|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: BBC Article on Medical Miracles
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I thank God for His gift of faith in the utter absence of medical miracles for me. There are none in anybody else's life for me outside the New Testament or in mine of course.
Unless one counts improvement of ones thinking and feeling as medical (if you think this is bad!).
Which in my case is due to
God's provision:
time healing,
therapy; including
an improving Christian narrative
..born of His Spirit being poured out on all flesh (and where the world, the flesh and the Spirit begin and end I haven't the faintest idea)
....unless there is no God in which case I'm relatively happily deluded and hope to die so.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
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.
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.
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.
God supports, doesn't care if you live or die, only wants to perfect you sayeth CS Lewis when he writes Screwtape. I wish I'd paid more attention when it mattered to this, would have disreagrding the hopeful nonsense of few silly priests and well meaning pray-ers, and saved much anguish.
No-one should ever pray for a miracle. No-one should interpret a medical or other 'cure' as divine intervention. These things are more dangerous than we can know, and can cause incredible damage. Pray for strength and support. Ask for peace. Ask that you may accept what the cup holds, drink and try not to drop it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
No one here is an atheist or sceptic. No one doubts at all. We know. Some know more analytically than experientially and vice versa. It doesn't matter. It can't be helped. We must all bear with the weak.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
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").
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.
It would be nice - nay, wonderful - if Christianity had magic powers whereby Christians never got sick, where the dead were raised, where healing was doled out in proportion to faith.. and so on.
Everyone knows it doesn't happen like that.
So we're left with a choice - either we believe (with a 'leap of faith') that some strange phenomena are divine in origin, that for some inexplicable reason God does not seem to offer miraculous happenings to everyon... or that all (or most of) these miraculous events have naturalistic scientific explanations.
Given that you don't want to believe that faith requires a 'leap of faith' of this kind, you are left trying to argue that the naturalistic scientific explanation is less likely than the divine one - and getting rather angry with anyone who happens to believe that the God who heals randomly is barely worth believing in.
quote:
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!
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.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
I can't convince you that something is a miracle any more than I can convince you something is beautiful.
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.
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?
But medicine and placebos are still very much in their infancy. Our minds are so very much connected to our bodies. So the unexplained happens all the time. That doen't mean it has supernatural origins, just that it's super natural (as in 'natural processes are still way beyond medicine to really understand')
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Miracles are in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty.
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?
quote:
I can't convince you that something is a miracle any more than I can convince you something is beautiful.
I agree, it is an act - a leap - of faith.
quote:
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.
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.
quote:
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?
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.
Deep down, though, there is something troubling about it as well. One might believe that homeopathy 'just works', one might have all kinds of explanations as to why it works and all kinds of evidences you take as proof. The danger there, as here with divine healing, is the direction where that sort of thinking takes you/one.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
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?
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.
God of the gaps is a fair description if someone says "I"ve no idea why this happened - it must be God." Clearly if someone has been healed after prayer then there is a factor to take into account. Where someone recovers health for no apparent reason I'd say that God may have been involved directly (someone may have been praying).
And then there's a discussion about how God acts through natural processes, but tea-break's over so I'll have to leave that one.
Have a healthy and prosperous day...
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
Oh dear.
So pydseybare thinks that all atheists and sceptics are paragons of scientific objectivity.
And you have the nerve to criticise me for saying that we should ignore people who are clearly prejudiced against Christianity.
Maybe you need to ask Richard Dawkins' permission to believe in 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).
Do carry on seeing what you want to see, and running away from evidence. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
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.
Oh dear.
So pydseybare thinks that all atheists and sceptics are paragons of scientific objectivity.
I have never thought, nor said that. In fact I have actually said the exact opposite.
quote:
And you have the nerve to criticise me for saying that we should ignore people who are clearly prejudiced against Christianity.
Have I?
quote:
Maybe you need to ask Richard Dawkins' permission to believe in God.
Nope, actually I don't need Dawkin's permission to do anything.
quote:
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).
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.
quote:
Do carry on seeing what you want to see, and running away from evidence.
What evidence?
A person seeing a Darren Brown trick might think that they've seen something miraculous, but I take it that you agree that it is actually just a trick (slight of hand, memory, mind game etc).
In fact, someone believing that a phenomena happening to them is from a deity is not evidence.
quote:
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.
Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
In Ayurveda medicine, Philosophy and medicine have always gone hand-in-hand; illness is not just physical manifestations, but psychological as well. A good reminder that in many traditions, not just Christian, it is recognised that the state of the mind, body and spirit are interdependent: one becoming sick can affect the others, one being cured can likewise affect the others.
Prayer and healing can help the cure and in some cases be enough to cure the whole person. Medical treatment can cure the body and facilitate cure of mind and spirit. We don't need to choose between medicine or miracles but we need both. It isn't total cure or no cure but usually small or significant improvement. Symptoms may disappear, life may be prolonged, psychological damage may be repaired, suffering may be assuaged. All good.
But as we grow old, our powers will diminish and at the end our earthly bodies will die, which does not argue against our eternal hope.
In my life, I have experienced healing for myself and others. My mother turned down surgery but survived her cancer for over 20 years due to prayer, new diet and experimental drugs. At the end of the day she died. We are thankful extra years of life she was given and I still believe all three of the above were important. There is, of course, no possible control experiment.
I have this week off to recover from a small medical Op which is hoped will improve my breathing, make me less prone to infections and help the quality of life as I get older. I still need prayer. I still need meditation, yoga, Pilates and the gym. I still need to take care of body, mind and spirit using all the resources God gives us.
I believe in miracles and especially in prayer. But I don't want to be like the drowning man who preferred to reply on God than let the rescue services save him: when he drown he complained that he had been let down but God said that he had sent him a plank of wood, a lifeboat and a helicopter, what more did he want?
Medicine/Science v Miracles/Prayer -no is not either/or but something more holistic.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally by pydseybare
Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Thankfully God regards it as irrelevant in His dealings with me.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
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.
(That's Peter Speck's story. I use it because it's in the public domain. But every hospital chaplain has one. Often more than one.)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Presumably the father is too scared to back God into a corner, so has to pick on the poor old chaplain instead?
Unless, of course, he thinks the chaplain actually is God?
Hmmm....
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Which bit? Where you have an effect with no known cause then possibilities are all you have to work with.
On God answering prayer we need to take account that God is a free rational Being in his own right.
By the way, the idea that because God doesn't answer every prayer you should conclude he doesn't answer any of them just doesn't follow. If you've prayed for someone and their health has improved - and in the cases shared on this thread significantly and dramatically - then it's reasonable to conclude that prayer has been a factor in the improvement.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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).
So when someone says they will pray for me I am glad - it means they care and that they are thinking of me. This helps as it makes me feel good. So when I say I'll pray for someone, that's what I mean - that they will feel that God is with them and that I care enough to think about them.
I no longer believe God specifically changes the way things are in answer to prayer, either subtly or suddenly.
What changed that view? Age and experience, I think. And many past days spent in fervent, believing, truly faithful prayer - only to see things get worse on every level!
[ 11. March 2014, 11:59: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
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.
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As someone who has been in pretty much the situation described, I can tell you that is not the right answer right there.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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:
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.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally by pydseybare
Quite right. I discern that God's activity is not in this thought of yours.
You are entitled to your opinion.
Thankfully God regards it as irrelevant in His dealings with me.
It must be convenient to be God's personal favorite, especially since the Almighty Creator of the Universe always agrees with you.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
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.
There is no right answer. That's the point.
However, when our youngest son was 1 he went into febrile convulsions while in the back of an ambulance. It was very frightening. At that time I didn't know that while such convulsions may be frightening, most are harmless and don't pose a threat to a child’s health.
My reaction however was a visceral one word prayer, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus." And I'm not ashamed of that one little bit.
I also got right out of the paramedics way as well.
[ 11. March 2014, 13:32: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well yes, it's like the old adage about there being no atheists in a life boat ...
I managed a one word prayer as I was driving a car which ran up a crash barrier on the M62 and rolled over onto its roof as the caravan I was towing began wobbling so much that it drove me off the road ...
That one word was, 'Jesus ...'
And it wasn't used as an expletive either.
We'll most of us - whatever our theology - have done what Daronmedway did in his extremity on that occasion.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
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.
There is no right answer. That's the point.
So why did you suggest one?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Actually there are all sorts of right answers in Speck's case study, but they all start off with "You have to be there...".
My point, really, is that whatever theologising you come up with on this subject has, somehow, to have some resonance with that father in that room at that time. Otherwise it's just angels dancing on the head of a pin.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
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.
There is no right answer. That's the point.
So why did you suggest one?
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
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.
There is no right answer. That's the point.
So why did you suggest one?
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.
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.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
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.
[ 11. March 2014, 14:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
As far as I'm concerned, to ask a question like that in a context like that is mind-bogglingly dumb and insensitive because
a) you are not Jesus and therefore not in any position to grant one if asked
b) this is a crisis situation in which people want empathy, support and basic coping resources, not one in which to start some kind of theological debate or engage in moral one-upmanship.
In my situation the four-year-old was barely alive (having choked on her own vomit) when the distraught father, a friend, asked me if it was permissible to pray along those lines. As I recall I said something to the effect that prayer was not a guarantee of a specific result, and blurted out something non-committal in prayer about the daughter's life being in God's hands for him to do as he saw fit. She was confirmed dead not long after.
Two years later I was in the same hospital with the same man alongside the body of his wife, who died unexpectedly following post-op complications after routine surgery. I'm pretty sure we prayed again, but it was not to order a miracle of resurrection.
[x-post, but I think point a) applies to what has been posted in the meantime]
[ 11. March 2014, 14:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
"Tell me, why do you want a miracle?"
As far as I'm concerned, to ask a question like that in a context like that is mind-bogglingly dumb and insensitive because
a) you are not Jesus and therefore not in any position to grant 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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
Which particular passage in which Peter asked why the forthcoming beneficiary wanted a miracle did you have in mind?
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.
[ 11. March 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
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.
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).
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
Which particular passage in which Peter asked why the forthcoming beneficiary wanted a miracle did you have in mind?
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.
quote:
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.
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
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.
No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
What a completely illogical and ridiculous comment.
What you are in effect saying, is that I have to accept all views of God as being equally valid. So if someone tells me that he is convinced that God has told him to martyr himself as a suicide bomber, then I am not allowed to consider that he is wrong? Otherwise I would be guilty of "asserting privilege"!
Not only do I believe that the people you referred to are wrong, but I have already given my reasons for thinking that.
By the way, you are not allowed to think that I am wrong in holding this view, otherwise you are asserting privilege!!
Works both ways, mate.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.
No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Is it?
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
This would be a purely speculative disagreement were it not for the fact that you said quote:
I probably would ask that question though
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.
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
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.
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.
Well, at least we agree on something. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.
No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Is it?
Yes.
He's desperate, he wants his girl to live.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
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.
No need for a principled prohibition. It's a thick question. It's bloody obvious why he wants a miracle!
Is it?
Yes.
He's desperate, he wants his girl to live.
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.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
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.
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.
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.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
quote:
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.
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.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Yes.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
