Posted on 01/18/2009 8:59:21 PM PST by Marechal
Psalm 14:1
Most of everyones functioning knolledge is based on ancedotal evidence. Its called experience. And its how most of the human race knows that the supernatural is real. And how some of us know that God has given us a way for us to know Him.
Then what's the point in prayer???
Yes, God has healed people, and will continue to do so, but it seems clear God does not let His son's name be wielded as a magic wand.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, as the Bible clearly states that we are healed through faith in the name of Jesus.
Mark 16:17-18: "And these signs shall follow them that BELIEVE, IN MY NAME shall they cast out devils...they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."
We all are. ;-)
I may not have had any major sicknesses that required divine healing...I thank God for the great health He’s blessed me with. (Actually I take that back—I used to nervously pick and tear around my fingernails, until I was prayed for—now I never do it). But that God saved me, and changed me, and made me a new creature in Him, is as much a living testimony as anything.
Most of the people I knew in my old life, before I gave my heart to God, probably wouldn’t recognize me today. Perhaps that’s not such a bad thing. :-)
We’re not even for sure how many dimensions there are, much less what’s in them or how to get to them. Till we have the power to explore everything there is, there’s no way to disprove God.
J = Jesus = "The God of the moon"
There’s something very deranged about not even hoping for a life beyond this one, about loving the idea that death means annihilation. Atheists claim that belief in a future state necessarily denigrates this life. Not so. They look forward to tomorrow; I look forward to infinite tomorrows. Great happiness implies the desire always to enjoy it.
And we don't use the scientific method to "prove" the existence of God any more than we could prove that George Washington existed.
The Evidentiary Method is used.
Nietzsche said, “G-d is dead.”
G-d said, “Nietzsche is dead.”
End of story...
I think you just fixed it. Sushumna.
Or, to put it another way, it won't happen if you don't believe it is possible.
Are you part or the "WE" that gave us godisimaginary.com? My comment referred to the faux science presented there.
Praise be to Him for your healing, too—it’s wonderful to hear.
If people can’t recognize the old you, they must be seeing God’s love shining through you. : )
It amazes me how people can believe in a real live living spirit being they call “God” who is supposed to be all-caring and all-loving.
If such a being does exist, then how do these people explain massive suffering and death around this planet? Wouldn’t such an all-caring, all-loving, all-powerful “God” step in and prevent it?
The existence of massive suffering and death is all the proof any rational person needs that said alleged all-caring, all-loving, all-powerful “God” does NOT exist.
The more likely manifestation of “God” is higher principles. A set of higher principles.
That set of higher principles can exist in a world full of suffering and death. They are simply being ignored.
Love is one of those principles. Perhaps the highest one. Love for fellow man. Love for the planet we live on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. “Caring” is a better word. Caring for fellow man. Caring for the planet we live on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. That principle is being ignored.
How many people who claim to believe in “God” and in some cases “love God”, turn right around and routinely ignore the principle mentioned above?
Which would produce better results? Believing in “God” and even “loving God”, or following the principle mentioned above?
Some of the lousiest people I’ve ever met, the most dishonest people I’ve ever met, the lyingest people I’ve ever met, the most irrational and unstable people I’ve ever met, believe in “God” and claim to “love God.”
“God” is nothing more than a convenient excuse to be a lousy person. People who believe in “God” typically believe said “God” is going to give them a free pass into some “next life”, so they don’t have to put forth any effort to follow the higher principles I mentioned, and be good people in this life.
Now thats something to think about. What all is there he's done that we can even fathom.
“It amazes me how people can believe in a real live living spirit being they call “God” who is supposed to be all-caring and all-loving. If such a being does exist, then how do these people explain massive suffering and death around this planet? Wouldn’t such an all-caring, all-loving, all-powerful “God” step in and prevent it? The existence of massive suffering and death is all the proof any rational person needs that said alleged all-caring, all-loving, all-powerful “God” does NOT exist. The more likely manifestation of “God” is higher principles. A set of higher principles. That set of higher principles can exist in a world full of suffering and death. They are simply being ignored. Love is one of those principles. Perhaps the highest one. Love for fellow man. Love for the planet we live on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. “Caring” is a better word. Caring for fellow man. Caring for the planet we live on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, etc. That principle is being ignored.”
I doubt I can address this to your satisfaction but let’s start with rationalism. First, former atheist turned Christian writer C.S. Lewis pointed out in his writings that the very fact someone like you can look at a situation such as massive death and suffering and declare it “wrong” indicates a measuring rod for right and wrong outside man himself. Little matters like right and wrong are totally outside the realm of the animal kingdom. They only know what is, and instinct. Mankind, though, posits a standard outside itself to define right or wrong. The rod has different names: “higher principles”, “Light of Christ”, “spirituality”, they all define the measuring rod above any one person’s perception of right and wrong. “Love” happens to be one of those outside of mankind principles that requires someone to sacrifice their own good for the good of others in specific or others in general. We can’t even begin to define “love” without reference to something outside ourselves.
Now, let’s consider your accusation that a loving God would step in and prevent all those “wrongs” as defined by your rational “standard or measuring rod”. How would He do this? Would He prevent bad things like disease, war, crime happening at the moment such an act was about to hurt someone? Or would He lovingly remove from mankind any desire to commit the above? Or does He do both? Remove the desire for commit bad acts and prevent moment-to-moment the accidents that cause bad things? Should He still the wind so the sparrow won’t fall to the ground? Prevent rain from making roads slick? Should He stop freezing snow? What is “bad” or “unfortunate” is often good for someone else. (Just ask a kid about “snow days”) Should He just shield those who don’t like the effects of snow or rain or wind and leave nature alone for everyone else? In order to satisfy you, He would either have to create us as automatons He could move around at will at any moment or He could interfere with nature to the extent that chaos would reign in our lives. Talking in general about interfering with nature and consequences is fairly easy in the abstract and pretty thorny in the specific. In fact, the elevation of rationalism itself came about from abuses of people by those in power, whether religious or secular. As they say, it’s an ill wind that blows no one any good.
Third, “right” or “wrong” very much depends on perspective. My kids think I am “wrong” when I deny them their every heart’s desire and make them attend school or work for luxuries. My babies were sure I was mean for making them learn to walk and watching them fall when I could so easily carry them, and they were sure I was positively “evil” when I took them to the doctor and let the doctor stick them with sharp needles. God operates on an eternal perspective, one we can’t begin to comprehend, let alone bring down to a 21st Century mentality. In the same way my kids couldn’t understand the loving purpose behind immunizations, we can’t understand the loving purpose behind our Father and God allowing us to experience this world as it is, good and bad together.
I have found that most people (and I’m not saying this describes you) who use the “A loving God wouldn’t allow” justification is really using it as a cop-out. They don’t like the idea that God imposes rules and standards and commandments on them so they declare that if God were really alive and all-loving, He would control their every breath and thought so as to prevent bad things from happening to themselves or others. Now that’s a real rational approach.
Very interesting and easy-to-read explanation you posted.
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.