Amputee Healings?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
281

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]

Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]

Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.[/quote]

Think within the context of what we were discussing. It’ll come to ya.[/quote]

You mean how Catholics use patristic tradition to interpret the bible, that they also used patristic tradition to assemble?[/quote]

We detoured on to the rabbit trail of evolutionism/creationism and it reminded me of how Catholicism has no problem changing its colors in order to adapt to its environment. If God’s Word gets in the way of that adaptation then God’s Word must give way and the scepter of papal supremacy gets haughtily raised.[/quote]

Says the sexual deviant who tries to biblically justify his life. Yes, Catholics are par excellence chameleons. [/quote]

Brother Chris for the WIN![/quote]

Rather, Brother Chris (and his lapdog, MTB) for the…when all else fails in a philosophical debate…get personal.

Chrissy, you and yer pup just lost the argument.[/quote]

Despite our differences, I find Chris to be a knowledgeable and intelligent young man, and I wish the best for him as he goes along on this little journey we call life. You, however, are a dirty old bastard and hypocrite.

282

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:<<< Oh, and in case you’re wondering where I got the idea that men should not have emotions, it was from my father, who was very religious and conservative. He was rather cold and showed little affection for me or my mother because that was the way men should behave. Ironically, it was science, specifically neuroscience, that taught me that it was, in fact, perfectly normal to show love for my wife and child. Otherwise, I too might’ve been cold and distant and may not have had a family.[/quote]I profoundly disagree with your dad. There is nothing more manly than a demonstrably devoted faithful loving husband and father. I have no problem with my emotions. They are part of what makes me human and a man. Emotions make indispensable servants but very despotic and destructive masters.

284

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Rather, Brother Chris (and his lapdog, MTB) for the…when all else fails in a philosophical debate…get personal.

Chrissy, you and yer pup just lost the argument.[/quote]

Oh now, push don’t take it personally. I figured the chameleon thing was just a jab, didn’t know we were throwing hooks here.

285

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Just to make a comment, as a full fledged Catholic. I believe that evolution to be the closest to the truth… [/quote]

Entirely to be expected from a full fledged Catholic. No one practices chameleonism better.[/quote]

Yes, it is entirely expected for a Catholic to search and follow the truth. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accuse me of here by saying I practice chameleonism.[/quote]

Think within the context of what we were discussing. It’ll come to ya.[/quote]

You mean how Catholics use patristic tradition to interpret the bible, that they also used patristic tradition to assemble?[/quote]

We detoured on to the rabbit trail of evolutionism/creationism and it reminded me of how Catholicism has no problem changing its colors in order to adapt to its environment. If God’s Word gets in the way of that adaptation then God’s Word must give way and the scepter of papal supremacy gets haughtily raised.[/quote]

Says the sexual deviant who tries to biblically justify his life. Yes, Catholics are par excellence chameleons. [/quote]

Brother Chris for the WIN![/quote]

I don’t win anything, I was ribbing push because he ribbed me.

286

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Despite our differences, I find Chris to be a knowledgeable and intelligent young man, and I wish the best for him as he goes along on this little journey we call life. You, however, are a dirty old bastard and hypocrite.[/quote]

To be intellectually honest, if Push is a dirty old bastard and a hypocrite, then so am I.

287

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I agree with you wholeheartedly. That’s why I was a bit surprised that he reacted the way he did.[/quote]

Cheer up, chap. I know you’re a loon an all for being a young earth creationist, but I still love you.

288

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]JEATON wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
If it’s not supposed to be a miracle, why do people constantly interpret it as such and use it to support their belief in their god?

And if god doesn’t prove himself through miracles, does nobody find it a little suspect that every single one of these “miracles” can occur spontaneously, while there isn’t a single example of something that would not be possible spontaneously?[/quote]

As I’ve posited before, science can never explain free will/non-determination. It is a) part of the standard copenhagan model of quantum physics and b) is by definition in that model “beyond further explanation” and yet free will would make every human thought and choice a miracle. Science can not explain why the universe is a collapsed wave function-an “observable” and not just a superposition of all mathematical possibilities.

I think the root of your question is not about “miracles”, but about why God allows pain. Maybe I’m wrong here, but let me ask, why would God heal a missing leg?

Why is there pain, and why doesn’t God just show himself beyond any human capacity to doubt seem to be the deeper questions. No?[/quote]

Why would god heal the blind, cure cancer, and perform other miracles that just happen to occur spontaneously, but never, even once, perform miracles with no alternate explanation?[/quote]

I have not read through every post, so this may be covered.

Discussions such as this never lead anywhere because they begin with an erroneous assumption.

I will not address every single miraculous event in the Bible. However, time and time again in the New Testament Christ does not take credit for the miracles that occur. He clearly states that it is the FAITH of the recipient that produces the miraculous result.

Let me repeat this again. It was the believer’s faith in Christ, not Christ himself, that performed the miracle.

As you believe, it shall be done unto you.

Do not blame Christ, blame the amputee if you are intent in assigning blame in this most arbitrary of examples.

Even in the Old Testament, when Moses was leading the Israelites out of Egypt and the Pharaoh’s armies were catching up to them by the edge of the sea, it was not God who split the seas. In the ancient Aramaic translations, when Moses called out to God to save them, God’s response came back something along the lines of “why are you bothering Me?” In other words, it was Moses’s faith in God that split the waters and held them wide for the Isralites to pass through.

[/quote]

So miracles that can be explained through natural means are attributable to a person’s faith, but true miracles that would require supernatural intervention never occur in a controlled, confirmable setting because the person never has enough faith?
[/quote]
Definitely a non sequitur. No. we were primarily discussing miracles of healing. Cases where the sick or lame were our seeking help and came into contact with Christ.

The other is a totally separate category and if discussed, should be done on another thread.

289

It’s not a non sequitur in the slightest. We were discussing the suspicious fact that “miracles”', always have alternate natural explanations, and true miracles, the kind that could only be explained supernaturally, never occur, even once, in a setting that can be reliably verified.

You insinuated that faith is what causes miracles. If faith caused miracles, then people of faith should be able to experience more miracles than can be explained through natural means. If this actually happened, it could be reliably verified and confirmed.

But there’s zero evidence that it does happen. Studies of the effects of believers praying for the health of others show that their recovery is no better than others.

290

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.[/quote]

Most of those ‘letters’ that were rejected were not written at the same time, unless you considered the middle of the second century as the same thing as the first century and early second century…and no scholar don’t. Most of the letters they rejected didn’t cast doubt on their beliefs, the books were exaggerated (Gospel of Peter from 150 A.D) or weren’t used as liturgical readings (Proto-Evangelium of James).[/quote]

What is your explanation for the slew of letters that claimed false facts?[/quote]

You mean the one’s deemed not divine?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Easy, hardly anyone used them in their liturgies and the council’s are guided by the Holy Ghost (I’m sure you’ll not take the latter part as just religious conjecture). [/quote]

What would motivate priests way back in the second century to write false letters that weren’t historically accurate?

291

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Are you saying there was no change whatsoever from birth, then a sudden miraculous change, and that the knees have never reverted in the slightest since then? And how do you know this…based on the kid’s unbiased account? >>>[/quote]Yes. I met him when he was 19. I knew him for over a year before I even found out. Totally normal. He was on the college wrestling team. We invited him over for dinner one night. The discussion turned to miracles actually and how few there were these days (late 80’s).

He opened his covered bible with pockets in it and pulled out pictures of himself as a baby and throughout his childhood until he was nine when he was healed. My eyeballs almost fell out. He looked like an upside down letter T. His knees were on the inside of his legs. He told me that a man at his church (I cannot remember who) came and squatted down in front of him and put his legs up on top of his own thighs.

The man put his hands up by my friends (his name is Jeff) knees. He told Jeff that Jesus was going to make him whole and asked if he believed that. He nodded his head. I don’t remember the exact words, but he told Jeff’s legs to be straight in the name and for the glory of Jesus. Jeff told me there was no sensation good or bad, but he sat there and watched as his legs straightened out. Took one to two seconds. He said strangely he wasn’t even surprised.

What would have convinced you more than the pictures which were clearly him, was this young man himself. Not even you would have accused him a being a liar if you knew him. Like I say. This conversation would be you sniveling about “whatever did this it wasn’t Jesus”. Anything except the truth.

[quote]forlife wrote:<<< Most importantly, why are these miraculous faith healings never replicated in a lab? Surely god could heal someone in a lab where the patient’s history, diagnosis, and condition could be medically confirmed by a professional? >>>[/quote]Har dee har har. See, God is not at all desperate to prove Himself or for you or anyone else to believe Him. He is already plainly self evident everywhere. The problem is you, not Him.
[/quote]

If you’re content to base your beliefs on secondhand stories, go for it. There are muslims, buddhists, mormons, and hindus who do exactly the same thing, and use those stories to support their own beliefs, which contradict yours.

I don’t understand why you can’t see how convenient it is that god is so camera shy that he never reveals himself in reliable settings that can rule out natural causes. I guess I do understand the psychological biases that would lead a person to ignore this, especially since I did so myself for many years. But I also think it’s important to pursue the actual truth, wherever it takes you.

One of my favorite quotes, by T. H. Huxley:

Sit down before fact like a little child, and be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and to whatever abyss Nature leads, or you shall learn nothing.

292

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Can science “explain” wave particle duality? Can God make the photon go through one slit and not the other? Well it went through one, and science is presumably utterly incapable of explaining why.

Can a butterfly flapping its wings cause a hurricane to hit an island? Yes, in fact, but it can never be known that it DID regardless of the completeness of our scientific models.

Miracles are foreordained in the laws of nature. And yet they can be done imminently, because to God their is no “before” and “after”.

[/quote]

We’ll never know everything, although it’s very likely our knowledge of reality will continue to grow over time as we use the scientific method.

You don’t seem to be allowing for the possibility that miracles don’t happen.

[/quote]

Miracles, by your definition might not happen. I am not sure what my definition of miracle is now.

I believe that God turned events in my life that made me angry into the best. Meeting my wife was dependent on what at the age of 13 was what I perceived to be the biggest tragedy. When I see my children, I know in my heart that they were intended to be, and not someone else. I do not believe that I could have been and stayed married to anyone else. I also believe that he gave me a gift that saved me from alcoholism. I tried to quit for about 10 years, and was almost killed at least 3 times, arguably dozens, and after a period of a few months off of it, I had a temptation to drink-which at that point would have meant that I would have drank to the point of unconsciouness. I took a sip, and as hard as I tried I could not swallow. I basically had an “explanable” panic attack which forever removed any desire to drink alcohol. Will be 10 years this summer. For me, that is a miracle, and yet for you that COULD NEVER be defined as a miracle see.[/quote]

I’ve never argued that religious beliefs couldn’t have the positive results you describe. To the contrary, I think they can. However, that doesn’t say anything about the actual validity of those beliefs. Positive thinking, a sense of divine worth, purpose, and structure can be enormously helpful to people, even if the beliefs aren’t based in reality.

Which is why I don’t disparage religion as useless or inevitably harmful. I think it has the potential for both harm and good, but I don’t believe the good it does is unachievable in its absence either.

293

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Concocting a supernatural magical being that knows all and has all power is an unnecessary complication that violates Occam’s Razor.
[/quote]

I see.

I see you have faith in Occam’s Razor.

While certainly a profound concept can list your reasons as to why it should, in essence, be worshiped?[/quote]

Nothing should be worshiped, but science has the right to be respected. Unlike religion, it actually delivers on what it claims to be true. You don’t have to take someone’s word for it, and can conduct the experiment yourself to independently confirm the same results.

294

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.[/quote]

Most of those ‘letters’ that were rejected were not written at the same time, unless you considered the middle of the second century as the same thing as the first century and early second century…and no scholar don’t. Most of the letters they rejected didn’t cast doubt on their beliefs, the books were exaggerated (Gospel of Peter from 150 A.D) or weren’t used as liturgical readings (Proto-Evangelium of James).[/quote]

What is your explanation for the slew of letters that claimed false facts?[/quote]

You mean the one’s deemed not divine?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Easy, hardly anyone used them in their liturgies and the council’s are guided by the Holy Ghost (I’m sure you’ll not take the latter part as just religious conjecture). [/quote]

What would motivate priests way back in the second century to write false letters that weren’t historically accurate?[/quote]

First, this question has accidentally gotten on the wrong path. The canonized scripture was canonized because it was universally used as readings in the daily services, including the Eucharistic service of the church. The new testament books were not selected because they were a complete set of truth, but because they constituted a complete set of church readings except for Revelation which was almost not canonized, nor read in church, but was considered to be in the tradition of one of the 12 apostles.

The other readings were left out of the readings of the church because their source was not universally accepted, and the churches did not universally read them in the daily services. They were basically considered to be propogandizing frauds that were designed to lend support to various heresies like arianism, gnosticism and pheumatomachienism, and in many cases were known to have been credited to Apostles who did not write them. So to specifically answer your question, the motivation/cause would have been ignorance, or attempt at pushing a fraud to support an heretical idea.

In fact the Orthodox/Catholic church that canonized the bible would consider those immediate heresies to be the “falling away”. Many protestants consider the Orthodox/Catholic church to have been the falling away from the church of the Apostles.

Yet of course it is the selecting source of the New Testament.

MOST IMPORTANT, the Gospels and Acts were expressley written, and the rest of the NT was canonized expressely to be the readings of the church services beginning in the first century. Luke probably wrote down Acts to give the church 5 parallel books to the penteteuch.

296

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me.
[/quote]

Even the crucifixion, empty tomb, resurrection, and martyr parts?[/quote]

Like I said, people make up shit all the time. They made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today. And for the same reasons.

Even the Catholic church acknowledges this. They’ve rejected scores of letters written at the same time as the letters they ultimately sanctioned, on the basis of those letters being fraudulent and claiming fictional events that weren’t facts. It’s more than coincidence that the letters they decided to adopt happened to support their particular doctrinal beliefs, while other letters cast doubt on those beliefs.[/quote]

Most of those ‘letters’ that were rejected were not written at the same time, unless you considered the middle of the second century as the same thing as the first century and early second century…and no scholar don’t. Most of the letters they rejected didn’t cast doubt on their beliefs, the books were exaggerated (Gospel of Peter from 150 A.D) or weren’t used as liturgical readings (Proto-Evangelium of James).[/quote]

What is your explanation for the slew of letters that claimed false facts?[/quote]

You mean the one’s deemed not divine?[/quote]

Yes.[/quote]

Easy, hardly anyone used them in their liturgies and the council’s are guided by the Holy Ghost (I’m sure you’ll not take the latter part as just religious conjecture). [/quote]

What would motivate priests way back in the second century to write false letters that weren’t historically accurate?[/quote]

First, this question has accidentally gotten on the wrong path. The canonized scripture was canonized because it was universally used as readings in the daily services, including the Eucharistic service of the church. The new testament books were not selected because they were a complete set of truth, but because they constituted a complete set of church readings except for Revelation which was almost not canonized, nor read in church, but was considered to be in the tradition of one of the 12 apostles.

The other readings were left out of the readings of the church because their source was not universally accepted, and the churches did not universally read them in the daily services. They were basically considered to be propogandizing frauds that were designed to lend support to various heresies like arianism, gnosticism and pheumatomachienism, and in many cases were known to have been credited to Apostles who did not write them. So to specifically answer your question, the motivation/cause would have been ignorance, or attempt at pushing a fraud to support an heretical idea.[/quote]

Bingo.

In other words, people made up shit 2,000 years ago just like they make up shit today.

Just because it’s scrawled on a scroll of ancient papyrus doesn’t make it any more real than something you read on the Internet today.

Ignorance, fraud, the desire for power or wealth, and self-deception motivate people to claim things that didn’t actually happen. There were priests that falsely attributed saying or acts to a man named Jesus back then just like there are priests that do the same today. And the fraud isn’t limited to Christianity…you will find it in the holy books of all religions.

Which is why anything written in the letters chosen to represent the bible, or any other holy book, are suspect to say the least.

299

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

…Which is why I don’t disparage religion as useless or inevitably harmful…[/quote]

LOL

Good grief.

Holy smokes.

Good golly, Miss Molly.

Da bullshit iz gittin deep in here.[/quote]

Kindly stop telling me what I believe, or GTFO.

I’ve said many times that religion can help people, and do a lot of good. Just because I disagree that religious beliefs reflect reality doesn’t mean I see no value in those beliefs.

Maybe the idea is a little complex for you, but keep pondering and maybe you’ll figure it out.

300

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

Nothing should be worshiped, but science has the right to be respected. Unlike religion, it actually delivers on what it claims to be true. You don’t have to take someone’s word for it, and can conduct the experiment yourself to independently confirm the same results.
[/quote]

What foolishness, aka faith in this instance, to implicitly ascribe infallibility to science. You have much to learn, grasshopper.[/quote]

I never said science is infallible. I did say science can support its claims, and that you can independently replicate the evidence for those claims without needing to depend on the word of others.