EPTOn March 19 2009 16:35 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
dont question, just accept jesus christ into your heart as your lord and savior
dont question, just accept jesus christ into your heart as your lord and savior
and into your wallet.
Why won't God heal amputees - Page 6
| Blogs > BackHo |
|
Salv
Canada3083 Posts
and into your wallet. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On March 19 2009 21:54 IdrA wrote: religion is undeniably a problem. the fact that other problems may take its place is not a reason to ignore the existing problem. Religion is very low on the list of reasons why there is conflict in the world. The two biggest contributing factors to a lot of global conflict are a) ignorance and b) selfishness. They are much bigger problems the people in society need to deal with. It is definitely the case that people like the Westborough Baptist church nuts are an obvious problem that the United States needs to deal with, but the simple fact is that you will never be able to take the religion away from that close-knit group of people. You need to remove their ignorance, not their bible. It's very dangerous when people see the world as simply a group of problems that need to be solved, and then we'll all be ok. Inevitably you simply grow more and more problems. People find difference whenever they feel like it. All that needs to be done about religion in developed society is for people to make it more personal, and leave it to themselves. What needs to be done about it in developing societies is mass education and alleviation from the state of ignorance. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
Well played | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On March 19 2009 21:53 IdrA wrote: any idea that can cause people to rally around it is inherently dangerous, however you cannot compare religion and atheism. "fight to the death for god" and "fight to the death for the fact that there is no god" dont carry the same weight. by their very natures there is a massive imbalance there in the potential for inspiring extremism. Well the only difference is that extremists on the religious side would end up killing themselves as well as their enemies. I think a living terrorists continually perpetuating death and destruction is a lot more dangerous than one who blows himself up on a bus. I'm sorry but I don't see things your way. Existentialism in the hands of the wrong person can lead to severe shattering of the safety net of idealism and reality- leading to Charles Manson-esque killings or even worse. There's no way you can say what you say here and be authoritative, it's perfectly plausible to think there is someone out there RIGHT NOW who is thinking 'I hate this virus race of humans spreading itself over the globe and blackening it, and seeing as there is no higher power I will be accountable to, I'll make a dirty bomb and wipe out New York'. It's like: 'fight to the death for god' versus 'kill every human on the planet because their existence means nothing and there is no higher power or judge'. I think such a perverse 'contest' of extremism is ridiculous. On March 19 2009 21:53 IdrA wrote: not really sure what you're talking about for the rest of your post. at first you say that i shouldnt be referencing the bible and then you talk about how theres no way we're letting go of the bible anytime soon? i agree that the bible is a poor reference at best, but as you say its not going anywhere and there are alot of people with alot vested in it, so i see no problem with me referencing quotes from it when we're talking about the behavior of those people. I'm simply saying that you should not bring yourself down to their level by taking the bible literally. I'm also saying the phrase 'let's just throw out the bible' does not work practically, ever. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On March 19 2009 17:03 Marradron wrote: Yes it actually is. I don't believe in god and i consider anyone that does not intelligent enough to make their own opinion and choices. I'm 100% atiest and i like it. Gl living your life in fear of eternal damnation lol. So you're saying that Christians like Francis Collins, someone who helped head the Genome Project, intellectually insufficient? We probably shouldn't believe any work he's done?! On March 19 2009 19:37 KaasZerg wrote: In a eternal quantum universe everything remotely possible happens due to fluctuations in the quantum vacuum. That is asuming the universe is unending. Which most scientists agree it isn't. All this debate over the origins of the universe has little to know bearing on Christianity. I don't see why it's always the topic of discussion. On March 19 2009 21:01 IdrA wrote: "mommy when timmy prayed for his daddy's cancer to go away it worked but when i tried it didnt and now daddy's dead and its all my fault" people can not wish away tumors. telling them they can is cruel in itself, it gives false hope and misplaces trust. how many people have died because they tried some homeopathic bullshit instead of going to a doctor? You're absolutely right. But an omnipotent being could. It's a child, and in your example, he/she obviously thinks he/she was pivotal in his or her father's death. On March 19 2009 20:00 Pioneer wrote: There are a lot of fallacy's in the bible and beliefs of people and considering that the bible's text has been re translated so many times that integral parts of it could be missing or misinterpreted. I also believe that the church exerted some of their own separate beliefs on the writing of the bible over time that many of the ideas in it may not have been the actual ideas of God. This is silly, why would people translate the Bible successively with each translation when they could just translate each edition from the orignal Hebrew/Greek (which is what they actually did)? And because you made that claim, can you give us a source? On March 19 2009 21:42 HamerD wrote: now if THAT were what you had first said, you would have won the thread. I disagree. To make the claim that a god does not exist, you would need to know everything there is to know in the universe (and I guess beyond for the sake of this argument). That would make you omniscent, a quality of a supernatural, making you a god yourself. Thus you would be god, and therefore a god exists. In reponse to the OP, why does God need to heal amputees? This is just some prerequisite mankind put in place in order for a god to exist. And of course this will put people off from Christianity. I think that's one of the beautiful (many will disagree) about Christianity. It isn't a cultural fad; it's one of the only (if not the only) belief system where your salvation isn't dependent on you, where you can be glorified (through good deeds). You can't really brag about anything bring a Christian, and you're going to get a lot of people of don't like you. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:06 o3.power91 wrote: oh im not disagreeing with your logic, if you believe in god then of course youd pray to him.I am a Muslim but not an Islamic scholar or high priest or anything like that so I cannot say 100% for sure. But from what I was taught: God can heal the sick. He just chooses whether or not he does. And who do you think God, if he exists, would rather help: a person who prays for their health while being taken care by a doctor, a person who prays without consulting a doctor, or a person who goes to the doctor but does not pray to God? Of course there are cases when the 3rd type of person i mentioned gets healed. The only explanation for that I have is that God works in mysterious ways. I'll admit I don't know everything about God so I can't explain everything unfortunately  if god has the power to heal the sick how come cases, like amputees, where a cure would be undeniably a miracle, are always ignored? would be a pretty huge coincidence if every amputee ever just happened to be undeserving of gods mercy. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 19 2009 21:56 R3condite wrote: im sorry but i have to say the author of that site is full of logical fallacy and if anything proves God exists more than not... first off the cae w/ Jeanna Giese was an actual example u can't counter prove that by stating something hypothetical... what if God HAS healed an amputee? there are many manyy miracles of God that happen (i've seen some with my own eyes) but they nvr get pressed or go to the media most of the time... nobody bothers i guess what if the ghost who never lies told me that god doesnt exist? what then? and i guess that is partially our fault for not spreading the good news but seriously if u r intelligent, even if you don't believe in God, u cannot possibly believe his logical reason to be bulletproof. even if he gave an actually life example for the amputee counterpoint it would still be on shaky grounds because anyone could still say oh the amputee and the people who prayed for him did not even have faith the size of a mustard seed... im not trying to prove to you God exists because that would possibly be the dumbest thing ever if i could prove God exists then there would be no need for faith and there certain will be no need to be bickering like this all im trying to say is this guy is full of holes and full of himself... no. you claim that miracles happen. the burden of proof is on you. you show a person whos leg grew back. until then his theory is not the one full of holes. | ||
|
HamerD
United Kingdom1922 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:48 Chromyne wrote: I disagree. To make the claim that a god does not exist, you would need to know everything there is to know in the universe (and I guess beyond for the sake of this argument). That would make you omniscent, a quality of a supernatural, making you a god yourself. Thus you would be god, and therefore a god exists. Actually it was a joke about the crap spelling. Supernature is not necessarily the attribute of something omniscient. If something were omniscient, and it were a natural thing, it would be natural and not supernatural. And, like I already said, using logic to prove anything is retarded and what 1st year college philosophy students do. | ||
|
Zozma
United States1626 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:23 HamerD wrote: Religion is very low on the list of reasons why there is conflict in the world. The two biggest contributing factors to a lot of global conflict are a) ignorance and b) selfishness. They are much bigger problems the people in society need to deal with. It is definitely the case that people like the Westborough Baptist church nuts are an obvious problem that the United States needs to deal with, but the simple fact is that you will never be able to take the religion away from that close-knit group of people. You need to remove their ignorance, not their bible. It's very dangerous when people see the world as simply a group of problems that need to be solved, and then we'll all be ok. Inevitably you simply grow more and more problems. People find difference whenever they feel like it. All that needs to be done about religion in developed society is for people to make it more personal, and leave it to themselves. What needs to be done about it in developing societies is mass education and alleviation from the state of ignorance. selfish leaders who use religion to exploit the ignorance of the masses? it is not cut and dry, one cause one result. lots of things generate conflicts, religion is a direct, admitted cause of many of them. its not like muslim extremists are being coy about it. they are not saying 'we blow ourselves up for diverse socio political reasons!'. making religion more personal would be solving the problem of religion. however religion is in its nature something people are going to feel strongly about. if you believe in a religion its pretty fucking important to you. people are not good at keeping something like that to themselves. not that its practical to eradicate religion either, im just saying it is a problem, and the fact that other problems exist does not change that fact. nor am i saying that eliminating religion would make the world all ok. but i fully believe it would make it alot better. | ||
|
o3.power91
Bahrain5288 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:52 IdrA wrote: oh im not disagreeing with your logic, if you believe in god then of course youd pray to him. if god has the power to heal the sick how come cases, like amputees, where a cure would be undeniably a miracle, are always ignored? would be a pretty huge coincidence if every amputee ever just happened to be undeserving of gods mercy. That is a good question. In fact, that was one thing I have always wondered about God. From what I have been taught, people with disabilities, deserving of it or not, serve as examples to healthy people to show them how lucky they are for not being in the same situation or as a warning of what God may do to punish you for your sins. I believe that amputees who are also sinners are given their sickness as punishments for their sins of course. Those who do not deserve the pain however, I believe God will reward for their suffering on the Day of Judgment. I believe that all suffering encountered during our lifetime that is undeserved will be added to our rewards in the next life. Some people also may be believers but have minor sins. If these people get sick, I believe it is a way for God to punish them for these sins so they would be cleaned of these minor sins on the Day of Judgment. This is just my belief. You can choose to believe it or not. | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:55 HamerD wrote: Actually it was a joke about the crap spelling. Supernature is not necessarily the attribute of something omniscient. If something were omniscient, and it were a natural thing, it would be natural and not supernatural. And, like I already said, using logic to prove anything is retarded and what 1st year college philosophy students do. I should have been more clear. I said that omniscience is a property of a god (I mean, you can even find it in dictionary definitions). I have yet to see a natural thing or being that is omniscient, and I don't believe it to be physically possible. Can you provide an example? | ||
NonY
8748 Posts
Check out this page to see many of them and learn a little of their history. | ||
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On March 19 2009 23:11 o3.power91 wrote: That is a good question. In fact, that was one thing I have always wondered about God. From what I have been taught, people with disabilities, deserving of it or not, serve as examples to healthy people to show them how lucky they are for not being in the same situation or as a warning of what God may do to punish you for your sins. I believe that amputees who are also sinners are given their sickness as punishments for their sins of course. Those who do not deserve the pain however, I believe God will reward for their suffering on the Day of Judgment. I believe that all suffering encountered during our lifetime that is undeserved will be added to our rewards in the next life. Some people also may be believers but have minor sins. If these people get sick, I believe it is a way for God to punish them for these sins so they would be cleaned of these minor sins on the Day of Judgment. This is just my belief. You can choose to believe it or not. ![[image loading]](http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a151/tasteless9/shocker.jpg) | ||
|
ninjafetus
United States231 Posts
On March 20 2009 00:12 MyLostTemple wrote: right-click, save | ||
|
Chromyne
Canada561 Posts
On March 20 2009 00:06 Liquid`NonY wrote: Chromyne, Pioneer didn't claim that the Bible has been retranslated successively (although it probably has been by some people here and there). The Bible actually does not have an agreed-upon official translation for each language. But we do have the official original works/manuscripts, and those are in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). This is why you don't rely on, say, an English translation. You go back to the original Greek or Hebrew. Your point is fairly moot. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On March 20 2009 00:21 Chromyne wrote: But we do have the official original works/manuscripts, and those are in Hebrew (Old Testament) and Greek (New Testament). This is why you don't rely on, say, an English translation. You go back to the original Greek or Hebrew. Your point is fairly moot. How can my point be moot? My point was that you claimed Pioneer claimed something that he didn't claim. He wasn't talking about successive translations. It's a relevant fact. About translations: Going back to the original Greek or Hebrew won't solve anything. Nobody's first language is the Greek or Hebrew from that time period. Everyone learns the language(s) of the Bible through translation now. Even those who are raised speaking Greek or Hebrew still need to study Ancient Greek or Classical Hebrew. There are people who can read the originals while thinking completely in the language of the originals but that ability was created from learning the language through translation from whatever language they previously knew. | ||
|
R3condite
Korea (South)1541 Posts
On March 19 2009 22:54 IdrA wrote: what if the ghost who never lies told me that god doesnt exist? what then? no. you claim that miracles happen. the burden of proof is on you. you show a person whos leg grew back. until then his theory is not the one full of holes. im not sure what you are trying to say by claiming ghosts exists (esp one that does not lie?) whether God exists or not the choice is urs to make not mine, i've learned a long time bak that some1 who is set on not believing in God will not be swayed just because of some words by someone he doesn't know. and i never claimed that i saw God healing an amputee and I never will till i see one but the guy who made the website i putting up a hypothetical reason as to why God doesn't exist im not trying to claim that God exists or trying to prove it like i said i'm just saying look at his argument without bias he's not promoting God or proving God's existence yet he has yet to disprove the existence it's baffling that anyone with any sense would listen to a guy like him. if a christian said that guy exists due to a hypothetical reasoning like God COULD HAVE healed an amputee then people would all bash him for being stupid but a nonbeliever does the same thing his argument makes sense? it only makes sense because we r taking into account that it seems highly unlikely that such an event could happen if for example we took another event that is known world wide and has yet to be proven through science then this sort of an argument wouldn't work it's like saying this: God made big bang happen when he said let there be light, have you seen God not make it? no? then God made it. or even better Awesome collision of gases made the big bang happen at a certain point, have you seen this happen? no? then i guess it's impossible that this was how the big bang happened the 2nd argument is essentially what the author of that website using except he's putting God on the spotlight and not science... see? you can't claim something never happened because the event was never seen by anybody that is the equivalent of how a little child sees the world. it's like saying the species we know as of now are the only one in existence because we have yet to see anything that we haven't' categorized... Idra i respect you but please put some thought into your argument and don't try to prove a point by belittling your opponent... | ||
|
Fontong
United States6454 Posts
On March 08 2009 17:34 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: The Pope and God walk into a bar. The Pope goes up to the bartender, and says, "I will have your most holiest of wines." God turns to the Pope + Show Spoiler + and doesnt say anything because he doesnt exist | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
however there is no evidence that an amputee has ever regrown a limb, nor is there any reason to believe it has happened. you do not have to see something happen to believe it happened. however if you believe something happened with absolutely no evidence or support, you are an idiot. there is evidence and support for the big bang. there is none for an amputee regrowing a limb. its also not analogous to undiscovered species. we are aware that we have not searched every habitable place on earth yet, and so we know there are probably species living in the places we havent yet looked, and so it is likely there are undiscovered species. given what we know about human anatomy there is no reason to believe that a limb could regrow, and given that there is no reliable evidence of a legit miracle _EVER HAPPENING_, also no legit evidence of any supernatural being ever having any noticeable effect on the real world, there is no reason for us to believe that a limb could be regrown. if it happens, or there is trustworthy evidence that it has happened before then ill look pretty dumb. i am however, quite confident that that will not happen and until it does you dont have a leg to stand on. unless god grows one for you. when you present arguments like 'well it could happen so you cant say it hasnt' theres not much left to do but belittle you. | ||
| ||
