T
- Status
L
Leela
Guest
I don’t expect new body parts to be created. I doubt that that is possible just as I doubt that God chooses to occasionally cure diseases.
I don’t know what you mean by “Can you imagine what would happen if that occurred?”
The Thing That Explains The Things For Which There Is No Known Explanation is not an explanation. It is just a name for our current ignorance.
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
Leela
Guest
I thought that is what all miracles were supposed to be?
You still haven’t explained why so-called miracles are never so dramatic and obvious as a human being instantly growing a new limb. What are the unthinkable consequences you keep talking about?
I asked, “why doesn’t God ever heal amputees?” and you responded “A COMPLETELY NEW LEG? Can you imagine what would happen if that occurred? I leave it to your imagination. If you cannot I shall tell you in my next post…”
Why would a new leg be any harder for God to do than curing someone of a disease?
I just don’t want to pretend to know things that I don’t actually know.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Nothing is difficult for God, but the amount of faith required for the person involved is most likely greater. One can more easily have the faith that they will be cured of a disease that they aren’t even completely convinced that they have (despite medical testimony) than the faith that an entire limb, which is obviously missing, will grow back. Not that it couldn’t happen - I have heard stories of little children growing back fingers that were cut off by the lawn mower, etc. - most of these kids were under the age of three, though, and had no way of knowing that such things are impossible - so they were able to have the faith that it could happen.
God does not do anything without our faith. Not that He couldn’t (since He created all that is seen and unseen before we even existed) but out of consideration for us, I think.
That’s a good starting place.
T
tonyrey
Guest
L
Leela
Guest
This is such a strange argument. You are saying that God deliberately only does miracles that are ambiguous because if he actually gave us good reason to believe it would destroy our free will? And then I suppose you still hold that nonbelievers will be damned for their lack of belief on deliberately insufficient evidence?
You should talk to WPS and some others around here who believe that we already have conclusive proofs of God’s existence.
Best,
Leela
T
tonyrey
Guest
New scientific discoveries often seem strange but that does mean they are not genuine!
No. It would not destroy our free will but it would make it almost impossible not to believe that a benevolent Power exists and constantly intervenes in our lives. It would be like having Big Brother observing our every single thought, decision and action at every moment of the day and night. Can’t you imagine what it would be like? Hell!
That is a distortion of Christianity. If you choose hell it is because you prefer to believe what suits you, to be your own boss, have everything your own way, owe allegiance to no one and to hell with everyone else!
There is overwhelming evidence but it is not coercive. Otherwise there would be no point in giving us free will, would there? The only love we would be capable of would be cupboard love… and I don’t think you would be satisfied with that!
B
Betterave
Guest
**This (above and below) **is again nothing more than wishful thinking on your part. If it’s not, please tell me: what other justificatory practice are you using to justify your making such apparently absurd claims?
(Non sequitur?? How so?) I think you are seriously mistaken. I don’t *wish *in the least that they were like our practices today. I *know * that they are similar in some respects and dissimilar in others. Anyone who has bothered to read a decent study Bible even a little knows that. You, it seems, wish that we didn’t know things like this; then you wouldn’t have to bother with actually learning the truth - your skeptical armchair speculations would be just as justified as real scholarship and actual learning; however, in reality, they’re not!
L
Leela
Guest
If your assertions could be “justified as real scholarship and actual learning” acording to our modern standards of justification and if it were believed that the assertions about science and history made in the Bible were thought to have been justified in the first century according to the standards we apply today to justify such assertions then they would be included as historical and scientific knowledge and asserted and justified within university science and history departments instead of relegated to separate “divinity schools.” If we actually had good reason to accept the gospel accounts at face value, it would also not be so widely believed among believers that these gospel accounts must be taken on faith.
Best,
Leela
L
Leela
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
I’m afraid you are mistaken, Leela. The significant difference is that the damned choose to be alienated from their Father and loved ones in order to have **absolute power **to exist as they choose without recognising any authority but themselves - in a word to be like gods: “Hallowed be my name, Let my will be done, let my kingdom come in hell!” In this world we see how the lust for power destroys people and makes them inhuman…
L
Leela
Guest
I’ve been trying to get you to shed some light on your assertion that it is reasonable to expect miracles of the sort where a disease gets unexplainably cured but unreasponable to expect miracles such as the healing of an amputee. Your response is so strange to me. You seem to be saying that God would not choose to heal an amputee because it would make God’s existence too obvious. At least your position is consistent with the gospel of Mark. I’m reminded of these verses:
Mark 4:10-12
And when he(Jesus) was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.
Why would Jesus have wanted to disguise the truth so that people would not understand them and be converted?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is absurd to believe Jesus came to disguise the truth. What did He say to Pilate when His life depended on what he said?
“For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, hears my voice.”
You don’t realise you are quoting a quotation by Jesus from Isaiah - who predicted the coming of the Messiah! It is followed by the parable of the sower in which He explains why He spoke in parables. If people are not willing to accept the truth they will find any excuse to reject it whereas those who sincerely **seek **it will accept it. Elsewhere He told us not to cast pearls before swine. The significance of this is that the Sanhedrin used His own teaching to denounce Him before Pilate as a revolutionary claiming to be a king. Can you understand why He did not always speak openly when He foresaw that it would lead to His scourging, crucifixion and death? It would have resulted in a premature end to His mission on earth…
L
Leela
Guest
That justification for not speaking only would make sense, but it was not the justification that was actually offered by Jesus: “all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”
Jesus did not say that he needed to speak in terms that were difficult to understand to avoid perseculation. He says that he used parables deliberately so that people would not be converted and forgiven of their sins.
At any rate, you still haven’t addressed my original question about why it is so absurd to wonder why amputees never get miraculously healed.
Best,
Leela
D
donsnow
Guest
Hi, Leela,
I have a scriptural answer that may bear on your question about why amputees aren’t healed.
Jesus said, “It is better to enter the kingdom lame, than to be cast whole into gehenna.” That’s the only answer I can offer to your hard question.
Regards,
Don
I have a scriptural answer that may bear on your question about why amputees aren’t healed.
Jesus said, “It is better to enter the kingdom lame, than to be cast whole into gehenna.” That’s the only answer I can offer to your hard question.
Regards,
Don
S
Swan
Guest
In answer to your first question, scientists reevaluate based on new data. I don’t think they claim to be absolute. This differs from most religious people who tend to cling to their beliefs regardless on new data, claiming in some cases that Satan is trying to trick them.
Question #2 - I think that most religious people, when confronted with the fact that there are some things they don’t understand, tend to say things like “it’s part of God’s mystery” - but don’t let the questions themselves challenge their faith (Satan again). To me this is a continuation of the “god of the gaps” way of thought.
B
Betterave
Guest
Oh, Leela! What am I going to do with you?
Leela:
B
Betterave
Guest
Most religious people are gap-fillers - there’s a no-brainer! Aren’t we humans all gap-fillers? The question is whether we are being moved by good questions, towards the truth, or by stupid sophomoric objections, that alienate us from the truth. Have you considered that angle, Swan?
S
Swan
Guest
Doesn’t this go back to the old “what is truth?” question? We could round and round with this ad infinitim but my guess is that we aren’t going to agree (and it’s a whole different topic).
Besides, there is a huge difference in admitting you don’t know (me) and claiming that you do (most religious people). I might come up with ideas, things that could be the answer - but I know that’s all they are - I don’t claim to “KNOW” and seek converts to my beliefs. Most religious people do just the opposite. Yet as you pointed out, we are all gap fillers. That’s sort of the point.
- Status