enough manner that you will understand.
If you are going to take the stand that we cannot prove that anything is truly real because we only experience reality via our perceptions and our thoughts and not directly... then there is no point in any discussion or any science.
Which means talking to you is just like masturbating with a cheese grater. Slightly amusing but mostly painful.... and utterly pointless.
There is no reason to doubt consensual reality unless you can point to some evidence that the reality we take for granted is not genuine. Until then we have to assume that it is.
Ergo the question...
Given the axiom that the reality we perceive is correct in general... can you, or Quantum or Newguy, show us where and when God regrew a limb or some other supernatural event?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 12 2010, 09:02 PM)
If you are going to take the stand that we cannot prove that anything is truly real because we only experience reality via our perceptions and our thoughts and not directly... then there is no point in any discussion or any science.
why isn't there any point then?
If I was as convinced as you seem to be that cheese graters can masturbate, I wouldn't be bothering with spontaneous limb-regeneration as proof of the supernatural.
If I was as convinced as you seem to be that cheese graters can masturbate, I wouldn't be bothering with spontaneous limb-regeneration as proof of the supernatural.
There is no reason to doubt consensual reality unless you can point to some evidence that the reality we take for granted is not genuine. Until then we have to assume that it is.
On the contrary, I think that starting with the presumption that consensus is the basis for reality rather than independent processes of observation and reasoning is a barrier for truly scientific consciousness.
I proceed with socially-received (i.e. consensual as you put it) knowledge all the time, but I see science as being about controlling for socially-based assumptions. Furthermore it sounds like you're confounding reality with knowledge. Reality does not need consent to function. That's what makes it reality. It also doesn't need to be known or otherwise represented. It functions independently of attributed status or claims-making.
The more interesting question is if there was indeed proof of limb-regeneration occurring, would it not be possible to explain it with conventional scientific epistemology. My belief is that if God is in fact as good and perfect as he's supposed to be, he can make his miracles completely logical and indistinguishable from naturally occurring events.
That in itself may be proof that no true miracle has ever occurred that is inexplicable to science. If anything, the proof of God lies in the fact that humans are capable of imagining things that transcend physical laws of their own discerning.
The more interesting question is if there was indeed proof of limb-regeneration occurring, would it not be possible to explain it with conventional scientific epistemology. My belief is that if God is in fact as good and perfect as he's supposed to be, he can make his miracles completely logical and indistinguishable from naturally occurring events.
But that leads to the logical question of: If God can work miracles that are indeed indistinguishable from naturally occurring events, then we are left with naturally occurring events.
why isn't there any point then?
QUOTE
Which means talking to you is just like masturbating with a cheese grater. Slightly amusing but mostly painful.... and utterly pointless.
If I was as convinced as you seem to be that cheese graters can masturbate, I wouldn't be bothering with spontaneous limb-regeneration as proof of the supernatural.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which means talking to you is just like masturbating with a cheese grater. Slightly amusing but mostly painful.... and utterly pointless. |
If I was as convinced as you seem to be that cheese graters can masturbate, I wouldn't be bothering with spontaneous limb-regeneration as proof of the supernatural.
There is no reason to doubt consensual reality unless you can point to some evidence that the reality we take for granted is not genuine. Until then we have to assume that it is.
On the contrary, I think that starting with the presumption that consensus is the basis for reality rather than independent processes of observation and reasoning is a barrier for truly scientific consciousness.
I proceed with socially-received (i.e. consensual as you put it) knowledge all the time, but I see science as being about controlling for socially-based assumptions. Furthermore it sounds like you're confounding reality with knowledge. Reality does not need consent to function. That's what makes it reality. It also doesn't need to be known or otherwise represented. It functions independently of attributed status or claims-making.
QUOTE
Given the axiom that the reality we perceive is correct in general... can you, or Quantum or Newguy, show us where and when God regrew a limb or some other supernatural event?
The more interesting question is if there was indeed proof of limb-regeneration occurring, would it not be possible to explain it with conventional scientific epistemology. My belief is that if God is in fact as good and perfect as he's supposed to be, he can make his miracles completely logical and indistinguishable from naturally occurring events.
That in itself may be proof that no true miracle has ever occurred that is inexplicable to science. If anything, the proof of God lies in the fact that humans are capable of imagining things that transcend physical laws of their own discerning.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 12 2010, 09:20 PM)
The more interesting question is if there was indeed proof of limb-regeneration occurring, would it not be possible to explain it with conventional scientific epistemology. My belief is that if God is in fact as good and perfect as he's supposed to be, he can make his miracles completely logical and indistinguishable from naturally occurring events.
But that leads to the logical question of: If God can work miracles that are indeed indistinguishable from naturally occurring events, then we are left with naturally occurring events.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Feb 12 2010, 04:02 PM)
Given the axiom that the reality we perceive is correct in general... can you, or Quantum or Newguy, show us where and when God regrew a limb or some other supernatural event?
I already told you about several such things, but you don't believe anyway, so it's not like telling you again will even matter.
It isn't even that you disbelieve my testimony, but rather, you even go so far as to act as though it were never given in the first place, asking again specifically by name, as though I hadn't even said anything on the subject...
Even if I had it on video, you wouldn't believe the video.
You would simply claim it was doctored, and then ask me to repeat it in a laboratory as I was God, which I'm not.
I already told you about several such things, but you don't believe anyway, so it's not like telling you again will even matter.
It isn't even that you disbelieve my testimony, but rather, you even go so far as to act as though it were never given in the first place, asking again specifically by name, as though I hadn't even said anything on the subject...
Even if I had it on video, you wouldn't believe the video.
You would simply claim it was doctored, and then ask me to repeat it in a laboratory as I was God, which I'm not.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 05:38 PM)
I already told you about several such things, but you don't believe anyway, so it's not like telling you again will even matter.
Eyewitness accounts are actually the LEAST accurate out of any kind of evidence.
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
You would simply claim it was doctored, and then ask me to repeat it in a laboratory as I was God, which I'm not.
Mysteriously, no miracles have been videotaped...
Notice the pattern here? Maybe god's miracles only last a few hours before reverting back to their prior state? How else can you explain the deafening silence from the medical community?
But that leads to the logical question of: If God can work miracles that are indeed indistinguishable from naturally occurring events, then we are left with naturally occurring events.
Exactly. Or He can work miracles and then change history to make them explainable through normal sequences of causation.
But why would he do that? He created the creation for humans to make their own choices and bear their own consequences.
Prove it.
Eyewitness accounts are actually the LEAST accurate out of any kind of evidence.
QUOTE
It isn't even that you disbelieve my testimony, but rather, you even go so far as to act as though it were never given in the first place, asking again specifically by name, as though I hadn't even said anything on the subject...
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It isn't even that you disbelieve my testimony, but rather, you even go so far as to act as though it were never given in the first place, asking again specifically by name, as though I hadn't even said anything on the subject... |
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
You would simply claim it was doctored, and then ask me to repeat it in a laboratory as I was God, which I'm not.
Mysteriously, no miracles have been videotaped...
Notice the pattern here? Maybe god's miracles only last a few hours before reverting back to their prior state? How else can you explain the deafening silence from the medical community?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 12 2010, 05:43 PM)
Eyewitness accounts are actually the LEAST accurate out of any kind of evidence.
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
Mysteriously, no miracles have been videotaped...
Notice the pattern here? Maybe god's miracles only last a few hours before reverting back to their prior state? How else can you explain the deafening silence from the medical community?
Oh so what?
The guy's leg grew out by several inches through some form of naturalistic regeneration "coincidentally" in response to prayer?
That doesn't require a "medical professional" to describe.
BTW, my mother and sister are also eye-witnesses, and they both work in the medical field (sister is a RN, mother is a tech,) soon, I will be in medical field too...
You are a joke, FBM. Get over it.
Medical professionals are the only ones who can determine whether a miracle has actually taken place. Mysteriously, none have come forward.
Mysteriously, no miracles have been videotaped...
Notice the pattern here? Maybe god's miracles only last a few hours before reverting back to their prior state? How else can you explain the deafening silence from the medical community?
Oh so what?
The guy's leg grew out by several inches through some form of naturalistic regeneration "coincidentally" in response to prayer?
That doesn't require a "medical professional" to describe.
BTW, my mother and sister are also eye-witnesses, and they both work in the medical field (sister is a RN, mother is a tech,) soon, I will be in medical field too...
You are a joke, FBM. Get over it.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+Feb 12 2010, 10:06 PM)
But that leads to the logical question of: If God can work miracles that are indeed indistinguishable from naturally occurring events, then we are left with naturally occurring events.
Exactly. Or He can work miracles and then change history to make them explainable through normal sequences of causation.
But why would he do that? He created the creation for humans to make their own choices and bear their own consequences.
QUOTE
He created the creation for humans to make their own choices and bear their own consequences.
Prove it.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Feb 12 2010, 06:29 PM)
why would he do that? He created the creation for humans to make their own choices and bear their own consequences.
I'm not convinced that is an accurate representation of God's intentions of creation.
For starters, we do not simply bear our own consequences, but rather the collective consequences of others as well. The a large portion of the taxes we pay go into military and law enforcement to deal with terrorists, murderers, and other lunatics, for example, none of which are "my fault" or "consequences of my actions".
Second, there are other reasons given in the Bible for creation.
Third, having eye-witnessed miracle healings, I know that God actively takes a role in human interests.
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
I'm not convinced that is an accurate representation of God's intentions of creation.
For starters, we do not simply bear our own consequences, but rather the collective consequences of others as well. The a large portion of the taxes we pay go into military and law enforcement to deal with terrorists, murderers, and other lunatics, for example, none of which are "my fault" or "consequences of my actions".
Second, there are other reasons given in the Bible for creation.
Third, having eye-witnessed miracle healings, I know that God actively takes a role in human interests.
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 05:58 PM)
The guy's leg grew out by several inches through some form of naturalistic regeneration "coincidentally" in response to prayer?
That doesn't seem particularly useful. Why didn't god grow the whole foot back? Did god get tired?
It takes a medical professional to document it.
It takes a medical professional to document it.
BTW, my mother and sister are also eye-witnesses, and they both work in the medical field (sister is a RN, mother is a tech,) soon, I will be in medical field too...
Did they take an X-Ray of the leg and compare it to previous X-Rays on file? Witnessing an event like that under the influence of religious fervor doesn't stand up to serious analysis.
That doesn't seem particularly useful. Why didn't god grow the whole foot back? Did god get tired?
QUOTE
That doesn't require a "medical professional" to describe.
It takes a medical professional to document it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That doesn't require a "medical professional" to describe. |
It takes a medical professional to document it.
BTW, my mother and sister are also eye-witnesses, and they both work in the medical field (sister is a RN, mother is a tech,) soon, I will be in medical field too...
Did they take an X-Ray of the leg and compare it to previous X-Rays on file? Witnessing an event like that under the influence of religious fervor doesn't stand up to serious analysis.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 02:50 PM)
Third, having eye-witnessed miracle healings, I know that God actively takes a role in human interests.
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
Sweet. Someone finally came out and said it. Thank you QC.
Your interpretation is utter balderdash on several fronts.
Let me first stipulate that your version of "God" exists. That being the case, then no interpretation of "God" as loving could be inferred. Every single recitation of history teaches that. The attributions of arbitrary violence throughout human history are clear. Your "God" is then directly responsible for every single incident i.e ... cancers which take 2 year olds, stillbirths, murders, wars, suicides, patricides, matricides, black plagues, fatal car accidents, skinned knees etc ...
Now onto wisdom ... Lungs? Really? A simpler method for ingesting oxygen would be a highly efficient integumentary system capable of extracting the necessary oxygen from multiple mediums. A wise "God" would have included such a system. Or how about excretion of solids? A colon and an anus? What the FUKK is that shite about? Are you kidding me? How about designing a 100% efficient metabolism? Why do so many other species have specializations that far exceed the ones of them "made in his image". What wisdom is there in making a copy of something that sucks?
I'm not particularly wise (as evidence by my ongoing engagement with certain idiots here), but some octopode-like eyes, salamander-like limb regeneration, more efficient bipedalism (along with a back which was better suited to bipedalism) are just a few other things I'd have included if I had been your "God".
As to wanting some friends ... the list of horrors your "God" has inflicted upon his creations far outweighs the "miracles". If as most adherents seem to believe those unfortunate folks were unworthy souls hence the visiting of horrors upon them, then we can add *** to the list of attributes you've assigned your "God". I don't have ASSHOLES for friends. Your "God" is a mean-spirited, vengeful fukker who seems to actually enjoy visiting horrors upon those "He" created.
Secondly (and more succinctly), every book associated with the god of Abraham tells it's followers that it's folly to ascribe any characteristics (of any kind) to "Him". Of course, all those books then immediately proceed to ascribe every positive characteristic that they could think of to "Him". Convenient eh? Your "God" is indefinable and every supposition you or any other adherent makes is (as I said) utter balderdash.
How can you not see from that alone how it is that men created god and not the other way around?
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
Sweet. Someone finally came out and said it. Thank you QC.
Your interpretation is utter balderdash on several fronts.
Let me first stipulate that your version of "God" exists. That being the case, then no interpretation of "God" as loving could be inferred. Every single recitation of history teaches that. The attributions of arbitrary violence throughout human history are clear. Your "God" is then directly responsible for every single incident i.e ... cancers which take 2 year olds, stillbirths, murders, wars, suicides, patricides, matricides, black plagues, fatal car accidents, skinned knees etc ...
Now onto wisdom ... Lungs? Really? A simpler method for ingesting oxygen would be a highly efficient integumentary system capable of extracting the necessary oxygen from multiple mediums. A wise "God" would have included such a system. Or how about excretion of solids? A colon and an anus? What the FUKK is that shite about? Are you kidding me? How about designing a 100% efficient metabolism? Why do so many other species have specializations that far exceed the ones of them "made in his image". What wisdom is there in making a copy of something that sucks?
I'm not particularly wise (as evidence by my ongoing engagement with certain idiots here), but some octopode-like eyes, salamander-like limb regeneration, more efficient bipedalism (along with a back which was better suited to bipedalism) are just a few other things I'd have included if I had been your "God".
As to wanting some friends ... the list of horrors your "God" has inflicted upon his creations far outweighs the "miracles". If as most adherents seem to believe those unfortunate folks were unworthy souls hence the visiting of horrors upon them, then we can add *** to the list of attributes you've assigned your "God". I don't have ASSHOLES for friends. Your "God" is a mean-spirited, vengeful fukker who seems to actually enjoy visiting horrors upon those "He" created.
Secondly (and more succinctly), every book associated with the god of Abraham tells it's followers that it's folly to ascribe any characteristics (of any kind) to "Him". Of course, all those books then immediately proceed to ascribe every positive characteristic that they could think of to "Him". Convenient eh? Your "God" is indefinable and every supposition you or any other adherent makes is (as I said) utter balderdash.
How can you not see from that alone how it is that men created god and not the other way around?
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Feb 12 2010, 07:10 PM)
That doesn't seem particularly useful. Why didn't god grow the whole foot back? Did god get tired?
It takes a medical professional to document it.
....
How many times must I describe this anyway before you understand?
The guy still had a foot...his leg was shorter because some of the bone was destroyed in an auto accident many years earlier, which was evident through observation.
Then, when they prayed for him the leg GREW OUT back to full length.
He was instructed to sit down in a chair and pull up both pants legs so that we could SEE the leg grow out, and see what it looked like before, during, and after.
Did they take an X-Ray of the leg and compare it to previous X-Rays on file? Witnessing an event like that under the influence of religious fervor doesn't stand up to serious analysis.
One does not need an X-ray machine to see that a leg is significantly shorter than the other.
It takes a medical professional to document it.
....
How many times must I describe this anyway before you understand?
The guy still had a foot...his leg was shorter because some of the bone was destroyed in an auto accident many years earlier, which was evident through observation.
Then, when they prayed for him the leg GREW OUT back to full length.
He was instructed to sit down in a chair and pull up both pants legs so that we could SEE the leg grow out, and see what it looked like before, during, and after.
QUOTE
Did they take an X-Ray of the leg and compare it to previous X-Rays on file? Witnessing an event like that under the influence of religious fervor doesn't stand up to serious analysis.
One does not need an X-ray machine to see that a leg is significantly shorter than the other.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 11:50 PM)
I'm not convinced that is an accurate representation of God's intentions of creation.
For starters, we do not simply bear our own consequences, but rather the collective consequences of others as well. The a large portion of the taxes we pay go into military and law enforcement to deal with terrorists, murderers, and other lunatics, for example, none of which are "my fault" or "consequences of my actions".
Second, there are other reasons given in the Bible for creation.
Third, having eye-witnessed miracle healings, I know that God actively takes a role in human interests.
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
John 3. Want to discuss it?
For starters, we do not simply bear our own consequences, but rather the collective consequences of others as well. The a large portion of the taxes we pay go into military and law enforcement to deal with terrorists, murderers, and other lunatics, for example, none of which are "my fault" or "consequences of my actions".
Second, there are other reasons given in the Bible for creation.
Third, having eye-witnessed miracle healings, I know that God actively takes a role in human interests.
The Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus says that he will, "lead us and guide us into all truth," and he will, "show you things to come," (i.e. the future. see chapters 14-16 of John's Gospel, and see chapter 3 also.) So these are Biblical examples of Jesus saying that God wishes to take an active role in our lives even on an individual, personal level, which I know that he does.
God is not some impersonal force, but rather a being of immense wisdom and power, and love, and above all things, he wants a personal relationship with his creations on an individual basis.
John 3. Want to discuss it?
QUOTE
1Now there was a man of the Pharisees named Nicodemus, a member of the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said, "Rabbi, we know you are a teacher who has come from God. For no one could perform the miraculous signs you are doing if God were not with him."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
3In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[a]"
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[b] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[c] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
John 3. Want to discuss it?
light in the tunnel: YES.
light in the tunnel: YES.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 13 2010, 12:43 AM)
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
John 3. Want to discuss it?
light in the tunnel: YES.
ok, what are you waiting for then?
light in the tunnel: YES.
ok, what are you waiting for then?
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 07:29 PM)
One does not need an X-ray machine to see that a leg is significantly shorter than the other.
It would provide evidence. You still have not presented any evidence beyond your word that it happened. You would think that SOMEWHERE, SOMEPLACE a supernatural healing would be documented in a scientific way, but there isn't. It is that lack of evidence that makes me doubt.
It would provide evidence. You still have not presented any evidence beyond your word that it happened. You would think that SOMEWHERE, SOMEPLACE a supernatural healing would be documented in a scientific way, but there isn't. It is that lack of evidence that makes me doubt.
FBM...
I think it would behoove us more to listen and watch the fascinating debate between LITT and Newguy on John 3.
*grabs some popcorn and settles back*
I think it would behoove us more to listen and watch the fascinating debate between LITT and Newguy on John 3.
*grabs some popcorn and settles back*
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 06:29 PM)
He was instructed to sit down in a chair and pull up both pants legs so that we could SEE the leg grow out, and see what it looked like before, during, and after.
So the "preacher/healer" already KNEW it was going to work? (Just like they had rehearsed it?)
I repeat, did you know this person before and have you seen them since?
So the "preacher/healer" already KNEW it was going to work? (Just like they had rehearsed it?)
I repeat, did you know this person before and have you seen them since?
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Feb 12 2010, 08:10 PM)
So the "preacher/healer" already KNEW it was going to work? (Just like they had rehearsed it?)
I repeat, did you know this person before and have you seen them since?
When God speaks to you and tells you to do something and that it's going to happen, it surely tends to happen.
LoL.
I mean, seriously, check the Old Testament and New Testament, is it any less a miracle when Naaman's leprosy was healed because Elisha KNEW ahead of time that God was going to heal him?
Do you comprehend that I saw this happen from a distance of 2 or 3 feet, and there is not possiblity of a hoax?
The pastor was not the one who lead prayer, and I don't recall exactly, but I don't even think there was an offering taken that day...Jesus or the apostles rarely, if ever, asked for offerings either.
And yes, I am very upset with many of the other witnesses, because they have obviously NOT told this testimony to many, if any, people publicly. I have not been able to find evidence of so much as one public testimony from another witness, several of whom are relatives of mine, anywhere on the internet or the local news.
I know that I told this story and other similar testimony at least one time, and possibly several times, in public when I was in high school, and also many times since then either to a co-worker or someone else.
Nobody rehearsed anything, and JESUS is the healer, not some preacher, and not some prophet. They just did what they were told, God is the one who heals.
I repeat, did you know this person before and have you seen them since?
When God speaks to you and tells you to do something and that it's going to happen, it surely tends to happen.
LoL.
I mean, seriously, check the Old Testament and New Testament, is it any less a miracle when Naaman's leprosy was healed because Elisha KNEW ahead of time that God was going to heal him?
Do you comprehend that I saw this happen from a distance of 2 or 3 feet, and there is not possiblity of a hoax?
The pastor was not the one who lead prayer, and I don't recall exactly, but I don't even think there was an offering taken that day...Jesus or the apostles rarely, if ever, asked for offerings either.
And yes, I am very upset with many of the other witnesses, because they have obviously NOT told this testimony to many, if any, people publicly. I have not been able to find evidence of so much as one public testimony from another witness, several of whom are relatives of mine, anywhere on the internet or the local news.
I know that I told this story and other similar testimony at least one time, and possibly several times, in public when I was in high school, and also many times since then either to a co-worker or someone else.
Nobody rehearsed anything, and JESUS is the healer, not some preacher, and not some prophet. They just did what they were told, God is the one who heals.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+Feb 12 2010, 08:39 PM)
And yes, I am very upset with many of the other witnesses, because they have obviously NOT told this testimony to many, if any, people publicly. I have not been able to find evidence of so much as one public testimony from another witness, several of whom are relatives of mine, anywhere on the internet or the local news.
But you said the damage was from a car wreck and it left one leg shorter than the other, so EVIDENCE of this regrowth would take no more than a display of the before and after X-RAYs.
So where are they?
You say we should believe you, because you were there, but CLEARLY this is a case where the evidence would be obvious to his family physician and one would presume that everyone involved would want to let others know of this miraculous healing.
Why then do we only hear it as a second hand story from an anonymous poster over the internet?
Arthur
But you said the damage was from a car wreck and it left one leg shorter than the other, so EVIDENCE of this regrowth would take no more than a display of the before and after X-RAYs.
So where are they?
You say we should believe you, because you were there, but CLEARLY this is a case where the evidence would be obvious to his family physician and one would presume that everyone involved would want to let others know of this miraculous healing.
Why then do we only hear it as a second hand story from an anonymous poster over the internet?
Arthur
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.