Do carry on seeing what you want to see, and running away from evidence.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Read the story here, if you care to. It's more of the same to anyone who cares to read scholarly and medical literature on the subject. There is something close to zero (or in some cases negative) medical effect of prayer and no evidence of 'miracle' healing—the instant sort that appear to happen at religious events. I certainly don't believe that prayer itself is a power (like The Force), but I am still inclined to pray privately or silently for people in hope. Why is it that some Christians feel the need to carry out these circus shows where they claim healing (none verified, nor do they usually allow unfettered medical examinations) or even raising the dead. No amount of fact seems to dissuade them or their followers. Why does it persist?
K.
quote:The idea behind it is that by witnessing God performing a miracle (even though there is often a trace, or more, of a personality cult around those with 'healing ministries') that that is the best form of evanglism possible.
Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.
quote:Can you imagine a world whereby saying 'I saw something that appeared to be a "healing" and therefore it is truth' might not be too convincing? Especially given that every single investigation into verifying such events has yielded a negative?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
quote:Why would I waste my time imagining such a cut-and-dried world? I'd much rather fulfil my calling in this mysterious one, pray for people to be healed and thank God on the occasions when they are. Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:Can you imagine a world whereby saying 'I saw something that appeared to be a "healing" and therefore it is truth' might not be too convincing? Especially given that every single investigation into verifying such events has yielded a negative?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
[QUOTE] Because some Christians, like me, have seen people healed when prayed for. I don't feel any particular need to have the healings to which I'm referring (frozen shoulder, infertility) "officially" verified by someone "official". I just pray for people to be healed and a few are. That's it.
K.
quote:So your LAD artery became occluded, you lived with this for a while, then you had angioplasty which resolved the situation. And you think that the middle of these three things is the medical miracle? Why not the other two?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can't say whether I am the beneficiary of a medical miracle or not, but generally when your Left Anterior Descending artery is fully occluded (i.e. blocked) you die or at least you have a serious heart attack.
The man writing this post is neither dead, nor did he have even a minor heart attack. Yet he also possesses a medical report confirming that his LAD was 100% occluded before being unblocked via angioplasty.
I suppose it's possible that nature could have found a way to maintain the perfect health of my heart while having what is known as the 'widowmaker' artery fully blocked, but it is exceedingly unlikely.
I have no problem talking about a medical miracle, and I don't care whether any other person shares that belief or not. I don't need permission from atheists to draw plausible conclusions.
quote:I lived with this condition for at least two months, interpreting angina as merely stress. Usually the occlusion of the LAD results in swift death. So I do consider the middle one the miracle.
Originally posted by hatless
So your LAD artery became occluded, you lived with this for a while, then you had angioplasty which resolved the situation. And you think that the middle of these three things is the medical miracle? Why not the other two?
quote:Very good point!
Originally posted by daronmedway
Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
quote:I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Very good point!
Originally posted by daronmedway
Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
quote:Yes, often with tragic results.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Very good point!
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
quote:While I'm sure folks like the Schaibles take quite a bit of pride in the disapproval of skeptics, the rest of us are just appalled.
Two Philadelphia faith-healing churches have a long history of the youngest members of their congregation dying because parents refused medical care.
Families who attend Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park have lost more than two dozen children to illness since 1971, according to non-profit Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD, Inc.). Both churches believe in the power of prayer over modern medicine.
The Schaibles are one of those families.
Herbert and Catherine Schaible stand charged with third-degree murder and other crimes after their 7-month-old son Brandon died from bacterial pneumonia, dehydration and a group B streptococcus infection on April 18.
Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams says the boy’s death could have been prevented, but the couple instead turned to prayer.
This is the second time the couple lost a child to illness. They were sentenced to 10 years probation after the 2009 death of their 2-year-old son Kent. Kent died after contracting pneumonia, an illness prosecutors said could have been prevented with basic medical care.
quote:Total non sequitur and false dichotomy. Not only did I not imply that a belief in the miraculous obviates the role of natural medicine, but I actually affirmed the role of medical intervention.
Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, often with tragic results.
quote:Skeptic! Why are you casting aspersions on the Schiable's belief that God would miraculously heal their children?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Total non sequitur and false dichotomy. Not only did I not imply that a belief in the miraculous obviates the role of natural medicine, but I actually affirmed the role of medical intervention.
Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, often with tragic results.
quote:Well, it depends what you mean by claims being substantiated.
Originally posted by Komensky
What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
quote:Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And it has nothing to do with rejecting the role of medical science, which is the absurd position taken by Croesos.
quote:Well, it's pretty obvious that you can pick and choose, just that there's no consistent rationale that can be applied other than 'God gets credit for what I consider "good stuff", but all the "bad stuff" is just nature being a bitch'.
Originally posted by hatless:
I come back to the occlusion itself and why that isn't a miracle, just something that happens. I've heard people claim it was a miracle that they could walk away from a terrible car crash, but not that the patch of oil that caused the crash was a miracle. You can't pick and choose your favourite things to be miracles.
quote:This is yet another reason for believers to resist allowing their thinking to be governed by the demands of sceptics, given that some of the latter construct straw man arguments, as here. You are basically imposing your view of the idea of divine activity on other people, and then judging their views accordingly. Well, of course, that is just totally out of order.
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
And it has nothing to do with rejecting the role of medical science, which is the absurd position taken by Croesos.
quote:A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Very good point!
Originally posted by daronmedway
Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
K.
quote:This argument would have merit if the entire universe operated according to the principle of divine determinism.
Originally posted by Croesos
Well, it's pretty obvious that you can pick and choose, just that there's no consistent rationale that can be applied other than 'God gets credit for what I consider "good stuff", but all the "bad stuff" is just nature being a bitch'.
quote:Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:This is yet another reason for believers to resist allowing their thinking to be governed by the demands of sceptics, given that some of the latter construct straw man arguments, as here. You are basically imposing your view of the idea of divine activity on other people, and then judging their views accordingly. Well, of course, that is just totally out of order.
Originally posted by Croesos
Why not? If you're not sick or ailing in any way (which is the assumption that would logically follow from a belief that faith healing has been successfully applied) why would someone need the attention of medical science? Wouldn't seeking out such attention after supposedly being "healed" indicate skepticism?
quote:Determinism has nothing to do with it. If God can and does arbitrarily cause what you would consider "good stuff" (random healings, finding a good parking space, etc.) why not some "bad stuff" too (smiting someone with heart disease, letting that other guy get your parking space, etc.)? There's no reason to believe an arbitrary God has to always be arbitrary in your favor.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
This argument would have merit if the entire universe operated according to the principle of divine determinism.
But we know that determinism is a myth, and you don't even need to be a theist to recognise that!
quote:So let's get this straight.
Originally posted by Croesos
Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
quote:Ok, fine. Please just prove it under the same conditions with which medicines are proven to work/not work.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Very good point!
Originally posted by daronmedway
Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
K.
quote:Okay.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:So let's get this straight.
Originally posted by Croesos
Hey, I didn't invent the Faith Tabernacle Congregation, nor am I "imposing [my] view of the idea of divine activity" on them. Their justification for what essentially amounts to child murder via medical neglect could probably be summed up as "Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics". If that's a valid explanation for you, why not for them?
quote:Nope, not straight. The FTC holds a particular view of how divine activity ought to work. I was commenting on the way in which it seems compatible with (though not identical to) your own.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You hold a particular view of how divine activity ought to work, and it seems you have been influenced by the Faith Tabernacle Congregation.
quote:Again, a bit crooked. No one's asking you to defend their approach, you just can't seem to help yourself.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And therefore I am supposed to accept this, and defend this view, with which I happen not to agree.
I utterly deplore the approach of this church. Why am I being asked to defend what I don't accept?
quote:But you keep hedging about God working outside natural processes. The sort of thing discussed in the OP and the article I linked to. On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice. If God does heal instantaneously, in ways inexplicable in terms of natural causes and does so in response to human requests (prayer), then in what sense are FTC's beliefs wrong?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have already given my theological reason for affirming that God works in concert with natural processes.
quote:That's a bit like insisting that the value of a listening ear be measured by means of the hypotetico-deductive method. I'm sure it's theoretically possible but I'm not sure it's at all necessary.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:Ok, fine. Please just prove it under the same conditions with which medicines are proven to work/not work.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:A dogmatically incredulous person will project incredibility onto any claim that challenges their presuppositions. In other words, sceptics will view any claim to the miraculous as incredible. I don't think the healings to which I've been party are incredible. On the contrary, I think they are eminently credible and that's why I accept their veracity. Pastorally speaking, in terms of my relationship to the individuals in question, your incredulity is precisely irrelevant.
Originally posted by Komensky:
quote:I don't quite follow. The approval or disapproval of skeptics or believers is not part of the equation. What is being asked is for very specific (and incredible) claims to be substantiated by those doing the claiming. It hasn't happened. Why should choosing to demand truthfulness in any way deny God?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Very good point!
Originally posted by daronmedway
Ultimately whether sceptics are convinced of the particular healings I witness or not is immaterial: they weren't prayed for with those sceptics in mind in the first place.
Our faith in God and in His activity, is not dependent on the approval of sceptics.
K.
quote:I anticipated that someone would pick up on that, and that is why I was careful to insert the word 'only' in the sentence immediately preceding the 'instantaneous healing' comment.
Originally posted by Croesos
On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice.
quote:While I don't agree with everything you have posted upthread, this is entirely agreeable. It is not possible to separate physical, emotional, science, and religious (or spiritual as the newer terminology). True that.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because they are predicated on a false dichotomy between "secular" and spiritual, science and faith, which has led to an unjustifiable and unbiblical rejection of conventional medicine in favour of an erroneous and sub-biblical conception of faith.
quote:It's only a false dichotomy if it doesn't work. Evidence (in the form of a bunch of dead kids) would seem to indicate that it doesn't, but that's the kind of thing that relies on the dreaded "naturalistic point of view".
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because they are predicated on a false dichotomy between "secular" and spiritual, science and faith, which has led to an unjustifiable and unbiblical rejection of conventional medicine in favour of an erroneous and sub-biblical conception of faith.
quote:But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I anticipated that someone would pick up on that, and that is why I was careful to insert the word 'only' in the sentence immediately preceding the 'instantaneous healing' comment.
Originally posted by Croesos
On the one hand you claim to "deplore" those with such beliefs, but on the other you hold that "healing can be achieved . . . instantaneously", which would seem to be in line with the basis of FTC practice.
quote:How about 'random, inexplicable thing happens to random person in a random way that is not easily explained by medical science'.
Originally posted by bib:
There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
quote:Indeed. As mentioned earlier developing a tumor in the first place often has no clear medical reason. Yet we very rarely attribute that to divine intervention.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:How about 'random, inexplicable thing happens to random person in a random way that is not easily explained by medical science'.
Originally posted by bib:
There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
Just because science cannot explain something this does not mean that the thing is not explainable by science, nor that the only explanation is divine intervention.
quote:Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention. So you are putting words in my mouth there.
Originally posted by Croesos
But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
quote:But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:How about 'random, inexplicable thing happens to random person in a random way that is not easily explained by medical science'.
Originally posted by bib:
There was no real explanation other than divine intervention.
Just because science cannot explain something this does not mean that the thing is not explainable by science, nor that the only explanation is divine intervention.
quote:Well unfortunately this is a limitation of language. Things happen all the time that cannot easily be explained by science. For example weather patterns are monitored by massive computers, but even they cannot explain every single weather pattern on the planet.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
quote:That isn't what I am saying. There are plenty of phenomena which are understood but hard to understand in individual circumstances. An inability to explain adequately a complex situation is not an indication that there is no possible scientific explanation.
Now you could say that the fact science can't currently explain something is not to say science will never explain it. But by the same token you would also have to say it's possible that science could exhaust every other possibility other than that an event has a divine cause.
quote:Smart or not, it is the truth.
Either way it's not a very smart argument.
quote:Really? The material universe is all there is and scientific discoveries will never be able determine anything else? That's a statement of faith.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:Well unfortunately this is a limitation of language. Things happen all the time that cannot easily be explained by science. For example weather patterns are monitored by massive computers, but even they cannot explain every single weather pattern on the planet.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
But that's exactly what it means. To say that something can't be explained is to say it's inexplicable.
Hence the thing can be both inexplicable whilst at the same time explainable by science.
In this case, a complicated medical situation might well be the result of many different factors, so the pinning down the reason why this thing happened at this particular time to this particular person is a very hard thing to do. But that isn't the same as saying that there is no scientific explanation.
quote:That isn't what I am saying. There are plenty of phenomena which are understood but hard to understand in individual circumstances. An inability to explain adequately a complex situation is not an indication that there is no possible scientific explanation.
Now you could say that the fact science can't currently explain something is not to say science will never explain it. But by the same token you would also have to say it's possible that science could exhaust every other possibility other than that an event has a divine cause.
quote:Smart or not, it is the truth.
Either way it's not a very smart argument.
quote:According to the evidence, 'instantaneous' healing is non-existent. You have yet to provide a single positive example. It's quite one thing to believe in something that is neither provable or unprovable (the existence of God, for example), but quite another to insist on believing in something that is demonstrably untrue and which is easily debunked. Doctors and other researchers have been following evangelical healers for about half a century now and despite the millions of claims of miraculous healings, the number of cases to which no other explanation other than miracle/prayer could be attributed is precisely zero. There are plenty of scientists waiting to cooperate with you; just show them your miracle healers, that's all it takes. In fact, if you go to the James Randi Foundation, they'll give your $1M (USD) if you can prove your case. That could really help a lot of people. So if your healers are the real deal, now is your chance to prove it!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention.
quote:Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that there are quite a lot of spontaneous remissions of cancer, although also they seem to vary according to type of cancer. Off the top of my head, one of the most likely to get better with no treatment, is breast cancer.
I guess plenty of women to whom this happens, don't think it's a miracle. Why would they?
quote:Actually that's my own assessment. Medical care is usually invasive, often undignified, frequently comes with a risk of secondary infection, and (if the condition treated was serious) typically requires a lengthy period of recovery. Compared with being returned to full health in the blink of an eye, as is often described in miracle stories and you implied with the use of the word "instantaneously", medical intervention seems like a second-best option.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Firstly, I don't recall saying that instantaneous healing was superior (vastly or otherwise) to a healing process involving medical intervention. So you are putting words in my mouth there.
Originally posted by Croesos
But if God does instantaneously heal people, and does so upon request, why insist on the much more painful and invasive vagaries of modern medicine? You're positing a two-tiered system, with one tier (instantaneous miracle) being vastly superior to the other (medical intervention), yet recommending that second tier to everyone. It's almost as if you lacked confidence, or faith, in miraculous healing.
quote:Once again I'm drawn back to the question of Faith Tabernacle Congregation. Doesn't the argument that "there is more to life than the merely mechanistic physical realm. There is spiritual healing" apply to them? Or does spiritual healing only work if it's coupled with physical medicine?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Secondly, there could be many reasons why God works through a process rather than instantaneously. Unlike atheists, Christians believe that there is more to life than the merely mechanistic physical realm. There is spiritual healing. Life is not a serious of dramatic events in which problems are just solved "on tap", but God may work slowly to bring the person along with Him, and deal with other issues alongside the physical healing.
quote:But why would divine intervention work particularly with breast cancer, and not, say, with lung cancer? Does God favour one over the other?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that there are quite a lot of spontaneous remissions of cancer, although also they seem to vary according to type of cancer. Off the top of my head, one of the most likely to get better with no treatment, is breast cancer.
I guess plenty of women to whom this happens, don't think it's a miracle. Why would they?
quote:Assuming that prayer is the driving mechanism, which makes sense only if you believe either that God doesn't know you're sick or injured unless you tell him, or that He does know but will refuse to heal you unless you beg for it.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
quote:So bib earlier in the thread is lying then?
Originally posted by Komensky
According to the evidence, 'instantaneous' healing is non-existent. You have yet to provide a single positive example. It's quite one thing to believe in something that is neither provable or unprovable (the existence of God, for example), but quite another to insist on believing in something that is demonstrably untrue and which is easily debunked. Doctors and other researchers have been following evangelical healers for about half a century now and despite the millions of claims of miraculous healings, the number of cases to which no other explanation other than miracle/prayer could be attributed is precisely zero. There are plenty of scientists waiting to cooperate with you; just show them your miracle healers, that's all it takes. In fact, if you go to the James Randi Foundation, they'll give your $1M (USD) if you can prove your case. That could really help a lot of people. So if your healers are the real deal, now is your chance to prove it!
quote:I'm pretty sure the exact same rant could be used by someone to explain why their kids don't need to be vaccinated; because Jesus will keep them safe and a bunch of atheists and skeptics don't know anything. You're using the same argument to draw slightly different boundaries.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The truth is that no philosophical naturalist will a priori accept an explanation for any phenomenon which contradicts his philosophy. Any event which may appear to do so, and which he cannot explain, will simply be filed in the category of "we don't yet know" or some fancy phrase will be invented to make it appear as though science has a handle on it (such as "spontaneous remission").
This is why most believers frankly couldn't give a s**t what a bunch of atheists and sceptics say. You believe what you want to, and we'll stick to our explanation.
quote:I get the hope. I don't get the illogical thinking. Belief, expectation and a nonspecific psychotherapeutic effect may well provide for the body to help heal itself by positive effects on immune functioning, about which there is research on heart disease, some cancers, HIV and various forms of auto-immune diseases.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Assuming that prayer is the driving mechanism, which makes sense only if you believe either that God doesn't know you're sick or injured unless you tell him, or that He does know but will refuse to heal you unless you beg for it.
Originally posted by Ramarius:
Still doesn't rule out the possibility of divine intervention. The biggest problem with any research on healing is that it's impossible to get a pure control group. You never know who might be praying for you.
quote:It isn't a 'fancy phrase', it is a known phenomena that some people seem to randomly get better, that unexpected natural events happen, that there are things which are such a mix of (fairly simple) natural causes as to be effectively chaotic.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So bib earlier in the thread is lying then?
Oh wait...! That doesn't count. Spontaneous remission!
The truth is that no philosophical naturalist will a priori accept an explanation for any phenomenon which contradicts his philosophy. Any event which may appear to do so, and which he cannot explain, will simply be filed in the category of "we don't yet know" or some fancy phrase will be invented to make it appear as though science has a handle on it (such as "spontaneous remission").
quote:What an incredibly arrogant thing to say by someone who has spent so long arguing that Christian faith is objective, that Christian truths can be reasoned, that the bible history can be proven and so on.
This is why most believers frankly couldn't give a s**t what a bunch of atheists and sceptics say. You believe what you want to, and we'll stick to our explanation. And what James Randi thinks is irrelevant, because God is not a service which can be turned on as a tap, and is subject to laboratory scrutiny. What incredible arrogance to think that He could be!
quote:Indeed. In many places today, the idea that one could turn on a tap and receive reliable water would be a miracle. It is really less miraculous to know the process by which water is purified to get to the tap?
Originally posted by Boogie:
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
quote:I agree, it is an act - a leap - of faith.
I can't convince you that something is a miracle any more than I can convince you something is beautiful.
quote:I don't either. My problem is not with the idea of a deity who acts within or without naturalistic scientific explanations of the world, but in the idea that he is fickle enough to act only on the petitions of people.
I no longer believe in healing miracles from prayer, even 'tho I have seen many of them happen before my eyes. Each one I saw could have been the body healing itself due to the heightened atmosphere of expectation and hope.
quote:Oh in one sense there is nothing to be gained in 'putting them down', I totally agree. If you have a worldview within which inexplicible events are interpreted, and that leads to wholeness and mental stability, of course there is something positive to be seen in that.
But the joy and thankfulness they engender is similar to that of a beautiful sunset - so who are we to put them down if they are doing no harm?
quote:Might need to unpack this a bit Q. If God simply answered answered prayer when there were enough people involved and who prayed long enough then we end up with a Being who is little more than a supernatural slot machine. Prayer in miracle out. Whether or not God ever acts without petition is a moot point. Personally I don't think he does, but as I said above you wouldn't necessarily ever know who was petitioning.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But God seems to be super-fickle, doesn't he? If he acted on petitions, that would be fine; but sometimes he does, sometimes not. Does he also act without petition? Perhaps sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't.
I do find it all quite weird, and sort of tawdry. Also it screams God of the gaps, doesn't it?
quote:Anyone can use the argument that they don't give a s**t about what their detractors say. I am sure most atheists couldn't care less what most believers think about atheism. I am sure most Socialists couldn't care less what most conservatives think about their ideology.
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm pretty sure the exact same rant could be used by someone to explain why their kids don't need to be vaccinated; because Jesus will keep them safe and a bunch of atheists and skeptics don't know anything. You're using the same argument to draw slightly different boundaries.
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by pydseybare
What an incredibly arrogant thing to say by someone who has spent so long arguing that Christian faith is objective, that Christian truths can be reasoned, that the bible history can be proven and so on.
Funny how the faith is able to be interrogated by science and reason when it suits your purposes, but totally impervious to scientific investigation (and more than that - an actual offense against God!) when someone has an explanation you don't happen to like.
Pathetic.
quote:I have never thought, nor said that. In fact I have actually said the exact opposite.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by pydseybare
What an incredibly arrogant thing to say by someone who has spent so long arguing that Christian faith is objective, that Christian truths can be reasoned, that the bible history can be proven and so on.
Funny how the faith is able to be interrogated by science and reason when it suits your purposes, but totally impervious to scientific investigation (and more than that - an actual offense against God!) when someone has an explanation you don't happen to like.
Pathetic.
So pydseybare thinks that all atheists and sceptics are paragons of scientific objectivity.
quote:Have I?
And you have the nerve to criticise me for saying that we should ignore people who are clearly prejudiced against Christianity.
quote:Nope, actually I don't need Dawkin's permission to do anything.
Maybe you need to ask Richard Dawkins' permission to believe in God.
quote:No, actually you are saying that unknown inexplicable phenomena that happen to Christians can only be miraculous. I'm saying that there might be other explanations, which you seem to think is being offensive to God.
I don't. And that is all basically I was saying. And I think that that was what daronmedway is saying (although he can speak for himself).
quote:What evidence?
Do carry on seeing what you want to see, and running away from evidence.
quote:Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
It seems remarkable that someone who bases his spiritual views on what he feels (apparently via the Holy Spirit), should then criticise someone who recognises the work of God in healing, despite what atheists and sceptics might say. This is yet more evidence to me that your claim to hear from God through the Holy Spirit is, at best, highly questionable (and, at worst, something that I can only express on the hell board), because if it were genuine you would be able to appreciate other Christians using YOUR METHOD to discern God's activity.
quote:You are entitled to your opinion.
Originally by pydseybare
Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
quote:Which bit? Where you have an effect with no known cause then possibilities are all you have to work with.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Ramarius
That's all so iffy, that it's like supposition piled on supposition, until you have a tottering citadel.
I suppose you are guaranteed a kind of success, for if God does not heal in answer to petition, then you can say that God can say no; if God does heal, then he says yes; if there is no petition, then maybe yes or no. Heads you win, tails you don't lose. Brill.
quote:I don't think God does act on the petitions of people. It can't be 'some, maybe' in my view. I don't think God gives us things or answers to prayer. I think God gives us everything - nothing would exist without God imo. And I think God gives us Himself (love, peace, joy etc).
Originally posted by pydseybare:
My problem is not with the idea of a deity who acts within or without naturalistic scientific explanations of the world, but in the idea that he is fickle enough to act only on the petitions of people.
quote:"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Here's something it occurs to me to chuck into the thread at this point. It's a case study that I think some contributors to the thread might want to work through. What follows isn't my story, it was told by Peter Speck, a hospital chaplain, in one of his books of which the name escapes me.
You're a hospital chaplain. You're called to the Emergency Department where a girl has been admitted with life-threatening injuries. On arrival, you're shown into a room with the girl's parents. The father - a large bloke - backs you into a corner and yells, "Look, mate - I want a miracle and I want it NOW!!"
Over to you.
quote:I keep bringing it up because you're not making an argument, you're asserting privilege. Your argument boils down to the idea that you can recognize the working of God in your life, but those other people need someone (presumably you) to point out to them that God's not really acting in their lives, despite their thinking that He is.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The fact is that I do not need to seek the permission of atheists and sceptics in order to recognise the work of God in my life, or perhaps also in other people's lives. Are you saying that I should? Are you saying that I am only allowed to believe in God if I contact someone like Richard Dawkins and ask his permission to do so?
And if I say that I don't need to do such a thing, is it really logically coherent to say: "Oh well, you really ought to, because think of all those fanatical Christians who refuse medical treatment for their children."??
For the billionth time... w.a.t.c.h. m.y. l.i.p.s.: I have nothing to do with Christians who reject medicine. Why you keep dragging up a ridiculous straw man argument is beyond me, quite frankly. I can only assume you have no better response, and therefore you have to keep resorting to a logical fallacy to make your point.
quote:Luckily for pydseybare, God's Special Prophet EE was on hand to let her(?) know that her divine revelation is wrong because it disagrees with his divine revelation.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It seems remarkable that someone who bases his spiritual views on what he feels (apparently via the Holy Spirit), should then criticise someone who recognises the work of God in healing, despite what atheists and sceptics might say. This is yet more evidence to me that your claim to hear from God through the Holy Spirit is, at best, highly questionable (and, at worst, something that I can only express on the hell board), because if it were genuine you would be able to appreciate other Christians using YOUR METHOD to discern God's activity.
quote:It must be convenient to be God's personal favorite, especially since the Almighty Creator of the Universe always agrees with you.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:You are entitled to your opinion.
Originally by pydseybare
Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
Thankfully God regards it as irrelevant in His dealings with me.
quote:There is no right answer. That's the point.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As someone who has been in pretty much the situation described, I can tell you that is not the right answer right there.
quote:So why did you suggest one?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:There is no right answer. That's the point.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As someone who has been in pretty much the situation described, I can tell you that is not the right answer right there.
quote:Because if there'e no right answer you can't really insist that my answer isn't the right answer as if I'd somehow missed something. As it stands I probably would ask that question though. Perhaps you could explain why you think it isn't the right answer.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:So why did you suggest one?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:There is no right answer. That's the point.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As someone who has been in pretty much the situation described, I can tell you that is not the right answer right there.
quote:If you and Eutychus will pardon my butting in, I'd suggest that you're at the very least inviting the response that it's bleedin' obvious why he wants a miracle.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Because if there'e no right answer you can't really insist that my answer isn't the right answer as if I'd somehow missed something. As it stands I probably would ask that question though. Perhaps you could explain why you think it isn't the right answer.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:So why did you suggest one?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:There is no right answer. That's the point.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
As someone who has been in pretty much the situation described, I can tell you that is not the right answer right there.
quote:As far as I'm concerned, to ask a question like that in a context like that is mind-bogglingly dumb and insensitive because
Originally posted by daronmedway:
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
quote:The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:As far as I'm concerned, to ask a question like that in a context like that is mind-bogglingly dumb and insensitive because
Originally posted by daronmedway:
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
a) you are not Jesus and therefore not in any position to grant one if asked
quote:This is kinda the point I was making above. The NT does seem to suggest that believers will be able to do this kind of stuff (in fact, even greater stuff than Jesus Christ himself did, whatever that means).
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:Which particular passage in which Peter asked why the forthcoming beneficiary wanted a miracle did you have in mind?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:That depends on how you read the NT. The "greater things" passage has been hotly debated, here and elsewhere, but for my money "greater things" only means "bigger miracles" if you think the miracles are an end in themselves, which I don't.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:This is kinda the point I was making above. The NT does seem to suggest that believers will be able to do this kind of stuff (in fact, even greater stuff than Jesus Christ himself did, whatever that means).
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:You seem to be applying some species of the regulative principle to the gift of healing here Eutychus. Are you suggesting that the question I suggested is off limits because it's not specifically commanded in scripture? If that's the suggestion, I have to say that I'm more of a normative guy on this issue.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Which particular passage in which Peter asked why the forthcoming beneficiary wanted a miracle did you have in mind?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:That's fine, but it brings us back to square one; a simple difference of opinion. As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
To be absolutely clear, my original question was not about one's ability to heal, my question was about the appropriateness of your suggested answer in the situation Adeodatus describes.
quote:No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
quote:What a completely illogical and ridiculous comment.
Originally posted by Croesos
I keep bringing it up because you're not making an argument, you're asserting privilege. Your argument boils down to the idea that you can recognize the working of God in your life, but those other people need someone (presumably you) to point out to them that God's not really acting in their lives, despite their thinking that He is.
quote:Well, there are an infinite number of possibilities - maybe invisible pixies are busy helping my immune system right now. It can't be ruled out! The trouble is, there are no constraints on this stuff, once you cite the supernatural.
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
If someone tells you they prayed to an idol in the form of a large rock in their backyard and it cured their cancer/warts/limp would you believe them?
They have the right to do so, but I'm not going to believe in supernatural intervention.
quote:Is it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
quote:My principled objection is that it is utterly inappropriate to the circumstances described and would have been utterly inappropriate in similar, real life situations I have experienced.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
quote:To put in mildly, I'm flabbergasted that you would apparently consider that as your first option in the circumstances described, particularly given your pastoral responsibilities.
I probably would ask that question though
quote:Well, at least we agree on something.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:If you choose to dismiss that as a mere "difference of opinion", then fine, but I have to say I hope I don't ever fall within the remit of those responsibilities.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Is it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
quote:Actually there are constraints, dependent on the context.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Well, there are an infinite number of possibilities - maybe invisible pixies are busy helping my immune system right now. It can't be ruled out! The trouble is, there are no constraints on this stuff, once you cite the supernatural.
quote:That's as maybe, but he also seems angry and wilfully intimidating. Desperate sounds like Jairus. This fella doesn't sound like a Jairus to me. He sounds like a bully. A bully in need of miracle, but a bully nonetheless.
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Is it?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Originally posted by daronmedway:
As I said before, unless you're applying some form of principled prohibition to the question, "why do you want a miracle", I fail to see why you object to it so strongly. Horses for courses.
He's desperate, he wants his girl to live.
quote:Really. You really think you can tell the difference between a story of someone talking more than 2000 years ago in a completely different language and someone reported in a single sentence on a bulletin board in English.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's as maybe, but he also seems angry and wilfully intimidating. Desperate sounds like Jairus. This fella doesn't sound like a Jairus to me. He sounds like a bully. A bully in need of miracle, but a bully nonetheless.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Okay, that would seems to mean touching the body of the physical man Jesus or Jesus' presence in some way is required. Does this mean that when healing does not happen, we have not prayed well enough to merit Jesus' presence? Its all very well to heal this one and ignore another one. Or perhaps the point of the miracle stories is to impress the reader. Which I think is the context in actuality.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Actually there are constraints, dependent on the context.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the accounts of healing in the gospels are true (I certainly believe they are). So Jesus stretches forth his hand and heals a crippled man, who then gets up and walks. It is obvious from the context that the healing has involved the supernatural agency connected with Jesus Christ. Therefore, the context acts as a constraint to enable us to discern causation.
quote:I am not sure whether you are saying that you think the miracle stories were just fabricated, but the point I am making is that there are situations (true or fictional) in which we can see the operation of a constraint, that allows us to identify a particular supernatural source for a miracle such as a healing.
Originally posted by no prophet
Okay, that would seems to mean touching the body of the physical man Jesus or Jesus' presence in some way is required. Does this mean that when healing does not happen, we have not prayed well enough to merit Jesus' presence? Its all very well to heal this one and ignore another one. Or perhaps the point of the miracle stories is to impress the reader. Which I think is the context in actuality.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:Really. You really think you can tell the difference between a story of someone talking more than 2000 years ago in a completely different language and someone reported in a single sentence on a bulletin board in English.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
That's as maybe, but he also seems angry and wilfully intimidating. Desperate sounds like Jairus. This fella doesn't sound like a Jairus to me. He sounds like a bully. A bully in need of miracle, but a bully nonetheless.
quote:How, exactly, can you tell that the record in the NT was not of exactly the same kind of desperation and anger?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Yes.
quote:As far as I can remember Jesus asked people what they wanted him to do - not why they wanted it. The guy in the anecdote had stated clearly what he wanted... so asking him why he wanted it would not be following Jesus' example.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Sometimes Jesus asked people to state "the bleedin' obvious". I think he did it out of love, not bloody mindedness or pastoral insensitivity. As if getting a person to articulate their desire is a good thing in and of itself.
quote:Not always. See Luke 7:1-10.
Originally posted by no prophet:
Okay, that would seems to mean touching the body of the physical man Jesus or Jesus' presence in some way is required.
quote:There's a time and a place for everything. And the time and place to discuss this is Hell.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
There's nothing wrong with asking why someone wants something. And I don't believe that it would be wrong to ask this question in these circumstances. As I said before, sometimes helping someone to state the unsaid can actually be quite helpful, even in stressful situations.
quote:Now would you not think that Jesus' question to Bartimaeus was just stupid and insensitive? Isn't it obvious what the poor bloke wants and needs?
Now they came to Jericho. As He went out of Jericho with His disciples and a great multitude, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the road begging. And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out and say, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”
Then many warned him to be quiet; but he cried out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!”
So Jesus stood still and commanded him to be called.
Then they called the blind man, saying to him, “Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you.”
And throwing aside his garment, he rose and came to Jesus.
So Jesus answered and said to him, “What do you want Me to do for you?”
The blind man said to Him, “Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go your way; your faith has made you well.” And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road.
quote:As has been pointed out, the question daronmedway suggested was not "what do you want", which I agree can in some circumstances be a very useful one, but "why do you want a miracle", in a specific, crisis scenario. They are not the same question, and they are not the same circumstances.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The patronising attitude of "I know what's best for you" is not Christlike.
quote:Well said - a one off incident doesn't make a bully, especially in conditions of extreme stress.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is wrong to judge someone as a bully for an aggressive reaction when their daughter's life may be ebbing away. The loss of control and imminent bereavement doesn't bring out the best in anyone.
quote:I guess it's possible that this person might resort to physical violence, as I've already pointed out, the behaviour is already physically intimidating. As for pastoral insensitivity, I'm not convinced that the vicarious ire being expressed here on this thread is entirely justified, or honest. As I've said before, getting a person to express themselves further isn't necessarily a bad thing, even if what they express is anger. As it stands I think the question, "Tell me, why do you want a miracle?" is a reasonable option among a wide variety of possible options.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Wouldn't you say, Daronmedway, that a lot depended on the way the guy asked the question?
Someone in that situation is unlikely to be calm and rationale.
Quite frankly, if someone were in a high state of anxiety and you gave them an answer like that then I'd fully expect you to be grabbed by the throat, punched or physically assaulted in some way - or at least sworn at.
I can imagine some Shipmates had an angry enough reaction when they read your post containing what could come across as a rather dismissive and pastorally insensitive question.
'Why do I want a miracle?! Because my little girl if fucking dying in the next room you bastard twat!!!'
Does it not occur to you that this the sort of reaction you might get. And bloody well deserve too, if you ask me.
quote:The scenario in question doesn't present the father's behaviour as an aggressive reaction to the Chaplain per se. It presents it as an act of aggression toward the chaplain due to conditions of extreme anxiety. But it's an act of aggression nonetheless. That's why hospitals have signs up stating a zero tolerance policy regarding aggression against their staff. Presumably, zero tolerance means no caveats. Not that this is directly related to - or justifies - the question I've posited. It's just an answer to what you've said.
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is wrong to judge someone as a bully for an aggressive reaction when their daughter's life may be ebbing away. The loss of control and imminent bereavement doesn't bring out the best in anyone.
quote:Great, let's have hospital chaplains getting grieving parents reported to security and arrested
Originally posted by daronmedway:
zero tolerance means no caveats
quote:I can appreciate why anyone who has no experience of this kind of ministry might think that. But this scenario doesn't come under the heading of "zero tolerance". It comes under the heading of "I'm really glad I'm trained in conflict resolution".
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The scenario in question doesn't present the father's behaviour as an aggressive reaction to the Chaplain per se. It presents it as an act of aggression toward the chaplain due to conditions of extreme anxiety. But it's an act of aggression nonetheless. That's why hospitals have signs up stating a zero tolerance policy regarding aggression against their staff. Presumably, zero tolerance means no caveats. Not that this is directly related to - or justifies - the question I've posited. It's just an answer to what you've said.
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is wrong to judge someone as a bully for an aggressive reaction when their daughter's life may be ebbing away. The loss of control and imminent bereavement doesn't bring out the best in anyone.
quote:I don't think it is an answer. Zero tolerance of aggression or not, it's still wrong to judge him as a bully.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The scenario in question doesn't present the father's behaviour as an aggressive reaction to the Chaplain per se. It presents it as an act of aggression toward the chaplain due to conditions of extreme anxiety. But it's an act of aggression nonetheless. That's why hospitals have signs up stating a zero tolerance policy regarding aggression against their staff. Presumably, zero tolerance means no caveats. Not that this is directly related to - or justifies - the question I've posited. It's just an answer to what you've said.
quote:Firstly, as I said, "not that this is directly related to - or justifies - the question I've posited. It's just an answer to what [mdijon] said."
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Great, let's have hospital chaplains getting grieving parents reported to security and arrested
Originally posted by daronmedway:
zero tolerance means no caveats
It's impossible to pursue this conversation outside Hell.
quote:Actually, I think hospital policy is a perfectly legitimate avenue of discussion given the scenario presented by Adeodatus.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
This thread is not about hospital policy, and neither is this tangent. It's about transposing the issue of healing into real-life crisis situations.
quote:Ask away.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are a number of unanswered questions about that which are nothing to do with hospital policy.
quote:The influence of Bilge Onson among mainstream evangelicals is cause for concern. His peculiar form of low Christology/high pneumatology is dangerous because it attempts to give theological justification for highly unrealistic expectations by denying the uniqueness of Christ's miracles as the God-man. Jesus merely becomes the ideal Spirit-filled person to which we can all aspire, rather the unique Son of God with unique authority.
Originally posted by Komensky:
Looking back at the OP and the BBC item, the folly of those claiming to raise the dead seems only to be highlighted in the Deadraisers documentary. They go around trying to raise the dead and cannot do it. I've seen this for years in certain charismatic circles—but never with a single shred of proof. In the cases of bona fide loonies like Bill Johnson, they were later revealed as liars on top of it all.
quote:Oh the joys of looking at the world through atheist eyes!
Originally posted by Yorick
Belief in miraculous healing makes me deeply sad. It's sad enough that we get ill and die, but even sadder that so many people have genuine and heartbreakingly futile hope in some nonexistent deity answering their desperate appeals.
One can only hope that the comfort provided by religious beliefs outweighs the dreadful sense of disappointment and forsakenness. I suppose it must, generally speaking.
Sending vibes to all who are suffering illness and bereavement.
quote:There are days when I thank God for atheists.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Belief in miraculous healing makes me deeply sad. It's sad enough that we get ill and die, but even sadder that so many people have genuine and heartbreakingly futile hope in some nonexistent deity answering their desperate appeals.
One can only hope that the comfort provided by religious beliefs outweighs the dreadful sense of disappointment and forsakenness. I suppose it must, generally speaking.
Sending vibes to all who are suffering illness and bereavement.
quote:What are your grounds for asking anybody
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Ask away.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are a number of unanswered questions about that which are nothing to do with hospital policy.
quote:(bearing in mind that there is a significant difference between this question and Jesus' question "what do you want me to do for you"?)
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
quote:How, precisely, do you think the Apostle Peter "was able to bring healing" if not through the agency of the Spirit? Could he do it independently of the Spirit, to order, on his good days, or what? Do you think, as you seem to claim, that he could "do one if asked"?
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:Except it isn't. You described this man as a bully. I don't think it is reasonable to say that based on his reaction in such an extreme scenario.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Firstly, as I said, "not that this is directly related to - or justifies - the question I've posited. It's just an answer to what [mdijon] said."
quote:The intent behind the question would be to get the man to articulate his desires for his daughter rather than his demands of the chaplain.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:What are your grounds for asking anybody
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Ask away.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are a number of unanswered questions about that which are nothing to do with hospital policy.quote:(bearing in mind that there is a significant difference between this question and Jesus' question "what do you want me to do for you"?)
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
quote:How, precisely, do you think the Apostle Peter "was able to bring healing" if not through the agency of the Spirit? Could he do it independently of the Spirit, to order, on his good days, or what? Do you think, as you seem to claim, that he could "do one if asked"?
The Apostle Peter wasn't Jesus and he, apparently, was able to bring healing on at least one occasion, so it would seem that your argument isn't entirely sound.
quote:The job of a priest, at least in part, is to point people to Christ. In my experience it's easier to point people to Christ by redirecting their stated desires to him rather than running away with the misconception that I can 'be' Christ to them in an immediate sense.
Originally posted by mdijon:
Maybe you could explain a bit more about what sort of response you would expect, why you think it would be helpful in that situation to provoke such a response, and how you would deal with the response?
quote:In that case, why not just ask "what do you want for your daughter"? That would already be infinitely better.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The intent behind the question would be to get the man to articulate his desires for his daughter rather than his demands of the chaplain
quote:implies one of two things.
Tell me, why do you want a miracle?
quote:I remember once hearing a Christian GP (whose name escapes me), who was sceptical about miracle healing claims, saying that "if we had convincing evidence that this happens, then we could prescribe it for patients".
Originally posted by daronmedway
I do not think that Peter or any other Christian can produce miracles to order.
quote:What I think it not that there are "hard lies" or premeditated fabrications in the sense of bearing false witness. What I think is that "true believers" would have observed what was happening as Jesus moved through the crowd and become enraptured , such that they interpreted the occurrences as sensational and miraculous. The sceptical in the crowd would have interpreted these things differently. -- My interpretation is based the idea that God cannot order me into belief or faith, that the world appears ordered within full human freedom, and that God disdains to interfere with that.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I am not sure whether you are saying that you think the miracle stories were just fabricated, but the point I am making is that there are situations (true or fictional) in which we can see the operation of a constraint, that allows us to identify a particular supernatural source for a miracle such as a healing.
Originally posted by no prophet
Okay, that would seems to mean touching the body of the physical man Jesus or Jesus' presence in some way is required. Does this mean that when healing does not happen, we have not prayed well enough to merit Jesus' presence? Its all very well to heal this one and ignore another one. Or perhaps the point of the miracle stories is to impress the reader. Which I think is the context in actuality.
As for whether a candidate for healing needs the presence of Jesus: yes, I think that is the case, although I would hesitate to use the phrase "merit Jesus' presence". We come into the presence of God / Christ by grace.
quote:I don't see this as a problem at all. If anything, it justifies God's judgment of Judas and others, because of their high level of personal accountability. It doesn't follow that just because someone has seen a miracle, he will automatically believe. There is the hardness, pride and obduracy of the human heart to take into account, which causes some people to reject God, despite no end of overwhelming and compelling evidence.
Originally posted by no prophet
We also have the problem of Judas. How could he have betrayed Jesus if he'd been present for any of the miracles? Obviously, the written accounts are one way of viewing what was happening and there are evidently others. Was Judas in the boat when Jesus walked on water?
How about the Roman solider in the garden at Jesus' arrest and his ear being healed. One would think the who troop of soldiers would be impressed by this. But some must have interpreted the occurrence differently. How is this and parallel things possible?
quote:To which I would add:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't see this as a problem at all. If anything, it justifies God's judgment of Judas and others, because of their high level of personal accountability. It doesn't follow that just because someone has seen a miracle, he will automatically believe. There is the hardness, pride and obduracy of the human heart to take into account, which causes some people to reject God, despite no end of overwhelming and compelling evidence.
It's the reality of evil working through human free will, I'm afraid.
quote:
He said to him, “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
Luke 16.31
quote:True on a number of levels. "Spontaneous remission" is another way of saying something got better and we don't know why. Which isn't to say prayer wasn't involved somewhere. Depends on your view of providence. To what extent would these spontaneous remissions happen if churches around the world didn't pray daily "for those who are sick?" It's an interesting "in house" question for Christians. And also just to repeat the point that you can never get a completely pure control group when prayer is involved, which will always leave open key counterfactual questions.
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
There are, of course, spontaneous remissions that happen in the general run of things without prayer apparently being involved.
I know a Christian physiotherapist who has all kinds of stories of this sort of thing happening, with no discernible 'faith' element involved whatsoever.
That isn't to dismiss the story that bib told about the GP and the disappearing tumour ...
It's simply to state that the evidence isn't clear cut. .
quote:I think it is unlikely that the agitated and confused, soon-to-be-bereaved father will get that, and possibly even less likely after your counter-intuitive opening gambit.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The job of a priest, at least in part, is to point people to Christ. In my experience it's easier to point people to Christ by redirecting their stated desires to him rather than running away with the misconception that I can 'be' Christ to them in an immediate sense.
quote:Fair enough. Someone else has suggested something along the lines of, "What shall I ask God to do?"
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I think it is unlikely that the agitated and confused, soon-to-be-bereaved father will get that, and possibly even less likely after your counter-intuitive opening gambit.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The job of a priest, at least in part, is to point people to Christ. In my experience it's easier to point people to Christ by redirecting their stated desires to him rather than running away with the misconception that I can 'be' Christ to them in an immediate sense.
Others here have already said that "Why do you want a miracle" may come across as claiming more, rather than less, authority.
"Why do you think I can help you?" might be more accurate as a steer away from the priest. Albeit still rather blunt for the situation.
quote:Surely evidence which is truly overwhelming is by definition overwhelming?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I don't see this as a problem at all. If anything, it justifies God's judgment of Judas and others, because of their high level of personal accountability. It doesn't follow that just because someone has seen a miracle, he will automatically believe. There is the hardness, pride and obduracy of the human heart to take into account, which causes some people to reject God, despite no end of overwhelming and compelling evidence.
Originally posted by no prophet
We also have the problem of Judas. How could he have betrayed Jesus if he'd been present for any of the miracles? Obviously, the written accounts are one way of viewing what was happening and there are evidently others. Was Judas in the boat when Jesus walked on water?
How about the Roman solider in the garden at Jesus' arrest and his ear being healed. One would think the who troop of soldiers would be impressed by this. But some must have interpreted the occurrence differently. How is this and parallel things possible?
It's the reality of evil working through human free will, I'm afraid.
quote:Genuinely don't get that Q. Why can't you have a supernatural cause?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't any cause and effect relationship, is there? How can you have a cause which is supernatural? The two things are chalk and cheese.
quote:Well, what method are you going to use, in order to identify it?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Genuinely don't get that Q. Why can't you have a supernatural cause?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't any cause and effect relationship, is there? How can you have a cause which is supernatural? The two things are chalk and cheese.
quote:Try this. We have identified that the universe operates in accordance with a set of laws (which are the basis of the scientific method.) If an event occurs which doesn't appear to follow these laws, then the cause could either be a highly unusual natural law which we have yet to understand, or one that transcends natural laws. You could define the latter as "supernatural."
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:Well, what method are you going to use, in order to identify it?
Originally posted by Ramarius:
quote:Genuinely don't get that Q. Why can't you have a supernatural cause?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There isn't any cause and effect relationship, is there? How can you have a cause which is supernatural? The two things are chalk and cheese.
quote:Not so fast. The explanation begs the question: "seen a miracle". If you see something and it is interpreted as a miracle, then it isn't a miracle. If you see a miracle, and you don't interpret that it was one, then it wasn't. Which then calls into question the non-convincing nature of miracles at all. Jesus walking on water? Were there stones to stand on, or did he swim? Judas would have had to see something other than walking on water.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I don't see this as a problem at all. If anything, it justifies God's judgment of Judas and others, because of their high level of personal accountability. It doesn't follow that just because someone has seen a miracle, he will automatically believe. There is the hardness, pride and obduracy of the human heart to take into account, which causes some people to reject God, despite no end of overwhelming and compelling evidence.
Originally posted by no prophet
We also have the problem of Judas. How could he have betrayed Jesus if he'd been present for any of the miracles? Obviously, the written accounts are one way of viewing what was happening and there are evidently others. Was Judas in the boat when Jesus walked on water?
How about the Roman solider in the garden at Jesus' arrest and his ear being healed. One would think the who troop of soldiers would be impressed by this. But some must have interpreted the occurrence differently. How is this and parallel things possible?
It's the reality of evil working through human free will, I'm afraid.
quote:Yes, that is even better.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Someone else has suggested something along the lines of, "What shall I ask God to do?"
quote:Actually the herd of elephants in the room is this: our faith in God is not - or should not be - built on God passing a "fairness test" that we set for Him. It is as if God is on probation all the time, and "I will only believe in you and trust you if you convince me that you have completed the tasks that I have set for you today".
Originally posted by Ikkyu
The elephant in the thread that keeps being mostly ignored despite some posters mentioning it, is this.
Why is this particular person healed and not many others?
Any post Shoah belief in an interventionist god has to explain this.
Why this heart attack and not millions of others. What about Alzheimer patients like my father who have been prayed for by many people and persist in not being healed?
There is no empirical evidence in support of faith healing beyond some sort of placebo effect,despite claims for "Overwhelming proof".
And if there was the god revealed would not be very pretty.
quote:I like some of these questions. The answer is that no one gets a miracle cure, at least not of the kind we see on a weekly or daily basis amongst faith healers, 'healing ministries' and the like. Despite the millions of claims, there is not one single verified account. God's love is apparent in other ways, but not in the occult circus shows.
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
The elephant in the thread that keeps being mostly ignored despite some posters mentioning it, is this.
Why is this particular person healed and not many others?
Any post Shoah belief in an interventionist god has to explain this.
Why this heart attack and not millions of others.
What about Alzheimer patients like my father who
have been prayed for by many people and persist in not being healed?
There is no empirical evidence in support of faith healing beyond some sort of placebo effect,despite claims for "Overwhelming proof".
And if there was the god revealed would not be very pretty.
quote:That is a question that arises as a natural result of the fact of God's infinite superiority to us, which inevitably entails that we cannot possibly understand - or demand to understand - God's workings down to the finest detail. What may seem arbitrary to us is not necessarily arbitrary to God. But then, of course, God is accused of injustice, but really the only people who can reasonably accuse God of that are the individuals concerned. I am certainly not going to allow someone else's personal experience of God to dictate my experience of Him.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Why would God work in arbitrary ways?
quote:I guess this bio must refer to the surgeon in question (unless there were two spinal chief surgeons called Robert Banco at the same hospital at the same time).
Referring to his improvement the first time he prayed to Newman, Dr Robert Banco, chief of spinal surgery at the New England Baptist Hospital in Boston, wrote: “Because of this persisting and severe stenosis, I have no medical explanation for why he was pain-free and for so long a time. The objective data, CT, myelogram, and MRI demonstrated that his pathology did not at all change, but his symptoms [pain] improved drastically.”
After the second healing, he told Sullivan that the recovery to his spine was so complete that the 71 year-old now had the lifting capacity of a 30 year-old. “With the tear in your dura mater, your condition should have been much worse,” he said. “I have no medical or scientific answer for you. If you want an answer, ask God.”
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:This sounds like complete flim-flam to me. You might as well just say, I don't know. All your talk of 'natural result' and 'fact' and 'inevitably entails' just looks like window-dressing something which is empty, or maybe, 'It's true, because I say so'.
EE wrote:
That is a question that arises as a natural result of the fact of God's infinite superiority to us, which inevitably entails that we cannot possibly understand - or demand to understand - God's workings down to the finest detail. What may seem arbitrary to us is not necessarily arbitrary to God.
quote:Yes, you are absolutely right, and I am terribly wrong.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
This sounds like complete flim-flam to me. You might as well just say, I don't know. All your talk of 'natural result' and 'fact' and 'inevitably entails' just looks like window-dressing something which is empty, or maybe, 'It's true, because I say so'.
quote:Well, that misses my point completely. I think you're not even wrong.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Yes, you are absolutely right, and I am terribly wrong.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
This sounds like complete flim-flam to me. You might as well just say, I don't know. All your talk of 'natural result' and 'fact' and 'inevitably entails' just looks like window-dressing something which is empty, or maybe, 'It's true, because I say so'.
A finite mind can, of course, totally and fully understand an infinite mind. Silly me for not realising that!!
quote:No, based on the account, medically speaking there is certainly no miracle here. I would even go as far as to say that the account described is pretty unremarkable. I have seen many similar things myself in the absence of miraculous prayer, as well as the opposite in which symptoms inexplicably worsen without any objective evidence for why they should.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:I guess this bio must refer to the surgeon in question (unless there were two spinal chief surgeons called Robert Banco at the same hospital at the same time).
Referring to his improvement the first time he prayed to Newman, Dr Robert Banco, chief of spinal surgery at the New England Baptist Hospital in Boston, wrote: “Because of this persisting and severe stenosis, I have no medical explanation for why he was pain-free and for so long a time. The objective data, CT, myelogram, and MRI demonstrated that his pathology did not at all change, but his symptoms [pain] improved drastically.”
After the second healing, he told Sullivan that the recovery to his spine was so complete that the 71 year-old now had the lifting capacity of a 30 year-old. “With the tear in your dura mater, your condition should have been much worse,” he said. “I have no medical or scientific answer for you. If you want an answer, ask God.”
"If you want an answer, ask God" comes about as near to saying "It's a miracle" as one would ever expect from a medical professional. For a sceptic to ignore this, and persist with his "good luck" thesis or "naturalism of the gaps" explanation, belies any claim to objectivity.
Oh wait....! Silly me! Dr Banco was awarded the 2013 Compassionate Doctor Award, so, yep that's the explanation! He was just being compassionate to Mr Sullivan and didn't want to hurt his religious feelings, so that's why he said what he did. Excellent explanation. No miracle then...
quote:Well, judging by your last two responses, I can see that we're not going to get anywhere arguing about it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Well, that misses my point completely. I think you're not even wrong.
quote:If you hold to a theology of radical dualism, then maybe.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Surely, if somebody gets inexplicably worse, that's Satan leaving his calling card. Well, it's as plausible as people getting better, thanks to God.
quote:You have to persuade God to play ball with your experiment as well.
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Going back to the OP for a minute.
Doing research on the power of prayer in the U.S. must be really difficult. How do you get a control group?
quote:We are God's creatures - God's creation. Of course we have a right to question!
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As I said earlier, this sounds arbitrary to me, but then who are we to question the infinite inscrutability of God?
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Damn, must start putting *sarcasm alert*, when I say something sarcastic.
Who are we to question the infinite inscrutability of God? *sarcasm alert*
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
No tone of voice here on the Ship, sadly.
quote:That's what may be the most "miraculous" result of all. The workings of God are beyond mortal understanding, and yet the faithful are always able to recognize His miraculous action. Not only that, but they're always able to correctly attribute such miracles to the action of their preferred deity of choice, rather than some other supernatural actor. It's amazing!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A finite mind can, of course, totally and fully understand an infinite mind.
quote:Well done for ignoring the words "totally and fully".
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:That's what may be the most "miraculous" result of all. The workings of God are beyond mortal understanding, and yet the faithful are always able to recognize His miraculous action. Not only that, but they're always able to correctly attribute such miracles to the action of their preferred deity of choice, rather than some other supernatural actor. It's amazing!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A finite mind can, of course, totally and fully understand an infinite mind.
quote:You are being sarcastic I hope. Or I am faithless and hell bound*.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's what may be the most "miraculous" result of all. The workings of God are beyond mortal understanding, and yet the faithful are always able to recognize His miraculous action. Not only that, but they're always able to correctly attribute such miracles to the action of their preferred deity of choice, rather than some other supernatural actor. It's amazing!
quote:That assumes there's a difference between the two beyond "spells are what I call the other guy's prayers". In what sense are the more flamboyant faith healers (e.g. John Hagee) not casting spells?
Originally posted by Garasu:
Is there any study comparing results between those being prayed for and those for whom spells are cast?
quote:I think the point is that whether there are miracle healings or not - is unknowable. Yes, you can believe it, but there is no way to demonstrate it. NB., anecdotes are not demonstrations.
Originally posted by Arminian:
From what I understand that BBC article is rather loaded. One of the studies they quote was theologically flawed with non Christians reading set prayers off cards. No faith was involve so why should it work ?.
There have actually been studies that have shown positive correlations between prayer and healing, but that doesn't necessarily prove a divine link. Its known that if sick people have better care and attention they recover better.
I trust skeptics as much as raving faith healers. Both are defending their paradigm and sometimes are prepared to bend the truth to do so.
I've seen enough to believe that healings do occur, but often less spectacularly than the Biblical accounts. I don't believe God intends to give any general proof to the masses via spectacular healings. Jesus remarked that the Father wanted to keep things hidden from the wise, but not the ordinary folk that came to him. Its not likely to have changed.
quote:Nonsense. If all the cancer patients in London were cured at 4pm today, it would be the greatest sensation in history and the entire world would be talking of nothing else. Indeed, it would take a very much lesser proven* miracle than that to do the job. I reckon the course of human history would be irrevocably and quite fundamentally altered.**
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would think that most people are not interested in miracles.
quote:No, I didn't mean that! If all cancer patients in London were cured overnight, as you said, it would cause a sensation.
Originally posted by Yorick:
Do you suppose they're disinterested because the idea of miracles seems irrelevant to them, like, perhaps, mythology in general? (I took it that you suppose they'd remain disinterested in miracles if they turned out to be real, which I find extremely doubtful).
quote:I agree with you about the supernatural; in part, I suppose it expresses our wishes. Thus, many footballers pray before a game, or salute the heavens when they score. Possibly, also this works to an extent, as a kind of reinforcement technique?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well, I may only be speaking for myself here, but it strikes me that the concept of the supernatural is an innate part of our human condition. I'd be most surprised to learn that it's not the case that almost ALL people ideate miraculous and supernatural events, pretty much all the time.
Why, only this morning, as I was brushing my teeth, I became aware- even I, a confirmed skeptic- that my thoughts had been wandering idly as though along a sun spangled mountain stream about the glad prospect of a satellite falling with miraculous accuracy upon the head of my ex wife.
quote:I understand healing to be of some particular significance in Christianity; in the gospels, references are made to the healing of the sick by Jesus, and I know Christians who pray regularly and earnestly for God's intervention in cases of illness. I think it's pretty common.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But medical miracles seems to be a rather fringe area to me. Even within Christianity, I think it is treated with some suspicion, especially the more circus-like displays of it.
quote:The healings that Jesus is said to have performed are often referred to as 'signs' - in other words, things which point to something other than themselves.
Originally posted by Yorick:
I understand healing to be of some particular significance in Christianity; in the gospels, references are made to the healing of the sick by Jesus
quote:Really? I assumed you'd be supplicating for divine intervention, which would be miraculous by scientific standards if it came about. If it were demonstrably unnatural, that is. And if it weren't, well, where's your God sans penicillin?
Originally posted by Gwai:
Praying for healing is different for praying for a miracle though. If I pray for healing, I presume it will come through normal scientific ways or that the person will learn to live with what cannot be cured.
quote:Your assumption is that your first clause leads to your second clause. I gather some Christians would agree with you. I do not. I fully believe my god uses penicillin, doctors, and such the like.
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:Really? I assumed you'd be supplicating for divine intervention, which would be miraculous by scientific standards if it came about. If it were demonstrably unnatural, that is. And if it weren't, well, where's your God sans penicillin?
Originally posted by Gwai:
Praying for healing is different for praying for a miracle though. If I pray for healing, I presume it will come through normal scientific ways or that the person will learn to live with what cannot be cured.
quote:Now that's very interesting, and puts a different complexion on the matter. It makes it less hucksterish, well, in my eyes. I mean, it's less about wheel-chairs being blithely tossed aside, although no doubt that in itself is quite a thing, but seems too much of a spectacle to me. I saw a mum lovingly tending to her daughter, dying from vCJD, and I thought, that's a miracle, (the tending, not the disease), but of course, it's not literally.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Praying for healing is different for praying for a miracle though. If I pray for healing, I presume it will come through normal scientific ways or that the person will learn to live with what cannot be cured.
quote:Why impossible? We can take care of ourselves, in fact we must.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Martin, some people would also say that that was God taking care of God. I don't think that is particularly Christian, is it? However, certum est, quia impossibile, (it is certain because impossible).
quote:Well, the impossible bit wasn't meant to refer to God taking care of me, but the idea that if he does, he is taking care of himself. OK, maybe that is a kosher idea in Christianity, I don't know. It seems unlikely, since if everything is God, there is no need for salvation, is there?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Why impossible? We can take care of ourselves, in fact we must.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, Martin, some people would also say that that was God taking care of God. I don't think that is particularly Christian, is it? However, certum est, quia impossibile, (it is certain because impossible).
Why shouldn't God?
quote:Incoherent only if:
In fact, your view of reality is utterly incoherent. If our minds are just the product of our brains, which are the result of natural selection, which is itself mindless, then mind is an illusion.
quote:That's a bit cryptic, even for you. Do you mean the if in 'if everything is God'?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There's no if q.
quote:Yes, but I am saying there is nothing wrong with God taking care of himself. Whether it's God-in-us or God-out-there.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, the impossible bit wasn't meant to refer to God taking care of me, but the idea that if he does, he is taking care of himself. OK, maybe that is a kosher idea in Christianity, I don't know. It seems unlikely, since if everything is God, there is no need for salvation, is there?
quote:This isn't an unusual viewpoint on praying for the sick in my experience. I attended a session led by a hospice chaplain discussing what healing might mean to people from a range of different beliefs. For the terminally ill, could it be that healing could be a good death? The time to come to terms with dying and say goodbye.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
quote:Now that's very interesting, and puts a different complexion on the matter. It makes it less hucksterish, well, in my eyes. I mean, it's less about wheel-chairs being blithely tossed aside, although no doubt that in itself is quite a thing, but seems too much of a spectacle to me. I saw a mum lovingly tending to her daughter, dying from vCJD, and I thought, that's a miracle, (the tending, not the disease), but of course, it's not literally.
Originally posted by Gwai:
Praying for healing is different for praying for a miracle though. If I pray for healing, I presume it will come through normal scientific ways or that the person will learn to live with what cannot be cured.
quote:However, I'm so out of step with a lot of my local church that has too many people praying for a miracle rather than healing and/or other fundamentalist beliefs that I no longer go.
Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
