PDA

View Full Version : On the question of "healings"


Valentine One Radar Detector

Eric
06-04-2008, 04:36 PM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .

gail
06-04-2008, 09:51 PM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .


Yes, I do believe that the Lord heals, but not the Benny Hinn kind of healing. And I have been healed at times, and other times just rode out the illness.

Eric
06-05-2008, 07:28 AM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .


Yes, I do believe that the Lord heals, but not the Benny Hinn kind of healing. And I have been healed at times, and other times just rode out the illness.


What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?

TC
06-05-2008, 09:03 AM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .


Yes, I do believe that the Lord heals, but not the Benny Hinn kind of healing. And I have been healed at times, and other times just rode out the illness.


What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?




A good question might be.
When God gave a crab the power to grow another claw, would you not think that he would want something better for the thing that he created in his own image?

Eric
06-05-2008, 09:22 AM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .


Yes, I do believe that the Lord heals, but not the Benny Hinn kind of healing. And I have been healed at times, and other times just rode out the illness.


What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?




A good question might be.
When God gave a crab the power to grow another claw, would you not think that he would want something better for the thing that he created in his own image?


Yep!

The whole thing's silly - and tragic - in equal measure.

Those TV evangelists who promise to heal cancer patients, AIDs sufferers and so on should be frog marched to the closest ass-raping prison and left to rot.

Maybe God will answer their prayers - and deliver them.....

gail
06-09-2008, 08:26 PM
Do any of you believe that God sometimes "heals" people afflicted with diseases, physical problems and so on?

If so, I have a question for you... .


Yes, I do believe that the Lord heals, but not the Benny Hinn kind of healing. And I have been healed at times, and other times just rode out the illness.


What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?



Very interesting observation. I don't know of anyone that has grown a new limb, but I've heard of those who by some miracle never lost a limb. It is obvious that the Lord does not heal everyone, every time -- not even those praying and believing. This is the test of faith.

The doctors told me when I had Polio that I would never walk again, but I did. The doctors didn't know about the damage in my spine, but I wasn't suppose to be having the problems that I'm having now, but I don't mourn my limitation knowing that I could have been limited from the time I was 19-yrs old.

Prayer and healing is a very private thing, between the person and God -- not a mockery before cameras. I would liken the latter to the money changers in the temple of old.

14 And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
15 And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
16 And said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house an house of merchandise.

(New Testament | John 2:14 - 16)

Eric
06-09-2008, 08:38 PM
"Very interesting observation. I don't know of anyone that has grown a new limb, but I've heard of those who by some miracle never lost a limb. It is obvious that the Lord does not heal everyone, every time -- not even those praying and believing. This is the test of faith."

To me, it's just obvious evidence that the whole "healing miracles" thing is a scam. People are morons. There will be a plane crash; one person will survive and say, "God performed a miracle!" But they never say a thing about the other people who didn't get their miracle.

When bullshit is not possible - as in the case of amputees - there's never, ever, a healing. Ought to tell you something....

gail
06-09-2008, 09:02 PM
"Very interesting observation. I don't know of anyone that has grown a new limb, but I've heard of those who by some miracle never lost a limb. It is obvious that the Lord does not heal everyone, every time -- not even those praying and believing. This is the test of faith."

To me, it's just obvious evidence that the whole "healing miracles" thing is a scam. People are morons. There will be a plane crash; one person will survive and say, "God performed a miracle!" But they never say a thing about the other people who didn't get their miracle.

When bullshit is not possible - as in the case of amputees - there's never, ever, a healing. Ought to tell you something....



You say these things, Eric, because you don't understand our real purpose here on earth.

Eric
06-09-2008, 09:47 PM
"You say these things, Eric, because you don't understand our real purpose here on earth."

Oh please! And you do? Because you've imbibed a bunch of half-wit BS purveyed by a long-dead con man and his heirs?

Here's a newsflash:

None of us - not one of us - knows a thing about god (or gods) whether he/she/it/them exists, what their nature is, or their "plan," if any... . We can guess, we can intuit; we can make all kinds of assertions. But we do not know anything. Not one single thing.

As for our "real purpose" - it is whatever we decide to make of our lives; that's it. Anything you say beyond that is pure balderdash.

ColleenC2
06-10-2008, 01:03 AM
What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?

I don't know about your question, however, according to the medical books, I am a "miracle", but I never went to any "preacher" for healing I was diagnosed at age 29 with malignant melanoma clarks level 4, it is generally considered the final and lethal stage of the 2nd fastest moving cancer. I was treated at the City of Hope in Durate, California and ALL of the Doctors and Nurses called me a walking miracle. 20 years later I went back for another problem and the Doctors and Nurses still called me a walking miracle.

I had a 6 week old baby girl and a 2 1/2 year old little boy. I prayed to God and asked him to spare my life. Today I consider it a "miracle" to be alive. Whether one wants to call it a "healing" or a "miracle" I don't really care, my baby girl is now 26 years old and my little boy is 29 and I have enjoyed every minute of the life I was given back to spend it being with my children and participating in every moment of their growth.

some things you go through, one just cannot find the words to explain it.

It is like trying to describe what chocolate tastes like to someone who has never tasted chocolate or doesn't even know what it is.

Eric
06-10-2008, 05:37 AM
What's interesting is that those who believe in healing never seem to notice that God never heals obvious physical conditions where fakery is impossible; for example, amputees. Does God have something against the legless and armless? Why is it that stumps never regrow by the power of prayer?

I don't know about your question, however, according to the medical books, I am a "miracle", but I never went to any "preacher" for healing I was diagnosed at age 29 with malignant melanoma clarks level 4, it is generally considered the final and lethal stage of the 2nd fastest moving cancer. I was treated at the City of Hope in Durate, California and ALL of the Doctors and Nurses called me a walking miracle. 20 years later I went back for another problem and the Doctors and Nurses still called me a walking miracle.

I had a 6 week old baby girl and a 2 1/2 year old little boy. I prayed to God and asked him to spare my life. Today I consider it a "miracle" to be alive. Whether one wants to call it a "healing" or a "miracle" I don't really care, my baby girl is now 26 years old and my little boy is 29 and I have enjoyed every minute of the life I was given back to spend it being with my children and participating in every moment of their growth.

some things you go through, one just cannot find the words to explain it.

It is like trying to describe what chocolate tastes like to someone who has never tasted chocolate or doesn't even know what it is.




All that is wonderful - but it amounts to luck, not divine intervention.

And of course, situations such as this beg the question: How come this miracle-granting diety (if we assume that he/she/it/they "does miracles," for the sake of discussion) also allowed you to get the cancer, etc., to begin with?

ColleenC2
06-10-2008, 10:21 AM
How come this miracle-granting diety (if we assume that he/she/it/they "does miracles," for the sake of discussion) also allowed you to get the cancer, etc., to begin with?

Well what better way for God to "confound the wisdom of man,"

Eric
06-10-2008, 10:32 AM
How come this miracle-granting diety (if we assume that he/she/it/they "does miracles," for the sake of discussion) also allowed you to get the cancer, etc., to begin with?

Well what better way for God to "confound the wisdom of man,"


That has always struck me as obfuscating BS. It turns common sense and rationality inside out. Instead of saying, "that is inexplicable, or contradictory," the religious apologist will try to argue that the less something makes sense - and the more contradictory it is to common sense - the more it is evidence of some inscrutable "divine plan."

This is just one reason why I don't "buy" any religious doctrine.

ColleenC2
06-10-2008, 12:19 PM
If you built a car and only you knew what you put into it to make it work (you were the designer), wouldn't you expect anyone who drove your car to come to you when they had a problem, or wouldn't you write a manual so someone who owned your car could read it to help them out with the vehicle (what they needed to do to keep it working at optimal performance).

If that person came to you after doing all they could to fix the problem but still had no luck, and you fixed it for them, wouldn't they call y ou a miracle worker.

Many people tried and copied your original plans for your vehicle and made very decent cars yet none compared wtih the "first" the original, wouldn't you still have the right to claim the ownership and knowledge of that car work and how it worked?

extrapolate that to the creator of the heavens and earth, extrapolate that to the creator of all life forms

Eric
06-10-2008, 12:43 PM
"If you built a car and only you knew what you put into it to make it work (you were the designer), wouldn't you expect anyone who drove your car to come to you when they had a problem, or wouldn't you write a manual so someone who owned your car could read it to help them out with the vehicle (what they needed to do to keep it working at optimal performance)."


Another evasion. The Bible (and other "holy" books) is hardly a manual for anything; rather it is a hodgepodge of Bronze Age tales, superstition and injunction, salted with moral teachings both vague and specific - and good and bad.

Unlike a repair manual or engineering text, no one can say - definitively, on the basis of provable facts - what it means. Not even in principle. It is subject to endless, open-ended speculation....

"If that person came to you after doing all they could to fix the problem but still had no luck, and you fixed it for them, wouldn't they call y ou a miracle worker."

Not in anything like the sense that religious people use that term. Please. It's a figure of speech in your example. No one would literally ascribe the fixed car to the miraculous.

"extrapolate that to the creator of the heavens and earth, extrapolate that to the creator of all life forms"

An enormous - and unlikely - jump.

A car manual contains highly specific, highly detailed instructions and info that may be difficult to understand for the non-mechanic but the key difference is they are understandable in principle - and on a factual basis, unlike the gratuitous assertions and vague generalizations of the bible that must be accepted on the basis of blind deference to authority. No one says, for example, that the spark plug gap must be set at .45 of an inch "just because." There is a very specific reason - which can be shown/demonstrated factually in a way that proves that any tighter or wider gap would be objectively wrong. No appeals to authority or "faith" are needed. It's a simple question of facts.

A car repair manual is qualitatively different than the supposed "holy books" because the information is factual and it does, indeed, make sense.

Not in the wishful thinking religious sense, either. But in fact, in reality.

No "interpretation," no parsing. No appeals to the Great Motor God.

It's not open for debate. Opinion and belief are irrelevant. A crank bearing goes only one way; the firing order is thus and so.

ColleenC2
06-10-2008, 01:18 PM
I do appreciate your take on the argument, and yes I agree that a " car manual contains highly specific, highly detailed instructions and info that may be difficult to understand for the non-mechanic but the key difference is they are understandable in principle - and on a factual basis,"

But I would agrue that the Bible is "understandable in principle and on a factual basis", if one studies auto mechanics and uses all the available information out there to understand the workings of a vehicle than one can be considered an "expert".

If one just picks up "here and there" a book on auto mechanics one perhaps can learn about the basics and even argue the validity of the principles on a factual basis but at some point they become ignorant to those who are "experts" since they cannot get beyond the basics.

Likewise many people claim to have "knowledge" of the Bible and its teachings without any "formal" knowledge to what they are talking about such as: " it is a hodgepodge of Bronze Age tales, superstition and injunction, salted with moral teachings both vague and specific - and good and bad."

Eric
06-10-2008, 03:51 PM
"But I would agrue that the Bible is "understandable in principle and on a factual basis"...

Demonstrably false ( beyond certain historical points). But on theological assertions, there is no definitive proof; nothing that shows, without question, that (for example) Jesus "died for our sins" or that anything whatsoever asserted about the nature of god is anything more than an assertion - which you can believe (or not) as you like, but which is not something you or I or anyone can claim to "know."

ColleenC2
06-10-2008, 05:13 PM
Demonstrably false ( beyond certain historical points).

An interesting point to agree, since the historical probability should be the basis that all "Christians" rest their faith

As Josh McDowell wrote in his book Evidence that Demands a Veridict, "...I had a debate with the head of a philosophy department at a Midwestern University. In answering a question, I happened to mention the importance of the resurrection. At this point, my opponent interrupted and rather sarcastically said, '" Come on McDowell, the key issue is not whether the resurrection took place or not' it is whether you believe it took place?'" What he was hinting at (actually boldly asserting) is that my believing was the most important thing. I retorted immediately, "'Sir, it does not matter what I as a Christian believe, because the value of Christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one believed in, its object.'" I continued that if anyone can demonstrate to me that Christ was not raised fromt the dead, I would not have a justifiable right to my Christian faith."

John Warwick Montgomery writes: "If our 'Christ of faith' deviates at all from the biblical 'Jesus of history, then to the extent of that deviation, we also lose the genuine Christ of faith.

And one of the greatest historians of our time Herbert Butterfield has put it: "It would be a dangerous error to imagine that the characteristics of an historical religion would be maintained if the Christ of theologians were divorced from the 'Jesus of History'

In other words, one must avoid the attitude, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" For the Christian, the historical evidence are essential.

Eric
06-10-2008, 06:20 PM
Demonstrably false ( beyond certain historical points).

An interesting point to agree, since the historical probability should be the basis that all "Christians" rest their faith

As Josh McDowell wrote in his book Evidence that Demands a Veridict, "...I had a debate with the head of a philosophy department at a Midwestern University. In answering a question, I happened to mention the importance of the resurrection. At this point, my opponent interrupted and rather sarcastically said, '" Come on McDowell, the key issue is not whether the resurrection took place or not' it is whether you believe it took place?'" What he was hinting at (actually boldly asserting) is that my believing was the most important thing. I retorted immediately, "'Sir, it does not matter what I as a Christian believe, because the value of Christian faith is not in the one believing, but in the one believed in, its object.'" I continued that if anyone can demonstrate to me that Christ was not raised fromt the dead, I would not have a justifiable right to my Christian faith."

John Warwick Montgomery writes: "If our 'Christ of faith' deviates at all from the biblical 'Jesus of history, then to the extent of that deviation, we also lose the genuine Christ of faith.

And one of the greatest historians of our time Herbert Butterfield has put it: "It would be a dangerous error to imagine that the characteristics of an historical religion would be maintained if the Christ of theologians were divorced from the 'Jesus of History'

In other words, one must avoid the attitude, "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!" For the Christian, the historical evidence are essential.


I have no doubt that a man named Jesus lived; but that he rose from the dead?

The only evidence of this is the testimony of Christians. There is no corroboration in the secular history of the time (yet there is corroboration for other aspects of Jesus' mortal life, such as the Roman record of his interaction with Pilate). The bible also claims that others were resurrected; that graves opened up and the dead returned to life. It's interesting that this part of the bible is routinely ignored. Because of course, there is no evidence for that, either. And surely if the dead came to life, the Roman/secular authorities would have taken notice; someone (other than a bible writer) would have mentioned it, eh?

The fact is there's no more reason to believe in the resurrection of Jesus than in the golden plates of mormonism - or the curse of the mummy, for that matter.

ColleenC2
06-11-2008, 02:06 PM
The only evidence of this is the testimony of Christians. There is no corroboration in the secular history of the time (yet there is corroboration for other aspects of Jesus' mortal life, such as the Roman record of his interaction with Pilate).

Well, first off this is just plain not true. Second, it will take me some time to type the evidence, but as I did before regarding the historical probablity of the "other aspects of Jesus' mortal life, I will write the documentation of the historical evidence regarding the resurrection. Both secular and religous.


The bible also claims that others were resurrected; that graves opened up and the dead returned to life. It's interesting that this part of the bible is routinely ignored. Because of course, there is no evidence for that, either.

Are you talking about prophecy because that event has not occured and will not occur until the second coming. Are you talking about Lazarus, which scriptures are you talking about, one cannot make a claim that the Bible talks about this stuff without giving some sort of context.