This is the is the information that has always been out there, and this is based on whatever health care that was available in AFRICA, on almost entirely AFRICAN poor.
Posted on 09/04/2014 6:53:59 PM PDT by Kartographer
>>As we know, they both lived, and will hopefully continue their good work, in some fashion.
In everyone’s defense, who knew that Ebola is now curable and survivable? Up until this past month, the government had always promoted the story that Ebola is not only 99% fatal, but that it spreads like wildfire. They’ve warned us for 25 years that a single case of Ebola flying into the US would be a doomsday scenario.
Then, all of a sudden, it’s nothing.
This is the is the information that has always been out there, and this is based on whatever health care that was available in AFRICA, on almost entirely AFRICAN poor.
>>This is the is the information that has always been out there, and this is based on whatever health care that was available in AFRICA, on almost entirely AFRICAN poor.
If you knew this prior to last month, then you must be a Master of Trivia, or you work in the field of infectious diseases.
The other 99.9% of us don’t go to the internet, randomly asking Google, “Is Ebola still fatal?” :-)
Yes, I was posting that more than a month ago, but Ebola has been around since 1976.
Ebola and the news isn’t brand new, and American labs have obviously been working it for many years
Here is a mention of our involvement for decades.
“Army Colonel James Cummings, a doctor and director of the Global Emerging Infections Surveillance and Response System in the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Center, said the battle against the virus since the outbreak began in West Africa in March focuses on trying to stop disease transmission.
“We had a large footprint in Africa,” Cummings said of the Defense Department’s response to the first Ebola cases reported in 1976 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, formerly Zaire. Since that time, the Defense Department has answered numerous calls for assistance from the World Health Organization (WHO), nongovernmental organizations and ministries of heath and defense, he said.”
None of that says that “ebola is now curable and people shouldn’t be concerned when it is imported into the country—a country with an already overloaded public health system.”
What are you talking about, none of that fits any current situation, except that Ebola is obviously curable, and always has been.
Be great to see some examples of this; which events and which epistle? It would make sense that the writers of the Gospels might have read the epistles.
Which conclusion is more “reasonable”?
I would contend that the more reasonable explanation is the one that follows known scientific principles, and does not rely on mysticism and the supernatural.
My observations on Christ's historicity are in no way based on faith, nor do I have to support a religious presupposition as you do. You on the other hand, have no reason to look for evidence that refutes your religious belief. This is called confirmation bias. You're not a subjective, impartial observer because you have been convinced that the fate of your everlasting soul is dependent on holding a certain thought, and that it's dangerous to play games with it. This is an effect of fear-based messaging that suppresses critical reflection, meaning that if you hear of some consequence that is adequately terrifying, you shut down critical thinking since the risk is too great. The secular equivalent of this is found in the global warming hysteria, where people think "Even if global warming isn't happening, we must act as if it is. Because the consequences are SO great..."
I don't have any fear of anything that I don't have evidence for, so while you try and equivocate my point of view with yours as "faith", it is not.
What's very clear is that you're claiming to be sure about things that you couldn't possibly be sure about. You're making statements about eternal life where you have no evidence, and asking me to consider repercussions as if you have proof. There is no humility, no skepticism, no evidentiary loyalty in making sweeping claims about the knowledge of afterlife, and no grown adult who has a respect for evidence makes these types of claims.
I don't rule out anything. But it isn't difficult to take a look at the facts objectively and ask what is more reasonable, without confirmation bias or presupposition. I know it's difficult, because I was in the same boat, mostly because of light but important cultural and familial pressures.
“Ebola is obviously curable, and always has been.”
So why do roughly 60% of the patients in the current outbreak ultimately die? Mean old MD’s with-holding the cure for themselves? Genocide? What?
It doesn’t mean that it is a 100% curable.
What is with you people, why do you make up things to create arguments out of thin air.
It is apparently only 20-40% curable.
Which is also another way of saying ‘more likely than not to be a death sentence’.
Not even close to 100% curable.
You’re the one that stated it was ‘curable and always has been’.
I just wondered what particular brand of crazy you were engaged in today to state such a thing.
Apparently just innumerate.
Your original post was a denouncement of the nature of heaven as being boring. I was responding to you that such a picture is incorrect in the Christian world view. You now wish to change the discussion to argue as to the evidence for the existence of heaven. That of course is always going to be a matter of faith and a debate that I don’t intend to have in a forum. My whole point in responding to you was to show that you cannot make an argument against heaven by appealing to a view of its nature that is not held by Christians. You set up a false premise/straw man and knocked it down…my intent was to show you the fallacy of your statement.
I think you are mistaken if you think that no Christians believe that Heaven will be a lot like church, and that singing hymns to the Creator will be a big part of it.
That's the problem with the Heaven concept. People like you will reserve the right to imagine whatever you like, and will deflect ALL criticism as not being accurate.
That is a real fallacy, unlike the imaginary fallacy you attributed to me.
Psychoanalyzing somebody based on your guess of what they have or haven’t investigated is sort of the opposite of the scientific attitude you claim to possess.
Seems like you didn’t understand what I said about epistemology. Which sort of makes my point.
If you’re truly interested in the examples I alluded to, there’s a whole book full of them. “The Book of Luke in the Setting of Hellenistic History” by Colin Hemer. Way too much to put here.
Your original statement was this:
“Christian heaven has always seemed like a silly idea to me too. I wouldn’t want to go either, even if there was evidence of a Christian heaven.
It would be like going to church and never being able to leave. Singing hymns would probably get old after the first trillion years.”
If you believe I have mischaracterized this statement as being false, show me where it is documented that this is the majority accepted opinion of Christian theologians. You want to appeal to the fact that “some” may believe this, well that does not make it the “Christian heaven”.
The entire point of my post is to show that you can’t set up an incorrect image for purposes of argument and then levy unjust criticism. That’s exactly the tactic liberals use…and it exactly the definition of a straw man.
unfortunately, you can’t go back to where you were before you were born. Your here now and there is only one of two places that you will go when your time here is done.
Check out the book by Randy Alcorn titled “Heaven” I think it may answer some of your questions. I have read it through once and I am reading it again. Good book on the subject of heaven and it takes all of its information from the bible.
Anyone who thinks we’ll spend eternity as disembodied ectoplasm strumming harps all day long had better read the Bible again. The angels were created a spirit beings; but man was created as spirit and body and was meant to live in the physical realm.
There will be a new heaven and a new earth. We will be given new bodies (incorruptible physical bodies) and will dwell on the earth, the way Adam was meant to.
We won’t be singing hymns all day to God either, unless you think God’s intent is bore his people to tears. He knows better than you what you’ll need to be happy in eternity. And if signing hymns 24/7 ain’t it, then I wouldn’t worry.
Read post 101 that I was responding to in post 102.
The question has to do with how it would affect your beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.