Thread: Thank God ... you reckon? Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020009
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I know a lot of blind and visually impaired people. One person went in for an operation yesterday. She can now see after years of blindness. Her guide Dog will retire and become a pet.

Wonderful, wonderful news.

But I am annoyed, sad and upset.

She's dancing around Facebook thanking God, what a wonderful God we have, God answers prayer, ohhhhh what an amazing God!

So, what are the other 3000 + blind and VI people in our FB group she is dancing around to think about this God, who apparently restores sight to the blind?

Lovely, incredible amazing day for her, brilliant science which has achieved it. But what utter bollocks she is speaking.

[ 23. November 2016, 06:56: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Boogie--

IMHO, let her have her moment.

I don't know how or why things happen. I don't have a problem with miracles, etc.--they just don't seem to happen often enough. So the people who didn't get the miracle are left with both their original problems and wondering why God (by any name) doesn't care about them. That's one reason some churches teach "dispensationalism" (basically, a time and place for everything): miracles mostly happened during a specific period of time, but rarely do anymore.

I'd probably get annoyed, too. I usually avoid the Praise thread in All Saints, for that reason. Things often don't go the way they should, and reading about other people's good fortune can be...depressing.

But she probably needs this state. Kind of like the glowy stage of conversion: beautiful, then fun, then annoying, then gradually fades.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Bit harsh, no? She isn't saying "Thank God for helping me, me, only me, and leaving you all out." She isn't claiming any special goodness or power to somehow make God favor her. All she's doing is saying thank you and rejoicing.

And she's doing it in a communication to a group of people she no doubt loves and knows well, among whom she has friends and well-wishers, people who are in fact interested in her outcome.

That sounds okay to me.

Look, I get the point about supposed tactlessness. But if you think about it, trying to protect blind people from possible causes of jealousy is infantilizing. It's like saying that my friends and family should never have had baby showers etc. during the years I suffered from infertility, or at least they ought to have kept them a deep dark secret from me.

That would have been to make me out such a child that I could not rejoice with those I loved simply because I wasn't the one so blessed.

I think your blind and low vision community is bigger-hearted than that. And adult enough to cope with a world where events don't fall out "fairly."

[ 23. November 2016, 07:33: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
I wonder why it is the case that God is supposed to heal everybody or nobody at all?

I wonder why this annoys you so much?

Of course the skill of the surgeon was involved, but who says God was not involved too?

Jesus cured some people of blindness. They thanked and praised God too. Why not? They didn't get annoyed with him because everyone in the world wasn't healed all at once.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
It annoys/saddens me that she is dancing around thanking God and saying God heals. 3000 + other people in our group continue life unhealed while she dances.

Neuroscience healed her, which WILL give great hope to those with her condition.

God? If he did so then 3000/1 is rubbish in any healer. Would you go to a surgeon who managed to heal 3000/1?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It seems like neuroscience and God are in the same hole then. Because whichever one of them is to blame, 1 sees and 2,999 don't.

And likewise joyful praise to God and joyful praise of neuroscience are both equally tactless aren't they?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The difference is that God could heal everyone. He has chosen, apparently, to heal this one person and tough shit to the rest.

That is the problem here. If God's so good, if he makes the blind see, what's he got against the other 2999 that he can't be arsed to do the same for them?

And who said this was anything to do with tact? It's to do with the apparent capriciousness of God, and how the corollary of him being so good to person A that he restored their sight is that he wasn't so good to everyone else. Why? What's he got against them?

These seem perfectly reasonable problems with the miracle narrative to me.

[ 23. November 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I'm the grinch, but I don't believe we should be thanking God for good health or healing, for unexpected wealth, for new jobs, new houses, baby births etc.

To say that God has blessed me by healing my sickness is to say that somehow God has not blessed those other people who will never have access to the advanced medical proceedure. Which is an unthinking and backhanded way to say that God loves me in my wealth more than he loves those people in their poverty - because look at all the lovely shiny things he's given me! It must be because of how hard I've prayed!

I take seriously the Christ who healed and told people to keep quiet about it, and the one who said that the blessings we should be looking for are the ones that nobody would ask for and nobody would celebrate.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Bless her in it Boogie. In her ignorant joy. Forgive her. Thank God for His provision. Of neuroscience. Of progress all round. Including and especially in the miraculous liberal reconciliation with Him that you are party to.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
It is possible to be thankful with the weight of 'why me?' which isn't necessary;y about cursing your neighbours. There's good Biblical precedent too. I do wonder though if there is an element of projection. Do we really know what the other 2,999 think, or are we assuming?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Of course it is natural to be happy. Just don't ascribe your healing to God.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
This is a standard critique of theism, isn't it? Man stumbles out of earthquake, shouting praise God, while 20, 000 lie dead around him.

But it's human nature, to be solipsist. As an initial reaction, it doesn't irritate me.

After that, I'm not convinced that theists really believe that God could cure everyone, or could stop the earthquake. Well, it's a nominal kind of belief.
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
To (probably mis)quote Hannibal Lecter, typhoid and swans come from the same place.

I unfortunately have both RP and IIH and therefore haven't seen well enough to hold a driving licence since I was 27. Fortunately, I still see well enough in good light to do lots of other things. Very fortunately, my son has not inherited the RP - my daughter may have, but if she does, hopefully her symptoms will be no worse than mine. And hopefully we will have found a way to correct the genetic mutation before she has to worry about passing it on to her children.

I have, admittedly over a long time, learned to bless God for both the "fortunate" and the "unfortunate" aspects of my condition. And I am enormously grateful for the skill and dedication of the many doctors, nurses and researchers who have helped me and my family.

Complicated, isn't it?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is possible to be thankful with the weight of 'why me?' which isn't necessary;y about cursing your neighbours. There's good Biblical precedent too. I do wonder though if there is an element of projection. Do we really know what the other 2,999 think, or are we assuming?
I'm not sure it's about what the other 2999 think. It's what ascribing the healing to God says about him.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure it's about what the other 2999 think. It's what ascribing the healing to God says about him.
Arguing against myself, it might say nothing much about this individual. Ascribing healing to God might just be a figure of speech; it might be a way for him to process good fortune; it might be his general approach to life (celebrating good things).

I'm not sure those things are necessarily bad but I'm not sure that they are necessarily from God either. And it bothers me what it says about us (rather than picking on any one person who might be as honest as the day is long) and our theology when we use this kind of language.

It seems like an accident of birth that I'm able to access cheap eye care. I'm sure that if I lived in a lot of places (maybe a majority?) I'd effectively be blind even though my "condition" is easily corrected with glasses.

Am I here because of the "grace of God"? In a colloquial sense I am - there isn't anything much I've done that leads me to have access to good opticians. I can't point to a quantity of prayer than has lifted me beyond the masses. And I know that many of my colleagues and neighbours are similarly benefiting from good eyecare without any reference to God.

But the problem with it not being an outworking of God's goodness is that one takes these things for granted if unwilling to plant them as unasked-for and un-called-for gifts of grace.

So for me it is a bit of an oxymoron - there is a danger in ascribing good things to God that we all regularly fall into. There is a moral problem with calling things gifts from God that have been produced from the sweat of people living lives of poverty and injustice. And yet at the same time there is something positive about seeing positive things as being more than just chance. There is something positive about being aware and being grateful for things we have that others don't have.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is possible to be thankful with the weight of 'why me?' which isn't necessary;y about cursing your neighbours. There's good Biblical precedent too. I do wonder though if there is an element of projection. Do we really know what the other 2,999 think, or are we assuming?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure it's about what the other 2999 think. It's what ascribing the healing to God says about him.
Why stop at healing power then? We have the whole of theodicy to rail about. Almost nothing in the world is fair and even handed. Why pick on a blind woman with a healed eye as the occasion of annoyance - we should be annoyed with all theists for talking bollocks and having the temerity to believe in God with all this starvation, death and destruction around us.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course it is natural to be happy. Just don't ascribe your healing to God.
Exactly.

I am truly thrilled for her and of course she will be celebrating!

But ascribing her healing to God is putting two fingers up to everyone else who God didn't heal imo. What could the reason be - God clearly loves her so much more than the others? or maybe she had more faith, or more people prayed for her? whatever, it makes me sad for those VI people witnessing it.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It seems like neuroscience and God are in the same hole then. Because whichever one of them is to blame, 1 sees and 2,999 don't.

And likewise joyful praise to God and joyful praise of neuroscience are both equally tactless aren't they?
No, because there is no mystery in neuroscience/surgery etc. Or is there?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:


But ascribing her healing to God is putting two fingers up to everyone else who God didn't heal imo. What could the reason be - God clearly loves her so much more than the others? or maybe she had more faith, or more people prayed for her? whatever, it makes me sad for those VI people witnessing it.
I know, such things make me mad too. Not that it is much of a consolation, but it seems to be a truism that loud expressions of joy such as this are often preludes to bouts of sadness.

I guess the challenge on a personal level is how to be positive to that person without joining in with all the overbearing blessing talk whilst looking out for sudden changes in their outlook if/when they have a relapse or something.

Personally, such things are why I don't go on facebook. But then I'm not the cheeriest person to be around.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Of course it is natural to be happy. Just don't ascribe your healing to God.
Exactly.

I am truly thrilled for her and of course she will be celebrating!

But ascribing her healing to God is putting two fingers up to everyone else who God didn't heal imo. What could the reason be - God clearly loves her so much more than the others? or maybe she had more faith, or more people prayed for her? whatever, it makes me sad for those VI people witnessing it.
So what are you doing about it?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what are you doing about it?
What, other than ranting and wrestling with the issue on a forum that is unlikely to affect the person concerned?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what are you doing about it?
What, other than ranting and wrestling with the issue on a forum that is unlikely to affect the person concerned?
Yes.

Bless the Ship. These are thoughts I honestly don't want to share with anyone else, I wouldn't dream of throwing such cold water on her joy.

What am I doing for VI people? I raise Guide Dog puppies. I take a blind man with me for long walks on the Pennine Way on Saturdays so that he can enjoy the walk and his dog can have a free run. I'm training to become a 'my guide', which is a human Guide Dog.


My Guide

[ 23. November 2016, 10:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Isn't it amazing how the problem of evil manifests itself even in the simple joy of a woman who regains her sight. Really, I think as someone else upthread noted, it says a hell of a lot more about us than it does about God.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So what are you doing about it?
What, other than ranting and wrestling with the issue on a forum that is unlikely to affect the person concerned?
Yes.

Bless the Ship. These are thoughts I honestly don't want to share with anyone else, I wouldn't dream of throwing such cold water on her joy.

What am I doing for VI people? I raise Guide Dog puppies. I take a blind man with me for long walks on the Pennine Way on Saturdays so that he can enjoy the walk and his dog can have a free run. I'm training to become a 'my guide', which is a human Guide Dog.

My Guide
Draft an inclusive response that minimizes alienation of her and maximizes encouragement to them? She's intoxicated anyway. Share it here first?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It is possible to be thankful with the weight of 'why me?' which isn't necessary;y about cursing your neighbours. There's good Biblical precedent too. I do wonder though if there is an element of projection. Do we really know what the other 2,999 think, or are we assuming?
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm not sure it's about what the other 2999 think. It's what ascribing the healing to God says about him.
Why stop at healing power then? We have the whole of theodicy to rail about. Almost nothing in the world is fair and even handed. Why pick on a blind woman with a healed eye as the occasion of annoyance - we should be annoyed with all theists for talking bollocks and having the temerity to believe in God with all this starvation, death and destruction around us.
Aye. And I often am.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Draft an inclusive response that minimizes alienation of her and maximizes encouragement to them? She's intoxicated anyway. Share it here first?
That was easy.

"You can see again? How absolutely wonderful!"

But my inner thought is. "But please leave God out of it, this can't possibly be God's doing." And all the alleluia' s "see God does heal!' comments are nauseating. How atheists are dealing with them internally I do not know - 'tho maybe they don't worry and just dismiss her as another crackpot.

What would God say on the thread?

[ 23. November 2016, 11:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Hey! That's my line! Bloody well done Boogie. All round. We are in dubious battle. Your two year nightmare with the demon head on the Love Your Enemies thread needed acknowledgement too.

You found a way to be positive to her. The bigger struggle by orders of magnitude is to collectively encourage the rational majority whose sight will never improve.

I don't know.

Somehow to be in helpless sighted solidarity with them in their struggle to be positive, acceptant, grateful for their lot which will not improve while for a rationally miraculous one it does?

Encourage them to fully express themselves as we do each other on the Hell Cancer thread?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think that if one has a major paradigm shift it doesn't make sense to partially unveil it in response to a detailed point.

It's a bit like getting stuck on the possibilities of the second coming only to discover that one protagonist doesn't believe in God in the first place. Or arguing about whether the use of a marble board results in tasty puff pastry, only to find that the person arguing against marble boards actually dislikes all forms of pastry.

If one is going to launch in it is perhaps better to say "I don't believe in a God who intervenes in the world" rather than personalize the argument about the impossibility of intervention in a particular case. The alternative, of course, is just to charitably stay quiet if it won't help anyone.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aye. And I often am.
What about the other times? Is there anything intellectual that shifts or is it just exhaustion?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm the grinch, but I don't believe we should be thanking God for good health or healing, for unexpected wealth, for new jobs, new houses, baby births etc.

To say that God has blessed me by healing my sickness is to say that somehow God has not blessed those other people who will never have access to the advanced medical proceedure. Which is an unthinking and backhanded way to say that God loves me in my wealth more than he loves those people in their poverty - because look at all the lovely shiny things he's given me! It must be because of how hard I've prayed!

I take seriously the Christ who healed and told people to keep quiet about it, and the one who said that the blessings we should be looking for are the ones that nobody would ask for and nobody would celebrate.
I disagree that it says anything about how hard someone prayed, or that they are more special or loved than others. Quite the opposite, in fact. It is usually humble adoration, praise and thanks to the one living God, who the individual believes has brought them healing - whether or not others believe that. Why should it be silent, rather than joy expressed fully? Of course it should be ascribed to God.

To demand healing for everyone now, a perfect world now, is to demand the second coming of Christ. Are we ready for that? Isn't God patient with us, wanting us all to have the chance to make a positive difference while we have the chance, whatever disadvantages we have?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
mdijon wrote:

quote:
Why pick on a blind woman with a healed eye as the occasion of annoyance - we should be annoyed with all theists for talking bollocks and having the temerity to believe in God with all this starvation, death and destruction around us.
I think I went through that, as I detached myself from Christianity, well, for a while I did. But then, the world is full of people with daft or strange beliefs, and there is no point in going round, being annoyed with them all. Humans are not rational, au fond. In a way, it's quite diverting.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Hey! That's my line! Bloody well done Boogie. All round. We are in dubious battle. Your two year nightmare with the demon head on the Love Your Enemies thread needed acknowledgement too.

You found a way to be positive to her. The bigger struggle by orders of magnitude is to collectively encourage the rational majority whose sight will never improve.

I don't know.

Somehow to be in helpless sighted solidarity with them in their struggle to be positive, acceptant, grateful for their lot which will not improve while for a rationally miraculous one it does?

Encourage them to fully express themselves as we do each other on the Hell Cancer thread?
Thank you.

I'm a positive person and few things get to me like this one did.

God is so bloody annoying! Giving us all this amazing universe (and Jesus) and then leaving us to it - how dare he/she/it!
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Or not.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Aye. And I often am.
What about the other times? Is there anything intellectual that shifts or is it just exhaustion?
Inconsistency
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The difference is that God could heal everyone. He has chosen, apparently, to heal this one person and tough shit to the rest..

These seem perfectly reasonable problems with the miracle narrative to me.
This is why a Calvinist system where God is in absolute control and everything that happens is God's will ends up in such an ethical and moral morass-- it inevitably makes God the author of sin-- or in this case, suffering.

I find inaugurated theology more helpful-- the notion that the Kingdom is both "now and not yet"-- and healing/not healing is just one evidence of that. It's interesting that John's gospel always refers to Jesus' miracles not as miracles per se or really, really good things that happen but as signs.. Signs that point us to something that is becoming but not here yet.

Because we live in a time when the kingdom is both "now and not yet", that means that there are signs of both Kingdoms. We see signs of the "kingdom of this world"-- the world that is broken by sin and suffering, when things are not done "God's way" but all of creation has been corrupted by Satan. We see injustice, alienation, disease, sin-- and blindness (physical or spiritual). But we also see signs of "the coming Kingdom"-- restoration, reconciliation, healing-- including sight for the blind. Those things are as yet only an appetizer-- a foretaste of the coming Kingdom. One day the things of this world-- sin, suffering, injustice, and disease-- will be defeated. But today we have only these few signs of hope.

There is mourning and there is dancing-- and, as a friend once said, "they don't always take turns". Rejoice with your sighted friend, and mourn with those still living in darkness. And pray for the coming Kingdom, when all will see and all things will be restored.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
But ascribing her healing to God is putting two fingers up to everyone else who God didn't heal imo.
Do they feel the same way, or have you taken it upon yourself to decide what they (should) feel, then feel it for them? Seems kinda presumptuous.

quote:
No, because there is no mystery in neuroscience/surgery etc. Or is there?
Of course there is. What heals one person might fail to heal another person presenting with exactly the same symptoms. I suggest you read one ore more of the books of Oliver Sacks. Start with The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat. Plenty of mystery to go around.

quote:
What would God say on the thread?
MYOFB?

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The alternative, of course, is just to charitably stay quiet if it won't help anyone.
Dingdingdingdingdingding. We have a winner.
 
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :
 
How about thanking God for the skill of the doctors and the genius of the scientists who discovered the healing techniques?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How about thanking God for the skill of the doctors and the genius of the scientists who discovered the healing techniques?
Absolutely.
 
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :
 
I can related to Boogie's original post and also to Lamb Chopped post.

I am visually impaired, and one of my eyes is lost (at least until divine intervention or something new in medicine which may not happen in my lifetime). My other eye is at risk, as well. And I have a couple of other medical difficulties.

At times, when I hear another person claiming their good fortune, I feel alone and vulnerable. That's the emotional side of me, and I acknowledge that it doesn't feel good to be the one who hasn't had the benefit of a remarkable cure.

Intellectually, I know that everyone's good fortune should be celebrated--even if s/he is waving it tactlessly in my face. Spontaneous joy sometimes momentarily blocks out good manners, for both the personn tactlessly celebrating and those who aren't responding.

I admit I'm not always good at getting over my own feelings quickly enough to be spontaneous with someone else's good fortune, but it's a goal.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping the person Boogie mentioned has been able to give support to others in the group--or will be able to continue once the personal ecstatic moment has passed.

sabine

[ 23. November 2016, 14:53: Message edited by: sabine ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How about thanking God for the skill of the doctors and the genius of the scientists who discovered the healing techniques?
I think that's primarily the way God heals these days, and it is part of what is meant by, "Go thou and do likewise."
 
Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :
 
A friend of mine's husband died a year ago, after 35 years of marriage. Now, she has friends who are looking forward to their ruby and golden weddings. It hurts her that she won't get to that stage. It's a grief. But she doesn't want the others not to celebrate - she's glad for them. So, from the original post, give thanks to God. Others whose sight hasn't been restored will be glad for your friend. Just allow them their own private pang of 'but I still can't see'.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
How about thanking God for the skill of the doctors and the genius of the scientists who discovered the healing techniques?
As mentioned on a the heavenly prayer thread, our unborn granddaughter has recently been diagnosed with a constellation of several very rare (1 in 960) and deadly heart defects (similar to hydroplastic left heart syndrome..

Just over 20 years ago her condition was 100% fatal. While the odds are still stacked against her, today there is hope thanks to a series of 3 surgical interventions. There are adults with HLHS who are graduating, going off to college, getting married.

As we've come to terms with this horrible diagnosis, I've been wrestling with all the implications/questions on this thread. And yes, for the first few weeks it was difficult to be around our pregnant friends and those with happy, healthy babies or grandbabies. And I asked the "why us?" question of God quite a bit. Mourning and dancing not taking turns.

But as we've come to accept the diagnosis, and prepare for our granddaughter's birth/first of three surgeries, we've been able to get back on track with rejoicing in new life, for however long we have her. And as I've made that transition, I've found myself thinking about those three surgeries-- each of which has a name (Norwood, Glenn, Fontan). In all my research, I haven't found any explanation for the names, but I assume they are named for the surgeons who developed them. Over the last few weeks, I've found myself thinking about these unknown surgeons, and the courage it took some 20 years ago for them, their young patients, and their patient's families, to decide to embark on finding a treatment that would bring hope in a hopeless situation. I find myself praying for Drs Norwood, Glenn, and Fontan, whoever/wherever they might be. May their lives be blessed and their names honored by all who find hope.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
Boogie, Hope you don't mind my mention but reading from posts back along it appeared that you made a determined effort to ditch your faith, or maybe lost it.
Reading this has though left me wondering if you still remember a couple of snatches from the Gospel. The occasion when one of the 10 healed Lepers turned back to thank Jesus? The other slightly less relevant passage which comes to mind is that of the lost penny and --'more joy in Heaven when one sinner repents'.
Thing is, the the pivotal issue never is about the millions healed who never give thanks to God, (presumably because they don't think such exists), nor is it about the ones never healed. It is about where, someone granted what they consider a happy event, ultimately wants to focus their joy and thanksgiving.

That isn't to say such a person isn't also grateful to the people and technology that has brought said event into being.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
It was Rev Ron Ferguson who once wrote that when you are praying for help, you had better understand the difference between healing and curing. I have no idea if I have been cured of cancer or not, and nobody can tell me, but I think that I have experienced a healing. I don't know what it's like to be blind and I don't know if any of the uncured people can say they are healed. The Bible has plenty to say about public rejoicing after a healing, but I tend to ponder these things in my heart while I try to understand the experiences of others. I understand the reason for the celebration that so annoyed Boogie; my own inclination is to celebrate the gift quietly, hoping that others are able to benefit from the same gift that some of us believe that God has placed in the hands of surgeons and others. Sounds much more pious than I really am, but I'm not sure how else to put it!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Sometimes I love the Ship and sometimes I get so angry with her.
Boogie came here to discuss her dismay. That is part of what this place is for. She should not be chided for that.
Her contention is a valid one, one might disagree and that is fine, but the condemnations and such are ridiculous.
Why things seemingly contrary to God's nature is a question you all should be asking. If you find an answer that contents you, good for you.
Suggestions that she should be silent negate her concerns, how is this right?
And how do you know her concerns won't help anyone? Asking the question could bring an answer that helps someone else maintain their faith rather than lose it because no one says anything.

[ 23. November 2016, 19:40: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
She's a big girl and we all play the games people play roles here, I play several. We resonate with each other, challenge each other, comfort and encourage and support and kick the living shit out of each other's posts. This is Purgatory after all.

[ 23. November 2016, 20:56: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Purgatory is the place for serious debate. I have to assume Boogie knows that, and if she didn't want her post dissected and disagreed with and challenged, she wouldn't have posted it in purg. It infantilizes her to treat her as if she doesn't realize what goes on in purg, or has to be protected from it.
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
I have for many years been involved in volunteer work for the print-handicapped, with a Christian organisation recording books and magazines, and with a secular organisation reading newspapers live-to-air.

Selective healing does not exhaust the theodicean ramifications of blindness.

There is the more fundamental issue of micro-organisms presumably designed and created by God to cause blindness, as in the cases of trachoma, or granular conjunctivitis, and river blindness (onchocerciasis).
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
I have lost some of the sight in my left eye. Asked my retinologist about cloned cell implants, which he says may be on line in five years or so. If I don't age out, I may be in line for them. Must ask about the kind that allow you to shoot laser rays...
 
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
Recovering your sight must feel amazing, and certainly deserves some dancing. Forgetting others is forgivable for a while; you'd hope they would be remembered and supported even better after the excitement died down.

The real problem is the theology that imagines God looking in and deciding what to do today. It's fine to think of God as close and involved in life, and for mountains, healing, lucky escapes and good music to lead us Godwards. Cancer, betrayal, and politics tend to push us in the other direction. It's the idea of God doling out gifts and neglect that is the problem.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Purgatory is the place for serious debate.
If you and Martin go back and read my post, you will find that I do not have a problem with discussing or disagreeing with her.

This
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
The alternative, of course, is just to charitably stay quiet if it won't help anyone.
Dingdingdingdingdingding. We have a winner.
to me seems less discussion and more "If you cannot say something nice, don't say anything" which is not debate but admonition.
I do realise this is not the entirety of your posts, but it stands pretty starkly.

[ 23. November 2016, 22:54: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I took mdijon to be saying to stay quiet in real life, not in Purgatory. Perhaps I mistook his/her meaning.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
That is exactly what I meant. It was a point in the thread where I took the discussion to be about how to respond in real life.

I did give another alternative.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I apologise to you both.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Thanks, but really no need - no offense taken to a challenge on a debate thread made in good faith.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
[Cool]
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
I wrestled with God for over 2 years after I lost sight in one eye with no guarantee that the other wouldn't got the same way-I was constantly tempted to "curse God and die" those words were literally in my mind a lot as I feared total darkness. Thanks be to God, a lot of treatment over the two years on both eyes and finally an operation has meant that I have good vision (just normal reading glasses for somebody 40+)

The skill of my amazing ophthalmologist meant that I had the best possible outcome-despite having really shitty luck in the way that one rogue and bizarrely strong blood vessel gave me so much trouble. Yes the laser and the surgery brought about my healing but as it says in Ecclesiasticus all healing comes from God, God made the doctors and the medicinal plants and herbs, only a fool would despise them.'

So yeah, I thank God that I can see, have at me.

I am desperately sorry and have enormous empathy for those who can't see and for whom there are no viable treatment options but I don't think that means I can't be grateful that my sight has been restored and preserved.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I wrestled with God for over 2 years after I lost sight in one eye with no guarantee that the other wouldn't got the same way-I was constantly tempted to "curse God and die" those words were literally in my mind a lot as I feared total darkness. Thanks be to God, a lot of treatment over the two years on both eyes and finally an operation has meant that I have good vision (just normal reading glasses for somebody 40+)

The skill of my amazing ophthalmologist meant that I had the best possible outcome-despite having really shitty luck in the way that one rogue and bizarrely strong blood vessel gave me so much trouble. Yes the laser and the surgery brought about my healing but as it says in Ecclesiasticus all healing comes from God, God made the doctors and the medicinal plants and herbs, only a fool would despise them.'

So yeah, I thank God that I can see, have at me.

I am desperately sorry and have enormous empathy for those who can't see and for whom there are no viable treatment options but I don't think that means I can't be grateful that my sight has been restored and preserved.
That is great news and of course you are right.

But would you shout your joy and relief all over a FB group dedicated mainly to VI and blind people, 'loudly' thanking God and advocating prayer for healing?

I also had laser surgery, five years ago, and I now have 20/20 vision, before that my glasses cost £600 a pair as my prescription was so complicated, and I needed new ones every year.

God didn't seem to come into the equation at all imo.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I have for many years been involved in volunteer work for the print-handicapped, with a Christian organisation recording books and magazines, and with a secular organisation reading newspapers live-to-air.

Selective healing does not exhaust the theodicean ramifications of blindness.

There is the more fundamental issue of micro-organisms presumably designed and created by God to cause blindness, as in the cases of trachoma, or granular conjunctivitis, and river blindness (onchocerciasis).
Yes, I agree. The questions on God and healing go well beyond any sudden healing.

The very mechanisms which create also destroy - a hard universe this God has created. I can only assume she had no other choice to enable free will.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I took mdijon to be saying to stay quiet in real life, not in Purgatory. Perhaps I mistook his/her meaning.
Yes, I took it that way too.

I did, of course, keep quiet in real life. This is the only place I have mentioned my thoughts. But, even after sleeping on it, I remain angry with God and annoyed with Christians who praise God long and loud as if God is able to heal if we only pray (haha - where DO they get such ideas? Do I need to rail against Jesus too?)
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
[qb] I wrestled with God for over 2 years after I lost sight in one eye with no guarantee that the other wouldn't got the same way-I was constantly tempted to "curse God and die" those words were literally in my mind a lot as I feared total darkness. Thanks be to God, a lot of treatment over the two years on both eyes and finally an operation has meant that I have good vision (just normal reading glasses for somebody 40+)

The skill of my amazing ophthalmologist meant that I had the best possible outcome-despite having really shitty luck in the way that one rogue and bizarrely strong blood vessel gave me so much trouble. Yes the laser and the surgery brought about my healing but as it says in Ecclesiasticus all healing comes from God, God made the doctors and the medicinal plants and herbs, only a fool would despise them.'

So yeah, I thank God that I can see, have at me.

I am desperately sorry and have enormous empathy for those who can't see and for whom there are no viable treatment options but I don't think that means I can't be grateful that my sight has been restored and preserved.
That is great news and of course you are right.

But would you shout your joy and relief all over a FB group dedicated mainly to VI and blind people, 'loudly' thanking God and advocating prayer for healing?

I also had laser surgery, five years ago, and I now have 20/20 vision, before that my glasses cost £600 a pair as my prescription was so complicated, and I needed new ones every year.

God didn't seem to come into the equation at all imo.

Just a clarification that is a bit of a tangent but important for context I think. I didn't have "laser surgery" to end the need for glasses. I had laser photocoagulation-where 1000s of burns were made on my retina over many many appointments to try to stop the blood vessels in my eye from bleeding. The surgery I had removed the vitreous jelly from my eye amongst other things. Oh and 600 pounds ha that's nothing I was paying $800 a fortnight for over 2 years. Prior to the op, my eye could not detect light from dark.

No I wouldn't promote prayer or trumpet my success etc all over a FB page for VI people but your OP objected to the fact that somebody attributed their healing to God as much as to the insensitive way in which it was done.
 
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :
 
[skeptic alert]It struck me some time ago that God appears to provide divine intervention with a frequency precisely matching that of coincidence.

In real life terms, I don't go pissing on people's parades about that. I do try to not be a prick. I don't always succeed.

Personal reflection - related to the observation here.

I am reminded of the last time I attended church. Pretty much the day that put the nail in the coffin of my belief. Please note, these stories are the end of a much bigger journey and not the be-all and end-all, or proof positive or anything like that. Just the confirmation that I had nothing in common with these people.

Firstly, a guy makes his way to the front to share how God has helped him. He had had some pain in his wrist for about a week, and got people to pray for him. The next morning the pain had gone and he wanted to share this and testify to the healing power of God for us all to believe in.

He then took his crutches and made his way back to his seat. Back still broken and legs at about 15% capacity. But he didn't have a sore wrist. I'm in awe of how this guy has learned to live and carry on with his broken back. Don't get me wrong. But it felt to me that a god who healed a sore wrist and overlooked the broken back has a screw loose.

Then someone else shared how one of the members had recently had a chronic drug resistant infection of a wound, but God had cleared that. Putting aside the immediate thought of false negative results on wound swabs (which it turned out to be), I couldn't help but wonder that if that was the case, wouldn't it have been better for God to sort that shit out before she had her lower leg amputated, rather than 6 weeks post op?

These are different stories from Boogies. But what we have in common is the sense that sometime people rush to credit God.

I guess for those who believe in God, that raises the question of when to ascribe thankfulness to God, and how to express that.
[/skeptic alert]
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
A resounding 'hear, hear' to the OP! I would have been firm in speaking up about medical skill etc, but then, of course, I would not be in a church group to say anything. Medical techniques keep improving and it is these that will provide better remedies for eye conditions, nothing to do with God, say I - very firmly!!
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
Interesting to note how many of us have vision impairments.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
[skeptic alert]It struck me some time ago that God appears to provide divine intervention with a frequency precisely matching that of coincidence.

In real life terms, I don't go pissing on people's parades about that. I do try to not be a prick. I don't always succeed.

Personal reflection - related to the observation here.

I am reminded of the last time I attended church. Pretty much the day that put the nail in the coffin of my belief. Please note, these stories are the end of a much bigger journey and not the be-all and end-all, or proof positive or anything like that. Just the confirmation that I had nothing in common with these people.

Firstly, a guy makes his way to the front to share how God has helped him. He had had some pain in his wrist for about a week, and got people to pray for him. The next morning the pain had gone and he wanted to share this and testify to the healing power of God for us all to believe in.

He then took his crutches and made his way back to his seat. Back still broken and legs at about 15% capacity. But he didn't have a sore wrist. I'm in awe of how this guy has learned to live and carry on with his broken back. Don't get me wrong. But it felt to me that a god who healed a sore wrist and overlooked the broken back has a screw loose.

Then someone else shared how one of the members had recently had a chronic drug resistant infection of a wound, but God had cleared that. Putting aside the immediate thought of false negative results on wound swabs (which it turned out to be), I couldn't help but wonder that if that was the case, wouldn't it have been better for God to sort that shit out before she had her lower leg amputated, rather than 6 weeks post op?

These are different stories from Boogies. But what we have in common is the sense that sometime people rush to credit God.

I guess for those who believe in God, that raises the question of when to ascribe thankfulness to God, and how to express that.
[/skeptic alert]
I don't have a problem with anything you've said here. What I objected to in the OP was the notion that you're not allowed to praise & thank God because you're speaking bollocks. I'm not a fan of trying to prove that God exists because he healed somebody-that's ridiculous and yep plenty of non-Christians have had similar experiences with eye disease to mine and sadly some have been blinded or left with quite severe VI.

I don't care whether anybody else believes that God healed me or they think I'm totally mad-I just defend my right to say that I thank God as well as having access to modern ophthalmology for my sight.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
I don't have a problem with anything you've said here. What I objected to in the OP was the notion that you're not allowed to praise & thank God because you're speaking bollocks.
I read the OP as suggesting that someone was feeling angry and upset by the public joy because they were uncomfortable with it. I didn't see that they were saying that anyone was "not allowed" to do it, simply a discussion about it.

You are allowed to do it, I just don't know that it is a helpful idea and if you consistently did it in my face I am quite likely to get annoyed with you.


quote:
I'm not a fan of trying to prove that God exists because he healed somebody-that's ridiculous and yep plenty of non-Christians have had similar experiences with eye disease to mine and sadly some have been blinded or left with quite severe VI.

I don't care whether anybody else believes that God healed me or they think I'm totally mad-I just defend my right to say that I thank God as well as having access to modern ophthalmology for my sight.
But don't you think this "not caring" is also a bit of a problem? Can't you see that this loud praising is making other people uncomfortable?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A resounding 'hear, hear' to the OP! I would have been firm in speaking up about medical skill etc, but then, of course, I would not be in a church group to say anything. Medical techniques keep improving and it is these that will provide better remedies for eye conditions, nothing to do with God, say I - very firmly!!
SusanDoris, a question. Do you feel thankful to anything beyond the individual doctor and medical science advances?

What I mean is that presumably it is possible to feel thankful without it needing to be directed at a deity at all. I can be thankful for being alive, I can be thankful for living here rather than somewhere else, I can be thankful for family. I'm not sure that necessarily needs to be directed at someone/something.

Maybe this is a bit about semantics and language, but the notion of "being grateful" and/or "being thankful" seems to be a healthy thing. What do you think?
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
But don't you think this "not caring" is also a bit of a problem? Can't you see that this loud praising is making other people uncomfortable?
I said I didn't care if people believed that God had cured me or not(in response to the previous post that was going on about curing being coincidence not God), that's very different from saying that I don't care if people are uncomfortable.

I'm not drawing any conclusions about either God or myself on the basis of my healing, just giving thanks for it. Why, in fact is it any more of a problem that I thanked God for my sight THAN with Boogie saying medical care fixed her sight. Her treatment can't fix everyone so the same level of discomfort should apply.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
This is the only place I have mentioned my thoughts. But, even after sleeping on it, I remain angry with God and annoyed with Christians who praise God long and loud as if God is able to heal if we only pray (haha - where DO they get such ideas? Do I need to rail against Jesus too?)
I see a big difference between somebody praising God for healing and implying that God will heal if you pray hard enough. I HATE that-if that's what the person was doing I would have tried to rebuke them for that and also been annoyed.

To my mind if, the day after your cure you praise God that's one thing and I think also that you can cut somebody a bit of slack after they receive the miracle of sight/sight restoration but I agree that it is wicked to give the impression that it is your fault for not praying hard enough or not being Godly enough etc if you are not healed.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:

I'm not drawing any conclusions about either God or myself on the basis of my healing, just giving thanks for it. Why, in fact is it any more of a problem that I thanked God for my sight THAN with Boogie saying medical care fixed her sight. Her treatment can't fix everyone so the same level of discomfort should apply.
No - the medical profession is doing its level best to heal every one of them and certainly would if they could.

God? There is no rhyme nor reason to healing by God or God's 'hand' in surgery. Could you say he's doing his level best to heal the other 2999 people in the group?

[ 24. November 2016, 10:28: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
A resounding 'hear, hear' to the OP! I would have been firm in speaking up about medical skill etc, but then, of course, I would not be in a church group to say anything. Medical techniques keep improving and it is these that will provide better remedies for eye conditions, nothing to do with God, say I - very firmly!!
It isn't a Church group. It's a group of people who have Guide Dogs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any faith. Most of our chat is about dogs and pups.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
To say that God has blessed me by healing my sickness is to say that somehow God has not blessed those other people who will never have access to the advanced medical proceedure.
Theologically, I have come to disagree with this. I remember reading Philip Yancey talking about this sort of thing in one of his many books where he wrestles with theodicy. A conclusion that he came to was essentially that it was legitimate (even correct) to:
a) Thank God for good whenever it appears.
b) Not blame God for evil whenever it appears.

This seems contradictory, and I totally understand the logical step that both you and Boogie have made. That was my initial reaction to Yancey's statement, when I saw it as letting God off the hook, or rationalising.

I've come to see that there's a deep truth there, however. I don't think that it's possible to wrestle with theology without realising that you just have to be able to accept paradoxes, and this is one of them.

God IS Good. God is the source of all Goodness. Boogie, your friend's sight being healed is wonderful Good, so it is right and proper to thank God as the source of all Goodness.

God is not evil. God does not wish suffering on us. Good is not the source of evil, even though God allows evil. God is big enough to take our anger and indignation about the existence of evil and suffering, but it does not originate from God. Thanking God for Good things does not mean God is the source of Bad things.

It's about the source / origination of good and evil. It initially feels counter intuitive, and I get that it sounds a bit hand-wavy. But for me, it helps. Plus, what cliffdweller said about Calvinism & miracles/signs.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Evangeline & Boogie. There's not a wisp of ablated cornea between you that I can see.

Your story, Evangeline, is very real, razor edged; "Curse God and die" vs. "blessed be the name of the Lord". Thank you for sharing here, where it is Purgatorially challenged. In my recent dreads the only way to hang on has been to say the latter. Eventually. When the ice in my free falling gut allows.

Boogie: "Do I need to rail against Jesus too?", aye you do! Well, tell Him that's what you feel like, because the promises He gave as a man beyond those He delivered as a man were fulfilled within His generation. Not in any literal, testifiable way since. Ever.

For the rest of us He said "blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed". And no, He wasn't actually talking of us thousands of years of unimaginable enculturation down the line. I told Him in the shower just now, it's as if He isn't there. But I must carry on as if He were. Take Pascal's Wager. As I reiterated in a recent walk. Take it up every day ...

I reckon ... thank God.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
She has had a day to reflect now and is still saying the same. A few minutes ago -


"The Consultant Neurologist came and chatted at some length. He clearly does not believe in miracles. For me, regardless of scientific explanation or none, I KNOW this was the work of our Lord. This is because I feel so different – not just the physical change in my vision, but spiritually too. I guess that only those that know Him will know what I mean!

I am still blown away by the colours around me! Not just by the range of colours, but by how vivid they all are.

Thank you all for all your wonderful messages, comments, encouragements and advice, and above all, your prayers. They have clearly been answered! Hallelujah!"

Ho hum and hallelujah. Now, everyone - go away and pray and get to know Him. It clearly makes all the difference, doesn't it?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
A physician is not angry at the intemperance of a mad patient, nor does he take it ill to be railed at by a man in fever. Just so should a wise man treat all mankind, as a physician does his patient, and look upon them only as sick and extravagant. Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Including in the mirror! [Smile]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Ho hum and hallelujah. Now, everyone - go away and pray and get to know Him. It clearly makes all the difference, doesn't it?
But that's not what she said. You're reading your opinions of what people like her say into her words, and coming out with what you expect to find. Which is far worse than a happy person gushing about God.
 
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :
 
What a thorny thicket this all is.

When Ah wor a lad of six, a friend's father became a Christian as the result of not being injured (or killed) in the Lewisham train crash of 4th December 1957. Even at that early age, I dared to wonder why God had not spared the 90 killed and 109 injured...

IJ
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
SusanDoris, a question. Do you feel thankful to anything beyond the individual doctor and medical science advances?

What I mean is that presumably it is possible to feel thankful without it needing to be directed at a deity at all. I can be thankful for being alive, I can be thankful for living here rather than somewhere else, I can be thankful for family. I'm not sure that necessarily needs to be directed at someone/something.

Maybe this is a bit about semantics and language, but the notion of "being grateful" and/or "being thankful" seems to be a healthy thing. What do you think?
Even when I believed in a God/force/powere, I never thought or said, Thank god' for something, although I suppose, if I remember correctly, there were parts of CofE services and of course hymns that included a thank-you to god somewhere. So it was not necessary when finally erasing God from the small space it occupied in my mind, to consciously change. It is, however, something I have pondered on - is there anything to thankkkkkkkkkk when things go well? Medical expertise enables my body to be cured and live, but I am grateful to, or acknowledge clearly the debt we all owe to evolution, to humanity and more specifically to the evolutionary drive to find the answer to questions which has resulted in the medical knowledge and treatments available today. The feeling of gratitude stays in my mind though, as there is no object to which to aim it. The training of children to say, thank you' to and for so many things is deeply ingrained I think.

There is, I do concede, a vacancy here! Since reading the Jasper Fforde bookworld series, I think the GSD, General Standard Deity, is a very good solution. Everyone, bar none, knows that there is no such thing as an actual deity, but it works for those who are indifferent, for those who have no interest in religious services, and for those who like to have a church structure, with Vicars, services, baby namings, marriages and funerals.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I therefore offer up my prayers in triplicate to the General Standard Deity, and hope that his/her Generalissimo is not upset if I blame him/her for an aching tooth. But oh, but ah, GSD, why did you make teeth? Yes, I know, in order to lead me to repentance, I again bow my head in chagrin at my pride and incomprehension.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
[skeptic alert]It struck me some time ago that God appears to provide divine intervention with a frequency precisely matching that of coincidence.

In real life terms, I don't go pissing on people's parades about that. I do try to not be a prick. I don't always succeed.

Personal reflection - related to the observation here.

I am reminded of the last time I attended church. Pretty much the day that put the nail in the coffin of my belief. Please note, these stories are the end of a much bigger journey and not the be-all and end-all, or proof positive or anything like that. Just the confirmation that I had nothing in common with these people.

Firstly, a guy makes his way to the front to share how God has helped him. He had had some pain in his wrist for about a week, and got people to pray for him. The next morning the pain had gone and he wanted to share this and testify to the healing power of God for us all to believe in.

He then took his crutches and made his way back to his seat. Back still broken and legs at about 15% capacity. But he didn't have a sore wrist. I'm in awe of how this guy has learned to live and carry on with his broken back. Don't get me wrong. But it felt to me that a god who healed a sore wrist and overlooked the broken back has a screw loose.

Then someone else shared how one of the members had recently had a chronic drug resistant infection of a wound, but God had cleared that. Putting aside the immediate thought of false negative results on wound swabs (which it turned out to be), I couldn't help but wonder that if that was the case, wouldn't it have been better for God to sort that shit out before she had her lower leg amputated, rather than 6 weeks post op?

These are different stories from Boogies. But what we have in common is the sense that sometime people rush to credit God.

I guess for those who believe in God, that raises the question of when to ascribe thankfulness to God, and how to express that.
[/skeptic alert]
Those who don't get miracles of course are not part of God's chosen people, have insufficient faith, are being punished for some unknown sins they or ancestors committed, ad nauseum (pun intended). It is the kind of faith I once found great joy, expectancy and hope from. But because we must always have freedom to believe what we will without confirmation, a miracle of healing must necessarily be akin to God in the flesh with a gun to my head asking if I believe. There's no freewill in that. There's only compulsion. Which isn't on.

But there's too much emphasis on belief anyway. Better is comfort through a sense of the eternal and unchanged. Better is understanding that it is necessary for humans to take it all into their hands and do things rightly, pinning their purpose on the eternal instead of self. Which is what I've come to.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Very neat, Goldfish Stew: 'God seems to provide divine intervention with a frequency precisely matching that of coincidence'.

That reminds me of those theists who argue that God guides evolution, so that he creates a universe that looks uncreated. Genius.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
She has had a day to reflect now and is still saying the same. A few minutes ago -


"The Consultant Neurologist came and chatted at some length. He clearly does not believe in miracles. For me, regardless of scientific explanation or none, I KNOW this was the work of our Lord. This is because I feel so different – not just the physical change in my vision, but spiritually too. I guess that only those that know Him will know what I mean!

I am still blown away by the colours around me! Not just by the range of colours, but by how vivid they all are.

Thank you all for all your wonderful messages, comments, encouragements and advice, and above all, your prayers. They have clearly been answered! Hallelujah!"

Ho hum and hallelujah. Now, everyone - go away and pray and get to know Him. It clearly makes all the difference, doesn't it?
Obviously context is everything here, but my guess is that your joyful friends public sharing on the VI group is helpful to some and hurtful to others, and perhaps both at once or in turn for some.

Again. relating it to our experience with the recent HLHS diagnosis. As we've shared about this publicly, several people-- mostly friends of friends (it is rather rare) have come forward to share their experiences with HLHS. Some have shared of babies who survived the surgeries and thrived into adulthood, others have shared stories of babies who died in infancy-- because that is pretty much indicative of the range of experience with this diagnosis.

But are helpful/not helpful in turn. There are times when hearing the news of babies who survived & thrived brings hope in a hopeless situation. And times when the horrible stories of death resonate with our anguish at the diagnosis. Both are true. And sharing both can be helpful or not helpful depending on where we happen to be at that particular moment.

People grieve losses in many different ways and in many different seasons. I certainly hope, along with everyone else, that your friend is sharing her joy in appropriate ways that don't imply God favored her over someone else or that there is any "trick" to praying/acting/doing that will force God's hand. I pray that for those where hope is needed, that is what it will bring. And I pray for those who are struggling with the very real theodicy issues raised by intermittent healing will find a place to ask those very real questions, as you have done here. Each in their time.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Ho hum and hallelujah. Now, everyone - go away and pray and get to know Him. It clearly makes all the difference, doesn't it?
But that's not what she said. You're reading your opinions of what people like her say into her words, and coming out with what you expect to find. Which is far worse than a happy person gushing about God.
No, that's not what she said. They are my words and in them I'm being sarcastic cynical about it all.
 
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
She has had a day to reflect now and is still saying the same. A few minutes ago -


"The Consultant Neurologist came and chatted at some length. He clearly does not believe in miracles. For me, regardless of scientific explanation or none, I KNOW this was the work of our Lord. This is because I feel so different – not just the physical change in my vision, but spiritually too. I guess that only those that know Him will know what I mean!

I am still blown away by the colours around me! Not just by the range of colours, but by how vivid they all are.

Thank you all for all your wonderful messages, comments, encouragements and advice, and above all, your prayers. They have clearly been answered! Hallelujah!"

Ho hum and hallelujah. Now, everyone - go away and pray and get to know Him. It clearly makes all the difference, doesn't it?
So basically this person's experience in having sight restored was so profound and moving too her that she remains incredibly thankful a full day later? And in her belief system this gratitude goes back to God ("praise god from whom all blessings flow" is not a particularly unusual statement in christendom)?

Sorry Boogie, but although I don't share her belief system, I can't help but feel that getting upset about her crediting god in this rather than being happy for her good fortune might be missing the point.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Hm.

On the one hand, an attitude of gratitude is important for mental health, as those of us who suck at gratitute and excel at catastophizing know. So, in a way it is good to hear about someone grooving on new colors, because a lot of times even the healthiest of us forget to do that. Gratitute itself is not about comparison, it is about enjoying your own life as best you can. In that sense I can totally understand busted up back guy being thankful that at least his wrist works enough so that he can go back to charcoal sketching while he is waiting for the rest of him to heal, or whatever.

On the other hand, there is a way to be grateful graciously, humbly, in recognition of the fact that things could have easily gone another way, and you would have had to assimilate that event into whatever perception of God you have.

From your friend's quotes, Boogie, she seems to be making a direct connection between the amount of people praying for her and the results which, theologically, is weird. Human - nature- ly, if you honk that horn long enough, it starts to come across as a Christianized version of a celebrities address to their fan base, or a charity fund raiser donation scoreboard.

So, hypothetical unhealed one not only is sitting at home wondering if her life remains miserable because God doesn't like her as much as other people, but now she has to wonder if more people liked her enough to pray for her, it'd be different.

Again, as Martin said, your friend is drunk on joy, so all this would not occur to her. But maybe it is not the gratitute itself that is irking you, but other more persistent personality traits surrounding it.

(And for the record, the "those who know him will understand what I mean" would irk me, too. Like I said, gratitude shouldn't be about comparison.)

[ 24. November 2016, 17:09: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Goldfish Stew (# 5512) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In that sense I can totally understand busted up back guy being thankful that at least his wrist works enough so that he can go back to charcoal sketching while he is waiting for the rest of him to heal, or whatever.
Actually more pertinently (and I recognised this at the time) for someone who used crutches to get around and was determined to do as much for himself as possible, getting an aching wrist sorted is going to be significantly more life improving than it will for most.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
What a thorny thicket this all is.

When Ah wor a lad of six, a friend's father became a Christian as the result of not being injured (or killed) in the Lewisham train crash of 4th December 1957. Even at that early age, I dared to wonder why God had not spared the 90 killed and 109 injured...
Which is probably why Christianity went into gradual, but steady decline since the Great War.
A storm of lead and metal shards whizzing in every direction, takes out some and not others was more a promotion of the theory of randomness as opposed to divine intervention.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
I beginning to wonder if this thread is about the rights and wrongs of giving thanks to God or shouting shit on FB.

The two are, in every conceivable way, quite different.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Good point.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
I think they are related. At least in the way people think about miracles.
OK, from the outside, old timey Jesus-type miracles make sense from a recruitment standpoint. A solid demonstration of the divine.
But the modern miracles, assisted by or done through, medicines do not resonate as rational.
If they are true miracles, God has a preference for rich, white people.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Goldfish Stew:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
In that sense I can totally understand busted up back guy being thankful that at least his wrist works enough so that he can go back to charcoal sketching while he is waiting for the rest of him to heal, or whatever.
Actually more pertinently (and I recognised this at the time) for someone who used crutches to get around and was determined to do as much for himself as possible, getting an aching wrist sorted is going to be significantly more life improving than it will for most.
I have a friend with a false leg, who I have known since we were around fourteen years old.

During one Bible study, the Pastor asked us to go around the circle and say which two items we'd take on a desert island. We all went around saying, "Oooh, my Bible! My confirmation cross! My copy of "Mere Christianiy" ( that was me.)

Dave said, "My leg and my contact lenses,"which kind of toned us all down.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which is probably why Christianity went into gradual, but steady decline since the Great War.
A storm of lead and metal shards whizzing in every direction, takes out some and not others was more a promotion of the theory of randomness as opposed to divine intervention.
But strangely not after the Crimean war. Or the Napoleonic wars. Or the English or American civil wars. This seems almost as selective an attempt at correlation as the prayer and healing gig.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which is probably why Christianity went into gradual, but steady decline since the Great War.
A storm of lead and metal shards whizzing in every direction, takes out some and not others was more a promotion of the theory of randomness as opposed to divine intervention.
But strangely not after the Crimean war. Or the Napoleonic wars. Or the English or American civil wars. This seems almost as selective an attempt at correlation as the prayer and healing gig.
The working class were growing up fast by WWI, which was the end of their infantilization. An unintended consequence of capitalism. The decline was well under way by the time of the Chartists at least, in the Napoleonic era in fact. Deference took a long time dying, WWI killed it off, although they went off to war on a tide of patriotic fervour, unquestioning infantilism, that had gone by the time of 'victory', which wasn't even fully characterized as such being an armistice. The German army withdrew in good order and Germany wasn't occupied. Another example of how not to win a war. Sorry, thought this was the Pacifism thread!
 
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :
 
This is a great thread. I liked skimming through it and focus reading different debates and new approaches. I read and read and read and read and now at the end I feel a need to post.

I'm looking at you all with brimming eyes. [Axe murder]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Which is probably why Christianity went into gradual, but steady decline since the Great War.
A storm of lead and metal shards whizzing in every direction, takes out some and not others was more a promotion of the theory of randomness as opposed to divine intervention.
But strangely not after the Crimean war. Or the Napoleonic wars. Or the English or American civil wars. This seems almost as selective an attempt at correlation as the prayer and healing gig.
Very good point. I think that the working class mainly stopped going to church about 1800, didn't they? The middle classes carried on, no doubt buoyed up by a tidal wave of respectability.

I remember my grandad, who had been in WWI, and when he got going about padres and clerics, he would go dangerously red in the face, and the language became fruity. But I don't think that the war was the lever. It was a culmination of different stuff.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Very good point. I think that the working class mainly stopped going to church about 1800, didn't they? The middle classes carried on, no doubt buoyed up by a tidal wave of respectability.
Erm, no not quite. In South Wales there was intense chapel-building in the mid 19 century in the coal-mining areas and there was much religiosity upto the early 20th century "Welsh revival".

I believe similar things happened in other parts, primarily focussed on the religiosity of the working classes and including workers from factories, mines and other workplaces. I don't think there is any evidence at all that working class Christianity died in 1800 in the UK.

quote:
I remember my grandad, who had been in WWI, and when he got going about padres and clerics, he would go dangerously red in the face, and the language became fruity. But I don't think that the war was the lever. It was a culmination of different stuff.
I believe there were several important cultural differences between WW1 and the Boer wars (1890s) and other conflicts in the 19 century.

For one thing, the number of casualties and the length of time the conflict went on. In contrast to WW1, The Battle of Waterloo of 1815 went on for a single day and the casualties of the other skirmishes in that period were nothing like those lost in WW1.

Second, the nineteeth century conflicts were primarily some distance from Blighty (particularly the Boer war) and was fought by professional soldiers. So there was limited personal impact on the "man in the pew".

Third I think WW1 came at a particular turning point for religion in the UK, a generation after the great Welsh revivals and decades after the peaks of church and chapel attendance.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Hang on, who said that working class church attendance 'died'? Not me. Straw man.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Hang on, who said that working class church attendance 'died'? Not me. Straw man.
So what did you mean by "I think that the working class mainly stopped going to church about 1800, didn't they?"

Answer - no.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It means that church attendance was low among working class people. That doesn't mean 'died'.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
It's rubbish. The majority of the expansion in Methodism throughout the 19 century was in the working classes.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It's rubbish. The majority of the expansion in Methodism throughout the 19 century was in the working classes.
Yeah, I'm just making the point that you misrepresented me.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
I don't understand the difference, but OK, I didn't quote you directly.

But the point you appear to be making - a reduction in working-class attendance at church from 1800 due to the increasing middle-class make-up of the congregation which had some (mysterious to me) impact on the way that WW1 was understood in contrast to the Boer War - appears to be little more than a point of rhetoric.

It's wrong - there were mass movements of Christianity amongst the working classes in the 19 century. What's that got to do with the religiosity in WW1 anyway?
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Would it be fair to say that the working class, like the slaves and former slaves in the US and Caribbean, melded religious aspiration with emancipation, until secular education and politics made religion less relevant, detached it from life?
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Would it be fair to say that the working class, like the slaves and former slaves in the US and Caribbean, melded religious aspiration with emancipation, until secular education and politics made religion less relevant, detached it from life?
Well I think the notion of "Methodist" (sometimes Evangelical) Uplift is a real thing, and did indeed have the effect of aspiring to more middle-class respectability for congregations. Here in the Welsh valleys that took the form of support for co-operatives, unionisation, education and moral teaching. It is quite hard to separate out the impact of the chapel from those things - and at some points the church/chapel is the major source of any education for children.

Bringing this back round to the topic of the OP, I suppose one might wonder about the extent to which an individual who has experienced life change as a result of improvements encouraged by church might ascribe that to God. On the one hand one might argue that there isn't much relation. On the other hand, maybe there would have been no improvement in these things if the churches had not been inspired to push and look for it in working people.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
Any blessing received whether a healing or good news is IMHO meant to be a blessing for others. Sight regained is given so one might see the plight of others,hearing regained is given so one might hear the cries of others in need.

I am reminded of Paul's teaching on spiritual gifts as appropriate, gifts given by God is meant to build up the community.
 
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Would it be fair to say that the working class, like the slaves and former slaves in the US and Caribbean, melded religious aspiration with emancipation, until secular education and politics made religion less relevant, detached it from life?
Religion is still very relevant to political life among many, many—most, in this part of the country—African Americans.
 
Posted by Russ (# 120) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Any blessing received whether a healing or good news is IMHO meant to be a blessing for others.
I would share Boogie's disquiet about thanking God in the case of competitive sport, where one person thanking God for their victory is a claim that God is acting for the defeat of others.

But in the case of diseases and disorders, should not one person's cure be a sign of hope for others ?

Maybe the problem here lies in seeing life as essentially competitive ? That one person's good takes away from other people ? That life is a zero-sum game and sharing out the fixed supply of goodies is what it's all about ?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:


…... in the case of diseases and disorders, should not one person's cure be a sign of hope for others ?

Maybe the problem here lies in seeing life as essentially competitive ? That one person's good takes away from other people ? That life is a zero-sum game and sharing out the fixed supply of goodies is what it's all about ?
It does seem to depend upon our mindset.

We might stand near to a wonderful fountain, hoping that the water will touch us, happy that others have benefitted from it.

We might resent it that others have benefitted from it but that we haven't, and so rail against it.

We might think it a waste of time as we've tried several times to draw near, but it never seems to reach us.

We might prefer those who benefit to keep quiet about it, so as not to disappoint those who haven't, rather than to share the good news.

We might disbelieve that anyone has known its benefit.

And as you said, we might think that there's only so much to go around and we must compete for it, whether or not it disadvantages other people.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I think it's often easier to suffer yourself than to see others suffer.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I would share Boogie's disquiet about thanking God in the case of competitive sport, where one person thanking God for their victory is a claim that God is acting for the defeat of others.
Thanking God is not necessarily a claim that God intervened to ensure victory - that God was responsible for the slip of the fingers and the gust of wind that cost the opponents the game. It could be thankfulness regarding one's abilities and opportunities that have led to that point.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It could be thankfulness regarding one's abilities and opportunities that have led to that point.
And what about those with significant disabilities and/or lack of opportunity? Is it then right for them to curse God?
It seems to me, given the behaviour of some very gifted athletes, much doubt exists that their abilities are Heavenly awards.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
An old argument: the birth of a child is evidence for God; the death of a child is evidence that he is evil. Well, it's not really, in either case.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Thanking God is not necessarily a claim that God intervened to ensure victory - that God was responsible for the slip of the fingers and the gust of wind that cost the opponents the game. It could be thankfulness regarding one's abilities and opportunities that have led to that point.
I think this is conflating two very different things. Being thankful is a general satisfaction/happiness with a certain situation or state of affairs. Thanking someone else implies action and agency on their part and expresses happiness or satisfaction with a situation or state of affairs brought about by that person's actions (or, more rarely, inaction). To go back to the OP, being generally thankful to have your sight back is different (more inwardly directed) than thanking your surgical team for restoring your sight.

So if there's agency in what someone is being thanked for, there's the possibility that they could have done something different. For example, the surgical team could have given your spot in surgery to someone else. Or decided to take the day off. Or done any of a number of other things besides performing this particular surgery on this particular patient. We understand that the abilities of doctors are not limitless and content ourselves with the system in which they operate (in both senses of the term) is generally a fair one.

An omnipotent God doesn't have those limitations. An omnipotent God doesn't have any limitations. Given that thanking someone is also ascribing agency to them, it seems fair to assess their deliberate use of that agency.

This news story came to mind on the subject of thanks and divine agency.

quote:
The pictures coming out of the Gatlinburg, Tennessee, wildfires are just devastating. Acres of woodland blackened. Row upon row of homes and businesses reduced to ashes.

But a TV crew with CNN affiliate WVLT spotted something of a miracle amid all that destruction. On Wednesday, reporter Kelsey Leyrer and her team captured footage of what they saw at a house out in Sevier County. It was a statue of Jesus -- covered with soot and ashes, but still standing. It was the only thing left after the home burned to the ground.
Some are taking this as a sign of divine intervention. If people are going to assign this to deliberate action on God's part, it seems only fair to ask about God letting everyone's homes and workplaces be burnt, 14 people killed (so far), and He steps in to save a statue of Himself?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It could be thankfulness regarding one's abilities and opportunities that have led to that point.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And what about those with significant disabilities and/or lack of opportunity? Is it then right for them to curse God?
No. I can be thankful to my parents for the opportunities they gave me without cursing them for those they denied me.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So if there's agency in what someone is being thanked for, there's the possibility that they could have done something different. For example, the surgical team could have given your spot in surgery to someone else. Or decided to take the day off. Or done any of a number of other things besides performing this particular surgery on this particular patient.
I once heard a patient explain, logically, that there was no need to thank a particular doctor who was simply doing his job.

The surgical team were paid to be available at that point, and didn't select the patient to treat out of whim, or any particular fondness for the patient, but because they were in the queue, it was their turn, and they met certain criteria.

Does their lack of agency diminish our thankfulness to them?
 
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I think this is conflating two very different things. Being thankful is a general satisfaction/happiness with a certain situation or state of affairs. Thanking someone else implies action and agency on their part and expresses happiness or satisfaction with a situation or state of affairs brought about by that person's actions (or, more rarely, inaction). To go back to the OP, being generally thankful to have your sight back is different (more inwardly directed) than thanking your surgical team for restoring your sight.
I think that when talking about God, at least as described in classical theism, the distinction breaks down. If you're talking about an entity that is (allegedly) outside of time and fundamentally responsible for the ongoing existence of everything else, applying the word 'agency' to it is stretching the category. (In line with the general principle that applying any word to God is stretching a category.)
To be thankful to God is within classical theism very much like being thankful to nobody in particular.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0